BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should we remake state controlled militia in the U.S.A

In light of PROs absence, I will only outline my argument in brief.Posse Comitatus was enacted as a response to the Reconstruction Era following the American Civil War. It sought to end the common abuses that came inevitably with the imposition of a police state, placed under the heavy boot of constant martial law. [1]One of the many dangers of allowing a military to enforce civilian laws is the strict chain of military command; the military is by necessity not a democratic institution. The very concept of a chain of command is to limit the number of important opinions and decision makers within an organization. At its core, this is the opposite of democracy, which seeks to extend the right of rule over to an entire population. A comprehensive list of the abuses that military rule inflicted upon the South during Reconstruction would likely be much more than is warranted here, in what seems a light look at the subject. Instead, we can evidence how well-liked the military was by how eager the affected areas were to be rid of it. In 1877, the Republican nominee for President, Rutherford B Hayes, (the Republicans were the 'liberal' Party at the time, and represented the Union) lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J Tilden of New York. The margin was 165 electoral votes for Hayes against 184 for Tilden, with 20 votes outstanding. Although Sam Tilden's margin of victory was wide enough to assure victory, the Reconstruction South was willing to trade the electoral votes needed for Hayes to claim the White House in return for a withdrawal of federal troops. Following this, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed, cementing the compromise into settled law. I argue that Posse Comitatus should be retained, since our nation seemed to greatly desire it at the time that it was implemented. I suspect that they should know; so I defer to their judgement in the matter. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should we remake state controlled militia in the U.S.A

It is not a subject that has been over-discussed. As I understand it, PRO is arguing that we should develop state militaries, which could help maintain martial control of the population in the event of political or social unease. I ask for clarification here, since such state militaries already exist. These militaries are regulated by the National Guard Bureau, and are under the command of each state"s governor. [1] If this is what was being proposed, then I move that we dismiss that aspect of the conversation as moot. It is also proposed that America militarize its legislative system, and remove "Posse Comitatus" restrictions on the use of the military in civilian affairs. ("The state's could also use the militia to do policing and security work. ")I will argue that separating the heavy hand of the military from our civilian affairs is a good idea, and that Posse Comitatus should be retained in the United States. I look forward to the opening round of arguments. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should we remake state controlled militia in the U.S.A

This may be my first debate on this site but I hope I do this right. As the topic says I support the idea of state controlled militia because of political uneasiness in the U.S.A . If the each state had it own militia then the threat from the unknowns of the governments intention. Also if each state had its own militia then the government wouldn't have to spend so much money on the defense budget. The state's could also use the militia to do policing and security work.
Resolved: Hitler is Worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize

This debate is part of the DDO Noob Tier Tournament. Please don't message me anymore for requestsBoP is on me to demonstrate that Adolf Hitler is worthy of a posthumous Nobel Peace Prize. Quick and easy debate!4,000 Words, 72 hours.Round 1: Acceptance & RulesRound 2: Arguments & RebuttalsRound 3: Arguments & RebuttalRound 4: Closing Rebuttals (no new arguments/brand new rebuttals)No semantics.Good Luck!
kids should get paid for doing chores

Thank you for adding more arguments."When kids get a job they will have to work for money so when you pay your kids a certain amount of money a week like 5 dollars depending on what they do for chores."Unfortunatley, I do not understand what you said there. You provided no valid reason after 'so.' It is true that when they grow up, they will get a job. But here's the problem. As I said before, kids get greedy with allowance. Therefore, they will get greedy with their jobs. That leads to getting fired. It may be a bit extreme of an example, but it has probably happened with overly-sensitive kids before."So it will make kids greedy but that can be good. The kids will want to do more chores so things will get done a lot faster."In the time being, it can be good. But in the future, it can be horrific. Also, children would not know how to handly their time well. If they do too many chores for the sake of money, they may not get tgheir homework done. It also makes bad moral values because, as you said, kids would be working for the sole acquisition of money.Thank you for this debate!Best Regards,D.J
kids should get paid for doing chores

