BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Inuyasha's children

I thakn my opponent for starting the debate, however, this will be easy for me to win as the argument comes down to whether or not demons (or youki rather) in the Inuyasha universe can have children. Quite frankly, we must keep in mind that Inuyasha has a father, thus, if his father and human mother can be responsible for Inuyasha being born, then it is most likely that Inuyasha can bear a child as well through Kagome of course. And that is all I will be saying for now. PS: The Inuyasha ending SUCKS!!!!!
Evolution (as in the theory of evolution) happens

I am arguing that Evolution happens, has happened, and will continue to happen. I wish my opponent the best of luck. First let's establish the definition of Evolution- Evolution(n.) change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift This definition is actual fact. There is no denying that there are changes in the gene pool. The idea under examination is the theory of evolution, which puts forward the idea that this genetic drift has been ongoing for hundreds of millions of years, and that all animals started out of a common origin, branching out and specializing into particular environmental niches. I await a refutation
Evolution (as in the theory of evolution) happens

As I understand it you are 1.My "attack" against Darwin is not ad hominem, but stating that the basis of the theory of evolution has been disproved by its base. 2.Phylogeny: the evolutionary history of a group of organisms, esp. as depicted in a family tree. (1) Abiogenesis: the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. (2) I have not argued Abiogenesis, but Phylogeny in my attempts to show you that superfluous mutation is a logical fallacy. My apologies, Citation Nazi, I thought it would be understood that they were not my words (Seeing that I cited them…) 1.The idea expressed within the Latin phrase is exactly what it says, evolution does not happen through punctuated equilibrium. Although, it's been seen quite clearly that in most cases it does. Although there are a few examples of frame-by-frame, the majority is made of punctuated equilibrium. "It is said, natura non facit saltum [there are no leaps in nature]; and ordinary thinking when it has to grasp a coming-to-be or a ceasing-to-be, fancies it has done so by representing it as a gradual emergence or disappearance. But we have seen that the alterations of being in general are not only the transition of one magnitude into another, but a transition from quality into quantity and vice versa, a becoming-other which is an interruption of gradualness and the production of something qualitatively different from the reality which preceded it. Water, in cooling, does not gradually harden as if it thickened like porridge, gradually solidifying until it reached the consistency of ice; it suddenly solidifies, all at once. It can remain quite fluid even at freezing point if it is standing undisturbed, and then a slight shock will bring it into the solid state." (3) Louis Pasteur disproved Abiogenesis (Also known as spontaneous generation), in no way is this relevant to Darwinian evolution. Darwin was in fact a chainist, arguing the frame-by-frame evolution (Which has yet to have substantial evidential backing). So, are you suggesting that every single "missing link" has been destroyed? You speak that my case of punctuated equilibrium is false because frame-by-frame specimens would be destroyed, then you give examples of ones that have not been destroyed; I think it is quite obvious that you twist the debate to go whatever way will benefit you most. Punctuated Equilibrium states that evolution is done in a leaping fashion, not frame-by-frame. Punctuated Equilibrium- a hypothesis holding that the evolution of species proceeds in a characteristic pattern of relative stability for long periods of time interspersed with much shorter periods during which many species become extinct and new species emerge. (4) 2.Regarding your belief on accidental gene mutation being beneficial, I would like to have cited information or examples. Citations: (1)http://dictionary.reference.com... (2)http://dictionary.reference.com... (3)http://scienceblogs.com... (4)http://dictionary.reference.com...
"Winning Hearts and Minds" is a Terrible Policy for a Military to Adopt.

I cannot really tell if Con is serious or just a troll...Anyway, time for the First Argument:Galulan tactics, (i.e. Winning Hearts and Minds) are a series of tactics developed by David Galula[1]. A French Officer in the French-Algerian War, Galula felt that the best method of maintaining French control over the Algerians was to win them with friendship. It should be mentioned that the French-Algerian War was the war where Algeria won its independence, and Galulan tactics certainly contributed to France's defeat.Let us not continue using fancy names like Galulan Tactics or long titles like Winning Hearts and Minds. Instead, let us call this method what it really is: Buying Friends, something every mother tells their children not to do.If we examine the US Foreign Policy up to the Surrendur of Imperial Japan in August of 1945, we see that the Military was not used to make friends, but to defeat an enemy. In no war were the Americans known to try and make friends with their enemies. And up through the Second World War, the United States never lost a war. However, post-1945, the military history of the US (which was a hegemonic power until the 2010's) tells a completely different story. The United States and its allies (mainly Britain and the Republic of Korea) fought the Chinese and North Korean military to a draw in the Korean War of the 1950s. Galulan tactics were not present as of yet. The idea of buying frineds was first experimented with in the Vietnam War, although on very seldom occassions. However, the seeds of defeat were sown when William Calley was tried for the My Lai Massacre.[2] To quote General William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is a cruel thing, and the crueller it is, the quicker it will be over." Instead, the US in Vietnam tried to take the moral highground (of which there is none in war). The Vietkong, after signing the Paris Peace Accords, violated that treaty and proceeded to invade South Vietnam starting with the 1975 Spring Offensive [3]. In short, for the first time, the enemies of the US were not afraid of the American military.Of the next three wars the US would engage in, it only won a single one of them, Desert Storm. The War in Afghanistan still rages with the US having to maintain a military present in order to prop its puppet government against insurgent forces that it can't quite eradicate.We now come to Iraq. As soon as the Americans left, feeling the puppet state of Iraq was stable and safe, it collapsed into the Islamic State. This is because the method of buying friends only works as long as one keeps paying for these friends. Handing out food packages was great in theory, but as soon as the US forces left, the people no longer cared and some of them joined another group that promised them things. War is won through fear, not through niceness.1) https://en.wikipedia.org...2) https://en.wikipedia.org...3) https://en.wikipedia.org...
"Winning Hearts and Minds" is a Terrible Policy for a Military to Adopt.

