BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Security is not a threat in the modern world. (1 argument debate)

The underestimation of security that you hold reminds me of the Roaring Twenties. The Roaring Twenties took place in the 1920s. It was a time of economic prosperity in America. Stocks boomed, more money was in circulation and culture revolutionized. Yet, people underestimated rising economic problems. Because of that, America went into the Great Depression. I speak here today to say that we should not underestimate potential problems; terrorists, cyber hackers, and criminals. Some people in this world end up to be major criminals; whether it be because they need money to supply for themselves or because they're crazy. To support my claims, I would like to use the Sony Hacking as an example. Sony is a popular and rich company, which was protected by strong firewalls. Yet, hackers become stronger and stronger. There will always be a way to destroy the protections that we keep. Sony was hacked, potentially damaging some of its works. With security, computers will be harder to be hacked. Less security gives internet criminals the ability to look at private information or even permanently damaging things like nice photos of you or important school essays. I am also sure that everyone who is reading this values their life. Our noble local police and our brave army soldiers took a vow, to save our lives if we were in danger, even if it meant giving theirs. The police and soldiers have tried as best as they could to abolish criminal activity but there is no way of stopping it completely. There will always be a chance you could get robbed or hurt from criminals. Decreasing the amount of police officers will mean increased damage of crimes towards you or others. Decreasing the amount of soldiers means an increased amount of terrorism. To add onto the importance of soldiers intervening in international affairs, I would like to bring up the Darfur genocide. Darfur experienced massive accounts of genocide, with over 500,000 deaths. The government most likely were the people responsible for this. The nearby Nigerian army tried to intervene and help the people of Darfur at risk. Unfortunately, they usually go without ammo or weapons. Lessening the amount of security might mean removing all funding towards the army and will let the genocide go on. In conclusion, security is needed in this newer world; one that is revolutionizing in technology, as well as criminal activity. I assure everyone here, that with more security, we will be safe from the dangers in this world. The military will protect us from international dangers. Firewalls will protect us from hackers. The local police will protect us from criminals. Lessening the amount of security in this society will greatly increase the chance of theft, injury or DEATH.
Security is not a threat in the modern world. (1 argument debate)

In my last post rich text didn't appear to work so the first few lines seem badly presented. It is still my fault though so I accept being penalised on the basis that no-one just votes con for spelling and grammar and does not base his vote on anything else. R1: The title was not "we should remove all security" but "security is jot a threat in the modern world." The point is that nearly every action you do is to protect yourself. When I touch the keyboard my fingers instinctively bend. The higher levels of security is all sorted out by the people who work in that sector. But if Random individuals speak out about security like in the recent 'not in parliament' five way UK election debate [1] then the government must speak out and reveal security plans that only worsen security that ultimately we shouldn't be worrying about. The only person who wanted trident was Nigel Farage anyway who, well, lets face it is, a bit rubbish (although I do believe he is NOT racist, we can debate about that some other time). He isn't a very good debater either [2], so it may have been a little desperate. I think that if these views had not of been publicly revealed we could leave it to people who really know what they are doing without oppositions knowing. I think that my opposition hasn't quite taken the message correctly and so that is why you should vote pro. Of course it has been a fantastic debate but my opposition hasn't quite understood what he is meant to say. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources: 1. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk... 2. http://www.theguardian.com...
Security is not a threat in the modern world. (1 argument debate)

My opponent claims to have said that if everyone went to their jobs, then there would be no need for security. 1. Many people are without jobs because of the lack of jobs or being inexperienced, thus leading to criminal activities to get money and supplies 2. If security were removed, then more people would be jobless, adding to part 1 3. There will never be a world where there is order. People will always make up void arguments or might not know what's right or wrong. We live in a dangerous world. Never, will there be order throughout it.
Security is not a threat in the modern world. (1 argument debate)

Please note my opponent left his argument in the comments - Please don't penalise I live in the UK - the worlds easiest non schengen country to come into. There is no point in removing security as it will waste money (if everyone removed there anti-virus software the economy will be greatly affected). If people just focus on their jobs everything will calm down because the best of the best will protect everyone so well that government intervention and intervention from others will be unhelpful. People in the states are allowed guns but since I am (generally) talking about this from a British persons point of view we don't have that problem. Since in the US you can have a gun it is worth exploiting that. If we moan though, the security teams are forced to talk when they can work. So there is no threat. It goes without saying that if were completely intervening others security they speak out and tactics are revealed.
Security is not a threat in the modern world. (1 argument debate)

