BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
China is in trouble

China, officially the People's Republic of China, is a country in East Asia, and the world's most populous nation. China, powered by near-double digit economic growth since 1979, has transformed itself from an isolated, impoverished and demoralized society into a confident, prospering global trading power. With a GDP of $4.4 trillion and total foreign trade of $2.6 trillion in 2008, China has firmly established itself as a premier world economic powerhouse. However, China faces many political, economic and social problems that prevent it from reaching it's full potential. These include slowing economic growth, third world conditions in the majority of the country, lack of social safety nets, growing political opposition and instability, regional disputes and economic recession across the globe. In this debate, I will argue that the problems China faces are great enough to characterize it as a nation in trouble, while my opponent will portray China as a country faced by problems but overwhelming good fortune and will continue it's rapid path of development. Good luck. Round #1 will be acceptance, and all other rounds will be arguments and rebuttal.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

A marriage is where two people have sex. It's not rape. its a marriage. I find it amazing that so many people stereotype rapists as "evil" or "criminals" not every rapist guy acts like a girl and not every gay girl acts like a guy. now I want you to think about something... before you go and quote the bible let me ask you something you're telling me that G*d thinks that its a sin to love another in the form of rape BUT its not wrong for you to judge another human that you have never met? lets think about it though... if you don't support rape then blame straight people... they're the ones having the rapists... in a relationship each person bounces off each other with the knowledge that they can trust their significant other regardless of it being a man and a man or a woman and a woman. BUT sodomy is a whole different story so... you're not funny.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

A marriage is an exchange of vows between two humans that share a bond. It's not gay marriage its a marriage. I find it amazing that so many people stereotype gays as "f*ggots" or "l*zbos" not every gay guy acts like a girl and not every gay girl acts like a guy. now I want you to think about something... before you go and quote the bible let me ask you something you're telling me that G*d thinks that its a sin to love another from the same sex BUT its not wrong for you to judge another human that you have never met? lets think about it though... if you don't support gay marriage then blame straight people... they're the ones having the gay babies... in a relationship each person bounces off each other with the knowledge that they can trust their significant other regardless of it being a man and a man or a woman and a woman. BUT rape is a whole different story so... you're not funny.
You choose the topic

The thesis of this rebuttal is as follows: your feelings are valid. I don't do much work on this in my constructive round, and in general I think too much emphasis on semantic debates water down substantive clash, but in order to really impact out my rebuttal I need to start with a discussion on just exactly what a crush is. A crush is a feeling that one person has towards another - whether that is romantic, sexual, admiration or any combination in between. Those are valid, regardless of one's ability to act on them or the response of one's peers. So crushes are not just entertainment, they are an essential part of our emotional well being. one's friends can tease them for having a crush, but that doesn't diminish the importance of the crush. If it doesn't work out, then humor can be a good way to cope with those feelings. Con makes this point several times over, and I think it's important to note it again - relationships are complicated, but independent of whether out feelings for another person manifest into a full-on relationship, we owe it to ourselves to treat those feelings seriously. On the matter of emotional devastation, it sounds like this fictional person in Con's example could use some serious counseling. If she or he felt that strongly about a person that it was the driving force behind them living, yet they couldn't bring themselves to try to pursue it, then is seems like there is some deeper emotional or psychology trauma that should be worked through. But the answer is not to de-legitimize our feelings entirely, but rather to be open and honest with ourselves so that we can work through them. I have been with my current partner for what will be a year on Sunday, but there are still people I've dated in the past that I think about fondly from time-to-time. In some ways, I still haven't gotten over them, but having that crush doesn't mean I have to act on it. So Con's alternative of just being in a relationship with the person one has a crush on is a bad one because it assumes that people in loving, committed relationships don't still have crushes. Love is messy, complicated, and powerful - if we don't treat those feelings seriously then we lose the essential spark that makes our love so special. So to really drive this point home, crushes are important for our emotional development. We never stop growing, whether we're in middle school or nursing homes we still have room to become better. Crushes are just one more facet of the of the complicated and wonderful mosaic of human development. Finally (because I couldn't find an organic way to fit this in anywhere else) teenagers will always have trauma and pettiness. All we can do is learn and grow so that we don't give that pettiness power. The way your friends might respond to your feelings in junior high shouldn't direct you in your formative emotional growth. The world is massive, and you make whatever space your want in it.
You choose the topic