Thanks for the debate topic! "Kids need motovation. " This statement, alone, acts like children need motivation to do something. While this is true, one should not need motivation to help their own family, as helping the family should be your motivation and reward alone. Kids would then start demanding more money because they are not 'motivated' enough. It would just be one of the errors of the parents' way. Since this was your only argument, I will turn to mine rather fast. Please, if you can, give me more to refute in the next argument, as I like to refute a lot. Thank you! For my first argument, I will turn to the message it sends. As we all know, in childhood, children learn how to do things such as walk and talk. Later in their childhood, they learn how to behave and the rules of live. If we pay them for doing chores, then it will make them greedy and send them the wrong message. That message would be, "do something for me and you will get paid. " While that will cover most circumstances later in life, the ones it does not cover will bite them in the butt. Like, for instance, someone drops a wallet. The child who was paid to do his chores all of his life takes five bucks from the wallet and returns it to the man who dropped it. Do we really want out kids doing this, and learning these life lessons? I think not. Maybe you think differently. Paying children to do your work will also make them have a bad attitude in the future. It will make them lazy, as they will think that they can pay something for anything and would willingly do it. But this is not the case. Children need to learn that they can not pay people to do things, but rather have to do at least something themselves. This may be extreme, but it actually could happen. I bet there are some pretty moderate cases out there. For my last argument today, I will point out that, like a normal worker, they all always looking for a raise. But the thing is that kids want a bigger raise more often. If you make them work for free, then they will not usually want a raise. If you pay them, they will never be satisfied. Trust me, I used to be a kid. A very greedy one, also. So just trust me on this one. In conclusion, my first arguments were based on futures and attiktudes and how they would be changed. I also refuted pro's only argument. On to you!
A federal government mandate making it illegal to pump your own gas would improve the economy

Even though this isn't directly related to the resolution, I will once again refute Pro's statements about money saved from properly capped gas caps and properly inflated tires. Pro stated this resolution would create 600,000 new jobs, at a salary of $20,000 per year, for a total cost of $12 billion. Pro stated that money saved by having properly inflated tires would be $6 billion from increased MPG, and $4 billion not spent on replacing tires. Before we continue, I must state that this is $6 billion less spent on gasoline($6 billion less in revenue for gas stations) and $4 billion less spent on new tires($4 billion less in revenue for tire companies). No new dollars or new demand have been created. Price lost to improperly seated gas caps has no basis. That is a $10 billion shift in the economy, but it's the same money, just going to different places.
A federal government mandate making it illegal to pump your own gas would improve the economy

"My argument rest solely on the fact that gas attendants periodically checking proper tire inflation and properly screwing on gas caps saves more money through increase fell economy then it costs to hire those gas attendants." Again, nothing in the mandate to make it illegal to pump your own gas specifically states that all attendants will check tire pressures. Also, I have shown the information about properly seated gas-caps to be completely unfounded, so that argument should not be made unless proper sources can be identified.I also reaffirm that any money 'saved' by decreasing tire wear is money that isn't spent in the tire industry, directly affecting that industry by the same amount."If the government were to mandate that it is illegal too pump your own gas and hat gas attendants periodical check your tire inflation" Pro is attempting to change the resolution. No rebuttal needed. Even if we take Pro's arguments about saving money on MPGs(which reduces the amount of money spent in the fuel sector) as being $6 billion, and saving money on tires(which reduces the amount of money spent in the tire sector) as being $4 billion, then there would still be a $2 billion deficit to pay for the salaries of the gas attendants. In other words, we would be siphoning $10 billion from the fuel and tire industries to pay for these new jobs, and still have a deficit.I re-state my assertion that a federal mandate making it illegal to pump your own gas wouldn't improve the economy. It wouldn't create any new demand. All it would do would take $12 billion that consumers would normally spend in other sectors and move it to the fuel industry sector.I await any arguments from Pro that are directly related to the resolution.
A federal government mandate making it illegal to pump your own gas would improve the economy

My argument rest solely on the fact that gas attendants periodically checking proper tire inflation and properly screwing on gas caps saves more money through increase fell economy then it costs to hire those gas attendants. If the government were to mandate that it is illegal too pump your own gas and hat gas attendants periodical check your tire inflation and are properly trained then it would actually result in consumers saving more money even after paying for the costs of hiring those gas attendants.
On the balance of probability, Jesus faked his own crucifixion, resurrection and ascension

