BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US vs China (war game debate)

This debate is an attempt at arm-chair general skills. In this contest, we will war-game a hypothetical scenario in which the United States fights a "Total War" with the republic of China. Both sides are confident of an eventual US Victory, so the object is not to argue from the standpoint of battlefield victory. The Scenario The war game will include the following assumptions. In all cases, the fewest number of unsupported assumptions is considered the "best case."-All military equipment, troops levels, readiness levels, positioning, and training are exactly as they are today, with no modifications. -The war is caused by the discovery of a secret US military plan to launch a nuclear first strike against China, that was made public by a fantasy equivalent to Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning. In the scenario, the US had real intentions of launching a nuclear first strike against China, but did not.***This is not to be confused with the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, which states clearly, and not secretly, that any nuclear strike against the US would immediately and automatically result in the total annihilation of the nation that conducted the nuclear strike against the US. This debate is using the fictional "secret plan" for explanatory purposes, since some cause for the war is needed in order to activate the war game. -There are no diplomatic, economic or cultural opportunities to avoid full scale war.-The conflict is entirely isolated to the US and China (unless the players agree to a spillover, such as troop movements in Mexico, Canada, North Korea, or etc.) The UK and Russia are sidelined. This is explained by the secret US plan to order a first strike on China: the American allies are shocked, and the Chinese allies are afraid. -Since actual Chinese troop levels are unknown, the Wiki should be considered as official numbers. [1] Likewise, since there is an understandable propensity to identify with the "good guys," I propose that we also use the Wiki for the United States Armed Forces as well. [2][3][4][5] This also applies to the competing nuclear weapons programs. [6]The Debate Each round, will represent a "move" in the game. I, as the Chinese side, will present the Chinese moves, and PRO will move the United States Armed Forces throughout the war game. It is likely that the entire war will not be resolved in only 5 rounds, to allow time for each move to be properly described and countered. (Both sides in this debate agree that an eventual American military agreement is inevitable.) Rather, this war game is intended only to play out a reasonable sequence of events that might accompany the beginnings of a fictional US war with China. Because realism is important, each side will be required to adhere as closely as possible to realistic "moves."Scoring:We have mutually agreed that this contest should not be scored.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Liberation_Army[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
It is highly unlikely that God exists.

Thank you for clarifying your position, but it doesn't seem to clarify then why you labeled the debate with the headline of "it is highly unlikely that God exists". However, I will accept the change of topic to argue that the universe does have a creator. 1. Supposedly God is more complex than the universe itself, I somewhat agree with your theory that the designer has to be more complex than the design, but that's not the case for human reproduction. Not to compare humans and God, if the child grows up there's no evidence that the parents would be more complex than their grown up son/daughter. 2. If no one created the universe, how does it even exist? It falls in with the anthropic principle and many other laws of physics and chemistry, nothing can exist without a creator (1). You might be asking "how can God not have a creator?", this might be a strange source for you but it talks about this in The Bible in Revelation 22:13 (2). I also urge the voters to vote for the con side since I used more reliable sources. 1. http://homepage.ntlworld.com... 2. http://biblehub.com...
War in libertarianism

Well i have always liked Ron Paul's way of bringing freedom...which is leading by example and not forcing democracy onto other countries. Well first of all you have to look at the causes for terrorist attacks. Most of them are driven by foreign interventionist efforts such as what we did in Iraq. The military kills a family or destroys a home, and the sole surviving member has nothing to live for...a perfect recruit for a terrorist organization. It is those types of men that build the power base of support for terrorist organizations. Many Muslims see the conflict with America as a holy war, but not because they disagree with Christianity. They see it as a holy war cuz they are mandated in the Koran to defend the 'holy land' at all costs. Our invasion of their holy land (especially bases in Saudi Arabia) has really pissed off a lot of Muslims. The politics of that region are to volatile for US troops or intervention to do anyone any good. We should pull out in every way possible. If they think they have "won" then so be it. Them "winning" will be the best protection against future terrorist attacks. If attacking the US becomes just a way to gain attention and not a way to fight western intervention then the terrorist movement will die out. And honestly if there is another terrorist attack we would be better off just ignoring it and rebuilding, because right now the over-reaction to the 9/11 attack has cost us more in money and lives then 9/11 itself did.
War in libertarianism

