BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
USA Unilateral Military Force Is The Best Thing To Do To Prevent Immediate Nuclear Proliferation

First of all I would like to state, you may not post new arguments,rebuttals, and new evidence in final focus. Sorry for not saying that before because I assumed you knew. I know its awkward not having a summary speech but, you designed the debate so... (I will not be refuting any of your rebuttals to my rebuttals since that's against the debate rules) Okay Now onto the reasons why I win today's round. Since the opposition did not really refute my whole case, saying only it is irrelevant, we may extend all of these arguments across the flow. One point I would like to stress is that, my definition of immediate is right now. The opposition comes and says that multilateral force but, like I have said before, multilateral force is too slow. I win on my two contentions saying that there is irrational leaders and there is terrorism. C1: Irrational leaders North Korea, as we have seen before wants to attack South Korea and the United States. It is justified to protect your own country because what the opposition is advocating is that MAD works. Like I said before, it is better to take preventive action ( the fastest action possible) because we cannot fight back if us, the U.S gets nuked because it will take time to recover. The example of the Hiroshima bombing, when the Japanese was winning and after they got nuked, they lost. C2: Terrorists Terrorism is a huge problem in today's society. We know many terrorists are after us, as we have seen Al Qaeda. This is the same concept. We have a right to protect our own country since we are fully aware that there are terrorists. Also to my subpoint b of my c2, I said terrorists can steal these nuclear weapons. If countries can't protect them, then the United States should and is justified to go in and protect these nuclear warheads. It's better to be safe than sorry. Now on the the world of the affirmation and the world of the negation. In the world of the affirmation, we see that we are taking preventive actions and we are keeping these nuclear weapons from irrational leaders and terrorists. It will also be safe and we will not be relying on this principle called MAD. Like I have stated before MAD(Mutually assured destruction) doesn't work because it assumes all leaders are rational. Unilateral force by the U.S is the most effective because of its speed, and its solvency. In the world of the negation, we will wait a long time to get multilateral force to get approved, which infringes on immediate in the resolution. Also, we assume that the time we are waiting for multilateral force to be approved, these loose weapons like I have stated Ukraine will be safe. Also, we would be making the assumption that Mutually assured destruction will occur but, like I have stated before, that only applies to rational leaders. Also, they would be favoring money over lives as this is an important point, since we may not buy lives again, so we must preserve every life. For these reasons, I strongly urge and affirmative ballot. Thank you.
USA Unilateral Military Force Is The Best Thing To Do To Prevent Immediate Nuclear Proliferation

In Conclusion, Pie5434, you refuted my argument by saying the USA using unilateral force is better. This is untrue, please remember my third contention states that the US is not responsible enough to act as the worlds police. You state "Even at 2012, we still spend most of our money on the military" but does this justify that we are in so much debt and cannot afford another altercation? " It's better to use money than lose lives, because you cannot buy lives." I do not believe we should bring morals into this debate. " immediate means now and we cannot wait for multilateral force." But can we really afford to have the US make mistakes such as the ones we've made before? Again, history repeats itself. Just because it may have been a couple decades ago, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I brought up that the United States has nuclear weapons and were the only ones to use them, because how are they going to be the best to prevent it, when they themselves have nuclear weapons and have used them on civilians themselves. You're stating Multilateral agreement will not work but Military intervention is without need, as mutually assured destruction and diplomacy are effective tools in controlling nuclear proliferation. "Even when the United States felt directly threatened during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy did not invoke the right of preemptive self defense. Although the risk of mass destruction was high the presidents legal arguments were carefully constrained when intercepting Soviet missiles on the seas Kennedy relied on regional peacekeeping provision of the UN charter."-latimes.com. A situation such as that of Syria cannot be compared to that of Nuclear Proliferation with an example such as that above. Finally in conclusion, I have demonstrated that the USA using Unilateral Military Force Is NOT The Best Thing To Do To Prevent Immediate Nuclear Proliferation because they are irresponsible, and simply cannot afford the whole situation. Also, there are other ways to resolve a conflict. I does not necessarily have to be Military force. We can try diplomacy for example such as in the Cuban Missile Crisis. And if it were to escalate to where you needed Military force, something such as Nuclear Proliferation is a world matter and should not be handled by only 1 country. It's epic rhetoric, to employ the most mentally-crippling of ideological frameworks. Voters, please realize my opponent forfeited the second round to state his arguments so I was not able to complete the rest of the rounds rebutting his arguments due to this. Thank you all. Pie5434 good debate! Thank you for accepting. -Hawking0820
USA Unilateral Military Force Is The Best Thing To Do To Prevent Immediate Nuclear Proliferation

