BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The ultimate challenge - You pick the debate topic, And I kick your azz at it

Since you have been stalking me like a lost puppy and complaining about all my debates, I challenge you to a real debate. I will even let you pick the topic of your choice HERO. Let's go, Stalker, Pick a topic, Before I have you interned in the labor camp, Right after you are bullied. Lets debate child! Just no comic book crap, Because comic books and all the Marvel and DC movies are for geeks and I don't do comics or superhero's. So take the Ironman pj's off, Tell mom you are on the internet and lets get a debate going punk! Or are you too scared, Four eyes!
caste schedule is right or wrong

Caste is most certainly not the biggest problem to face education in India. In fact, education is, on balance, not a problem for the people of India. As of 2011, the average literacy rate throughout India was 74.04%. In fact, in some areas of the country, such as Kerala, Lakshadweep, and Mizoram, the literacy rate is up above 90%. [1] I understand that some may be sitting there wondering what that has to do with the caste system in India. Well, should we look at some of the programs and laws that India has put in place since the caste system, we will notice that it allows a sort of "equal opportunity" for all folks, regardless of their socio-economic status. India has implemented countless affirmative action programs to help improve upon their students' learning and allow folks of lower social classes to progress in society. I would like to urge you to read the second source (noted down below) for further information on this topic, as I have a very limited time to write this constructive. [2] Personally, I would argue that gender bias creates a larger problem for the educational system in India than that of the caste system. The following excerpt is taken from an article of The Guardian: "Meena (not her real name) didn't tell her parents when the older boys started harassing her on the hour-long walk to school from her home in Madanpur Khadar, south Delhi " grabbing her hand and shouting 'kiss me' " because she knew she would get the blame, as if she had somehow encouraged them. She was right: when her family found out, they banned her from going back to school, worried about the effect on their 'honour' if she was sexually assaulted. The plan now is to get her married. She is 16." [3] It is this kind of idea of familial "honor" and worry about what women may do with their lives to dishonor their family that is impeding education of the population. A paper by Dharam Pal Chaudhri (Monash University) and Raghbendra Jha (Australian National University) can be found listed as the fourth note/source to support my claims on gender bias. Again, usually I would be much more thorough with my arguments but this 15 minute time limit does have me in a bit of a crunch to grab sources and write arguments. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://online.wsj.com... [3] http://www.theguardian.com... [4] http://papers.ssrn.com...
caste schedule is right or wrong

For the sake of this debate, I would like to define "caste" as the following:Caste: the system of dividing society into hereditary classes. Seeing as this is a system implemented in India, I am also running on the presumption that we shall keep the scope of this debate focused on the caste system in India. Seeing as my opponent has taken the side stating that "caste is biggest problem for education," the burden of proof shall fall upon him to prove his statement that it is, indeed, the biggest problem for education in the Indian nation. I look forward to my opponent's opening remarks and wish him the best of luck. Sources:. http://prntscr.com...
Will tensions in North Korea lead to a war between the North and South

If North Korea does not plan to use a nuclear weapon, why have they been so desperately trying to hold this technology. They do not make these powerful weapon just for themselves. People do not make things and intend not to use it. If this was the case, all of our weapons would be used just to drive or shoot for the fun of it. China and the United States are business partners, but not war partners. Just because they go to war with each other, doesn't mean that they will stop trading with each other forever. For example, Japan was our trading partner until WW2. After the war, we started the trade again, and have improved our relationship. Simply saying that we can't protect the well being of others, and not recover from it is hasty Generalization. Tensions will continue to rise and set a war, which will bring consequences. That is what happens with wars. Devastation. Regret. Recovery. Killing. Look Around! Wars are fought to the death, or until victory is ensured. You cannot infer that just because China and the U.S are trading partners that they will not fight. It happened once with Japan, Why cant it happen again? We dropped the nuclear weapon twice. Why cant it happen again? We have went to war to make sure that there is no threat to our freedom why cant it happen again? These are things that we must deal with everyday, whether we like it or not. It is our moral obligation to assist those in need.
Will tensions in North Korea lead to a war between the North and South

