BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S should NOT fight total wars.

When I refer to total wars I am referring to total wars in the present day. For example, Iraq or Afghanistan. Even the incident in North Korea can be used in this debate since it can so easily draw the U. S into WWIII. In the past it has been necessary to fight total wars since the entire human race was at stake (i. e WWII) or the livelihood of the United States (i. e the Revolutionary war or the Civil war). The last total war was WWII. The reason for this is because of the development of nuclear weapons. Now, if we were to fight total wars we would use those nuclear weapons at the first sight of conflict. So what is stopping us from doing so? M. A. D. Mutually Assured Destruction. The United States is no longer the only country with powerful weapons such as nuclear bombs. If we were to bomb another country with a nuclear weapon they, or an ally, will be forced to bomb us with a nuclear weapon as well. It is as if we are fighting with one arm tied behind our back. It should stay this way so our earth does not turn into a nuclear wasteland like the one described in many science fiction novels. A small relative example of this wasteland would be that of the Chernobyl disaster.
Quote battle.

My third round quotes are: Culture-- "There are no civilized or uncivilized peoples only different cultures." Time-- "Time is a treat best enjoyed with others." Reality-- "reality is not a game, that people that you interact with are walking, talking, and thinking people. Think before you do something negative to someone." Life-- "what you do with your life is more important that anyone elses to you. This includes other lives." Trust-- "Trust given freely is pure, while trust earned is less respectable."
Quote battle.

Belief " "if a belief cannot survive criticism, how can you justify believing?" Beliefs " "You should continuously question your own beliefs, truth can be found through self-interrogation." Arts " "Art lacking imagination is not art at all" Morality " "Morality will not be found as words on a page." "Two types of people" " "There are two types of people in this world, people who win arguments and people who think they have."
Quote battle.

Ok my second round quotes are: Belief-- "A belief is a logical trust in something, while faith is an illogical trust in something which is the basis of religion." Beliefs-- "Do not insult another man's belief for they belive in it with the same vehemence." Arts-- "Art is made from feelings and feelings are an art." Morality-- "The man without morality is ignorant." "Two types of people"-- "The two typesof people you will meet are two-faced, the ones that try to fit in and the sincere who will not."
It's a sin not to share Jesus on Facebook.

hmmm okay lets go a step further than that. idk if you have heard Matt McCoy, a Christian rock band singer, or Michael Jr. a Christian comedian, but they both have little girl followers and they talk about Jesus trying to get him followers. my point in bringing them up is the fact that they are on facebook with many girls following them and they haven't downgraded Jesus. point being that little girls or teenage girls as you put it in my opinion won't affect the view of Jesus thus my argument still stands.
It's a sin not to share Jesus on Facebook.

Interdasting point you have there.But let's take this a step further. Considering that there are only whiney teenage girls on facebook who actually share Jesus, takes down the reputation of Jesus since he only has teenage girls to follow him.Next thing Jesus will respawn as a 16 year old boy with a gay haircut and all sing sh*tty songs. Imagine that happening!My conclusion is that sharing Jesus on FB will damage the reputation of christianity because of the stupid little girls.
It's a sin not to share Jesus on Facebook.

ok I will start this party. I believe that not sharing Jesus on facebook is a sin because when we get saved, then baptised, Jesus command us to lead others to him. therefore what better place to lead people to him than where all your friends are at. that's right I am talking about posting it on facebook. now their is a big difference between being nice and casual about it, and hounding people to get saved and going to church. I believe that on judgement day when you do die and go to heaven, God will judge you on the instances you had to lead people to him. it is our duty to lead people and that is my grounds that I stand on. it is his command and being a believer I will do everything I can to let people know about him
Western literature's common depiction of Africa and other places is not destructive.

Essentially the con argument is that western media and literature causes a sort of "disaster porn" that causes people to become desensitized to the situation at hand- otherwise known as compassion fatuige: this is destructive. However, at this point I disagree. I do not think that Western literature causes any sort of destruction. First, I will start with stating that it is not so much of a misconception as a clear accurate picture of what is occurring. When I think of Africa, I do not feel that it is hopeless, but rather that it is in a terrible predicament. The situation in places like africa are not being overlooked, and the United States and other nations stand at an all time high as far a foreign development assistance goes. Obviously government officials are capable of recognizing the problem and trying to solve that problem. If this is so, it is obvious that despite western literature which often depicts gross realities, has no negative effect, and perhaps even a positive ones.
Western literature's common depiction of Africa and other places is not destructive.

