BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb will be beneficial to the human race.

When my opponent set up this argument he said to disregard all time paradoxes, yet in his argument he says that since technology was headed that way already, the invention of the atomic bomb was inevitable as he states "the atomic bomb was bound to occur at some point". This violates the original precedent regarding time paradox. He set it up as preventing the bomb from being invented at all, not delaying its invention. One of the points my opponent brings up is essentially the idea of a stalemate brought on by the fear of mutually assured destruction. He also mentions it is better it was us and not some rogue nation. Why is that, wouldn't the mutually assured destruction principal apply to them as well? While the idea of mutually assured destruction sounds like one of the most convincing arguments in favor of atomic weapons, I suggest that there are better methods with less potential for disaster. Economic sanctions are one powerful way to prevent an enemy nation from attacking especially if they are a country that relies heavily on trade. "North Korea or Iran might very well be the first to possess such weapons then, and then who knows what might happen? " No because the bomb wouldn't be invented at all according to your original premise.
Going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb will be beneficial to the human race.

I agree to and accept the terms of the debate. Disregarding all paradox and butterfly effect, assuming that everything else not directly affected would be the same, I will argue that the atomic bomb was not a good thing. The premise of this debate implies only the destructive weapons resulting from atomic energy and so any positive benefit from atomic energy should not be addressed. To sum this up I will argue that society as a whole would be better off if atomic weapons had never been invented. Let me jump into my arguments for my point. First of all, even the man who made the technology possible, Albert Einstein himself was appalled at the idea of dropping the bomb. Also when Truman dropped the bomb he went against the advice of his Generals including Eisenhower and MacArther. [1] Since that is just certain people's opinion on the bomb, albeit people who's opinion really mattered, I want to address the moral aspect of it, which is really what is central to this debate. It is never acceptable to deliberately kill civilians in war. I will not deny Japan did terrible things but that does not justify retaliating in kind. Remember also the reason we were making the bomb is that we feared Germany was making it as well, but if for the sake of this argument neither Germany, or the US, or even Russia would have had the bomb as the established hypothetical situation would disallow it. This has implications for today. Why do we fear Iran and North Korea? It is because they have nuclear weapons. That is the premise of my argument. Thank you and I await your response. 1 . http://www.doug-long.com...
Going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb will be beneficial to the human race.

If that means the atomic bomb would never be dropped on Japan than that is a good thing. As for everything else though, if it would happen anyway then there would be no real difference, everything might just happen later. "Would you think for one second that rogue countries like North Korea would hesitate to use them on us? " No. However there again you are assuming that History would progress in such a way where they would get it first but most ideas North Korea comes up with they steal from elsewhere. Also, why should the US be trusted as the arbiter, we have already been shown to have terrorized Japan. Then there is always the possibility that someone gets careless anyway. In response to your comment noneconomic sanctions, you must remember that China has trade relations with North Korea and China is our biggest trade partner. I thank my opponent for this debate and think it was an interesting theory to think about. Like and hypothetical situation, it is full of speculation but I enjoyed it none the less.
In Canterwood Crest Academy Heather Fox is the strongest competitor on the advanced team.

Thanks for replying! First of all heathers father is somewhat of a social climber so that affects her riding. Yes maybe heather said no to the dare on that fateful night on the dangerous gallop or canter but if you think about it 'what would heather have done if her father had supported the challenge and had ordered her to do it?' well you may say 'it's not like she could say no to her father!' but yes I myself am a rider and I enjoy the sport so coming from my experience if I put myself in heathers shoes it wouldn't matter if my father ordered me to, heck, the president could threaten to arrest me! But as a good rider like many people that are more deeply involved with the Olympic sport than me I'm sure the professional would agree, you never under any circumstances endanger your horse. I agree heather was right to back down but I'm very sure if her father had been there things could have gotten very ugly very fast. See, heather is incredibly flexible and her father could easily bend or wrap heather around his pinkie finger if he wanted to. The has a huge impact on her riding and the way she interacts with other canter wood students she were to be as good as a rider as she thinks she is then she would not be practicing in a ring all day every day. I bring up that assumption because when Sasha and Paige end up not going together for spring break because of a fight over dumb drama Heather takes sasha to new York with her instead and while visiting in the blond hair blue eyed girls penthouse Sasha learns heather did have a relaxing life before canter wood and YENT. Two of her other friends and her would all go on a beautiful trail ride pluse they would bring along water bottles and granola bars. They would sometimes stick there feet in a cold rushing brook to ease off practice for a while. Now I ask 'where did that heather go?' she was pretty much a better person than she is today. So my conclusion was heathers a good rider but were dose that leave her when other things happen in her life? Like school? Classes??lunchtime??? One of my favorite sayings is, You can be surrounded by many people ,but are not true friends and feel alone But you can be hanging out with a few of your very close friends and feel completely surrounded :) In my book ,heathers pretty much completely alone thus leavening her with a pathetic life. And not a well rider because you need support and heather has none from anyone. No offense intended, it's been fun thanks! :D
In Canterwood Crest Academy Heather Fox is the strongest competitor on the advanced team.

