BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The UN in terms of politics is a joke

Dear con. In my opinion, the title explains it all. " The UN in terms of politics is a joke". Politics. Not Humanitarian Aid, Not rescue missions but politics. In my opinion, and in the words of my opponent together, The reason the UN is a joke in my opinion, " is the lack of authority it has globally". How does one suppose the UN can do their job in maintaining global peace without the authority it needs to do so. When my opponent says he lacks the clarity in continuing the debate, I ask why then join this debate. Lets take a look at the Security council. The security council has 5 head states.China, France,USA, UK and Russia. Lets say that the States in the Security council wish to put sanctions on the Chinese governments for the Human Rights Violations, which China them selves have signed. In order for those sanctions to be passed through all 5 head states of the Security council have to agree. Obviously China are not going to accept sanctions over their own country. This is where not just in the Security council, but in the whole UN,when it comes to politics, we find a fault. If a world wide organization which was partly set up to avoid conflict with its member states, doesn't have the authority to do so.. I consider that it is a joke. Having said what i said, in all the rounds of debate. I make my argument of why in terms of politics is a joke.. I hope that in the last round my opponent, will show more understanding. message for my Opponent: With all due respect and with no means of being rude, but next time you are un sure about the debate. Please contact the other delegate and ask hime to specify it.. Thank you very much for the debate!
The UN in terms of politics is a joke

Please forgive me if I cannot make a direct argument against this, the resolution is vague in its wording,I generally don't like to make asinine points about stuff like this but I feel compelled to do so this time. I have deduced somewhat that you do not like the UN in its current form, but im confused as to which part you wish to address, are we here to discuss the security council? , or maybe the general assembly? . or maybe its none of that, perhaps its a particular resolution, or maybe just a general topic. I lack the clairvoyant ability to determine what you are speaking about, and wish to discuss this further, but only when I know what I am debating about precisely. If you can provide examples(other then those already posted) about where in the process the UN went wrong with in its own system, following its own laws, then I would be glad to hear about them, but if you cannot im forced to conclude victory for myself
The UN in terms of politics is a joke

My opponent states that the United Nations is an International Furum for global relations. Could my opponent please specify which countries relationships have been improved via the United Nations. Countrie "What Pro doesn't fully comprehend is how the UN system works, they are not world governance, they can not simply send in troops to correct the wrongs of member states. " --- This i completly agree with, although, WHEN the United Nations do decide to take action and do send in troops ( example=Bosnian/ Serbian conflict) they find can find no resolution as the few rights they have to deploy and move troops around in a foreign country ( as my opponent said) "Both situations he mentioned are not international disputes between members. but internal problems in there own countries," --I agree that the Iran re election is an internal election giving the United Nations limited options. HOWEVER Bosnia and Serbia were 2 states at war which needed international aid. The UN failed to do so in providing the Muslims of Bosnia poor quality protection. Remember the debate does not revolve around Bosnia and Iran. I used these 2 nations problems as an example. If the United Nations is as my opponent says an International Global Relations Forum, does the delegate really think its really needs the amount of money nations but into the UN just for relations? The money put into the UN is clearly for Operations abroad. Meaning, relations seems likly not to be on their main agenda. "The UN admittedly has many problems, but these stem from a lack of authority to carry out its mission, the UN would be able to function on a higher level if they had the authority to enforce binding resolutions with military force. But as it stands the UN does not have this authority, and until it does it lacks the capacity to carry out its mission in the truest sense. " If the UN has a lack of authority in the world,therefore implies that Nations from all around the world, arent ready to give out their trust to the UN. If nations are not able to give out their trust or authority for the United Nations to carry out missions around the world, then with out a doubt nations must consider it a joke. .. " The point im trying to make is that the UN is not a bad institution, it just needs to be fixed. The UN is not a joke and I believe I have showed that your complaints are baseless. " I agree that the if the UN was to be remodeled and re done, the UN would not be such a bad insitution, unfortunatly the UN is what it is today. Unfortunatly for my opponent, i do not think that he/she has showed me that my "complains" are baseless. I look forward to this debate very much.
Scotland Should be an Independent State

Thanks for the debate thus far.Refutal I Currency yes is a big problem for a potentially independent nation of Scotland. However, there is no reason to assume they could not adop their own currency. It would take time to be sure, but they could do it. Refutal 2The economy yes is weak, and needs reformed. However, if Scotland's people showed determination they could pull out of debt and build a nation.Refutal 3Debt could be paid off in slow increments by other nations helping Scotland, and Scotlad would be able to help too.Refutal 4Defenses would be strengthened by the will of the people to create a millitary. They would have a large role in the world because of their wealth.Refutal 5Yes, they could bargain for more power. But they will not get complete self rule.Thanks for the debate so far, over to you my friend :)
Scotland Should be an Independent State

