BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US is justified in preempting the spread of nuclear arms.

Justified means “having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.” the sense of the resolution is that the US may be justified in choosing to intervene, including the use of military force, to prevent nuclear arms from being developed or sold to certain nations. The resolution does not imply a requirement to intervene in every case, but that the option is open. The negation of the resolution is that the US is in no case justified in intervening to slow or prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. For example, the resolution is negated then there is no grounds for the US to interfere with Iran's push to obtain nuclear weapons, either through sanctions or military intervention. The present debate is not confined to Iran, but rather deals with policy in general. Preemption means “the action of preempting or forestalling, esp. of making a preemptive attack.” The word was chosen to include the possibility of military force. Current U.S. policy is to preempt the spread of nuclear arms. The first round is for acceptance, definitions, and clarification only. The Pro case will be presented at the start of Round 2. DDO site rules apply to this debate. [1. http://www.debate.org...] The first round is for acceptance only. All arguments and source citations must be made within the character limits of the debate. All words not specifically defined are defined by the ordinary dictionary definition that best fits the context. No new arguments may be made by Con in the last round of the debate, because Pro has no debate round left to rebut them. This debate is the fourth round of ClassicRobert's Gauntlet Tournament. [2. http://www.debate.org... ] I welcome my opponent to the arena. [crowd roars]
The States are Sovereign. That's why they are called States.

I can see what you are getting at here but let me explain my main position here and you have said several times. The whole idea of the American government is that it is a Democracy. The people are the ones who give authority to the government. The idea you are getting at is that the enigma of the States controls the Federal but the point is that the State itself does not, the people do. The State government and Federal government have the same amounts of power because the people decided it to be so and give them that power and we continue to do so. As this is the case the idea of the State itself having more power is incorrect. More correctly is that the people of America have the power. This is the distinction that makes us unique and why we have gone so long without the usual total overthrow of government like other countries. The State has no power over the Federal. You, me, and all U.S. citizens do(that is if you are a citizen. If not, sorry for assuming). Let me finish with this. Think about how we got to the point where we believe the government has the power over the people and why. For some reason, people have less and less belief in their power to change this country. The fact of the matter is, the government is all for show. They cannot exist without the people. Period. End of story. No mas. It is when the people realize this that there have been rebellions against unlawful government and if you look at our current and past administration, then you know we are well on our way. Just food for thought.
The States are Sovereign. That's why they are called States.

When the people vote on a law in Congress, through their representatives, they're not voting as Americans. They're voting as Alaskans, New Yorkers, Californians, Texans, etc. Basically with each law that is proposed in Congress it is each State that votes whether or not to allow it to pass or fail. I never said representatives represented the state government. The 13th amendment was an amendment proposed, passed, and ratified by all the states in the union. The Federal government didn't say that slavery is now unconstitutional and abolished, the states did. 'The power given to the federal government gives it enough to have power over the states". <--- where did the federal government get this power? It never had it originally. Who authorized the federal government to have this power? Who signed this power into law in the Constitution? Most importantly, whoever did authorize this power do they have the authority to take it back from the federal government? The states, or more correctly the people of each individual state, gave the federal government this power. If the states were not sovereign to begin with the federal government would've just automatically had this power but this isn't the case. The states have power over the federal government because the federal government has only power given to it from the states. Sure the states could have said you are the federal government and you have authority over us, but is that not an authority over the federal government?
The States are Sovereign. That's why they are called States.

The laws granted to the Federal Government by the means of our representatives are granted by the representatives. While the representatives may be from a particular state they are there to represent the people of the state. That may sound redundant but let me explain. The representative is there as just that, a representative. He represents the people, not the state government. That means that while state government has influence, they have no actual say in the creation of Federal Law. What you say next about how states and Federal is true and false. This is not the only way the Constitution restricts the states. The constitution is supposed to be the main guidelines for everyone in the government and for the people. It says, in the most general idea, what you should do, should not do, and what you have the right to. It does not say that whatever the Federal cannot do goes for you too. Its for everyone. Adhering to the constitution is something that we all have to do. The Supreme Court can call any case on anyone, Federal, State, or Domestic. Whether something is Constitutional was the basis of why we added the 13th Amendment that says that slavery is wrong and unconstitutional. Slavery was a state law that we as a whole decided should not be constitutional. This is interesting in this way. The power given to the Federal government gives it enough to have power over the states. The states have power over federal because they run on a domestic level and so create all the more finite laws. The whole debates with Articles of Federation and then the Constitution ended mainly in compromise and checks+balances. Every part of the government is limited in some way and dominates in another. This was the beauty of American Democracy. There is no one with power over the other because in one way or another they have some power over you.
The States are Sovereign. That's why they are called States.

