BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
9/11 was an inside job.

R.I.P. to all that died on 9/11. I'm fighting for you. If you believe this country would never do this or could do this, nazi Germany did false attacks all the time and they weren't even half as powerful as the United States government. If you think we are much more moral than Nazi Germany ever was, you should be aware the Germany people didnt know about the concentration camps. The only steel towers to ever collapse due to fire were the 3 @ WTC on 9/11. Your obvious counter argument will be that a plane hit them, but the towers were designed to absorb the impact of a commercial jet, just incase an accident was to ever occur in the busy skys over New York City. Accounts from people inside the towers, and all on the ground, are 100% consistent with the building absorbing the impact and returning to its initial position. Everyone in the towers who survived say the towers were hit, swayed one way, and then returned to their original position.. proving the buildings maintained their structural integrity. Ask yourself how modern towers of steel crumble in 2 hours due to plane contact, but a B- 25 can fly into the Empire State Building in 1945 and that building stands proud after hours of fire. If the buildings were to collapse it would have been localized and partial, not straight down into their footprint in a matter of 4 seconds. They fell almost nearly identical to the speed of gravity.. a incredibly impressive feat for a building made of steel. Put Option - An option contract giving the owner the right, but not the obligation, to sell a specified amount of an underlying asset at a set price within a specified time. The buyer of a put option estimates that the underlying asset will drop below the exercise price before the expiration date. Put options were placed on American Airlines and United immediately before 9/11. Odd. The pentagon has the most defense systems out of any building in the United States. I'm to believe that after the country knew it was under attack not one of these defense systems were put into action? Look at the flight path of the plane that hit the pentagon and do some research, those were highly incredibly skilled pilots. You don't get that type of skill from a few lessons in a small 4 seater prop plane down in Florida. Add in the nearly impossible angle the plane took to hit the first floor and you have a very unlikely scenario. There are hundreds of cameras at the pentagon.. but the only images to be released are from one camera and don't show a plane because it flew in "between frames". Building 7, home to numerous government agencies, also came down that day.. but it was never hit by an aircraft. It too collapsed on itself. We are supposed to believe that a country this powerful, with all its intelligence resources and defense systems, got utterly defeated by a bunch of guys who never flew a jet plane before? Don't take my word for it, please.. research the thousands of engineers who whole heartedly believe the events that took place are impossible. Research the families of those who died that day that demand justice and the truth.
A Short Debate of Convincing

Hi there, this is my first debate. I hope I can convince you that global warming exists. 1) Many scientists have come to the same conclusion Nasa and a lot of other organizations had come to the conclusion that global warming does exist. because global warming does exist it would mean that people would have to cut back on there CO2 emissions in order to help protect the environment. You can see on the nasa website a lot of information about global warming: http://climate.nasa.gov... I hope I was able to convince you!
A Short Debate of Convincing

Hi! I was under a bit of debating with myself regarding one of my views being Global Warming. I've come across a lot of arguments stating its existence although I am kind of stubborn and am not willing to let go of my current beliefs. My opinion on the matter is bound to be swayed if someone takes this challenge to try and convince me. This debate is not to be voted on, it is simply a discussion to see whether I am convinced. Thank you!
People with learning disabilities should not use the Tube during peak periods.

Whilst I am renowned for my compassion and respect for flids, mongs and other window-licking spackers, I don't believe that they should be allowed on the London Underground during the rush hour. They don't always stand on the right-hand side of the escalator and thus cause undue delay for commuters who wish to walk up and, furthermore, they don't know how to use the barriers properly and so cause additional delays there as well. As I said, I've got nothing against spazzas as people (unlike the obese, it's not their fault they are the way they are) but their carers should not be allowed to release them onto the public transport system during busy times.
To be labeled an american company should they be allowed to outsource almost all their jobs.

Pro provided arguments, backed by actual evidence, and provide background combined with relevant contextual information to very point2. Pro should get points for sources (this seems indisputable)3. Pro managed to address every point raised by Con during the debate. However, Con did not attempt to answer any of the issues or seemingly unrealistic proposals provided, especially since it would fundamentally alter the economy, and would definitely cause more harm than good4. Con’s forfeiture in the last round should be taken into consideration as well Final Point on the issue: Con provided an argument that works as a good concept but one that is (1) impossible to implement in the context of the world economy, not to mention no political party would develop such legislation (see subsequent points) (2) would be unconstitutional based on precedent (3) would mean almost every major corporation in the US would lose its charter (4) point three would ultimately contribute to more jobs being lost than gained, negating any positive net result (5) Con did explain nor seemed to grasp that corporation exist through charters provided by state, notably the state of Delaware for the largest companies in the world.
To be labeled an american company should they be allowed to outsource almost all their jobs.