Thanks for the softball You cannot pwn a person From Slaves to frostitutes, husbands and wives all the way to boyfriends and girlfriends: you CanNac own a person. All soldiers are not combatants You need medics, cooks, commedianists/newsmen to run a group in the best way we know. Obviously adopting hearts and minds will help not only the noncombatants in your military but also those you engage in war. One policy is a mistake but one of many is mammon. No need to adopt a single policy and within your resolution there is room for manny. If I had an infinite number of policies to adopt obviously “winning hurts and mind$ would bee one of them’ Terrible references morality It’s a reference to what we should do rather than what we can do. I exempt. Merry Christmass DDa! [1] meme
"Winning Hearts and Minds" is a Terrible Policy for a Military to Adopt.

If within comments, state so in argument. NO FORFEITING_________________________________________________________________________I am challenging anybody who will accept to a debate on the policy of "Winning Hearts and Minds" used by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. . https://en.wikipedia.org...(Iraq)Otherwise called Galulan tactics, Winning Hearts and Minds is actually detrimental to any effort which requires military action. The role of a military is to wage war, and the purpose of war is to use force to bend one's enemy to one's will. Utilizing Galulan Tactics in an effort to win the support of the population only serves to prolong the war, wasting both resources and lives in the process.
There are secret societies

(1) The secrecy around the Bilderberg meetings does allow for a secret ruling elite to exist -- simlpy the existence of a place under total lockdown where the ruling class of the world meet and exchange words is a platform for world domination. The argument that they are using that platform, is found in common sense. The overwhelming majority of the people, if they were of political and industrial importance, would definitely take the opportunity to roll the world their way -- and they have the ability to do so.(2) The nervousness is not only shown in people who have been a part of the Bilderberg meetings, but also the people who have participated in at the Bohemian Grove, which is a place for 'party and fun' according to mainstream sources. There is no reason to display such mental signs of secrecy under these circumstances.
There are secret societies

Paragraph 1: My opponent has refuted hardly any of my arguments. They have missed out how many of my arguments including the fact that it is a secret place that discusses laws. It is clear that they will not broadcast all their decisions immediately. You cannot claim that they are lying without any evidence that they are. People are often nervous when speaking out secretive places on TV. If they accidentally reveal something that they shouldn't the consequences could be drastic ... and by revealing something secret I don't mean a secret about ruling the world. I mean a more realistic secret about governing us and information about political decisions. Paragraph 2: This is covered in my 1st paragraph. People are often nervous due to the fact that they aren't meant to reveal decisions before they have been publicly revealed. If people were constantly pressuring you to reveal secrets that you were not allowed to reveal it is common that you would respond in an angry manner. The Bilderbergs and Bohemians are well known for their actual purpose in society and it is preposterous that an accusation such as the one made by Pro could ever be taken seriously. These places are not the only places in the world where confidential meetings take place. Like you wouldn't want people knowing all of your secrets, these people do not want people knowing all of theirs. Just because somebody wants to keep some decisions (temporarily) secret, it does not mean that it is reasonable to make the assumption that they are secret societies attempting to take over the world!
There are secret societies

I apologize for such a short response, but there is simply nothing to respond to.All you have done is provide several quotes from various people who state there is nothing serious going on, that's it basically. You provided no evidence of such, only words from people and we know how easily people will lie. For example, there is a famous video of a state spokeswoman answering questions, and claiming repeatedly and with a straight face that the U.S. is not and will never be involved in coups, which is such a blatant lie that many wondered if she was a biological human or a machine.You also never addressed the interviews with the people involved and their reactions, which include: anger, nervousness and defensive, something people from not-so-serious meetings would certainly not express. You also never took into account the Insider video which I have provided, showing them perform a secret society ritual infront of the owl. My point is, there is more evidence that they're doing 'more than partying and discussing normal matters', on both the Bilderbergs and Bohemians.
There are secret societies