No offence taken;) "Her gossiping nature also affects her class and positions. Sometimes her behavior leads to her being either held back from a competition, she also gets suspended from school when the belles dare Alison, Julia, heather, Sasha and Callie to an initiation to canter or trot in the forbidden dark all the way to the stables." ~ Its true. The girls were told to canter from the stable yard to the administration office and brush the window and canter back. BUT Heather (and Sasha) both refused to do this dare to protect the saftey of their horses. "The penalty of such an unthinkable stupid thing to do was being suspended from the stables for a short time pluse not being able to tryout for YENT though she ,Sasha,Callie ,Allison and Julia sucked up to Mr Connor to let them tryout and Connor caved." ~Again you have only given half of the story. Yes the girls were suspended but managed to convince Mr. Conner to allow them to ride for the Y.E.N.T scouts on the grounds that immediately following these tryouts they were to go back to being suspended fro riding. But they didn't "suck up". They did almost a week of stable chores and sent Mr. Conner a letter apologizing and admitting how wrong they were and all signed it. To me that doesn't define "sucking up." "Mind you that heather had almost no part in the hard work it took to brown nose Mr Connor into letting them tryout. " ~Heather took an equal amount part in this work and you can see that for yourself in book #5 Behind The Bit pages 200-203 "I believe her money got her halfway and her little effort pushed her in the judges favor." ~If you remember correctly Heather's father practically insisted that he bribe the judges in her favour but she refused saying "if you try it i will drop out, fake sick or something!" Good Luck in Round :)
In Canterwood Crest Academy Heather Fox is the strongest competitor on the advanced team.

Thanks for answering :) Ok so how dose her parents influence on her life influence her riding? Well her life and her riding are so blended together that there pretty much the same .so her attitude and snootiness show very clearly in her jumping and etiquette of English style riding. Her gossiping nature also affects her class and positions. Sometimes her behavior leads to her being either held back from a competition, she also gets suspended from school when the belles dare Alison, Julia, heather, Sasha and Callie to an initiation to canter or trot in the forbidden dark all the way to the stables. The belles are a local clique that are moving on to high school but need a few girls to succeed or replace them. As it turns out Mr Connors finds them and they all get in trouble. The reason I bring this part of the story up is because heather would not be in that position if she had her head in the game and not sunk to the belles levels thus affecting her riding. The penalty of such an unthinkable stupid thing to do was being suspended from the stables for a short time pluse not being able to tryout for YENT though she ,Sasha,Callie ,Allison and Julia sucked up to Mr Connor to let them tryout and Connor caved. Mind you that heather had almost no part in the hard work it took to brown nose Mr Connor into letting them tryout. So even though Heather was one of the people permitted onto the national team I believe her money got her halfway and her little effort pushed her in the judges favor. I mean no offense thank you for the debate :)
In Canterwood Crest Academy Heather Fox is the strongest competitor on the advanced team.

~This may be so but in any way how does this pertain to her horseback riding skills? "I also believe that heather was only slightly ok at horse back riding because she was raised off to not have an opinion of her own so her parents pretty much lived through her. " ~Again this has nothing to do with her riding skills. Please refere back to the title of this debate "In Canterwood Crest Academy Heather Fox is the strongest competitor on the advanced team. " Can you name someone (on that team) that is a better equestrian than Heather?
In Canterwood Crest Academy Heather Fox is the strongest competitor on the advanced team.

