BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
India should be a permanent UN Security Council Member

Thank you my friend once again for a great debate :). This has been a very enjoyable debate, and I love hearing opposite views :). Let me now refute your great arguments :). I believe that yes, dipolmatic relationships with other nations must be resolved and soon, before India joins the UN Security Council, even as a permanent or non permanent member.I think the UN could sponsor peace talks between India and Pakistan, and it they could reach an agreement ending the Kashmir dispute with Kashmir as a neutral nation between the two of them as a confilct settler. The terrorists could also be repelled by the members of India's strong millitary, and thus no harm would come to the world's largest democracy.And yes, they do need to improve in some personal rights problems, but they have done remarkable. All it should take is a small nuge from the UN in diplomatic friendship, and they could finish what they started-equality and justice for all, regardless of religion, gender or otherwise. Once it is finished, then India can achieve it's goal: permanent membership on the UN Security Council.I rest my case, thank you so much for a great debate my friend, i really enjoyed this :)I hope to debate you again soon :) this was a great debate
India should be a permanent UN Security Council Member

I agree that India is true nation of peace is there is one outside of Switzerland. They do a great of creating peace and help establish peace. I can't speak on the topic of human rights in depth because it is an area i don't know a lot about. I do know however that India needs to update some laws and try to create more equality in the country. The government in India has done a great job in recent years trying to stem some of the inequality but I believe that it needs to take it a step father and continue to do so before it is granted permanent UNSC membership. I also believe that it is necessary to tag both India and Israel in the same sentence because they are both key countries to their region and to add one and not the other could deteriorate relationships between countries. The key for this movement is the relationships part of it. The relationships between the countries will have to be mended and fixed before anything can happen.
India should be a permanent UN Security Council Member

I now will refute to the best of my ability. You have very valid arguments, and that is no joke :). Alright so. .. Yes, I agree they should talk to the Islamic Republic of Iran before they grant India a seat on the UN Security Council, permanent or non permanent. They should also sign a nuclear deal with Iran, I agree with you there, Iran is dangerous, and is a threat to Israel and the world over. Also, I think that in refutal the UNSC should grant India permament membership because they are a true nation of peace and they could help solve many conflicts. Thank you again for a great debate my friend :)
India should be a permanent UN Security Council Member

This has been a great debate. I am worried about tension in the economical sense. I don't know if you watch stock markets but last I checked, was about 3 weeks ago, the markets in China and Russia where weakening. I am afraid that if that trend continues that with the new access to trade India would have that it would potentially make Russia and China feel threatened. I understand that the India military could handle the terrorist easily but my concern isn't the hard targets like military bases, government buildings, and etc. It is the soft targets like malls, churches, schools, and etc. India has a massive poor population that could be targets and threaten the security of the country from the inside. I agree that border disputes could be solved within the UNSC. One other concern that I have is that Iran may feel threatened for lack of better words. They have wanted to join the international community in the UN and such. I understand that the nuclear plant and potential nuclear bombs play a part and that is a debate for another day but to give India full status and a seat in the UNSC and not talk to Iran about becoming a member if the nuclear bomb situation ever gets resolved would threaten the Middle east and could lead to more problems through war and threats and Israel because for a while Israel wanted to be UNSC member, not sure if they are, but to include India and not talk to Israel would deteriorate the US and Israel relationship and the UN Israel relationship even more. That is a vital relationship because of the tension and problems in the middle east.
India should be a permanent UN Security Council Member

I thank Con once again for an enjoyable debate so far, and very good arguments :). Now I must refute.The fact is that China and Russia and the USA support India's ascension as a permanent member, so tension would ease there.The terroist groups of ISIS and the Taliban would attack India probably yes, but Pakistan would not, not with most of the UNSC and the rest of the UN in support of India.India's millitary could destroy the terrorists, they have an excellent and massive army.Border disputes like Kashmir could be resolved at the UNSC with India's ascension as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. I rest my case. Back to you my friend, and thank you for a great debate so far, I can't wait to see what you have in refutal :)
India should be a permanent UN Security Council Member

The tension I am worried about isn't between the governments of India and Pakistan but between the extreme polar opposites in the countries. I am more concerned that the modern day terrorist in that region would start to attack India more frequently and damage the good that has becoming in the form of "peace" and dialogue between the two countries. I am worried that adding India to the UN Security Council will be problematic because it could either create a even more divide sectors in the council or it could eat away at the relationship between India and China or Russia. I don't believe that just because India has a large military that they should get in automatically, I know that isn't what happening just stating an opinion, and that India isn't social developed as some other countries. This will also affect what little relations the West have with Iran to lead into the next round.
India should be a permanent UN Security Council Member