I do not think that in the highly unlikely event of war between the South and North nukes will be used. Any thought to use nukes on the US side of thinking requires the utmost consideration and and thorough thinking because though the events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were regrettable they were made after it was determined that thousands more would die in the invasion of the Japanese homeland causing more deaths that the atomic bomb strikes. In the Pacific campaign there are records of mass suicides in occupied Japanese territory by the Japanese civilians. It would have been much worse in an attack on the Japanese homeland as a whole. We would also have no reason to nuke the Northerners because their are so many poor innocent civilians victimized by the communist government. The nuclear strike on North Korea would also put the US/UN relations in the negative side causing less support in the highly improbable event of war breaking out. I never said that the US would attack China but simply that the two superpowers depend on eachother for money and trade. China without the US is bad for both and vice versa. You are right that the US military is made to protect our citizens, but we are talking about the protection of South Korea's freedom in the highly impractical event of war. If you were in a position where your economy is just getting back on its feet with the help of another superpower why would you do anything to jeopardize that relationship. Especially when you are already fighting an expensive war in the Middle East. The same thing for China if you had a business partner that pays you millions of dollars every year for your products why would you jeopardize that relationship for anything. Including a war that is a waste of soldiers, money, and technology. That is right that America was founded on a revolution but I fail to see your point in the "all it takes is one shot" argument. These two nations have been firing shots at eachother for a while now but still have not escalated to a full scale war. They won't either because without the backing of their superpower friends they can't have much of a war. Right now the US nor China is in a position to fight a two front war.
Will tensions in North Korea lead to a war between the North and South

During Vietnam, we did not have the advance technology, like you said. This was also the case of WW1 and 2. Advance in technology has helped our country tremendously. In WW2, the Japanese were unwilling to stop. This is relatively close to the Korean culture, which has said to maintain control at all times, and to keep moving forward. The first nuclear weapon was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, which killed over 10,000 of its citizens instantly. Others were contaminated by radioactive waste. These were innocent civilians that didn't deserve their life to be take away, but we did it to stop the other country. But even after the first bomb, they continued to fight, so another was dropped on the larger, more populated city of Nagasaki, killing over 50,000 of its people instantly. It is obvious that the Japanese government was unwilling to stop, until their top city was threatened, Tokyo. If you said it yourself, the government is is more worried about themselves rather than its people, so They simply want more power and to show the world that they are a superpower too. They will do this at any cost, including war. Yes, we are China's main trading partner. But do you think that will stop them from protecting their people. If there was a Korean war, The United States will take out the major support of their allies, in this case, China. You said it yourself, North Korea would turn to China for technology. That is why we would try to seize them. Our military is made to protect our people. When there is a threat, we must do everything we can to ensure that our freedom isn't take away. Every war we have fought had one objective, to protect the freedom of Americans. All it takes is one shot, and the birth of a new war will begin. Why, that is how America was founded. From the shot heard around the world.
Will tensions in North Korea lead to a war between the North and South

As I said China is not ready for war with the US which is almost guaranteed if they support a government that is fighting against the government we support. Yes you are right that the economy is just getting back on its feet but the China/US relationship is based on trade. We need China for their cheap products, but China also needs us because we are their biggest business partner. When did Vietnam get involved in this debate, yes we did lose the Vietnam War, and yes they are a communist country but North Korea is not the same as Vietnam. In the Vietnam war we did not have the best tacticians nor intelligence abilities that we have now. With those abilities and the troops that are stationed in Korea (17,000 US troops and 7,800 Air Force personnel) not to mention whatever troops the UN will send to aid the Southerners, and the Southern military forces in country the Northerners would have a hard time of it. Without Chinese support the North Koreans don't have the technology nor the income to beat the forces arrayed against them. This is why they haven't declared war yet, because they know that war would be devastating to both sides and they would lose. The Southern military alone has an estimated 2,750 tanks, 13 submarines, and 467 combat aircraft. This is not counting UN support and United States forces already stationed there. The tensions have not yet nor will they in the foreseeable future escalate to warfare on as large a scale as WWII so why would the United States nuke a country such as North Korea where the oppressed people who live there are starving because the North Korean government pours its money into its military adventurism and strength. There would be too many civilian causalities and the UN would be fully against it.
Will tensions in North Korea lead to a war between the North and South

Are you forgetting that China isnt the only communist country. There are more communist countries that are willing to fight, just like in during the Vietnam War, which the United Stated lost. And if you do believe that thewars are fought depends on the cost, then you must also know that China is the richest country in the world. They will have no problem supplying their allies. As for the United States, our economy is just getting back on its feet from the Great Depression. Yes you may say that the U.S.A. military is the most powereful military in the world, but that was only shown in WW2 when we decided to send a nuclear weapon to Japan. If we do the same for North Korea, their allies could react with a greater force, putting the lives of millions in danger. If you believe China(with the most advanced technology) and Korea(Who are creating this advanced technology) are not in a state of fighting, then you my friend must do your research again. The North Korean government may not have the wage for war, but their ally China(richest country in the world) does.
Will tensions in North Korea lead to a war between the North and South

