BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest

I'd like to apologize for my brief comments in the previous arguments, I was sick and unable to post. That being said, I will summarize my arguments in this final stage. 1) The expansion of the conflict in Afghanistan is a financial burden that the United States should not undertake. The United States is heavily in debt and is running a large budget deficit. Expanding the war in Afghanistan is not the way to bring financial stability back to the United States. One could argue that this expansion of troops in Afghanistan is not a significant enough cost to have any impact on the deficit, but the sending of thousands more troops does not come cheap. This is a cost that needs to be included in any calculus in deciding whether the President's plan for adding more troops to Afghanistan is a good one 2) Slippery Slope. Afghanistan is a messy conflict for the United States and it's allies. President Obama has clearly identified Afghanistan as a place where his policies will differ from that of former President Bush. Yet increased troop commitment makes his planned withdrawal harder, not easier. If the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan is the President's overall goal and he has made this overture several times - there needs to be a winding down of the Afghanistan mission not an increase in the mission. This is a slippery slope that could easily be fallen down. 3) No new changes. The Afghanistan plan that is proposed by President Obama does not include any radical changes to the plan that has been in place for almost ten years. This plan has been a failure. Afghanistan is not a functioning democracy and the Taliban forces still harass American troops across the country. The populace is becoming tired of having what they see as invaders in their lands for a significant length of time with no apparent improvements. The President's plan, more or less, is a continuation of the previous plans that have proved to be ineffective in a country that is the size of France and is showing no signs of being transitioned into a country that can exist without US troops in the country. 4) Afghanistan is a lost cause. As much as it pains me to say this, I feel that Afghanistan is a lost cause unless something radical is undertaken. American troops have been in the country for nine years and we are no closer to establishing Afghanistan as a functional nation state. Maybe if there was a more aggressive approach to nation building then this whole situation would be moot. Yet there are still weekly attacks on American solders and there was massive violence during the Afghan election. These are not the hallmarks of a stable country and if it cannot be brought about in nine years of having US troops in the country I highly doubt that adding some more troops will magically cure the myriad problems within Afghanistan
President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest

In my opponents last speech he stated that the war is a risk that will add economic hardship to the united states. Even though i agree with my opponent that it will had more to the economy i would like to state that the protection of the American people should be valued first and the economy second. Now from this we should spend and send money to our money on our military and stop wasting countless american dollars on useless things, which would help the economy. Now im not saying that we should only put the war first im just saying that the economy can be fixed by other means and we need to spend money to protect us. Next he stated that this is a plan that adds nothing but more troops to the situation. But again if you looked to my case and my arguments i clearly state what we are doing which will in turn help the United States because not only are we trying to eliminate threats but we are also setting up an environment in which our leaders can go to sleep to at night. He then said that this a conflict that will not resolve the situation in afghanistan btu overall you can see that it will with my evidence and my clear logic. Next he stated that i have done nothing to prove that things are changing in afghanistan but my refute to this is that the reason why i havent is because in the past 8 years we have clearly not had a goal and we didn't achive anything. Now with this plan and through the evidence i have shown we can clearly see that changes will happen and we will be a better and safer United States. Lastly he sated that this a mistake President Obama should not undertake but clearly we can see it is. Yes it's not perfect but any plan isn't. We need to see that this is a step in the right direction. Voters I would like to say that overall we can see that President Obamas plan is in the united states because it is a step in the right direction and it is going to and trying to solve the most major problems that we have in our current war in Afghanistan. Next we can see that the major argument from my opponent is basically that because nothing has happend in the history with this war that it won't work. But clearly we can see that in the past nothing has happend because we didn't have a set goal in mind. And also through the evidence i showed, i proved with expert testimony the same thing. So now with this plan and the things it will seek to control it is in the United States best interest and because of that i urge you to vote PRO. THANK YOU
President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest

I feel that I have made all the points necessary to win this debate. This war is a risk that will add economic hardship to the United States. This is a plan that adds nothing except for more troops to the situation. This is a conflict that will not resolve the situation in Afghanistan My opponent has done nothing to prove that things are changing on the ground in Afghanistan Yes, we can debate all day whether or not Afghanistan is a fight worth undertaking. Yet under this plan, in this situation this is a mistake that President Obama should not undertake.
would you save an infant rather than an elderly person

