BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear bombs don't deter wars

Given the 3000 character limit, I only have space to cover your two points as follows: 1) 'If MAD is true, then there is no reason to proliferate nuclear weaponry' If we have enough why make more? It"s not as though nuclear weaponry constitutes a highly profitable industry by which international status can be gained through elevating the perceived strength of a state or power above those with less destructive potential. It"s not as though they are like bargaining tools in a nexus of political relations by which individual states seek to exploit one another. To state that the purpose of nuclear weapons derives entirely from their physical use against another nation, is to reduce their wider utility as a socio-political and economic force. Surely we have to take these factors into account: for example, the very fact that the US government is making more nukes, is enough to make its population believe it is resolving problems within its international policy, creating measures against North Korea, Russia and ISIS and so forth, thereby solidifying state popularity. 2) 'If MAD can be circumvented, then nuclear weaponry no longer causes a deterrence effect' From the first point, you have inferred that nuclear proliferation occurs because MAD can be avoided in so that state powers can have military advantages over each other. Yet all we would have to do is change the "D" of this acronym to "Devastation" to restore the argument: Mutually Assured Devastation would indeed cause a deterrent effect. The knowledge that by pressing a button that millions will die, economies will flounder and landscapes be devastated, is sufficient enough to cause hesitation in engaging in this kind of warfare. Even if the other power couldn"t fire back, say with North Korea, the backlash of using nuclear weaponry both domestically and internationally would be profound. These relations are preventive reasons of why having nukes simultaneously prevents their use. The prevention of war can come from within as well as from the out. Deterrence, in itself, is only a feeling of trepidation in lieu of the consequences of an act: it takes no real exertion of the mind to see why the effects of nuclear weaponry could deter individual powers from using them, even if this deterrence effect ultimately fails to prevent missile launch relative to the numerous conditions surrounding a conflict. If you want to change your assertion to 'MAD no longer deters war', please clarify, for it is not synonymous with nuclear weaponry but rather the name given to a real (not hypothetical) phenomenon that emerged during the Cold War, where neither the USSR nor USA could fire upon each other without inciting their mutual annihilation. You can argue this phrase obsolete given the modern state of affairs but not hypothetical. I will extrapolate on this further if you still refute it, for clearly if MAD was a prominent reasoning force in the Cold War, then nuclear deterrence is a tested hypothesis.
Nuclear bombs don't deter wars

Yes, I am saying that “if nuclear weapons are held by adversarial countries, then a deterrence effect preventing war between them will not occur.” Argument 1: If nuclear bombs do deter wars, then why are the US spending $55 billion[1] in 2012 (which is expected to rise)? Why is Russia spending $15 billion USD [2] on its own nuclear weapons? The hypothesis that 2 nuclear countries would not fight a war because doing so would ensure both sides are completely annihilated is only that: a hypothesis. This hypothesis can be summed up as “mutually assured destruction deters war.” If mutually assured destruction was indeed valid, then why would both of the leading nuclear countries, US and Russia, spend enormous amounts of money to “modernize,” expand, and upgrade their nuclear arsenals? After all, nuclear weapons would destroy everything, why build one more warhead to destroy something that has been reduced to ashes? Also, Brendan Green, assistant professor of Poli Sci at U of Cincinnati, has published a paper arguing that mutually assured destruction (MAD) could be “escaped” by one country by denying another country of second-strike capabilities (e.g. Country A’s missiles are so advanced they destroy the capabilities of Country B to launch missiles—thus, Country A escapes MAD while Country B is destroyed). The Russians feared the US could “escape” MAD and destroy Russia, denying Russia’s chances of retaliating. Brendan Green suggests that nuclear balance could be “more malleable.” [3] This is why US and Russia are both racing to expand their nuclear arsenals—both are aware MAD is escapable and malleable. In short, fear does not deter wars; it only raises the ante. Argument 2: Why is the US building nuclear missile defense systems? If just the existence of nuclear weapons is enough to deter any country from attacking, then why is the US squandering $44 billion to build a nuclear defense system that has a “40% success rate?” Why are they ready to put out $224 million just to test the capabilities of a $44 billion system? Surely, according to the nuclear deterrence hypothesis, North Korea or any other nuclear country wouldn’t dare to bomb us, as they will be destroyed too. Why, then, build a $44 billion dollar system that only works 40% of the time [4]? It’s because nuclear deterrence is only an untested hypothesis. In fact, according to source [1], $174 billion of the $700 billion ten year nuclear budget will be spent on “missile defense,” “Nuclear Threat Reduction,” and “Nuclear Incident Management.” Couldn’t this money be used to build more warheads, and raise the risks of mutually assured destruction, and altogether decrease the chances of a nuclear war? No—destruction does not equal peace, and fear does not equal harmony. URL shortened due to character count [1]https://goo.gl... [2]https://goo.gl... [3]https://goo.gl... [4]https://goo.gl...
Nuclear bombs don't deter wars

