BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
War is all about Technology.

I am challenging CON to this debate. "Tools, or weapons, if only the right ones can be discovered, form 99 percent of victory.... Strategy, command, leadership, courage, discipline, supply, organization, and all the moral and physical paraphernalia of war are nothing to a high superiority of weapons--at most they go to form the one per cent which makes the whole possible." - Maj. General J.F.C. Fuller. The Influence Of Armament On History From The Dawn Of Classical Warfare To The End Of The Second World War.War is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will (Clausewitz). I therefore argue that war is all about technology, and will assert in this debate that success in wars depends on quality of arms, quantity of arms, and intelligent implementation of arms more so than any other factor. CON must prove that there is at least one tangible exception more important in wartime and in gaining battlefield victory than weapons tech. This is a grand look at military history and the art of war from its earliest beginnings, and examples and theories are not limited to any one era. I assert that technology was the most important battlefield factor for the warrior since day one. CON is free to make his arguments now or defer.
War is all about Technology.

I ask that my opponent not be penalized for forfeiting - Pro listed their final argument in the comments which I accept as valid. We all get busy sometimes :) Since this final round took an unorthodox turn, I will simply conclude and let this go to votes, == Conclusion == Pro and I both agree that technology is important and that warriors have always used it to fight. Our fundamental disagreement is over technology's relative importance. Pro believes that technology has been the dominant factor on the battlefield since day one. I believe other factors such as strategy, leadership, logistics, training, will, and discipline can be equally if not more important at times. My arguments are summarized below: Without strategy, technology does nothing. The very essence of strategy is effectively employing men and weapons toward a common objective. Indeed, using powerful tech with a bad strategy often causes more harm than good. Leadership is the driving force behind strategy, motivation, and will. The Duke of Wellington summed this power up when he said the sight of Napoleon's hat on the battlefield was worth 40,000 men. Soldiers will starve, freeze, and even die for the sake of a good leader. Conversely, they will quickly quit in the presence of a bad one. Without the will to fight, wars cannot be won. Logistics - without food, the army starves. Without ammo, the guns fall silent. Without fuel, the battleships rust in the harbor. No technology can operate for long without logistics. Training, will, and discipline - All the technology in the world cannot save an army with poor training, no will to fight, and bad discipline. This is clearly seen with the modern Iraqi and Afghan armies. They have plenty of American made technology - helicopters, armored vehicles, weapons, computers, radios.... yet their training is insufficient, they have no discipline, and most would rather desert or take bribes than fight a hardened enemy. The results are plainly seen every day in the news. **Personal note - I'd like to thank my opponent for a great debate, I really enjoyed it. You seem very interested and knowledgeable in military theory/history, which I appreciate. Please feel free to challenge me to a military related debate or discussion any time - I really enjoy the topic!
ur mom gay

Well, opponent, I'm glad to debate with you today on the pressing issue of if my mom gay. However, before I can jump into the debate, yelling about statistics, and personal experience, and any other pressing issues of how, in fact, my mum is not gay, I want to speak about the history of not only the phrase, but also the definitions of mom, and gay, and what statement actually means. PHRASE HISTORY Your mom gay is a satire, meaning that this phrase should not even be taken seriously in this context. However, as a good Samaritan, I will assume that my opponent is taking this seriously, giving me and my mom a direct insult. "You're Mom Gay is a satirical insult which typically uses the intentionally grammatically incorrect phrase as a form of crap posting online." (A) DEFINITIONS Mom: a female parent. Gay: of, relating to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex; homosexual: Taking these two definitions, I can fairly say that you are non-satirically accusing that my female parent, biological or not, it doesn't matter and that she is exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex. While in theory, this is not even an insult, I will take it like so, and throw it back even better. DEBATE Before I want to get into to much fun, may I just say in terms of percentages, the gay demographic is about 2%-4%. (B) means that for every 100 people I ask, only about 2 to 4 people in that group would consider themselves as gay! And not even that, but the percentages for older women, as my mom is in her 70s, for being gay is even less, as they were grown up in a time where homosexuality was considered bad. And even more, to drop her percentage, she is a Christian, making homosexuality a sin (C), making her even less likely to be gay. Before I even disprove this statement, you can already see that she has a very, very, very small chance of being gay. Just to prove, have you seen any 74-year-old Christian woman walking around flirting with other women? Not me... With that said, I can strongfully say... no u (A) = knowyourmeme.com/memes/youre-mom- (B) = https://en.wikipedia.org... (C) = www.livingout.org/the-bible-and-ssa
Time for a coup