My opponent is arguing the position that, with the choice between saving an infant and an elderly person, he would save the infant. I will argue the position that my opponent has no justification for making that decision with the information given, as there are many possibilities in which my opponent himself must reasonably choose otherwise. SCENARIO ONE: You awaken in a dimly lit room, chained to the wall. The key is out of your reach, but on the floor. In front of you are two jail cells. In the cell to the left is a 1 year old infant who can barely walk, and cannot speak full sentences. In the cell to the right is a 70 year old man 5 ft tall and visibly healthy, trying to find a way out of his cell, calling out to you, and asking you what to do. In front of you is a switch that goes either to the left or to the right. Pulling the switch to the left would kill the infant and open the cell door for the old man, whereas pulling the switch to the right would kill the old man and open the door for the infant. You have 1 minute to unshackle yourself before a large weight crashes down and kills you. Do you kill the infant or the elderly man? SCENARIO TWO: Zombies have taken over the city and there are two people in your company: An infant and an old man. You made it to the roof and are ready to get on a helicopter, but because of weight requirements, you can only choose either the infant or the old man. The infant has been scratched by a zombie and is starting to exhibit symptoms. The old man is a scientist who has discovered the cure for the zombie virus and only he understands the formula. Zombies then burst through the rooftop door. You have 10 seconds to make your decision, who do you take with you, and who do you leave for the zombies to eat? SCENARIO THREE: You and your 70-year old father are hiking through the jungle. The abandoned infant you found in the jungle and decided to take with you is crying and attracts the attention of Cannibals. They capture you and imprison the three of you. The Chief, however, sees that you bear a striking resemblance to their Cannibal God and want to release you, and either your father, or the infant. Who do you choose? It is clear that in each situation, the elderly person would be the reasonable choice. Do I admit that these scenarios are biased? Yes. But I am not saying that one should always choose the elderly person. I am just questioning my opponent's decision to choose the infant. There simply is not enough information in order to make a good decision. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Should people use plastic surgery to enhance apperence

Yes many people do use other things such as lipstick, eye shadow , mascara, etc. to enhance or highlight qualities of themselves that they like about themselves. The reason why they are doing this is because they are attemptin to accentuate those features. Despite what not_an_idiot said yes we do know eachother in person but I do not use makeup on a daily basis and actually am not a supporter of it. I feel that when to much is applyed its like wearing a mask that suffocates and blocks out the real you. The same applies to plastic surgery only this is magnified. These two opposing things are extremely different. As I mentioned earlier makeup is intended for positive use while plastic surgery is rather negative. Also remember makeup is just a temporary topical application that is just that temporary while the affects of plastic surgery will be with you until you take your last breath. Regardless of whether or not you believe in God just listen to this in Christianity we are taught that we were created in God's own image and likeness and are made exactly the way he wanted us to be. So doesn't plastic surgery completely obliterate everything God spent 9 months creating and go against God. If you do not believe in my God or Christian's God or any superior being at all try approaching it like this. You are an utterly and absolutely unique being with no other copies. When you were formed your parents DNA blended together and designed you. For whatever reason you were biologically engineered to look that way physically. So if you go and have a doctors slice and dice and your face or breasts or any body part you're defying biology and in a different light your parents. So based on both approaches you are a work of art a beautiful magnificent work of art greater than the David or the Thinker so why allow some vandal to chip away at your already perfect body and destroy your sculpture Plastic surgery is not also just self degrading but mind boggalingly expensive. Take for instince a procedure called an upper arm lift which is generally $6,000-$8,000 which is shockingly on the lower end of the money scale for more on specific prices and the growth of this barbaric practice visit this link http://www.usatoday.com... In the long run plastic surgery is just simply put imbecilic. And for anyone out there who is considering plastic surgery just to "spruce up" your outter appearance or anyone with insecurities let me tell you this. You are beautiful. And if anyone tells you anything other than that they are just plains jealous because of the inner and outer beauty you posses. And please don't subject yourself to plastic surgery it ultimately erases every little thing that makes you special. It is a pricey, painful, disgusting earaser that shreds you down to near nothingness and leaves an everlasting imprint on you mentally and physically. So stop chasing out all the flaws you find in yourself because when you do you out run all your perfections
Should people use plastic surgery to enhance apperence

