BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S. is not prepared for the next terrorist attack which will kill or injure 10 or more people

In the wake of Paris shootingsThe opening of the discussion asked me to consider our preparations in the wake of Paris shootings and similar past events, namely terrorist attacks.I'm glad you agree with me on that we have some preparation against assaults from terrorist attacks.Adequate PreparationsIf the ability to prevent any and all civil attacks is what you mean by adequate perparations, then we can never have adequate preparations. Banks get robbed, stores get held up, these things happen. We have the police force for a reason, but there's no way the police stationed at every locale. That's impossible. And since we're talking about preparation as in weaponry preparation, if the SWAT and police guns aren't effective, why should we arm every civilian with even less effective guns?I think putting up concrete is nice and all, but I really don't know how that helps. We could sit around making random suggestions of defence that might or might not work, but in the end, security is probably as good as its going to get. We have bank vaults for a reason. Let the people know the ins and outs of security measures propose and place the security measures. People like me and you are not equipped with enough knowledge to delve into such a thing. We aren't security architects or anything.I think there's no way to prepare for preparing for 'if' an even happens. Every situation is different, but we do have police, fire departments and hospitals. We also have the civilians, alarms, cameras and security to call these forces into action. I think that the versatility that this provides is much more practical than building concrete walls everywhere.I also think that if someone really wants to hurt someone else, nothing can really stop them. Right this very instant, I am very much capable of walking up to my neighbors, greet her and then stab her. I have no reason to do so nor do I want to do so. I would probably get caught too, but I could do it and there's nothing to stop me. Same goes for every single one of us. Perfect defense would mean having everyone walking around in sheets of steel prepared for all eventualities. That's impossible.What we have is practical, versatile and as good as it gets. Every single case of a standing force reacting to civil situations such as the arrival of police, medics and whatnot is real evidence of proactive response to such occurrences, is it not?I've successfully argued that the U.S. is prepared for terrorist attacks by nature of its military policies and history. I think I also sucessfully argued that the preparation we have is enough.THanks for the debate and thanks to the readers for reading!
The U.S. is not prepared for the next terrorist attack which will kill or injure 10 or more people

You are correct in that we can't possibly prepare for every eventuality. That much is true. Despite all the strict laws of California the bank robbery still happened and the police were not prepared for it. In light of that event what has changed to prepare law enforcement should something similar happen again? I would very little if anything at all. We are prepared against another country attacking us, but I am specifically talking about individuals or small groups. Placing concrete barriers for security would be a local expense, one I'm sure most tax payers would gladly pay. The cost would not be that great. But these measures have not been offered, proposed or discussed. What would be the response time to an event like California? Are they better prepared? I would say no, as I have not seen or heard evidence from any states to indicated and preparedness. I have not seen any real evidence of being proactive for when (not if) the event (whatever it may be) happens. I would love to be wrong but given what our leaders have and have not done I don't believe I am wrong, sadly.
Resolved: On balance, violence is a just response to political oppression

The very nature of political oppression means that any non-violent means of the oppressed gaining the upper hand over the oppressor has been shut down. Thus, the only two options left for the oppressed are to physically overthrow the oppressor (which insinuates violence) or to accept the oppression and make peace with the oppressor. The question is if, on balance, violence is a just response to political oppression and I am yet to see a reason why it wouldn't be.
Resolved: On balance, violence is a just response to political oppression

This was the topic for the LD nationals in 2007. I thought it would be fun to debate. Rounds will go as follows: Round 1: con states rules Round 1: Pro presents his arguments Round 2: Con presents his arguments and rebuts to pro's case Round 2: Pro rebuts to con's case Round 3: Con rebuts Round 3: Pro rebuts 10,000 character limit. 3 days to post argument (per round)
Water bear could beat a hydra

Once again how in the world could such a microscopic organism such as the Tardigrade/Water Bear even drive the hydra anywhere? Also the Water Bear can only survive in temperatures as much as 151 degrees Celsius which is only 303.8 degrees Fahrenheit... for a few minutes! Fire burns at around 1950 degrees Celsius which is 3542 degrees Fahrenheit, more than 10 times more than a Water Bear can handle. And I'm pretty sure that since the hydra was brought to life to kill Hercules I'm pretty sure its skin is more than a millimeter deep and on no accounts any where have I found that a Tardigrade carries poison at all. That the Lernaean hydra was killed by fire bands placed around its throat after and only after the incredibly strong Hercules chopped a head off and then using a golden mythical sword, probably a couple thousand times larger than the Tardigrade.
Water bear could beat a hydra

I would just like to open out with how could the Water Bear(or Tardigrade) drive a hydra out of the water when the largest recorded size of a water bear is 1.3 MILLIMETERS! Where as the lernaean hydra from Greek mythology was said to be larger than a man with more heads than one could paint. You may say that because of its size it would not be hit but it would only be a matter of time before the hydra spit some poison and killed it. Also he Hydra emits a poisonous fumes since this is a creature created by the goddess Hera would probably be lethal to any and all creatures.
Water bear could beat a hydra