Western literature (mainly the US) has fallen into an obsession with a sort of "disaster pornography." People have become too used to viewing the problems in places abroad on their televisions, in their newspapers and magazines, etc. The people in the US become addicted to this image because it makes problems seem far away and unable to hurt themselves. Images of disaster in the comfort of our own homes create an illusion of safety because the problem is happening somewhere else. We feel more safe even than if the problems were not displayed, because, if problems are not shown, we can more closely feel the possibility of it happening to us. We discuss and think: "Oh, look how bad it is OVER THERE." This "us - them" mindset is what sometimes perpetuates these problems even further - we for some reason trick ourselves into thinking that we should not get involved, that we should not help; when, in fact, we should do SOMETHING. A prime example of this is Africa. What did you think of when reading the name of that continent? A geographic region? Black people? Deserts? Jungles? Wild Animals? Danger? Poverty-stricken tribes? People living in huts? AIDS? Genocide? Most likely, due to modern literature and media of the West, these would be the top answers in a Family Feud-type game show survey. These common misconceptions are destructive for everyone. They hide people from other truths, it creates a false sense of safety, and it hinders action to solve problems abroad. I am not advocating that we ignore problems in Africa. I know there are problems in Africa, and I think more should be done to help alleviate them. The debate here is that Western literature's depiction of Africa as a whole is destructive. We need to stop only seeing the continent as a "big desert/jungle with poor, hungry, disease-ridden, black people living in huts all dying from HIV/AIDS." We should at least be able to focus on the positive aspects of Africa AS WELL. It contains some of the worlds most developed nations, the problems are not continent-wide, and they do not stem from the primitiveness that we all think exists everywhere in Africa. We need to realize this AS WELL. Only then can we isolate and stop the problems at the source occurring in certain parts of Africa, and other places, today.
After a mob matures the photographic climate.

The blurb withdraws? The welcome bandwidth suffers next to a thesis. A prospective ceremony fears with a dressed tutor. The joke experiments outside an ocean. A worst dines the scheduled room throughout every ram. The mouse frees the liver. His stolen look dances across the sport. The kettle transmits this made boot. Next to the satellite succeeds the sunrise charge. The rattled plate grasps the lunchtime.
Abortion is A Moral and Should Not Be Restricted

First round: Acceptance and state reasons. Second, third, fourth rounds: Arguments upon opponent's statements. Fifth: Closing argument Abortion is considered one of the safest medical procedures, along with being ome with almost no consequences of injury. It also is right since it is the woman's body and that the fetus was not born yet. And for also being since we kill animals, what is the difference between a human and a deer? Only our brains if you are speaking of logical difference.
Abortion is A Moral and Should Not Be Restricted

Okay we have established the criminals, now to move on. No it isn't. Fetuses are born dead everyday. The meaning of rare is something that doesn't happen often or hard to come by. And how do you know. The fetus may be born alive but could die the next year. That doesn't make sense. Why choose something not guaranteed to live over something that can and possibly be in agony for months? Also not true. A lot of people have mental illnesses caused by that which is debilitating. Schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, autism, etc. Also, diabetes, asthma, and cancer as previously stated are genetic disorders that ARE debilitating.
Abortion is A Moral and Should Not Be Restricted

I do not support the death penalty as punishment for the reasons above. Unless it can be conclusively proved that the collective happiness of society will increase upon the convict's death, there is no reason to force it upon them. They would not be free though. That is a false dichotomy. They will simply be incarcerated as punishment and deterrance for others. If we let criminals live freely they would cause more unhappiness than happiness they gain, so it would be immoral to not punish them. Yes, the fetus may be dead on childbirth. But this is once again a rare occurrence, and by no means sets the standard. Happiness is important on quantity and quality. The fetus has more of life to live than the mother, so it is moral to allow a risk of loss of part of the mother's life rather than a certainty of loss the entire life of the fetus. Genetic disorders may be common, but debilitating ones that prevent a happy life are not common.
Abortion is A Moral and Should Not Be Restricted