I'm quite positive that personal experience *can* assure us there is a ruling elite, but absolute proof, I agree, is not derived from that. Let's begin by stating these two things:(1) There are the Bilderbergs. They consist of world's leading politicians, CEOs of large companies, and media directors. They meet in a hotel under total lockdown and talk for several days. No one except themselves know what they talk about. They could very well be planning world events and ruling the world this way, it's quite easy to do so under these circumstances. Here is a picture of the hotel: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com...(2) There are politicians meeting at the Bohemian Grove every midsummer and they perform sacrifices infront of a giant owl statue. The politicians admit that the club exist, but they say it's for "fun and party" without any seriousness attached to it. However, I find this incredibly unlikely, considering the fact that whenever they are interviewed, and the intervieweer mentions the Bohemian Grove, they show either incredible nevrousness and immense sweating, or run away and call the security on the intervieweer -- I would not act that way if it were a party club. Here is an insider video: Here is an outsider video:
There are secret societies

My position is that there are secret societies that rule the world because they form naturally. Let's take my personal life as an example. When I was small, I lived in a neighbourhood and there were approximately 25-30 kids there, ages in the range of 10-11-12. At first, we did not know eachother (new neighbourhood) and later on we went outside, one by one, and became friends. We used to play football, drive bycycles, climb in the woods, and have sleepovers. I would say these were among the best summers.. ..but back then, we didn't realize what happened, only now, looking back do I see it. We actually formed a smaller circle, of about 5 most influential kids. There was no document to sign for membership, there was nothing like that, we simply knew who that it was us, and we had stronger connections than with others.We would not isolate ourselves though, not at all. It was about organizing events, 'lets do this and that', and simply having a great time. But then when problems would arise, such as two new kids who would begin to draw attention, we would meet in the woods and discuss them, and how to get rid of them or lock them out -- we were basically the mini illuminati.My point is, if a bunch of 10 year olds can form this kind of thing in two or three years, what can billionaires and CEOs form in a hundred years? It's quite evident to me that there is a ruling elite.
There are secret societies

(1) Of course the secrecy around the Bilderberg means that it is a possibility but there is a possibility of everything. There is a possibility that I am a alien typing this debate. If I did a debate claiming that I am an alien and my arguments is that it's a possibility I would still lose. The reason that it's on total lockdown is because there are important government officials in the Bilderberg. It would be highly illogical to leave the place unprotected so that anyone could walk in. How do they have the ability to rule the world? Please elaborate on this point in the final round. Making a claim that they have this power is not enough on its own. That could simply be refuted by stating that it would be insane for a group of that many people to create terrorist attacks and poverty. If they really could rule the world their way surely they would make the world good for them and their country. If they really could rule the world then surely the Syrian refugees would be okay. If members of the UK are there then they wouldn't want all of these Syrian refugees trying to get into England and the UK in general. They would make it okay so that England will not be overpopulated. (2) As I stated in the first round, the discuss political topic there too. Just to reiterate, "membership and guest list includes artists, particularly musicians, as well as many prominent business leaders, government officials (including U.S. presidents), senior media executives, and people of power. " With all of these guests it would be inevitable that if they were ruling the world then the secret would be broken out each year because every year more and more people are invited to the party. "It is an area that politicians have a bit of fun at and discuss political problems." This is basically the same reason as to my first rebuttal. They are having political discussion and as a result of this they are obliged to secrecy.
America was founded on Judeo-Christian values.

http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com... You are supporting evil, and discouraging good. You're in jeopardy of God's judgment, if you die, judgment will be set for you on judgment day. Repent and accept Jesus Christ ad your savior for he died for you 2000 years ago so you wouldn't face your sins in hell. Hell was made for the devil and his angels but because of sin and lack of repentance, humanity ends up there. So repent and receive your salvation today. God bless you and shalom.
America was founded on Judeo-Christian values.

It proves why you are a hateful speck on the face of this planet letting out the smelly religious farts in the air, actually. The entire Declaration of Independence is about our freedom and separation from church and state. Again, you believe everything you read out of your hatred because you cannot see through the flames for the life of you. Your life must have been very pathetic for you to abandon it for these lies people drum up for control - and you were just talking about people being controlled, while you're being controlled right now by believing in this BS. Then you complain about a "disease", when if you look now, you'll see that your hatred is a disease. Judge more hammer boy, you're just a good for nothing hypocrite that's selfish and worthless to the face of mankind.
There is no god.

