BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
World War 3 won't happen for at least the next 20 years.

Thank you for accepting. World War 3 won't happen for at least the next two decades. In the modern era, all the major world powers are reluctant to go to war at all, let alone with another major power. Nuclear weapons amplify this reluctance as no power wants to risk a nuclear exchange. We can explore the previous world wars before we venture into the modern era. The incident that lit the fuse for WW1 is universally considered the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. This lead to numerous declarations of war until all major world powers were involved. Although the assassination set it off, WW1 was the result of decades of heavy tension between the European states. Imperialism, nationalism, and militarism all were major contributing factors to the confrontation. This built up for decades before hostilities commenced. . http://americanhistory.about.com... World War 2 was a direct result of WW1. The Germans were forced to accept responsibility for a war that they didn't initiate. This lead to resentment by the Germans towards the victors. A man with a mission and an ability to influence the masses took control of the country, broke the Treaty of Versailles conditions, and began invading neighboring countries. This lead to the commencement of WW2. In the modern era, all those factors are now irrelevant. The majority of countries are extremely reluctant to go to war as there is simply no benefit. The world is now connected. With a globalized economy, most leaders see absolutely no advantage to going to war. All land has been claimed and is sovereign, religion rarely influences political decisions, and communism is no longer a major threat to the West. The world's reluctance to go to war with one another is made evident by the complete lack of wars between major world powers. Prior to WW2, you'd see the major European and Asian powers consistently in a state of armed conflict. Now, the continent of Europe is united. Although we have seen minor skirmishes between states, every incident has been a limited war. Total war is never even considered an option. . http://ourworldindata.org... . http://www.nber.org... The reluctance has been made evident in various international issues in the past few decades. The Cold War is the epitome of the reluctance to enter armed conflict. Two extremely powerful countries with a ridiculous amount of tension managed to avoid total war for 46 years. Now that global military strength favors the West, it's unlikely that the East would risk a war. Even during the Cold War, the Soviets were extremely cautious to prevent an initiation of hostilities with the Americans. Why would Russia, a country that isn't the United States equal anymore, risk a war with the most powerful countries on Earth? There is absolutely no kind of geographic, political, strategic, or economic advantage in engaging in a massive war.
Theory - More freedom = More problems

My opponent says... "My presentation will prove that the theory is wrong, by proving that chaos would only happen from more freedoms if someone abuses it, and it is easy to do stuff you do not have the freedom to do anyway." I refute this claim, due to the fact that given if given such freedom, the definition of "abusing" that freedom would be different for different people. Freedom = A difference in opinion towards the definition of "abusing" freedom. A difference in the definition of "abusing" freedom = A difference amongst people A difference amongst people = problems The theory "More freedom = More problems" still stands solid.
Theory - More freedom = More problems

I read a debate that took my interest. This theory makes sense to me and I would like to debate with someone who opposes this theory. 1st round - Acceptance and the presentation of your argument. 2nd round - Refuting any information or thoughts given in your opponent's argument and presenting further information or thoughts in support of your own. 3rd round - Final thoughts and conclusions. I will start. The theory is as follows.... - The more freedom people have, the less rules there are... - The less rules there are, the less efficiency there can be in organizing a system of order... - Without an efficient system of order in place, the result will be an increase in chaos... - An increase in Chaos, results in an increase of the formation of problems. The rational and logical conclusion is.... More freedom = More chaos = More problems Or compressed... More freedom = More problems
Females like badboys

I don't disagree that females like to occasionally tangle with bad boys. Nor do I refute the potential possible reasons, especially the live science findings. However, I would note several things about the statements from Pro. 1) Being assertive and not allowing others to push you around doesn't make you a "bad boy". It just makes you an assertive person who stands up for oneself. Plenty of females do the same. Are they "bad boys"? 2) Harrison Ford characters were actually not so much bad boys. Always trying to act tough, but always a lot of soft spots for women and kids, and always trying to do the right thing. Scared of snakes. I would say manly, often in a comical way, but not bad boy. A nice guy in bad boy clothes. 3) Donald Trump has had beautiful wives, that's true. He's also rich, which doesn't make him a bad boy, but does attract plenty of women. Perhaps his roving eye in the past, qualified him as a bad boy. Today, his speaking up about what is on many people's mind, and being assertive, doesn't necessarily make him a bad boy, but his attitude overall perhaps does. If so, there are millions of male and female voters out there, voicing the same opinions. Regardless, currently more female voters dislike him than like him in the polls. And Melania says he's the sweetest guy in private. Maybe he's the one wrapped around her finger, for all we know. 4) So Trump doesn't have time for political correctness. Neither do I. Neither does my elderly mother, or the neighbor lady down the street. A lot of people are fed up with it. Doesn't make any of them bad boys. At this point, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between being assertive and being aggressive or obnoxious. A bad boy is typically a bit of the latter, and yes, women often are attracted to them. While aggressiveness is a primitive indication of male ability to protect, and thus perhaps programmed in women's genes, so is high intelligence, a trait many women favor. Most women aren't attracted exclusively to bad boys, but check them out, as they prefer to try out different types before settling on "the one". When they do, he's often the "nice" guy. As in, the one who meets their emotional needs, which true full-blown bad boys are incapable of. An adventure with James Bond might be fun and exciting for awhile, but it gets old if that's all there is. Women of different age groups also vary considerably in what they find attractive. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Besides, in the long run, aren't most men actually a complex mixture of nice and bad boy?
Females like badboys