If North Korea is so ready to go to war then why have they blamed the South Koreans for opening hostilities and causing further provocations. Also as of a 2002 budget ranking the North Koreans carry a budget of 5bn while the South Koreans carry a budget of 24.5 bn. The North Korean government isn't stupid and knows that the way war is waged depends on the cost to wage it. The North Korean government has already shown that it is not ready for war because although they continue to draw pinpricks of blood from the South they know that if they go to war with us then we will shed whole rivers of blood from their side. The North launched an attack on Southern positions with some 50 shells. The South answered with 80 shells and Northern causalities are unknown. The question of will the two countries go to war is largely dependent on the two superpowers backing each one. The United States backs South Korea and China backs North Korea, and since both superpowers are not eager to get into a war at this time there will not be a war.
Will tensions in North Korea lead to a war between the North and South

Tensions between North Korea and the United States have escalated after the the United States Navy began tracking a North Korean ship suspected of carrying illegal weapons or technology. Media reports from Japan also claim that the North may launch a long range missile toward the U.S. state of Hawaii in July. The North Korean flagship, the Kang Nam, is currently in the Pacific Ocean and is reported to be heading toward Singapore. North Korea has warned that any effort to stop its ships would be considered an act of war. The U.S. started tracking the ship because one unnamed official alleged that the ship is a repeat offender of carrying illegal materials. The U.S. says they have no intentions of boarding the ship using force, but would act in accordance with United Nations resolutions and ask for permission to board the vessel. If the U.S. Navy does not receive permission to board the vessel, then no military, U.S. or otherwise, will attempt to board it using force, although America's top military officer says the U.S. Navy is prepared to stop the ship. North Korea also stepped up its defense. Japanese media reported today that North Korea may launch a Taepodong-2 missile between July 4 and 8 towards the U.S. state of Hawaii. The missile has a range of no more than 4,000 miles (6,500 km), but the nearest Hawaiian island is 4,500 miles away. North Korea threatened to fire an intercontinental ballistic missile if the U.N. Security Council did not apologize for punishing it for an April rocket launch, that violated U.N. resolutions. They also responded to the sanctions saying they would start a uranium enrichment program, which could lead to a new atomic bomb and the use of its plutonium to make an estimated 6 bombs. If North Korea is trying to desperatly to advance in their technology, they will not let anyone try to stop them, as shown before, they have made sure that the U.S. military does not get involved. What happens if these tensions continue to increase? Do we let our state of Hawaii and its people be in danger. No. The United Atates will help its citizens, which will cause North Korea to ask in war. Of course, our allies South Korea will also get involved. This will bring even more caualties throughout the world.
There Is No Sure Hope if Jesus Christ is Not Risen From the Dead

The things you are calling "sure hope" are nothing but wishes and dreams that you hope will come true but could easily be denied from you by circumstances. You can't be sure your dreams and wishes for your life in the world will come to pass. You can work to try to make things happen, but you can't be sure they will happen. You have no sure hope apart from the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For this debate, we can assume Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead. If He is not risen from the dead, you have no sure hope. In assuming Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead, we do not need to argue whether the Bible and Christianity is true, for this debate it can be assumed to be false, and there is no sure hope. You have not shown any sure hope.......you have shown sincere desire to see your wants, wishes, and dreams cone true and you do have hope they will come true so you can work toward making them reality, but your hope cannot be guaranteed. Those same hopes have been dashed in multitudes of people through war, sudden death, or trauma. Sure hope is guaranteed and cannot be withheld, denied, or revoked by any circumstances or any person or any thing. I really do hope your dreams of growing up, getting an education and raising a family come true and I wish I could guarantee it all for you, but I am not God and I cannot tell you that you can have sure hope in these things. Keep on hoping, but brace yourself for the possibility that your hopes may be dashed. A side note here that is really not part of the debate: how can you claim to be a Christian and say "I have sure hope, but not in Jesus Christ rising from the dead." Hope in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the basis of Christianity.How can you claim to be a Christian and say "My sure hope is............. not basing my life on a few thousand year old book." This book you are belittling is the Bible, The Book, The basis of Christianity. What do you think makes you a Christian?
There Is No Sure Hope if Jesus Christ is Not Risen From the Dead

To answer your question, I have sure hope, but not from the hope that Jesus is risen from the dead. My sure hope is growing up, getting an education, raising a family, and not basing my life on a few thousand year old book. I want to know why you think you have no sure hope if Christ is not risen from the dead? Proving Christianity is the issue because how am i supposed to have sure hope in Jesus Christ rising if im not sure he is a(the) Savior? So yes I have sure hope, but not in Jesus Christ rising from the dead.
There Is No Sure Hope if Jesus Christ is Not Risen From the Dead

