BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States should use "hard power" in order to stop countries from gaining nuclear weapons.

Alright, on to each statement. 2. If you read through your source all the way, you would have seen this... "But the secretary of the Iran's national security council, Ali Larijani, who has headed Iran's nuclear talks since August, said at the demonstration that the news media had misused the president's comments. " and "he did not have any intention to speak up in such sharp terms and enter into a conflict." I think that it is perhaps just war propoganda from a war-mongering administration, and some news corporations. *cough, cough* Fox. 2a. Israel can defend itself, if Iran ever had nuclear technology and sent one at Irasael, they'd have 5 more coming right back at them. Iran would not be so stupid as to start a nuclear war with a country far more superior in nuclear capabilities. 2b. It's interesting that you bring the 1979 hostage situation up because it actually helps my case. Jimmy Carter FAILED to use soft power to release the hostages. He then tried to use hard power and failed as well. Your source even says that. It says 8 servicemen died in the process and nothing was accomplished. Then Reagon took office and through negotiation the hostages were released. SOFT POWER DID WORK! 3. There was plenty and plenty of knowledge before Pearl Harbor and 9/11. It was the governments incompetence that allowed them to happen. Both were because of blowback as well. Therefore, softpower unless the threat of imminent attack. 4. Agree'd. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My Main Points : 1. Softpower has worked, Ex. Iran Hostage situation in 1979 under Reagon. (Hardpower actually failed with Carter) 2. Iran is not a threat to us or Israel, Israel can take care of herself. Bush's administration is using it as war propaganda. 3. You're right, something must be done. America need's to stop playing World Cop. Thank-you for the debate as well.
The United States should use "hard power" in order to stop countries from gaining nuclear weapons.

I hate these last rounds because they are always so long. And yes it's my fault too. Ok to shorten things up you said 1. Where govt. gets power is off topic that's cool, we just both agree then it's not a voting issue 2. Let Israel take care of itself ok source...source...source...found it! "Iran's president stood by his earlier call to "wipe Israel off the map" http://www.nytimes.com... it's our responsibility because we a) have signed alliance agreements with Israel (like NATO) b) like you said it would be wrong to allow it to happen Iranian news agency, IRNA, quoted him as saying. "Westerners are free to comment, but their reaction is invalid."" http://www.nytimes.com... they don't listen to talks (soft power) In Nov. 4, 1979, an American embassy was captured and hostages were taken in Iran http://www.pbs.org... once again, soft power failed. 2. Imminent attack only it is impossible to prove when an imminent attack will be unless Iran flat-out tells us they will attack. Pearl Harbor, no imminent threat before hand. Same for September 11. What we need is caution. And we need to be prepared. Soft power has failed, we need hard power 3. Lead by Example a) USA has signed the UNs Non-Nuclear Proliferation act, and has agreed to not make more nuclear weapons b) attempts have been made in US government for disarmament 4. Hard power not threats Hard power is use of military influence. That means direct attacks or threats Soft power is diplomacy and trade. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MY MAIN POINTS if you have read above, it is easy to determine my points 1. soft power has failed 2. iran is a threat 3. something must be done Thanks and good debate
life being nature, there is no, before life

I accept. I would like to note that the BoP is on Pro to prove that nature came after life. DefinitionsLife - "the characteristic distinguishing physical entities that have biological processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate." [1] Nature - "the natural, physical, material world or universe which ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic." [2] Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Hockey Stick is Bad Science

As a follow on to a recent comment Roy made in the Science forum on the topic of possible upcoming debates that a "narrow" "global warming" debate may be in order. He specifically posed the possibility of a debate on the Hockey Stick of Mann et al. (1998 et seq.)I propose to argue against the proposition that "The Hockey Stick is Bad Science". My position will be that the so called Hockey Stick graph as originally developed in 1998 by Mann, Bradly and Hughes, further expanded by Jones et al in 1998 (see references below) and Mann et al in 1999 is "good science" in that it fufills the following criteria:1. It represents a legitimate analysis of temperature and paleotemperature data using appropriate statistical tools and proxies2. It was honestly undertaken3. Relying on the information available it shows significant warming in the recent past that can be reasonably assumed to be in support of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesisI will also ask that other studies be allowed in evidence (in that science always benefits from repeated analyses from different viewpoints). I will ask that standard climatological, physical, chemical, paleoenvironmental and statistical terminology and techniques be adhered to.The first round will be for AcceptanceSecond-Third Round Presentations and RebuttalsFourth Round Summary.Starting Resources:MBH98: Mann, M. E.; Bradley, R. S.; Hughes, M. K. (1998). Nature 392 (6678): 779–787MBH99: Mann, M.E.; Bradley, R.S.: Hughes M.K. (1999) Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 26, NO. 6, PP. 759-762Jones, P.D.; Briffa, K.R.; Barnett, T.P.; Tett, S.F.B. (1998). "High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control-run temperatures". The Holocene 8 (4): 455–471
The Hockey Stick is Bad Science