Harrison Ford has been voted "sexiest man alive" 13 times. http://zap2it.com... Convince me Harrison Ford is a "nice guy". (Harrison Ford interview- video proof!) http://youtu.be... Do women know the real Harrison Ford? Nope. They know the characters he played in movies. Let's take a peek, shall we? "Star Wars" (To Princess Leia) Han Solo: Look, Your Worshipfulness, let's get one thing straight. I take orders from just one person: me. "The Force Awakens" Rey: Are you offering me a job? Han Solo: I wouldn't be nice to you. Doesn't pay much. Rey: You're offering me a job. Han Solo: I'm thinking about it. "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" Elsa: [to Indy after a kiss] How dare you kiss me! [She kisses him] Indiana Jones: [pulling away] Leave me alone, I don't like fast women. Elsa: [biting his ear] And I hate arrogant men. (She pulls him to the floor to have sex) --- (Video Proof!)- http://youtu.be... --- Sean Connery was repeatedly voted "Sexiest man alive". http://m.nydailynews.com... Sean Connery said that, "Slapping women around is okay" in an interview with Barbara Walters. http://youtu.be... --- According to eharmony.com, there are 4 reasons women love badboys- 1)The impulse to perpetuate what"s familiar. (Someone like Dad) 2) The urge to redo the father-daughter relationship. The motivation is an attempt to revise a troubled or distant relationship with their dad. 3) The drive to rehabilitate or "save" a wayward man. 4) The appetite for adventure. Other women like the excitement, thrills, and sense of danger bad boys bring. This is especially true for those who have been "good girls" all their lives. http://www.eharmony.com... --- According to Live Science, women choose bad boys because their hormones make them, according to research. When ovulating a woman's hormones influence who she sees as good potential fathers, and they specifically pick sexier men over obviously more dependable men. http://www.livescience.com... --- Daniel Craig was voted "Sexiest man alive 'again'." http://en.mediamass.net... Video proof of Daniel Craig working his "badboy magic"- http://youtu.be... --- Donald Trump- "The Donald" has dated and/or been married to some of the most beautiful women on planet Earth. He is blunt, not politically correct, and is not a "nice guy". --- Video Proof! Trump says,"I do not have time for political correctness!"- http://youtu.be... --- Trump does non-politically correct dance and song- http://youtu.be... --- Roll 1st round credits-(Bad Boys Theme Song)- http://youtu.be...
Should abortion be legal in all 50 states of the U.S? (Before the nervous system is fully developed)

Keep in mind two things this debate excludes abortions after the nervous system is finished developing and where the baby is able to feel pain. Also I am not pro abortion, I am pro choice, pretty much no one is pro people being encouraged to get an abortion. So firstly, I believe women have a right to get an abortion if they decide to simply because they have the right to. In the US people have the right to do anything they please, as long as it does not directly take away other people's rights. Abortion does not actively take away the rights of any people. So in a secular nation, if a woman does not want to endure the 9 month birth process and have to go through a birth then they should not be forced to. The thing with abortion after the nervous system is pretty much fully finished developing is that at that point it really is a human being, as in, they can feel, they have a working brain, they can move. However when the nervous system is not finished developing it is not a human simply because they have no thoughts, no feelings, they have an immunity to pain, so aborting the fetus before they have these qualities is not murder. I believe that females have a right as a human being to not go through the birth process and abort the fetus, because there is not enough reason to take this right from them in a secular nation where you have a right to do anything that does not take away the rights of anyone else.
Crying Wolf Helped Conservatives Lose U.S. Presidency