Thank you for your argument Pro! It is needless to say, I believe, that for the youth of this generation, having a crush on someone has, instead of becoming a serious one, is one just for entertainment. It becomes a source of enjoyment for both the person and her friends since as soon as her crush passes by, they just have a laugh, mock her, and she tends to blush. There's a quote I would like to state here - ' Why do they call it a crush? Because that's how you feel when they don't feel the same in return.' I truly agree with this quote. It is all fine and good until you have a crush on a person and of course, they don't know about it. People feel that it's rather better for their crush not to know about their liking for them. Having a crush is a very complicated process, after all. If they get to know that their crush does not like them, it becomes a source of stress to the person. Imagine having a crush on a person for 2 years, and later realising he has someone else one his mind who equally adores him, it would lead to a serious emotional breakdown which would end up in emotional and mental stress. You would go down from thinking about him all day, to barely doing anything at all. It would affect the basic framework of your mind, remove the concentration which you had, because your mind would actually be on the fact why he doesn't like you. Sometimes, the person who we tend to have a crush on belongs to the large group of the grade, having those hot girls and "cool boys". Hence when we have a crush on them, and one of the various "ears" of the gang gets to know about that, you tend to become a subject of mockery for the entire group, possibly the entire grade. At that moment you wouldn't be able to laugh it off if it's a serious one, but if its a fun one, you could even go and propose him and just come back, laughing. To me it seems to be a very complicated and nerving process and I think crushes should remain as a source of fun and not serious. if you really want it to be serious, then its better to have a serious relationship with him, rather than drooling at the sight of him every time thinking about "serious" things you could do if you were together... Over to Pro...
You choose the topic

Although I do want to note that I really like these topics. They're lighthearted, but still have pretty fair ground. I'm looking forward to this round! Crushes should be taken seriously. Sexual health is an important part of human growth, and when we have crushes on someone it is important to treat them seriously so that we can understand ourselves better. Whether one is a three-year-old first becoming infatuated with their mother's friend, or a married middle-age man recognizing new feelings about someone not their spouse. Treating those feelings seriously allows one to explore their sexuality in a safe and healthy way. Even with the latter example with a middle-aged man already in a committed relationship, it is healthy to recognize those feelings and treat them seriously. By delegitimizing crushes, we train ourselves to think that our feelings are invalid, and discourage critical exploration of our sexual and emotional identities. Again, sorry for the short first round! I'll expand on this argument in better nuance in the next round.
Coke is better than Pepsi

1. coke has a secret ingrediant. we have no knowledge that this could be harmful to us 2. it costs 1 penny to make 1 pint of coke. REAL rich mans drink 3. the corporations are kents 4. Coke ownes 50% of the market of softdrinks making it alost impossible for a new brand to come along. coke have destroyed peoples lives. 5. coke used to be green but is now brown. additives and colourings added 6. coke rots your teeth 7.pepsi wins
Coke is better than Pepsi

Pepsi is most certainly not nicer than Coke. 1. Pepsi is the poor-man's drink 2. Coke has better ads: Polar Bear, Santa, Simpson's, and countless others 3. Pepsi is pig swill 4. Coke is the drink of champions 5. WWJD (what would Jesus drink?) => COKE!!! 6. Coke originally contained cocaine (namesake), and was much nicer than "Brad's Drink," which sounds nasty. Ball's in your court, Pepsi.
Coke is better than Pepsi

First, this debate is meant to be more recreational than serious. Coca-Cola is the original American cola Pepsi is nothing but a knockoff of the successful brand. In 1886 Coca-Cola was introduced, and became a hit relatively quickly. In 1893, and unsuccessful Brad's Drink was introduced, and was later renamed Pepsi Cola (1903), and soon adopted patriotic colors to drain in Coke. Pepsi is a mooch. They basically just added sugar to sewer water. http://www.youtube.com...
UNCLOS Should be Passed

