BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
World Peace is achieveable

Pro pointed that people have become less barbaric with time. This is true, however it doesn't mean that there will never be a person that would act barbarically again. Also, pro said "racial prejudice had died out decades ago", but that's not true. Even in America, there is still racial prejudice and even today there are still hate groups in America. An example of an American hate group today would be the Ku Klux Klan, but they are not the only hate group in America today. Other hate groups include Neo-Nazi groups, and Neo-confederate groups. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... Pro asked "If in civilized societies, we expect people to work out their differences amicably, why don't those same expectations apply to differences between civilized countries?" A single person can be controlled by the government. However, the government cannot be controlled unless a more powerful nation makes them do what they what. But then how does one control that government? A group of leaders can decide to work together to bring down that powerful nation but each of these would become powerful and would want to take advantage of other nations. Leaders are expected to make decisions on behalf their own people. Although they can control some things that their people do, leaders can't control other things. For example from my link below, Americans have only 5% of the world's population yet they consume 24% of the world's energy. This does not make other nations happy, in fact it could make a nation hate them. http://public.wsu.edu... Pro mentioned about tyrannies. There is no proof that tyrannies will never exist again. Tyrants, like regular criminals try to hurt the rest of society for their own good. And so therefore, for tyranny to not exist again, there would have to be zero crime rate. Pro also mentioned that "the world would always be filled with people bent on committing evil". However, there is no way of knowing if someone is evil until they actually do it. Most people have reasons for committing evil and would do anything to justify that evil. However, society doesn't care about justification and as long as something is evil and they can control that, they can prevent that evil from doing more harm. But the key word is CONTROL. If they fail to control that evil. That evil can become monstrous like how LN failed to prevent Germany from becoming extremely powerful. Also society can try to make some people wise, but as I mentioned before society cannot focus on everyone at once. There are 7 billion people in this world. Society would have a hard time making 7 billion people wise due to 7 billion being a extremely huge number.
World Peace is achieveable

Challenged accepted. My position is that world peace cannot be achieved. And to make it more clear. We will find a clear definition of peace. According to "The Free Dictionary", peace is defined as "The absence of war or other hostilities". Why world peace is not achievable: 1. Several attempts have already been made to keep world peace and have failed. One example is the League of Nations (LN). The LN, founded in 1920, was an organization that was created to keep peace around the world. However, the LN inevitably failed to prevent Hitler from gaining power in Germany and then World War 2 happened. 2. There are many disputes and issues in the world that must be solved and the UN can only focus on one or maybe two at a time. Each member of the UN may have issues of its own to solve. While the UN has settled a few disputes, other ignored or partially ignored disputes becomes worse. Like the UN, the LN also can only focus on one or two disputes at a time. And like the UN members, LN members also experience internal problems. When LN ignores or partially ignores disputes, that's when problems really rise. The LN promised to help China against Japan but inevitably failed because most nations with strong armies are experiencing a great depression. In other words, there are always power-hungry people in the world that takes initiative against the world when the slightest opportunity presents. 3. Today, most nations have been trying to avoid war and solve disputes diplomatically. But solving most disputes is easier said than done. Just about every independent nation has its own views on current disputes today. To reinforce the point of most disputes being easier said than done, we will take the Korean dispute today. Both the North and South Korea wants to unite Korea under their own government. Because of that, tensions grew so steep that its debatable whether the Korean War is still going on (both sides didn't sign a peace treaty but rather an armistice). And today, the UN is still trying to solve a dispute that starting 50 years ago. Using the judgement that its extremely hard to solve disputes diplomatically and there are still many unsolved disputes, I conclude that eventually, one dispute will boil to the point a war occurs and world peace would be disturbed, just as what historically happened with the LN.
World Peace is achieveable

Banning open carry weapons would make it harder for access to weapons without being in the military, but it doesn't mean that public shootings will not take place. It is questionable to say "it'd keep a lot of people from having that idea" because those who already have the idea will actually try to steal weapons from the weapons industrial complex or even some weapons manufacturing companies illegally giving out weapons. As mentioned in round 3, the weapons industrial complex can make money out of the military if not the civilians, therefore a nation can still raise their military funds in order to cause war. We are taught in school that violence is never the answer, but yet there is such thing as a bully. Schools try to discipline everyone at once but this is almost impossible and schools, especially large ones may not be capable of disciplining everyone at once. However, if they focus on 1 to 2 at a time. the rest might become undisciplined. Pro pointed out that if World Peace happened tomorrow, we would not be used to it at all. We'd be so unfamiliar with it, that we'd go back to creating negative drama again, simply since that's what we're used to. This would imply that for World Peace to truly happen, everyone must be on the same path toward World Peace. Unfortunately, society just can't focus on everyone at once. Noting this sheer amount of time it takes to make make everyone believe in World Peace would increase as the population increases. This would cause even greater problems, especially when we get around year 2050, the projected year that the human population would reach 9 billion. As mentioned before, there's still a ton of hate groups in the world. Since they're surrounded by people who also believe in hate. The thought of peace would have a hard time coming to them. We can influence someone to become a good person, so why can't we influence them to become bad? "When a certain amount of individuals have inner peace, and it then will spread more quickly, both globally + collectively." This can also apply for certain amount of individuals who believe in hate. If some great incident doesn't happen, then hate groups, like peace-keeper groups, will spread. The iPhone is also a slow evolution, just evolution outside of the name "iPhone". The iPhone evolved just like a human did, the earliest form of a phone is not called an "iPhone" while the ancestral form of humans are called "Primates", not "Humans". And since hate groups can spread just like peace-keepers can, it would be hard to rid of hate groups.
Forks are better than spoons.