If you do not like the way that you look you can most definitely change your appearance. Freedom of Expression guarantees this right. How is cosmetic surgery any different lipstick/makeup? They alter your physical appearance greatly, yet so many people use them including my opponent (I know her in person). Addressing your comments about addiction, you can become an addict of just about everything, including cough drops, caffeine, television, shopping, and even exercise. Cosmetic surgery is also proven to relieve mental illnesses such as anorexia and body dismorphia. In extreme cases if people think they are physically unattractive they will even kill themselves or have a life full of depression.
Should people use plastic surgery to enhance apperence

I 100% agree with you that people may physically NEED plastic surgery due to a catastrophic accident or for fear of their life that is by all means acceptable, but you failed to mention people who go under the knife almost "recreationally" if you will. Those people under go numerous surgeries all to enhance their physical appearence. Procedure after procedure these people continue to find flaws in themselves that they feel they need to medically address. In a way this form of surgery becomes an addiction. Take for example Michael Jackson. A world renowned artist whose plastic surgery was extensive enough to transform him into practically a different person. According to http://m.smh.com.au... "Michael is reputed to have undergone a range of surgical procedures, including repeated Rhinoplasty, and, after being diagnosed with Lupus and Vitiligo, a number of treatments for his sensitive skin, which led to it lightening in colour." If that's not considered an addiction I don't know what is. But what exactly is an addiction, well an addiction is defined as "the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity" which Jacksons case perfectly molds into that classification.
Should people use plastic surgery to enhance apperence

Plastic surgery is actually needed by many people. For example, someone in Witness Protection would want plastic surgery because they fear being hunted down and tortured/killed. Plastic surgery protects them from this. Also, if someone is in a horrible car accident and their face is disfigured, they may be mocked, humiliated, and rejected by many people. They may want plastic surgery to look normal again. Lastly, addressing your point about how it is painful, if they have Anastasia they feel no pain. According to http://www.plasticsurgeryschools.com..., the average recovery time is just over a week for most patients.
Should people use plastic surgery to enhance apperence

No, people should not use plastic surgery for feature enhancement because it is extremely painful for example one procedure called a "voice lift" is depicted as "During a voice lift, the neck is cut open, and implants are placed in the vocal chords. Sometimes, fat is injected into the vocal chords also. One doctor even takes ground up cadaver skin and injects it into your throat!" Alright not_an_idiot let's hope we're on the opposite side for once lol but yeah good luck
Ninja Are cooler than pirates

First, let me inform any of you who do not yet know: Pirates are the chosen people of the flying spaghetti monster. In fact, we can almost say Pirates are "cooler" than Ninjas in a literal sense. Consider the following: http://www.venganza.org... The global average temperature has increased steadily as we've gotten fewer and fewer pirates. This demonstrates a causal relationship between less pirates and global warming. If pirates decrease the global average temperature, then that makes them pretty cool, both literally and figuratively. Also, let us take note that pirates actually sound cool. Ninjas don't bother talking, ever. This makes it fun not only to act like a pirate, but also to be a pirate. Being a ninja means you have to always be silent, lest your victims hear you coming. And when you do talk, you can only speak Japanese, which takes a lot of time to learn. That doesn't sound like my idea of fun. Also, as a pirate, you can do whatever you want. I present this evidence to substantiate my claim: http://www.youtube.com... Also, consider the entertainment value of pirates versus ninjas. Pirates of the Caribbean was a great movie. It was one of the most widely enjoyed films of all time - all three of them, that is. What pirate movies can we think of that have truly entertained the masses? Well? I couldn't think of any, so I did a quick Google search. The best resource I found was this: http://www.entertheninja.com... None of these movies were huge hits. As it says in the description on that page, most of these movies were only enjoyable because of how lame they were. Ninjas are good at killing people. That's all. Pirates, however, do a great many things, such as search for legendary treasure, attack merchant ships, say ARR a lot, train parrots to speak pirate, steal ships, etc. Also, ninjas wear all black full body suits, meaning they're probably pretty hot, the opposite of cool. Pirates also have awesome hats. My opponent has not yet made a case, so I will now give him the floor.
Ninja Are cooler than pirates

