BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is hypocritical to believe the American Revolution was justified and the South's rebellion wasn't

It is obvious to any reasonable person who know's their American history properly that there was a rebellion in the 13 Colonies against London's authority in which both sides had patriotic convictions and grey priniciples. On one side there were the rebels, who despite causing their civilization to erupt into a violent civil war and stand up for their systems of slavery and apartheid that were being threatend by a strong Empire-wide abolishinest movement also had some good ideas as well which lead to the creation of one of the first fully democratic regimes with an avid reception of free religion, liberalism, rarely censored press, and advancement in civil and democratic rights(minus those for women and ethnic minorities). The Loyalists on the other hand wanted to preserve the general status quo, which included some positive effects like internal peace, defined Appalachian borders with the various Amerindian tribes, and progress towards racial equality (especially conpared to the American rebels) but also many negative things such as the continuation of an exclusionist legislature and a weaker constitution. In the end the rebels won and a managed to cast themselves as the "good guys" in most history books. Meanwhile, if one is to go four-score and seven years into the future, one observes another separatist movement shaking the North American continent. Again we a frusutrated collection of democratically elected regional legislatures (minus women and minorities, which I guess is standard for the day) who band together in hopes of establashing their own patriotic niche and independance in the new world, but are thwarted by the established auhtority's attempts to put unity ahead of democracy. Now my opponent, pray why Lincoln's war was justified, and George III's was not?
I (im_always_right) will lose this debate

Nope, she was wrong the whole time since burden of proof was never fulfilled. Extend everything from R2. "[. .. ]As it is impossible to see into the future, And it is also impossible to have "won" or "lost" a debate. org debate, And since no evidence has been provided by PRO to believe the resolution's premonition and therefore does not meet burden of proof, Im_always_right has not proven the resolution's prophecy and therefore loses the debate. "
I (im_always_right) will lose this debate

Let's break PRO's R2 into parts. My responses will pretty much be reiterations and longer versions of what I've already said in R1. "If I get more votes, at any one time, I lose for that time." > Based off of the definition of win/loss (and their derivations) for this debate, this statement is incorrect. If after this debate has finished my opponent accumulates more votes for any one time, then she will be "winning" (note that it is NOT "she will have won the debate", please see the * response). My opponent has not responded to this definition, so it flies clean. "However if I have less votes at any one time, I will win, because it is based on the title, which has everything to do with this debate." > Again, look to the definition of win/loss. If she has fewer votes during a period of time then she will be the "loser" of the debate until/if she gets more votes, at which point she will be the "winner" of the debate, until/if my vote count surpasses hers. * However since the voting period for a debate on debate.org doesn't end once it begins, it is impossible to say that there is ever a person that has "won" or "lost" the debate. They may be "winning" or "losing", but there is no definite conclusion one can reach. The resolution claims that my opponent will lose this debate in the end (The resolution interpretation was not responded to and therefore is extended.). This is impossible – there is no end. > PRO attempts to use the resolution to say that whenever they have less votes they have actually won and when they have more votes they have actually lost and try to fool us into thinking that this debate is a chicken/egg paradox, but all the resolution really does is attempt to predict the future. This was defined clearly in my R1: "This means that my opponent has made a premonition for the outcome of this debate, outcome being that she will be the one that ends up with the lesser amount of votes." Naturally, this means that she would have to prove to us that she ends up with the fewer amount of votes. She has not done so, and as we have seen, is an impossible task to complete. "That clearly means that I will lose in one way or another, meaning, I will lose. Thus I cannotconceivably win." >>> Thankfully, I am not one of those debaters that changes definitions every round. I have defined in my R1 how to tell which debater can be winning a debate: more votes. At this point, whether or not the prophecy turns out to be true does not matter. I have defined the resolution as well, so any attempts at trying to confuse everyone further – I'm sorry, any attempts to shift advocacy will fail epically. __________________ As it is impossible to see into the future, And it is also impossible to have "won" or "lost" a debate.org debate, And since no evidence has been provided by PRO to believe the resolution's premonition and therefore does not meet burden of proof, Im_always_right has not proven the resolution's prophecy and therefore loses the debate.
I (im_always_right) will lose this debate