I believe that a water bear could defeat a hydra any day. The water bear could win by forcing the hydra to a desert and letting it getting dehydrated because a water bear can go without food or water for ten day. it can also survive in extreme conditions such as from just above absolute zero degrees Kelvin to well above the boiling point of water. it can survive in pressure six times as much as humans. They can also survive levels of radiation that are hundreds of times higher than humans as well as remain alive in space. with how the water bear can do I do not believe that the hydra can best it. source: http://en.wikipedia.org... www.popularmechanics.com www.fcps.edu/.../ecology/water_bear.htm
The Westboro Baptist Church should picket the funerals of the sun people.

Con's CON-tention #1: Gay 'rights'Fortunately, con is completely wrong here. Animal rights outweigh gay rights by about a mile, so the westboros picketting Mr Warm's funeral on the sun is perfectly okay. It says so in a book or something somewhere.Con's CON-tention #2: 'Freedom' of speech Luckily for me, con is completely wrong here too. You see, the only reason Mr Slider lost against the Phelps is because a week before the court case, a stranger referred to him as 'moron man' and because of some psychological mumbo-jumbo, that means that Mr Slider was subconsciously TRYING to prove that rude man correct and so he did the dumbest thing anyone could ever do and lose a court case to the westboros. This means that we should sent the westboro baptist church to burn to death in the face of a ball of burning gas.My PRO-tention #1: Westbodumbro bapstupidtist church As I said in my opening round, "The Westboro Baptist Church are religious nuts anyway, so they'll just fall for the trick believing that Jebus'll lend 'em a sun hat and sunnies or something." Crazy con has yet to respond to this perfect argument and I don't blame him honestly, it's the argument that will win me the debate.My PRO-tention #2: We all Love KingDebater As I said in my opening round, "If the Westboro Baptist Church do picket his funeral, then it's a win-win situation. The Church get to picket a funeral and we normals probably won't see much of them after that.". I'd like to expand on that argument with the fact that if everyone wants something, we should do it. We all want the westbodumbro bapstupidtist church to burn to death in the face of a ball of burning gas, so we should do it. Crazy con has yet to respond to this perfect argument and I don't blame him honestly, it's the argument that will win me the debate.Remember Lannan, don't get sad when you lose, just remember that 2nd is better than 3rd.I thank you.
The Westboro Baptist Church should picket the funerals of the sun people.

I will show you in a few contentions that the Phelps shouldn't picket their funeral. Contention 1: Gay RightsDue to the fact the Luke Warm is gay it seems inevitable that they would pickett his funeral, but they shouldn't do this due to the fact it harms gay rights and gay equality. After the recent Supreme Court ruling on DOMA (. http://www.npr.org...) the homosexual community is starting to gain a little more equality, but the Phelps continue to pickett homo's funerals just because they are gay will hurt this progress. This will end up hurting society as a whole, because believe it or not gay rights movement today is just like the African-American rights movement in the 50s and 60s. Doing so derails our nation's prosperity. Contention 2: Freedom of SpeechNow you must think after my last contention that that itself is a reason for them to die in the blaze of the sun, but that just doesn't cut it. You see after many people got fed up with the Phelps Mr. Synder got up and sued them for picketing his son's funeral. .. and he lost. . http://www.law.cornell.edu... The Phelps are backed up by the US Constitution, so they are sadly aloud to say whatever it is that they want to say. (My next computer access other than tomorrow at noon will be on Monday, so if you don't post your argument by then could you please hold off until Saturday. Please and Thank You. )
The Westboro Baptist Church should picket the funerals of the sun people.

Recently on The sun (You wouldn't know about this if you've not read the tabloid newspaper), another one of the sun people have just died. Little is known about him, but we do know a few things about him.Name: Luke WarmOccupation: Sun cream salesmanSpecies: Heat-Resistant Homo SapienBiological Father's name: Heat-proof MattBiological Father's Occupation: Unsuccessful Ice-cream manBiological Mother's name: UnknownBiological Mother's occupation: Swimming pool ownerReligion: A mixture of Satanism, Pastafarianism and Atheism.Sexual Orientation: GayStance on Gay Marriage: ProStance on Abortion: Pro He seems like the sort of guy that the Westboro Baptist Church would want to picket the funeral of, right?If the Westboro Baptist Church do picket his funeral, then it's a win-win situation. The Church get to picket a funeral and we normals probably won't see much of them after that.The Westboro Baptist Church are religious nuts anyway, so they'll just fall for the trick believing that Jebus'll lend 'em a sun hat and sunnies or something.So that's what I'd like to debate today, whether the WBC (see? I'm hip) should picket the funerals of the sun people.I thank you.
The Westboro Baptist Church should picket the funerals of the sun people.