Although Trump has, At the moment I type this in, Agreed to measures that would in principle, Stop the shutdown for now, I shall debate this topic in a general sense - given the dissent in Senate about the plan to build a wall, Should we have a coup/organized military rebellion? I think not. Don't misinterpret me - I would support any organized form of power transfer in this case. So, If the Supreme Court were, In any way, Indict the President of maladministration, Or measures are taken in Senate for non-confidence votes, The consequent impeachment of the President, Should a (longer) shutdown take place yet again in the future, Is not wrong. That we are being guided by an election motto that has no practicality with respect to the current situation, Is terrible. What's worse is that the country in question is the USA - the very fulcrum of the global foreign policy, And economics. Hence I agree with you - upto impeachment. Full stop. A coup is in no way supposed to ever happen. To any country. Look at South America, For instance. The Bachelet regime in Chile was brought down by a coup d'"tat, And the country was brought down, With future studies showing the involvement of Capitalist minds in Washington D. C. It is not wrong to say that South America has been the United States' playground for policy coaxing - using influence, American governments have, Over the years, Attempted to resist attempts made by leaders in the region to focus on national economies, For more trade and foreign exchange. Hugo Chavez memorably pointed to this when he claimed he could still smell "Sulphur" as he took his place to speak at the General Assembly, Painting George W. Bush as a devil. A coup is undemocratic. It opposes any peaceful selection process. Where at one place we could impeach through non-confidence votes, Here the military assumes arbitrary power. The sublimity of military power is that dissent is but a dream, And democracy non-existent. A coup is unreliable. Once power is wielded, There is no telling where the state of the people and the country at large will be at. There are no checks. In fact, We might even expect generals donning judge's clothing in courts. A coup is unstable. Whenever coups occur, There always is a period of terror for citizens - economies become volatile, Trade sparse, And diplomatic missions shut down in the aftermath of a coup. In the case of the USA, Instability in the economy, Even when we are the largest power driven economy (see what I did there, China? ) will, And I don't exaggerate, KILL INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC STABILITY. A coup will affect the world more than America. I yield the floor to my opponent.
Time for a coup

I'd like to clear the air over your argument, Touching specifically on how military doctors are more skilled, And armed servicemen distribute effective drugs. The underlying thing here is that these are under the control of a government's orders - it is simply not viable to expect military dictators to be so concerned as to distribute medicine. I shall reiterate my argument - A coup is too extreme, Especially in country like Americas where instability spells out to international crisis. Democracies everywhere must live upto the ideals of democracy - that people institute their majority choice as candidate to lead the nation, And that people have all the rights to protest, Assemble and complain against the government. We cannot accept a military coup in a democracy - never.
Time for a coup

I understand, Enough damage has been done. But why do you stress on a military takeover of power? As I have elucidated previously, A military coup turns things from bad to worse. At any given point in a nation's maladministration, We must always turn towards democratic, Peaceful transfers of power. History concurs with my argument. Take any country with previous military histories. Bangladesh suffered from famines and poor economic growth under a military dictatorship. Pakistan doesn't have the terms "equality" and "freedom" due to a de facto military government establishment. Even in Venezuela, Maduro is supported by the military, And the pro-military regime has wreaked havoc on the nation's economy - the currency fell by 99. 9% against the USD. Imagine! I reiterate my argument that while we need new leaders, Such leaders must be borne out of democratic ideals. Your turn.
logic is false

Pro has not asked a question and yet demands an answer by saying "answer my question". This makes no sense. In addition, the only question asked in this debate was by me, to which I never got an answer from. Let me say this, your arguments put forth are nonsensical, and highly unreasonable. A synonym of unreasonable is illogical. So clearly logic exists you just failed at displaying what a logical argument looks like. So just cuz you failed, don't mean errabody else has to do the same.
logic is false