I negate, that "I (im_always_right) will lose this debate". My opponent takes the liberty of assuming that the matter of winning or losing will be determined by the amount of votes we each accumulate (this is seen in the first argument), and since I don't disagree, that will be the definition for the round – whoever gets more votes "wins", has "won", and is the "winner", and whoever gets less votes "loses", has "lost", and is the "loser". There are more derivations on both of those words, but I'm not going to include every single one of them. I'll take the liberty of assuming that everyone will know a derivation of "win" or "lose" when they see one. With that definition down, let's go back and examine what the resolution really means. "I (im_always_right) will lose this debate" >>> This means that my opponent has made a premonition for the outcome of this debate, outcome being that she will be the one that ends up with the lesser amount of votes. PRO's case says three things. .. 1) If she wins this debate by getting more votes, then she loses. 2) If she forfeits, she loses the debate. 3) [[[[[If her arguments suck, then she loses] < that means she wins ] < that means she loses] < that means she wins, because of the resolution] < that means she loses ] . .. and everything in it is nontopical. We are NOT looking at whether the prediction TURNS OUT to be right or wrong in this debate (as that would be out of our power, we can't see into the future), NOR are we looking at the final accumulation of the debate's votes (as that would be impossible as well, not only because we can't see into the future but also because the voting on this site doesn't end), but rather, examining the truth of what PRO's position, or rather, the resolution, is claiming. This claim is a prediction, a prediction that PRO will lose. However, PRO's R1 does not argue nor give us evidence on why such a prediction would be true. The only things we see are conditions for after the debate has ended, and those don't pertain to what the resolution is claiming at all. Until PRO has shown us some evidence of such a premonition, perhaps a screenshot from the future, we cannot believe her due to burden of proof. Think of the resolution as a claim, such as "Invisible pink unicorns exist". If the instigator has made such a claim and fails to show as such, then you automatically vote for the contender, as the contender doesn't need to prove anything at all.
I (im_always_right) will lose this debate

if I win this debate, by getting more votes than my opponent I lose. If I lose this debate by forfeiting (Which I wont do, forfeits make me mad and in the famous words of puck:(\_/) I don't want the bunny to die!) ............................(o.o) ............................(> <) Or if I make a worse arguement, or make no sense at all, I will lose, therefore I will win, but by winning I will lose, according to the topic that means I win, which, by the same topic, means I lose. Therefore I lose, prove me wrong.
China could have won the Second Sino-Jap without US intervention.

Hello, I would like to invtie someone to come debate this. I'm actually just bored. Semi-trolling allowed, but keep it serious enough that it can be kept serious for voters.This is my 2nd debate, so feedback would be nice.Defenitions:China- The Republic of ChinaJapan- The Empire of JapanVictory- In this situation, driving off the Japanesse off of Chinese land.Intervention- direct interference by a country in another's affairs. 4 rounds, 1st round just includes introducing oneself, and some defenitions.2nd and 3rd round include establishing your arguments, and rebuttals.last round for conclusion.
China could have won the Second Sino-Jap without US intervention.

Thanks Crux. == Europe == I provided evidence that the USSR could not have won without the lend-lease program, which would not have existed if we were not helping the Chinese at all. The Nazi soldiers from the Western Front would have killed an additional 2 million Soviet soldiers. If the Nazis held out for long enough, they would have invented advanced fighter jets and missiles that could have won them the war easily. My opponent claims the US would have entered the war anyways. This is simply not true. FDR wanted to enter the war, but the US was extremely isolationist at the time. He couldn't get domestic support for liberating France until Pearl Harbor. == Winter Offensive == I provided evidence that neither the Communists or KMT wanted to fight the Japanese; they bothed hoped the other would do it. And they both wanted to save their strength to fight the other. My opponent drops my Loyd Eastman evidence which said that the Winter Offensive destroyed the KMT's confidence and "reconfirmed their prior reluctance to seriously engage the Japanese." They did not begin to seriously engage the Japanese again until the US entered the war. My opponent also doesn't answer my evidence that Japan took over all the important parts of China (the ports and highways) and that Japan destroyed ALL of China's production capacity so they were utterly reliant on the US for 100% of their military supplies. The US also trained their inexperienced fighters and taught them how to use artillery. My opponent repeats that gorilla tactics are important. Gorilla tactics are used to harass an occupying army. Gorilla tactics cannot win a war, by themselves. Otherwise, the French Resistance could have liberated France themselves. My opponent never quantifies how successful the gorilla tactics were. == Necessity of Survival == Again, the same argument applies to the French. In addition, morale among the Chinese was low because neither the KMT or Communists wanted to fully commit to fighting Japan. == Serious stuff == Burning bridges as an army retreats is a common tactic. This doesn't win wars. Japan was a MUCH wealthier and more industrialized nation than China, at this time. Japan could have easily outlasted China. Especially if Germany did a better job fighting the USSR. Japan held the most important parts of China. China had lost the wealthiest provinces, all the ports, railroads, and highways. China had all their production capacity destroyed. China was divided and afraid to attack the Japanese. They were screwed without us.
Employers Using Criminal Records as Background Checks

