BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The war in Afghanistan can be won

My opponent quoted me on the fact that I said that we could only win this war in Afghanistan if we restored peace to the suffering nation of Afghanistan and allow its people to lead free lives. He stated that "nuclear wastelands are very peaceful." I must point out that simply obliterating an entire country and killing both the enemies and innocent civilians would not restore it to the peace that it once had, but rather completely eliminate life in the region, which is not restoring any type of peace to any place. "Besides, death is freedom." This is incorrect in the sense that freedom is having the CHOICE to live or to die. Freedom is not having no word in your imminent death by nuclear forces. "So, we'd win the war, but we'd lose our morals and the war after that. However, we'd win the war in Afghanistan. There was no requirement for my solution to be moral." It is true that you had no requirement for your solution to be moral, however, I am saying that by killing so many innocent people, our war in Afghanistan could never be considered a victory. The very suggestion that by taking millions of innocent lives in order to win a war is absurd in itself since you cannot win a war if so many innocents die in the process. "A few billion to end the trillion-dollar-war would have a beneficial effect on the economy." It may seem like that, however once you consider that when other nations realize that we are a threat to their people's well being, they will declare embargo's on us, which would put America in an even deeper economic hole than we are currently in.
The war in Afghanistan can be won

My opponent talks of the consequences of nuking Afghanistan. However, I never said that we should nuke Afghanistan. I'm just saying that we could. "The term win in this situation would only be achieved if we restore peace to the suffering nation of Afghanistan and allow its people to lead free lives." Nuclear wastelands are very peaceful. My opponent gives no reason behind requiring the Afghani people to be allowed to lead free lives. Besides, death is freedom. Freedom from suffering. "Killing so many innocent people and making so many new enemies cannot be considered winning, in fact, it can be considered failing our own morals to preserve life." So, we'd win the war, but we'd lose our morals and the war after that. However, we'd win the war in Afghanistan. There was no requirement for my solution to be moral. My opponent cites the costs. However, we spent $2.6 billion over a 30-year period. The nukes required for Afghanistan wouldn't cost that much. Besides, as my opponent pointed out, we're already spending trillions, and we waste billions on other things daily. http://en.wikipedia.org... A few billion to end the trillion-dollar-war would have a beneficial effect on the economy. "So as my opponent suggests that we can simply obliterate the existence of future generations merely by using a couple hundred nuclear weapons, I say that the economic failure, created enemies, and loss of innocent human life as a result of such an action would be the true failure in this war." 1. The economy would not fail. 2. The enemies may defeat us in the next war, but we'd enjoy our victory for a while. 3. Loss of human life always results from war. Why would this be different? 4. Failure in this war would be failure to accomplish our goal, "the United States government immediately sought to punish the criminals by any means possible."
The war in Afghanistan can be won

Dropping nuclear weapons on the historical state of Afghanistan? My opponent seems to have not contempt for human life. If we drop nuclear weapons on Afghanistan, not only would it obliterate millions of innocent civilians, but it would also make us the most hated country on the international stage. Our dearest allies would turn against us once they see the threat that we pose to them with our ability to use such devastating weapons. The term win in this situation would only be achieved if we restore peace to the suffering nation of Afghanistan and allow its people to lead free lives. Killing so many innocent people and making so many new enemies cannot be considered winning, in fact, it can be considered failing our own morals to preserve life. Besides, can we truly win a war if it results in financial and economic turmoil? My own opponent's source states: 48. Ballistic missile defense spending in 1965 vs. 1995: $2,200,000,000 vs. $2,600,000,000. With our country spending that much money on weapons who's only purpose is to obliterate everything in its path, there is no way the American economy could ever recover, which in my opinion means defeat. So as my opponent suggests that we can simply obliterate the existence of future generations merely by using a couple hundred nuclear weapons, I say that the economic failure, created enemies, and loss of innocent human life as a result of such an action would be the true failure in this war.
The war in Afghanistan can be won