yeah, i feel as if im re-explaining myself, because there are some aspects of the war i do agree with and others i dont. i do feel as if our government is spending WAAAY to much of our money...so thats why i am saving up for retirement now...which is doesn't matter for me because its not like other people should pay for me anyway. And i think after this war the gov has gained way too much pwer over its people...PATRIOT ACT...the whole writ of habeus corpus....not a good thing. I get what ur saying how it effects u...and me in the same time with spending...I guess i didnt think about it like that because that is such a little part of it. but like i said before i agree with the war when it deals with iraq, but when it comes to our country, i think nothing good has come from it...except for the insane support now for the military and the country (with the exception of Bush) Thats why i like ron paul...he may be against the war, and the reason why he is against the war i can understand...and i like that, but i love and think he'll do an awesome job "re-building" our economy and destroy government involvement in our lives....can he do that in 4 or 8 years (If he wins...) i dont know, but just because im libertarian doesnt mean i have to be against the war in every way possible...i find myself wanting the people of iraq to have democracy, that may be asking too much, with the religious conflicts and all, but i also think that we need to focus on our own country as well... I guess that would be in a perfect wrold for me... A question for you, if or when we take the troops out of the middle east, what are we going to do then? If there would then be another terrorist attack? Should we amp up on national security afterwards or just hope that we are safe...?
War in libertarianism

To date the war has had little personal effect on me. Where the war will affect me, you, and nearly everyone else in this country is in our pocket books. Wars are expensive in monetary costs and in human lives, which is why most libertarians take a strong stance against war. Even if the war in Iraq was completely justified the cost of implementing it may cost both nations their freedom. We are witnessing a complete breakdown of the federal government cuz of this war. The federal reserve is printing up money to pay for it at an alarming rate, and all this extra money makes the money we have right now more worthless by the day. The real costs of this war wont hit us for maybe another year or two.
War in libertarianism

ha, i definitely see that as being a bad thing...and i do agree with the war...and thats the only thing i don't liek about ron paul not supporting hte war...but on an economic stand point...and the rights being returned to the state and to the people...i like that side of him. I am not completely sure if im debating right...but yeah im just trying to explain myself...i agree with the war in that i think we should be looking for "weapons of mass destruction" and i dont think this is a war on oil...i guess thats a different story for a different time...i think that trying to create a democracy or republic...what ever you want to call it in a country that has not had that in a looooooong time is a good thing, i believe everyone deserves freedom. Actually, i have to admit...i am always back and forth on the war...i like the idea and dont...but then again im still getting an idea on different things...im 18...really havent experienced much like other people...i have no idea your age, but im sure u know the effects it has had on you...personally.
America should not take more extreme measures to win wars.

I'm not worried, nor did I say I was. Your the one who made my argument in the first round you said "...US soldiers are dieing because of the fact that they are holding back too much when civilians are around." Yes Soldiers die, civilians die, and someday you and I will die. In your second paragraph, I believe you answered you won question, which is absurd. You said "should we become the very enemy we hate?" Look 8 Words to the right, "we should stop fighting them and join them in blowing others up." In that case you would be agreeing with me, blowing others up would hurt civilians, these making it a "extreme measure." "...because we would know its wrong. they view it as the right thing to do. we wouldn't." Tell that to obama's cabinet, than may they will pay their taxes. The government doesn't care. I believe in your fifth statement you are referring to shell shock, which can be treated. If you haven't noticed we aren't in WWII or Vietnam we are in Iraq, hiding in our humvees, not shooting at anyone because they might be civilians, and as we are slowly being picked off all we will remember is the heat of the desert. If you can't tell, no one cares, yea we might loose an alliance and those Russians coming to help, probably wouldn't. If anything they would begin to rebuild the union before providing aid. (what is "bow?")
America should not take more extreme measures to win wars.

if you so worried about soldiers being killed then why go to war at all? why not just stay home? cmon people its called war for a reason, it is not pretty. its not like you are running around picking flowers. soldiers will die. the terrorist does not care who he kills that is true. but does that mean that we shouldn't? should we become the very enemy we hate? then why are we so angry at them. we should stop fighting them and join them in blowing others up. also your the golden rule that you mentioned there, "treat others how you wish to be treated." is not how you are using it. The version you mentioned is more like "Treat others how they treat you". ill refer to the first one as the golden rule now. the golden rule is meant to stop the cycle, not continue it. its means to make you stop before hitting them back and go, "this isn't what I want to happen to me, if I do it to them, then I have no right to complain that they did so to me." point being if we stop caring and go all out, in my opinion we are not only no better then those whom we hate, but we would be far far worse. because we would know its wrong. they view it as the right thing to do. we wouldn't. further more, these extreme actions we have seen thought the history of the world, scar the soldiers we order to do such things. they are more or less ruined by these actions. speak to many of the soldiers from Vietnam. the things that they did haunt many of them to this day. while the soldier may live, and may is the key word there, they will be broken, and in a destroyed state. can you really call that living? Also the world as it is now, will not stand by and watch these actions take place, specifically if they are from a major super power. now these things do happen in other parts of the world and not much is done to help them. what I am saying is that, the world will not simply stand by and watch as America slaughters their neighbors. the country themselves would ask the rest of the world to help protect them from us! and Russia would most certainly come to their aid, if for no other reason then to oppose America. (bow I know my spelling and grammar suck! :P)
America should not take more extreme measures to win wars.