Is your argument a question or a conclusion without even having a debate to test it? If this is a question, then your sentence structure does not match that of a debatable question, even if a question mark was added at the end of your argument. Therefore it is illogical to even have a debate given that you have already made up your mind. If this is a conclusion, then again we have no reason to debate this topic given your decision. But, what was the initial question that made you decide this?
Uniforms or not

"Well random knowlage, people should not be forced to wear anything. Once again they should be able to wear what they want. yes, some people can bareley afford these things. they are very pricey. If they are going to private school, they might just be affording to go there, nevermind be able to buy clothes." That is what you said. 1.Thats right. People also are not forced to get an education, but they choose to, and a universal dress code is the price. 2. You are right. Within reason they should be able to wear whatever they want. 3. They are not as pricey as keeping up with designer fads! You buy nice clothes like this once, and when you outgrow them you get more. Simple. As. That. 4. You are right. It is the price for going to a fancy school. I am fortunate not to have adress code at my private school. 5. And lastly,I see this is your first debate, and I know you are a beginner, but a little advice is to refute every point given. Kudos on some good points and some good debating!
Uniforms or not

Hello, wooferalot. I will pick apart your points individually. You said: "In a disaster, it would be hard to get identified quickly because everyone looks the same." Actually, they could all move in a group and infiltrators could easily be spotted. And we are not arguing a universal uniform. I am arguing a strict drees code. There is a difference. "Some family's can't even afford the uniform that the school would want." Some families cant afford the desinger clothes that are all the latest fads, so lets not stray away from the main topic that much. "If a kid is in elementry school, they will want to wear what they want." That is a complete generalization. I know elementary kids that wear cardigan sweaters and they like it and it is the universal dress code. "When they are older, the clothes that they wanted to wear will not fit them when they are an adult." By fit I assume you mean are suitable, as opposed to actually physically fitting them. There are may jobs that let you wear what you want. There are also jobs that have something called "casual friday." "If kids can't afford designer clothes, they could just go to some place like gap, old navy, or walmart etc..." Most gap stuff is designer, and is quite fashionable, as is old navy. I concede walmart to you. "Some kids like to express themselves with what they wear. Kids are only kids for a little while." This is also a generalization, and why should kids have to express themselves with what they wear? they should be expressing themselves by their actions. "It also teaches little kids how to match clothes for when they are older. When they are older, they might still have to where uniforms." And by saying they will have to choose clothes when they are older, you knock out your previous statement. Unless they are in an army or other force, they will not have to wear a uniform. Maybe a suit, or an apron, or a frock, but no uniform. Thank you.
Uniforms or not

People should be able to wear what they want. In a disaster, it would be hard to get identified quickly because everyone looks the same. Some family's can't even afford the uniform that the school would want.If a kid is in elementry school, they will want to wear what they want. When they are older, the clothes that they wanted to wear will not fit them when they are an adult. If kids can't afford designer clothes, they could just go to some place like gap, old navy, or walmart etc... Some kids like to express themselves with what they wear. Kids are only kids for a little while. It also teaches little kids how to match clothes for when they are older. When they are older, they might still have to where uniforms.
Uniforms or not

Hello. I am in favor of uniforms and I believe that they are beneficial. Here we go. Points: 1. If you have to express yourself by your clothes, you probably dont have anything worth expressing. It should be how you act and what you have to say that determines who you are. 2. Families with lower income dont have to compete with children who get all brand name clothes and who are wealthier. 3. Kids social standing should be based on individual character and personality and less on their economic status. 4. Uniforms make it easier to identify those who are not from the school , thus increasing security and safety. 5. Students wouldnt be embarrased or harrased about what they are wearing. 6. Sense of belonging to your school, "School Pride!!" 7. there are no "bodily" distractions with a school uniform. 8. It is significantly easier to dress yourself in the morning. Now, as a debater on this website, I will request that you refute each of my points individually. Thank you and good luck.
War Cannot Be Prevented

My opponent has not responded to my two refutations of his arguments in the previous rounds and so the reasons why my opponent believes war can never be prevented: Humans have tried to end war and have not yet succeeded. War has historically come naturally to humans. As my opponent's two contentions were not defended in the last round we may assume that my opponent has conceded them. Now on to my opponent's points which he has made in the last round. My opponent's main point is that, regardless of whether or not humans are capable of ending war, humans cannot afford to end war. However, the resolution did not state that humans cannot 'afford' to end war, that humans would be left indefensible, but that war was actually impossible to prevent by the human species. Cannot means impossible as in, "Humans cannot breathe underwater". My opponent has brought up some points as to why humans 'cannot' end war, and when I properly refuted them my opponent switched his argument to state that humans 'should not' end war. This is not in line with the reosolution and so should not be taken into account when voters decide on who wins this debate.
War Cannot Be Prevented