The war in Afghanistan can be won. It can be won very easily. America has nukes. (http://www.brookings.edu...) The costs of assembling large numbers of nukes is in the billions. Seeing as we've spent trillions, a few billion to end the war would seem like nothing. America could very easily drop a hundred nukes on Afghanistan. "Concluding that the attack was by Al Qaeda, the United States government immediately sought to punish the criminals by any means possible." The criminals would be blown to pieces by a nuke, and it is possible, so the U.S. government would gladly use nukes. My opponent's only contention is that future generations would perpetuate the war. However, with nukes, the next generation would be blown to pieces, and future generations would never exist. In conclusion, America can easily win the war. All it takes is a few nukes. With that, I leave the floor to my opponent.
The war in Afghanistan can be won

My position on this topic of debate is that the American war in Afghanistan CANNOT be won. I'm just going to provide some background information on the issue: The United States military invaded Afghanistan after the terrorist attack on 9/11. Concluding that the attack was by Al Qaeda, the United States government immediately sought to punish the criminals by any means possible. Understanding that Al Qaeda was protected by the extremist Taliban faction, the Bush administration demanded that they hand over Al Qaeda's operatives. They refused to do so. The US military invaded a couple of weeks later. The core reason why we cannot win the war in Afghanistan is because there will be future generations that will be willing and able to become members of the Taliban. Even if our military completely eliminated the current generation of Taliban warriors, there will be another generation to take their place. So once we begin fighting this new generation, and if we eliminate them as well, then there will only be another generation ready to take their place. You see, it is a never-ending cycle of birth-fighting-death. We can only fight like this for so long. Eventually, the economic strain caused by the need for more weapons and troops will result in America's deterioration. We already spend nearly a trillion dollars on this war annually(http://www.alternet.org...), so if our government's money continues to be poured into this one conflict, then they won't have any remaining money to spend on infrastructure, health, education, or scientific development. For these reasons, the war in Afghanistan cannot be won by the United States military.
Resolved the death penalty process should be significantly shortened. ( on the federal level)

This is a topic I feel very strongly about and have some strong views on. The government pampers these people on death row who have been there for over ten years most of them.My plan is that the offender if he strongly believes that he did not commit the crime that he will be able to hire a private investigator to research the crime. there will be a 5 year period where the investigator will have time to compile evidence at the end of those 5 years there will be another court date to decide the result of all the evidence. If in the event he did not commit the crime the government will reemberse him and he will be set free.
Google+ Integration: The harms outweigh the Benifits.

NOTE2: I will refer to this update as the "Google+ Update" Even though I refer to the update as a whole. Please do not semantically separate the 2. For info, see the vid. I noticed TheMohawkNinja's last debate on this topic was not note-worthy, So I intend to make a legitimate argument and not forfeit. First round is for acceptance only. The Update's info, and definition, is what is in the Video cited. . http://www.youtube.com... No trolling, semantics, bla bla bla daleks. Anyways, I hope for a great debate. Feel Free to add Clarifications in the comments, but do not accept like 2 minutes afterward please.
Google+ Integration: The harms outweigh the Benifits.