I should have said the modern world is post 9/11 and a society who don't immediately prioritise saving money, I understand this is partially hypothetical but people do not always go for the absolute cheapest option. Therefore, security is not an issue as you automatically think about it and regulate and come up with your own fantasies. Your human instinct would not let you not regulate your security and if you don't that is only because you believe it is not of any issue. Therefore you would not visit Crimea because your instinct tells you it is not safe to. Remember that you can only provide one argument - over to you.
Security is not a threat in the modern world. (1 argument debate)

There are some rules. 1. You are only aloud to make 1 argument. 2. Keep good conduct, no cursing, abusing racism etc. 3. All examples that counter my argument must be referred to as something that once happened POST 9/11. you don't have to say who it happened to or if it is backed up by sources then don't feel the need to say the person mentioned is you. If it happened before 9/11 it does not apply to the argument. (you will see why soon). 4. Try and show sources as much as possible. 6. The format goes like this: R1: PRO: rules and definitions. CON: Acceptance only - no arguments. R2: BOTH: Arguments only R3: BOTH: Rebuttals only R4: BOTH: Counter-rebuttals and closing statements only. My arguments will always be posted between 5 - 8PM GMT. 7. If you forfeit, you miss the opportunity to do the thing happening in the next round. If you miss R3 for example, you can't rebut and therefore you are stating that my argument is completely true.
The Nazis could have defeated the Soviet Union is WW2 in 1941

The Nazis could have defeated the Soviet Union is WW2 had they mobilized their forces earlier in 1941 to deliver a decisive and fatal blow before the onset of winter. The Soviet Union was extremely under equipped to fight a campaign of this magnitude. Stalin had purged all of his most capable generals in the decade earlier due to his increasing paranoia of a coup from within the communist regime. The equipment of the Soviet military was dated and needed repair. The Germans however were well versed in a new style of warfare never before seen; blitzkrieg or lightening war. The Germans were professional soldiers motivated by radical ideology that would help aid them in their campaign east. They had the momentum going forward, and they also had the element of surprise. Had the winter been a mild one, we may very well have seen the collapse of the Soviet government before Christmas 1941. During this time the Germans were literally close enough to see the Kremlin through their binoculars. The problem for the Germans was that their equipment was frozen to a standstill, and that frost bite was killing more German soldiers than the enemy was. The axle grease of the tanks was literally freezing; making mobile operations impossible. So it was the German army entered a war of attrition. This was no longer a campaign of lightening war; it was a campaign of survival. Had Germany invaded in May rather than June, the final thrust on Moscow would most likely have been realized. The Soviet government would have collapsed. Although the war between the countries would have been won, Hitler would almost certainly have faced a guerilla war thereafter. This is beside the point. The Nazis could have defeated the Soviet Union had they launched their operations sooner, and had the winter not been so hostile.
Workers are not paid there value

Ok let’s get to rebuttal.Not a living wage:“A minimum-wage job is not meant to support a person permanently, and most certainly not a family.”I completely refute this claim and Con cannot support it, because the person who created the minimum wage FDR said it would be “wages of a decent living”. https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...Minimum wage demographics“50% of workers that work for minimum wage are between the ages of 16-24, and of the older adults (25+), three-fourths of those adults live above the poverty line (average of $42,500), 67% are women and 41% are married. In conclusion, most minimum wage workers do not require an increase in their wage, because most minimum wage workers live above the poverty line.”Con says these statistics are found on heritage.org but doesn’t provide a link to them. Given that, these stats should be considered unsupported and be disregarded.Regardless of that, I would like to remind Con this debate is about the value of all workers, not just those making minimum wage or living in poverty. Both arbitrarily created and changed arbitrarily. For those stats to matter Con would have to both, that they are indicator of the value of the worker, and that the current value is valid. Neither of which has been addressed.This is a debate on the value of workers in America in general not just the small subset of those at the very bottom of the list. Anything that only addresses minimum wage, is a composition fallacy. This debate covers more than just minimum wage, and the poverty line.
Workers are not paid there value

A minimum-wage job is not meant to support a person permanently, and most certainly not a family. 50% of workers that work for minimum wage are between the ages of 16-24, and of the older adults (25+), three-fourths of those adults live above the poverty line (average of $42,500), 67% are women and 41% are married. In conclusion, most minimum wage workers do not require an increase in their wage, because most minimum wage workers live above the poverty line. Statistics found on Heritage.org
Workers are not paid there value

