BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
War with Iran

While the Iranian leader has called for the destruction of Israel his threats carry little to no water, and even if they did, we can't go around attacking every nation that threatens our allies, we can only prepare. If Iran does get the ability to launch nuclear warheads the U.S. has already developed ABM systems that are designed to deal with nuclear threats from rogue nations with only a handfull of nuclear weapons at their disposal.[1] Israel is also a nuclear state with a much more formidable military at their disposal than Iran. [2][3][4] Wars are tremendously expensive both in terms of resources and loss of life and it would be a huge burden on the U.S. to take on yet another front in the Middle East to fight a nation that is not a direct threat to us or even U.S. allies. Again, Israel's military is much stronger, Israel has nuclear missiles of their own, and the U.S. is already considering on offering Israel an ABM system [5], which we undoubtedly will if there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Iran has a nuclear missile. In conclusion Iran is not currently a serious military threat since Israel has a stronger military and a decent supply of nuclear missiles, and the U.S. is willing to give an ABM system to Israel designed to shoot down incoming ICBM's. I acknowledge that Iran has a terrible human rights record and does violate the rights of their people. That is not a good reason for the U.S. to launch a preimptive strike on a power since many countries do the same. North Korea and China also violate the rights of their people, but going to war with those nations would result in costly wars where potentially millions of people will die. It is not the U.S.'s obligation to launch attacks around the world on any country that violates the rights of their people. It is too costly and too much of a burden for the U.S. to bear. When Hitler came to power the UK and French forces should have not started a policy of appeasement and allowed Hitler to take the Rhineland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria, they should have attacked immediately after Nazi Germany began annexing territory, not after Germany began enacting anti-jewish laws. We should attack Iran after they begin to show that they are willing and able to threaten the U.S. and U.S. allies, not simply because they make hollow threats and violate human rights. The Pros of such a war do not outweigh the Cons. Israel is already well defended against Iran. Violations of human rights in foreign nations are not the U.S.'s responsibility to solve. [1] http://www.mda.mil... (U.S. ABM System) [2] http://www.globalfirepower.com... (Military of Israel) [3] http://www.globalfirepower.com... (Military of Iran) [4] http://www.fas.org... (Description of Israeli nuclear aresnal) [5] http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com... (U.S. offering ABM system)
War with Iran

Iran is a great threat to the U.S. both Ideologically and militarilly. Their president has called for the death of our great nation, and that our long time ally Israel be blown off the map. They have allied themselves with our longtime enemy Russia, in which Russia has given them the nuclear material that they need to make our nightmare a reality. Their criminal radical islamic government in their attempts to inforse islamic law has violated their own peoples human rights and has murdered anyone who disagrees with their particular form of Islam. Therefore, The U.S. and its allies should mount a preimptive strike against Iran before they attack us and our allies and do exactly what Hitler and Sudam Hussein tried and failed to do. THE WORLD DOESN'T NEED ANOTHER HITLER!
Jesus is the Messiah who was prophecied in the Old Testament.

I don't usually debate topics like this, but I figured I'd give it a go. PRO's ClaimsPRO has made numerous claims so far in this debate. By my count, they are:1. Jesus is the messiah who was prophesied in the Old Testament.2. Jesus was born in Bethlehem.3. Jesus suffered for the sins of Israel.4. Jesus presented himself by riding a donkey.5. Jesus came before the destruction of the second temple. I would like to point out that even though the first claim is the main purpose of the debate, the other four, along with numerous other prophesies in the Old Testament, must be demonstrated to have been fulfilled, as the first claim necessarily rests upon them. I will defer to PRO so he can provide evidence for his claims.
Jesus is the Messiah who was prophecied in the Old Testament.

The Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem according to (Micah 5:2) The Messiah would suffer for the sins of Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:12) The Messiah would present himself by riding on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9). The Messiah would come before the destruction of the second Temple (Malachi 3:1).
killer whales in captivity

Allow me to affirm the resolution:"Killer whales should not be kept in captivity. " -->Con is to argue for this resolution, meaning he will have to account for all killer whales. -->I am to argue against this resolution, although I am not obligated to account for all killer whales. ==================================================================================Con has committed a fallacy. -Con is assuming that killer whales are kept in captivity because they are dangerous. This is not true. 3 reasons why some Killer Whales are kept in captivity and should be kept in captivity1. Sometimes when an animal is injured so badly, they cannot survive in their habitat on their own. Animal rescue teams may rescue this animal and keep it in captivity, taking care of it until it has recovered from their injury. Then they will set it free in their original habitat. This might be the case for some killer whales in captivity. 2. They might be held in captivity for science. Scientists can use killer whales to study their anatomy and echolocation, which can help submarines navigate better.3. For entertainment. Sea World has Killer Whale shows, and the audience loves them. Many people go to Sea World for the sole purpose of seeing the Killer Whale show. If these killer whales were not there, Sea World would lose a tremendous amount of money in revenue, an amount so tremendous, it would certainly affect the economy.
killer whales in captivity

they shouldn't be kept in captivity. how are killer whales dangerous? they are more of a threat by being locked up at sea world! haven't you heard trainers at sea world have died from killer whales because the killer whales are so depressed and crazy from being locked up in what is like you being trapped in a bath tub for 20 years! so tell me how there dangerous in the wild! thats right they're not! they do no harm in the ocean and that is there home.
The GOP will likely nominate a candidate with little to no major public office experience

I'll just type this out quickly, because I don't have much time and because I've already won and can just literally forfeit this round. My opponent has failed to meet his BOP. He dropped my argument that polls have no predictive power as the chart in round 1 shows. He never even challenged the specific study that stated it. Him showing that a party insider can back a losing candidate doesn't help his case either. The study conducted and written out in the "party decides" shows that it's who the most party insiders get behind that matters, I'm sure that every candidate has atleast one insider backing them, but it's about who has the most support from the political elite, if it was every single person who had the support of the political elite, we'd have 30 presidents each year. He had to show a situation where the majority of part insiders picked a candidate and they lost, and since that is something that has never occurred he can not. He also has shown nothing beyond coincidence for the front runners being inexperienced, as I noted the same thing could be contributed to tame recognition. He also accepts coincidences a little too readily. They're also all over 50 years old. There is no anti-40 year old sentiment secretly among Republicans either. We only have past trends to show how the future will turn out. Bench can argue there are exceptions all he wants, but history has shown us that polls don't have any predictive ability in who the front runner will be. History has also shown us that watching who the party elite pick has a close to 100% accuracy in predicting the next nominee, which is Jeb Bush. Go with what has been the case in history.
The GOP will likely nominate a candidate with little to no major public office experience

Right now the Republican voters are not against experienced candidates. Trump has a lot of name recognition, so that's why he is doing so well, despite not being well liked. . http://www.gallup.com... You talk to Republicans and experience doesn't even enter the conversation. Ben Carson is doing well because he's widely talked about in Republican circles. Republicans like quoting him instead of other similar candidates because the same words coming from a white guy sound less racist when quoted from a black guy. These top candidates are benefiting greatly from a large field. People have 16 candidates to look at, as the field shrinks, people will get to know the rest as well as they know who Trump is, and they'll vote for the people they agree with. The Party Elite This is not merely a random book or out of date book like my opponent has tried to paint it as. The writers of the book are Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller, the top political scientists of our time and was written in 2008. It's really a major research project that tracked endorsements, even the endorsements of some super PACs like ones from many major Unions. As the book/major scholarly research project shows. A good indicator of the next nominee is who the party elite get behind. The party elite is certain super PACs, endorsements of sitting and former governors as well as senators and media organizations. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a major piece of scholarly work used like the holy Grail among political scientists. Regardless of what my opponent thinks the party elite can stop any candidate in their tracks. They're already beginning to put roadblocks up, like not allowing any Republican on the ballot in certain states unless they promise they won't run as an independent. Fox News can start to deny coverage to people or inundate them with negative coverage. Rush Limbaugh has major influence and can make any Republican look bad. These party elites are the gate keepers and it's more of a conspiracy theory to say powerful people will refuse to use their influence than it is to say they will use it. Funding is a part of it, but it isn't the whole thing. And yes Trump the billionaire and Fiorina need massive campaign contributions. Trump probably only has a few million in liquid assets, Fiorina likely has even less. Having a net worth of billions does not mean having billions in your bank account, and typically it doesn't because money loses value when it's kept as cash. When Obama and Mitt Romney went to battle they used close to a billion dollars between the two. . https://www.opensecrets.org... That's significantly below what Fiorina has, and it is also significantly above what Donald Trump has in liquid assets. Contributions matter, even when it's a billionaire running for office. Conclusion Sorry this is kind of rushed, but I don't feel like this debate is going to take too much effort to win anyway.
Medea is guilty for committing infanticide.