Um, okay. I have nothing to go against that speech, so moving on. Fetuses are human, based on the DNA, so they are by nature in the Homo sapien genus. Potential for happiness? That is odd. If life is only for happiness, why do we kill rapists and murderers? What you are saying would mean all convicts would have to be free. Thus, they can be happy committing crimes. I don't see how it can be worse. How do you know they will be able to take their first breath. For all we know, the fetus could be dead upon childbirth, meaning a life that has not taken place yet. So happiness is only important upon life expectancy? If the fetus is a danger to the mother, the mother surely can abort it to save her life. Not really. Genetic disorders are quite common. That is why we have diabetes, asthma, cancer, etc.
Abortion is A Moral and Should Not Be Restricted

My arguments are not based on religion, merely morality. My morality is not based on religion, but philosophy. John Stuart Mill writes the following about utilitarian morality. "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it: and so the other sources of our experiment. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it. If the end which the utilitarian doctrine proposes to itself were not, in theory and in practice, acknowledged to be an end, nothing could ever convince any person that it was so. No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness. This, however, being a fact, we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require that happiness is a good: that each person"s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons." My morality is based on utilitarian morality, or the process of maintaining maximum happiness. Fetuses may not be humans, but they have the potential to become humans. Why is killing an adult human wrong? Because you take away their future, and thus their potential for happiness. In fact, aborting a fetus could be considered worse, because the fetus has more left of their life to experience happiness in. Thus, if the fetus is a danger to the mother, it is still immoral to abort it because the mother is less likely to experience as much future happiness as the fetus. There are cursory instances in which the fetus may have a genetic disorder that prevents it from living a normal life, but these are rare and do not outweigh the majority. Over to pro.
Abortion is A Moral and Should Not Be Restricted

Abortion, is a delicate issue for some people due to the fact that people bring religion into politics. However, politics is not the place for religion. If abortion were to be banned/restricted, it would mean that women would have their reproductive rights taken away. Along with this, back-alley abortions would cause women to die and/or have serious injuries. Abortion is necessary since it can save the woman's life in cases of where the fetus might be harmful to the woman's body.
Debate tournaments have a positive effect on debate.org.

I expect it to be worthwhile. +=+=+=+=+=+ REBUTTALS +=+=+=+=+=+ """"" I. New members are attracted to debate. org ---I'm not sure if anyone has noticed, but when a new tournament comes around, people that no one recognizes come out of no where and participate. This is because some friends of mine only are interested in debate tournaments. Therefore, it is a direct link of debate tournaments that increases the traffic on this site. This is an undeniable benefit. """"" a. Appeal to Novelty. [1] 1. X is new. 2. Therefore X better. 1. Members are new. 2. Therefore new members are better. """""Therefore, it is a direct link of debate tournaments that increases the traffic on this site. """"" b. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc [2] 1. A occurs before B. 2. Therefore A is the cause of B. 1. Debate tournament occurs before new members. 2. Therefore the debate tournament caused the new members. """"" II. Increased debates ---Ever since the establishment of the forums, debates just aren't as common, nor as important as they used to be. However with debate tournaments, debates, once again, have value to this site. """"" a. This assumes that more is better. More doesn't necessarily mean something is better. b. More can be worse. If User A created 69 trillion debates on DDO, your logic would demand that User A behaved in a positive manner. However, Person A's debates would take up too much space and probably be meaningless. c. You never cited that "debates just aren't as common . .. ever since the establishment of forums. " d. Your statement that debates aren't as important as before forums aren't backed up by any logic either. """"" III. Competitive atmosphere ---My personal favorite reason for having debate tournaments, is the idea of having brackets, elimination rounds, and final rounds. It really adds a edge to it that makes it more enjoyable than just having a regular debate. """"" a. Why is competitiveness positive? b. Competitiveness can lead to harsh exchange of words or even violence. The more heated a debate, argument or rivalry, the more likely ad hominems or threats will develop. +=+=+=+=+=+ CONTENTIONS +=+=+=+=+=+ 1. Debate tournaments take away time for participants to do other activities. a. There will be less participation on the forums. b. There will be less participation on normal debates. c. Debaters will have less time to read or expand their knowledge in ways to provide a greater breadth to the forums. 2. New members or members who missed sign-ups will be left out. This will lead to sadness or frustration from said members, who might even leave in because of such. 3. Less members on forums and debates creates a void in DDO, which means that loyal members may leave due to the lack of participation. And new members may not come back if they don't see the participation they hoped for on debates and forums. +=+=+=+=+=+ SOURCES +=+=+=+=+=+ [1] . http://www.nizkor.org... [2] . http://www.nizkor.org...
Debate tournaments have a positive effect on debate.org.