PrefaceI've been interested in this topic for awhile, and have finally decided to start a debate on the topic. Please be familiar with UK politics and the 2014 Independence referendum if you intend to accept, though you need not be from the UK. This debate is specifically about that referendum [1]. Voters must have 2,000 ELO or more in order to vote, and you must have completed 1 debate or more in order to accept.Full TopicIn 2014, Scotland should have voted "Yes" for Independence from the United Kingdom.Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic8. The BOP is Shared; Pro must argue for independence and Con must argue against9. Pro must present their case in round one10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's Case and CrystallizesR4. Con defends Con's Case and Crystallizes, Pro waivesThanks......again to whomever accepts; it should be an interesting and fun debate![1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Scotland Should be an Independent State

Thanks again my friend for this great debate on a mutual interest topic.Refutal IThe Scots may be able to elect SNP members to Westminster yes. However, they don't have total control over everything in their borders, which independence can bring. Refutal II Correct, very good points. I love these arguments, and I see no need to refute them.Refutal IIIAgain correct, Scotland could lose its nuclear deterrent. But they could develop their own nuclear weapons program with realtive ease.Refutal IVYes oil price is falling, but Scotland could increase its wealth by drilling its own oil.Refutal VJobs could be lost, but that happens often with independence. They can rebuild quickly.Refutal VI Benefits could be much higher. The economy would boom much more.Refutals VII and VIII and IXWages could be raised with independence and reaations could improve. Most of Scotland is very independenent minded now. 55% say they back a 2nd referendum.I rest my case for round III and I am a he :), no big deal.Thanks for the debate so far
Christians are the first enemies of Jesus Christ

Nowhere in the Bible does it state when Adam & Eve were made. A "day" in the Bible could mean any length of time. Calling fruits and veggies "byproducts" is like calling arms and legs "byproducts". It's part of the whole living organism. There are over 40,000 different versions of Christianity. They all interpret the Bible differently. My interpretation is just as valid as yours. It's not fraudulent, because there's no real evidence that one particular interpretation is right over another. If a Christian believes they can sin all they want and still be forgiven, so be it. It has nothing to do with urine, or cows or any other strawman argument you are trying to make. This debate is about "Christians are the first enemies of Jesus Christ" You failed to prove that. All you did was mouth off about tons of topics, from the age of the earth to the diets people eat. You bring up Islam, which has nothing to do with the topic. What it comes down to is the question, "Does sinning hurt Jesus Christ and make you an enemy of him?" Christianity is all about the forgiveness of sin. It doesn't matter if it makes sense, like in a courtroom. Christianity says the death of Jesus Christ paid for all human sins. Sinning doesn't hurt or torture Jesus. It gives him a purpose. You may not like that logic. You may not agree with it, but that's what Christianity is about. Conclusion: Modern day Christians may still be sinning like they did in ancient times, but that doesn't make them "servants of Satan" or "enemies of Jesus Christ". It makes them imperfect humans that are still loved and forgiven by Jesus.
Christians are the first enemies of Jesus Christ

"Thy shall not kill" is only meant for fellow human beings. In order for for a human being to survive, one must eat other living things. Plants are also alive and eating them is killing them. It is impossible to survive without killing. "Thy shall not kill" is also part of the Old Testament, while Christians follow the New Testament. The goal of a Christian is to get to heaven and achieve eternal life. The way to do that is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour. Sin has nothing to do with it, since all people are sinners and all sins are forgiven. The only sin that can not be forgiven is not believing in Jesus Christ. As long as you believe, you will reach the goal of eternal life in Heaven. The things Jesus said to do are guidelines on how to live a better life. Nobody is perfect and nobody can live their lives perfectly. If a person commits a sin, their belief in Jesus Christ is powerful enough to be forgiven. What happens in court is not supernatural. You can not compare a courthouse with the supernatural world. You claim many things as being a "myth", yet, you don't provide evidence for such. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Where is your evidence that current sin causes pain and suffering to Jesus? That is a myth you made up!
Christians are the first enemies of Jesus Christ