Ya I enjoy debating, but I"m dyslexic so if don"t focus I mess stuff up. Most of the time Word catches it for me, and no one ever see it. No big deal, I think debating has more priority than messing up a little bit on words and whatnots. The biggest supporting factor for the devaluing of labor is production. Between 1973 and 2013 production grew by 74%, but compensation only grew by 9%. https://www.theatlantic.com... And what small gains have been made in compensation get gobbled up as the purchasing power of the dollar continues to fall. http://www.pewresearch.org... When we look at the GDP we see wages accounted for 50 percent in 1975 but in fell to a record low of 43.5 percent. http://www.nytimes.com... Also I think we can all remember when one income could support a family and provide for a retirement. But the cost of living has increased dramatically. http://reason.com... This has created an environment where even with both parents working it"s still difficult to make ends meet. https://www.nytimes.com... There has been a systematic devaluation workers. The minimum wage was implemented years ago but as with wages, has stayed stagnant. As inflation pushes the cost of living higher and the purchasing power of the dollar lower, the workers of this country's value is deflated more and more. We can all see the difference of the past versus the realities of the present.
Resolved: Obama's Presidency is a Sham

He has not drastically lowered our economy its be on a downfall for awhile now so that's not true. Ok one he never tried to change the constitution for that he said and quote kill an American on U.S. soil in an "extraordinary circumstance" mean only if it was necessary to do so. ok he didn't try to cover it up and if he did PROBABLY FOR GOOD REASON something like that WILL CAUSE HELL everyone would be calling for blood it be mass panic WHICH THIS COUNTRY HAS ENOUGH OF. HE DOESN'T TOUCH THE TAXES INCREASE THAT IS THE STATES states tax on things in their own way they do not get told by the federal gov. to do so. Obama has tried so hard to help this country and all ANYONE DOES IS PISS ALL OVER IT LETS SEE YOU RUN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THIS COUNTRY LETS SEE YOU DEICED IMPORTANT EVENTS UNTIL YOU DO DON'T COMPLAIN Obama does his best HE tries HE has to take the fall SO BACK OFF
Resolved: Obama's Presidency is a Sham

Hmm.... Where do I start? Not only has our president drastically lowered our economy (opposite of what he's promised) he's also fought to change the constitution in that he can drop a drone or multiple drones on us whenever he wants to and for whatever reason he sees fit. Also, he's helped to cover up an event overseas known as the Benghazi Scandal. Those who he disagrees with, are audited via an elevated amount of taxation.
Religion is a force for Good!

Most people involved in "religion" Christianity more directly are usually there to help others, offer their time to lend an ear and what have you.. It's good to have because of the faith in Christ and the promise of eternal life ... But one can just come to know God without knowing their sinfulness and knowing where tey stand under Gods eyes.. Totally depraved and sinful deserving of nothing but condemnation (speaking 100% to myself too).. In all basic, Christianity is good because we have assurance as to where were going and have the privileged obligation to preach to the world the Gospel.. Being there and caring.. I truly believe if the world were Christians not just by name but life the world would be a way better place because people would know God, be reverential to Him and worship Him for who He is.. And be thankful for the saved life! :) Do you think that the Christianity/ religion is bad or not beneficial for the world? If so, why?
The Theory of General Relativity Is Valid

Yes, thank you for this debate. I'd like to add that there are two definitions of Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity: the Theory of Special Relativity states that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe for those not accelerating, but observing. Einstein"s Theory of General Relativity is explained that massive objects in space cause a pull in the time-space continuum. This is gravity. [1] Another part of the Theory is that light travels at the same pace and is the fastest speed that you can travel. The perception of what speed light travels at is relative. [2] [1] http://www.space.com... [2] http://www.space.com...
The Theory of General Relativity Is Valid

As per over a year of discussion, we have agreed to do this debate. Please note that you must have an ELO of 2000 or higher to vote on this debate. Full Resolution The general theory of relativity is valid. BoP is on pro. Definitions Theory of General Relativity: "The second is the General Theory of Relativity, which primarily applies to particles as they accelerate, particularly due to gravitation, and acts as a radical revision of Newton's theory, predicting important new results for fast-moving and/or very massive bodies."[1] Valid: "Having some foundation; based on truth."[2] Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources [1]: http://www.allaboutscience.org... [2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The Theory of General Relativity Is Valid

No ad hominem of "conspiracy" website or theorist. Just because something is a conspiracy doesn't make it untrue. The establishment may be either wrong, lying, or have an agenda. It does mirror the Nile. Not completely, but that is to be expected. It is a slow, gradual changes. Light travels at the speed of.... light. [1] Gas and dust make the light slow down, which can hinder light speed. [2] Reflection Nebula mirror the light from the nearby star(s.) [3] Agriculture settlements have changed dramatically around the Nile River over the years, as well as technology [4] and buildings. [5] Danny Wilten has found a reflection of the entire world in the Orion Nebula Trapezium. [6] If the reflection of the light followed the normal laws of the Theory of Relativity, the reflection wouldn't show up on the Orion Nebula Trapezium. Yes, this person doesn't have credentials, but does that make his evidence false? It may have just not gotten the eyes of the scientific community. As for the Event Horizon of a Black Hole, it's true that that is a hypothesis and the Theory of Relavitity remains intact. My bad. Yes, over looking it, the neutrinos moving faster than light seems to have been dis proven. My three star system that seems to defy gravity still stands. It was dropped. [1]http://www.space.com... [2]http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info... [3]http://apod.nasa.gov... [4]http://www.fao.org... [5]https://www.academia.edu... [6]
marijuana is not a "gateway" drug