"Though the Democrats also were also guilty of crying wolf it is my contention that theirs was not of the same degree and did not hurt them as much. "Evidence? Argument? Prima facie, they are equivalent cases of crying wolf. "While it is clear that the biggest issue was the economy, it is also true that the majority of voters are (or were) Conservative. "Conservatives do NOT make up the majority of voters. Conservatives are simply the largest ideological group. My opponent has done nothing to show that crying wolf helped the Conservatives lose the US Presidency. It is an unsupported assertion.
Crying Wolf Helped Conservatives Lose U.S. Presidency

Excellent argument iamnotwhoiam. Thank you once again for accepting my first debate challenge! Since I dropped the ball on finding data I will not be able respond to you empirically. You win that aspect of the debate. On a logical basis, I'll try the following: 1. Though the Democrats also were also guilty of crying wolf it is my contention that theirs was not of the same degree and did not hurt them as much. Using your (perfectly valid) examples, it seems clear that their claims were more in the realm of reality, and didn't make it to the level of urban myth that the Republicans' claims did. http://www.snopes.com... http://www.zazzle.com... http://www.vice.com... http://www.wnd.com... 2. As to Obama winning by a wide margin, he actually won by several small margins in the swing states. 3. While it is clear that the biggest issue was the economy, it is also true that the majority of voters are (or were) Conservative. [1] Since the economy was the biggest issue, Mitt Romney as a Successful, Conservative Businessman should've had much more credibility on that issue than Obama. It is my contention that conservatives, especially the tea party, squandered that credibility for Mr. Romney with outlandish accusations, rather than focusing on the economy. Please VOTE! [1] http://www.gallup.com... [A late footnote to this footnote is that according to some people looking at the exit polls moderates were a plurality in the election. http://www.cbsnews.com.... I clearly don't have time to follow this idea and will not use it in my argument. However, this might be evidence to support my case that folks were more conservative at the beginning of year (the Gallup poll was taken in January) than they were at the time of the election.]
Crying Wolf Helped Conservatives Lose U.S. Presidency

The Associated Press exit poll does not show any signs that distrust of the Republicans was a major issue.59% of voters said the economy was the biggest issue. Other big issues were health care and the deficit. 4% said foreign policy was the main issue.Obama won by a big margin. Therefore it is unlikely that anything but the major issues helped the Republicans lose.Further, the Democrats have been accused of crying wolf themselves. For example, http://www.suntimes.com...http://cultureandfreedom.com...http://virtualgreenroom.wikia.com...So I think it more likely that the issue of crying wolf might be seen as more important to those invested in a particular party than to the average voter.When it comes down to it, the data are the exit poll, and there is nothing in the exit poll to back up the debate resolution.Sourceshttp://www.theprovince.com...
Crying Wolf Helped Conservatives Lose U.S. Presidency

First, I should admit that it is unlikely that I will find the empirical data/evidence that I need to prove my case.I needed to show that some percent of people in the swing states were affected by the crying wolf of conservatives. The data (polls on attitudes towards conservative attacks on Obama; how they may have changed overtime; whether all attacks lost credibility due to outlandishness of some of the attacks) was harder than I expected.Therefore, I must concede defeat in this debate without putting up much of a case. My apologies to my esteemed opponent. [If I'm able to find any evidence, I will share it in the third round. In case anyone is interested.]I am also still interested in my opponents thoughts on this topic, if he would like to share them.
Crying Wolf Helped Conservatives Lose U.S. Presidency

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in my first debate at debate.org . You have said round one is for definitions and preparatory comments. I do not dispute your definitions, neither do I have any of my own to add. As for preparatory comments, I only feel I should say that I do not intend to dispute that the Republicans cried wolf on occasions, so you can take that as a given if you like and proceed to establish that such actions helped them lose the 2012 election.
Crying Wolf Helped Conservatives Lose U.S. Presidency

