BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
On Balance, the battleship should be reinstated as the flagship of navies and fleets.

Reminder that Con cannot post this round.ADBANDONEDHere, we see that Con has used as an argument that "literally every" navy has adbandoned the battleship in round one. After constant proof this is not true, he has reverted to "it's not important." While it is up to the voters to decide, I take this as a concession.COSTFirstly, almost if not all the things Con listed HAS already been there. The Iowa class battleship has gone under extensive upgrading already and has been in use up to the ninties, and the Kirov doesnt have much to upgrade either. In fact, the only thing I see that has to be added is electronic warfare; but that isnt expensive as 180 FA-18s.Secondly, Con's second paragraph cites nothing to *prove* that the battleship is more expensive then it's worth. Although he argues "it's a fantasy", there are no siurces or even arguments to back such up and well, he cant post this round.Con then backtracked and said he only conceeds that a 1940s battleship is cheaper than a modern nuclear carrier. However, Con negelects that the battleship in question was renwed to 1990s standards (Or 1990s if your some Kremlin paid troll). Furthermore, as I said electronic warfare or a slightly better radar does not cost the same as 180 Fa-18s. To prove my point , (1) the marine crops of the US uses electronic warfare plane (to keep it fair) that costs an astounding 8 million less than the Fa-18 hornet. It also has the added benefit of NOT having the need of 180 planes per boat.Lastly, I would like to point out that unlike my opponent I had a solid stat from a real source that outlined my source. Not only has my opponent not refuted it with anything but theory, con tries to implicate that I have not provided the facts.RADAR Unfortunately for Con, Con cannot argue next round and it is forbidden for the voters to vote on somethinf other than the debate. Secondly, the Duga and other subsequent radars prove that OTH radars have greater distance and greater size.Lastly, there was no such conession on the "main parts of the section." If con would be so kind though, I would ask him in the future to not generically state I "conceeded" or "dropped" some argument; I have tried to be decisive on what Con refuses to answer in my rounds.Well, I lied. Now lastly, my opponent totally ignores the fact that I did not argue thaf the Battleship would beat a frigate (Even though it can), I argued that bigger the ship can acheive saturation much faster. Con did nothing to reture this so I take it as case settled.. . . . .Seriously, I'm done with my internet that keep deleting my arguments. I do not have any Irl time, and whilst I will be getting a newer device soon, I only have 20 hours.I hope Con understands why I cannot finish this debate, and ultimately has enjoyed this debate.
On Balance, the battleship should be reinstated as the flagship of navies and fleets.

AdbandonedSimilarly, Con cannot decisvely refute that the Kirov IS going to be revisited, or that Iowa was revisited before. Secondly, Con engages in the badwagon effect - Con can argue all he wants that the Armoured Car was dumb because pre-WW1 armies were motorized but it just wouldn't be true COSTFirstly, Con has no way of proving that my source mentioned 1940 and not 1992. But even so, Con admits that the Iowa is less expensive than the Gerald Ford, 75 - 150 FA-18s concerned. Furthermore, Con conceeded that personnel of the aircraft carrier is great than the battleship, not to mention the pilots themselves.RADAR AND MISSILE ATTACKSIt is true that OTH radars tend to be bigger, and have greater range. For example, the Duga was so effective televsion had to make "Duga Blankets" against them. (1)Secondly, even if you know where a target is; it's not going to change the actual engagement assuming the ships have the same radar. Your Frigate may have a better radar then Yamato with missiles; but in the end Yamato with missiles will crush your frigate by overwhelming defense systems first.Thridly, the "all eggs in one basket" applies to carriers as well. However , the battleship with a cr@p ton of missiles sinking is alot more cheaper than the FA-18. (See previous sources) An Iowa sinking would also be less deadly for human life as the armour will negate the blast and because there are simply less people to kill.Lastly, Con neglects the FA-18's firing range as opposed to flying range. I strongly dobut fighter planes can shoot missiles with 400 kilometers. Such missiles are only availible in Russia, and even then it is pitifully doboutful many missiles will hit the target. (2)To continue on, shooting missiles to it's maximum range on aircraft has proven to be a terrible way of inflicting damage, and is considered a begginer's mistake. For instance, the tatic was tried in the Ethiopian - Eritrean war and the results were fiasco. (2)Shooting missiles at maximum range also force the enemy too be in high altitute, allowing dozens of loopholes for saturation attacks to go on. Simply put - your FA-18 Hornet with Russian weapons cannot go on intercept missions. The "effective" range of missiles would cut it's range by 1/5th, which is way lower than the S-400. While you can *try* using aircraft with Russian weapons on maximum range, it's inpractical do so better than anything a S-400 can do. Furthermore, you high altitute FA-18 with Russian missiles has a very high chance of error against low flying targets or even an enemy fleet, and kets just say they wont have an ajrstrio to land in.
On Balance, the battleship should be reinstated as the flagship of navies and fleets.