America is a business man's paradise. Our government provides safe haven and a plethora of benefits to american businesses. The problem is many of these businesses aren't american businesses they are foreign businesses coming to america my making their headquarters here. Thats it. Also most actual american businesses don't deserve to be american business's because over 80% of there work forces is abroad. That is what this debate will be about. Should business's that outsource most of there employees be aloud to retain there status as an american business?
you are just a bunch of atoms

I accept. Definition of "bunch": http://www.merriam-webster.com... In titling this debate, my opponent has made the claim, whether he/she knew it at the time or not, that we are composed of atoms that are the same. Also, my opponent used the word "just", which means my opponent made the claim that the only thing we are is atoms. Allow me to explain why my opponent used faulty logic. First of all, not all atoms are the same. Some atoms have X number of Protons/Electrons and some atoms have Y number of Neutrons. As a result, there are different types of atoms with different compositions and uses. Obviously I am not a blob of one material, so this assertion of my opponent's must be false. As for "just", if I prove that humans consist of something other than atoms, then I win automatically. If there is a single rogue subatomic particle in my body, then my opponent will lose. Neutrinos are a form of subatomic particles. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Trillions of Neutrinos pass through your body EVERY SECOND. http://www.chacha.com... https://www.flickr.com... And it is likely that humans produce neutrinos too. Therefore, I have proved my case, or at least I have shed a sufficient amount of doubt upon the claims of my opponent, who has burden of proof. I await my opponent's rebuttals and arguments.
The internet is responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth

The internet gives more of a positive effect to the youth of our generation then an actual negative effect to their mental health. Social media creates a sense of community online as well as encouraging people to seek help with issues if they need to and improve their ability to share and understand the feelings of others. By talking to others on technology it can increase life satisfaction by having a positive effect when talking to people online. Other ways the internet have positive effects on mental health is allowing people to socialize with family members or friends in distant locations. It impacts the friendships with a strong positive vibe because of developing more trust and becoming closer as they constantly have the ability to communicate. Social media can grow the sense of empathy by learning and understanding the perspective of others. Teenagers seem to be more aware of the risks and are cautious of online interactions which gives evidence that social media teaches them to create an understanding of sensibility. The internet is starting to improve people"s daily life and allow people to take charge of their own mental healthcare.
The internet is responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth

Mental health is the main reason to why mental health issues are increasing, Not only has social media been proved to cause unhappiness, But it can also lead to the development of mental health issues such as anxiety or depression when used too much or without caution. You can get anxiety from social media such as when you post a photo you get anxious to the amount of likes/comments your going to get, If people are going to talk about it bad/good if people will make fun of you, All those things make you feel anxious and scared not going to lie from my perspective I feel anxious when I have to do certain things that involve other people or meeting new people. When us humans use social media we are found most of the time comparing our lives with others which is mentally unhealthy because we're putting ourselves down for something we do and don't have which makes us unhappy with who we are as a person and instead of appreciating the things we have we are always wanting more and that's because of social media, We see what others post and instantly in order for us to fit in with society we have to get the certain thing in. Social media can be used to post memories for example instagram and snapchat but those have side effects too for you and the person looking at it, It shows only one side of someone's live but not the bad things making people feel like only there lives are horrible and the person posting it it can bring back memories of unnecessary things
The internet is responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth

The internet is not responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth. It has been scientifically proven that there is a weak correlation between youth and the use of social media connected to a mental health issue: like depression. Eleven scientific studies were pursued with a total of 12, 646 participants and overall it was found that a small relationship between online social interaction and developing a depressed mood. Instead vulnerable young people are more likely to turn to the internet for social support. Giving evidence that depression is more of a contributing factor to the internet rather than a consequence of it. Technology is improving mental health care. It is improving mental health care with apps on smartphones and computers which help provide services and information to clients in a more cost-effective way and easily accessible. Apps that promote mental wellness and policies that are available that allow clients to complete courses of cognitive behavioral t
Are Lambos and Ferrari"s overrated