"About the Quote reply: Con has yet to prove any improvements of the update." It was never specified that I had to show that the benefits outweighed the harms, as con, my job is to refute your claims that the harms outweigh the benefits. While it was forced upon them (as any update tends to be, so this isn't anything unique to YouTube), there was prior warning, as there was information out there months ago before the change happened [1]. 1 All your sources showed (as I had asserted) was that only a small portion of users were distraught. There is no evidence to suggest that a significant portion of users didn't want this change. 2 No such additional information was ever specified. Therefore you fail to assert your point, and my rebuttal carries over. 3 Something must be buggy with the sources then. Either way, by the sounds of it, there isn't a significant number of users affected by this, and therefore it very well could be that only a small number of users were affected. 4 The video never addresses your asserted bot issues, let alone addresses if a significant portion of comments are affected. 5 How do we know that the user didn't mark it as spam? You make no attempt to show that the comment was flagged by a bot, 6 You implied that the update was to fix YouTube, by using the cliche of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Seeing as there was no flaw in the original YouTube as far as I can tell from your statements, and due to what "fixing" tends to imply in software developments, it is only logical to draw the conclusions that you interpreted this as a bugfixing update, or some other type of fixing update. You also never proved that the number of comments was in the millions. 7&8 Poll uses subjective term "ruined", and no responses to the poll assert any sources to back their claims, for or against. 9 Again, it should be noted that a harm is something that could do damage to something, hence terms like "to put in harms way". This doesn't damage anything, but simply makes a feature moot. 10 Yet to fail to prove your point with any evidence. You even say that it's rare, so it's clearly not a big issue. 11 Let's explore that source, shall we: "They have completely RUINED a great thing. Comments were the number one reason why I checked my YouTube account daily. Now that desire is gone." Uses subjective terms, is only one person, and asserts that some "desire" is gone. Hardly a harm. Final Going back to the Kerbal Space Program analogy, they don't release experimental releases of their updates to everyone, as only a select few are chose for this due to the nature of development [2]. Appealing to ethics is a subjective argument at best. Lastly, you make no attempt to prove that the update devalued them as a company. Therefore, I ask that you vote con in this debate. 1. Video #1 http://www.youtube.com... 2. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com...
The Knicks are the worst team in the four major sports.

I guess I should have been more specific with the goal of my debate. What i had orinially intended was to be talking about current teams and not just being bad record wise, but also being in complete disarray as a franchise. You brought up the Dolphins, arguably the worst team in NFL history. But did anyone really expect them to be good? Was anyone saying the Dolphins are destined for Super Bowl victory this year? The answer is no. Granted we didn't expect them to win one game after they brought in Trent Green as the quarterback. However, no one thought they were gonna fit into the AFC playoff picture. The Knicks on the other hand, even if no one expects them to be good, they should be good. They have the highest payroll in all the NBA. You would think that would bring results. But it doesn't. Year after year the Knicks remain at the bottom of the NBA whether outright last or close to it. Instead James Dolan and Isiah Thomas coninue to spend money and all we get is overpriced "stars" such as Stehpon Marbury and Zach Randolph. Yet still no positive results. Just to show how bad they are, correct me if I'm wrong, but how many teams have fans that chant to fire they're coach and owner. Thomas' reputation isn't helped by the sexual harassment case. While record wise there may be worse teams, it's my belief that no team in the four major American sports (baseball, basketball, football, and hockey) is in as bad shape as a franchise as the New York Knicks
The Knicks are the worst team in the four major sports.

The Knicks are bad don't get me wrong but out of all major sports? (which of I'm pretty sure there are more than 4 of but that is beside the point) I'm just gonna let some copy and paste speak for itself: [From: http://www.kidzworld.com... 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers The Tampa Bay Buccaneers may have won the Super Bowl in 2003 with a team loaded with stars like Warren Sapp and Keyshawn Johnson, but things weren't always so bright for those football pirates from Florida. During the team's first season in the NFL in 1976, the Bucs didn't win a single game. They were an embarrassing 0-14 and were outscored 412-125. When the Buccaneers finally won a game the following season, more than 8,000 fans turned up at the airport to congratulate them when they returned home.] As for an overall pick for worst football team in NFL history goes to the Arizona Cardinals: 0 Championships 0 Superbowl appearances + an embarrassing win loss history. As for basketball: The worst 19 seasons by any team in any 82 game season doesnt even mention the Knicks. 97-98 Denver Nuggets 3 41 .068 - Eric Williams, 19.8 11-71 93-94 Dallas Mavericks 4 40 .091 1 Jim Jackson, 19.2 13-69 92-93 Dallas Mavericks 4 40 .091 1 Derek Harper, 18.2 11-71 72-73 Philadelphia 76ers 4 40 .091 1 Fred Carter, 20.0 9-73 88-89 Miami Heat* 5 39 .114 2 Kevin Edwards, 13.8 15-67 70-71 Cleveland Cavaliers* 5 39 .114 2 Walt Wesley, 17.7 15-67 00-01 Chicago Bulls 6 38 .136 3 Elton Brand, 20.1 15-67 91-92 Minnesota Timberwolves 7 37 .159 4 Tony Campbell, 16.8 15-67 86-87 Los Angeles Clippers 7 37 .159 4 Mike Woodson, 17.1 12-70 07-08 Minnesota Timberwolves 8 36 .182 5 Al Jefferson, 21.1 15-67 + 96-97 Vancouver Grizzlies 8 36 .182 5 S. Abdur-Rahim, 18.7 14-68 82-83 Houston Rockets 8 36 .182 5 Allen Leavell, 14.8 14-68 04-05 Atlanta Hawks 9 35 .205 6 Antoine Walker, 20.4 13-69 95-96 Vancouver Grizzlies* 10 34 .227 7 Greg Anthony, 14.0 15-67 81-82 Cleveland Cavaliers 10 34 .227 7 Mike Mitchell, 19.6 15-67 99-00 Los Angeles Clippers 11 33 .250 8 Maurice Taylor, 17.1 15-67 96-97 Boston Celtics 11 33 .250 8 Antoine Walker, 17.5 15-67 80-81 Dallas Mavericks* 11 33 .250 8 Geoff Huston, 16.1 15-67 67-68 San Diego Rockets* 12 32 .273 9 Don Kojis, 19.7 15-67 And if you want to talk about history not counting, and only what teams are garbage this season then look no further than the performance of the Dolphins this year. They tied the NFL single season consecutive loss record. Per game no one gets paid more than NFL players on average.
The Knicks are the worst team in the four major sports.