Dear Opponent, They make claims that Jesus is the only way But How many of these so-called followers of Jesus, actually follow his instructions? Jesus said "thy shall not kill" but they kill by millions everyday (cows, pigs, chickens..) Jesus said "Love God with your heart" but they don"t even know God Jesus said "Love thy neighbor" but they go round cursing the neighbors (non-Christians) a life of hell if they don"t become one of them Jesus said "live without sin" but they live in sin and expect Jesus to bail them out Instead of giving love to Jesus. They give him their sins so Jesus can suffer eternally This act of denying his words equals killing the person. Then whats the use of what Christ said. The Jews killed him openly and these so called Christians are silently killing Christ by misinterpreting his instructions whimsically according to their convenience. If one is unhappy to see the distress of other living beings and happy to see their happiness, his religious principles are appreciated as imperishable by exalted persons who are considered pious and benevolent. One cannot continue killing animals and at the same time be a religious man. That is the greatest hypocrisy. Jesus Christ said, "Do not kill," but hypocrites nevertheless maintain thousands of slaughterhouses while posing as Christians. Such hypocrisy is severely condemned. It is said that Lord Jesus Christ, when twelve years old, was shocked to see the Jews sacrificing birds and animals in the synagogues and that he therefore rejected the Jewish system of religion and started the religious system of Christianity, adhering to the Old Testament commandment "Thou shalt not kill." Saying Jesus Died for our Sins is another offence. The Christians seem to think that Jesus was a fool as he lets his followers live in sin so he can live in pain. When a Christian murderer goes to court, can he say to the Judge, hang Jesus, he will pay for my sins? Jesus came to preach the message of God and due to the hypocrisy of his followers Jews killed him. Since Christ was spiritual he bewildered his enemies upon resurrection. As simple as that. So a pious follower of Christ must therefore follow his commandments strictly without connecting foolish Jewish myths. The foolish Jews would sacrifice lambs thinking that it would make them sinless. And Foolish Christians adopted the same myth and made Jesus a Lamb. They say its a 'One Time Sacrifice'. This is utter nonsense Killing itself is a sin how would it make you sinless? Real Christianity has been spoiled by such myths. As far as Original SIN is concerned its also a myth. Humanity existed even before 6000 years ago. Proof: http://www.youtube.com... The Story of Adam and Eve and Original Sin is just to prevent humanity from deviation to devotion of the Lord. However the story also teaches us to be Submissive and Obedient to Lord's teachings.
Christians are the first enemies of Jesus Christ

You are making an assertion without evidence. You state, "The world knows that he was crucified by the Jews ." Wouldn't that be proof that the Jews are the first enemies of Jesus Christ? What more do you have to do in order to be an enemy? You claim,"They (Christians) just want to impose their sins upon Christ to make him suffer eternally." Isn't that the whole point of the religion? Christians claim, "He (Jesus) died for our sins." If that was the whole purpose of his death, then why is it wrong to accept that? http://biblehub.com... http://biblehub.com... http://www.biblegateway.com... You claim , "Our sins are our own" Yet, Christianity claims we were all born with "original sin". http://www.newadvent.org...
Christians are the first enemies of Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ a great figure of inspiration and a lover of mankind, no wise man would ever hate him. The world knows that he was crucified by the Jews . Jesus Christ always represented him as the Son of God. But his so called followers called him 'The Only Son' of God. And finally they called Christ 'God' and degenerated the Creator. Thus the Jews decided to torture and kill Christ. Since Christ was spiritual he got resurrected On one side the ruthlessness of Jews was the major fact in the murder of Christ. Secondly, his so called followers had the obsession to be claimed supreme so they misrepresented him as God. And Even after his death and resurrection, they showed him a poor respect. They Obviously have no love for Christ . They just want to impose their sins upon Christ to make him suffer eternally. Christianity is a cop out to avoid personal responsibility. No wonder so many death row inmates become so devout. The fact is that Jesus died for perceived blasphemy. Our sins are our own and only those we have sinned against may forgive us, if we cannot forgive ourselves.
Hope!

Well the only thing that you gave me was a definition of hope. I can prove that, "This is the crap your priest feeds you, in order to make you a good slave."Is not the correct definition of hope by giving the correct one. Hope- the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the bestAlso your statement is so simple that I can not understand what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that Hope does not exist, or are you trying to say that Authority figures use Hope to enslave people? http://dictionary.reference.com...
Physical Education should be taught differently than it currently is.

