BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

I am new to debate and this will be the topic I will be arguing in my first tournament. I want to do a little mock up here so that I can better understand the topic and get some experience. Thanks! To start of this debate I am going to define the word "state" as "A people with one common culture or organized government". My first contention for why states ought not possess nuclear weapons is because of humanitarian reasons. Any detonation of one of these devises would result in huge loss of human life and that is just unacceptable. To be specific, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1946 killed est. 78,000 within an hour of detonation not to mention future deaths as the cause of radiation and starvation. The current nuclear weapons we have around these days are around 180 times more powerful than that. So we could say that the loss of human life in a populated area would be 78,000 x 180 = 14,000,000. This obviously isn't completely accurate but it gives you a good field of thought for how utterly devastating this would be. My second contention is for global security reasons. As we've already seen these weapons are devastating. But one could argue that through the impact of mutual assured destruction; nuclear weapons like these would never come into use. But mutual assured destruction only works of there are two or more established governments that could risk losing everything. If a faction such as Al Qaida could get it's hands on a unprotected nuclear devise, say in Pakistan, they would have nothing preventing them from using it. Could you imagine the terror a person that is willing to die could inflict if they had any sort of nuclear weapon? In conclusion, isn't it just best if these weapons weren't around at all? I mean you could argue all you want that things such as mutual assured destruction would prevent their use. But wouldn't them not being here in the first place prevent their use too? Thank you---
God Does Not Exist

PrologueHey there, this is quite simply a God vs no God debate. AcceptanceThis should be impossible to accept. If you'd like to debate with me, please say so in the comments.Burden of ProofThe BoP is shared in this debate.Definitions"God" is defined as "being the creator of the universe and possessing the following attributes: -Omnipotence (has the power to do anything)-Transcendence (outside space-time)-Omniscience (has unlimited knowledge)""Exist" is defined as "having objective reality, insofar as existing outwith the mind."Format of the DebateR1: Con forwards their contentionsR2: Pro presents their affirmations, and Con rebuts Pro's caseR3-4: Pro defends their arguments, and rebuts Con's case. Con rebuts, and defends their argumentsR5: Pro rebuts and defends their arguments, and Con waives the roundGood luck
Zendaya is a better singer than Miley Cyrus

Born on September 1, 1996, in Oakland, California, actress and singer Zendaya Coleman comes from a theatrical background. As the daughter of a stage manager, she spent much of her youth hanging around the California Shakespeare Theater. She also trained in the theater's youth program and appeared in some of its productions. During her days as a student at the Oakland School for the Arts, Zendaya landed a number of roles in local theatrical productions. She also honed her craft at the American Conservatory Theater and the Cal Shakes Conservatory. Zendaya had an interest in dance as well. She was a member of the Future Shock Oakland dance group for several years, and studied hula dancing at the Academy of Hawaiian Arts. In addition to her theatrical work, Zendaya had some early success as a model, working for companies such as Macy's and Old Navy. For a Sears commercial, Zendaya performed as a back-up dancer for Selena Gomez. She eventually decided to use only her first name professionally. "Zendaya" means "to give thanks" in the language of the Shona people of Zimbabwe. Source: http://www.biography.com...
Zendaya is a better singer than Miley Cyrus

Miley Cyrus has been in the business longer that much is true however Miley has always been better than Zendaya. Zendaya has a great voice but i would bet she did not write Swag it out. Miley however puts her heart into her performance and if that means failing at twerking so be it. Not to mention how much better Mileys voice is.
Health care should not be free for Children or Adults

Topic: State Childrens Health Insurance Program (AKA S-CHIP) What is it? The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a national program in the United States that provides health insurance for children whose families earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, yet cannot afford to buy private insurance. The program was created to address the growing number of children in the United States without health insurance. At its creation in 1997, SCHIP was the largest expansion of health insurance coverage for children in the United States since Medicaid began in the 1960s. The opposing views: Conservatives say: It costs way to much money and insures families whose annual household income exceeds 80,000. The program covers to many people and even some adults. We should reform this program to cover only those children really in need. Liberals say: It is a necessary step to socialize health care. The Health care industry has become too greedy and therefore the Govt. should provide it to families who can't afford to take their child to the doctor. Every child should have access to a doctor no matter what. Dr. H says: The Gov't should not be providing health care to any child whose parents are capable of getting a job -First let me say this, gov't spending is already out of control. I am a 21 year old college student who makes a salary barely above the poverty level and my income is taxed at almost 26%! That's ridiculous. Maybe Al Gore could make some correlation between gov't spending and the erosion of the polar ice caps! -Second, I remember a time when parents took it upon themselves to take care of their children. "I didn't mean to have children...:" Here's an idea, don't have sex. Last time I checked, the virgin birth occurred 2000 years ago and hasn't happened since. But no, let's just absolve people of total personal responsibility that way they can use all my money to pay for people's mistakes. -Thirdly, Imagine with me a hospital or doctors office that was run like the DMV. Wow, I hope no one has anything serious because you might die before they call your number. Imagine a business that had an endless flow of resources and no incentive to make any profit. This is the federal gov't. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want that business handling my health care. - Finally, before you hate me for not caring about children let me say I do care about kids, I even care about their nitwit parents. The problem in question here isn't does a child have the right to see a doctor? The question is should the gov't pay for it? The answer is no. With all this talk of social justice floating around the church you'd think someone would figure out a way to stop spending peoples tithe money on that $100,000 sound system or that 2.5 million dollar building and use it to take care of people. It is vital, in order for the US to survive as a democracy for faith based intiatives and humanitarian groups to take up majority of the social relief spending. This is not the job of the government. Your thoughts please...
should obama send ground troops to isis

