BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Seize all military involvement in the middle-east

We went to Afghanistan for a reason: to ensure that Afghanistan never again served as a sanctuary for al-Qaeda, as it did when the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were planned there under the Taliban. The importance of that mission still remains. Afghanistan itself still needs help. The situation there is not hopeless, but it is serious. But all is not lost. Far from it. Kabul is much safer than most cities in war zones—and for that matter, a number of cities in Latin America. Indeed, Afghan forces successfully repelled the attempt on the parliament, killing all the attackers. Kandahar, the original haven of the Taliban, is under government control. Mazar-e Sharif in the north and Herat in the west are doing reasonably well. The country’s ring road and other major highways are generally secure. As the Pentagon’s June “Report on Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan” put it, “The resilient Taliban-led insurgency remains an enduring threat,” but “Although the Taliban spread its footprint across the country, it suffered considerable casualties and did not accomplish any of its major strategic or operational objectives in 2014.” To their enormous credit, Afghan soldiers and police continue to sustain many of the gains of recent years, even after NATO forces have drawn down by 90 percent. www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/10/16-us-troops-stay-in-afghanistan-ohanlon-petraeus The fact is that when the U.S. leaves areas of the Middle East, bad things happen. Do we want to play world police? I don't, but the reality remains: the Middle East is a dangerous place. The cultures are nothing like the West. Its ideas are infallable or devine in these peoples' minds. Does every Muslim think this way? Probably not, but enough of them do to reek havik and chaos. ISIS likes to cut peoples' heads off and perform mass shootings. Boko Haram burns children alive in cages. The Taliban targets girls' schools. Al Queda likes to blow up buildings. Syria has become a sespool of devastation, destruction, and death. Even the "royal Saudi governing body" has a fixation on executions by beheading and stoning. Iran has anti Europe, Israel, and U.S. chanting screaming "death to America!" We can never leave the region again.
Gun control does not reduce crime (U.SA only)

Argument 1: States with strict gun control generally have high homicide rates.Many people are under the impression that gun bans will reduce crime. However, it is exactly the opposite. A good example would be the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia also has the highest homicide rate in the nation (compared to other states) at a 13.9 per 100,000 homicide rate [1]. Also, keep in mind, that D.C also has one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.[2]. So, I believe it is safe to say that Gun control hasn't helped the U.S deter it's homicide rate. Let me take use the state of Vermont, a state that has much less restrictions on guns [3]. Its homicide rate in 2013, was 1.3 per 100,000 [1].The gun laws of D.C The gun laws of Vermont As you can see, Vermont has nearly 0 restrictions on guns. Even allowing open carry. Yet, the homicide rate of Vermont is extremely low compared to D.C, which has restrictions on nearly everything.i'll post my other arguments in the next round. [1] http://www.ucrdatatool.gov...[2] http://handgunlaw.us...[3] https://www.nraila.org...
Technology will one day render human labor obsolete

Technology will one day render human labor obsolete. For now we're at a transitional period where corporate giants such as Amazon have implemented automated labor to reduce human labor expenses. What drives any company is more money in their pocket and that is achieved either through expanding by investing or retaining more net profit by reducing cost and expenses. Human labor is one of the biggest contributing factor to the amount of net profit that investors can walk away with. Why wouldn't a company replace humans with automated robots when humans are error-prone, mutable, and a liability.
I have no specific reason to support my claim but. Ancient generations were advance

"no specific evidence to support my claim. "- i assume you understand specific. Nothing can ever be specified Karl Marx. Even if you're convicted of a murder the law can never be specific that you're the murderer it's just a series of evidence that support the theory that you're the killer again "theory", No proof "also 'HE' assumed my gender" The theory that you understand gender falsifies here. " it is a tie or I win", "so I should get the win" again, Arguments not order. facts: 1 the earliest known civilization (Mesopotamian and ancient Egypt) was when the idea of writing things down began and by then ancient Egypt had pharaohs who already rich and these massive stony structures were built which science till today cannot explain with the technology present at that time. similarly various events in the Indian history talks for the same 2 Temples and structure made out of massive stones 3 Ram Setu - floating bridge presumed to be man made with stones chemically similar to any other stone 4 ancient inscriptions highlighting the use of natural enhancers for spiritual connection(drugs) and the existence of some spiritual part which we now know as the subconscious. just in case it did not catch your attention.
I have no specific reason to support my claim but. Ancient generations were advance