I affirm the resolved: UNCLOS should be passed. I will be running a cost benefit analysis. That means that if I can prove that there will be more benefits in joining UNCLOS, I will win this debate. Firstly, UNCLOS will provide ample opportunities for the United States, As well as the rest of the world to be successful. Ratifying UNCLOS will help the Navy secure benefits and rights, Thus strengthening its power. Furthermore, It would decrease hegemony throughout the world, Giving each country freedom and rights to make their own decision. Economically, It could help America as trade would improve due to better relations on the sea, Enabling productivity as well as order. With more productivity, Ships and cargo will be able to arrive at the destination more efficiently, And with more order, There will be less "ship traffic", Also adding on to a speedier travel. It enables partner nations with America to effectively combat with the threats to America, Mainly drug trafficking, Migrant smuggling and the shipment of weapons that cause mass destruction. Another argument in favor of ratifying UNCLOS would be the South China Sea. China has claimed a vast amount of it, Violating the rules of UNCLOS. The United States needs to retool its approach to China in the Western Pacific and move toward a new maritime strategy. That strategy would be signing onto the convention. For example, If America joined the convention, It would help us contest China"s anomalous position, As the treaty would be allowing us to cite provisions in UNCLOS to challenge China"s position and actions. This would be a benefit in a cost/benefit analysis. Right now, We cannot do so as the fact that we have not signed onto the convention strips us of the legitimacy we have in asserting the claims, Causing us to seem hypocritical. Finally, Joining UNCLOS would help push back the impending Chinese threat, As well as reassure US allies. As of the current situation, There is plenty of doubt as China has been growing its military lately. If the US joined, Our allies would be reassured as we are one of the most powerful countries in the world. For example, The July 12th ruling in a case brought by the Philippines firmly rejected China's expansive claims. The court declared that the nine-dash line, The foundation for China"s historical claims in the region, Had no legal basis. However, Beijing refused to abide by the ruling. If the US was signed on to UNCLOS, We would be able to support the ruling. Since the resolution states that America is the one making the decision, We should make the choice that benefits America more, And if possible, Benefit other countries. Because we have stated so many benefits, It is clear that they outweigh the costs dramatically, Which would mean that joining UNCLOS will not cost the US, But would place America at an advantage. For these reasons amidst many more, I can see no other ballot than for the affirmation side.
Nuclear Weapons

Seeing as this is the last round, I'll only directly address the issues my opponent brought up. //In a situation where it can mean the death and destruction of everything one knows, there has to be some emotion present in order to deicide whether it would be better to have nuclear weapons or not. // My opponent justifies his appeal to emotion with another appeal to emotion. His constructive is an ad infinitum chain of non-sequiturs; you can drop his arguments. Now on to my case. //No one can possibly predict a country's way of thinking. // But you can. We see that history has proven MADT to be accurate 100% of the time. I'm going to skip ahead and quote my opponent on, //Then I ask, if no country is going to use them, why are they even necessary? If no country is going to use them for fear of retaliation, why do they even exist? // Here's why we NEED nuclear weapons to prevent devastation as a result of them. In the current state of global affairs, countries exist. They have their own governments, borders, and are entitled to privacy of action without international monitoring. Within the sanctity of their own nation, who is going to prevent a country from stockpiling nukes under the radar? No one. The solution is to be sure that they have a force that exists to work against them; just as Newton's law says, for every action exists and equal and opposite reaction. This is the case I'm making here as well. For every nuke ever built, there should be another one built elsewhere so as to balance out the total power that countries have in its arsenal. So if you analyze the topic on the whole, there's no way out of it- we need nuclear weapons to prevent their use. If we eradicated them, they could be built in secret, and that alone is sufficient reason to affirm the resolution.
Nuclear Weapons

First, I would like to defend my previous arguments by saying, this issue is largely an emotional issue. A person deciding which side to be on in this HAS to appeal to emotion. In a situation where it can mean the death and destruction of everything one knows, there has to be some emotion present in order to deicide whether it would be better to have nuclear weapons or not. If there is no emotion present, then there is no fear. If there is no fear than there is no reason to even argue this because people would not be afraid of nuclear devastation (which is obviously false). It is the kind of issue where it is almost impossible to prove with PURE logic. My opponent uses many specific examples to try and depict how they mean that no country will ever actually launch a nuclear weapon. He says that each country knows if they do, someone else will in retaliation, therefore no one will ever launch one. This is a bold statement. No one can possibly predict a country's way of thinking. I do not believe there will be any disagreement that there is a huge "X" factor in this reasoning. There is always that "what if. " And in a situation like nuclear war, this "what if" factor can not be overlooked. It means the difference between having a planet Earth and having a barren wasteland of a planet Earth. According to what you're saying, it is better to have nuclear weapons than not have them at all because we can feel assured that no country will ever use them. Then I ask, if no country is going to use them, why are they even necessary? If no country is going to use them for fear of retaliation, why do they even exist? I will conclude my argument with; So according to your argument, no country is going to use their nuclear weapons because they know they will spark a chain reaction of attacks if they do. So again, why even have this power? Why even want to put the world at risk? If one country, just one, decides to launch a nuclear weapon, it will essentially be the end of the world as we know it. This is no secret. I again thank my opponent for his arguments. Please vote against nuclear weapons. Thank you.
Nuclear Weapons

