BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United States Should Offer Military Aid to Ukraine

Ok then. I'll try going back through your arguments. Enlightened self interest: You're proposing giving away weapons of destruction to a desperate resistance in a failing part of a confused country. Maybe you'd be helping them, but certainly not world peace, or whoever they're fighting (Russia), so that kind of kills the helping people thing. Why not help Russia, instead? That still works into your theory, right? Hegemonic Stability: If a new superpower where to replace the USA, it probably wouldn't be Russia, anyway. Russia's economy is only the 9th largest in the world, and their military spending was less than a quarter of the US' last year. Others that spend more on their military than Russia include The EU, South Asia and Oceania, and China. Russia probably won't become a threat for a long, long time. http://theweek.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Minimal Burden: And I quote from your 3rd source for this argument: "We wouldn"t be in this crisis of hitting the debt ceiling in the first place if we hadn"t spent so much money on unnecessary wars " which are horrible for the economy." That pretty well sums it up. You sort of refute your argument here. Indeed, sending some equipment to Ukraine has the potential to be not much of a hassle. But you know whats actually going to happen. The US is going to botch it. It's happened before, and it'll happen again. Just like every other war and conflict, they're going to end up spending A LOT more money than they should, putting the US farther and farther out of world supremacy with every billion they add to their debt. That doesn't sound like it would be very much in your interest (or your "Enlightened Self-Interest"), and not good for stability either. http://www.monitor.net... http://freepatriot.org... http://www.washingtonsblog.com... You also mentioned that Russia wouldn't likely invade if there where US troops in The Ukraine, but your forgetting that this isn't just Russia vs Ukraine. There are many supporters of Russia in Ukraine that have been there for quite some time. This is a civil war as well. I apologize for not giving you much to work with in my first argument.
Resolved: The United States Should Offer Military Aid to Ukraine

Defending Contention One: My opponent does not really make relevant attacks that undermine my C1 argument, but to convince my judges (the voters of DDO) I will address his points anyways. My opponent does directly refute the argument that the US aiding Ukraine militarily would impose a minimal burden. He does indeed cede that "The USA does indeed currently have the world's best army by almost anyone's standards) (Paragraph one R3 argument). Whether other countries could surpass the US or not is.. entirely irrelevant in my opinion to my argument. I don't see how keeping billions of dollars of unused, outdated technology (by US standards) would help us preserve our position as the dominant military power, what would though; is giving it to the Ukrainian government to deter or fight russia in the event of an invasion and undermine their attempt at once again becoming a regional, or global hegemon. Also, China and the USA have inter dependent economies, so if one suffered, the other would also suffer. Indeed, China earns over $400 billion from US exports and Forbes, based on US Department of Commerce statistic estimates that China is 175.6% dependent on the US. On to the second point on paragraph one: I am afraid all my opponent has done is make an assertion that he did not bother to back with facts or logic, I have pointed out through my value criterion why US intervention in Ukraine would greatly benefit the US, and in turn the world. I don't see why I should have to make new points or defend specific points of mine until my opponent makes a more intricate and well thought out attack that actually addresses the core of my argument. On to my opponents second paragraph; My opponent does not deny that Russia has the intent to invade Ukraine, and indeed his only point is that introducing new weaponry could increase casualties in the war. I ask my opponent this question seriously, does he think that if the Ukraine is invaded, the nation and it's people should just wittingly submit without a fight? If not, and I am assuming he does not think that, there will be casualties regardless, and attempting to place the blame on Ukraine for those casualties for deciding it has a right to defend itself is simply absurd. If Russia invades Ukraine under the rather phony pretenses it currently has, Russia is at fault for the casualties, and it is my belief that attempting to place the blame of the casualties of a conflict on the nation that is simply trying to defend it's sovereignty is ludicrous. Ukraine should be allowed to defend itself from foreign aggression by any means possible that are not outlawed in the rules of war, codified by multiple conventions in recent history that can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Basically, any casualties incurred if Russia invades Ukraine should be moral responsibility of Russia, not Ukraine. In regards to your final point, I'll just disregard it for now until you elaborate. Other sources: http://www.forbes.com... http://www.ustr.gov... I look forward to your response.
Resolved: The United States Should Offer Military Aid to Ukraine