I accept the challenge. For those unfamiliar with a subject now ancient history, the Global Warming Hockey Stick is graph of global temperature versus time. It's named for the shape of a recumbant hockey stick. Temperatures are nearly flat for a thousand years, then they rise exponentitally in the last two decades of the Twentieth Century. The exponential rise in recent years was cited as proof of human-caused global warming. The rapid rise was cited as a good reason to believe that there wuld be a very sharp temperature rise after the 2000, and that therefore mmediate action was required to stop fu CO2.I won't contest that the derivation of the Hockey Stick was honestly undertaken. The errors were in selcting invalid proxies, not estalishing that the proxies had a physical tie to what wasbeing measured, and using the poxies outside of the range for which they were validated, I am not arguing any of these things in this round, but since con initiated the debate as Con, I'm giving him a head's up as what I will argue so he can make his case for validity.About everyone agrees there has been global waror the past 150 years. What's contested is whether it is entirely anthropogenic and has an exponential character as he Hockey Stick purported to show. The Hockey Stick also made The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Perid disappear. I will argue that they existed.
would you rather have a (pro for) car or a (con for) motorcycle

Cars can get you anywhere but in more comfort, with more people, and with more luggage than a motorcycle. I think that their popularity greatly shows how good they are. Most people I know who have motorcycles only use them in select situations. They always go back to cars once the weather gets soggy or they have to transport people or things. For these reasons I believe that cars offer superior performance over motorcycles.
would you rather have a (pro for) car or a (con for) motorcycle

I too like both vehicles and I believe that they are good in different situations however I agree to argue the benefits of cars and will argue that cars are better than motorcycles overall. I will start off with my own list of my own personal benefits: 1. Cars are far more stable thanks to their 4 wheels. This means that you are far less likely to be knocked over by hazards on the road. 2. Cars offer far more protection than motorcycles. Cars have seat-belts, airbags, and the frame of the car itself to protect the driver. Motorcycles on the other hand don't possess any of these safety features and instead the biker must rely on their helmet to protect them. 3. Cars on average carry more fuel than motorcycles meaning they can go farther than their 2 wheeled cousins. 4. Cars can carry more passengers and luggage than motorcycles. 5. Cars provide better shelter from the elements than motorcycles. 6. Cars are harder to damage than motorcycles due to their metal body. 7. If someone is trying to kill you, then you can simple jump in your car and lock the doors. 8. Cars have more space to put cool bumper stickers and flames. :) 9. I once heard a story of a man running over a motorcyclist while walking.
would you rather have a (pro for) car or a (con for) motorcycle

Cars are neat, I like them a lot and I've been fortunate to have had a few nice ones, but motorcycles have a long list of advantages over their 4 wheel cousins. In my experience, if you like bikes, there's a good chance you appreciate cars, trucks, boats and airplanes, too, not all to the same degree but a particularly nice example of any motor driven vehicle can bring on a smile. Eventually, though, most of us have to choose among the categories if we're going to invest our resources on one or two vehicles (or more) and when the choice has to be made, motorcycles have a lot to offer. Here's my personal list. It might vary from one person to another, your list might have items I haven't thought of, but I think these give you some food for thought. 1. You can fit 3 or 4 bikes into the space occupied by one car. Make maximum use of a small garage, buy motorcycles. 2. Motorcycles use less gas. 30 miles per gallon is on the low end and smaller engines can get triple digit mileage. 3. Motorcycles outperform cars. Sure, some exotic cars can keep up with a Hayabusa, but not many and the cost is usually 10 or 20 times the cost of the bike, or more. 4. You can rebuild a motorcycle if you're mechanically inclined, you don't have to do very much body work. Not being particularly skilled in body and paint, I appreciate this one. 5. Motorcycles cost less. Even classics and collector bikes can often be purchased for the price of a very plain used car. 6. Motorcycle riders are safer, they don't text on their phones while riding. 7. Motorcycle riding can be really cozy. If you want to be a little closer to your passenger, brake a little quicker for the next stop. ;-) 8. Motorcycle riding gets you out in the fresh air. Smell real pine trees, not the scent of a pine shaped deodorizer hanging from the mirror. 9. Motorcycle riding develops your coordination and balance. Brake and clutch levers for your hands, brake and shift gears with your feet, learn to balance at slow speeds, many drivers could never do it. 10. Best of all, there has never been a recall for unintended motorcycle acceleration.
King Kong Deserved to Beat V-Rex

