BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All Else Being the Same, a Moral Position in War is Untenable

This debate is over. CON has broken a clear round #1 stipulation that was also cited to him in the prior round:"I remind CON that per round #1, perfect ISR is in effect:"For the purposes of this debate, both nations have perfect ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) and are able to locate every military unit and every civilian at all times for both sides. Therefore, neither side can say "I didn't know!" if civilians die." CON thinks that it's possible to find imperfections in perfect ISR, how by digging tunnels somehow he renders his populace invisible. He calls this "problems with ...perfect ISR". No such problems exists. As CON is not playing by the rules laid out and his entire case is based upon this faulty understanding of a clear round #1 stipulation, there is no point in continuing this debate. All of his arguments, moves, etc, are invalid, and he has not addressed anything I've said or done. Even if he dug tunnels, there's nothing stopping NationB from dealing with them, especially since NationB can see all of them before they encroach into NationB territory (perfect ISR).Although I am fully in my right to ask for conduct against CON, I will simply chalk this up to a misunderstanding. CON has unintentionally forfeited this debate by breaking the rules and is no longer abiding by the parameters he accepted, i.e. he is sidetracking this debate by arguing over irrelevant scenarios that were clearly prohibited in round #1.I will more than likely repost this resolution again for a different opponent. I thank CON for his time in this matter, but rules are rules.
All Else Being the Same, a Moral Position in War is Untenable

Quickly, very busy at the moment: - NationA is very well prepared for such scenario, for it is very well aware of the leverage NationB has on it. - NationA declare Urgency, such that: > Every civilian & militant of every city is inserted into bankers invisible to NationB. > The bankers are a anti-nuclear web of cities under the surface that are fully operational, will sufficient nuclear supply for energy. > The bankers contain fully equipped & operational military bases. - NationA will then declare its Surrender to NationB, in due time (at mid night), with the following promises: > NationA shall not order the killing of any citizen. > NationA puts immediately into effect death penalty to anyone who kills a citizen. > NationA agrees to hand over to NationB any militant who infringes these decrees. - In the mean time, before mid-night: > NationA, having built tunnels under NationB too, drafts & deploys most of its Military resources under the surface throughout NationB. > NationA launches the already set traps all over its territory, in case NationB dares to invade. - NationA makes a surprise attack on NationB, I repeat it’s a surprise attack, & thus they weren’t aware of it, since they are all under the surface: > NationA bombards from down the surface all the borders of the 32 territory boxes of NationB, & thus hinders al possible ground based military movements from one box to another. > NationA launches from all these borders a mass deep sleep inducing gas all over NationB’s territory. > NationA then orders the capture of all the people in command of NationB, some will be. > NationA orders the capture of all militants in sight, even at the cost of life. - NationA’s elite force goes rogue, & kills all NationB’s commanding personnel, & thus deserves the death penalty for their action by the decree of NationA. - At midnight, NationA announces their surrender, & cuts all communications with NationB.
I need three debates

Wilhelm II or William II (German: Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert von Preu"en; English: Frederick William Victor Albert of Prussia; 27 January 1859 " 4 June 1941) was the last German Emperor (Kaiser) and King of Prussia, ruling the German Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia from 15 June 1888 to 9 November 1918. He was the eldest grandchild of the British Queen Victoria and related to many monarchs and princes of Europe. Crowned in 1888, he dismissed the Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, in 1890 and launched Germany on a bellicose "New Course" in foreign affairs that culminated in his support for Austria-Hungary in the crisis of July 1914 that led in a matter of days to the First World War. Bombastic and impetuous, he sometimes made tactless pronouncements on sensitive topics without consulting his ministers, culminating in a disastrous Daily Telegraph interview in 1908 that cost him most of his influence.[1] His leading generals, Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff, dictated policy during the First World War with little regard for the civilian government. An ineffective war-time leader, he lost the support of the army, abdicated in November 1918, and fled to exile in the Netherlands.
Latter-day Saints are Christian.