Geh. Sorry about that. So for my first argument, I'd like to just point out that while the USA does indeed currently have the worlds best army by almost anyone's standards, things aren't guaranteed to stay that way. Other countries are catching up. China especially is catching up quickly. Plus, the USA's economy depends greatly on China anyway. There's your real superpower. Fighting between Russia and the US would be nothing more than a violent quarrel, over arguments that should've been settled long ago. Not really a great show of power anyway. As my second point, I'd like to note all the suffering increased weaponry has the potential to cause. So far this has been a fairly low-casualty conflict in my opinion, but introducing crazy weapons from the US could change that, causing a lot of suffering, and that's probably not the best thing. For my final point, I'd like to bring up the possibility that it would actually be good for Ukraine to be part of Russia. I'll argue that more later. I deeply apologize for the wait, and I look forward to your next arguement.
God Exists

There is no definite proof that god exists. There are many amazing natural wonders of our world, but there is no reason to believe that they are anything except natural. The complexities of our world are caused by Darwin's theories and sheer probability. The earth's existence is probable due to many trillions of stars and even more planets. Given the widespread existence of planets it is probable that one would come along and have the conditions necessary for life. Our species has evolved over billions of years and that is where our complexity comes from, not creationism. If a scientist were to propose a theory with no evidence to support it it would be instantly dismissed. In science you can not state that a theory is true just because it can't be disproved.
A Federal System of Prostitution Should Be Allowed for America's Prisons

I apologize, but I will not be able to finish this debate due to time constraints and extracurricular' s that demand my attention. It was my belief that their would only be three rounds and thus I only prepared for three rounds, but ignorance is no excuse. I will let the audience decided upon this debate, but I anticipate a lose due to my lack of participation. It's been a great debate and I would like to thank Pro for his time and investments. In accordance I am officially forfeiting this round
A Federal System of Prostitution Should Be Allowed for America's Prisons

This idea is what I plan on using as a Proposal in a youth program called CONA. . http://www.ymcacona.org... The ideal CONA proposal is debatable and controversial, which is why I have presented such an absurd solution to the problem of prison rape. I have spent a little time anticipating and receiving from my friends Cons in regards to the Proposal. As far as I can tell, I have solid refutations for all Cons at this point. However I would like to test it out on DDO. What exactly I'm talking about: Prisoners do have money. They have a small balance they are given, and they can earn more for doing extra work around the prison. I'm proposing that we allow prisoners to buy sex with that money. The prostitutes would be provided by the Federal Government. The Federal Association of Prostitutes, or FAP. If anybody has any more questions about what I'm proposing be instituted, please ask in the comments before you jump in.
Gay Marriage

Well, I"m not sure what else to say, since you forfeited that round. I suppose I"ll just use this opportunity to disprove common arguments against homosexual marriage that I have been dying to get my opinion out for. Arguments against it are almost always religious. And, although Islam and other religions condemn being gay, the most powerful voice against it comes from the Christians. One common quip is that "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" My response to this would be that back then there would have been no other humans on Earth. They would have had to populate it themselves, so Adam and Steve never would have worked. At 6.79 billion people and growing for the world"s population, it"s safe to say this is clearly not an issue anymore. Another argument could be "Because Jesus said so!" Not so. Jesus the person never said a word for or against homosexual marriage. A variation of this would be "Because the Bible says so!" I"m going to break this up by Testament. First, I admit that the Old Testament does speak out against same sex marriage. On the other hand, the Old Testament also says that it is sinful to eat shellfish, pork, or wear clothes that are more than one color. And, given the other context of this Testament, I don"t think that's a reasonable argument for modern day society. However, the New Testament does not say anything against homosexual love. The original text in the New Testament was referring to prostitution and molestation, not committed same sex affairs. The translation must have changed over time, and the bits the old Catholic Church left out or revised wouldn't have helped. More specifically to the Bible argument, I've also seen objections along the lines of "The Bible defines marriage as one man, one woman!" Also not true. In those days, and in some parts of the world today, marriage could easily be defined as one man-many women, one man-many wives, a conquering soldier and his prisoner or even a rapist and his victim. Let me use an example. A mere 500 years ago, it was virtually illegal for the Bible to translate into any language but Latin. You might be rolling your eyes, thinking "Well, that"s just outdated." Take a moment to think about that. Some common idea only 500 years ago qualifies as way outdated, but a book written 35,000 years ago holds exactly the same truth as today. Quite selective thinking, isn't it? The point I'm trying to make is that, had society not moved onward, precious few Christians would have been able to read their Holy Book today. Here's another example; the proverb "dime to a donut" has lost its applicability in less than 200 years. Times change, no religion can be accurate according to the times forever. Love is one of the few things that has always be constant throughout human history. And marriage is really about love, not gender.
Gay Marriage

