BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Imperialism is unjust.

While you give respectable examples of Imperialism at its best, opponent, let me give examples of a lack of Imperialism where it is needed the most. Hopefully, this will prove to you that Imperialism in the majority of cases has a dual mandate. I know, of course, that this will do nothing for my resolution, as the dual mandate is invariable, but for arguments sake, I will still try and prove my point. Let's look at a "hypothetic" genocide taking place in Africa. While a war zone type situation is going on in the Middle East simultaneously. People are dying in both countries; things are hard for both groups of citizens. The prosperous under bellies of the Middle East have precious amounts of oil that the super power in question (let's say, the United States) are lacking and in desperate need of. Yet, in Africa, where no finite resources lay, people are still dying, as in the Middle East. Aren't both situations just as serious if we assume that a constant and similar amount of people are dying in both regions? Aren't these citizens lives equal? If Imperialism is as honorable as one would hope, then why would the United States decide to intervene in any way they possibly could; risking their men's lives and insane amounts of money to set up a martial law typesetting, putting their own country at a economic loss, while the citizens of Africa continue to die. Of course, the reason is the oil that is in the Middle East, and the United States need to attain it at all costs. An example of dual mandate; of course, remember, this is all "hypothetic." (; Irrelevant arguments aside, the idea of Imperialism isn't a question of moral duty, but an issue of intrusion and basically "sticking a nose in other people's business." Under any circumstance, I do not believe that it is tolerable for a country to invade another under Imperialistic pretences. Moral duty and ethic obligation hold no contest to written and enforced laws and boundaries. They are set up for a reason. To disregard them even with the best intentions would be a breach to that countries freedom and authority other their citizens. Moral believes have nothing to do with the root motive of the idea of Imperialism. It is their country, and essentially, their business.
Imperialism is unjust.

Let's start off easy. I have two focal problems with Imperialism that in my opinion are the key factors to this debate. The first being economic injustice. When it comes to economics, Imperialism is absolutely inequitable. An Imperial power with use military or political means to invade a country, take over and deprive them of their resources (example: oil), all while looking for new markets to spin some extra sort of profit, and I do not see why this could be deemed fair for the countries, the citizens and the rights that they have to their land. They will steal from them, and then they will sell to them. My second problem would be cultural oppression. These actions are justified by dual mandate, the Imperial powers attempt to teach and mold the inferior citizens. Clearly, the dual mandate is just a paraphrase for Westernization. While stripping them of their economic rights, they also force feed these citizens a culture and a language, while the Imperial power disregards the countries traditions. The core and foundation of an imperialistic empire is expansion by any means necessary. It is because of these reasons that I think Imperialism is unjust. I look forward to going into more detail in upcoming arguments.
Imperialism is unjust.

Hello friends and neighbors. I am very, very new here. So please, be patient with me as I really have no idea what I am doing. Round 1: I would like to begin with definitions and explanations of exactly what I would like to be debating about, Imperialism. A topic that I believe has the potential for a fantastic argument. Imperialism: 1 : imperial government, authority, or system 2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence[1] The sources following are purely informative about the topic and it's history. All of witch are very helpful when it comes to a fast lesson. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.michaelparenti.org... http://www.mtholyoke.edu... I look forward to a constructive debate. Regards? -Steph [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Jeht fuel cahnt mehlt steal beamz and 9/11 wuz cauzed by da zionists

Only reason why I accepted this debate is for clarification and to sweep it out of the challenges window. Zionists = is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (also referred to as Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land). [1] Jet fuel burns at around 800-1500F while the beans melt at around 2700F. Since the fuel is not able to melt them beams completely it is however capable of lessen its structural strength which led to the outcome that we all know. [2] [3] [1] https://www.google.ca... [2] http://www.popularmechanics.com... [3] https://www.reddit.com... Good luck pro
The tallest ancient complete human skeleton is 6 feet, 8 inches (202 centimeters) tall.