Greetings everyone it is your friend Kylar :). I am starting a very relavant debate that I hope will be enjoyable for me and for my opponett :). In light of the growing momentum in favor of India getting a permanent membership on the UN Security Council, I think it is a good move. I want to debate this with someone :). Please accept, and I will explain my views more thoroughly in the next rounds.
Wars are necessary cause

Opening statement: Simply because i say "wars are necessary cause" doesn't means i believe in war. We as human are to try to live in peace and in harmony. But what are the causes of war? Why do we as human go to war with one another or go to war with our own nation. Isn't it simply because were fighting for a change in our government. Isn't it because were on a search for change? Isn't because we are fighting for our common rights? Don't we as human go to war to settle our dispute? Don't we as a nation go to war with other nations to "ensure the safety of our citizen and our posterity" Aren't fight simply because we cannot come to a common ground? We go to war with one another to promote our belief weather its Democracy or Communism.Purpose: Wars a necessary causeNow wars cause great diaster to a nation. Wars put nations in high debt. Wars take away hope from the people. Wars take away what was once there.Rules:1. Introduction2. Argument (rebuttal)3. Argument (rebuttal)4. Argument (rebuttal)5. Conclusion (Argument or Appreciation) P.S: I know con will win this one. Because alot of people don't like wars and the idea of wars. But please know that we as human have been through so many wars and we still stand as "One world."
christianity

Alrighty, time to get down to buisness. Actually people have began to start seeing that the Great Flood did indeed happen as when you look to the last Ice Age. When the Great sheets of ice began to melt and head towards the Ocean it flooded the world. It could be very possible that Noah lived during the Ice Age. (. http://abcnews.go.com...) Also when you have plants that are only native to South America appearing in Antartica you can see that the flood moved these plants there. The Virgin birth is actually scientifically possible! Raymond Bernard, in a study conducted in 1993, reported that it is indeed possible for a female to produce both an egg and Sperm. (So hah, told you futas were real Ajab) Report done by the Brittish Medical Journel reported that 1% of all women who gave birth were still a Virgin. (. http://www.unknowncountry.com...)
christianity

Can someone please explain why a billion people believe the virgin birth /ressurection...(the 2 main tenents of christianity) actually happened?These stories are just re-cycled myths.The ancient egyptians, indians.sumerians etc had exactly the same stories.As well as the flood,being born on the summer solstice, (25 Dec ),found by a star in the east and so on.These stories are 2000 years OLDER than the bible !!Christians need to break out of their faith bubble and come into the 21st century.The trouble with blind faith is it stops people THINKING. If they were not indoctrinated at a young age to beleive this stuff sane people would never except it a adults
Abiogenesis is a reasonable theory for the beginnings of life

So I want to be clear on several things off the bat so that whoever joins this debate understands the line I'm drawing here and what this debate is going to be about. This is not a debate on evolution. This is not a debate on the Big Bang theory. I would be happy to argue these in future debates, especially evolution, but there is a distinct line of separation here. The argument will be specific to abiogenesis, and it is my burden to present a reasonable theory and defend it. As such, I will describe the RNA world hypothesis below as my main argument, but what this hypothesis is meant to propose a natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds. Here's a brief rundown of the theory. The RNA world hypothesis proposes that self-replicating ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules were precursors to current life, which is based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), RNA and proteins. My main points of argumentation will include: 1. The simple formation of nucleic acids from basic organic compounds and its spontaneous assembly into RNA strands. 2. The capacity of RNA to store information 3. RNA's ability to catalyze reactions like an enzyme. 4. The importance of RNA in cells today I will also address issues of protein assembly should anyone be interested in pursuing it. The structure of this debate will be as follows: R1: Acceptance, opening argument R2: Opening arguments and rebuttal R3: Rebuttals, new argumentation R4: Rebuttals, new argumentation R5: Conclusions, no new argumentation I have set the argument max limit to 10,000 characters per post, and I eagerly await anyone who is willing to take me on.
The Catholic religion idolizes the saints and Mary