The fact is that you are around them everyday. You walk among them and you live among them. Most everyone has some issue or another that they are trying to shake, never judge for you will be judged. You are making a remark about people that is unfounded, do yourself a favor, take a poll, you'll find that a good majority of your network has been charged criminally. There are certain elements in this world that I agree with you that have no place. I do not wish to debate with you further SIMPLY because I believe that you are too young to have ANY substantial knowledge about anything other than academics, based on what I've read you should excel in any and all endeavors that you pursue. I didn't put it out there like that, I wasn't rude, I simply believe that we are not on equal footing. This debate was never a question, I wanted to see pros and cons, your pros have not been sufficient.
Employers Using Criminal Records as Background Checks

The fact of the matter is, that if I was an employer, or another employee, I wouldn't want someone who has a past history with a problem concerning this job to be around me, its unsafe and unhealthy. Furthermore, to say that you wish not to debate with me any further has nothing to do with this debate, if you have a personal problem with me you can put it either into the comments section or message me about it. To put something out like that shows a sign of weakness and a comparative lack of competence and intelligence.
Employers Using Criminal Records as Background Checks

The topic in question is "Should employers use criminal records in background checks". In the topic you did not specify what kind of criminal record was to be used. Furthermore, to use our previous debate in this is without question an unreasonable source of reasoning, especially when you are losing, but with that being all i will say about the previous debate. But to go on further, is it practical to let someone who has gotten a DUI or two be a taxi driver? Is it reasonable to let someone with DUI work at a liquor store?
Employers Using Criminal Records as Background Checks

it is for the safety of the community, state, and nation that criminal records are used in background checks. If a pedophile goes to jail for raping a kid, does it seem reasonable that if this person has all of the qualifications to be a teacher, that they should be hired as an elementary school teacher? If a drug user goes to jail for using prescription drugs, does it seem at all intelligent to let them have a job in a pharmacy? A person's criminal background should be taken into account when giving them a job.
The US is a Republic not a Democracy

Pro has defined democracy as a system of government in which the majority rules (which I interpret as exerts authority). I will show that the (simplified) American government fits Pro's definition of a democracy. Congressional Elections Because of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, Senators are popularly elected [1]. The House of Representatives are also elected by the people as seen in Article 1 of the Constitution, which also gives Congress lawmaking powers [2]. The Supreme Court ruled in US v. Ballin (1892) that a majority of a present quorum is enough to pass a bill [5]. Presidential Elections Presidents are elected through the Electoral College. Citizens vote in state elections that determine who the electors will vote for. Usually, the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state election gets all of that state's respective electoral votes. There are 538 electors, and a majority of 270 is needed to win the election [3]. If a majority is not reached, the House of Representatives will decide who becomes president out of the three candidates with the most electoral votes [4]. The President is given many powers by the Constitution, including command over the military and the ability to pardon [2]. Therefore, a majority holds authority both directly - with the passage of laws, popular elections of Congressmen, and Supreme Court Cases - and indirectly - by voting in state elections which determine who electors vote for, resulting in a President who acts according to the will of the majority. [1] https://www.senate.gov... [2] https://www.archives.gov... [3] https://www.archives.gov... [4] https://www.congress.gov... [5] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
The US is a Republic not a Democracy

The Pledge of Allegiance states "...and to the republic for which it stands...". Moreover we the people of the United States appoint officials, by voting for them, to vote on our behalf, which is the very definition of a republic. We the people of the United States do not vote on laws ourselves neither is this country a mob-rule state. Democracy is majority rules. What about the little guy? That is why we have a republic, so everyone has an equal say, by appointing officials to vote on our behalf, with exception of the President.
Iran has the right and should be allowed to produce nuclear weapons