Contention 1: Gay RightsMy opponent says animal rights are more important, but he fails to realize that the Phelps aren't picketting Sparky's funeral, but Mr. Warm's, so my contention still stands. Contention 2: Freedom of Speach But this is where the debate here breaks down, though he was referred to as a moron he was highly respected by his peers. As we can recall from the Topeka Capital Journal Paper. His peers defended him and stated that, "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words may never hurt me." In this case the stranger was just disreguarded as some Phelps member bully. Protention 3: Wesboro baptist churchI'm from Topeka and I know they're a bunch of nuts, but they're a great group to play chess against. You see here that if you eliminate the Phelps Kansas will loose all of their smart people and they'll turn out to be a bunch of hillbillies just like the South. Protention 4: Kingdebater.My opponent goes off and states that I have not responded to his original arguement, but if you look above this here protention you can see that I have refuted everything that he has thrown at me and more.
Are the younger generations dumbing themselves down for attraction & humour or just becoming stupid

Assuming what you mean by attractiveness is sexual, then yes. Most girls these days are living to be modern-day pop stars, instead of waiting for the right lover. As for humor, it can be debated, I do believe though that our humor has become rather stupid. Just look at "Jackass" for instance. We went from "Seinfeld" to "Jackass." Also our humor has taken on an annoying sarcastic trend.
Are the younger generations dumbing themselves down for attraction & humour or just becoming stupid

I am finding the more and more I converse with the younger generation (my siblings, and some friends my age "24" included) that all of these "wtf" "tbt" "IDFK" and the manner that they speak, seems disrespectful and that they are unnecessarily dumbing themselves down... to me many of these abbreviations are out of laziness. Are we teaching our children all of these shortcuts therefore making them the dumb generations or is all of these fads a way of attraction to one another?
should some programs be cut

Just so there is not any confusion, when I said "Extend", I meant that I extend all definitions and set rules, as I have not made an argument.I see my opponent has forfeited twice, and I have none, so I should technically win this debate simply for being able to post.I will provide a brief argument for the sake of the debate:Programs should not be cut; it would be a total waste of paper. Thank you for reading and please vote.
should some programs be cut

Since you did not provide definitions and rules, as per the norm I will do so. Semantics: Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. [1]Some: an unspecified amount or number of. [2]Program: a sheet or booklet giving details of items or performers at an event or performance. [3]Be: to exist. [4]Cut: to make an opening, incision, or wound in (something) with a sharp-edged tool or object. [5]Rules:First round: Acceptance (done and done). Second Round: ArgumentsThird Round: ConclusionSources:[1] . https://www.google.com...[2] . https://www.google.com...[3] . https://www.google.com...[4] . https://www.google.com...[5] . https://www.google.com...
"Son rising":Shame of India

< > Not all sons are given preference. It may be a popular opinion for people to want sons right now in India, but human behavior has shown us that this is probably a trend, and like all trends, this one too shall pass. <<....and to the extent that they go for female foeticide....>> That's their prerogative. It's not illegal. I'm gay. People would have me feel shame for feeling the way I do. I won't/can't live that way and I don't have to, just as these people don't have to feel shame for how they feel about bringing a life into the world. People should be able to have/feel/think/do what they want. < > (I see no evidence to support this claim, but I'll assume that it is true for the sake of argument.) Yes, because trends change gradually. When the people see that the predominant bread winners are women, they will desire to have them in their families. Worship of Hindu goddesses will be on the rise. Women of India will take a stronger and equal place in Indian society to the men's. This is all besides the point though because you're trying to argue why India is shameful for "harvesting" sons. The rest of the world accepts this as their practice and respects their right to their beliefs, which is why there aren't any public outcries about such issues for such practices in the United Nations. I had to work hard to understand you, poojabajaj_85, but I appreciated your arguments. Thank you.
"Son rising":Shame of India

Indian society was a male dominant society...women were deprived of education...and al sort of freedom which men used to enjoy...that is why males have always hold a position of great importance and authority...butafter the beginning of era of women education and exposure...Indian women are in no way inferior to men...but still indian families are aspiring for boy baby...they still consider girl baby to be curse ...many cases were found where with the help of predetermination of sex during pregnancy they are going for foetus killing which is absolutely shame for such a developing country.
Why we should openly talk about a certain 'mysterious' aspect of reality