For this debate which in the first round you have declined to argue, it does not matter if Jesus Christ is risen from the dead or not, it does not matter if the Bible is true or not. If Jesus is not risen from the dead, there is no sure hope. If He is risen from the dead, then He is the sure hope. Proving Christianity or disproving Christianity is not the issue. The issue is that you......YOU.........have no sure hope if Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead. The only sure hope you cannot argue in favor of in this debate would be the sure hope there is if Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.Do you have sure hope apart from the resurrection of Jesus Christ, if He is risen or not? What is your sure hope? Do you have any sure hope? Tell me what your sure hope is. I say you have none. Do you have any sure hope? If you can't explain how you have sure hope, I will have to assume you have no sure hope and I was right in my opening argument.
There Is No Sure Hope if Jesus Christ is Not Risen From the Dead

My opponent must show sure hope apart from the resurrection of Jesus Christ.Sure hope is gauranteed. For this debate, I do not need to prove Jesus Chrst rose from the grave bodily, though I assert that He did. This debate is a challenge for anybody to show a hope that can be gauranteed other than the hope of eternal life that God promises in the resurrected Saviour who is the Creator who died to pay for our sins to buy us back from the fire of Hell.If Jesus Chrsit is not risen from the dead, there is still no sure hope, so if He is not risen from the dead in only bolsters my assertion that there is no sure hope. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the only thing my opponent cannot use to show sure hope........or my opponent is agreeing with me and there is no debate.Try to prove me wrong, tell me what hope you can be sure of without Jesus Christ.
Neo-Nazis are morons who are ignorant of who the real Nazis were

Germans, especially southerners and Austrians, thought of Germanics as barbarians. It's not surprising that this worldview would be the Hitler worldview as well Hitler. Hitler wanted retaliation for Schwelig being taken from him. He even sided with a country that sneered at whites and called them "barbaric," Japan. Same with Italy.Neo-Nazis, well those skinhead groups who make noise and speeches, much like the KKK (and as a clarification, I never said that the neo-Nazis were similar to the Klan, but rather that, like the KKK, the neo-Nazis get together in groups and make speeches) are ignorant and buffoonish teenagers who have no sense of reality and live in lalaland. The only modern Nazi that seems to be smart is Carolyn Yeager, of Texas, who leads a Nazi apologist group. Her denounciation of the Danes, Brits and Dutch speaks volumes as to who the real Nazis were.http://carolynyeager.net...http://en.wikipedia.org...According to here, the modern neo-Nazi skinhead groups only started in the 1960s, which coincides with liberals, mostly butthurt ones, rewritting history.Hitler and his gang were devout Catholics. The Ku Klux Klan was a combination of various Protestant groups, such as Baptists, Presbyterian (one of the most notorious being John Calhoun), and Lutheran.They wery different. The neo-Nazis don't know anything in my opinion about basic history.
Neo-Nazis are morons who are ignorant of who the real Nazis were

"Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II social or political movements seeking to revive Nazism.[1][2][3][4] The term neo-Nazism can also refer to the ideology of these movements." My opponent ignores the fact that neo-Nazism is a post-WWII global movement seeking to revive Nazism. Neo-Nazis are a minority within the U.S, but a majority in Greece and other countries formerly known as the Eastern Bloc for communism. It is important to note that the U.S 'National Socialist Movement' shares similar characteristic, that both parties are known to harass, attack, torment people of different ideological or religious opinions--Hitler in the 'Beer Hall Putsch', National Socialist Movement (NSM) in Toledo Riot (2005). While Hitler can claim that he's against imperialism, but when he's annexing territories (Austria, Czech) just over several months, compounding with the fact that he overstepped his boundaries in militarizing French Rhineland, it's not wrongful to call him a hypocrite either. Yes, their behaviors are like that of a teenager with a severe case of anxiety, but isn't that the essence of a Nazism with all its unpleasant implications? Moreover, when a movement is as influential as neo-Nazism, it's unfair to call the people behind it mere "wannabe punk high school drop outs". It's just what they believe in. A more suitable term would be "organized agitators". To summarize: >neo-nazism is distinctly American It's European >Two, the liberals (mostly butt-hurt liberals) have been rewriting history to make it seem that the KKK and Nazis believed in the same thing, when they clearly weren't at all. KKK and Nazism: essentially the same thing, just in different countries. >Hitler was inherently anti-imperialist That's like persuading someone that Confucius was actually a Mexican.