"Doesn't back up any of his own arguments drop them all. He provides no defense" - I did not provide any of my own arguments in the first place and provided arguments against each of your claim other than which I couldn't properly understand " "Moon man proven since we have landed a man on moon Nothing else up there We first there" - research is still underway "Went against the communist manifesto Stone this man" - please put forward arguments and not order "This debate is pointless since he admits" - didn't realize something like this happened "he can"t back it up thus I win". - Again, Arguments not order
I have no specific reason to support my claim but. Ancient generations were advance

allow me to clear the fog here. advance: advance in terms of knowledge and creativity. (and there's no evidence for period(s) before the existence of writing) *i agree that currently we're living in a technological accelerated period as compared to what we know* and there are various evidences which science till today cannot explain, Many of which have been encompassed and explained through religion facts: 1 the earliest known civilization (Mesopotamian and ancient Egypt) was when the idea of writing things down began and by then ancient Egypt had pharaohs who already rich and these massive stony structures were built which science till today cannot explain with the technology present at that time. similarly various events in the Indian history talks for the same 2 Temples and structure made out of massive stones 3 Ram Setu - floating bridge presumed to be man made with stones chemically similar to any other stone 4 ancient inscriptions highlighting the use of natural enhancers for spiritual connection(drugs) and the existence of some spiritual part which we now know as the subconscious teleportation : calculated transportation of particles(atoms) in a particular direction with energy as a fuel is teleportation just that we cannot provide enough fuel for something to teleport without being visible to a longer range moon man: lacking the ability to comprehend thus cannot provide with an argument Communism : Again unable to clearly comprehend what was intended from what I did understand "a revolution of different character like never before" and "destroy all private property" and "classes will disappear" could've explained them better. analogy: cleaning the dirty water tank (revolution) again and again when you know it's not the water responsible for the disease but the fish. and "capitalism is inherently unstable" again what you're claiming as a failure of theory could be a failure of the organization in terms of understanding the theory, Lack of proper implementation(which is again tough to realize )
I have no specific reason to support my claim but. Ancient generations were advance

War was much more prominent in past generations so any technology like that would be destroyed. I shall know list reasons we are more advanced: -We have big gun they have little spear - how do you know we don"t have teleportation? - We have moon man - We have communism The Communist Manifesto reflects an attempt to explain the goals of Communism, As well as the theory underlying this movement. It argues that class struggles, Or the exploitation of one class by another, Are the motivating force behind all historical developments. Class relationships are defined by an era's means of production. However, Eventually these relationships cease to be compatible with the developing forces of production. At this point, A revolution occurs and a new class emerges as the ruling one. This process represents the "march of history" as driven by larger economic forces. Modern Industrial society in specific is characterized by class conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. However, The productive forces of capitalism are quickly ceasing to be compatible with this exploitative relationship. Thus, The proletariat will lead a revolution. However, This revolution will be of a different character than all previous ones: previous revolutions simply reallocated property in favor of the new ruling class. However, By the nature of their class, The members of the proletariat have no way of appropriating property. Therefore, When they obtain control they will have to destroy all ownership of private property, And classes themselves will disappear. The Manifesto argues that this development is inevitable, And that capitalism is inherently unstable. The Communists intend to promote this revolution, And will promote the parties and associations that are moving history towards its natural conclusion. They argue that the elimination of social classes cannot come about through reforms or changes in government. Rather, A revolution will be required. The Communist Manifesto has four sections. In the first section, It discusses the Communists' theory of history and the relationship between proletarians and bourgeoisie. The second section explains the relationship between the Communists and the proletarians. The third section addresses the flaws in other, Previous socialist literature. The final section discusses the relationship between the Communists and other parties.
5v5 deathmatch any series you want

naruto vs luffy naruto can make clones of himself he could also make a clone that turns into a log when you hit it and that would distract luffy long enough for naruto to get a good combo in. Law vs gaara law cant swim so all gaara has to do is knock law into water or make quick sand below him and law is a goner. zoro and sasuke sasuke may not be as good in sword fighting as zoro but saske has devastating attacks such as kirin also zoro has no sense of dirictions (because he's a man of course) sasuke is also alot faster on foot then zoro so sasuke can just strike evade strike evade until zoro is out neji vs sanji remember neji cant be taken by surprise so flying just gets sanji out of neji's distance but he has to come down some time also sanji has 1 main weakness... women and neji can use sexy no jitsu so sanji will come down neji will turn back to himself and sanji wont last long then. orochimaru vs ace orochimaur has He has Leech All Creation, with which he can prevent any attack done to him by merging with the environment and if he were to do that when ace uses his fir ball no damage will be done to him and im pretty sure ace cant use that move twice also he cand modifiy his body These modifications include stretching and bending the body and reconnecting the body in case of bisection. Orochimaru is also able to shed his body and recreate himself, which can be used to heal injuries. Thus, even if Orochimaru is unable to transfer bodies, he can easily heal and evade attacks, rendering him virtually immortal. Orochimaru also alters the face of his host bodies to look like his original form Sasuke stated that he only beat Orochimaru because he was weakly sick orochimaru can even sommon the first 4 Hokage's ace cant go 5 vs 1 ecspacily science they are the 5 strongest ninja's out there
5v5 deathmatch any series you want