While many foods can be eaten with forks, very few foods NEED forks to be eaten. They are trivial and unimportant utensils. Basically any food that can be eaten with a fork can be eaten just as easily with one's hands. "Spoon-foods" however (pourage, soup, lintels, hot or cold cereal, yogurt, cottage cheese, apple sauce) cannot be eaten with one's hands. So if a culture had to decide between only using forks and only using spoons, it would only have minor effects to lack forks, while it would be disastrous to not have spoons. It would render many foods un-eatable. It would be most logical for the culture to give up forks. In fact while forks are mostly a western thing, spoons are used in some form pretty much all over the world. For instance in oriental culture there are no forks, but there are spoons of sorts. While forks are a nice convenience, spoons are absolutely necessary. You will respond that there are a few foods eaten with forks that cannot be eaten with one's hands (such as fried eggs, macaroni and cheese, etc.), but these foods are the kinds of foods that you can just as easily be eaten with a spoon. The reverse does not apply though, and eating oatmeal with a fork is very difficult. -Harlan
Forks are better than spoons.

Woo! I'm surprised someone actually accepted this. So thank you! ^^; This isn't really an argument based on necessity, it's based on efficiency. Regardless of whether we need either of them, humans are always going to use them[until of course a more effective means of eating is developed.] simply because they facilitate the act of eating. In the sense of [need] however, For those foods that can't be eaten with forks, you can slurp them. And little kids LOVE slurping, even I do. Ask adults, and I'd say the majority of the cool ones love slurping. 'Cause it's just the cool kid thing to do. Thus eliminating the need for spoons. But you can't really slurp salad or macaroni and cheese, which is like my favorite meal of all time. Aside from just being used to eat, forks are physically cooler! They're more interesting to look at, even if they're just plain plastic ware used for picnics. They feel better. Well, not in a weird way. Unless you're into that kinky stuff, but let's avoid that. But they have more texture. You can actually chew on a fork when extremely bored because it's flexible, but a spoon's design is hard to chew on. On the other hand, the word spoon is much cooler than the word fork, so I'll give you that. In oriental culture..I've seen forks. At Panda express they have forks. If you're talking authentic, I'm sure if you fly to Asia they incorporate forks into their meals. Also, I believe they primarily use chopsticks. Which are undoubtedly more similar to forks than spoons. - Mel.
super man would stomp goku

superman stats Name: Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman Origin: DC Comics Gender: Male Classification: Alien Age: 40 - 50 years old Powers and Abilities: Super strength, super speed, flight, heat vision, ice breath, X-ray vision, a massive array of superhuman senses, energy absorbtion, Torquasm-Vo, resistance to many different types of attacks, skilled with alien technology and has notable HtH and superhuman combat skill, under a blue sun his powers are boosted and he gains the ability to imbue others with his powers. Weaknesses: Kryptonite (various varieties), red sunlight, magic(effected by magic as much as a human is), cannot see through lead Destructive Capacity: Large Planet Level+ (can harm avatars of Darkseid and shatter planets) Range: At least one planetary diameter. Speed: Massively FTL (has tagged the Flashes and Zoom as well) Durability: Solar System Level+ (survived multiple supernovas, tanked the collision of Apokolips and New Genesis and was only briefly knocked out) Lifting Strength: Class Y (Able to smash and move the moon, has moved 1/3 of the earth before, pulled the Mageddon mechanism that was at least as large as the earth-moon system) Striking Strength: At least Class XKJ+ (Can shatter planets) Stamina: Essentially infinite as long as he's under yellow or blue sunlight. Standard Equipment: In one issue, recieved a massive power-up widely known as the Cosmic Armor. This is not part of his skillset though, so the OP should specify. Intelligence: Capable of processing information extremely quickly and storing a lot, expert in various alien technologies (he can invent and build new things with Kryptonian technology rather easily), martial arts skills, good deductive and leadership skills, massive battle experience with all kinds of powerful beings. Feats: .Lifted the entire weight of the Earth for five days straight... Barely even broke a sweat. .One time lifted up 200 quintillion tons. .Has held a small Black Hole in his hand. A feat that would easily destroy a normal's person's hand. .Has pushed, pulled, and dragged the entire Earth. .Has defeated Gods before, like Darkseid. .Fixed a hole in the the cosmos. .Survived a blast with the force of several nuclear blasts. .Survived several Supernovas. .Destroyed an army of imperfect Doomsday clones with his Heat Vision. .Heated up the entire Earth with his Heat Vision. .Survived being zapped by geo-thermal energy. .Split an entire sea with his Heat Vision. .Survived being thrown to the Earth with great force, unharmed. .Has created a dynasty of superheroes to follow in his footsteps Heat Vision: Can accurately target things smaller than human beings from orbit, narrow or wide-beam, heat intensity can be greater than the core of the sun, can modulate it to deliver different frequencies and types to best affect his opponent after analyzing them with his sensory powers, can generate enough power to move entire planets Freezing Breath: He freezes his opponents using his super breath to do it.
super man would stomp goku