My opponent has forfeited the second round which was for stating his arguments. Meaning, he has forfeited his option to state his arguments as it is clearly stated in the rules I posted. The third round was for rebuttals against the second round arguments, but he has no arguments so I cannot refute anything. I believe by default, I win the second and third round since he forfeited the second and the third is pointless without the second. But, to make things fair, my opponent in the first round (which was only for accepting) posted some arguments, but those entire arguments were not relating back to the original resolved. Not once did he state why the United States using unilateral military force to prevent immediate nuclear proliferation would be the best option. He just stated hypotheticals on North Korea and terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons. Pie5434, if you wish you can just forfeit the third round. Or if you want to get more practice you can refute my arguments from the second round. The fourth round will be conclusions and why you believe you have won this debate. Thank you.
USA Unilateral Military Force Is The Best Thing To Do To Prevent Immediate Nuclear Proliferation

Hawking0820 will be arguing the CON side for the resolved of - "Is The USA Using Unilateral Military Force The Best Thing To Do To Prevent Immediate Nuclear Proliferation" with the thesis of "No, the USA using unilateral military force will not be the best thing to do to prevent immediate nuclear proliferation". Whoever accepts the PRO side will be arguing with the thesis of - "Yes, the USA using unilateral military force will be the best thing to do to prevent immediate nuclear proliferation". Please keep in mind the time to argue is set to 24 hours so please be timely with your arguments. Thank you -Hawking0820
All Souls Are The Eternal God's Only Illusion

This debate has become an allon-bacuth or 'oak of weeping'. Please do not hold this against my opponent in voting. In its first sense, the Hebrew word nephesh signifies breath, life, and the PRINCIPLE of animal life (Genesis 1:20). It was only much later that the Hebrews adopted the distinction of soul from body. My opponent correctly defines the soul as spiritual. The literal 'spirit' means 'breath'. Immaterial, however, I cannot accept as an accurate definition of a soul. That would imply the soul as being illusive from God, which is the point I am arguing against. All of my opponent's other definitions are fine and dandy. Spirit is an essence with as little material as possible; it is even more subtle than a soul. The Spirit of God has powers and when in action these powers surpass those considered human powers. The Spirit of God is a person distinct from the Father and the Son. It is believed that every Christian possesses the Spirit as a principle of life and a pledge of resurrection. Spirit, being subtler than a soul, is the innermost part of a believer in Christ. Once upon a time there was a God who ordered from abroad at a a high price a faultless and hybrid Soul and Spirit which He desired to have for His own pleasure and for the pleasure of operating them Himself. Then about a year or two passed. Anyone who had previously known this Soul and Spirit would not have been able to recognize them again. The eyes of the Spirit and Soul became tired, their gate lacked style and precision, they became weak and impatient, and they hardly were hardly operable by God.
All Souls Are The Eternal God's Only Illusion

Unfortunately, I saw this debate, and, eager to debate something about religion, clicked accept, under the assumption that abstractposters would be debating Pro and I would debate Con. However, since I’ve already clicked and technically accepted this challenge, I’m not going to cop out or forfeit, and will try my best to form some semblance of an argument for Pro on this ridiculous assertion. Since the instigator, who is apparently Con, has provided an unclear resolution, and failed to provide definitions, I will provide definitions and clarify the resolution: Definitions: Soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal. Illusion: a false idea or belief. God: a being that is worshiped, idealized, or followed. Eternal: 1) having infinite duration. OR 2) characterized by or associated with an abiding fellowship with a god. Resolution: All souls are illusions, and the illusions, or false ideas, were started by a god, who is eternal.
Rap battle

I'm so sorry I had to go out of town for the weekend and wasn't able to access the Internet while I was gone. Anyway, here it goes. I'm livin in the D, you aint knowin nothin bout me, you can try to hate on me, but whatchou dont know you cannot see. Guess one thing bout me, I know you wont get it, call me up when you think you wont sweat it. Again I know this probably is just terrible and I'm definitely not getting a call from a record company anytime soon. And again I'm sorry for not giving you notice that I was leaving but I myself had short notice.
Race Based Affirmative Action in Universities