"okay. .. .so you just proved that marijuana has a chemical that creates a euphoric feeling to most living beings here on Earth. However. .. my argument is the word "gateway" drug. " I was simply laying out of few definitions for the debate. "Since conception, we (yes all of us) have been reliant on "drugs". Think of how our parents got together and procreated in the first place. Just like US, they needed a catalyst. Alcohol. .. cigarettes. .. aspirin. .. .diet pills. .. birth control. We grow up taking aspirin for head aches, coffee to wake up, pharmacological to prevent sickness and allergies, sugar for breakfast, preservatives in our foods etc. .. " I recall that the resolution is Marijuana is not a "gateway" drug, therefore alcohol, cigarettes, diet pills, birth control, and the other various "drugs" you stated are irreverent. Furthermore, based on SAMHSA's 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 3.1 million persons aged 12 or older used marijuana daily. More than half of daily marijuana users (53.3%) reported dependence on or abuse of alcohol or an an illicit drug This is essentially stating half of the people using marijuana went a much harder drug, therefore reinforcing my position. "To think that marijuana is a "gateway" drug is ludicrous,considering all the corporations, factories, advertisements, drug stores, grocery stores, friends, and family who that tell you a man made product will solve your problems since we can remember. The "gateway" my friend is not a single product. It is the product of our life experience, our peers, and our influences growing up. " All of the above mentioned are society's glamorization of marijuana. These glamorization's are what get you on marijuana. I will repost the definioton of gateway drug to further back up my point A gateway drug is a drug (as alcohol or marijuana) whose use is thought to lead to the use of and dependence on a harder drug (as cocaine or heroin). So, a gateway drug is essentially using marijuana and getting unsatisfied with it, which you will then seek to find a product which creates a bigger high than marijuana could.
marijuana is not a "gateway" drug

okay....so you just proved that marijuana has a chemical that creates a euphoric feeling to most living beings here on Earth. However... my argument is the word "gateway" drug. Since conception, we (yes all of us) have been reliant on "drugs". Think of how our parents got together and procreated in the first place. Just like US, they needed a catalyst. Alcohol...cigarettes...asprin....diet pills...birth control. We grow up taking asprin for head aches, coffe to wake up, pharmacudicals to prevent sickness and allergies, sugar for breakfast, presevitives in our foods etc... The definition of a DRUG is "Any chemical taken within an organic body that changes the chemistry and emotional respone to that body. To think that marijuana is a "gateway" drug is ludicrious,considering all the corporations, factories, advertisments, drug stores, grocery stores, friends, and family who that tell you a man made product will solve your problems since we can remember. The "gateway" my friend is not a single product. It is the product of our life experience, our peers, and our influences growing up. Like I said before.... everyone has two choices when it comes to drugs
marijuana is not a "gateway" drug

Firstly, I welcome you to debate.org I accept Pro's challenge. I will use the first round for acceptance and provide definitions to allow further understanding of this debate. Also, please note, my all definitions used will be from the Merriam Webster online dictionary. Marijuana is the dried leaves and flowering tops of the pistillate hemp plant that yield THC and are smoked in cigarettes for their intoxicating effect A gateway drug is a drug (as alcohol or marijuana) whose use is thought to lead to the use of and dependence on a harder drug (as cocaine or heroin)
Airplanes should put parachutes under seats instead of lifejackets

Look at any WWII movie ever made in history, when a plane gets hit, you never hear the old guy on the plane say 'Strap in tight everything will be A okay'... He never says that! he always says something along the lines of 'EVERYONE OUT OF THE PLANE RIGHT NOW, JUMP!' And theres a reason for that too. If your plane breaks when youre up in the air, then 99% of the time ITS GOING TO FALL OUT OF THE SKY. There isnt even a point to having life jackets because you may all be dead when you crash into the water in the first place! The only time in history anybody has actually needed life jackets on a crashing plane and NOT parachutes was that one plane that Sully Sullenberger landed in the Hudson River... Other then that one incident, people in literally every other plane crash would prefer parachutes instead of life jackets. Con may present arguments in round 1