Your argument is entirely about semantics, because you are arguing the meaning of a word in common usage. Your argument hinges on the notion that you are privy to the TRUE meaning of the word "christianity", while people who useit in a way you do not agree with are using it in a FALSE and completely unfounded manner. Without using the holy bible or the book of mormon (I am an atheist, and do not accept these books as a form of truthproof), please prove that one particular meaning is Truth, and the next a falsehood or misconception. Language is merely a system of sounds and symbols that human beings utilize to communicate ideas. The word "christianity", as it is written or spoken, brings forth a set of ideas in those who read or hear it. In the average citizen of the United States, the word primarily provokes images of Evangelicals, traditional Protestantism, and Catholicism... all of which share a common book and belief system. In a very, very small number of people, the definition includes faiths such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists. Given that the majority of English speakers do not place the LDS in their definition of christianity- instead requiring more specific language to evoke those images- I would argue that the "true" definition (that which the majority of people understand it to be) is the one you are arguing against. The LDS, in the minds of Americans, are simply too unique to be considered "christian". This definition of "christianity", from the Princeton Dictionary, reflects this idea: 1) a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior 2) Christendom: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia); "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom" While you may argue the second definition includes Mormonism, the first would not. In the minds of most Americans, Christians are members of the system of Christianity, which according to the above definition, makes no mention of the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, the following definition of Mormonism from the Princeton Dictionary reveals American thought on the matter: 1) The doctrines and practices of the Mormon Church based on the Book of Mormon 2) Mormonism comprises the religious, institutional, and cultural elements of the early Latter Day Saint movement and its modern denominations deriving from the leadership of Brigham Young and/or the religious innovations introduced by founder Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1840s Nauvoo, Illinois. Now, even these respectful definitions make no mention of Christ or Christianity. Yes, that may reveal an ingrained bias against the LDS church. Yes, that may not seem fair from your point of view. Yes, it is true that Mormons respect the teachings of Jesus Christ. Still, I would argue that words have no "true" meaning, that they merely communicate ideas, and that expecting the word "christian" to include the LDS is idealistic and wishful in nature.
Latter-day Saints are Christian.

Your argument further validates my point that people who don't believe LDS are Christian use their own definition. The true definition is a follower of Jesus Christ. Christian is derived from Christ. Christians are people whose acts and behaviors emulate Jesus Christ. Christian doesn't mean people who believe in a certain afterlife. It is important that we go off the true definition of Christian. If were going off false definitions of Christian; I could just say I am a Christian because I worship a water bottle. I will layout some examples of how LDS are more Christian then mainstream, using the Bible. Many places in the New Testament you can read about missionaries. Why would there be no missionaries in the true Christian church? Also LDS believe all will be resurrected, but placed in different degrees of heaven depending on worthiness. It speaks of that in the following scriptures. 2 Cor 12:12 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven." 1 Cor 15 40:41 40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. John 14 2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. As far as LDS having unique things every Christian religion has unique things. Catholics have the Pope. Protestant believe in salvation by grace alone. Those things are never mentioned in the bible. I have never read anything in the bible about a pope. I have read about prophets and apostles which LDS have. I also have read many times in the bible about work and grace will get you into heaven. Not that grace is sufficient alone. Furthermore, I am not using semantics. I am using the true definition of Christian as Christ would want it. Also I am going off the definition that all people without a slant for their religion would use for Christian.
Latter-day Saints are Christian.

Your argument presumes that people who say LDS are not "christian" share your basic understanding of the word. In all probability, this is not the case. The majority of christians in this country, no matter the denomination, share a common book (The Holy Bible), a common history (European Catholicism and Lutherian protestantism), and a basic understanding of the meaning of Christ's teachings and expectations for the afterlife. To these people, the word "christianity", as they use it, describes this common, specific belief system. What you are attempting to do is subvert the obvious meaning of the word as it is understood by the majority of Americans, broaden it to the point where it lacks all resemblance to its intended meaning, and hold these people accountable to your definition rather than their own. Would the average American use the word "christian" to describe gnosticism? No. Would they use it to describe Jehovah's Witnesses, or the followers of Josï¿½ Luis de Jesï¿½s Miranda? No. As with the Latter Day Saints, the average American recognizes the tangential nature of these religious movements by setting them apart from mainstream christianity by placing them in a unique category. The LDS have an extra book, they have distinct beliefs about family, social orde and the afterlife. They wear unique garments, and practice unique rituals. These differences do not fit the normative Christianity schema of the average American, and as a result, their definition of "christianity" does not include the Mormon church. You are arguing semantics, and if you're going to do so, you have to acknowledge the meaning of the word as it is used by the population you are observing.
Latter-day Saints are Christian.