well i do have to admit you got me and you are indeed very intelligent making the weakest character beat superman. just know that when i debate i kind of get out hand. i usually try to dominate. any way debates do get kind of serious. so yes i am very rough but don't take it like i am trying to insult you. you are indeed very good. right now lets continue. i don't understand when you mean goku has beaten mongul because they have never cross path. dc is a whole different place and universe this is confusing me a lot. me saying superman can defeat shazam is proof that he can go toe to toe with magical beings. this proven like i said superman wont have trouble going with goku. also tell me in what possible will goku even lay a single touch and overpower superman? superman is proven faster and stronger so how will this go if superman can just punch him out of space . in the comic book he punch wonder woman back to earth and wonder woman was an excellent fight. wonder woman is more durable and powerful then goku so how can goku handle this? i think superman will take this. excuse my grammar i am just in a hurry. i am sorry if my words hurt i just debate like that. i hope you find me humorous than a irritant.
super man would stomp goku

what do you mean by beating people is not a liner thing . comic wise this is true if another fiction character can beat a higher hierarchy who is to say he cant beat someone lower. first off superman/batman: apocalypse is a film not a comic book i was referring to the comic. the animation version is different from the comic book version. you saying doomsday can beat himself is illogical because, does were clone and they were no where near his level. insult actually more of truth in fact it is all rubbish. the heck you me , its wrong first of that is an animated version not comic book version. superman has proven several times he can go fly in space and fight in it. without using any Armour. superman is an intellect you really think superman wont catch him before he summoned a dragon . turn superman into kryptonite wow. you very bias and say feats that does not even match superman. yes goku can fight but you can never compare the warrior in afterlife to superman villains at all. actually darkseid is really relevant because if superman has beaten him before it can tell that superman can beat goku. the blog is official and based on facts maybe if you took time to read it you wouldn't be confuse. stomp can mean any sort of defeat and it can be interchangeable so just try to stop being smarty pants. it was never stated as superman killing a hero is himself. This is a battle debate so any thing goes. superman will kill goku if he needed to due to this being a battle debate. ad hominem attack does matter because it just doesn't add up that goku would win. yes you are a fan boy you saying illogical crap meaning you are. don't use superman junk to coverup if you really like superman you would know by fact goku would loose. plus it does matter that you are a fan boy because it will make you become bias in debate. are you drinking goku coo laid it has been shown that superman has far superior stamina than goku. haven't you seen goku huff and puff? when is the last time you seen superman complain he is tired fighting someone. you are really irritating me superman, is not immune to magic and it wont harm him like kryptonite it just one of things that can hurt him. it will be more of a heavy punch. when i mean just as vulnerable as human i mean it can harm him and humans are not immune to magic. if it is a magic spell or enchantment that's different go can not do that.if it is confusing i can replace it as non magical superhero. superman has in fact beaten captain marvel by letting the shazam lightning hit him to turn him into a kid. billy was never smart enough to go well with superman. http://www.comicvine.com... also this cartoon justice league video prove so. superman beats Thor in the jla vs avengers cross over and he is magic. just like when hulk beat Thor and he was magic while hulk is not. in this case strength is decisive because the strength is way to much. superman has killed more than one person in the comic book before including doomsday. http://www.comicvine.com.... just stop with your fan boy antics OK.
super man would stomp goku