I'm back! The debate is pretty straightfoward - on balance, the Battleship should be the flagships of navies like how it was before world war II. I will argue for it; my opponent argues against. Rules-No kritiks, trolling, etc.-Con must stop arguing/rebuttal at the last round-Obama is a llama-You must PM or comment on this debate in order to actually get on. I have the right to say "no" for whatever reason.-Con conceeds that Obama is a llama.DefinitionBattleship - A battleship is a large armored warship with a main battery consisting of heavy caliber guns. (1) (1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Freedom for non-reckonized states in the former Soviet Union

In Dagestan Russia has massive toop presence there and rapes dagestani women in the North Ossuestia war they were acused of several war crimes and the Mujahideen never rapes because Allah would forbid it the Mujahideen is Allah's Army The Strikes on Grozny are terrible the econmie dostn matter when it comes to Islam and the end of murder i dont care about the Russian Econmie neither dose chechnya if Chechnya had freedom mass murders would stop the Chechen econmey is fine as a farming econmie with Islamic Banking Banking Islamic is the most perfict way to bank for it was desinged by allah and sent to Muhammad (SAW) to teach
Freedom for non-reckonized states in the former Soviet Union

My opponent has neglected to refute any of my points on the economic impacts of sovereignty, or the fact that conflict would not stop after sovereignty. He also continues to avoid the majority of the debate; there are twenty-five non-recognized former Soviet states, which Pro generously listed in the first round, but he hasn’t mentioned any of them since that list, with the sole exception being Chechnya. “Chechens are not terrorists they are mujahids fighting from persicution from Russia”If you add the world “all” into that statement, it would be true. Chechens are not ALL terrorists, just like how not ALL Iranians are terrorists, or not ALL Afghans are terrorists. I never claimed in my argument that every single Chechen was a terrorist out for Russian blood. Most of them aren't.There are certain groups, however, that do in fact operate as terrorist cells. I already mentioned the massive school hostage crisis, but there are other situations that have been orchestrated by Chechen terrorists.[1] These cells have connections and ties to Al-Qaeda[1], which is well-known as a radical, global terrorist organization. The CE (Chechen Emirate) has also been declared a terrorist organization by the United States[2], so the claim that there are no Chechen terrorists is false.“Russia uses terrorism too such as Mass Genocide tell me thats not terrorism tell me Being ordered artillary stkires on Grozny (Dozejahar to chechens) on the civlians isnt terrorism”The artillery strikes that took place in and near Grozny weren’t meant to kill civilians. The intention of the strikes was to displace and eliminate the Islamic militants that were in the city.Even if the strikes were purposely aimed at civilians, many of the victims were of Russian ethnicity.[4] Why would the Russian military purposely attack their own people? If the Russians are hellbent on committing genocide, they sure don't know who to aim at.“the chechens use a gurrellia tatics and relgious values for fighting they are fighting for freedom as bosnia did this is like a 2nd Yugoslav war in Bosnia they Had Mujahids and the 7th Muslim Brigade to fight for freedom and they did get it and they used so called "terroist" tatics” Again, you put ‘terrorism’ in quotations, but the tactics used both in Bosnia and Chechnya are and were clearly terroristic in nature.Members of the Bosnian Mujahedeen have been accused for war crimes, including rape, murder, and kidnapping. Certain members of the Mujahedeen in Bosnia eventually became members of Al-Qaeda, and were involved with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bosnia is a cesspool for Islamic terrorist cells[3]. Chechnya, meanwhile, has three different terrorist groups that are funding the Chechen guerilla fighters and contributing to terrorism in the area.[2]Fighting for religious values doesn't make a cause any more just, either. Look at the Crusades and the Inqusition, for example.[1] http://www.cfr.org...[2] http://www.cnn.com...[3] http://www.adnkronos.com...[4]http://www.nytimes.com...
Freedom for non-reckonized states in the former Soviet Union