As you stated in your argument, our men and women fighting for us are dieing because of your lack of "extreme measures." I say kill them all and get the heck outta there. Do you thing the guy with a C4 vest cares about the civilians? Do you think he cares that he might kill a civilian along with the solder? If you ever has been to a kindergarten or preschool they will say "treat others as you would want to treat you." If you don't remember, they flew two freaking air planes into the world trade center, and they sent another two to the pentagon and the whitehouse. Shouldn't we not worry about collateral damage?? they blew us up and killed or civilians, lets go back to that preschool lesson and turn it around from "treat others as you would want to treat you" to "treat others as they treat you" take it from the lessons of preschool teachers around the world, take the "extreme measures." Also Mr deamonic, take it from the English teachers of the world, you must put the period inside the quote marks.
America should not take more extreme measures to win wars.

hi this is my first time being on this site (so please tell me if I'm doing something wrong). and I'm looking forward to a lot of fun :P anyways. also I don't know what this should go under so I'm going place it under miscellaneous. on another forum me and another guy were discussing the topic of whether or not America should stop humanizing our enemies and basically take more "extreme measures". one of his main points was that US soldiers are dieing because of the fact that they are holding back too much when civilians are around. his extreme measures are to do what ever is needed to win regardless of the civilian casualties. here is a link to the original arguement if your interested. it starts on page 24 (actualy 23 but it really started after that) and ends on page 29. http://forums.ubi.com... my position on the matter is that the US should not, take more "extreme measures". and that stopping the humanization of our enemies will lead to our demise. also the world will not allow us to take more "extreme measures". they would step in to stop us. soldiers SHOULD hold back when civilians are in danger.
All Drugs Should be Legalised for Recreational Use

Again, It appears that Pro has forfeited. To sum up: Decriminalization in Portugal has not helped their doomed economy. It has contributed significantly to the rise in addiction, and therefore the costs involved to treat them. Crime is rising in Portugal. The crack epidemic ravaged numerous big cities, destroyed countless families, caused a dramatic crime increase. Anybody who thinks that legalizing crack at time would have solved the violence is mistaken. These dealers were hardcore and they would have fought tooth and nail to keep their profits. Even if legalization stopped crime, addiction would have shot up dramatically, along with the social damage that follows. People have a hard time keeping a good job when they are on crack. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu... http://www.hawaii.edu...
All Drugs Should be Legalised for Recreational Use

Drug Consumption Will IncreaseActually it seems drug consumption drops off with legalisation. Here is a graph of drug consumption in porchagal before and after legalisation (all drugs were effectively legalised in 2001).download (1).jpgDrug's Will be Easier to Access Actually the evidence seems to suggest that drugs are easier to access that alcohol for children and this would be remedied by legalisation.Furthermore as more more money is spent trying to prevent use of drugs the price of drugs has decreased making illegal drugs cheaper to access than legal ones like alcohol.Sectors of Society Will be AffectedAs I have shown with the example of Porchagal if handled properly drug consumption will decrease with legalisation.60% of Prisoners are Incarcerated on Drug CrimesThis appears to have more to do with the united states poorly privatised prison system and money in politics than anything else [1].Effects of DrugsIn an attempt to use shock value my opponent has used the picture of a a meth addict and yes drugs can do horrific things to a person I have never disputed this however legal substances like cigarettes can cause issues that is as dangerous and as physically repulsive as addiction to hard drugs. a49a0de385271a6e8b1bf13c5e903299.png[1] http://americanhumanist.org...
All Drugs Should be Legalised for Recreational Use