Ok first of all I think heather was a total gossiping hypocrit that had extreme family issues that ruined and ran her life. I also believe that heather was only slightly ok at horse back riding because she was raised off to not have an opinion of her own so her parents pretty much lived through her. She was deeply insecure and had no self esteem whatsoever. Her true colors show when she starts trying to Sabatage Sasha silver on pretty much the first day on campus. Heather holds grudges and cannot let go of simple situations I believe also. I rest my case, thank you
McCain's plans for, taxes, heathcare, war, and entitlements are detrimental for the middle-class.

John McCain's proposed plans for taxes, healthcare, Iraq War, and entitlements will ultimately be detrimental for all persons who make less than $250,000. In effect the totality of John McCain's planned agenda for the USA will erode the middle-class by redistributing more wealth to the top 1-5% of America. His plans for taxes, healthcare, Iraq War, and entitlements are the components to this end. I will allow my opponent to make his statement first. Giving reason's as to how McCain's plans for taxes, healthcare, Iraq War, and entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc...) will actually benefit the middle class and not just the top 1-5% of the population.
McCain's plans for, taxes, heathcare, war, and entitlements are detrimental for the middle-class.

It is very unfortunate that my opponent was unable to make a closing argument. However if he is reading this I would like to send him my respects and wish him well for the future. I would like to sum up this debate by saying: My opponent (who has the burden of proof) has not shown any of his arguments, how McCains plans are detrimental to the middle class with any factual information. I have given illustrated examples of why McCains plans are beneficial to the middle class. Since no evidence or arguments were given showing how McCain's plans are detrimental to the middle class, or that wealth redistribution will occur, I urge all voters to vote CON. I would appreciate reasons for your votes. Again I would like to thank my opponent for a rousing debate subject, and would like to send him my reguards. Its unfortunate that you missed this round.
We should end Smoking

First of all thank you for accepting my argument Con says that there are approximately 6.4 million auto accidents in the United States annually. Has Con looked how the auto accidents happened? Approximately 30% of California's auto accident's deaths are from drunk driving. Drunk driving is something all ready illegal, so I will not bother debating you about that. Also how does smoking raise costs for everyone? Smoking raises medical costs for everybody. "A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people a lifetime. [1]" Why does it cost more for healthy people? "The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer. [1]" Because of smoking, smokers and nonsmokers have to pay health care costs. [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
We should end Smoking

The resolution says "we" should end smoking, implying that a group of individuals ought to make a decision for other individuals who do want to continue smoking. Pro mentions that 440,000 people die as a direct or indirect result of smoking cigarettes annually. However there are approximately 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States annually [1] -- does that mean automobiles ought to be illegal? A lot of people die from obesity. Should sweets be illegal? Obviously we have a standard of freedom in this country and we allow people to make decisions for themselves regarding their own health and body. If it costs them their own life and money, that's their responsibility/ fault/ prerogative. While my opponent mentions raising medical costs for everyone, that would not necessarily be so if we had a strictly private health insurance and medical system. If society wishes to employ socialized medicine, then they must live with the consequences of those who choose to smoke cigarettes or weigh 500 pounds or engage in other risky behavior impacting their costs. [1] http://www.car-accidents.com...
Democracy Is An Evil System

What? No. None of those countries fought to instate democracy. They revolted to instate a REPUBLIC. America isn't a democracy, and I get super pissed when people say we are one. It's one of my biggest pet peeves. We aren't a democracy we're a REPUBLIC. In a democracy, there are NO RULES. A tyranny of the majority. Right now, the Republicans could pass a bill saying that all Democrats should be burned at the stake. This is COMPLETELY FINE as in a democracy there are no rules. The majority can do WHATEVER they want. This is why democracy is inherently evil. However, in a republic, there is something more powerful than the majority. In our case, it's the constitution. In Rome (the first republic) they had the 12 Tables. The constitution lays down the rules, that NO ONE can disobey. In a republic the majority has rules they must follow, otherwise, they'll get penalized for it. We also have checks and balances in a republic, to make sure all branches have equal and limited power. SO you see. Democracies are evil, but REPUBLICs are good. P.S. America ain't no democracy.
Democracy Is An Evil System