Before I finish up my debate and summary, I just wanted to say it was nice debating with somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. I've debated others, who have come up with the most ridiculous evidence. And I'm glad that you cite your sources and such. I apologize for saying that Iran was not part of the UN. I honestly thought they werent. That was probably something I should have looked up. Now,Summary: Yes, I completely agree with you saying that Iran is a sovereign country, and should have their rights. But do I believe they should have the rights to develop and produce nuclear weaponry? No. You brought up in your summary the Cuban Missle Crisis, and the Cold War. Those were both legitimate arguments against my case. But, those were EXREMELY close calls. But the only reason the Cuban Missile Crisis didn't happen, was because of John F. Kennedy and Khrushchev coming to an agreement. Missiles for Missiles. The US took their missiles out of Turkey, so the Soviet Union took their missiles out of Cuba. I could easily argue the same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, lets take a look at my first argument. In it, I stated that nobody should have nuclear weapons. Clearly the Cubn Missile Crisis and the Cold War wouldn't be in the history books if there were no nuclear weapons to begin with. Also, 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki wouldn't have died on August 6th, 1945. Sure, the US would have definitely retaliated from the pearl harbor bombing. But not with nuclear DEVESTATION. Now, John F. Kennedy and Khrushchev stopped the CMC. Who's going to stop Iran from bombing somebody? I rest my case.It was good arguing with you.
Iran has the right and should be allowed to produce nuclear weapons

No problem! Yes, In my previous argument I stated that it is hypocritical for every other country to not let Iran produce nuclear weapons. But I also stated why I believe that they should NOT in the following sentence. My Point:Sure, any nation is capable of using nuclear arms to a negative consequence. And yes, the United States has done so already. But the thing is that Iran will not let any UN inspectors access to their facilities. As I said before. Because of the fact that Iran is not part of the UN, they are not patrolled by any other nation. They're already dangerous, as their enemy country is right next to them. And because of the fact that they aren't controlled, they could easily create as much nuclear weaponry as they want, unrestricted. Then if they feel the need, bomb Israel as a whole. And Israel is in the UN. SO GUESS WHAT THE UN WOULD DO. Bomb israel. I don't believe that Iran should have nuclear weapons for that reason, which I believe is highly likely.
Iran has the right and should be allowed to produce nuclear weapons

Thanks for the quick response!Con States: "You've got the United States, China, and other world superpowers with TONS of nuclear weapons. Therefore it is hypocritical for every other country to not let Iran produce nuclear weapons." I argue that very point and in favor of any sovereign nation (to include Iran) to have the same rights to develop weapons as any other. Counter-point to your Contention #1: I am not arguing on the morality of the use of nuclear weapons. I am simply arguing for the right to develop them. Rights are not denied based on possible bad future use. I could possibly use my gun to kill someone, but (in the United States), I have a right to own one.Counter-point to your Contention #2: Your last statement declares that in order to produce nuclear weapons, Iran would have to justify a reason. What entity is responsible for determining whether a nation’s needs justify their production? What right would said entity have over a sovereign state? Could a state be sovereign by definition, if it’s affairs could be tampered with by an unapproved outside force? My Point: Any nation is capable of using nuclear arms to a very negative consequence. In your point of view, the United States has done so already. So what justification does any entity (being represented by nations, and undoubtedly the United States) have in being the arbiter in a nation’s armament affairs? If a country uses nuclear weapons improperly, would they then lose their ‘right’ to develop them?
Iran has the right and should be allowed to produce nuclear weapons

Well I've got a few things to say about this topic. Side information:Let's look at it from a broader perspective. You've got the United States, China, and other world superpowers with TONS of nuclear weapons. Therefore it is hypocritical for every other country to not let Iran produce nuclear weapons. However, Iran has claimed that (since the beginning of its nuclear program) that it is developing nuclear power for energy use. Yet the country has refused UN inspectors access to its facilities, making it seem a little suspicious, don't you think? Contention 1:I don't believe that Iran should be able to produce any nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, I don't believe any country should be able too. They're the worst of a solution to any problem, and just make things worse. For example, when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sure, we were attacked first (Pearl Harbor), But that doesn't mean we have to go and obliterate two of Japans cities. What if Japan wanted to get us back? With the power they have now, they could easily destroy the White House, or any other big city in the United States. And then what would the United States do? We would bomb them back. And then they'd bomb us. And then we'd bomb them again, and there would be no more United States; and there would be no more Japan. In the end, what does that solve? Sure, it's a small possibility, but just an example to put things into perspective. We don't need nuclear weapons. Contention 2: Who would they use it against? If Iran's diplomats are trying for the production of nuclear weaponry, then they must be planning to use them. If anybody, they'd probably use it on Israel, or the United States. There's no way that the Iranian leaders are sitting there saying, 'Ooooh, I want some of those!' That's just ridiculous. If they want to produce nuclear weaponry, then they NEED a reason.