Hello, Personally I'm a huge fan of Dodge and given the opportunity to have any car, a Hellcat Charger would be high up on the list. I would also agree that you can't beat the price, power, and drivability of a Dodge, just like many other budget American sports and super cars. All of that being said, Ferrari's and Lambo's are most certainly worth the money. There's an elegance and refinement you get with cars like those that few manufacturers can match. Looking back to the Mustangs, Challengers, and Camaros of a couple of years ago and comparing them to the 458 and Aventador, there's no match. Not only do these exotic foreign autos age well, but they perform wonderfully, and they have a certain amount of legend surrounding them. At the end of the day, the Demon can probably beat just about anything on the planet, but in truth it's a bit obnoxious and most refined purchasers would have no difficulty taking a European sports car over an American one. Geographically this makes sense as European manufacturers must tailor to a wide variety of tastes when designing their cars, whereas American manufacturers know that all we want is speed, a nice throaty V8, and street credibility.
Russia would defeat the USA in a war.

Now, my opponent states that the invasion will begin from Alaska, across the Bering Strait. This means that many troops and vehicles would have to be flown over to Alaska. This would give Russia time to prepare. Russia's naval mine warfare force consists of 34 ships. (Second only to China). Russia would use this to mine the Sea of Okhotsk and the area around the Kamchatka peninsula, preventing the US from using their navy in these areas. It is, of course, still possible but the US would take heavy casualties and it would take much time to carefully navigate through this minefield. . http://www.globalfirepower.com... Next, I will note that the US forces will have to cover a little over 3, 900 miles to get from the Bering Strait to Moscow. Not only is that by itself an enormous distance, but most of it is through the harsh climate of Siberia.
Russia would defeat the USA in a war.

I will be arguing that Russia would defeat the USA in a war. These will be the conditions for our debate. 1. No nuclear weaponry. Just "traditional" warfare. 2. No allies, just 1 v 1, Russia vs. USA. 3. US is the aggressor (realistic considering America's aggressive war history.) 4. My opponent has the choice of arguing how/from where the US would strike. This also means that my opponent is basically the general of the US army, so in a way, we are not only competing with brute military force, but also military strategy. 5. Total war. No outside help, just the two countries brawling it out. 6. We will not consider future military projects, only what resources/weaponry the countries have today. If you have any questions or want me to specify something, ask in the comment section. Please begin your argument.
Russia would defeat the USA in a war.

"Also when you do the math to convert thousand cubic meters to gallons of gas you get the price that I have given you. So please extend this across the board. " The article says that Gazprom is charging Ukraine up to $368 dollars per one thousand cubic meters. 1000 cubic meters=264172 US gallons This means that you divide $368 by 264172 gallons to see the price per gallon. That is no where near $100, 000 per gallon as my opponent claimed. . http://www.cityam.com... . http://www.google.com... "The only reason that they were fighting so hard in World War 2 was, because in Russia if you were an officer and you failed your mission you would be shot in the head and killed as they give your job to the next guy in line. " Being a Soviet soldier in WW2, you had three options: 1. Surrender to the Germans, be sent to concentration camp to die. 2. Run away and be shot for being a traitor. 3. Stay and fight to the death because your entire country is in danger. Most soldiers chose the third option. This war would be no different. A much disliked enemy on YOUR land, threatening YOUR country. Most would fight to the death. As mentioned, the overall Russian morale would be higher than that of the US forces. "US will not run out of resources as we have other allies and places were we get our oil" I would ask that my opponent scroll up to the original rules of this debate presented in Round 1. "2. No allies" "No outside help" But alright, for the sake of being realistic, I'll let it slide. Even if the US finds a reliable oil supply, not only will the US be wasting much more money trying to obtain oil from abroad but the countries from the US is getting oil can also drastically raise the prices to take advantage of the demand. "The US has known to also use Scud defense as they have effectively destroyed the Iraqi Scuds attacking Israeli forces during the Gulf War. " According to my opponent's source, this system only had a 40% success rate in Israel. . http://www.pbs.org... Also, an official investigation concluded that: "After a 10-month investigation in 1992 by the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security, the subcommittee concluded there was little evidence to prove the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq. " . http://www.pbs.org... In conclusion, I believe that the US invasion would fail because of far superior Russian land forces. Although the US has superior Navy and Air force, not only did my opponent fail to take advantage of this, but also the fact that Russia is an enormous chunk of land means that the war would mostly rely on ground forces. Also, my opponent still provided no real plan of invasion and gave no numbers.
Russia would defeat the USA in a war.