To elucidate, I would ask you to clarify whether I am wrong in thinking that your proposition is that 'if nuclear weapons are held by adversarial countries, then a deterrence effect preventing war between them will not occur', or does your contention express a scenario in which nuclear weaponry is only held unilaterally, by one agency? Or perhaps there is another situation you are imagining? Please make this clear in your first argument--
Tupac is a Better rapper than Biggie

Good morning all readers of Debate.org. Allow me to rebut the first speakers opinions. Alexis stated that Tupac has lyrics.. Well duh! All singers/rappers have lyrics. Also "Tupas has sold many more albums than Biggie." This may be true, but the amount of albums sold is not a true indication of which is better. For example Gangnam Style (PSY) has sold MILLIONS of copies of the songs, but is he better than 2Pac or Biggie? To be honest, I love Pacs style. Biggie is also a great rapper. Most of Biggies songs are relaxing, and meaningful. Thank you for reading.
Tupac is a Better rapper than Biggie

Hey All! Since the opponent has forfeited a whole round, it means I have no rebuttal and will only have a small speech. Quite a few of Biggies Album went Platinum, as well as a few of 2pacs, but, and I repeat, Biggies albums are much, MUCH more Lyrical then 2Pacs! Thanks You! (Note: Very Short, No Rebuttal Though !!!)
Tupac is a Better rapper than Biggie

"both rappers is telling a story" First of all, Both* then instead of is, are. Also need some full stops and grammatical errors. Anyways, I believe Pac is a great rapper, But I don't see how he is better than the Notorious B.I.G! They both have been rapping for a while (Well Biggie still is but Pacs life was cut short, Illuminati or actually a drive by) and they both have experience in rapping. Biggie is very lyrical, as well as Pac, but I don't compare they're actual rapping abilities! For example, In Notorious B.I.G's song, Hypnotize, he is very calm and relaxed. He also tells a story during this. Great Song. I want you to answer, "Is Tupac actually dead" and "Do 2Pacs lyrics compare to Biggies?"
All Religion is Inherently Evil

I would like to start out with a question. Can you tell me the most evil wicked things that one person could ever do to another person? Lets say 10 things, more if your willing. And btw i havent studied world religions so im not sure about "every" religion but its easier for me to list the religions i do not think are evil. Now i think buddism is the only religion i can think of right now that is not evil. In the way it teaches unfactual information and encourages ignorance in this way. Yes it is not healthy for a proggressive society but is a very healthy mental and emotional religion. Calming and Peaceful. Even if a religion is peaceful i dont believe it has a part in modern society because we have past the point in time where we should now be focusing more on science and facts for answers since we have been leaping closer and closer to the answers we are looking for through science. I agree with all my being with science because it never has a definite answer it is always changing as we progress and find out new things about the world around us. Unlike religion who has it well, backwards. They state facts then write stories and preach about them being facts. Sorry for the long drawn out paragraph just wanted to let you know where im coming from.
I am correct

To start, you have infered that 2+2=4 and that that is "correct." But that is not so because under certain circumstances, 2+2 can equal 5 as seen in this video, proven none other than Stephen Hawking. Fast forward to 3:30 to see the proof.http://www.nick.com...Since your were wrong that 2+2=4 is correct, you are not correct.
I am correct

Your interpretation of that quote is that "there is no absolute correct answer." I do not believe that this is what he was trying to aver. He was trying to say that you can be partially correct, that you do not have to be completely correct to be "correct." One simple disproof of this is math. 2+2 is always going to equal 4 by the mathematical laws we have created. If I say something that is mostly correct, such as a story that is exaggerated a little, it will be considered mostly correct. Since we are putting forward two possible sides(correct and incorrect) it will have to fall into one of those sides and mostly correct will be put onto the correct side. Saying I am correct can also be said, by this circumstance, I am ,for the most part, correct. You have also not given a single example as to why I am not correct. Only why it is impossible to be correct, which I have just refuted. That is why I am correct.
I am correct