Race based affirmative action should not be used at colleges and universities. Using race as a criteria in admissions is unfair to everyone involved. A blatant issue using race is that race has no direct correlation to achievement. I understand that certain races are often disadvantaged; but instead of using race, we should use the direct disadvantages in the admissions process. For example, African-americans often live in lower-end neighborhoods, where they attend worse schools and have less opportunities in the community. This should certainly be considered in admissions; have them report their school and socioeconomic status, and let that be considered during the application process. Let them be evaluated within their context, but race should not enter the equation. People do not receive less opportunities because they are African-american; they receive less opportunities because of their standing in life while growing up. Is there a meaningful difference between an African-american growing up in ghetto Oakland and the son of Vietnamese immigrants living next door? In the admissions process, there should be no difference. This type of admissions process clearly disadvantages Asian-americans, Caucasians, and ethnic groups who are often in the top of their class. Why should a White candidate be denied while a Black candidate, who lives in the same neighborhood, has similar test scores, and attends the same school, gets accepted? Using race as a criteria ignores the actual issue at play, leaving many ethnic groups with an unfair disadvantage. Furthermore, race based affirmative action often leaves people second-guessing minorities when they are truly deserving of a seat at a university. It also demeans minorities; they don't need quotas and their skin color to succeed. Race based affirmative action ignores larger issues at play (socioeconomic situation), and is even bad for groups it seeks to help. Therefore, it should be eliminated from the college admissions process.
Race Based Affirmative Action in Universities

This will be an argument about whether or not universities should use race as a criteria in their admissions decisions, and give preference to certain ethnic groups (African-americans/Hispanics, etc. ). There is "hard" affirmative action: the use of quotas in the admissions process (5% of the admitted students must be African-American). There is "soft" affirmative action: An African-American with a 3.7 GPA will be accepted over a Caucasian with a 3.8 GPA.
All atheists should really be agnostics.

A short debate on atheism/agnosticism. Atheists believe that God does not exist, while agnostics are unsure if God exists or not. I will be arguing that you cannot disprove God's existence, and thus all atheists should at least become agnostics. You will be arguing that atheism should be practiced instead of agnosticism for any reasons you put forth. R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments R3: Rebuttals Only 2 days to post, so please don't forfeit. Thank you to my future opponent.
George Bush jr is a bad man

Ill focus on Bush and the Iraq war, first point being that Bush didn't have a legitimate reason to start a war to begin with. After the events of 9/11 Bush passed the Patriot Act (providing appropriate tools to interfere and obstruct terrorism act) on his own accord and with almost no congressional approval which gave him acting rights to invade Iraq. 63% of Americans wanted Bush to find a diplomatic solution rather than go to war, and 62% believed the threat of terrorism directed against the U.S. would increase due to war. Secondly, one of Bush's reasons for invading Iraq was because he was convinced the enemy was hiding weapons of mass destruction, which there was never any real evidence of being true. Seems like an excuse to invade a country to me. http://www.salon.com... Lastly to prove that Bush was a "bad" or immoral man I want to talk about the tactics he used. After the Patriot Act the rights to privacy of americans were attacked. The Patriot Act increases the government's surveillance powers in four areas: Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by third parties. (Section 215) Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213) Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218). "Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214). The Patriot Act increases the government's surveillance powers in four areas:https://www.aclu.org... This man took away his citizens rights much like dictators have done in the past. Other dictator-like behaviour includes the torture that americans took part in against prisoners during the Iraq conflict. War crimes people, much like Pol Pot that you mentioned. In conclusion, besides doing a bad job of running a country George Bush was actually delusional and immoral and a bad man in my opinion.
George Bush jr is a bad man

I’ll ask Pro to properly define ‘bad’. I’ll be arguing that while Bush was arguably one of the worst presidents we’ve ever had, at no point did he honestly suffer the fault of being a ‘bad man’. He was a Texan ruled by a strict Christian moral code. Although he was incredibly ignorant, to the point of looking like a buffoon, at no point did he purposely do evil. Take for example, a man like Pol Pot, certainly a bad man, who spread quotes like “We will burn the old grass and the new will grow.” That is a ‘bad man’. Even during what I would call an illegal and disastrous war in Iraq, Bush maintained, both among staff and with the public, that the war was being fought on just and fair democratic grounds. I treat Bush a bit like I might treat a child. He’s almost blissfully ignorant. The image of Bush is more complicated than just ‘good’ or ‘bad’. He was driven by staunch morals, and said things like, “One of my proudest moments is I didn't sell my soul for the sake of popularity.” I would argue that Bush was, especially in his first term, merely a puppet president. Men like Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney by all evidences and personal accounts actually pulled many of the strings. Bush’s nickname for Rove as a “Boy Genius”, and left him in the chair position of the White House Iraq Group. This group was the chief executive branch during the run-up to the war in Iraq. In reality, it acted a bit like a propaganda machine. This is really where the lies and nonsense were cooked up. Bush’s job was essentially to receive this propaganda and broadcast it. It’s hard to blame him; he wasn’t incredibly sharp, and the people he surrounded himself with gave him bad information over and over. For example, a memo leaked from the WHIG about how to address the Yellowcake forgery: “The plan: Release all relevant information. Try to shift attention back to Bush's leadership in the war on terrorism. Diminish the significance of that single piece of iffy intelligence by making the case that Saddam was a threat for many other reasons. Put Republican lawmakers and other Bush allies on TV to defend him. Most important: Question the motives of Democrats who supported the war but now are criticizing the president.” It’s hard to deny the puppetry going on. The yellowcake documents, for example, were pushed by the CIA as near-fact when in reality they knew they were not reliable. Cheney was undoubtedly the most powerful VP in American history. He was behind a great deal of the propaganda surrounding the Iraq War. If Bush wanted guidance, Cheney always had the last word. You can’t honestly say he was a ‘bad man’. He was misguided, perhaps – even a terrible president, but not morally bad. That is just to simplistic.
Dark knight is best super hero movie of all time!