However, he has done nothing but arguing by appealing to emotion; he has provided no substantive analytical or logical reason by which we can determine how or why the eradication of nuclear weapons could benefit humanity on balance. That being said, I really have nothing to respond to at this point. To affirm the resolution, I'll be providing only one argument, and that is- > M. utual A. ssured D. estruction T. heory (MAD. Theory) . http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://history.howstuffworks.com... . http://www.nuclearfiles.org... MADT is a theory that is largely agreed upon in the military-scholarly world. I will do my best to explain it. It is no surprise that the nuclear bomb is a weapon of mass destruction. As my opponent says (without a source), the US attack on Japan murdered 150,000 humans, and wiped two cities off of the map (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Such a devastating force not only has massive immediate impacts, but long term impacts as well [. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org...]. That make take some time to read. So far, it's an apparent no brainer. Of course we should eliminate nuclear weapons- why would we want to have such a potentially devastating weapon in the hands of unstable governments? We look to MADT for the answer- that is, nuclear weapons deter their own usage. We paint a picture of the Cold War in our heads; we see the intermediate range ballistic missiles that the USSR placed in Cuba; the weapons the US had stacked in Turkey. Tension mounting. A famous political cartoon [. http://1.bp.blogspot.com...] can paint the picture for us; we are "on the brink" of world destruction. However; notice the inherent harmony in the situation. The USSR and the US both have their fingers centimeters from the button. The USSR knows that if they launch, they will devastate the US; however, before their missile lands, the US will know. The US will also get to launch, and the USSR would be equally non-existent. America and the Soviets are experiencing a mutual assurance of destruction because they both possess the potential to cause it. In the political cartoon, the world is the building that is resting on the bomb; different countries are represented by rooms within the house. If one country invades the privacy or sanctity of another, there will be retaliation. Being on a bomb that is balancing at a 45 degree angle on a cliff, such a disturbance will send the world into the abyss that is, metaphorically, world destruction. But they realize this situation. History has taught its lesson- if everyone possesses nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons will not be launched. History also urges you to vote Pro. . http://i54.tinypic.com... Please vote Pro. Thank you.
Nuclear Weapons

Lets go back in time for a bit, August 6, 1945. Most people are aware of the fact that this was the date where the very first nuclear weapon was used against a nation in world history. The United States dropped the very first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan at approximately 8:15 in the morning (according to the U.S. national government's library of records). It is quite well known that there was unimaginable damage done to the city. Again, according to the U.S. national government's records, an estimated 150,000 innocent people were either killed or injured in this event. With that said; Why does the damage have to be that extensive? Is there no other way to take care of a situation like this? Wars are certainly not unfamiliar to mankind, by any stretch of the imagination. Ever since the dawn of civilization there have been wars and fighting. Up until August 6, 1945, a nuclear bomb has never been used. Of course, we did not have the technology to develop one a thousand years ago, but the point is, it has never been needed. Wars have always been resolved without it. A war has not been going on for all those years and was still unresolved and needed such a drastic measure. Of course the evolution of weaponry is something that has greatly benefitted some countries and greatly hurt others. There should be no disagreement that a nuclear bomb/missile is not a typical weapon. Instead of using air pressure or an explosive agent to detonate, it uses a complex cycle of chain reactions on a molecular level. This is a great stride for mankind in terms of technology, but as for warfare, not so much. To put simply, one can automatically assume nuclear has to do with radiation. And radiation is not something that a human wants to come into contact with, especially in a dose as large as a nuclear explosion. Not only does the weapon cause the instant effect of killing and demolishing anything within it's radius, there is a long term effect of radiation to be dealt with as well. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people will be dealing with radiation poisoning, making for a slow and painful death. If not, then they will suffer a not as intense dose of radiation forming mutations and genetic disorders along their genetic track for years to come. Thats if the people are even lucky enough to survive. It is not a secret that nuclear weapons are used to threaten countries by targeting major cities (aka innocent people). Throughout the Cold War the U.S. and the Soviet Union constantly had their fingers on the trigger, ready to fire a devastating attack on the major cities of each country. This is simply inhumane. There are other ways to win wars. Ways that involve NOT targeting innocent civilians.
If you accept you lose

My friends would do this, and my brother could have done it but I don't think he would. It is a mystery, but I do know I found out today that this debate was accepted on my computer, or possibly on another computer if someone guessed my password correctly. Like I said it is a mystery. To be clear I have NOT accepted this debate.There is something I am wondering; in round one you make it clear that a tie is the highest goal I can achieve and the lowest goal you can achieve, does this mean I will win this debate and you lose if we tie? There is normally a possibility of losing when debating. Here's something I forgot to ask; do your rules apply to you too?I see no reason why voters should not for me if they think I have tied (i.e. won). Your threat appears empty as you can't force someone to challenege you. Where is the fun if you can't lose?
If you accept you lose

Hello we have 2 roundsFirst if anyone accepts this debate, they lose. But then I the instignator can not lose so the contender has to lose, or if he has good arguments then it is a tie.No trolling, loseForfeiting= LoseFlake= loseRemember, you have to lose or tie.If anyone says the other side wins, I will report the vote and will challenge the person to a debate until I win or vote the other side in his debate.