According to the Bible, Noah died aged 950 yet Jesus died when he was about 30. Because it is so improbable that God would let a mere mortal live for the best part of a millennium and yet allow his own son to die so young, we have to consider the possibility that Jesus faked his own crucifixion, resurrection and ascension and that, in fact, he lived for many more years, and may even be walking among us today. Motives --------- 1. Jesus was a Jew and helping the poor and needy would not have been a big money-spinner - he would have made much more money if he concentrated all his efforts on his furniture business. 2. Jesus was held up as a figure of divine respectability and, as such, his leisure activities would have been very restricted, and he may have thought to himself "I've been on this planet for thirty years now and I'm still a virgin. I'm desperate to get my end away but if I'm caught in a knocking shop giving some dirty slapper a good seeing to, my reputation will be ruined. Plus it would be nice to go out and get drunk and have a laugh once in a while like other men my age do." 3. He may well have got fed up with helping the poor and needy – they say people get more right-wing as they get older and he may have thought "people should be more self-reliant instead of always expecting me to help them out when they are in difficulty." Method -------- If Jesus could walk on water and feed the five thousand he could easily stage the whole Easter thing. Then he could simply have assumed a new identity so he could enjoy the pleasures of sleeping with loose women, getting drunk, gambling and all the other things he couldn't do when he was a prophet. Therefore, on the balance of probability, we must conclude that Jesus faked his own crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. Thank you. Source: http://www.biblegateway.com...
Going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb will be beneficial to the human race.

My opponent appears to be confused as to what his stance is supposed to be. He begins by saying "I will be arguing as pro for this debate" in his Round 2 speech, and goes on to give reasons why the invention of the atomic bomb was beneficial when it was, which is what I am supposed to be trying to prove. My opponent's job in this debate is to be arguing why going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb would be beneficial, and I am supposed to be arguing why it would not be beneficial.I make the following arguments:Even if we were to go back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb, the atomic bomb would be invented anyways, just potentially at a later date. If we were to stop the atomic bomb's inventor from inventing it at the exact moment he did, for all we know, that man could just as easily invent it a week later.Secondly, and this is a very well touched-upon aspect of time travel, stopping the invention of the atomic bomb would theoretically cause paradoxical effects[1]. If we were to stop the invention of the atomic bomb, then the atomic bomb never would have been invented at that moment in time and there would be no reason to return to that time to stop the invention, therefore the atomic bomb would still be invented. This creates a closed loop and paradox, which, in theory, could lead to any kind of disaster to time and our world. Therefore, by attempting to get rid of the atomic bomb, we are essentially created a larger problem.Since going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb doesn't stop the atomic bomb from appearing in society, and also creates the possibility of paradox, going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb would not be beneficial to the human race.[1] http://abyss.uoregon.edu...;
Going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb will be beneficial to the human race.

Ah, I actually meant that I will be arguing as pro for this debate, sorry for my trivial errors as this is my first time debating online. First of all, thank you Brian for accepting my debate. Moving on, if any of us were to go back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb, there might or would be adverse effects associated to it. In 1934 the idea of chain reaction via neutron was proposed by Leï¿½ Szilï¿½rd, who patented the idea of the atomic bomb. The patent was transferred in secret to Britain's Navy in 1936. In a very real sense, Szilï¿½rd was the father of the atomic bomb academically. [1] Unfortunately the atomic bomb was bound to occur at some point, even if we've managed to go miraculously go back in time to stop Leo' Szilï¿½rd from coming up with the idea. Much of the fundamental theory already existed then and the invention of the atomic bomb was just a matter of time before it happened. At that time, the bomb was high on the agenda for America and Britain mainly because of the fact that Germany was already researching this idea and this gave American and British scientists impetus to build a fully fledged nuclear weapon before them. Eventually the Manhattan Project was formed which brought together top scientists around the world including exiles from Europe to make this a reality, funded heavily both the American and British government. The Soviet Union was kept in the dark about this but unfortunately, there were numerous people involved with the project that volunteered to spy for them, most notably being Klaus Fuchs. This gave fresh motivation for the Russians to also invent an atomic bomb which eventually led to the proliferation of nuclear weapons on both sides. As it happens the bomb was not used to launch unilateral strikes on the USSR but instead was simply used as a balance to prevent a supposed Soviet ground threat to Western Europe. One might wish that the bomb was invented a few months later so as to prevent its use against Japan (which may or may not have saved lives). However the bomb being invented by a relatively responsible power is a good thing. The scary prospect would be if the bomb had not been invented when it was yet a rogue state invents it then there is no deterrence to prevent them using it. Ultimately the scientific know how and ability was around - preventing invention from occurring at some point over the last 66 years would have be impossible. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb will be beneficial to the human race.