Issac Asimov in The Relativity of Wrong said that it is futile to thing of things of right or wrong, or in this case, correct or incorrect. He said "Wen people thought the Earh was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you thik that thinking that the Earth is spherical i just as wrong as you thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together. The basic trouble, you see, is that people think "right" [correct] and "wrong [incorrect] are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong."What Issac is trying to say is that there is no abslute correct answer. You can only get closer to the answer, but you will never acheive the truth. This is why you are not correct. Being correct is as real as infinity, you can get closer but you will never reach it.
I am correct

My argument will start with the brain. I think we can both agree that the human brain works. If something works, it is correct when it does something. I have a brain and I am therefore correct. Also throughout my life I have been asked many questions and have come up with many answers. When I do not know the answer I am incorrect, but now there is no question except, "Am I correct? " I do know the answer to this question and since the answer is I am correct, I would only be incorrect by saying that I am incorrect.
Do blacks need fascism

You're wrong. So you're saying black shouldn't own thier blacks only consume never invest? And the few rich blacks don't help the poor ones. Which is why favoritism and are extremely importantant needed in the black community. It's not that I'm rascist im a realist I know how the game works. The Chinese and jews were once weak and now thier rich. Why because they love thier own and support thier own. It works for other races why not us The only weak one is you. You have to fight hate with hate. Love can't beat hate. Only hate can. Ofc I need to fight fire with fire. What other choice do I have. Once black start working together. Whites will try to put a stop to it. Fascism has inspired to run for office in my parents home country. I need to educate my people. Hitler said. Teach a low repeat a lie believe a lie. I'll do the same but instead of lying with truth. Blacks always make other race rich but not thier own. Segregation is the key. All black schools should teach fascism and black nationalism and pride to remove the colonial brainwashin whites have put in our heads. 24/7 black history year. Forget old blacks I'm only worried about the youth. The old are ready set in thier way and are ignorant. The youth is the key thr future once thier mentality stable the black man will prosper. All foriegn stores in my county should be for the people. Chinese and lebanese should hire my local. Being around white supremacists have made me rascist. Rascism is contagious and whites fault. Fascism is like a weapon it's only evil when its against you. It's good when it's on your side. Its neutral.
Do blacks need fascism

Hmm. If you insist. It's not that I couldn't wrap my head around anything. I just was hoping it was a joke because the level of racism you bring to your argument is sincerely troubling. Why do you think everybody is a nationalist? The only weak person I see is you. You see disparity in the world, And instead wanting to right the wrongs, You decided that you should assume the role of the oppressor and fight fire with fire. What would be your ultimate goal? Do you really think that this is a good idea, Or are your motives simply emotional ones? Honestly, This is all probably moot, Because you seem like a troll. No human being is that openly evil. Not if they're being serious anyway.
Do blacks need fascism

Lol a white man like you just can't wrap your head around the fact that a black person can think like I do. You're too used to weak blacks. Well I'm not and thier are more like me. You're very ignorant. Look umar Johnson drphill from the advise show marcus garvey malcolm x or everybody hates angel and others. There are many black scholars who thick like me. You think only whites are nationalist or fascist? Well think again. I'd you admire defeat go ahead. I'm as serious as I can be. That's the problem with non negros. If you actually did your research You'd know that they're other who are way more die hard black nationalistic than me
Do blacks need fascism

I've proved many, You're just a white supremacist who has a problem with my view. I'm a realist. You're retarded, yeah blacks should keep sit around doing nothing. Fuq out of here. Blacks need it. Hitler was smart. But foolish he shouldn't have turned against Russia. Other than that he would've been successful. Africa needs a black Hitler or Mussolini. You're aren't black you don't know what we need. We need a black Peter the great. We need our own business. I'd rather from a black owned businesses than white owned businesses. I want my money helping out a brother not someone who doesn't look like. If I come prejudice too bad. I'm a realist its needed. If black were fascist we wouldn't have been in our current position. With Nationalism collectivism, Favoritism and xenophobia, Blacks will prosper. Non blacks who imagrate to Africa and Caribbean need to conform and assimilate to our culture or leave.
Do blacks need fascism

Is this a troll debate? You can't really think that level of prejudice is a good thing. This would have been the same kind of argument that Hitler would have made before he got elected. Also, You didn't define fascism. It's not about what a specific race needs. It's about equality. The point is to rid the world of fascism, Not promote it. You haven't really provided any proofs. Just a bunch of racist drivel. Your floor.
There are only 2 genders.