It pains me to call myself a Knick fan because ever since Isiah Thomas arrived the team has fallen into complete disarray. Sure his first year as GM the Knicks made the playoffs but that was still with a losing record. The team never improved from there losing more and more games and now find themselves in the cellar of the NBA. Since Isiah's arrival during the 2003-2004 season the Knicks have a record of 142-230. It doesn't make sense that a team which has the highest payroll in the NBA could have such a horrible record. Also Isiah Thomas was accused of sexual harassment, not something you want out of your head coach/GM. I conclude by saying that all you need to look at is to see the Knicks disarray is the fans. Knicks fans have been calling for Thomas' firing for quite some time now. Once again, not something that's good for the team.
We are entering the age of Rodents.

Final Round- FINISH HER! Once again, my opponent has forfeited. Thus, I now ask that all of my attacks and arguments be extended and all of my opponent's arguments to continue to be invalidated. For those who need it, I will show what would happen if a rodent revolution were to occur (though I credit the idea of a visual aid to Yraelz). ________!!!!!_______________ ________(O.O)_______________ ________o-@@-o--->__________ _________/ \ ___________><@~ _________!!!!!_______________ _________(^.^)_______________ _______ o-@@-o____________|__ _________/ \ ____________xx@~ Moreover, here is a link to what I fear is a much greater threat to humans http://www.youtube.com... Thus, as my opponent not only did not have valid arguments to begin with but also forfeited them, and as I have refuted my opponent and show why we are not entering the age of rodents, the only logical vote is for Con in today's(or tonight's or whenever you are reading this) resolution. Thank you.
We are entering the age of Rodents.

George Carlin once said, "Always do whatever's next." Unfortunately, for my opponent, she has not done what logically comes next. Rather than responding to my arguments, she has forfeited the last three rounds. As such, I once again ask that all my arguments and attacks be extended while noting that my opponent's first round must be invalid has she had dropped it by forfeiting. I now leave you with another Carlin quip while hoping for a response from my opponent: "You know an odd feeling? Sitting on the toilet and eating a chocolate candy bar."
We are entering the age of Rodents.