I accept my opponent's challenge and look forward to a good debate. I would like to begin by clarifying the definition of "beneficial" as "conducive to personal or social well-being"[1]. As Con, I must show that going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb would in fact not improve our personal or social well-being. I look forward to my opponent's case in the next round. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
God is defined throughout History as being the Mechanics of Reality

Zeromeansnothing, here, has armed me with an arsenal. His attempts at debate format were entirely to his own detriment, as he had not attained such a format. In fact He did not even: respond to my points; or dispute the validity of my arguments regarding his previous argument - indicating that I landed some solid points. He goes on to ask question after question because he lacks content to contribute, cannot perceive the context and content of the debate (indicating that his opposition to it is arrogance, and not founded on substance.). He refused to acknowledge I addressed his pervious assertions and did not go back to them, to suggest I was wrong, ill-conceived or mistaken. But instead, said this ~ "You describe a God here that is self aware in some way, ie has a directed consciousness. Do you say this because that is the sort of God you want or because you see it's/his will evolving??" God being all mechanics of reality and the substances as well as that without substance is Naturally Unified as a whole in a Balance. This balance is directly aware of all components therein, and has a union with each in some way. That awareness of itself, however Potentially perceived as ABIOTIC, is via an atheistic approach no less biotic than human's. Which are simply constructs within reality, which are driven by abiotic substance. So he presents absolutely nothing, and in fact demonstrates incompetence regarding his ability to stipulate over the subject matter. He asks, "How can I see Go as being personable.", and the answer is simply. I'm in the palm of his hand. Get it. I am rude when confronted with... well bigotry, BUT I am formal, and I maintain my cool, and never let emotions intercede with my ability to contribute to a debate, discussion or contemplation.
God is defined throughout History as being the Mechanics of Reality

Thank You for your attempt at clarity. You are a Christian of some sort, believing in a personable God. How did you come to the conclusion that God is in any way personable??? Are you working backwards from Jesus, or what?? This appears 'nonsensical' and 'unsubstantiated' to me and is a huge leap across the chasm of faith from talking about God as the mechanics of reality. You say: 'I am describing eh Person of God, who is so limitless in his nature and secret ways that Only his Nature and Secret ways can know Him for his supreme excellence and not merely As such. ' You describe a God here that is self aware in some way, ie has a directed consciousness. Do you say this because that is the sort of God you want or because you see it's/his will evolving?? In my atheistic realm I just see God as was, as is, and as will be. When I look at God in this manner I am not presumptions enough to suggest a development or an emergence of any sort. I can only personalize God within an act of worship for convenience rather than from the standpoint of perceived insight. I can talk of Mother Earth or the Man in the Moon or of Divine Luck or something like that but not in any real way. I repeat the question. 'How do you know so much about God'?
God is defined throughout History as being the Mechanics of Reality

My beef with atheism is that is subliminally, passively and actively promotes the perspectives of doushabgs, criminals, corrupt politicians, perverts and social injustice. Where as theism doesn't - Only the atheists hiding in the congregation have ever contributed these characteristics to a religion - and thus the religion remains pure, and the atheist takes the full blunt force of the blow. Secondly, It is equally Atheistic to reject God and to challenge the definition of God (note I did not say, "my" here as though I am supporting dogmatic false believers.) as both are a Lack of Faith in THE God. A faith in some god, or "a" God, is not anything but Lack of Faith in God. Agnosism, deism and otherwise is only atheism at it's root. 3.) The ethics and justice of God can be determined through scientific evaluation of our social sciences, history, laws of physics and reasoning ~ seeing as God does not Change, and you must accept him, you work With not around the parameters you Have. You do not make them up, you rationally approach your reality expecting nothing to materialize there. And working with a formula which is not subject to change if ANY new element presents itself for observation. I am describing Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Greek, Norse and Egyptian Myth, Sikhism, and all other variants of Monotheistic and Henotheistic religions known to date. I am describing eh Person of God, who is so limitless in his nature and secret ways that Only his Nature and Secret ways can know Him for his supreme excellence and not merely As such. That Nature is the Light of the World, the Son of God whom all things are through and returning to, Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God (whom is also substance and that which has not.). thank you.
God is defined throughout History as being the Mechanics of Reality

'Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist' deity='a god or goddess' I do not know what your beef is with atheism? Which is worse to you , a person who rejects Gods as a rule of thumb or a person who challenges your definition of God with a conflicting version of God. Explain yourself here. There are many of your sentences that I would be in broad agreement with. This is easy to do because if we start from the point (which you have) that God is super magnanimous , then it automatically follows that all matters will be resolved within it. Simply put here, How do you know so much about God and how did you decipher his ethics and justice. What are you describing???