BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
WAR GAME SCENARIO: United States v. Chosen Nation

" I suggest that you forfeit this debate entirely, since you don't seem to want to do this scenario. "I do. You are not following your own rules, yet expect me to follow them. This is not acceptable. I will not forfeit. "Switzerland is essential for EU economies"No it is not. Switzerland does not use the Euro." the US declares war on Switzerland"This is not realistic. The Euro has not crumbled and neither has the EU, for the point that I explained above. You have broken Rule 9 which says that you must keep all actions realistic. You declaring war is VOID."The US sends squadrons of aircraft to Geneva, Zurich, and Berne, and military forces occupy the cities. All Swiss military movement is attacked with GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bombs and BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bombs. Conventional fragmentation Tridents are launched to strike military bases across Switzerland. Switzerland is crippled because of the cyber attack. The Swiss military cannot react, and communications are shattered. The military swiftly captures Berne, Zurich, and Geneva, and renders the Jungfrau and Meiringen bases dysfunctional. Soon, all bases cripple and are shut down. The United States does not send any Land Forces and sends Switzerland its terms of surrender, that state that Switzerland becomes an autonomous direct democratic external district of the United States."This does not occur because war was never declared, which is necessary for an invasion.This is not realistic without war, so this is VOID.All of Round 4 has been declared VOID because you have broken your own rules.My actions this round are this:The Swiss government sees how the future for technology is booming, and they decide to reallocate a lot of their funds from the sudden liquidation of funds into a donation to Bill Gates, which means that he has an increase of funds of $3TRILLION. This sudden fluctuation of money that goes into the economy sets off mass speculation in the stock market, which means that people pull all of their money out before their stocks are worth nothing (this happened before, so you can't say this is not realistic, just look at 1929 in the USA). The stock market crashes in the USA, stocks are worth nothing.The USD is not worth anything after the crash.The USA is crushed financially, and must take out its funding to military and bring it into help containing the riots that are going to be present all around the country.Because I have crushed the USA financially, I have won this debate. A war was never necessary.
WAR GAME SCENARIO: United States v. Chosen Nation

No, the United States reacts to war because of the fictional mobilization of Swiss troops that may affect the military strategies of United States armed forces in nearby military bases. If you refuse to act, there is no point in accepting this debate. Since you are not planning on doing anything, there is no point to this debate. I suggest that you forfeit this debate entirely, since you don't seem to want to do this scenario. Since there is no reaction on Switzerland's part, with the increased alert continuing and EU economies crippling (Switzerland is essential for EU economies), the US declares war on Switzerland. NATO, UN etc declare neutrality in the conflict. The events of the previous round ARE NOT VOID. It is realistic and fair, and you have misinterpreted it. The US sends squadrons of aircraft to Geneva, Zurich, and Berne, and military forces occupy the cities. All Swiss military movement is attacked with GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bombs and BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bombs. Conventional fragmentation Tridents are launched to strike military bases across Switzerland. Switzerland is crippled because of the cyber attack. The Swiss military cannot react, and communications are shattered. The military swiftly captures Berne, Zurich, and Geneva, and renders the Jungfrau and Meiringen bases dysfunctional. Soon, all bases cripple and are shut down. The United States does not send any Land Forces and sends Switzerland its terms of surrender, that state that Switzerland becomes an autonomous direct democratic external district of the United States.
WAR GAME SCENARIO: United States v. Chosen Nation

Aspect: a particular part or feature of something.A particular part of war is its start.War has not been started, because the beginning of war is, by definition, an aspect of war. You must realistically describe all aspects of the war. You have not done this.You say that the US arms itself because the Swiss decide to liquidate their own banks within their own borders, within their own sovereign rights. This is not believable. Your action is declared VOID. War is declared VOID.All of your Round Three is declared VOID. You do not mobilize any troops or any materiel. You do not threaten the Swiss government with economic sanctions.The Swiss do not take any action this round, except for this:We give all of our tanks to the Holy See, as they are a very small nation that depends on outside governments to protect them.The nation of Switzerland has 0 tanks after this round. "I sincerely request Con to react as in a normal military situation with military moves."Request denied. War does not start, military personnel are not moved, nothing is mobilized on either side. I will not react without reason.Back to you, pro.
Religious debate topics

As a very religious person and a lover of the study of religion, I too believe that God for sure 100% has a place for the LGBT people. .. Scripturally. .. Because they still are people and God loves all His children, and by all, I mean all. However, I believe that Homosexuality is forbidden but not the Homosexual. I am in agreement with you as I would take the Con side as well however I do not believe that the ideology of Homosexuality has a place and by eliminating the regressive act of Homosexuality, Homosexuals as a title adopted by the people who partake in these actions, ceases to exist. But all in all, I agree with thee :)) Would you still like to discuss this and I play the Devil's Advocate role, or would you like to discuss another topic?
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy ince

The topic is Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. My opponents arguments have spoken of the poor and not energy. Therefore, his arguments do not stand. His argument does not use facts and statistics to support his own words. His whole case is based on his own logic rather than reality. Although he as the pro should affirm the resolution, he negated it ["I believe that debate shouldn't be about affirming some government action that I can't affect,"] thus giving me the win.
Obama is the progressive agent of change, no John Edwards.

First off, I don't understand your choice of wording in this debate, it is very confusing, from reading your opening argument, it should simply be called "John Edwards is the progressive agent of change" for you mention Obama only once. There is one simple reason why John Edwards as much as he tries, cannot be the progressive agent of change. Too many republicans hate him. Personally I like him alot. Edwards is a Dem. candidate who lacks support from Rep. -NORMAL Obama is a Dem. candidate who has influential support from Rep. -DIFFERENT Edwards is white: -NORMAL Obama is black: -DIFFERENT Edwards's father was Christian. -NORMAL Obama's father was Muslim. -DIFFERENT Edwards is subconsciously aware of America today: -NORMAL Obama is subconsciously aware of America tomorrow. -DIFFERENT Those are the face values of each candidate in relation to normal and new, or change. John Edwards basis his plan of change around "two Americas". the poor America and the rich America. he basis his campaign around it. the truth is that it is not something to base a campaign around. there will always be poor people, there will always be mega rich people. YOU CAN'T fix that. It is actually Barack Obama who has the most simple plan to help the middle and lower class by taking away the cap on income tax. families are only taxed for their first 100,000$ made. only 6% of the population makes more than that. therefore by removing the cap, an certain percentage of lets say 8,000,000 dollars is taken at the same percentage of someone who makes 50,000 a year. by doing this, we could have national health care by 2012. The biggest difference is this, John Edwards is old school, Barack Obama is new school. both are pissed off about the way things are right now, but Edwards was trained in old politics and Obama wrote his own rules for politics.
Obama is the progressive agent of change, no John Edwards.

John Edwards is the change candidate of 2008. His positions on trade, on the American economy, and on the corruption and disconnect between Washington and the American people are right on the money. He is one of the few candidates who actually addresses the issue of poverty in the United States, and he does not address it like an abstract issue. To John Edwards, poverty is very real, and while the media and the GOP likes to poke at his house, his own personal success has not made him forget the struggles of others. Most polls indicate that the American public thinks more a long the lines, issue by issue, with someone like Dennis Kucinich, but candidates like him never get any traction. John Edwards on the other hand nearly won Iowa, and got another 17 percent in New Hampshire. His name is too large for major media to simply ignore him, though they do try. With a 70 page plan already composed and ready to build 'One America', Edwards has time and time again forced the hand of Obama and Clinton to present a plan to the American people. John Edwards took the lead in saying no to Fox News, and refusing to participate in their media events, and was then followed by the whole Democratic field. Truly progressive, John Edwards is the best hope to put someone in to the White House who is on the side of the American people, and is ready to fight for us.
Sex education in primary schools

It is a exciting having a debate... that's why I love this site lol Flaws in pro's case: [1] No method contraception is 100% reliable. However, male condoms are 98% effective, whilst female condoms are 95% effective. The contraceptive pill is 99% reliable. Contraceptive implants are 99% reliable. You could also use a condom and the pill together whilst having sexual intercourse, which makes it twice more reliable. Considering that contraception is so reliable. It is very unlikely that the 40% rise (and in areas where sex education has been specifically targeted) is to do with contraception being so unreliable. [2] Pro also states that another reason could be down to inexperienced teenagers. The whole point of sex education is to teach teenagers how to put a condom on. So, if more teenagers are struggling to put condoms on, that shows sex education is not doing it's job right and it is ineffective. Pro has shown this. Also, there are other methods of contraception, there isn't just a condom. I don't believe these two reasons is for the dramatic increase in teenage pregnancies in the last few years. Here are more of my points: [1] Sex education is also not right for the children ages. The images are so graphic for young children, and things are far too much. For example, 5-year-olds get taught about erections, masturbation, orgasms and prostitution. I'd hardly call that education children about contraception. In a nutshell it is teaching them how to do sex. They also tell 5-year-olds how their parents have sex. It is all in this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... It is too much too young. This sort of material is not suitable for 5-year-olds. [2] The UK also lacks the teachers with training to provide a good sex education lesson. The teachers who tend to teach the subject are ones that come from all sorts of subjects. And who are not specially trained in teaching sex education. Which also puts UK pupils at a disadvantage. [3] The UK should learn from other countries when it comes to sex education. Did you know that teenage pregnancies in Holland is one-fifth as high as the UK. The way they teach sex education is different to how it is taught in Britain. In the Netherlands, sex education is brought to pupils in the form of a relationship and not in the form of a biology lesson. If we took lessons from countries with a lower teenage pregnancy rate than here, we may see an improvement in this country. [4] Also, I can understand teaching pupils how to use contraception. But why is it necessary to teach children how to actually have sex. It is a natural thing. Humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Why do we suddenly need to get taught how to have sex. I'm in agreement with teaching pupils how to use contraception and (like the Netherlands) relationship advice. But, like the link I posted above, why that sort of content? Source: [1] http://www.independent.co.uk... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [3] http://www.nhs.uk... Thank you and I look forward to the next round!
Sex education in primary schools