The definition of a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. People who say Latter-day Saints aren't Christian use their own definition. Saying a Latter-day Saint isn't Christian falls under many different fallacies. Namely the irrelevant conclusion fallacy. People believe just because they say Latter-day Saints aren't Christian or because their church says it; the statement must be true. Lets now look at facts to backup the claim that we are followers of Jesus Christ/Christian. Our church is called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Hence Jesus Christ within the name. The Book of Mormon another testament of Jesus Christ mentions Jesus Christ over eighty one times. We close our prayers and talks in the name of Jesus Christ. We are counseled to read the bible. That should start it off!
The Catholic Religion, Evolution, And the Big Bang Theory are All True

The Big Bang Theory does have evidence to support it's truth. The light from other galaxies as observed on Earth, is more towards the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum than it should be, corresponding to it's mass, if the galaxy was stationary relative to Earth. Due to the Doppler Effect, this proves that galaxies are moving away, which is what the Big Bang Theory proposes. Also, there is cosmic microwave background radiation going in all directions in space, which is the remains of the energy released by the Big Bang. http://www.bbc.co.uk... In addition, I believe my statements are not forced, but may appear to be, because of the complexity of considering all variables when interpreting the Bible. Also, my opponent has said " Moreover, if my opponents claim that 'day' is a metaphorical word in the bible then the whole bible itself is rendered void." To clear up any misunderstanding, when I said "The Bible says that the world was formed in seven days, but this definition of 'day' is referring to 'a specified time or period'," I meant that that definition only applied to Genesis 1, in the Bible.
The Catholic Religion, Evolution, And the Big Bang Theory are All True

My opponent has taken a theoretical tether than factual stance. This in turn is compelling me to adapt the view of Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis who would simply ask the question " where you there?" Where evidence for some scientific theses exists, such as the finding of Ramapithecus skulls by Louis and Mary Leaky, one may find no reason to dismiss the statements as they are backed by archaeological evidence. The Bing Bang theory however, is a controversial theory which up to this day remains a theory because no evidence to back it up had been found. Furthermore, one is able to easily notice that the forced coincidence of religious and scientific facts by my opponent is rather an act of guesswork and mild intuition. What my opponent had done is trying to bridge gaps between three theories that are not liable to co-exist. Moreover, if my opponents claim that "day" is a metaphorical word in the bible then the whole bible itself is rendered void. Reason being periods of times are continually mentioned in the bible. We are unable to accept the bible'a description of Jesus spending forty days in the desert, resurrecting after three days, Lazarus being dead for four days, the trip to Mount Sinai taking three days or any other discrepancy that contains time because perhaps a day might be a second, an hour, a year, a decade, a century or a millennium.
The Catholic Religion, Evolution, And the Big Bang Theory are All True

It is a void insinuation to assume that different explanations for the same phenomena or occupancy are true. The theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory may both be regarded as true as one may claim that the earth was created by the Big Bang theory and man later came to adapt to the environment through the theory of evolution. However, the catholic religion is unable to co-exist with both statements or beliefs as it can be seen that the catholic religion directly contradicts both statements. In this scenario, the theses lie parallel to each other hence they cannot all be regarded as true.
Make a better torture than me.

I tie his arms and legs to the ground. I lay him flat on the floor in the position of a cross, I wake him up by kicking him in the groins. I then inject the virus, Ebola, into his neck. After cutting his eyelids by stabbing through it with a pencil, I start dripping boiling hot water into his eyes, slowly. I let it continue to drip as I get a clamp to his penis and slowly pull it out. After removing his tongue from his mouth with a hook piercing, I slice up the tongue and mix it with the penis, his tears, and ammonia and shove it down his throat. I spend the rest of the night peeling off his skin with a nail clipper. I prepare a tub of hot water and dump him in without his outer layer of skin. I place a lid over the tub with only his head sticking out. Boiling steam rises through the cracks of the lid. I splash buckets full of honey over his head. Hours then pass as colossal numbers of bees and wasps swarm his entire head. After the bees and the wasps scatter off, I tie his hands and legs to a wooden plank that is suspended in the air so that he is facing the ground. A bamboo shoot that is still growing will take a few days to grow through the lower part of his stomach. I flip him over so that he faces the sky again. I put a spike trap under his head, so whenever he puts his head back, it would inflict pain upon the back of his head. So he must look forward to see his body. I proceed to put a see-through container filled with rats and a hot light-bulb on top. The heat of the light bulb will cause the rats to dig down into his stomach. I tie his arms and legs each to a car. I put swords through his arms, legs, and abdomen. Then. at the same time, each of the cars will go at three miles per hour as to slowly tear the arms and legs away from the body. The final step is hang him by the neck suspended in the air with a the engine of an airplane below. He watches as I toss his arms and legs into the shredder. I slowly lower him into the plane's engine.
On Balance, Revenge is Morally Justifiable