My opponent has suggested that we each only use 3 rounds out of the five we have, and since I forfeited last round, I will use my third round now. I ask the audience to reflect on the contents of this debate. Ninjas have been shown as something altogether different than the popular idea of a ninja. There is a reason ninjas are portrayed in pop culture the way that they are portrayed: because that is the only version of a ninja that's actually popular - that people would see as 'cool.' On the other hand, pirates have been shown to be the rowdy drunkards we all know and love. Ergo!
Yo Mamma Battle

Whomever has the best jokes towards another's mother by the end of the debate shall be declared the winner. There's no waiting indefinite time limits between rounds like some "debates" on this website. This is back and forth right after the other! Let it begin! Yo mamma is SO poor, I saw her picking card board boxes out of the trash. I asked her, "What are you doin?" She looked at me and said, "Buying luggage!"
Jesus Christ is God

"Paddy u got it wrong about what the Apostle John said u cannot understand the bible until u be born again" That isn't a compelling argument, that's just an excuse. "Paddy why are u going way off topic" I'm not going off topic. I haven't once gone off topic in this whole debate. "i say checkmate Paddy" You can say checkmate all you want, you still haven't won yet. The debate has to go to vote... --- To sum up. Again my opponent, rather than constructing a compelling and thoughtful argument, has resorted to quoting scripture and informing me that as an unbeliever I will never understand it. My initial argument, concerning the historicity vs the divinity of Jesus, has not been adequately addressed by my opponent except through the use of biblical sources, despite the fact that there is no evidence that the whole of the bible is true. I have challenged my opponent to demonstrate the infallibility and total accuracy of the bible but he has failed to adequately do so. His argument being that because real life phenomena, places and people have been described in the bible then it must be 100% accurate, which I demonstrated to be a flawed line of logic. In conclusion: There is no verifiable evidence that Jesus Christ, even if we accept his historicity, was anything more than a human being.
Jesus Christ is God

I didn't say I didn't believe that earthquakes, wars, famines etc. are real. I didn't say I didn't believe that locations or people mentioned in the bible were historical. I said that the mere fact that the bible includes real occurrences, or contains historical people/places did not prove that the bible is 100% accurate. For example: A movie was recently released called 'Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter'. The main character was Abraham Lincoln, the former president of the United States of America. Now, we can both agree that he is an historical figure. But by your logic, we should also believe that he spent much of his life killing vampires. Now, as awesome as that would have been, it isn't true. You haven't once addressed any point I made in my initial argument in any relevant or meaningful way. All you've done is copy and paste decontextualized bible quote after decontextualized bible quote and tell me why you think it is true rather than present me with evidence to demonstrate its truth. There are demonstrable inaccuracies and errors in the bible which call into question its validity as a standalone piece of evidence. To go with an example relevant to the debate topic, there are several different accounts of the life and works of Jesus written by several different apostles. One specific occurrence of inaccuracy concerning Jesus is the colour of the robe he wore at his trial. According to Matthew it was scarlet (Matthew 27:28), and according to John it was purple (John 19:2). In fact, speaking of John, John contradicts HIMSELF concerning Jesus. According to John 18:31 it was not lawful for Christ to be put to death, and according to John 19:7 it was lawful. In fact, John seems to have made a habit of contradicting himself concerning Jesus. According to John 8:18, Christ's witness of himself was true, and according to John 5:31 it wasn't. There are several other examples of John contradicting himself concerning Jesus. There are too many inconsistencies in accounts of Jesus's life to assume that Jesus was definitely real and that everything ever written about him was true. So Dale, we have one more round. I suggest you use part of your next post to sum up your argument, as it will make it easier for voters to assess whose argument is the stronger...
Jesus Christ is God

The fact that phenomena such as wars, earthquakes and famines are recorded in the bible is meaningless. If those are the criteria on which a book is judged to be true then there is no such thing as a work of fiction. You're also failing to take into account that the bible isn't just one book, and most of the books weren't written for the purposes of historical record. Even if it contains records of historically verifiable events or figures, that doesn't then render every single book of the bible to be historical. As it stands you have not yet demonstrated why I should take your bible quotes into account as valid evidence, so your continuing to post them is only making your case weaker. And you still haven't addressed any of the points I made in my first argument.