In response to your question, no, I"m actually not a lesbian, but a few of my friends whom I admire are homosexual. But, back to the debate, an organization can not own a word just because they"re attributed to it, unless it is copyrighted. Marriage can also be associated with the government, as you must sign a legal document in order to get the rights of a married couple and some people are even married at a nearby courthouse instead of a church. And your argument that almost everyone would be for a partnership with the same rights as marriage is not necessarily valid. Marriage is an emotionally important word. It"s a tradition that has been going on for thousands and thousands of years. It has a great meaning in our culture, one that a civil union just can"t compare to. That is why many homosexual couples would reject civil unions. It"s their concern that by using the words civil union instead of marriage, it"s saying that their commitment isn't the same as that of a heterosexual couple. That their love is so different it doesn't even deserve the same term "normal" relationships get. In addition, legally speaking, civil unions are not equal. Marriages are recognized in every state in America, while civil unions aren't. A homosexual couple may be able to be partners in New Jersey, but they probably would not be able to move to, for instance, Virginia and still keep their rights. Imagine telling a straight couple that they can"t get married, but they can still be partners. The only reason that they can"t say married because the word is associated with religion. You can picture their reaction; "Why don"t we get to call our love marriage? Our love is just as real!" As history has proved, separate is not always equal. Citations: http://www.alternet.org... http://gppreview.com... http://www.bluethenation.com...
Gay Marriage

Hello, I think gay marriage should not be legal but they should be able to form a partnership with each other that allows them to get the same rights as married couples. The term marriage is a Religious term and should be sacred to Religion. For example, lets say i start a organization for helping animals find homes, and instead of calling my self the owner of the organization i call myself the pope, and my organization takes off and becomes world known, there would be a catholic outcry because the term "pope" is sacred to Catholicism. I hope that makes sense. So don't call it marriage, call it partnership (or something else). If the gay community did that then almost EVERYONE would be on board. Marriage is a Religious tradition and it should and needs to stay that way. If you don't mind me asking i would like to know for arguments sake; are you gay?
Aquaman is actually a good super hero compitent of killing a villan

20 reasons why Aquaman is good Aquaman 20 reasons 1 Has the whole army of Atlantis 2 skin that can't be penetrated 3 tyrant that kills superman 4 can go on land 5 stronger in brute strength then batman 6 telekinesis 7 controls water 8 can move things with his brain 9 can control fish and aquatic life 10 can make things into ice 11 able to change aliens minds 12 amazing aim 13 has advanced technology compared to bruce Wayne Wayne. 14 used to being in water so gravity is less on him making him agiler and maybe even able to jump really high 15 trained in very tricky and strong martial arts 16 magic 17 pretty much has impenetrable armor 18 superman sides with Aquaman on over than batman or martian manhunter 19. Dolphins that are also trained in fighting and can jump high as well as speedy 20 has taken out many if the bad aliens by himself and his sidekick 21 doesn't have a stupid orange and green costume anymore.
We all deserve to die, none of us deserve another breathe of air

Pro seems to think that there's two options:(i) We all deserve to die, and do not deserve to live(ii) We all deserve to live, and do not deserve to dieHowever, "death" doesn't mean "non-being. " It's a process of our body decomposing. So it's a false dilemma in the first place. But I've shown there's a third option. .. (iii) I don't deserve to live, and I do not deserve to dieThis is because my opponent has not given one argument to think that we "deserve" anything in the first place. It might be the case that we don't deserve either, because we don't deserve anything. He's just dismissed this argument and has not addressed it. My opponent has also used ad hominem attacks against me, in an attempt to undermine my arguments. This should result in a loss of conduct points. Pro has simply not met his burden of proof. He's making a tremendous claim, and so it deserve a tremendous amount of proof. But he can't even show that we "deserve" anything in the first place.
We all deserve to die, none of us deserve another breathe of air

How can you argue with somebody who refuses to admit to the validity and definition of a word? To say a word may or may not mean what it is, even though the obscurer uses the word to attempt to substantiate an argument that has no substance apart from denying or obscuring the meaning of words. Con can try to fool himself and everybody else untill he is blue in the face saying he does not deserve to die, and the word "deserve" has no valid meaning, but the fact remains that the con is held under death penalty and deserves to die the same as everybody else. We all deserve to die, and the proof of it is that we all die. Saying "I don't deserve to die" will never change the fact that you are held under death penalty untill you get what you deserve. Who are you trying to fool by saying you do not deserve to die? If you can't admit that you deserve to die, then you can vote against me but you still deserve to die and you will get what you deserve, the same as me.
We all deserve to die, none of us deserve another breathe of air