This is one of those slap on the head moments of rme LeonPikinito.....look since this is your first time debating Im sure you wont be penalized this time. But when someone has this in their intro: "This debate is impossible to accept doing so at this time is a forfieture of the match.".....That usually means "Hey guys, dont accept because I want to pick the person who debates this topic...anndd if you do accept without my permission you loose automatically. Why do you lose automatically just because they said? it is becasue when you enter any match the first round contain the TOA or Terms Of Agreement which are binding and lay the framework for the rest of the bebate.....again, you are all good, its your first round and its my fault for not having an unaceptable round however lets get down to BUSThings to know: in the last speech, you make No new arguments, you simply restate arguments already made. All the other speeches, except the 1st are usually just acceptance speeches. Now, Im gona make my case. please dont forfeit on me Lol. Yes, instead of that lets have a great round? Let's begin:CaseRights Every human being deserves the right to be protected and have their rights protected. Violating someone rights or hurting them ethically automatically is a forfeiture of their own rights meaning that you have the right to vengeance unless the law will carry out your vengeance in the form of ‘Justice’. This alone warrants that vengeance is acceptable, as people need to protect their rights. On to you…
Should Parents spy on their Children

Rules: 1 - No bad language 2 - Sources are ok , but don't use wikipedia 3 - No forfeiting rounds 4 - Structure : R1 - Pro Presents opening arguments R2 - The both of us present arguments R3 - Con presents final argument / Pro ASKS QUESTIONS to con (Maximum 5 questions) R4 - Con Responds to the questions and ASKS QUESTIONS to Pro / Pro replies These are the rules, good luck to the contender, you may argument right away, as said in rule 4
Should India go to War with Pakistan

As the whole world knows that Pakistan is a major exporter of terrorism, as they show to the world that their economy and country is stable but its not true. But all that doesn't matters, the only thing that matters to the whole world is their hands tied with the terrorism and their peoples way back idealogies and thinking's. Pakistan never messes with any other country but their satanic believes of jihad are full filled by export of terrorism, but they always mess with India in front of whole world and show the world that this conflict is since a long time so it wont end but India never showed any aggression to them.Every day there is a violation of cease fire by the Pakistan army on the LOC (LINE OF CONTROL) of India and Pakistan. Every terrorist violent activity is happened in India such as parliament attack Bombay blasts and 26 11 every other terrorists activities in India were planned in Pakistan and their masterminds were in Pakistan. And don't forget it has has a weapon of mass distruction with a such a democracy involved in terrorism, it wont be wrong if we compare Pakistan with a country like North Korea. India is fed up of every days cease fire violations done by Pakistan and terrosist infiltration. In January Pakistan Special forces with some fidien mujahidin came to Indian terrotry and killed 3 Indian soldiers with behead to of them then like the same they voilated the cease fire, Indian army repulsed it but from its terrotry not like pakistan. In Pakistan the leaders of some terrorists group and Pakistan Secret agency ISI announced that any men who brings an Indian soldiers beheaded head will be praised and giving 5 lakh rupees, this information was been giving by Indian intellegence RAW http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com... . This month in August the same Pakistan Special forces group with fidien mujahidins terrorist came under Indian terrotry and attacked amushed an Indian bunker killing 5 Indian soldiers and 1 injured, then there have been more thn 45 cease fire vioation by the Pakistan army in 10 days of this month on the INDO-PAK BORDER at the LOC (LINE OF CONTROL) and the heavy crossfire is still going on http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should India go to War with Pakistan

You talk about America bombing Iraq during the gulf war. only because Iraq invaded Kuwait and that is where we get our oil from times have changed listen to the people in the comments war is bad war has solved many social problems has well. but at what cost. the war you speak of was decades ago times have changed. I may not be able to change your mind but I want you to ask yourself this. If India and Pakistan did go to war, what would you lose, what would your neighbor's lose, and what would your country lose.
Should India go to War with Pakistan

MAAAAAAAAA DEAR FRIEND If America was against terrorism then why did it held Arial bombing on Iraq major cities during war as knowing that there wold be civilians in the those cities, if you don't know it was a direct war with Iraq, Libiya and Syria doesn't has a terror problem it just has has a civil war then why you all are interfering that and giving military support to the any of the part, its never about terrorism for you all. But India is always with you all to fight against terrorism, but we cant let some other country invade on our soil, we cant loose our men we cant have more everyday crossfire and violation of cease fire. Why cant we do the same to them, but if we do it, it would be war then. MA DEAR FRIEND I STILL SAY YOU "WAR IN NOT THE SOLUTION OF EVERY PROBLEM BUT SOMETIMES WAR IS THE ONLY SOLUTION OF EVERY PROBLEM".