Crying Wolf Helped Conservatives Lose U.S. PresidencyMy intention is to show that almost from the minute Republicans/conservatives started running running against Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, they started to throw anything they could think of at him to see if it would stick; further, that they have continued to do this nearly nonstop for much of the last four and a half years; and finally, that enough people stopped listening with the result that this lack of credibility from the right helped cost the Romney-Ryan ticket the election.DEFINITIONS Crying Wolf This will be defined to include times when someone believes the nonsense that they're promulgating. What is important is that even if there is a grain of truth in the claim, that the case is overstated and not credible to enough members of the general public In this definition of crying wolf the key thing is that the rest of the village never sees the wolf, even if the boy indeed believed the wolf was there. (One would not go so far as to say that the boy saw the wolf--more that he thought he heard it or smelled it or thought he saw its shadow.) Therefore, I hope to not spend a lot of time arguing about whether Obama really is a Muslim, Socialist, was born in Kenya, or “palled around with terrorists,” and so on. On the other hand, if someone wants to make the case that what I consider outlandish claims were believable enough that they didn’t cost Romney the election, then that might be interesting. Some ground rules This is not a semantic debate. Let’s please spend the first round, and (perhaps some preparatory comments?) with definitions if needed. As indicated above, I'm looking for somebody who hopefully does not accept the whole nonsense line that the right has been trying to take in crying wolf. That seems like a pretty lame debate. However, if someone really wants to debate most of the cases I’ll be citing, what the heck, I’ve had plenty of experience with family members who claim to worry that blue helmeted soldiers will be infringing on their right to arm bears.
That space research should be eliminated.

I would like to first point out that Space research is far too costly to pursue and therefore it should be eliminated. Countries waste huge amounts of money that could be better spent on other areas such as health, education and areas full of poverty. In 2015 NASA's spending budget was around 17.5 Billion dollars! That's just one of many space research companies. Also In the last few years, nothing ground breaking has been achieved, so little for so much money. Sure, in the long run this might be useful, but we simply cannot justify continued space exploration and expenditure of our resources where there are countless other immediate issues. People are suffering from current issues such as crime, disease, malnutrition and not to mention financial issues. These people aren't helped at all by space exploration and the whole point of it is to help people but it really doesn't do that at all.
That space research should be eliminated.

Pro began this debate by using too broad a term to turn around and attempt to narrow it, when it becomes convenient. The world has benefited immensely from Space research, as I demonstrated in the last round that the amount of money spent on the space program is a small amount compared to what what is spent on far less valuable programs, So to, are the resources we send out from the earth, infidecimal in relations to the resources our planet possess. The Number of lives too is quite low, For something so dangerous as space exploration NASA has lost only 18 astronauts in its entire 57( as of 2016) year history. Our satellites are most definitely a part of space exploration, space research and advancement. So too do the Satellites we sent to other words greatly benefit our understanding of Earth and it's place and the dangers we face from the stars them selves can only be met by a Humanity is capable of space faring, for example, "space research" programs aimed at intercepting incoming meteors.
That space research should be eliminated.

First I'd like to talk about what you said about how, "space research includes the greater and more economical deployment of Satellites." The definition of Space research is: scientific studies carried out using scientific equipment in outer space. It doesn't include deploying satellites as those are for, as you have stated "Internet, and most international telecoms". Sure these Satellites play a vital role in today's society but this doesn't count as "space research" as we are not learning anything new as the satellites aren't carrying out scientific studies. Now I would also like to point out that there are too many unforeseen risks for space research to be a justifiable expenditure of our resources. Take the Mars Climate Arbiter which crash landed on Mars, that was 120 million dollars and years of innovation, funding and waiting all gone in an instant. What about the Challenger and it's seven crew? Space Research is far too dangerous for the billions we spend on it. Furthermore, it consumes natural resources. Our planet doesn't have an abundance of fossil fuels and we are wasting it on research that doesn't benefit us directly. Wouldn't it be much better to just use our resources to focus on where we live? Our planet. Shouldn't we try to stop Global warming from the burning of fossil fuels? Not wasting our time on space research which accelerates our current problem. Shouldn't we try to save our planet? Because if we don't save our planet, we won't be able to colonize other planets because we will all be equally extinct.
That space research should be eliminated.

You brush it off so readily, but "space research" includes the greater and more economical deployment of Satellites, on which a great deal of things rely Internet,and most international telecoms not being the least of which. Huge amounts of sustainable agriculture work is done by NASA[1], Progress in aeronautics is made in leaps and bounds by nasa, the X-47[2] which was the proof of concept for the coming generation of blended wing commercial aircraft. NASA spending also represents a drop in the bucket of actual federal spending. 17.5 Billion dollars is less than the USAF spent developing a single fighter jet, the F-35 with a 1.3 Trillion Dollar Program cost.[3] ( that is arguably sub par)[4] So besides bettering Satellite systems ( with out which modern life would cease very quickly), Besides bettering agriculture in pursuit of self sustaining colonies, Besides bettering aeronautic sciences in pursuit of better space planes. Oh, and,besides heavily supporting science education.[5] I guess NASA doesn't really do all the much... [1] http://www.nasa.gov... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.debate.org... [5] http://www.nasa.gov...