God is true. 1. Look at this song: God is not died God has a book called the bible and the bible contain true word. If there was no God, then why is there bibles and why is there sites of bible versus. Second of all, God made the universe. People say about the big bang theory is real, but that is just a theory to cover up about God. God made water, dirt, everything you can imagine. And there is a legend that earth will be destroyed. So, there is war, more hurricane, terror, and lots of thing. And there is really heaven if you believe. There is only one rue God, and it is our LORD and Jesus.
There is no god.

So, he has forfeited his debate. So, I will tell one more thing about that there is god. God exist ! THEN HOW ARE WE HUMAN BORN FROM? I ASK YOU PEOPLE. YOU DON'T KNOW AND EVEN SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW THE ANSWER. IS THERE HEAVEN and hell? THERE WILL BE BUT WITH SCIENCE, NOTHING CAN PROVE THAT THERE IS NO HEAVEN and hell. So, as for the last debater, I will close the debate that I am victorious from my opponent. Thank you
There is no god.

Like I said, God, could do anything. So he can prevent it and made them go away. No one knows what kind of animals are in there. The Internet is 50% true and some times 50% false. And in your argument before, did you saw it? Then, I have a question. Will science be able to know how our brain was born? And how did human formed? By throwing rocks? No, or by evolving? maybe. But, how was that first human ever to live on earth born? Did they have egg and by science, one of them was a human? Can you prove that? And I am warning you that don't use wiki on your arguments anymore because they are nonsense!!!
There is no god.

The answer to how the universe formed I already answered in the previous round. Same thing applies to the milky way. When you wake up, does god do that? No, it's your body. After it has all of the energy that it needs, it wakes up, because it doesn't need anymore. I'm guessing that you are probably a literalist based on your previous arguments, If so, here is a question for you. During the supposed great flood, The ark was loaded with two of each kind of animal. (two clean and two dirty) So, what happened to all of the fungi, plants, protists, or any of those life forms? They wouldn't survive under all that water.
There is no god.

I HAD CAPTALIZED ALMOST!!! Still, then can you provide information how the big bang theory? Then could scientist can provide how the universe was form? NO!! God is true THE BIBLE CONTAINS EVERYTHING EVERYTHING I SAID!!!!! CAN'T YOU SEE THERE IS CHURCHES????? MOST OF THEM ARE CHRISTAN!!! I CAN'T UNDERSTAND ANYONE!! THEN, CAN YOU PROVE HOW TECHNOLOGY IS MADE??? THEN HOW ABOUT BASEBALL OR HOW BRAIN WAS MADE?? IS THAT ALL SCIENCE??? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT EVERYTHING AROUND HAVE TO DEAL WITH SCIENCE, POLITICS, ETC!!!!!!!!!!
US should make government and agencies more transparent

You just said it yourself neither one of us can know better. The truth is that not everything is ever black or white, but its all many shades of grey. Edward Snowden says how the NSA is always spying on you and that is against your rights. What your not seeing is that they spy on suspected terrorists, and they use everything to to stop terrorists. If I am suspected of terrorism, then I don't care if they read my texts, because I am not hiding anything. The Patriot Act was formed in order to help stop terrorism here at home, hence why there is Homeland Security and they can be directly linked with the NSA. They both were made to protect American people, not to harm them. Libya was not given to the Al-Qaeda, Libya was freed from its dictator. Now the Al-Qaeda came after the U.S. and N.A.T.O. had retracted the support we were giving the rebels. For the last video, I have already explained why the U.S. government surveys people in the U.S. The only real violated part of the constitution is the right to privacy, but that is so terrorists sure stopped from making attacks here at home. Sometimes your rights are broken, but only in special circumstances where you have been perceived as a threat. The only reason they would spy on you is if you did something to get their attention.
US should make government and agencies more transparent

I don't understand what you mean by your statement. We have put a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and made amendments to protect freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. We also have made laws that prevents certain branches of government from having too much power. Twenty-Seven amendments that give you all your basic freedoms. Amendments will always be made to ensure that the American people will always have their rights, and that they cannot be taken away.
My opponent will try to win this debate

Greetings. In this debate, my obligation is not to try to win this debate. Thus, I shall do just that. Although I want and hope to win this debate, I shall not "try", as it is ironically through not trying that will guarantee me victory. Although I could try through providing advanced argumentation that would lead to there being no conclusion on the topic, I shall not do this. Of course, PRO is more than free to argue that I am indeed 'trying.'
My opponent will try to win this debate

That's a real shame. I'm just looking for an intelligent meaningful conversation. I have not had much success so far. Must be over 21 and a "better" debater than me. I would rather ask for adult behavior though but I guess that is just a dream. I urge you to vote for my opponent if winning is what is so important. The Senate has just rightly rejected the Demint amendment "To prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts for auto manufacturers." This would certainly not be fair to the banks.