My opponent again states that we should look at what did happen, and not what could have happened... As I have previously replied to him, the film is fiction and all that did happen in it was dictated, and since both V-Rex and King Kong fought like puppet slaves to the corrupted minds of Hollywood, King Kong did not deserve to win. A quote from my nemesis: "My opponent's arguments are ones that attack a different resolution. Perhaps a more adequate resolution for his attack is 'should king Kong have won' not one where deserving is what's in play." I am not going to argue with this... Because it is probably true... However, I still do not believe King Kong was deserving because he was puppeted along by a script filled with too many scientific flaws to count. It is true, the odds do not need to meet your favor for you to be deserving of a victory. However, King Kong's victory is the equivalent of me beating Chuck Norris in a cage fight only because I was possessed by God. Simply put, it's cheating, therefore King Kong is not deserving. I shall now respond to questions asked by my fair amant de dï¿½bats passionnï¿½s : "How do you expect a creature to still be fighting when it's hurt!" An animal can fight out of fear, anger, defense... and so on. "How do you expect a creature that is pinned to the ground to fight back?" V-Rex could have used his tail, or back legs to push King Kong off of him. He certainly wouldn't lay there wiggling around as Kong did what he did. "How do you expect a creature that had it's tongue bitten respond to that?" A giant, scaled, unintelligent, , angry, and carnivorous V-Rex? I'm sure he wouldn't respond well to getting his toung bitten off. My opponent claims anything could have happened... That is not true... What happened was dictated by the script, film makers, and previous films, considering it is a remake. .
King Kong Deserved to Beat V-Rex

My opponent's defense is basically that King Kong only won because he was the main character. As I stated before, we need to observe what actually happened, not what should've happened. There may be many odds against a certain individual winning, but it could happen. My opponent's arguments are ones that attack a different resolution. Perhaps a more adequate resolution for his attack is "should king kong have won" not one where deserving is what's in play. In order to see whether one is deservant or not, we need to see at what happened, not what could've happened. Whilst one may have their odds against him / her, it may happen. Take for example: Humans vs. Monkeys in soccer. Of course it's expected for the humans to win, but the monkeys COULD pull off a surprise and win. They may have been more deserving as well, having more shots on goal, etc. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the odds don't have to be in your favor in order for you to be deserving of victory. 2) My opponent claims that the V-Rexes powers were held back by the movie makers. How do you expect a creature to still be fighting when it's hurt! How do you expect a creature that is pinned to the ground to fight back? How do you expect a creature that had it's tongue bitten respond to that? It may have been an unrealistic battle, but that does not take away from King Kong being deserving of victory. 3) Again, my opponent says that it was an unrealistic battle, and that V-Rex, REALISTICALLY would've won. That is a hypothetical once more on his part. He may have had a lot of odds to win, but at the end, anything could happen, you don't just need skill to win, you also need to be intelligent. Now on to my opponent's conclusions. Basically his conclusions are that the battle was cheesy and unrealistic. They will obviously be unrealistic. When have you seen a humongous monkey or a V-rex walking on Earth while humans are walking? NEVER. Therefore, it will be unrealistic, but based on what happened, the deserving of victory was King Kong, because of what I have proven before My opponent has not said, however why King Kong wasn't deserving, all he's said is that V-Rex should have won if there wasn't bias going on. Let's evaluate on what happened, not on what could've happened please. My conclusion: In order to see whether one is deservant, we need to see what happened. What happened was that King kong won because he had v-Rex pinned to the ground. We can't say that V-Rex was deserving. How could he, if he was on the ground and defenseless? For those reasons, I urge you to vote PRO in this debate. ~Rad
King Kong Deserved to Beat V-Rex