... i didn't expect this kind of match up well this is my first debate so i did know what to exepct so i try to combat this the best i can naruto vs. luffy: with naruto's nine tailed chakra cloakhe may only need 5 minutes and even then he could use Oiroke no Jutsu (Sexy no Jutsu) to stun luffy or Bunshin Taiatari (Clone Suicide Bombing) and even speed cant win against Shihohappo Shuriken (Shuriken from All Directions) trafalgar vs. Gaara your are right that gaara wouldn't stand a chance in law's room but law couldn't stand much of a chance on gaara's turf so if there was a place both of there powers were dominate then it would be almost equal. sasuke vs. zoro. you are also right that zoro can take any 1 hit from sasuke but the amount of damage sasuke can do with all of his attacks may be to much for even zoro. neji vs. sanji. Neji, is very strong and, like Sasuke, is a natural genius and was the number one rookie genin of last year. im sure with Hakke Hyakunijuuhachishou (Eight Divine Signs: One-Hundred and Twenty-Eight Palm Strikes) and Hakke Kuushou (Eight Divine Signs: Emty Palm Strike) he would beat sanji also with byakugan he can see 360 degrees so he cant be taken by surprise orochimau has very many stong echniques and would be a equal match for ace
5v5 deathmatch any series you want

I am very suprised that you didn't chose any water style fighters as they would be a valuable asset to your team. Now lets look at some stats. None of the characters you chose are as physically strong as Zoro, sage mode naruto is the only one even close. None of the characters you chose are as fast as luffy, not even close. An advantage you have is the fact that Naruto characters have a very diverse ability set. Gaara was a strong choice since he has such a large area of effect ability. The problem with this is the sand has proven that it can be smashed through and avoided using speed. Luffy is faster than part one lee,no questions asked, so he will be able to get around Gaara's sand, or punch right through it. The strongest fighter on your team is obviously naruto with his Bijuu bomb. when law uses his room ability he can transfer peoples souls to ther people, for example Nruto will be in Sasukes body and vice versa. Looking back on when naruto learned the Bijuu bomb it took him a long time to figure out the chakra formation so if someone else was in his body they would not be able to use this move. Now looking at Neji, he seems to be the weakest link on your team. He would not be able to hold his own against anyone on my line up. Take sanji for example. Neji may be able to counter his speed with Byakugon but sanji's strength and heat would be to much. Hell's memories would take Neji out of the fight for good. Now for sasuke. We can put sasuke up against Zoro. Zoro is known for being able to take a hit, such as sasuke's most powerful technique, karin. Zoro has taken far more punishment when he was confronted by Kuma. Kuma hit him with a blow that was equivalant to everything Luffy had taken while they were on the island. Zoro was standing proud at the end of it, clearly unable to fight but he was alive. Sasuke on the other hand was hit once by Killer Bee and got his chest blown out. Zoro would be to strong and sturdy for sasuke. Naruto vs. Luffy. Luffy is just to fast. Looking back at fishman island luffy kicked Hordy Jones through a mountain before Hordy even noticed he had moved. Naruto can move quickly in his nine tailed chakra cloak mode but it only lasts 5 minutes. After that he is done. Trafalgar Law vs. Gaara. Gaara's sand wouldnt mean much in Law's room. Law could knock away the sand with the flick of his finger inside his room so gaara wouldnt have much of a chance. Ace vs. orochimaru. Ace would just burn him down. This would be the closest battle simply because orochimaru doesn't seem to die very easily. When orochimaru enters his true snake form his poison would just be burned away by Ace. Anything he throws at him would be burned away easily in the presence of Ace since he IS fire.
5v5 deathmatch any series you want

Make sure your characters are all from the same series. This will consist of chosing five characters from a given series who you think would make for a fun fight. Some rules: No god tier, no planet or moon busters, no unkillable characters etc. Try to aim for mid tier characters to make this a fun/fair fight. I will be chosing the one piece universe. My characters. Trafalgar law. 1. onepiece. wikia. com/wiki/Trafalgar_Law 2. Roranoa Zoro. onepiece. wikia. com/wiki/Roronoa_Zoro 3. Sanji. onepiece. wikia. com/wiki/Sanji 4. Monkey D. Luffy. onepiece. wikia. com/wiki/Monkey_D. _Luffy 5. Portgas D. Ace onepiece. wikia. com/wiki/Portgas_D.
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