Thank you, I would now like to rebut your points. "There are many misconceptions in your comments, first of all can I just point out that the church teaches that it does not worship Mary or the saints they are merely intercessors for us. That is the official stance of the church." -I made that known. Why I stated they unknowingly worship the saints and Mary through their practices. "When you compare Catholics praying to Mary and the saints to Greek mythology the two beliefs could not be further apart" - The beliefs may be different, but similarities are astounding. " Catholics do not pray to Mary and the saints in order to get something directly from them, we ask them to take our prayers to God by participating in prayer with them" -Then why are they given patrons of things? Why not ask the saints to join you in prayer instead of asking them to do something? For example, why ask Saint Anthony of Padua to help you find a lost object? That is essentially why they are given patrons of things. Though not taught to be practiced that way, unfortunately that is how many practice it. "If you believe we should only pray directly to God then you shouldn't be asking friends and family to pray for you, that would be a contradiction." - Good point. However family and friends are living, and pray together to be heard by the divine God. They do not pray with other divine beings to be heard by a certain divine figure. " And because the church has Gods authority it therefore has authority to select saints" -Then why does God favor the Catholic religion, and give this authority to him? What about the Baptists, Methodists, Protestants, or "God's people" the Jewish? " I would also like to point out that just because something isn't in the bible doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, where does it say in the bible that you need to get all your answers from the bible? " -Then why do we have the Bible if we pick and choose what to follow, or ad in things for the sake of what we think? "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book." (Revelations 22: 18-19). We are not to add or subtract things from what god told us to do in the Bible. I would like to add: "The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that it was only "by the 3rd century [that] the efficacy of intercession of the saints was clearly recognized." That was some 200 years after Christ died. The teaching, therefore, did not originate with Jesus and the inspired Bible writers who documented his ministry." Source: https://www.jw.org...
The Catholic religion idolizes the saints and Mary

Thank you for your points. There are many misconceptions in your comments, first of all can I just point out that the church teaches that it does not worship Mary or the saints they are merely intercessors for us. That is the official stance of the church. Ones opinion or feeling toward people praying to Mary and the saints doesn't change the actual teaching of the church. If a catholic tells you they worship Mary and/or the saints they are not following church teaching. You title your reasoning's as 'unknowingly worshiping' and here's why you may be unknowingly misinterpreting church teaching. Of course we should pray directly to God, this is also a church teaching. When you compare Catholics praying to Mary and the saints to Greek mythology the two beliefs could not be further apart, Catholics do not pray to Mary and the saints in order to get something directly from them, we ask them to take our prayers to God by participating in prayer with them just as we do for each other, we know how important and powerful prayers are, if they were alive on earth we would ask them to pray for us, why not now? Now they are in heaven closer to God where we know they are aware of our prayers (revelation 5:8) If you believe we should only pray directly to God then you shouldn't be asking friends and family to pray for you, that would be a contradiction. But its not a contradiction because we are only praying for the intercession of others, it is the same with Mary and the saints. When your teachers asked you to pray to the patron saint the important thing is emphasising praying. Prayers are so important and as Christians we are told to do it for each other. Yes it is true we as humans select saints but it is done through the church which Jesus Christ founded and left Peter in charge of. 'Upon this rock I build my church, whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven and whatever is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven, the gates of hell shall not prevail' and today, 2000 years later Pope Francis and the church is living proof of these words, still going strong. And because the church has Gods authority it therefore has authority to select saints, although again this is irrelevant as it is simply the intercession of Mary and the saints we ask for when we pray to them. I would also like to point out that just because something isn't in the bible doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, where does it say in the bible that you need to get all your answers from the bible? It is a collection of books, inspired word of God, not a self help book. Gods word is not just written but oral and found through tradition.
The Catholic religion idolizes the saints and Mary

I greatly look forward to debating with you. I speak mostly from my personal experience from going to a private Catholic school from grades 2nd-7th. Though they do not teach idolizing saints and Mary, I feel like they unknowingly worship them anyway. My Reasoning #1: They pray to the saints for things they should pray directly to God for. -I was told many times by teachers that praying to the saints was praying to them so they can bring the prayer to God. However I always wondered why they didn't pray to God personally. Instead I was told to pray to the patron saint of the one who could address my problem. For example, when I lost something I was told to pray to Saint Anthony of Padua who is the patron saint of lost things. I couldn't help to be reminded of Greek Mythology when each 'god' was in charge of a certain aspect. For example, Aphrodite is the goddess of love, and is prayed to when they had an issue regarding beauty. Though it isn't taught to be that way, I feel Catholics worship the saints the same way. Why pray to the saints for something you could take directly to God? My Reasoning #2: The Catholics pray to The Virgin Mary, many times in front of statues, and often more than they pray to God. - I understand paying respects and thanks to Mary (just like Buddhists to to Gautama Buddha), but I believe it goes way past paying respects. For example, at my old Catholic School, we would pray the rosary in front of the Mary statue. The rosary of which has 53 "Hail Mary" prayer, 5 "Glory Be" prayers, and 2 "Our Father" prayers. It felt wrong to me, praying in front of a beautiful Mary statue while I prayed more to Mary than I did to God. I must admit the pray itself mentions reference to God, and is very humble, but it still felt wrong. My Reasoning #3: We choose who is a saint or not. We are literally praying to the ones we choose worthy. -Saints are decided by qualified people based on their religious acts and deeds. Many are martyrs for the religion. Still they are chosen by living humans. In reality the living humans are praying to humans who have past away. As a religion they pick who they pray to. Praying to saints or Mary is not mentioned in the Bible. It is something we a humans come up with. Though practiced for innocent reasons, it has grown away from what it was originally meant to accomplish. In Consideration: I admire everything the saints did to get their title, and the struggle Mary went through deserves to be acknowledged. But not like this. Thank you for this opportunity to debate with you.
German automakers build the world's best automobiles.