My opponent primarily brings up the concern concerning a student's freedom of choice within education. However, education as a whole is mandatory. There is no choice involved. Any classroom or education has a required amount of work a student may or may not do. Is it a violation of student rights to be required to do their Algebra homework when they, in fact, detest the work and have no desire to do the work at all? The flaw in my opponents opinion, with all due respect, is that if students only did what they wanted to do the education system would fail entirely. In fact, the physical education system has failed entirely. Just look at the evidence: 1. One third of all children born in 2000 are expected to develop diabetes in their lifetimes. (Task Force on Obesity) 2. More than a quarter of all Americans 17 to 24 are unqualified for military service because they are overweight. 3. About one in three, 31.7 percent of children 2 to 19 years old are now overweight or obese. Read more: http://www.macon.com... Simply teaching a child to be fit and healthy is not adequate or effective. They must be required to be fit and healthy. Whether or not the child believes the exercise will be valuable to them does not change the incredible importance and value of exercise and a healthy diet. Granted, no system can be perfect. However, our current Physical Education System can be perfected. My opponent brings up a good point: everyone has a different style and a different methods of effective exercise unique to them self. A modification to exercise logs could be several different variations of exercise logs. One exercise log could focus on lifting weights as a primary form of muscular development while another could focus on swimming for that method. These would be based on the child's individual interests, body type, exercise preferences, etc. However, each exercise log must require the child to exercise both through cardio and muscular methods. Furthermore, I would like to include a diet log based on the same ideals and functions as the exercise log. The essentials of education require students to commit to tasks they may or may not wish to do. Why do this? Because it is for both the students' own good and the good of the society in which they live. Healthy exercise is benifical to a society because it increases the students' health and therefore ability to work and function properly. By educating children concerning physical health in a constructive yet firm manner we will sculpt a happier and healthier generation and for generations to come.
Physical Education should be taught differently than it currently is.

Physical Education is a fantastic idea. Improving the health and fitness of individuals is absolutely vital to their overall personal success in the world. However, the methods used to teach Physical Education in High Schools have made the class worthless. Those that are already fit and in shape are those that participate in physical education. However, those that vitally need exercise and good nutrition often do not participate. The New York Times recently reported that Murray High School in Provo, Utah recently had PE teachers bribed by students to exempt from Physical Education. I propose: 1. There be a 'fitness log' requiring students to cardio and muscular exercise X minutes a week for at least four times a week. Granted, there will be excessive cheating and lying. However, there will be a significant increase in those participating. Many band and orchestra classes require similar sheets called 'practice logs'. For the past twenty five years without exception, each band or orchestra winning state required a practice log. This attests to its effectiveness. 2. Physical Education teachers become stricter concerning participation. Currently, kids that loaf around and half exercise often have an 'A' in PE. PE teachers should only give students 'A's if the student completely, 100% participates in PE and complete practice logs.
Star Trek vs Star Wars

Hahah I definitely agree that the Empire is the aggresso. That being said however, initiating a war is not without the necessary preparations and planning for one, giving the empire the immediate advantage. Your reasons for the Federation's advantages are unwarranted. Most are actually not true. (technology, tacticians and strategists, industrial capacity, defenses, weapons, and ranges.) Most of those are for the same reason; number of planets controlled/territories. The Federation's territory contains 150 worlds (http://memory-alpha.wikia.com...) while the Empire's territory contains 70 some million (http://scifi.stackexchange.com...). With more land and populace the Empire holds every one of those advantages as their own. This means more workers, more soldiers, more ships, more people likely to be bestowed a towering intellect for strategy and tactics, researchers and technological advancement over time. As for ranges, the Empire created a long range planetary detonator and called it the Death Star. Do not be fooled by the aesthetics of the movie, the laser spanned a far greater distance than any Federation device could achieve. As well an imperial star destroyer well out performs a standard federation exploration ship in nearly every way, especially firepower. I site common knowledge from viewing both ship's capabilities. The Federation may be better explorers, but this is total war.
Star Trek vs Star Wars

I'm also relatively new to this site as well. I believe that the United Federation of Planets and their allies would defeat the Empire in a total war scenario. The UFP (United Federation of Planets) and the allies, possess a significantly greater level of technology, better tacticians, better strategist, a more advanced industrial capacity,better defenses, better weapons, cloaking devices, scanners, significantly greater ranges, home field advantage, and a unified front. This war takes place 30 years after Star Trek: Nemesis and 30 years after Star Wars Episode 6, basically beginning of Episode 7. Haha... The Galactic Empire is obviously the aggressor, obviously. Being that the Empire is the warmongering conqueror, the Federation is the peaceful explorer. Agreed?
Star Trek vs Star Wars

Hey this is my acceptance round. I'm new to this site and it's form of debate so I'd like to stretch my legs a bit here. I think the Empire was designed to fight total wars against national foes, as it took a rebel guerrilla force to dismantle it. A nation like the Federation would not be able to last against the empire due to the empire's vast resources and security oriented culture, the war would simply be suited to the empire's best strengths for the inevitable win. Looking forward to debating with you, - Carson