Chechens are not terrorists they are mujahids fighting from persicution from Russia,Russia uses terrorism too such as Mass Genocide tell me thats not terrorism tell me Being ordered artillary stkires on Grozny (Dozejahar to chechens) on the civlians isnt terrorism and the chechens use a gurrellia tatics and relgious values for fighting they are fighting for freedom as bosnia did this is like a 2nd Yugoslav war in Bosnia they Had Mujahids and the 7th Muslim Brigade to fight for freedom and they did get it and they used so called "terroist" tatics
Freedom for non-reckonized states in the former Soviet Union

As you said these states show a diffrent wthics in the Russian Federation This is same with Yugoslavia or in slavic (Land of the south Slavs" Yugoslavia was very divers relgiously and ethnicly Sufi Muslims in Kosovo Sunni Muslims in Bosnia but were discussing russia the same will happen to Russia the Mujahideen in Chechnya&Daghestan are winning as the mujahids of bosnia&kosovo the Russian Fediration needs to fall it went from one union to another there is genocide in chechnya if chechnya was free "terrorism" in russia would stop and the loss of life will also stop and for chechens reading Allah Korusun Musluman Chechenya'm
Freedom for non-reckonized states in the former Soviet Union

Thanks to Pro for the debate. Since we have five whole rounds, I'll be using the first round for my opening statements. The Russian Federation, is made of 83 different federal subjects, which are Russia's top-level political divisions. Twenty-one of these subjects are republics, which are meant to represent areas of different non-Russian ethnicities in the country. These republics have their own languages and constitutions, and although Putin has strengthened federal power in recent years, the republics still choose their own executives that represent them in the Federation Council. All of the information in this paragraph came from [1]. My opponent already listed all twenty-one Russian republics in his first round, in addition to Adjara, Abkhazia, and South Ossestia, which are in Georgia, and Nagorno-Karabakh, which is in Azerbaijan. I'll be focusing more on Russia, because it contains the majority of the former Soviet states we"ll be discussing, but I'll mention Georgia and Azerbaijan at some point as well. These twenty-five regions all used to be part of the Soviet Union, but that doesn't mean they deserve independence and would be better off as separate from the countries that they reside in now. Self-determination for all of the still-unrecognized former Soviet states would have a negative impact on those involved, both economically and through increased conflict. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Freedom for non-reckonized states in the former Soviet Union

When the USSR Fell in 1991 15 Nations got freedom 25 did not Most of them are smallers than most states in the Union there have been wars that have been supressed by the media of the captor nations of Azerbjian,Georgia,Russia Its serious issue In Russia Dagestan ,Chechnya, and North Ossestia is were the major problems are in the North Caucus 15 nations got freedom Armenia,Azerbjian,Belarus,Estonia,Georgia,Kazakstan,Kygystan,Latvia,Lithunia,Moldavia, Russia,Tajikstan,Turkmenistan,Ukraine,Uzbekistan all did and why cant russia spare 21 others like Chechnya,Dagestan 25 countries are De Facto Nations these 21 Stateless states are: In Russia:Adygea,Altai,Bashkortostan,Buryatia,Dagestan,Inghustia,Kabardino-Balkaria,kalmykia,Karachay-Cherkessia,Karelia,Komi,Mari El,Mordovia,Sakha (Yakutia),North Ossestia Alania,Tartarstan,Tuva,Udmurtia,Khakassia,Chechnya,Chuvashia Thats all from russia about 75% of them are fighting for freedom from Russia in a brutal Civil war now time for Georgia:Adjara,Abkhazia,South Ossestia, and than Azerbjian:Nagorno-Karabakh all of the ones in Georgia and Azerbaijan have had civil wars and cause internatonal wars too so if these nations get freedom it will resolve a lot of issues I got all the Names from Russian Republics from Wikipedia.com i used it only for spelling and same with the other ones
Freedom for non-reckonized states in the former Soviet Union