My opponent claims that othough V-Rex had certain advantages he didn't use them to his advantage in the movie. Radical Guy backs this up by saying "we need to look at what happened, not at what COULD have happened. " To me, that is a slap in the face to the open minded discussions of the adventure movie genre. The movie writers and the directors dictate what happened on the movie, the story is purely a product of imagination. Understanding this we must keep our minds open not only to what did happen, but what is cheesy or not. Since Kong went up against not one, but three carnivores, this is a cheesy and very unrealistic battle which was dictated solely by the movie makers, therefore King Kong did not deserve to win. That is basically the finally grilled egg on my roti john for this debate. My opponent claims that the video clip he posted was to be used as a base on the typical powers of a V-Rex. The V-Rex in the video obviously had most of it's powers held back by the movie makers. .. If you were to observe the video you would see that the V-Rex typically let Kong beat him down, it wiggled like a worm when Kong had him pinned to the forest floor. This is obviously an unrealistic and cheesy battle. I would also like to correct my opponent, who says that my argument is based off of an assumption and a prediction. It is actually based off an observation of the V-Rex. .. Realistically V-Rex would have won, considering that there was more then one V-Rex. The only V-Rex didn't win was because the V-Rex wasn't the main character, King Kong was, and the movie's storyline is dictated by the people who made the movie. Therefore King Kong did not deserve to beat the reptile. My conclusion is this: 1. What happened in the movie is the backbone of the debate, however, what could have happened is a big part of the debate as well. Like the other scientific flaws in this movie, this fight was just another one waiting to be debated. 2. The battle in the movie was cheesy, and dictated by the makers of the movie, so obviously King Kong would win no matter what. Deserving, or as my opponent defines it, "qualified for or having a claim to reward, assistance, etc. , because of one's actions, qualities, or situation", would prove my point. Considering Kong did not deserve it, and only won because he was the main character. 3. We must observe the character's strengths and weaknesses in order to decide who would be more likely to win. In this case, it is a pretty even match, however considering there was more then one V-Rex, there is no way King Kong could have won.
King Kong Deserved to Beat V-Rex

Allright, second round I am glad that my opponent responded to the debate quite rapidly. I will first start by defending against my opponent's arguments, and strengthening my own. 1) My opponent attacked my contention 1 by basically saying that the V-Rex had some advantages of his own. This may be true, but what we need to look at, is whether or not he used them the v-Rex may have had potential, but in the end, he didn't use his tail to his advantage, therefore we can't say that the V-Rex deserved to win, just based on his tail and/or other characteristics it has. My opponent also stated that King Kong would have a harder time closing V-Rexes mouth. The key word here is "would". In order to decide what side was deserving of the victory, we need to look at what happened, not at what COULD have happened. 2) Now my opponent is saying that the youtube clip left out a lot of the fight. I used that clip to base myself on the powers of a typical V-Rex. What we need to see is what happened, not what could've happened. They might have had a mind to kill, but Kong's powers over rided the V-Rexes 3) My opponent is making an assumption here, and a prediction. He says that the only reason he won was because he needed to. Whilst the tail could've blown off King Kong, the v-rexes didn't use that, so they can't be called better or deserving. In short words, my opponent needs to take into account what happened, not what could've happened. Of course their tale could've blown out King Kong, but that didn't happen, so they can't be deserving. Sure it's unlikely, but these things to happen as well. ~Rad44
King Kong Deserved to Beat V-Rex

First off, there are many scientific flaws with the 2005 remake of the movie, it is fair to say that the film makers made some major flaws to the physics of there own characters as well. The battle was only won by Kong because Kong is the main character of the movie, saying that he deserved to be a victor of that battle would be like slapping physics in the face. In response to your three contentions: 1. Allthough King Kong could grab a hold of V-Rex with ease, holding onto him would certainly be a ride. V-Rex has a large tail, which could easily lash out at the ape with drastic force. Plus, the reptile's bite would most likely be ten times more deadly then Kong's, with rows of sharp teeth ready to bite down into the primate's soft, un-armored flesh. King Kong would have had a harder time opening the mouth of V-Rex, though forcing it shut would be be easy. I am relating this to other reptiles, which have mouths that really lock down when they are shut. King Kong may be faster and more flexible then the V-Rex, but keep in mind King Kong's body is exposed, and he could easily be injured. 2. I don't know if you have seen the movie, but the you tube clip left out most of the fight. .. There was actually a family of reptiles who attacked, making it even more cheesy that Kong had won. Again, the only reason that things played out the way they did it the movie was because King Kong is the main character. He did not deserve to win that battle. Though King Kong's fighting skills were awesome and boss, the circumstances could have changed drastically for Kong (even in the movie). .. There were at least three members in the V-Rex family, all had leathery, armored hides, large mouths, powerful tales, and a mind to kill. .. They could have easily ganged up on King Kong, latch onto his throat with one of their massive jaws, and killed him. 3. He didn't deserve it because the only reason he did win was because he was the star of the movie. Also, in the movie a series of unfortunate events occurred which led to Kong winning, such as the scene where the predators fall off the cliff (along with the damsel in distress. ) I mean seriously, this battle is the equivalent of a fit human trying to fight three crocodiles at once! So my conclusion is this. V-Rex has thick leathery skin, a larger mouth, a long and muscular tale that could without a doubt deliver a painful blow, a more powerful bite, and the fact that V-Rex wasn't alone would make defeat very unlikely. Perhaps if it was a one on one battle Kong would deserve to win, but the fact that there was more then one V-Rex made it unlikely. .. . http://surbrook.devermore.net...