Yes, punishing and protecting are two things in our control. And yes it's her choice initially to attribute such a intense feeling towards Jason. But initially when she first finds out, she figures it out and she is left in pieces. She gave Jason all that he had and accomplished. Medea was the one who made all possible for Jason. Jason was ill provided by Medea and than left her in the rear view mirror and wanted to keep all life's gifts that Medea provided him with. This wouldn't make you lose control? This wouldn't make you think about doing something insane? This wouldn't cause you "Insanity"? To me if you don't think that what Jason did to Medea was the cause that lead to the effect of her insanity. Further more, thinking and acting upon these insane idea's?
Medea is guilty for committing infanticide.

Isn't punishing or protecting something in our control? And isn't it her choice to attribute such intense meaning to Jason? As Epictetus says in Chapter three of the Enchiridon, " With regard to whatever objects give you delight, are useful, or are deeply loved, remember to tell yourself of what general nature they are, beginning from the most significant things." Jason is just a person, she chose to regard him with devotion. As Albert Ellis would have said if Medea was at one of his Rational Emotive Psychotherapy sessions, "It is not what happens to us at point A that upsets us, it is B, our view of what happens to us." In other words, it is not that Jason had left her for another women that upsets her, but it is that in her head she is saying that this event is terrible. In the case of why she is rationalizing the fact that she wants to kill her children, it is not that she will be made to look ridiculous and that by not killing her children she will be leaving "these children for my enemies to insult and torture" that is upsetting her, it is the feeling that she attaches to that situation that is upsetting her. She is then catastrophizing that statement and saying, "not only will it be terrible that I be made to look ridiculous, but then others will treat me and my children in this manner for the rest of our lives." She is the one attributing those negative feelings to the situation, it is not the situation that is attributing them to her.
Medea is guilty for committing infanticide.

I will agree with your point on the Stoics believe in that the world does consists of a string of causes. However, Seneca states in "On Anger"," Those who punish or protect don't do so out of hate or anger, they'll do so out of devotion and braver teachings of what is worthy or unworthy of a man. Tell me then, is the good man not angry if he sees his father slain and his mother ravished?" Seneca proceeds with,"No, he will not be angry. He will punish and protect.' Medea says anger is the master of her plans because she has lost a grip on reality, she's gone insane. She's has lost all control on the situation and so devoted to Jason that she would do anything. Through insanity and devotion to Jason, Medea can't be held responsible for her actions and must be declared insane.
Medea is guilty for committing infanticide.

I disagree with your assertion here. Though the stoics are determinists, they are determinists only in the sense that they believe that the world consists of a string of causes. Every cause will necessarily lead to an effect, and every effect can be traced back to a cause. Everything that happens is part of this causal chain, something can not just come from nothing. Stoics believe that our past actions will lead to how we act in the present, which means that we are accountable for how we act in the present. As Seneca states in "On Anger," "...it is easier to to exclude the forces of ruin than to govern them, to deny them admission than to moderate them afterwards." Medea gave into her anger, when she should have let Jason's indiscretion go. Her anger then got the better of her and she killed her children. So even when Medea says that, "...anger is the master of her plans" she still chose to be angry in the first place which leaves her guilty of her crime. To also refute your claim that the Stoics would not see Medea as guilty because of their determinism, even in that same statement from "The Enchiridon," Epictetus states that "...some things are in our control." If Epictetus was of the belief that we are not the controller of our actions, then why would he begin his piece with those words?
Medea is guilty for committing infanticide.