“İslam will win the Mujahideen will never stop there fighting it may take a hundred years or the final day when all are judged to stand befor allah war crimes are nothing when it comes to the Mujahideen if the War Courts of Laws want to exicute the Mujahids for there crimes so be it a mujahid never dies but in paridse he shall live”None of this has anything to do with this particular debate. Stating that the Islamic radicals will never stop fighting in North Caucasus and how the Mujahedeen is Allah’s army doesn’t justify giving sovereignty to the unrecognized states. “İn Dagestan the Chechens and Dagestanis are very close Mos Dagestanis are of Chechen desent and in the 40's Chechnya and Dagestan were about of the same ASSR until 1956 so Chechnya and dagestan are very close”Yes, this is all true. But again, none of it has any weight behind it in this debate. Does the close relationship between Chechnya and Dagestan warrant independence for all twenty-five unrecognized states? No. If anything, it says the opposite, because the Chechens in Dagestan would want Dagestan to become part of Chechnya, which would lead to even more ethnic conflict and violence in Dagestan. “the occupation was from the Caucse Emrite wich is İnghustia Adgerya Chechnya Dagestan and North Ossestia they fight for a unifed Caucuse Region under İslamic valuses”The Caucasus Emirate is a declared terrorist organization in both Russia and the United States, and has proven to be so with the occupation of Dagestan and the multitude of terroristic attacks, so if that’s why you mean by ‘Islamic values’, then you’re spot-on. “so chechnya never did it but the Dagestani Mujahideen and Chechen Mujahids and Cauces Emrtie ones all fight to gether and help each other but the dagestani mujahideen and chechen one fight for there own lands and help each other the cauces emirte fights both chechen mujahideens and dagestani"I would ask you to elaborate on this (perhaps with better punctuation) so I could understand your point better, but considering it’s the last round, I don’t see an opportunity to get clarification, so I'll just say this: from what I gather, none of this has anything to do with the debate again. All this point is doing is stating that there are different groups of people fighting for different causes in North Caucasus. In closing, I think I have given sufficient proof as to why the unrecognized former Soviet states should not be given independence. Economically, it would hurt the mother countries and the new sovereign states, and when it comes to the violence in the area, conflict would escalate as the new nations try to establish themselves after decades of economic and political dependence.
Freedom for non-reckonized states in the former Soviet Union

İslam will win the Mujahideen will never stop there fighting it may take a hundred years or the final day when all are judged to stand befor allah war crimes are nothing when it comes to the Mujahideen if the War Courts of Laws want to exicute the Mujahids for there crimes so be it a mujahid never dies but in paridse he shall live İn Dagestan the Chechens and Dagestanis are very close Mos Dagestanis are of Chechen desent and in the 40's Chechnya and Dagestan were about of the same ASSR until 1956 so Chechnya and dagestan are very close and the occupation was from the Caucse Emrite wich is İnghustia Adgerya Chechnya Dagestan and North Ossestia they fight for a unifed Caucuse Region under İslamic valuses so chechnya never did it but the Dagestani Mujahideen and Chechen Mujahids and Cauces Emrtie ones all fight to gether and help each other but the dagestani mujahideen and chechen one fight for there own lands and help each other the cauces emirte fights both chechen mujahideens and dagestani
Freedom for non-reckonized states in the former Soviet Union