First, quick math is 5 meters greater than 6'8'? The answer is yes. "The huge hominid specimen measures an impressive 17 foot and 4 inches or 5.3 meters. It was found close to the ancient ruins of what is the only megalithic civilization ever discovered in Australia." [1]Second question, is the source reliable? Hmmm, its a website, so I have to question. "If at all possible, look for that same information from a peer-reviewed source, rather than a professor’s personal .edu source." [2] Also, I should check the credentials. [3]The author is Niladri Bose [1]. Let's see what if any Niladri's Bose credentials are. "Niladri Bose is a Post Graduate in Mass Communication and former journalist. Niladri writes on economic and political issues, finance, healthcare, social and Internet trends." [4] In other words Niladri Bose is not an archaeologist. Therefore the author is not credible. Searched on my favorite search engine for the website. Found very little mention of the newspaper heraldweekly. In other words its a news outlet nobody has heard of. Let's start from the top, the author is not an archaeologist and therefore not credible. The website is practically unheard of and therefore not credible. Furthermore, my source, national geographic states has Prof Charlotte Roberts look at the evidence. [5] "Charlotte Roberts, a bioarchaeologist at the U.K.'s Durham University, said she's "certainly convinced with the diagnosis" of gigantism. But she'd like to know more." [0]In summary, my source is more credible than yours. Seems your source is most likely a fradulent newspaper. Sources1. http://www.heraldweekly.com...2. http://www.wikihow.com...3. http://www.whoishostingthis.com...4. http://www.heraldweekly.com...5. https://www.dur.ac.uk...
Police profiling is the devil!

True America is based on equality, However, i could argue that the particular group brought it on themselves. Your issue shouldn't be with the "police profiling" it should be with your peers that have gone before you and have broken the law and brought this negative attention on themselves. For example, If you never had an orange before and then tried an orange and it was rotten and tasted horrible, then you would assume that all oranges are bad tasting. Now, in this example you are the police and the orange is one of these particular groups. That one orange stained your image of oranges. And police profiling does not necessarily mean they target a particular race, for example, it seems like most drug dealers want to drive flashy cars with big rims or expensive jewelry. With that being said Some one driving a tinted out Mercedes with big rims in the ghetto would probably raise a few eye brows. So, police are trained to investigate things out of the norm. And the government isn't supporting racism, I don't know if you ever sat in on a police briefing, But they don't say check out every black-man. Or make sure you stay on your police profiling. They would put something out along the lines of be on the look out for a 5'9", hispanic male, etc. To say the government encourages rasicm is flat out lie. Police officer get paid the same weather they make 0 arrests or 1000. I do believe it isn't that bad of an inconvience, it takes what maybe 5-10 min out of your time, if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't mind the brief delay. And you say police could be working on "substantial" leads. Apparently you don't know how any government installation works. It isn't as easy as just pulling guys off the street to put them in an office to investigate, they need to be trained, training takes time and money and most would probably argue that a large "ground force" is more nessecary than having a huge "admin/investigation force". And true police are overstretched but then again i bring up the point, would you rather have people in the streets getting crime off the streets or have them back at the PD investigating. True but how many white people blown up airplanes in a terrorist attack, true a white man has been behind bombings and even school shootings. But look at the number of people of a middle eastern background that has done crimes like this as opposed to white people. And keep in mind the TSA doesn't only search middle eastern men. I have seen a man with a turban go through and then a little old lady get searched. Just like how i a white, male was pulled over cause my car resembled that of a "trouble maker". Keep in mind a cop who pulls you over for no reason really can't use anything he finds against you. I believe this happened in South Carolina. An officer pulled a man over and found a ton of drugs, the man wasn't convicted cause the cop pulled him over for no reason. Now, in California it is illegal to have you front windows tinted, and that is what i was pulled over for, but thankfully not ticketed.
Police profiling is the devil!

You had one point: It is an inconvenience but it stops crime. How about this: America is a country that is supposedly based on equality. If you only target one group for a crime, that is discrimination and reineforces that racism is alright. Racism and prejudice is not alright but our government is reinforcing the exact opposite, that racism is good and fine. It is simply a horrible inconveinence that no innocent person should have to endure. Our police could be working on substantial leads. How about going after suspects instead of potential criminals because: They're black, they must have done the stick up? Our police are already overstretched in a lot of American towns. Why use them for the job of searching for people who they have no substantial reason to believe a crime was committed? If a white person decides to blow up a plane, then what? White people are just as capable to blow up planes as middle Easterns. And if police or the TSA is only searching Middle Easterns, look whats happened...one less plane and 300 less passengers. Thank you police profiling.
Police profiling is the devil!

I think police profiling is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I look at police profiling as almost the same as TSA. Is it an inconvenience? Yes it is. I have actually been pulled over and searched and "harassed" by local law enforcement...but nothing came of it...you know why? cause i wasn't doing anything wrong. So, now i ask you this, Take the same situation but i have a kilo of cocaine, weed, LSD or whatever. Now, he just made an arrest and took another drug and drug dealer/user off the street. So, back to the little analogy i am working on. TSA will randomly screen people i.e. check there bags etc. And you D@mn well couple of white, black or Hispanics didn't go trying to blow up planes or anything, yet they still get searched at some TSA checkpoints. But I personally would rather be inconvenienced at TSA checkpoints they check me all they want but you know why i don't mind the inconvenience? Because once again i am not doing anything wrong. So, if you aren't doing anything wrong whats the big deal. Its not like there is some kinda of consiparcary out to get you guys. And if you get pulled over or "harassed" by a cop and the finds something on you and you get arrested good. That is just another point for police profiling.!
Police profiling is the devil!

Police profiling is evil!!! We have ended segregation in America. The Civil Rights Movement is over. To advance police profiling advances the mentality that blacks and hispanics are bad people. Furthering segregation...which is bad. Police profiling is harassment. If I'm black and not doing much of anything wrong, why are the police harassing me? Whatever happened to "promoting the domestic tranquility?" Which brings me to my next point. It is unconstitutional and un American. Racism is not American and the constitution does not want the police harassing innocent people. Police profiling makes police focus on minorities who are not doing much of anything when they could be focusing on other crimes. Point blank: Police profiling is the devil!!!
Prosthetic use in sports

People with prosthetic limbs should be able to participate in sports because they are getting the opportunity to live their dream and play with the best people while doing it. Prosthesis and perfect limbs are the same things so what is the conflict about for them having advantages says www.explainthatstuff.com. Another good reason is that people with amputee limbs need equipment to play sports and so do people, so therefore these people are the same and are capable of the same things.
Prosthetic use in sports

There are thousands of people in this world who strive for greatness and work hard to make there athletic goals come true. These people take countless hours trying to become perfection, but in sports there are a new breed of athletes such as prostheses people. These people have artificially made limbs . These limbs can have multiple advantages. UKSPORTS says that these so called "robots" come into these sports and easily do better than normal bodied athletes because of their strength ability or low level of oxygen in the blood to go able them to move quicker. Telegraph.co.uk states that "The Blade Runner", Oscar Pistorious, doesn't have a normal foot or calve but has blades which could obviously give him an advantage. Doyle states " Runners run, Amputees spring."
Prosthetic use in sports

On a great note these people , in my eyes, receive a great deal of respect. "These amputees deserve as much help, encouragement, and physical needs as possible. Just because they aren't the same as everyone else in the sport doesn't count them out. Amputees probably even work harder sometimes than regular athletes because these regular athletes think they are already at the top, but then suddenly these amputees who don't have it all work harder and show up the other athletes" says www.sports-grid.com
Germany lost WWII because he invaded Russia.

You wanted sources, here you go France and Russia had more, and much better, tanks than Germany as of the outbreak of their hostilities in 1940. As in World War I, the French generals expected that armour would mostly serve to help infantry break the static trench lines and storm machine gun nests. They thus spread the armour among their infantry divisions... http://en.wikipedia.org... Britain had better radar, a better trained airforce, and better planes Both Britain and America had vastly superior non-submarine naval fleets... Germany didn't have a single aircraft carrier during the entire war, and their failed attempt to seize the vastly superior French naval fleet (Churchill ordered the Royal Navy to sink them and wipe out their shipyards) led to their eventual defeat... The only advantage they had on the water at all was their U-boats, and that was the only reason Hitler agreed to an alliance with Japan, their Navy could match the Americans... British and American tanks were vastly superior to German tanks, but at the beginning of the war there were only a small amount of them (Germany had been getting ready for the war, the allies had to respond to it and scramble whatever they had at the time while they built more)... Their armour was better, their weapons were better, and they were more reliable... Source: Some historian. What more do you want? Rebuttal? You said Germany had more troops than the Allies, but what good is a a bunch of troops against higher quality weaponry. I proved it just now. I think just copying and pasting text from some website doesn't make your point anymore valid. At the beginning of the war the Soviet T 34 tank was superior to any other tank. It has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II. The allies had much better long range heavy bombers and better bomb sights. The allies had much more manufacturing capacity. The allies had easier access to fuel supplies. The British navy was much larger and more powerful than the Kriegsmarine. The list could go on and on..... I have read a lot of history books, and they all state the same... You also forget that the Treaty of Versailles weakened Germany after the First World War.
Germany lost WWII because he invaded Russia.

"That may be true, but the Allies had the US back then too. If it was anyone who could stop Russia, it was the United States. I'm not saying Germany would have won with Russia, but Russia was back then a powerful ally, but you're forgetting one thing. Even if the Axis had more numbers than the Allies, the Allies had better technology, resources and weapons. Yes, invading Russia was a stupid idea, but the Nazis were destined to lose. "Again, I do not see the evidence you have for all of this, and most of it is opinionated. .. ConclusionAs I said in my previous arguments, the Axis could have used more strategy to win this war rather than invading Russia, probably one of the strongest countries at the time. They had more troops on the Eastern Front and they would keep building if they had allied with Russia or just ignored them plain and simple. My opponent fails to rebut my arguments, he also describes how the Allies had more technology, resources, and weapons. But, he has not proved this. . so he fails to argue that, too.
Germany lost WWII because he invaded Russia.

That may be true, but the Allies had the US back then too. If it was anyone who could stop Russia, it was the United States. I'm not saying Germany would have won with Russia, but Russia was back then a powerful ally, but you're forgetting one thing. Even if the Axis had more numbers than the Allies, the Allies had better technology, resources and weapons. Yes, invading Russia was a stupid idea, but the Nazis were destined to lose.
Germany lost WWII because he invaded Russia.

"Actually, the Axis had absolutely no chance of winning, even without the USSR. Even without the US! The Allies had better firepower, larger armies and better strategies and technology . Yes, maybe attacking Russia was an enormous mistake and yes, it did weaken the Axis, but, they did not stand a chance against the Allies. They were way too powerful"Where is the proof for this, because I just proved that they had way more numbers than the Allies.Without the Western Front, the Nazis could have stretched into the Middle EastJust look at the map. http://www.worldology.com...Click on 1940. Look at the wide stretch of land. Hungary, Romania, Turkey, etc. If they invaded all down in there, instead of the USSR, they could control the whole Middle East! The only reason the Eastern Front got stronger on the Allies side, was because the USSR supplied them with troops and supplies.
Germany lost WWII because he invaded Russia.

(Sorry about the mistake in the title, it should be "Germany lost WWII because they invaded Russia. " I urge the audience to take a point of grammar away from me for my foolish mistake. )Why Russia joined in the warRussia joined the war in 1941 because Germany invaded them, obviously. But, why didn't they just declare war on Germany when they saw them becoming a threat? Because they signed a non-aggression pact in 1939 with Nazi Germany. [1] In June 1941, Germany began to invade the Soviet Union, before which Stalin had ignored reports of a German invasion. Stalin was confident that the total Allied war machine would eventually stop Germany, and the Soviets stopped the Wehrmacht some 30 kilometers from Moscow. Then Stalin began to fight back. With this assualt from both the West and East, they continued to fight until Berlin. Most likely, if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, and actually kept the pact, they might not have got involved, giving the Nazis a higher chance of winning the war, considering that the Allies on the Eastern Front were pretty weak at the moment. But, with all the Nazis forces focusing on the West, they had a chance. Here's an interactive map of the war: . http://www.worldology.com...How the Allies and the USSR planned to defeat the Axis (And how USSR basically won the Allies the war)The Allies were really weak at the moment, with only about 2 million troops on the eastern front compared to Nazi Germany's 4 million. [2] They had a conference in 1943. This was called the Tehran Conference. They met here to discuss a plan on how to close in on the Nazis. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin came to meet about it. There plan was to lead a western and eastern front to close in on Germany. Obviously, it worked. [3] And if Germany had actually kept the pact, there would be no western front, it would be the Allies on the eastern front relentlessly wasting troops, considering the troop difference. The two fronts obviously met, and they conquered Berlin, defeating the Third Reich. Those are the two main factors in the war, I expect Con to defend these. Cites:[1]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rap battle practice 4

A newbie accepts my challenge, not what I expected Your rhymes are trash no matter how much I try to respect it You said I should go easy on you, you're new to the game But what if I beat you even in noob raps? Oh what a shame Your name is Jeff, but Jeff is my name Hell, I am the one who shines in the fame You're just that poor kid who doesn't watch the news Check the wardrobe, shirt, clothes, wait, fvcked up shoes! I'll do more than touch you if rap is the battle Honestly I don't know why you accepted at all I used to do 16 bars, but I think 12 is enough Now that I think of it, you ain't that tough