All laws granted to the Federal Government, by the means of our representatives, are granted from the States. The US Constitution restricts the Federal Government only because each State has their own Constitution. The Constitution of Alaska, my State, says what the State Government can and cannot do. Same as the US Constitution and the Federal Government. The only way the US Constitution restrains the States is in the same way is constrains the Federal Government. IE - If the Federal Government cannot abridge free speech, neither can the States. If the Federal Government cannot take life, liberty, or property without a trial, neither can the States. The States, however, are not restricted by the US Constitution when it comes to State laws and Regulations. Ex - States force people to buy car insurance to operate a vehicle, the Federal Government does not. The Federal Government has to justify all new laws and prove they adhere to the US Constitution. The States do not. The Tenth Amendment was written long before the Civil War. It was the blatant disregard of the Tenth Amendment that as one of the main contributing factors for the War. The problem is that each State is not equal because each State is different. This is what Thomas Jefferson was talking about. Each State has its own cultures, preferences, faults, strengths, and ideas. Because of the differences between the States, not one city (DC) could possibly know whats best. That's why DC and Federal Government were created to represent the Union on the world scale and not to dictate what happens domestically. During the creation of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution there was of course debates and arguments. The Federalists who wanted total central government, and the anti-federalists who feared and despised central government. What matters in the end is what the Constitution actually says. No where does it say the Federal Government run healthcare. No where does it say the Federal Government regulate the environment. But it does say that the any power NOT granted to the Federal Government is reserved to the States. It proves who is indeed in control.
The States are Sovereign. That's why they are called States.

To start, let me say where the federal government gets power. Us. We vote them in and say here is the power. Now to your statements: 1.) That is true that the states are required for a federal government to exist. As for the Articles of Confederation, they have little use today because they were abolished and replaced with the Constitution. As for whether or not they would give it up, they were actually ready to do so. They wanted to make George Washington the King of America. He declined and suggested a presidency which then turned into arguments about how to balance the government which ended with making it how it is today. 2.) This is true and untrue. It limits the Federal AND State government. Not just the Federal. The point was to give more power to the people and less to the government in general. 3.) This is how they balanced the system. When the Union had won the Civil War the South was afraid of retribution from the Federal Government. The fear resulted in there being checks in balances between the two governing bodies. The point here being, there is no sovereignty because everyone is equal with everyone. 4.) As for Thomas Jefferson, he was in favor of more power to the states unlike Alexander Hamilton who believed in more power to the Federal Government. This is political opinion and so is the opinion of a man, although a very extraordinary man.
The States are Sovereign. That's why they are called States.

Welcome, and thank you for joining. We all can agree that the federal government has authority. But where did it get such power? The federal government didn't always exist. The States (13) were actually here first. These States, with their individual sovereignty, created the Constituon, and Federal Government. Is this not a representation of their sovereignty? I believe it is, and for these reasons: 1) Without the States, there never would have been a Federal Government. These 13 States fought a war for secession to become sovereign. Once victorious, they created the Articles of Confederation which reinforced their sovereignty. As we all know, to work effectively together the states needed a stronger central government. They had just won their sovereignty, do we expect to believe they would give it up after less than 20 years? 2) The Constitution limits the Federal Government; not the States. Each of the first 10 Amendments lists what the Federal Government CANNOT do. It cannot abridge free speech. Infringe on right to bear arms. House soldiers in citizens homes. Search unreasonably. Etc. If the Federal Government was indeed in absolute control, why does the Constitution restrict it and not it's "subordinates" (States)? 3) The tenth amendment states that any power not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the States. Meaning the Federal Government can only do what the States say it can do. Is that not a level of sovereignty? 4) Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say : "The extent of our country was so great, and its former division into distinct States so established, that we thought it better to confederate as to foreign affairs only. Every State retained its self-government in domestic matters, as better qualified to direct them to the good and satisfaction of their citizens, than a general government so distant from its remoter citizens and so little familiar with the local peculiarities of the different parts." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:483
The States are Sovereign. That's why they are called States.