Contention 1: EconomyThis is where my opponent is mistaken. Russia has annexed Crimean and is charging the people their that price. Also when you do the math to convert thousand cubic meters to gallons of gas you get the price that I have given you. So please extend this across the board. Russia would not fight for National suicide as the US has proved that they would take out Japan as they to were fighting for national suicide in World War 2. The only reason that they were fighting so hard in World War 2 was, because in Russia if you were an officer and you failed your mission you would be shot in the head and killed as they give your job to the next guy in line. So please extend my points across the board as we can still see that the Russians are as strong as the USSR.US will not run out of resources as we have other allies and places were we get our oil and this will actually push the need for the XL Keystone Pipeline to be built between the US and Canada and it will help will the oil sickness the US has. (http://keystone-xl.com...) Contention 2: MilitaryThe US as well has a large ballistic missile arsenal as they had been updating since the Cold War know as Wizard and Thumper. ( http://www.cfr.org...) The US has known to also use Scud defense as they have effectively destroyed the Iraqi Scuds attacking Israeli forces during the Gulf War. (http://www.pbs.org...)
Russia would defeat the USA in a war.

Contention 1: The economyPro brings up that the US debt is large and I will admit that. However the US and Chinese economies are so interlinked it would be impossible for China to call for the bill and bankrupt America as it would bankrupt China as well and damage the entire global economy. (http://business.time.com...)I would like to extend my gas argument, because I provided a valid source and my opponent did not. My opponent also drops the fact that the Russian dumping of the US currency will hurt Russia and cause hyperinflation. He also drops how the Russian economy is incredibly fragile in war when looking at the Ukraine crisis. Imagain a larger war.US knows that this will hurt the economy, but as I brought up in my last round it will hurt the Russians more. (http://money.cnn.com...) Contention 2: MilitaryThe invasion of Russia will be simple. While the US lands in Russia the US will rain scuds down upon the Russian forces blowing them into oblivion. While the Russian economy fails and crushes the Russians will be forced to surrender and they will fall into depression. The Invasion in the East (Bering Strait) will be by the US Army while I purpose a second invasion where the US will invade Russia through the Baltic Sea between Finland and Estonia and this will be administered by the Marine Corps and the US Navy. My opponent states that the Russians can out shoot the Americans, but this is again false, because if you look at the link I provided it shows that the farthest the US can shoot is 13,000 km (Minuteman 3) while the farthest the Russians can shoot is 11,000 km (SS-27) (http://www.armscontrol.org...) (http://news.usni.org...) My opponent also forgets that the US currently has troops stationed all over the world so it will be easy to invade Russia from all different directions.
Russia would defeat the USA in a war.

Contention 1: EconomyWe have all seen wars where the economy is a major fact. Let's take a look at how a US invasion of Russia will lead to the collapse of the Russian economy. First off Russia has the US dollar as their back-up currency. When the invasion occurs Russia will dump the US dollar. ( http://www.thedailybeast.com...) However this will not hurt the US, but actually collapse Russia. You see the Russian financial market is very fragile. If we look at the Russian economy during the Ukraine crisis it will explain a ton. During the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian economy dropped 12 points on the market. (http://money.cnn.com...) Shares have fallen to 7% and their bankers are fleeing for London. It's also charging gas prices in Russia at $97,347 per gallon! (http://www.cityam.com...) Now this is just Russia in Ukraine. US invasion of Russia will have larger implications.Contention 2: US MilitaryPro brings up in his argument that US will get destroyed via mine fields, but this is incorrect. The US has thousands of anti-mine vehicles that could easily take out the mine field. (http://www.npr.org...) The US has a ballistic missile system that can hit Russia and Moscow could be bombed on a daily basis. (http://www.armscontrol.org...) Russia also has a falling population which will hurt it's military force as thousands of people are disappearing from the Russian Demographics. (http://www.theamericanconservative.com...) US also has many anti mine ships and many of which is already near Russia and are stationed in Japan prepared for an invasion. (http://www.navy.mil...)