I've refuted my opponent's arguments. His main argument is as follows:P1: IF we deserved to live, THEN there would be enough oxygen and we would live forever.P2: We don't live forever.C1: We don't deserve to live.P3: If we don't deserve to live, we deserve to die.C2: We deserve to die.I've debunked P1 completely. Simply because we don't live forever is absolutely no basis for saying we deserve to die. It's merely a biological fact that our bodies break down. This has nothing to do with whether or not we deserve life.I've also shown that my opponent has failed to demonstrate that "deserve" is an objective fact of reality, rather than a man-made social construct.So my opponent has not met his burden.
We all deserve to die, none of us deserve another breathe of air

Pro misunderstands what I am saying. There's two options:(i) "Deserve" is not a man-made concept(ii) "Deserve" is a man-made conceptPro has to justify (i). He has not done so. This is a failure to prove his burden.Now, I've assumed that IF (i) is true, it's not clear how we deserve death. First of all, it's not clear that we don't deserve life. Pro has not defended this at all. Simply because we don't live forever, this doesn't mean that we don't deserve life at all. Second of all, if we don't deserve life, then it's not clear this means we deserve death.Death is defined as: "the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism." (1)Now this is assuming (i) is true. Which Pro has not even attempted to prove.There's also the alternative that (ii) is true, which Pro must deal with.==Sources==(1)https://www.google.com...
We all deserve to die, none of us deserve another breathe of air

Con's anology is at best a poor comparison. Getting paid or getting robbed is not life or death. The analogy really merited no response as it was barely on topic. The debate is whether we deserve to die or not. You can't say "we don't deserve to die" and "we don't deserve to live". If Con stands on this arguement, he is standing on double-talk and not being rational. You can't have it both ways. If you don't deserve to live, you deserve to die. If you don't deserve to die, you deserve to live. You can't have it both ways. We all know what deserve means. Con sure uses the word "deserve" to construct his weak analogy, and then says "deserve" is a "man made concept" implying the strongest word in his analogy has no sure meaning, thereby negating his own anology which made little if any sense for comparison to start with. If we die only because our bodies break down, then we deserve to die because our bodies are imperfect. Or is death unfair? Con is dodging the issue.
We all deserve to die, none of us deserve another breathe of air

con states we don't deserve life and we don't deserve death. wellllll.......if you don't deserve life, then you do deserve death. If you don't deserve death, you do deserve life. ........that is unless you do not exist. Do you exist? If you don't deserve death, then death is not fari because death is what you have.........or what you get if you insist on having more time, though nobody can really gaurantee you more time to breathe. Con's double talk attempt to avoid the fact that we all deserve to die does not disprove the fact that we all deserve to die and we do not deserve more time. Con is also avoiding the argument that if we do not deserve to die, then death is not fair; saying our bodies break down is saying we die, that is not debatable and is not the topic here.. Con simply does not want to admit he deserves to die. Death is fair or it's unfair, deserved or undeserved. We either deserve to live or we do not, we deserve to die or we do not; can't have it both ways.
We all deserve to die, none of us deserve another breathe of air

My opponent has the burden to show that we all deserve to die, and that none of us deserves another breath of air.He states, "If we deserve to live or even to breathe one more breath of air, why don't we live and breathe forverer?"The answer is simple. Because our bodies eventually break down.Also, my opponent assumes that not deserving to live, and deserving to die are the same thing. If I do not deserve to get paid, does that mean I deserve to get robbed? Not really. Just because I don't deserve continued existence, this doesn't mean I deserve destruction or death.Also, we could view "deserve" as social contstructs which are subjective. We don't really deserve anything. We don't deserve life or death.So Pro has simply not shown that we all deserve to die.
We all deserve to die, none of us deserve another breathe of air

If we deserve to live or even to breathe one more breath of air, why don't we live and breathe forverer? Since we don't live and breathe forever, we have to conclude either that we deserve to die or that death is not fair. If we say death is fair because it applies to everybody, then it must be fair if we do not get another breath of air and we really don't deserve another breath of air because death is fair. If we say death is unfair and we deserve to live forever, we must be fooling ourselves. Is there anybody who will say they deserve to live? Many believe death is an illusion or simply a change of experience of life and they never really die...........so to them, this debate is meaningless and they are not the one I am seeking to debate this topic......if somebody with such unrealistic debates takes me on here, then the topic will shift to discussion of what death is, and is it real?