Yes, in the beginning of "The Enchiridon" by Epictetus, states that some things are in our control and some things aren"t. However, Epictetus like the Stoics, were determinist. Determinism is the belief that everything that will happen and that you do in your life is fated. This belief entails that there is no such thing as free will. One"s life can either be fated by divine plan or by the laws of nature. Medea can"t be blamed for this act by Epictetus or the Stoics because what she did was fated and out of her control.
Medea is guilty for committing infanticide.

The opening of the Enchiridion states, "Some things are in our control, others are not... if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free and that which belongs to others is your own, you will be hindered." In the case of Medea, she believed that Jason"s emotions were in her control. They were not. Her emotions on the other hand were, as were her actions. She was hung up on the idea that she was wronged by Jason and that she HAD to get back at him. The consequences of not getting back at him would be, as she put it herself, "Do I want to make myself look ridiculous, letting my enemies go unpunished?" This was her problem, she believed that the choice was between killing her children or letting Jason go unpunished for his indiscretion. The latter of which would in turn cause her and her children to look like a fool in the eyes of many and this would make it more likely for similar things to happen again. Again she was attempting to affect that which was out of her control; by worrying about what other people would think (something that is not in her control), she placed herself in a spot where, in her mind, the only viable option was to kill her children. By placing herself in that situation, she in fact CHOSE to kill her children. She also carried out her decision. Only Medea can control her actions, therefore Medea is guilty.
Medea is guilty for committing infanticide.

I would love to live by my Stoic principles as well in this situation. I'm sure anyone would, but to talk about it rather than actually live through what Medea had are two different things. Personally, if a women to wrong me as Jason wronged Medea, I know similar thoughts like Medea had would run through my mind. Would I go through with it? Would I pursue these deep wicked thoughts? I hope to god I can have some self control or have some external force help me. But if you are like Medea, and lose your mind, and fall to "Insanity", who knows what would happen. Insanity is a state of mind where almost your sleepwalking, but rather not remembering what you've done and what has happened.
Medea is guilty for committing infanticide.

I would live by my Stoic principles, so I would not attribute such feeling towards Jason, and I would not allow myself to be angry in the first place, so my emotions would not be able to get the better of me. And what are my possessions but what emotions I attribute to them. Jason can have them, they are only possessions. Insanity is just another behavior that society labels as insane, and behavior is in our control. And as you have said in the end, she thought about and then acted upon her insane ideas. She deliberated, she chose to do it, she is Guilty!
same sex schools

Although you believe co-ed schools are better, many studies prove that single sex schools are better in academics. Children tend to receive higher marks in single sex schools, making it a better choice for students who wish to have success in school without the distraction of the other gender and focusing mainly on their learning styles. Also, children in single sex schools are not as cut off from the other gender as you think. Out of school activities and planned meetings bring many encounters with the other gender. Therefore, single sex schools are better than co-ed schools.
same sex schools

First off, I would like to state some flaws in Pro's argument. They state that same sex schools give no interaction between the two genders. Although they limit interaction, many students will still have boyfriends or girlfriends that they have met during out of school activities. Their last statement is almost the opposite. I know that quite a few classes in co-ed schools that only allow certain genders to do it. For example, cooking, fashion and sewing is often reserved for females while workshop and other physical classes are reserved for males. Although there is limited, but still lots of interaction between genders for students enrolled in single sex schools, students are shown in studies to receive much higher marks. The first reason of this is that the other gender will often interfere with learning and can be a distraction, often lowering grades. Another argument is that girls and boys have different learning styles. While buys are often kinesthetic and visual learners, girls tend to have tendencies of social and verbal learners. Having single sex schools can cater to these different learning styles and increase academic success. Therefore single sex schools increase grades and success in later life, making them the choice over co-ed schools.
same sex schools

same sex schools can base what students learn on if their female or male but with some schools they don't get to interact with the other gender. Your school may give you that option but other schools don't. My friend went to a same sex school for 6 months and she didn't see a guy once. Also co-ed schools let you take the same classes as guys/girls and with same sex schools it may seem like the other gender is better because their offered one class while and their not.