To start, I am glad to see new people joining and trying this out. As for how this usually works, is that you would pick a side and send out the challenge and someone, like me, would accept to debate you from the other perspective. This is more of a question and so I will treat it like one. Here we go: The states are not sovereign but are independent of each other. Let me clarify. A state can make legislature based on the wants of people within that state. The way they are not sovereign is that they all answer to the Federal Government. Federal Legislature trumps state legislature but Federal does not get to decide the smaller matters of state. For example, the Federal Government has decided that marijuana is illegal. This, however, was decided after certain states had already legalized it. So, these particular states have a unique position. They do not have to change their stance so by state law it is legal but if you are caught by Federal Government it is illegal. Now the states which have not made it legal, cannot because of the Federal Law. The States are independent of each other, work separately, but still have to follow the direction of the Federal.
The States are Sovereign. That's why they are called States.

Here is my first argument again: On July 4 1776, Thirteen Colonies declared Sovereign Statehood and broke away from their oppressive government. Shortly after winning their war for secession they enacted the Articles of Confederation which, not only reinforced their Individual Sovereignty, prevented the creation of another oppressive Central Government. Over the following short years it became known to all States that in order to work together more efficiently, a more powerful Central Government was needed. And on June 21, 1788 the US Constitution was ratified by all current States and became the new Law of the Land for the US. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the US Constitution created a newer, stronger, more powerful, and (most importantly) more efficient Central Government. But did this new Constitution mean that the still newly formed States are no longer sovereign? Is the US one nation, or the Union of 50 Sovereign Nations? Debate Topic: Are the States today still sovereign whether or not it is enforced or believed? Rules: This is my first debate on Debate.org - Quite frankly I'm just experimenting to see how this works. As for the rules I have 1 and 1 only: Be Respectful. Not because simply because this is a debate to which all opinions must be respected, but because we are all adults and must act in such ways.
Socialism is better than capitalism

I will argue that socialism is better ideologically, and actually, while con will prove that capitalism is better than socialism, in the regards previously mentioned. This is meant to be a straight forward fundamental political debate. Rules of conduct1.No talking of religion in the debate.2.No examples without a cited source.3.No rambling, to express personal views, only facts, and political philosophy.Socialism is defined as: an economic system characterised by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[1]This does not include Leninism, Marxism, Maoism, or any other version of communism. This is a debate on socialism.Rounds1.Acceptance, and further definitions. That means that con must furnish his/her own definition of capitalism.2.Opening statements.3.Rebuttals.4.Conclusions.Note:I have limited the text to 4,000 characters.I look forward to an enlightening debate.Works Cited[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: God Exists

My opponent has not sought to prove the existence of God in any manner, instead making irrelevant kritiks on how our understanding of the universe is not complete. Yes, it is not complete. That does not prove the existence of God in any manner nor does it show that God's existence is more likely. The BoP is on Pro, not Con. Pro is committing the fallacy of negative proof. You must show that God is more likely to exist physically, not just show how IF God exists, what his characteristics would be. "I'm alive thanks to God."You have to prove this. "Perhaps its not Gods existance we should question but our understanding of the universe."Perhaps, but this still qualifies as a kritik. REASONS FOR VICTORY1. Pro did not present any arguments for the existence of God. 2. Pro did not refute any of my arguments. 3. Pro used a nihilist kritik to attack the arguments, violating the rules. 4. Pro did not fulfill their BoP, instead shifting the BoP without any arguments.5. Pro had many S&G mistakes, e.g. spelling "existence" as "existance". 6. Pro did not use any sources. Give me a 7-point victory. Vote Con. Pro must waive the next round by simply typing "round waived".
Resolved: God Exists

!! ! A bit presumptuous of you. I asked a question in the last round which you did not answer. Probably bacause the answer is obvious. The answer is NO! Man can not claim to fully understand the universe. Much less God. We have heard the arguments why he's existsnce is impossible et nausium. But your logic is flawed because your knowledge is limited. I will give you one axample. In your example of Occams Razor you put 2 examples before us. You forget to divide the first example by random probability. So the first example would be more like A * 10 billion trillion etc etc. Example 2 would be A * 1 God * (possibilty that god exists). Now once again let me point out, my argument is not about the creation or existance of the universe but only the odds of life existing. All things being equal from the time of creation/big bang. There are only 2 possibilities. Design or random. What are the chances we would be alive for option 1. 100%. What are the chances we would be alive in option 2? Much less. That I believe satisfies BOP. Now as for Gods attributes. Perfect. Omnicient. Omnipotent. Gobbldygook. These are words. Words created by us to define concepts. Well here's a word. Love. Can anyone define love? I love coffee. I love my children. does it have the same meaning? Does the meaning vary from person to person? What constitutes love? Concepts are not easy to explain but I will try with my limited understanding. God is a creature of which no greater can be imagined. Therefore perfect. I think its good to be alive and I'm alive thanks to god. Therefore benevolent. God can destroy the univerese at will. Therefore omnipotent Sentient? that's obvious. As well as knowing all things that can be known. But even God has limits. Many things are possible to god that are impossible to us but some things are impossible. As for the object of faith, we are all limited by our understanding so we give form to god as we are able. Be it God, Allah,Jah etc God is a concept that we try to grasp. Until we can grasp God we cant argue his attributes or prove them. Although by our understanding of the universe God can not exist we can't argue that without him we would have to be very very very very * a trillion lucky to exist. Perhaps its not Gods existance we should question but our understanding of the universe.
Resolved: God Exists

Pro has neither defended their arguments nor have they refuted mine. This is a critique of the topic. The BoP is on Pro to prove that it is likely that God exists. Pro is merely rephrasing the teleological arguments without responding to my refutation of it. God, as stated in the definition, is to be considered the creator and ruler of the UNIVERSE. Pro has not fulfilled their BoP. Even if such a being exists, why does he need to be omnipotent, omniscient, et cetera? The odds on God existing are less; I clearly responded to this in the last round via. the calculations of Roger Penrose, and by the zero-energy universe hypothesis. I extend all my arguments. The resolution remains negated. Pro has not fulfilled the rules/definitions, has not defended their arguments and has not responded to mine. "Put aside your pride and arrogance. " - this can be interpreted as an ad hominem attack.
Resolved: God Exists

Are you claiming that our kniwledge of the universe is complete? That everything we believe impossible to us is indeed impossible? That our grasp of reality is so complete we can define God? Lol the earth is flat..... The smarter we get, the more we realise we do not know. I propse that God exists outside our realm of existence and has created little devices for observation purposes. Lets for arguments sake call them souls. They have no physical attributes and therefore no effect on our realm. But they do allow god to be omnipresent. Furthermore I was not talking about creation and its cause. I was referring to the earth existing and able to support life. To call the possibilty unlikely is like comparing finding a needle in a heystack to finding one particular grain of sand in a desert. The possibilty that everything happened and is still happening exactly the way it needs to for us to exist is 1 in 1000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 another 47 000's. I may be out by a couple of 000's. Think about that.... put aside your scientific beliefs as you know our understanding is limited. Put aside your preconceptions and bias. Put aside your pride and arrogance. Look at the scale of the universe and realise how insignificant you are. Without a creator our chance of being here is so small its almost impossible. But with a creator its not only possible but inevitable. In itself that is no argument. But honesly ask yourself, what are the odds God exists? What are the odds he doesn't? If you give the odds of god existing less than 1 in 10 to the power 283 then on BOP we are damn lucky to be here. I for one don't believe in luck. Do you?