"In Dagestan Russia has massive toop presence there and rapes dagestani women in the North Ossuestia war they were acused of several war crimes and the Mujahideen never rapes because Allah would forbid it the Mujahideen is Allah's Army"The accusations of war crimes are serious. However, the reason there are Russian troops in Dagestan today is because of the invasion of Dagestan by Chechnya. You claim that what the Chechens are doing is a commendable act, and that they would get what they want, which is independence. However, during the War of Dagestan, the Chechens came extremely close to committing genocide by eliminating entire villages and families. To this day, Dagestan is plagued by Chechen guerillas and terrorists, which is why the Russian troops are there.This is exactly why I brought up how the Mujahedeen in Bosnia were also accused of war crimes; a cause that appears just doesn't necessarily mean it is. No matter what you believe in or where in the world you fight, fighting will result in horrendous actions by every party, and we cannot make decisions like giving entire nations independence based solely on these actions. Other factors need to be taken into account, such as the consequences of the conflict and so on."The Strikes on Grozny are terrible"I already addressed this point in Round 3. The strikes weren't meant to kill civilians, but rather to drive Chechen rebels out. The Russian artillery strikes didn't target anyone specifically except for the rebels."the econmie dostn matter when it comes to Islam and the end of murder i dont care about the Russian Econmie neither dose chechnya if Chechnya had freedom mass murders would stop"Like I've said in previous rounds, the murder would not stop should the unrecognized states get independence. Russian violence against the new nations would increase dramatically, and the infighting between ethnic groups wouldn't stop. You've given no evidence to disprove this argument."the Chechen econmey is fine as a farming econmie"The Chechen economy is not 'fine'. The war with Russia destroyed upwards of 80% of the economic potential of the region, the capital city, Grozny, is in shambles, and the majority of the population is unemployed.[1] If Chechnya were to become independent from Russia, it will rely almost exclusively on Russia and other nearby countries for help, which would obviously be an issue as Russia does not want to give Chechnya independence, and Chechnya is bordered by. Sour relations would just be another nail in the coffin for Chechnya at that point."Banking Islamic is the most perfict way to bank for it was desinged by allah and sent to Muhammad (SAW) to teach"I will concede this single point, because it's stretching the boundary between a debate about unrecognized Soviet states and a religious debate. I also don't know the first thing about Islamic banking, or Islam in general...On to you, Pro.[1] http://iseees.berkeley.edu...
Should we have Black history month

I don't believe that there should be a black history month, I fell that it only makes race conflict worse. First, they tell us not to judge people by their skin color, then they tell us we have to learn about a person because their black. I don't know about you but that screams "hypocrite" to me. I say that if we want to live in a society where skin color doesn't matter, we shouldn't devote a whole month to any race. Plus, by making a whole month solely devoted to black Americans kind of gives the feeling to some that our country thinks that blacks are more important than any other race. Anyway, its not like we don't learn about other famous black people anyway, we learn about Harriet Tubman when we learn about slavery (but not the Civil War itself might I add), and we learn about Martin Luther King Jr. stopping segregation in the U.S. (but not how the cold war stopped us having a nuclear war with Russia) Overall, I think that these topics are important, but not important enough to have a whole month dedicated to a certain race.
Atheism is a sound position

Okay, since no one can seem to get it through this guys head that he's wrong, I'll take my shot at disabusing him of his notions.The resolution is thus: Atheism is a viable position.Definitions:Atheism: Disbelief in god(s).Sound: making logical and rational sense.Position: a stance or belief.Ground Rules:1. 8k arguments. No glitching to get over the limit.2. 72 hour response time.3. 2 week voting period.4. Forfeited round is an automatic loss.4b. Unless waived by the non-forfeiting debater. 5. Violation of any of the rules is grounds for an automatic loss. A note before we begin: I would like to state out front that I am not an atheist. My opponent's most common excuse for when he happens to lose a debate is he lost simply because atheists voted for their fellow atheist. This debate cannot be the case since I'm not atheist, but rather agnostic. If anything I'm leaning more toward deism than atheism, so his general cop-out will not apply here. We will sink or swim on our own debating prowress, not on out-of-round biases.
Atheism is a sound position

This atheist is obviously butthurt, I solved and refuted your arguments and you couldn't refute mine 1. Oh So the forces that hold glue together just magically evolved that way? Or was it all by chance? And how about everything else? They just act like that because they magically evolved by chance huh? Your rebuttlol fails 2. LOL I guess they know this because they were there. Ha No you weren't there and neither were these guys. God was there. " evidence =/= evidence of absense." So you refuted your own argument. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs" 3. In a room full of many books, they point to the bible. In a sea of pics the baby pointed to Jesus. Chance? NO! The resolution is easily owned,destroyed and kicked in the face.