first of if you read superman vs darkseid : apokolips now superman pin darksied and beat him. plus doomsday is far superior to darksied which superman has killed in some occassions Let all use are common sense ,since when can goku ever surpass superman speed or strength. collect dragon balls , you very funny do you not know how long that would take. since when will goku even have time to do that. here my sources indicate http://www.screwattack.com... super man stomps. i contradict my self you very funny all i did was add details to what i stated. first off superman is no dummy what so ever he will easily use his experience to get goku down. let me know if goku can face darksied omega beam and go toe to toe with doomsday. you clearly did not read my stats regarding superman. goku can not even breathe out of space. so what your point with all this rubbish your giving me. look your obviously a dbz super fanboy you give me opinions rather than facts. everyone with sense would know goku is out match. this will not only be a stomp but a brutal death. you said goku god form can absorb superman attacks? what in the world are you talking about this is all opinions and antics from a fan boy. first off superman uses sun for his cells to absorb solar energy. so you telling me goku can absorb his attack because he is using energy is crap. first of if that is the case how come goku didn't absorb bill attacks? goku is very overrated. plus his god form doesn't last forever superman takes this. superman also have better stamina unlike goku. first of magic is technically not superman weakness its just that it makes him vulnerable because he is not immune to it. it would effect him just like any other super hero that's not magical. little punk behind staff is not going to stop him look at how superman beat captain marvel. all this rubbish your telling me is opinionated not fact based. we all know superman is stronger way faster , stronger, smarter,and more durable. its crazy that you say goku would win when super speed blitz and carry him outer space throw his stupid behind in a black hole. you said goku would teleport him to red sun. how, if superman can sense him and by far is way faster. first of if goku can sense him how come he get hit around by buu. goku has power up for slow amount of time superman would punch him before he could breathe. you think superman going to wait for him. super would rush and beat him up. goku charging his energy make him vulnerable. goku is no where near the strength of superman this is terrible. stomp by superman crazy.
Thermite as a reasonable explanation for carbon nanotubes in the wtc dust.

While Thermite is a reasonable explanation for the presence fo carbon nanotubes in the wtc dust it could be possible due to other causes and was never claimed by the truth movement as proof of thermite. Unreacted nanothermite was discovered with sol gel matrix which could explain some of the carbon nanotubes. Con and I have agreed that this topic of debate is pointless and so I forfeit.
Thermite as a reasonable explanation for carbon nanotubes in the wtc dust.

Back to the debate, my opponent asserts that carbon nanotubes (CNTs) found in the world trade center (WTC) debris is reasonable evidence for the use of thermite. Or to put it in another way that the twin towers were brought down using controlled explosions using thermite. My job is to show that the CNTs can come from any other reasonable source, by doing this I show that my opponents assertion is not true. If we consider the multiple methods that have been used to produce CNTs we see that there are normally two very important constituents in the production a) you need a metal catalysts and b) you need a carbon source. (1,2) It should also be noted that it is possible to from CNTs with absolutely no metal catalyst which would be already one reason to doubt that the CNTs found in the WTC debris was not caused by thermite. (3)So what metal catalyst are used to produce CNTS? The most commonly used are iron, cobalt, molybdenum or nickel. Additionally, a range of other metals can be used such as silver, gold, copper, lead, indium etc. It should also be noted that other non metal catalysts such as silicon carbide, germanium (mettaloid), magnesium oxide and aluminum oxide can also be used to produce CNTs. If we look at these catalysts we can see that the metal source can come from either the steel, computer cable's, light bulbs and multiple other sources which were part of the WTC structure. This means it is completely plausible that the metal catalyst source probably does not come from thermite as asserted by my opponent. In fact, it is far more likely that the metal source comes from the building materials. With respect to a carbon source used in the synthesis of the CNTs, I do not believe this is a matter for debate. If my opponent asserts there were CNTs then there must have been a carbon source which could have come from a multitude of things ranging from jet fuel to gas to carbonized interiors. The only possible contention that my opponent could possibly have is the synthetic temperature at which CNTs form. Probably my opponent will claim that most often CNTS are produced at high temperatures. However these temperatures are dependent on the catalyst, and there are studies that show CNTs can be produced at room temperature and at temperatures which jet fuel burns. (4,5,6) This means it is entirely plausible that CNTs could form at the temperatures which were present on the day the WTC collapsed. In conclusion, I have shown here that the catalyst, carbon source an temperature needed to produce CNTs does not require thermite. As such my opponents assertion while possible is highly unlikely (not reasonable) as there are a multitude of ways that CNTs could have formed during the WTC fires and it is not direct evidence for thermite. I hand the debate back to my opponent. (1) . http://www.intechopen.com...(2) . http://web2.mendelu.cz...(3) . https://nano.tu-dresden.de...(4) . http://oceantech.co.in...(5) . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...(6) . http://www.cpchem.com...