Now this is a story all about how My life got flipped turned upside down And I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel-Air In West Philadelphia, born and raised On the playground is where I spent most of my days Chillin' out, maxin', relaxin' all cool And all shootin' some b-ball outside of the school When a couple of guys who were up to no good Started makin' trouble in my neighborhood I got in one little fight and my mom got scared And said "You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air" I begged and pleaded with her day after day But she packed my suitcase and sent me on my way She gave me a kiss and then she gave me my ticket I put my Walkman on and said "I might as well kick it" First class, yo, this is bad Drinkin' orange juice out of a champagne glass Is this what the people of Bel-Air livin' like? Hmmm, this might be all right But wait, I hear they're prissy, bourgeois, and all that Is this the type of place that they just sent this cool cat? I don't think so, I'll see when I get there I hope they're prepared for the Prince of Bel-Air Well, uh, the plane landed and when I came out There was a dude looked like a cop standin' there with my name out I ain't tryin' to get arrested yet, I just got here I sprang with the quickness like lightning, disappeared I whistled for a cab and when it came near The license plate said 'Fresh' and it had dice in the mirror If anything I could say that this cab was rare But I thought "Nah, forget it, yo holmes, to Bel-Air!" I pulled up to the house about 7 or 8 And I yelled to the cabbie "Yo holmes, smell ya later" Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there To sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel-Air
Morally Permissible Force

I really hope this guy isn't just trolling. Anyway, onto my case. The pro inherently claims that deadly force betters the victim's life by freeing them from the abuser, but it just lands you in prison. 80% of women who kill their abusers go to jail and have no voice in the matter. Elizabeth Leanord conducted a study that showed that 80% of female victims who use force against their aggressors end up in jail. Also, jail violence is worse than domestic violence. Kim Buchanan studied the life of a woman in prison and concluded that sexual abuse in prison is widespread. These women are subjected to this sexual abuse in exchange for things like drugs and protection from other inmates. Jail violence will outweigh domestic violence for three reasons: 1) Domestic violence is physical less than half of the time. Anne Milgrahm condicted a study and found out that assault and physical harrassment occur from domestic violence only 43% of the time. The other 59% is verbal insults that, while may be offensive, definetely do not merit killing. 2) Victims have no access to recourse in prison. The prison guards who are abusing them are the ones that are charged with protecting them and they physically cannot leave, whereas in an abusive relationship the option is always there for the victim to just walk out the door in the middle of the night. 3) Prison abuse reintrenches women stereotypes as inferior and as prostitutes. This is true because when the guard propositions an inmate, knowing that the guard will be able to beat and rape her anyway if she refuses, she may as well accept it, which reintrenches the stereotypes as inferior and as prostitutes. The pro case will always link into these harms because the resolution inherently mandates the pro to defend using lethal force to defend against domestic violence. But this lethal force only places them in a worse place, as the above position states.
Morally Permissible Force

Welcome to my lovely debate thread. I'm Matt, and I'll be taking the Con side of the following resolution: Resolved: It is morally permissible to use lethal force as a response to repeated domestic violence. While this was a previous NFL LD topic, I am open to any kind of argumentation the pro can provide. I will not be providing a case in this speech, but the aff may first round. Rounds 2/3/4 will be argumentation and clash. Round five is the cut-off for new arguments. At this point, all new arguments are not to be evaluated. Round five is to be used for clarifying on your position and explaining why you ought to win the round.
are books better than TV

First of all, I would like to mention that this debate is just for fun and should not be taken too seriously. It is clear that books are better in many ways. during my three arguments I will be covering the following points: TV is bad for your brain, books don't get repeated, each book it unique, always 3D no glasses needed, you can read when you want and best of all there are no adds when you read. Now, onto my first argument. TV is bad for your brain while books are the complete opposite. Studies have proven that watching TV can lead to premature death, reduced intelligence, can completely destroy imagination, impair child's growing brain, can increase the chance of brain disorders and worst of all it is addictive. Yes, maybe watching a show could be a bit faster than reading a book, but are you seriously going to save a little bit of time just to find out that you're going to die soon and your young child's brain isn't developing properly. When you read a book there is no damage done to your brain, if anything it makes you smarter by increasing your vocabulary and giving you a magnificent imagination. And don't forget, books can also be non-fiction including school textbooks, dictionaries and many more. And anyway, if TV was better than books why would teachers keep giving us textbooks. Why wouldn't they just make us sit there and constantly watch documentaries. Another reason why books are better than TV is because there are no repeats. On TV when there is a series of shows there are often more repeats than there are new episodes. When someone flics over to their favourite show they are often found in the situation where they need to figure out whether or not they have already seen that episode. Meanwhile with books you don't have this problem. You either have read the book or you haven't which is easy to figure out by simply reading the title of the book. And that is why I believe books are better than TV.
We have to rape children

We have to be tough. We have to rape. We have to rape because we have to rape. When I see a little 4 year-old girl, I am going to take her virginity. If she is not a virgin, I will just fu*k her then. Lets rape all the children we find. Lets do something that matters. Lets show our genitals to the children of the world. Lets teach them about sex and mess them up completely. When I see a little 4 year-old girl, I am going to make a mess out of her.