If the concept of "atheism" was created by people who have no belief system with regards to a god, then we would be in agreement. Sadly, atheism was construed by theists as a means of describing people that were not religious. This becomes obvious when the original definition of atheist is examined (n) a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. The more modern definition is (n) a person who does not believe in God or gods. Excluding the tribal people from places like New Guinea and exclusively discussing the atheists who live in religious society, these individuals have a multitude of reasons for being atheists. These people would clearly have a conception of what a god may or should be. So the question would be "do these people disbelieve in a god or do these people not have a belief in a god"? Not having a desire to speak for everyone within this group, a reasonable answer would be that some people disbelieve and some people do not have a belief. "if i show you 3 fingers with my hand, and you see 3 fingers, do you believe my claim that i am showing you a full hand?" You would be showing me your full hand. With examples like the chicken and the egg, are you trying say that we all have beliefs about the unknown?
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

i am not saying theism makes you a disbeliever on your own claim, but that might be the case to i am saying, in order for there to be any atheist, there must be an argument to defend that position, that is the belief, the god that is believed in by the atheist and belief is belief in god if a=b, then b=a chicken=egg if you change the claim to not be a counter belief position then you takes atheism out of the equatio.. but you are esentially arguing for me so its true i am showing 3 fingers behind my back?
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

In Mr. Turtle"s example, god is a unicorn. *This is with the assumption that the most holy unicorn does not acknowledge the lesser beings that call themselves deities like Banjo the Clown, God of Puppets, or recognize their existence. http://oots.wikia.com... According to your definition of atheism, your understanding of the correlation between atheism and theism is correct, as it is a circular reasoning fallacy (a * b therefore b * a). My understanding of atheism and I suspect most readers understanding of atheism are different from yours, Mr. Turtle. All hail the mighty unicorn with a horn so sharp and pointy. All fellow believers of the one true unicorn are not "atheist" to Christianity, because they believe in the unicorn. They are" what is the word that means believers of one faith, but not all faiths... religious? Devout? With the assumption that the thumb is a finger and the word up means stretched out from the bulk of the hand, the chance of you holding up three fingers behind your back is 31.25%. This is not a belief, but rather a calculation of odds given the possibilities. There is no way to know how many fingers you choose to hold up behind your back. Are you trying to make a claim that there is a correlation between holding up fingers behind your back and atheism requiring belief?
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

because, if you are a theist to unicorns, and you believe unicorns created everything and you will go to unicorn heaven when you die.. then you are an atheist to christianity, no? what is your position if not an atheist, which Means, your theism is atheism to other god claims, and if you stopped, believing in unicorns, you would no longer necessariy be an atheist to the christian god claim, ai? i dont know means, i have to imagine it, i can at best imagine it, so if i take my hand behind my back, is my claim that i am showing 3 fingers behind my back true? you can also disbelieve my claim, maybe i am showing 4 fingers
Money can solve anything.

First and foremost, allow me to address what Pro stated in the previous round. He states that I must provide at least one example of a scenario of an individual that has access to an unlimited supply of cash that will not prevent or solve a problem or disaster. He will attempt to refute any example I give. I will attempt to highlight my argument. Cash is only a medium when cash contains value, for example in American economics we assign dollar amounts to certain denominations of cash. The reason why money has value is because of demand, I want it and my neighbor wants it. I can utilize money for services, goods, and products in return for the money. Now lets examine individual (A). A lives in America, Dallas Texas, and has an infinite supply of money. A wishes to travel to Barcelona Spain, specifically a small town called, La Rinconada. The area is very rural and man farms and farmers. occupy the land. A brings his money of course. A wishes to purchase local food from the farms because he is hungry from his travels, and visit a local onion and cabbage farm. He wants to purchase one hundreds dollars worth of food. The farmer states that, unless he has a service to provide or other goods, such as produce, his money is worthless. This brings me to my first premise, Bartering. Another example I wish to present is the social factor of money. As it pertains to social affairs, social concepts, and models, cash is a profound method of influence and power. However, as it does not pertain to social affairs, and is not limited to social constraints, cash would serve little to no influence. An example to exemplify this is to examine earthly phenomenon such as rogue waves. Rogue waves are waves that are spontaneous and abnormally large. They occur randomly and are extremely arduous to predict and impossible to prevent from occurring. There are areas in the ocean which can be deemed as likely places rogue waves can occur, but can not be prevented. My example of rogue waves is of of many phenomenon, inducing hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and numerous other events that money can assist in predicting and aiding in recovering from, but can't prevent from happening. All of the above phenomena occurrences have been documented to cause tremendous disaster and present problems to in human life. As I stated above, cash is only used a medium if the cash has value, and cash has no value in a bartering system. The barter system, as Pro would define it, is an actual life system and within actual life events take course. How would money solve anything, in regards to problems, if the means of economics rely on services and/or goods traded for one another? Also mentioned, is my example of naturally occurring phenomenon that money can't prevent. I challenge Pro to refute my examples and defend the notion that, provided an unlimited supply of cash, "money can solve anything." Pro, you have the metaphorical floor. http://www.barternewyork.net... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.technologyreview.com... http://www.sciencechannel.com...