It wouldn't make sense for me to generalize all democracies and prove that they're "un-evil", so instead I will argue why Democracy is the best current system. "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."- Winston Churchill 1947. What this quote essentially boils down to is the fact that you could argue that for the flaws in any political system, but nevertheless democracy seems to be the only one still used for most major nations. You can see many examples of people being dissatisfied with political systems where they feel oppressed. Examples include the American revolution, the French revolution, the Arab spring, the Iranian revolution, and many more. Notice how those are all democratic revolutions. It is rare to see a revolution in which democracy is wished to be removed. So if democracies are so evil how come the people seem to comply?
The usage of child suicide bombers by the Taliban is not morally excused by any moral relativism

A "society" is an organization of people who live with a sense of community. The Taliban is a society within the Muslim society. Moral relativism claims that different societies hold different moral values. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, it is in fact possible that the Taliban has a different set of moral values than the rest of the Muslim population. I want to begin my argument with saying that, personally, I do not believe in, nor do I condone the use of child suicide bombers (or suicide bombers of any situation). This argument is based off of objective facts surrounding the concepts of moral relativism and/or absolutism. My opponent has made the argument that this cannot be an issue of moral relativism a large portion of the Muslim population does not agree with the use of child suicide bombers. However, he fails to recognize the fact that the group of people do do agree with it, and condone it, are in fact a society all their own; the Taliban. Dictionary.com defines a society as, "an organized group of persons associated together for religious, cultural, political, patriotic, or other purposes." This is what the Taliban is. It is a society within the larger society (the larger society being Middle Eastern Muslims). It is because of this that an argument for moral relativism is indeed logical here. The Taliban holds its own moral code, which is not in every way consistent with that of the rest of the Muslim population. Therefore, it is its own society with its own moral code. Comparing it to the moral codes of other parts of the world suggests the concept of moral absolutism (that there is one single moral code that should be followed by all), which is not the case. It is entirely possible for certain societies to have different morals codes.
The usage of child suicide bombers by the Taliban is not morally excused by any moral relativism

Moral relativism claims that there is no universal good because different cultures view good differently Even members of the Afghanistan and Muslim cultures view child suicide bombings as wrong Thus, Child suicide bombing cannot be justified by a moral relativist position The moral relativism theory states that what is good is really just based on what a specific society deems normal. Because people in different cultures are raised to believe different things are good or bad, then according to moral relativism, there's no such thing as a universal good. I don't believe this argument holds up logically for the instance of child suicide bombings because it is not that Afghan and Muslim cultures see child suicide bombings as good, and that we as Americans have a difference of opinion, even within the Afghan and Muslim communities the vast majority of the population find child suicide bombings not only immoral, but inexcusable.
The usage of child suicide bombers by the Taliban is not morally excused by any moral relativism

The Taliban interprets the meaning of the Quran to justify its actions, there is no doubt of that. But couldn't even that action be deemed acceptable by means of moral relativism? Lets look at it this way" You feel that child suicide bombing is wrong. I also feel that its wrong. You feel that its wrong to distort a text such as the Quran to fit such a heinous act. I also believe that. However" whose to say that the Taliban's moral code doesn't deem this behavior acceptable? My main point in this debate is that, unless one is actually a true member of the Taliban, the inner workings of such a complex sub-community could never be fully understood. This being the case, it would be illogical to rule anything out. Unless you are a member of the Taliban, which I am fairly certain you're not, then how could you tell me what the society sees as acceptable based on its moral code? All I am saying is that one has to keep the mind open to understand that it is certainly possible for the Taliban to view different things as acceptable than what we, and the rest of the majority of the world do. This is why moral relativism would make the most sense to use in this case. The Taliban, being a society all its own, has the capacity to possess a set of morals that is different from that of the rest.
The usage of child suicide bombers by the Taliban is not morally excused by any moral relativism

One of the ways the Taliban justifies their actions is by citing the Koran. Can it really be a moral action if you are twisting the words of your source? The Quran is composed of one hundred and fourteen chapters, of which only five verses discuss when killing is acceptable, namely as a means of defense. The Taliban have perverted a small excerpt and warped its context while it ignores the more major tenets where the Quran strictly forbids the killing of innocents and even suicide. This would be similar to if I attempted to use the United States Constitution to try to justify owning a slave. Just because I twist some of the lines, it doesn't change that the source was clearly intended and meant to be used for the opposite use. Appealing to moral relativism also dismisses the idea of an intrinsic good. While we both acknowledge you don't condone their tactics, but even on an objective level, how would the Taliban reconcile the fact that a child is now dead and nothing is gained? where is the moral component of that dynamic?