Oh boy, im excited right now :P. I don't have good skill in debating, but well, here i goes: The evidence that Con gives shows a relation between Sexual Education and Premature Pregnacies. Its undeniable that the Pregnacies rates have increased, but it can be showed that Sexual Education is not the cause: Most of the teen pregnacies are unintented, but this can be explained by: A) Contraceptive not working: In some cases, contraception is used, but proves to be inadequate. Usually, unintented pregnacies are related to contraceptive method choice: In 2002, more than half of contraceptive users relied on methods with high failure rates under typical use: 31% used the pill, 18% the male condom and 5% the 3-month injectable.5 While with perfect use these methods are highly effective, 9% of pill users, 17% of condom users and 5% of injectable users will become pregnant during the first year of typical use. To make matters worse, about half of condom and injectable contraception users " and almost one-third of pill users " will discontinue within a year.[1] ; [2] ; [3] B)Inexperiences teenagers: Inexperienced adolescents may use condoms incorrectly, forget to take oral contraceptives, or fail to use the contraceptives they had previously chosen. This can be concieved due to the lack of understanding of how to use a contraceptive, or yet they don't use them. Why they don't use them can be grounded in the social scheme (social pressure; Prejudices; etc) "I don't think the method of throwing condoms and the pill at teenagers is a very effective way of tackling the problem of teenage pregnancies." Im agree with that point, i don't think that putting condoms on the market should fix everything, i think that explaining how the contraceptive works, how to use it and other things "may" do the job. [see A) and B)] Sources: [1] http://www.guttmacher.org... [2] http://www.contraceptivetechnology.com... [3] http://www.arhp.org... Well, that's the 2nd round here. Forgive my english.
Sex education in primary schools

Thank you for accepting. Also, I am relatively new to this site as well so don't worry! :) I'd like to start of by saying that most people defend sex education by saying that it reduces the rate of teenage pregnancies. I can produces evidence that this is not the case. It in fact INCREASES teenage pregnancies! A report called 'Sex education or indoctrination?' has said that teenage pregnancies has risen faster in areas where the government has targeted resources to reduce teenage pregnancies. The report is done by the Family Education Trust, which is an independent think tank. According to government statistics Cornwall, saw a 17 per cent rise in teenage pregnancies. Figures have also shown that teenage pregnancy rose by 40% in some parts of London. Teenage pregnancy rates are also the highest in Western Europe, despite this being a million pound scheme. My point being is that the main point of sex education is to obviously reduce teenage pregnancy. This has proven in effective. Also, we have spend millions on this scheme and it obviously is not working, so it would be illogical to carry on with this when it is clearly making the matter worse and adding fuel to the fire. I don't think the method of throwing condoms and the pill at teenagers is a very effective way of tackling the problem of teenage pregnancies. This seems to be giving the impression to teenagers that sex is okay, and to do it more! But at the end of the day you cannot expect teenagers to stop having sexual intercourse. The author of the report, Valerie Riches, a former social worker, said: "The Government's teenage pregnancy strategy is based on the premise that it is unrealistic to expect young people to abstain from sex." Also, with the increase in sexual intercourse, there is the inevitable chance of the increase in STI's/ STD's. There has been a 62% increase in the number of sexually transmitted diseases. Which is also a massive health risk. Sources: [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... I look forward to the next round!
Sex education in primary schools

Thank you in advancement to whoever accepts. There are rules my opponent and me must follow. 1) No swearing 2) No insulting 3) Always conduct yourself politely. 4) No forfeiting rounds if it can be help it - I want a debate. Round 4 - You will not produce any new arguments, it will be a closing round where you summarize your points and a closing statement to convince the voters. Definitions Primary school - The teaching of young pupils from the ages of 4 - 10. Sex education - Sex education is a broad term used to describe education about human sexual anatomy, sexual reproduction and sexual intercourse. Thank you and good luck!
Should you believe in miracles