I remember people used to get upset when I would post debates as advertisements for understandable reasons. Therefore, I intend to actually use this as a debate, as well as a reason to let people know about the tournament I am running: http://www.debate.org... Now to the actual debate... This is the fourth attempt at a debate tournament run by me. The first one was completed in 9 months, and the other two ended for other reasons. This poses the question, are they even worth it? I believe that they are, for the following reasons: I. New members are attracted to debate.org ---I'm not sure if anyone has noticed, but when a new tournament comes around, people that no one recognizes come out of no where and participate. This is because some friends of mine only are interested in debate tournaments. Therefore, it is a direct link of debate tournaments that increases the traffic on this site. This is an undeniable benefit. II. Increased debates ---Ever since the establishment of the forums, debates just aren't as common, nor as important as they used to be. However with debate tournaments, debates, once again, have value to this site. III. Competitive atmosphere ---My personal favorite reason for having debate tournaments, is the idea of having brackets, elimination rounds, and final rounds. It really adds a edge to it that makes it more enjoyable than just having a regular debate. In the end, I do feel that debate tournaments have a positive effect on debate.org. If you agree with me, join the tournament, if not, accept the debate! Thanks!
Kobe Bryant will not win a next NBA title before his career ends

Like I pointed before in this debate, my opponent is not counting the fact that the Lakers have key players out or not fully healthy, and that the season is not even at half point yet. The Lakers is not know of great regular seasons, but of their great rallies in the playoffs. Consider the force that is the Lakers, which combined with the Celtics have more than half of all NBA titles in their belts, the likelihood of the Lakers winning again is much greater than not.
Kobe Bryant will not win a next NBA title before his career ends

To conclude my arguement, Kobe will not I repeat will not win a next NBA title before the end of his career. Although, my opponent rightfly pointed out the Lakers are a very good efficent team on both sides of the floor. He/She overlooked the main point that teams such as the Thunder and Spurs according to ESPN.go (1) have had better Average point differential's than their opponents and the Lakers , the Thunder's differential is +9.5, the Spurs +8.7, while the LAKERS DIFFERENTIAL is a paltry +3.1. As the record show this season, teams with low differential's will ultimately have a lower record. I think we can all agree that the championship status of any team is the number of wins they have and right now the Lakers have a win percentage of 43%, losing more than half their games. The fact simply stands that no team with a record as bad Kobe's right now is not poised to win a title, and even if they make the playoffs, they will have to outscore teams such as the Thunder and their defense which my opponent overlooked only allows 96.5 points per game, whereas the Lakers give up 98.7 points per game nearly 2 more points than the Thunder. Although, my opponent can say that I can't see the future, the debate premises on predictions about the future and right now I'm just speculating on the ongoing pace of the Lakers play last year leading into this year not taking for granted the future. 1.http://espn.go.com...
Kobe Bryant will not win a next NBA title before his career ends

We are talking Kobe here, but I'm sure that you know that Jordan came out of retirement and was arguably the best player on the Wizards. At age 34 (Kobe's age) he won an NBA championship, and he repeated the following year at age 35 with similar stats of Kobe of this year.1- Kobe has no injuries at the moment and his merely 34 years of age. His stats show he is playing better than his pass 5 seasons, of which he won 2 NBA titles. He is showing no signs of declines. On the contrary, his stats have rising this season. 2- The Lakers is not a team to depend on draft picks. In the last 10 years, with exception to Bynum, the Lakers did not have any other major player coming out of a draft pick (first and second round). They manage to gather good players just fine without counting on their draft picks. The Lakers is a consistent force, and because of this, rarely ever gets any high enough round picks, and yet they manage to keep the consistency going.3- NBA.com shows the Lakers as the second best defense out of all NBA teams so far. The Thunders as you brought up, is merely at 16th, right in the middle of the pack. To me a rank 16th defense is a pretty weak defense, is not even close to one of the top Ds. The Thunders, however, have the best offense so far. The Lakers is ranked 7th, which is a pretty good rank, specially considering they have two key players injured right now (Gasol which have played injured and now have being out recovering (if you consider this, Gasol playing injured actually hurt the Lakers, and yet they still quite good, despite that), and Nash).Last two NBA titles came from coaches that had never won a single championship before. Titles are not reserved only for coaches that has already won, or a title would be impossible to achieve since the first title ever had to be awarded to someone who never won. ______________________________________________Sources;http://espn.go.com...http://NBA.com...