Oh, and let it be on the record that I support Marijuana legalization.1. It will dramatically increase drug consumption, and thereby, addiction, and thereby, addiction services Drugs are not like alcohol, and hard drugs are not like Marijuana. Hard drugs have a bad characteristic of being addictive to the point that many will kill themselves by using. No, it’s not like on those after-school tv programs, where a kid does a bit of this or that and all of a sudden he is a raving maniac, nevertheless these drugs are quite damaging. I only have to bring up the case of Phillip Seymour Hoffman to show you that it’s not a myth, people really do die. Crack Cocaine is almost legendarily hard to kick once one begins using… some 500,000 people received treatment in 2010 for crack addiction. In total, If only it only rose 15% upon legalization, that would be huge.2. Drug Legalization makes dangerous drugs easy to obtain. Drugs like Meth imitate the reward chemical dopamine and the alertness chemical norepinephrine, and release both at the same time, and there is nothing funny about that. These drugs are not messing around. People on pot don’t roam the streets tweaking, starching themselves until they bleed and trying to bite people (with what teeth they have). 100 people every day die of drug overdose. Sure, not every Heroin junkie is a skinny, toothless hobo. Phil Hoffman led a successful life, but look where it got him. Guess what all his acting credits were worth to his family in the end? Not very much. I think they’d rather have Phil back then have him be remembered as a “great actor”. 3. Various sectors of our society will be affected For example, crack cocaine, when it was introduced in the mid-eighties in cities like Miami, New York, L. A. , etc. destroyed entire neighbourhoods with violence and addiction. It was cheap, everyone who wanted some could have some, and it gave a fantastic high that was short and demanded more. “Between 1984 and 1994, the homicide rate for black males aged 14 to 17 more than doubled, and the homicide rate for black males aged 18 to 24 increased nearly as much. During this period, the black community also experienced an increase in fetal death rates, low birth-weight babies, weapons arrests, and the number of children in foster care. In 1996, approximately 60% of inmates incarcerated in the US were sentenced on drug charges. ” This stuff is not a hyped up myth, it really happened. Bottom Line: If a police force, or the threat of the law stops a portion of people from using a dangerous drug, even if it is not perfect, even if it is uneven. .. if it stops a portion, than it has done it's job. Above we see the lovely effects of Crystal Meth.
All Drugs Should be Legalised for Recreational Use

We don't Have a Right to Control Other PeopleTo a person who says that that drugs should not be legalised my first response is always: What gives you the right to control what a person chooses to put into their body in the privacy of their own home? Allows Federal Control of DrugsOne of the main problems with drugs in recent years has been drugs being cut with far more dangerous substances and legalisation would allow government control in a similar manor to alcohol. The Drug War Has FailedThe drug war has been generally unsuccessful drug use has gone up [1] and the overall supply of drugs has increased [2]. This shows that a different approach is required. Allows Federal Distribution of NeedlesFederal distribution of needles is currently forbidden, if drugs were legalised needles could be handed out by the government which would reduce the HIV/AIDs rate. [1]. http://3.bp.blogspot.com...[2] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Disney Princesses as Role Models

There is nothing wrong with dreaming. It gives us goals and hopes for the future. Disney princesses, as I stated earlier, defeat stereotypes and depart from the view that men are dominant. Merida refuses to have a husband chosen for her, as does Jasmine. These movies are excellent examples of women defying gender roles. Aside from your poor arguments, I believe the Rapunzel backpack that you sport so confidently shows that even you cannot be convinced of the opinion that Disney princesses are poor role models. Perhaps you should also rid your locker of the princess magnets plastered everywhere. Disney princesses are beautiful and confident and driven and strong and dreamers and caring and selfless women. The end.
Disney Princesses as Role Models

To close my argument, I would like to say that, according to recent studies and statistics, Disney Princesses hurt more than they help. They are over-obedient young women who show girls that they should be subservient and that men are the dominant sex. Because young children are usually the target audience of all these movies, their minds are not fully formed when they first see them and grow up thinking that everything will be handed to them in life. It may seem harsh to say, but life is not easy and it is not right to make children believe that life is flawless and if things do get hard there will be a fairy-godmother or a genie or a magic triton to save the day. We should not feed the ideas of magic wands and mermaids and enchanted castles constantly through our children's brains; Sure, it is okay to dream, but they should understand that this is not reality.
Disney Princesses as Role Models

There is not one Disney princess movie in which the goal is to find a prince and marry him. The princesses all find love unexpectedly and live happily ever after. The movies do not begin with each princess on a mission to marry the prince of their choice. Rapunzel wants to leave her tower and see the floating lanterns on her birthday, but a twist of fate leads her to the man she marries, Flynn Rider. Belle wants a unique life and finds the Beast when she is trying to rescue her father. Mulan meets Shang upon fighting to save her father's life. Ariel never fits in under the sea and discovers that she feels happy on land with her prince. Tiana is working to open the restaurant her late father had dreamed of opening in the years when he was alive. NONE of these princesses had a prince on their mind at the beginning of their respective movies. As for the endings of movies, it is true that they end with a happily ever after and a perfect marriage, but think about it. How many movies in America end with a happy ending and a completed love story? A lot. There is of course life after marriage, but people are typically more interested in seeing the actions that lead up to love. And Aladdin's lying is in fact a problem. That is why he almost loses princess Jasmine. He is barely even able to gain her forgiveness. The point that he is a liar is emphasized throughout the movie and teaches kids that lying is wrong. Aside from that, there is no correlation between having a pet monkey and bad things happening.