Your point stating why a miracle should not be believed in since it requires no investigation or further research is wrong bc we are not stating that no research is taken prior to the conclusion of a miracle[RI]. If a person just says a miracle occurred without any investigation than yes they are ignorant, but if they do research and cannot conclude a specific reason as to why something happened than yes, one option to believe is a miracle.[Q]the point is that a Miracle is not supposed to be recreated, otherwise it would not make it a miracle. [S]Also a miracle does not occur the same way twice. [S]To say we shouldn't believe in miracles is saying we shouldn't have faith at all. [EM] Faith is what allows people to have hope and get through a tough day. [RI] Paul Gomberg states, "C might say to D, "to say you don't know, when you are presented with a clear case of God's grace, Is is to fail to honor God. It is sin" [S], because taking away someone's faith and hope is one of the worst things a person can do[q].
Should you believe in miracles

When you state that you are modest, yet you succumb things that don"t have evidence for to a miracle, you are not being modest [s]. Modesty provokes inquiry and investigations in order to find evidence to support your beliefs [q]. By stating that something is a miracle, there is no further investigation [q]. Scientists and doctors have a duty to find out what exactly happened, it is unjust for them to write it off as a miracle [ri]. Miracles are supported by testimony alone [q]. Besides testimony, there is not much evidence that miracles do exist [s]. Since humans are fallible, their testimony can be wrong or exaggerated [s]. David Hume thinks no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle therefore there is no accurate evidence to support that there is such a thing as miracles [mp]. Hume states "Always I reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates, then and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion." [s] It is not reasonable to believe that there is such a thing as miracles solely on testimony [ri]. People are prone to accept the unusual and incredible is because of a miracle [q]. Since there is no other evidence and you cannot recreate a miracle, you cannot believe in them [s].
Should you believe in miracles

When a person is modest then that person takes into consideration that he/she can be wrong or that they do not know everything[RI]. By you stating that there is no such things as miracles then you are not be modest at all[S]. We have made it clear that when something occurs without an evidence then it can be a miracle[Q]. We have never stated that everything that cannot be explained is a miracle, but that is an option[RE]. By you stating that there are no such things as miracles, after stating a modesty quote just makes your point contradict itself[S]. You are stating that we can never believe in miracles, yet you state that we need modesty[S]. Having modesty is being open to different views, opinions and beliefs[Q]. With the whole action following no evidence hurting someone is true, but a miracle doesn't lead to a person's action let alone one that will harm someone[EM]. I will not jump 60 feet over a volcano, hoping that a miracle will occur, but if I am being forced against my own will I would sure hope a miracle occurs in one way[RI]. Also, with the investigation of the person coming back to life, it is assumed that the doctors would do further investigation as to why he/she came back rather than right at that moment stating it is a miracle, otherwise that doctor would be ignorant[RE]. A miracle does not just come right away without any investigation, the conclusion of the miracle may occur after investigation has been done and there is no explanation as to why something has happened[Q].
Should you believe in miracles

It is Gomberg who states that the most important consideration when evaluating testimony is that of modesty.[s] He explains that when we acknowledge our ignorance, we make it possible to know more in the future.[s] Labeling something as a miracle, especially in the medical field, stunts our progress and even jeopardizes the lives of future patients who might benefit from the findings of further investigation.[ri] As you"ve stated yourself in the quote from Gomberg, miracles are not a part of science, therefore, claiming a miracle is not scientific, but simply a credulous belief.[ri] Miracles should not be entertained because it is not a properly grounded belief.[MP] There is always harm from belief that is not properly grounded because there are actions that follow based on that belief.[s] When we say we believe, we are stating a conclusion.[q] Therefore, no further investigation would be taken in your example of a person "coming back to life" and beneficial information for future medicine will be unfounded.[ri]
Should you believe in miracles

There is no explanation for a man coming back to life after 10 minutes of being dead, but it still happens [MP]. This has to do with medical investigating; they look for an answer and don't find one, so why shouldn't we assume that is a miracle [S]? In Miracles and Scientific Research by Paul Gomberg he states that "Hence it cannot include in science the idea of a miracle, which assumes the universe includes supernatural events, an assumption that is part of a religions tradition"[S]. A miracle is about having faith, there are times when we take chances with no evidence of yourself succeeding, but we have faith that we can, and just having faith isn't enough evidence for us to say that the reason we succeed [Q]. We see ourselves succeeding because we choose to believe in miracles [RE].