Then, I ask the voters to vote on who made the better arguments, rather than their personal opinion. The definitions I have for this debate are as follows: enter: to come or go into (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) age: a period of time dominated by a central figure or prominent feature (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Rodents: any of an order (Rodentia) of relatively small gnawing mammals (as a mouse, squirrel, or beaver) that have in both jaws a single pair of incisors with a chisel-shaped edge (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Observation 1: My opponent has placed multiple burdens on herself. By inserting my definitions into the topic, we can see that my opponent is advocating "We are going into the period of time dominated by any of an order (Rodentia) of relatively small gnawing mammals (as a mouse, squirrel, or beaver) that have in both jaws a single pair of incisors with a chisel-shaped edge". This places three burdens on my opponent. My opponent must prove that rodents will supersede humans (the current animal in power). My opponent must then prove that it is multiple species of the order Rodentia that rules, rather than only one. My opponent must finally prove that this age will happen soon, otherwise we would not be entering it. Observation 2: Arguments using the Chinese or any other zodiac are irrelevant, as they do not correspond to dominance of species. If they did, there would be years dominated by dragons, which have not been found to exist. My opponent first claims that there is evidence that rodent populations are growing rapidly. First, I ask that my opponent cite these sources. Otherwise, this argument falls. Moreover, my opponent makes no connection between rodent population growth and Pinky and the Brain making their dreams come true. Thus, even if proof of growth is given is given, the argument is unrelated to the debate. "Argue with me. I fricken dare you. " My only response to this is that I accept the challenge. I advocate that we are NOT entering the age of rodents because rodents would not be able to supersede humans. Humans are equipped with millions of weapons in general and many designed to specifically to kill rodents. As the rodents' only weapon are their relatively tiny teeth, the rodents would surely lose in an inter-species war. Hence, an age of rodent domination would not happen ever, much less soon. As, my opponent's argument was very short, I must bid adieu and wait for a rebuttal.
I Am More Insulting Than You

You are a hard working fellow young man I applaud you, as american president Benjamin Franklin once said: As my opponent states above in an ignorant manner he shows a lack of reason as to how my last argument was invalid. Hence forth we are now at a tied position as my opponent has insulted me again. However he contradicted his statement again when in the first part of his argument he question whether my ethnicity was actually black yet at the second part of the debate he started to use insults involving black stereotypes. Therefore invalidating his argument AGAIN! Overall my opponent has made so many contradictions within his arguments it begins to become absurd to consider them insults. Overall my arguments were more logically backed. Now Lelouch Vi Britannia commands you! Vote for me! http://i1207.photobucket.com...; Come on now, you mad? http://www.quickmeme.com...;
I Am More Insulting Than You

He tried to say that I contradicted myself, when really it was just a portrayal of my opponent contradicting himself. The fact that he couldn't grasp that simple fact is strong evidence that my opponent is highly idiotic and lacking in cognitive faculties. Also, just because my opponent put "black" as his ethnicity doesn't mean he is. He is probably one of those wigger people who wants to be black: Regardless, if we follow my opponent's logic, then his first GIF doesn't count because it is of a brown person, not a black person. Either way, my opponent is dumb. Nitpicking the type of person in the picture is futile anyway. Also, my opponent just admitted he valued my opinion, because the last picture said that in order for him to insult me, he would have to value my opinion. He has insulted me in this debate, ergo, he values my opinion. Well, my opinion is that he is an idiot. Therefore, it should be valued according to my opponent. I don't know why my opponent is counting insults either. It is quality not quantity necessarily, ergo, one insult could be worth more than ten. However, due to the lack of mental capabilities had by Con, I wouldn't expect him to know that. Lets assume Con is black for a second, I found a picture of you and your father: Oh ya, that's right it doesn't exist, because you barely even knew your dad! Ok maybe, that is a little harsh. .. Anyway, I found a huge pack of Con's family running after my grandfather one day, it was wild! Anyway, it is clear that Con lacks the sufficient skills to be insulting. I have clearly pierced the skin. .. Vote Pro. .. B*tches. .. .
I Am More Insulting Than You

The images that were presented were a contradiction that compleltly canceled out the insults he had just said. On my profile page in which information on me is presented it says that my ethnicity is black. In the images above my opponent portrays an apparent image of me as a student and a child. What my opponent forgot to consider was the fact that the images above portray an obviously Caucasian indivisual, that being said that does'nt only contradict the apparrent images of "myself" but also the images portraying my grandmother for that similar reason. Leaving only two insulting images that actually count as insults. Meaning you only are one insult ahead of me, let me clear the gap, and establish a new one: