BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America would defeat China in war

My opponent has by all sense of the word has resigned. You obviously have a hard time reading and understanding basic points in paragraph form and cannot refute anything specifically of what I say. For the sake of the argument, Ill conclude the debate written prior and encourage my opponent to stop making debates when you obviously have a comprehension problem. An interesting scenario of war is a modern "Battle of Midway" that is completely dominated by the US. When we talk about Pacific control we talk 100% domination of the US. Is this helpful to winning a land occupation/military dismemberment of China? Yes, and by the most marginal sense of any and all external factors that it almost becomes negligible in the face of other challenges. The goals in a land invasion will be both the East and South China sea by which it will have to take place. This is not a debate as far as an opinion of the "quality" of military might, this now becomes a statistical significance beyond by which any rational person can see how a land invasion would be a complete and utter failure by the US. China's active military is the largest in the world, and the reserve military forces double that of the US. The US needs more military and more ships to get our personnelle on the coast of China than what we have in our federal reserve. At 37 total transport ships with an average of 800 soldiers aboard each ship, if all of them were to be put in service at once then 21,000+ soldiers on the coast of China with all the aircraft and auxillary ship support the US could muster would be a failure so catastrophic that no General would ever plausibly initiate this attack. I can see where this debate will go. Its not about the amount of soldiers, but rather the superior technology of the US. Currently the US is 20 years ahead in military technology of China. The aircraft, naval vessle and missles indeed would bombard China in very direct, sharp attacks if need be and will kill many soldiers. China doesa have some ground-defense anti-missiles, but it is probably inevitable that it will fall short of more advsnced missle offensives. Let me say this clearly to my opponent: I do believe that in a limited scale engagement the US can win certain strategic missions, and if this includes winning an objective in a single small war, the US most likely can win. My opponent has included that these two nations, however, would be a full-scale war that includes obsoletion of the military and no amount of technology can defeat the incredible numbers by which China's communist Government can mobilize their forces. Without proper land-forces and the transports needed as discussed above, a land-invasion is a logistical nightmare that only ends in US death. Even by the most hard-figures, facts and statistics of military technology in use on the massive coast of China it will always fail short of actually stepping on land and making any meaningful progress in defeating the entireity of China's army. gg
America would defeat China in war

There was nothing to argue against since my original post was meant in context of the clarification of what type of war, which is just as important in debating the general statistics of military force by which is the basis of your argument. You didn't do that. There is no discussion about "Who can win a war" without the goals and situational context by which something is "won." I find it a little silly debating this on the pure merit of military might when the US gravely over-powered Vietnam and yet lost. When the US forced itself upon the middle-east and by all sane professors of politics and history the US has suffered a defeat by the ends to the means of its goals [1] [2]. Even in the past the US has lossed battle with China inn WW2, however today is a different time and I like to go passed that. A war with China would be a very different course of action than Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan but a comparison is helpful nonetheless when considering the "US Grand Strategy", if not "US Grand Imperial Hegemony" as Noam Chomsky would put it. I'll consider a likely hypothetical situation in global war strategy as opposed to simply comparing armies, which is silly. My opponent can rattle off US militaries superiority until he is blue in the face and yet circumstances beyond their control, geographic considerations and the "goal oriented wars" essentially dictates a won war. As I've said in my first argument China does not have the military capability to launch a ground invasion on the US. If a direct war between these two nations occurs it will be US attacking China, unlikely; the most likely scenario being a war between the control of Taiwan [3]. If I am to take teenconservatives debate in the most literal sense than I will have to tackle complete occupation of the two countries, neither by which is winnable by both countries. Any discussion of war becomes the discussion of nuclear capabilities by which the US can essentially obliterate humanities population several times over, only being beaten by Russia's quantity of nuclear bombs. China does not have a capable anti-missile defense system and thus, if the US chose, would obliterate the country of China by dropping 200 of its 1000 nuclear warheads. [4] Is this a win? I can certainly see how this is justifiable as a win in my opponents argument on the basis of a complete country and its million year history being destroyed in one day. If this were to happen the "win" achieved by obliterating a nation would be unmatched by the loss of world-wide credibility of the US; tantamount to this display of genocide would be the comparison of the US 1000x the evil of Al-Queda and lose support of every nation on Earth by which would then send the US into a collapsing disarray that no country could ever overcome. My references are deleted in light of teenconservatives character limit among large chunks of paragraphs and points. Other-wise I cannot go in-depth in an in-depth type subject.I will re-post and respond.
America would defeat China in war

I'll have you know that I still wish to continue the debate. You are unwise to blow your opportunity to get an extra argument in. Anyway, lets look at the facts. 1. The U.S.A spends more than the next 10 countries COMBINED on military readiness. 2. America has 13 active nuclear aircraft carrier groups traveling in all seven seas. 3. China has a whopping 1 active carrier- it's not even nuclear! 4. America has the support of many allies. Ex. GB, France, Germany, Israel, South Korea and more. 5. The United States has 5,208 active nuclear warheads. 6. We also have hundreds of high-tech ICBM's (intercontinental ballistic missile) that can deliver these nukes. 7. The Chinese have NO ICBM's capable of reaching our shores. 8. America would enjoy complete air supremacy, with stealth technology such as the B2 bomber and F22 Raptor. 9. The Chinese would be forced to rely on cold war era MIG fighters. (We would eat them for breakfast.) 10. The economic power of the U.S. is much higher than China's. In the event of war, we would produce much more much faster than the Chinese.
America would defeat China in war

It would help, however, to clear up the term "win" a war. History has shown that wars are one primarily based on goals accomplished and winning a war could fall into either complete occupation or perhaps smaller struggles based on control over Taiwan, etc. As I understand it, China does not have sufficient Naval power to launch a land attack on the US and thus if I am to proceed it would be America invading the turf of China--the only plausible way if there is to be a war.
spinosaurus was a better dinosaur than t rex

Hello! Today I will be presenting my arguments on why I believe that the Tyrannosaurus Rex is superior to the Spinosaurus. Tyrannosaurus is a much better built dinosaur when it comes to being a carnivore. It"s bite force is stronger than any other land animal (at 57,000 newtons), which explains why even it"s predecessors were more successful than Spinosaurus was. Its teeth were larger, it was more intelligent being a relative of the raptors, all things that you have to take into account when deciding what dinosaur is superior. The spinosauria family line started about 120 million years ago went extinct about 95 million years ago and lasted for a short time, while the tyrannosauria line started before the spinosauria at around 145 million years ago and ended at it"s peak with tyrannosaurus rex at 65 million years ago. How can you argue that the best dinosaur of a line that lasted 3 times longer than the line of spinosauria is worse than the best dinosaur of spinosauria? It is for these arguments that I have put together to start the debate that I hope changes your mind about this topic. Thank you!
Euthanasia of Mentally Retarded

I concede your argument about God, but must remind you that most of the world considers religion obsolete and those who still believe as enemies depending on where one lives. As the world moves towards a Godless society humanity has to take matters into its own hands in order survive even if those hands have to lose some fingers. Since we are already a (supposedly) post racial society it is time to begin looking exclusively at the weak of all varieties to weed out in order to facilitate a huge leap forward for the rest of humanity. Sounds cold and ruthless, but religion tells me that only God knows how to create a utopia of plenty and bliss, so until this fabled genius returns humanity has to get along as it can.
Euthanasia of Mentally Retarded

Please let me say that you want to get ride of the Mentally retarded to make room for overpopulated Earth. God made all of his children different in unquie, do we really want to euthanise (kill) someone on how they were born? If God made everybody different in there own ways what will he think about this. People with mental Retardnation can't speak so they won't have anyway to back out of there death but have to face it, is that what we as humanity are coming to? The retarded don't take up space, they live each day discovering new ideas and opening there brains with new knowladge. Why don't we get ride of the whites, or the blacks or mabye the Asians that is kinda what you are saying but with someone with a disabilty HECK YES THIS IS RACIST.
a box that can never be opened is empty

"and i wrote it a bit fast, lets say it is also immovable so you cant just shake it and tell" Why didn't you say so? That is totally a far more rational scenario. In that case your god obviously doesn't want to know what is in the box, vi_spex, by making it tautologically unable to be opened, and immovable. We rational men of science know there are no such paltry boundaries that your primitive superstitions create to manipulate the masses. This entire thought experiment is based on some kind of Greek or Abrahamic myth. Pandora and the djinn maybe? :P If a problem appears unsolvable, an intelligent community creates a working hypothesis and tests it, and never rests, even when a scientific law is established it is subject to experimentation and debate in order to create better understanding. Why don't you pray to your sky daddy, vi_spex. If that helps you sleep at night because your subconscious whispers to you the lies of your captors that the box is empty or has a zombie cat in it or whatever, then that is your constitutional right, but don't use your nonscientific religious drivel to impose your theistic values on others. You're probably one of those religious trump supporters who wants to ban all Muslims!
The 16kadams Trial

Unfortunately, given Pro’s forfeit there is little left for the defense to do in this round. Thus far, we have outlined our own case and responded to all of the charges. Pro has spectacularly failed to fulfil his initially high burden of proof or even mount a credible case for the prosecution, let alone engage with the defense’s explanation of the charges brought against the defendant. As of now, and with only 1 round to go, Pro has an almost insurmountable task to achieve the level of certainty demanded to win a conviction. He still has to make a credible case, as well as engage with the rebuttal to the charges given in round 2. All of this, as well as the necessary preconditions which the defense set out in R1, which would be needed for a successful prosecution of the defendant, makes his task almost impossible. In short, unless Pro’s final round is astoundingly good, he can’t even hope to win the debate. If he falls short of this very high standard, a vote for Con is simply the only justifiable decision from the jury.While it is undoubtedly less than ideal that Pro conceeded a round, especially in a debate of this nature, where Pro has the burden of proof, it is simply a position we are left in because of Pro's failure to post in time. As such, we the defense also ask that conduct points be considered accordingly, especially given the increasing sense of frivolousness and carelessness with which this trial has been carried out from Pro.With that, we hand it back to Pro in anticipation for the final round.
The 16kadams Trial

Accused - 16kadamsDefence team - Thaddeus, Unitedandy and 16kadams = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = IntroductionAs Pro indicates, the resolution of the debate is to ascertain whether 16kadams should be charged in relation to accusations by Pro. We, as the defence, will show that these charges have no basis. In the first round, we will attempt merely to clarify some important issues, and will respond to any and all charges in R2, as and when Pro identifies and provides evidence to affirm the resolution.Before we can do anything, however, we must first determine “guilt”.What is guilt?In order for an activity to be deemed worthy of punishment, there are 2 minimal conditions that it must have:1. It must first break a DDO rule. Any charge Pro presents must correspond to a violation of the DDO Terms of Use (http://www.debate.org...). For each charge, Pro must clearly identify which rule is being broken. Any action which does not break a DDO rule specifically should be considered irrelevant to the debate. While there are undoubtedly practices which may improve the site if enacted, Pro must argue that the defendant has broken EXISTING rules.And2. Any successful charge will have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the evidence will eliminate all plausible explanations other than guilt. Both of these conditions must be met for each and every charge that Pro wishes to bring against the defendant. This illuminates a very important point in the debate - where the burden of proof lies. As the prosecution, Pro will have to shoulder the burden demanded. Anything other than a clearly identified and fully established case of rule-breaking demands a vote for Con. This is because of the presumption of innocence.Presumption of innocence“The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, … that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.” (1)Obviously, the dangers of punishing an innocent member of DDO community could be catastrophic for debates on the site. Debates depend on voting. In order to guard against deterring voting behaviour, it is essential that we treat prospective members as innocent until proven guilty. This demands that unless and until Pro provides a plethora of corroborating evidence relating to a specific charge, we should regard the case as unproven and vote Con.ConclusionThis trial solely regards the guilt or innocence of 16kadams. Whether one approves of his actions or not is irrelevant. Only by finding him guilty, in accordance with the criteria set out above can a vote for Pro be justified. We now pass the debate over to Pro to present the charges.Sources(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
The 16kadams Trial

Full evidence begins in the next round. Guilt or innocence will be determined by the voters of DDO and not by any special juryInnomen will determine the process of sentencing if 16kadams is found guilty of any chargesVoting period will last 1 weekSummary - there is evidence that 1kadams used his grandfathers account (angelo) to vote on his own debates and we know this becuase angelo's account was closed and reopened at least once just to vote on 16kadams debates- 16kadams has convinced many friends and family members to join DDO just to debate them in order to boost his own numbers. Hes used his grandfather, little sister, and at least two friends- the IP address of 16kadams at one point was the same as Angelo which implies that he has logged on under angelo and misused that account- there are cases where he was thought to be behind other accounts such as chainmachine, accounts which lose multiple debates to 16k and have horrific debating styles against him, but against other opponants those same accounts argue with the same style 16k uses- It was believed that he was using proxies to change his IP address to avoid charges of multi accounting but in light of new evidence it shows that his IP address changes all the time and that he actually has access to instructions on how to change your IP address (see above)- Lastly there is the issue of poor voting where 16kadams was accused of voting improperly or even votebombing debates almost always in favor of the conservative side. .. .This round is for acceptance only; defense may bring in an abstract of their case. Good luck :-)
Should sex stop being such a taboo topic

Hello. In my opinion, sex is a taboo topic because it generally makes people uncomfortable. Over time, the genitals and sex as a whole have been developed as gross and inappropriate. It is really not the modern persons fault that their ancestors decided to do this. If something is considered gross and inapropriate, it is not good to talk about in public. Overall, the reason why sex is considered weird is because it has been developed as weird over time. A complete overhaul of everyones mindset would be impossible. Therefore, Sex is definitely not something you should talk about in public like you want everyone to.
Should sex stop being such a taboo topic

What I don't get in this world is that we can talk about abuse, guns, debt, poor people racism, stabbing and kill people. Our world loves to objectify women and talk about rape but once someone mentions sex or even sex education the world wants you shut your mouth and keep it private. I agree the physical act of sex should be kept behind doors, but looking at nude pictures or naked women, watching a sexual scene on a movie.video game shouldn't be a huge problem or censored unless someone doesn't like it,. Talking about sex shouldn't be this uncomfortable thing people make it out to be maybe if we did talk about it people would become more comfortable with it. What this world doesn't really tell you is that sex is a positive, comfortable and enjoyable thing you do with that special someone. It releases oxytocin, improves immune system and makes you feel better. If people are worried about their kids having sex teach them to use a condom and give them adequate education.
College Textbooks Are Way Too Expensive

I would like to begin by stating that this topic is completely opinionated, and thus it must be debated in a subjective manner, as opposed to objective. On to the case for textbook prices: 1. Manufacturers need to make money, otherwise there would be nobody to write, edit, or produce them. 2. Students need to know the value of things. If for no other purpose, having expensive books will make students take care of them. The value in this is that students realize WHAT they are spending all of that money on: education. Something well worth the price. 3. The point introduced by the pro side in round 1 is a fallacy. The price of books is not tied to the tuition fees. The costs are introduced by third-party book sellers, and cannot be seen as an attachment to the what the college is bringing in, especially since the best book prices are not found in the campus book sellers. That would be like buying a house, and complaining that you have to pay for furniture on top of the mortgage.
God is Black*****

It looks like my opponent forfeited most all of her/his debates. I am very disappointed. I feel like I spent a lot of time on this debate, and am unhappy to have my work disregarded, and rendered obsolete (it is pointless to read my arguments, because I have already won). Nevertheless, I suppose I must accept my opponents' forfeit. Thanks for the debate, Blackangel. Thanks for your time, dear reader.
God is Black*****

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم Lol... You all are hilarious. Ok I forfeit :) قُلْ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ أَحَدٌ ٱللَّهُ ٱلصَّمَدُ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌۢ
God is Black*****

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم First we'll need to define "God". Let's assume the common definition, being: "The creator of all things" and/or "The eternal essence of all things" or something to that affect. In that case, then "God" would need to not only assume but possess the quality (s) suitable for these roles. Logically, the color of Black contains all colors on the spectrum. Therefore, God must be (based on our definition (s)) Black. And if we assume that "God" lives in and/or is a part of all things it creates, then logic would assume the supreme representation of God to be Black in both metaphorical and literal terms. God is the totality of everything that was, is, and will ever be. Therefore, God cannot create anything it didn't already contain mentally. The mind precedes ALL 7 densities of creation in the order of: magnetism, electricity, light, ether, gas, liquid, and solid. Each condensation contains the previous condensation. Therefore, If all creation stems from the Mind of God, then God literally remains present throughout all densities of creation. Even "material" or what you call "human" لا إله إلا الله
God most likely exists.

God- a supernatural being with no beginning and no end that exists outside of our physical universe. Burden of proof is shared. I will be arguing that God most likely exists, and Con will be arguing that he most likely does not. The rounds will go as follows: 1. Accept the debate and say,"I accept. " 2. I will post my argument, then Con will post his without reading mine first. 3. I will respond to Con's round 2 argument, and Con will respond to my round 2 and round 3 arguments. 4. I will respond to Con's round 3 argument, and Con will respond to my round 4 argument. 5. I will conclude all arguments from my perspective, and Con will conclude without reading my conclusion. This will give voters both sides of the argument at the end.
God most likely exists.

Keep in mind that this argument is not to be read by Con until after he posts his round 2 argument. Argument from first cause Any explanation for the beginning of the universe leaves the question,"What caused that?" This means that, according to the logic of the universe, there was no first cause, and as a result, no later events. Since the universe obviously exists, the first cause would have to be unbound by the logic of the universe, so that it can be an uncaused being. That being is God. [1] Argument from design The chances of the universe resulting from an explosion are approximately eqiuvalent to the chances of a print shop explosion resulting in a dictionary. [2] This means that the universe was likely created the way it is intentionally. The creator would have to be God. [1] http://philosophy.lander.edu... [2] https://www.lds.org...