Since the world has been created, there have been a multitude of animal species that have died off as time progressed. The dodo, for example, has become extinct because of, as Darwin explains, natural selection. This explains that animals have died off because they have not had the right body parts or structure to survive. The dodo is a small flightless bird while a much larger version, the modern ostrich, is both large and has the body parts needed to survive, along with strength. Animals have evolved to be able to fend off carnivorous creatures and to become them in order to survive. These animals are never at peace and never will be, as will the human race. We are evolving in technology and science, but perhaps not in our own nature. War is, and will be, all around us. Humans are a dominant species, we think of ourselves. Although we have no wings; sharp, teeth, claws, or talons; or the ability to breathe underwater, we are still dominant. We are weak to high or low temperatures and some of us can barely battle. Animals can easily kill us. But the only thing that keeps us dominant is the fact that we have weapons such as rifles and blades. The earliest weapon we had was fire, which warmed us and could burn. Weapons have only been evolving since then to easier take down each other, human and animal alike. Take away one's weapon, you take away his defense and offense. If humans had no weapons, we would have been like the dodo: extinct. Yet we shall never run out of weapons. Some kill for pleasure or to get their way. These people can be you or I, if desperate. War will always be around.
War Cannot Be Prevented

My opponent in the course of this debate has made a few arguments for why humanity will never completely erradicate war. One was that we will always fight over natural disasters. I however showed that with recent drastic advancements in mordern technology and science, this cause for war could someday be ended. My opponent has conceded this point in the last round. My opponent's next argument is that war is natural to humans and animals alike. This point really does not prove anything in that sex and self gratification are natural urges in humans and we are able to control that. In fact, some people(priests, nuns)go their whole lives with no sex and limited self gratification. So the argument that war is a natural way for humans to wok out their problems is a hollow one. My opponent also claims that people like the Buddha and Ghandi have tried to end violence but have failed. This does not mean that ending war is impossible. It only means that perhaps people are not yet ready to give up war. However the world is changing. A thousand years ago most people believed that natural disasters were caused by angry deities or that the earth was the center of the universe. However with time also comes progress and we as a species have progressed greatly in just the last one hundred years. My opponent has shown no reason why war between humans will never be erradicated.
War Cannot Be Prevented

Dang time limit. War has been and is a part of history. From the earliest of battles fought with sticks and stones to the potential nuclear war in the future. War has been hailed as an answer to problems. It has also been used as a theme for many books, such as the Iliad, Odyssey, and even a story in the Bible. World peace, as said in the first argument, is the ultimate goal to humans. However, because of human nature's blood lust towards war, it can never be accomplished. This fact of human nature is often overlooked by people, but it is indeed everywhere. War can be caused by many things, whether it is the government, economy, lack of water/food, etc. There will perhaps never be an eternal Golden Age, as is found with some ancient civilizations. All of the once existing Golden civilizations have fallen, and will continue to fall. Humans' greatest achievements have been wars, the only answer to solving problems. Peace has been used by many to try to solve a problem, but humans will often not listen to reason. Soldiers have the highest power in a society. In Libya, for a recent example, if the soldiers had decided to side with their leader instead of the protesters they had been ordered to kill, who knows what could have happened. The greatest societies have been the greatest for their massive and powerful armies, such as Rome with their conquests. Some have tried to find peace within themselves, such as Gandhi and Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) but their accomplishments to have peace died with them. The world is not in a bigger state of peace than it was in the past. As stated by my opponent, war can be prevented due to the evolving science that can end wars that cause limited natural resources. If this is true, than wars still cannot be prevented. All wars are not about natural resources. In the past, when civilizations had resources, they still battled each other. Science can also benefit the wars, making new weapons and technology that can perhaps build new soldiers to battle each other. Evolved medical devices can only repair any injuries. Technologies may be evolving, but it may be the fall of the human race. War is part of the past, present, and future. It cannot be prevented.