Key word "mushrooms," as in, something you eat and not someone you socialize with. Just because mushrooms have over 30,000 genders, that doesn't mean humans have more than 2 genders. Also, the next time you bring up a source, don't use your support from a video on YouTube. Yes, the person may have research, but there's something almost everyone uses, Google. You know, that thing you use to search up something.
An atheist must agree that our organs exist for no reason

I'll make my case as succinct as possible. Atheism rejects or is non-acceptant of the premise "God exists". "God" is reasonably defined as the supreme, conscious agent that masterminded existence. So atheism necessarily entails that there is no consciousness that masterminded existence. If this is true, the only means for action is inherent randomness or unembodied natural laws. Anything that is unembodied or random cannot be a means towards any end. If this is true, any result of those processes happened for no reason. Therefore, since organs would be a result of those processes, they could not have resulted for any reason. Remember, per round 1, I said that "this debate is over whether organs exist for any reason on a factual level". We can't consider our own self-prescribed reasons for why our organs exist. The development of organs occurred through a lengthy process of evolutionary pressures acting on natural selection. The question is: did these pressures or changes occur *in order to promote the survival of the organism*? If atheism is true, the answer to the question is "no" because it's a logical impossibility. Evolution is a natural, unembodied process. Any unembodied process can't be a means toward an end (of surviva). It's just a process with a result. So if we posit that organs exist in order to aid in the survival of a species, we're presupposing that evolution occurs towards that end. This would be logically impossible since evolution is just an unembodied process devoid of goals or objectives or intent. What if "reason" is just defined as the means by which something occurs? For example, the "reason" there are craters on the moon is because asteroids collided with its surface. This is a common misuse of the word "reason" if we're staying true to the meaning behind the word. Another example of a commonly misused word is "why". Asking "why is the sky blue?" is an incoherent question to ask if atheism is true. Asking *why* is to ask for what reason or for what purpose. What is really meant by that question is "*how* is the sky blue?". Per round 1 I said that this debate concerns whether our organs exist for any reason on a factual level. Since everything that occurs in nature is inherently a means without an end, our organs exist for no reason as well. Remember, reason is defined as "a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event." Everything that occurs in nature is undefined. There are no defined "actions" or "events" on an ontological level. Whatever "action" or "event" occurs in nature is a dynamic process with no defined outcome. In other words, everything that naturally occurs by an unembodied process cannot have ends. A reason is only a means towards an end. Therefore everything that occurs by an unembodied process cannot occur for any reason. Organs are the result of an unembodied process. Therefore organs exist for no reason (on a factual level).
An atheist must agree that our organs exist for no reason

Organs: tissues composed of cells in our bodies that perform functions. For example: an atheist can't say that the reason we have a heart is to circulate oxygenated blood throughout the body. Reason: "a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. " Or in other words, a means towards an end. The debate is over whether organs exist for any reason on a factual level.
An atheist must agree that our organs exist for no reason

"Mental concepts are not naturally occurring." This is just an example of the sophistry that occurs throughout your argument. While mental concepts are not tangible in a physical sense, they are naturally occurring because they occur within nature in the brains of humans or other intelligent beings. Again a point that is never responded to and is the most paramount of this argument is that REASON is a concept developed within the context of the human mind, it does not exist without the human perception. The only concept that your assertions hang on is that organs must hold their own sentience in order for them to have a reason to exists. Since you have never been an organ you cannot say that they do not hold sentience. Your assumptions require facts, you assertions require facts. To answer your original question: As an atheist, I CAN say my organs exists for a reason, that reason is to keep me alive.
Resolved: That circus animal entertainment is morally wrong and should be banned.

I accept my opponent's definition - but I'm sorry to say that anthropocentrism is irrelevant since I am not justifying animal entertainment in that way. ===== PRO: Animals have rights ===== My opponent correctly see's that to ban animal entertainment, animals should have rights. He argues, however, that just because animals are sentient - like humans - then they should have the same rights. This is the right premise, but wrong conclusion. True, animals are sentient like us. HOWEVER, we are persons[1], which in philosophy means we are self-aware, i. e. conscious - animals are not. Because we are ethically responsible for our actions (being persons), we are given rights. Animals are NOT persons. Do they have free will? Should lions be imprisoned for killing other animals? Animal rights implies that we should give animals full rights, and take them out of biomedical testing, pets, food, and entertainment. This is ridiculous, as I have demonstrated, because they are not on the same moral platform as humans. While we should allow for their welfare (no unnecessary suffering) because they are sentient, they should not be on the same platform as humans. ===== Anthropocentric philosophy ===== This rebuttal is irrelevant, since I am not arguing for circus animal entertainment in this way. ===== Conclusion ===== Animals are not on the same platform as humans - to say they are is quite the burden. ---References--- 1. . http://www.philosophypages.com...