Batman begins is better than the Dark Knight because "Batman Begins" is an alliteration, whereas "the Dark Knight" is not. That is my argument.Here is how voting should go:Sources: neither of us had one. Tie.Arguments: I (purposely) made an absolutely terrible argument (above), but I made one. PRO did not.Con.Spelling/Grammar: I may have made a few mistakes, but my opponent wrote: "hmmm il give u the 1st chance" Con.CONDUCT: Con did not debate! He forfeited!Winner: ME!
Dark knight is best super hero movie of all time!

My opponent has once again forfeited.I ask... no, I DEMAND to know if there is an actual REASON to why my opponent hasn't argued for a debate that he himself STARTED or if my opponent just didn't want to SIT HIS BUTT DOWN AND SHOW CONSIDERATION FOR OTHER PEOPLE.He does'nt have to tell me what the reason is! I just want conformation that there is a reason!If you look at his previous debates, the only round my opponent completed was the 1st round. All other rounds, with the exception of 2, he has forfeited. Out of at least 7 rounds, he has argued something in 2 of themLook... If you mom is sick, or your Internet is down, I'm sorry for you. Just say that you aren't a lazy jerk. If you are just a lazy jerk, don't take the time to start or accept debates. You would waste our time.If you do have a reason, just say "I'm doing something important."Don't tell me that you've been at the mall for 360 hours (I did the math for the estimated 5 rounds).
Dark knight is best super hero movie of all time!

I believe that the Dark Knight is NOT the best Superhero film. You're close, though.I believe that Batman Begins is the best superhero film of all time.For those who don't know, Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins was directed in 2005 as a reboot to the dead Batman franchise.Christopher Nolan's the Dark Knight was directed in 2008 as a sequel to Batman Begins. This is ironic.I think Batman Begins was better, though I would give both films a 10/10.Good luck.Come on, bro! Come at me!
Donald Trump's child rape case allegations are credible.

My opponent shows lack of conduct by displaying no sympathy for me, my condition, and the discrimination of my race. I am compelled to ask all viewers of this debate if they would vote for someone that is so selfish. It is impossible that Donald Trump has raped children because he found Jesus just as I did, therefore he would never commit such a heinous crime.One vote for Edawg equals one prayer to those who must live through life-threatening conditions or hate crimes. I wish my opponent good luck regarding his quest to find Jesus, and God bless all of you. Amen.
Donald Trump's child rape case allegations are credible.

My opponent uses an appeal to pity fallacy. [2] As seen here "I ask all viewers of this debate to vote for me because I have cancer and I am black (this isn't my real picture). Please make my dreams come true before my death and consider the egregious discrimination of my race." edawg99 Impact, disregard this comment made by edawg99. I further will state that the allegations against Trump seem plausible due to Trump's open misogyny. "Positive relations emerged between alcohol consumption frequency, alcohol consumption quantity, body evaluation, sexual advances, and sexual violence." [3] Impact, I feel the allegations warrant further investigation. 2. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... 3. http://psycnet.apa.org...
Hilary Clinton deserves to be thrown in the Indian Ocean.

"The US government proved Ms. Hitler's crimes" Umm, no. I'm pretty sure that if Clinton was proved to be a murderer, she would be held on trial and then imprisoned, would she not? "You have no more right arguments so I won" I have plenty of arguments actually, of you take a look at my above arguments you will see that you have ignored many of them and instead went on a moronic rant about how Clinton is a murderer.
Hilary Clinton deserves to be thrown in the Indian Ocean.

"Illegall immirgarbts have no right in america. They take lives and jobs and 97.314523563 of thm are drug cartel or drug dealers." You are absolutely right. They have no rights in America. That doesn't mean we should allow people to beat up homeless Mexicans and pee on them... It could be handled in a much better way. I read your other points. Those deaths have literally a 1% chance of being committed by Clinton... And at the end of the day you don't have any proof that these crimes were meant to happen.