How can you define the best automobile? Affordability, quality, innovation, eco friendly? Well, take these into consideration and it easy to see that Germany does not produce the best vehicles. Japan clearly produces the best vehicles that most people in the world depend on. Also, Japan is always changing and making new models that are completely different than before. Germany, for the most part, does not change their image with the changing time. I will not disagree that Germans make quality products. But, when looking at the grand scheme of things Japan really does a better job. Japan had their economy devastated after WWII, remember the two A-bombs? Yet, they have recovered to by one of the largest economic powers in the world with a populations that is minute to Germany'. It is all because they have quality vehicles that lure investors because they have proved there dedication to excellence time and time again. This site provides good info http://www.jama.org.... Germany makes some really badass looking whips, but if we talk about the "best" looks are not the only thing on the list. So please define "best" otherwise other factors that most typical people find important like durability, dependability, warranty, etc will always reign as most important.
German automakers build the world's best automobiles.

Germany—a nation known for having the world's best engineers. We built the world's first expressway. We built the world's first jet aircraft. We built the world's first missiles. We hung on so long in World War Two because of our superior discipline and excellent engineering. That war gutted my homeland, but we Germans are still the foremost engineers in the world. And we still build the world's best automobiles, all of which are capable of maintaining very high rates of speed with upmost efficiency.
Mandatory School Uniforms are beneficial to schooling

My opponent's luck has failed him and the timer ran out before he could post his reply. In honour of this, and also seeing as I made the mistake of posting criticisms rather than initial arguments, we shall call it even and (assuming my opponent agrees) debate back and forth from now on, I may introduce several new points during round four but round five will remain a matter of final defenses and reiterations with no new points. Any criticisms of my opponent's arguments may be found in round 2.
Mandatory School Uniforms are beneficial to schooling

Hello there... I'd like to accept your proposition and I look forward to an interesting debate! I am fortunate to live in a part of the world (British Columbia Canada) where uniforms are not mandatory and liberty and individuality are embraced rather than shoved to the side in favour of strict regimen, which is too often the case in English speaking first world countries. My mum had to suffer through 12 years of uniforms and private school, and her brother was not permitted to go to his final exams in his Grade 12 year - because he wasn't in uniform. This had a very negative effect in his life and so I have personal reasons (although they are, of course, not fair game) as well as rational reasons to be strongly against the use of uniforms in schools. If my school instituted uniforms tomorrow, I would voluntarily drop out. The same goes for metal detectors on entrance and other effort to compromise the liberty of students in a school. Now you know where I stand, let the debate begin!
Mandatory School Uniforms are beneficial to schooling

I realize now that the argument I wanted to use for my previous shool uniform debate doesn't actually apply under my resolution. So rather than go through the awkwardness of saying that in the debate and hoping for a tie, I decided to create a new resolution to boost the number of debates I participate in during my membership. Resolved: Mandatory School Uniforms are beneficial to schooling Now has come the time for definitions to be had: Mandatory: necessary, compulsory School Uniforms: outfits mandated by the school to apply to all same-gendered students alike, that is unique to each school. Beneficial: do more good than harm Schooling: the act of learning from a school system's curriculum. This can take multiple different forms, whether social or academic. The first round shall be for acceptance by my opponent. Second round shall be for case positions only, meaning my opponent may not refute my case during that round. From there, all arguments, whether refutation or reconstruction, are valid and permissible. I merely ask that the final round include no new arguments. The burden of proof for this debate will be shared between myself and my opponent. I must defend a case where the uniforms are beneficial and my opponent must advocate for a case proving that they are, indeed, detrimental. I now await an opponent.