Although Christians are definitely dying in the Middle East, they are by no means being targeted by the ISIS terrorist group. ISIS has killed far more Shiites then they have Christians. Shiites are openly fighting back and are being persecuted for it. Secondly, if ISIS was to somehow conquer Iraq, the resources that they would receive in return would not be a threat at all to America. ISIS would receive an economy that has very little infrastructure, an incredibly high global debt, and a population that does not want them there. Attempting to take over Iraq would mean that they now reign a country almost completely full of Shiites. Why would they want that? They would not kill of the whole population. The Iraqi people would be likely to rebel very hard if this invasion were to occur. Arming the Iraqi army is going back to the mistakes made during the 1990's and the 2000's. We would be arming and assisting a military that has proven to be unstable and unable to make up their minds on which sides to take in that region. Arming an unstable and uncooperative military could prove to be an even bigger problem in the future.
should obama send ground troops to isis

They are killing innocent Christians just because they won't convert to Islam. If we don't do something now they will be a threat to America for years to come. They are a terrorist group that hates America and if not stopped will take over Iraq and then they will have the resources to attack America. All that America has to do now is send some drones to help the Iraqi army but if we don't we will have to sent troops in the future. Acting now will save lives in Iraq now and American troops in the future.
should obama send ground troops to isis

Ground troops should not be sent to combat ISIS for any other world opponent in the region. As seen by both gulf wars and the invasion of Afghanistan, both supporting rebel groups and directly fighting Middle Eastern opposition causes extreme imbalance in the region. The countries that we would be supporting would grow to dependent on American forces and when the troops on the ground left, the host country would be too weak and incapable of fighting their own war, as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. Another issue with toppling ISIS immediately is that there is no plan presented on who to give ISIS controlled territory to. If the territory is given to Assad, we are allowing a ruthless dictator to gain ground on rebel forces. If the land is given to rebel forces, the rebels could change their governing style. When the US funded Al-Qaeda in the 1980's during the final stint of the Soviet Union, Al-Qaeda was able to use conquered lands, money, and supplies given to them by the US to eventually terrorize both the region and the world. There is no need to choose the lesser of two evils. The solution would be to just not make a decision at all. A coalition should be led by the US and other world powers with the Kurds and allied Middle Eastern countries, like Saudi Arabia, to lead coordinated airstrikes to cripple the ISIS infrastructure. Recruitment and training stations should be the first targeted. And eventually power stations in the region to entirely cripple the ease of access ISIS has on the region. Communication and travel would be far harder to accomplish. Countries who are supplying ISIS with money, troops, or supplies should be met by heavy UN-based sanctions. Saudi Arabia must stop supplying oil to the Syrian region and an attempt to limit the supply of Iranian oil to the region as well should be put into practice. The US, under any administration, should not send ground troops to the middle east no matter the enemy. Regional and economical instability are far to likely. Do we not learn from the past? Three times since 1970 the US has destabilized a region. It is time to put together an organized coalition that can tackle the issue without US ground force involvement.
Israel should stop killing innocent people in Palestine

Then I shall bring forth mine. -Killing Militants I do not know if Pro is referring only to citizens, of if he believes Palestinian terrorists are innocent people. If will have to refute both. The Israeli army has been listed among the most peaceful armies in the world. Despite Media portrayal, the Army takes extreme measures to prevent the harm of even Palestinian terrorists. The Israeli Defense Force goes as far as to drop warning notes a day before a bombing so no one is there to get harmed. They call off pursuits if a child ends up involved as to protect the children, regardless of if the child is Palestinian. They go to EXTREME lengths to keep Palestinian citizens safe.(1) The average Civilian to Militant death ration in a Middle East civil war is around 4:1. The Civilian to Militant death ration in Palestine is 1:30. That is astonishing. Why is it so low? Because Israel has so many rules in place JUST to protect Palestinian civilians.(2) Civilians will die in war, but Israel is among leading nations (if not the top) in preserving civilian life. [1] http://www.idfblog.com... [2] http://www.haaretz.com... [] - Killing Terrorists. Israel left Gaza in 2005. After an election, the terrorist group Hamas took power. Israel, the US, and the EU refused to acknowledge Hamas, as is their right to do so. All Israel and the US wanted before they would recognize Hamas was for them to recognize Israel, renounce violence, and make good on past agreements. Hamas proved Israel right when they forcibly replaced Gaza's other elected officers (the Fatah) with their own.(3) Israel only stopped sending the Palestinians aid through the Hamas Government. They continued sending the Palestinians aid, but through non-government groups. The Palestinians received Israeli aid regardless of Hamas, who would have likely used the money to attack Israel.(4) Now that the history lesson is over... Gaza begun launching Missiles into Israel and planning terrorist assaults. Israel has a right to defend themselves. You can not decide who may defend themselves by who you like and hate most. Israel was attacked, and has since been hunting down terrorist militants in Palestine while Palestine continues their attacks as well. [3] http://www.theguardian.com... [5] http://www.nytimes.com...;
Israel should stop killing innocent people in Palestine

RebuttalStop!Pro's argument is plagerized straight off his source. He has copy/pasted the entire argument from off the site.Continuing.Pro's source also talks of Palestinians crimes. The only actual case against Israeli practices is the Targeted Assassination program, while the first of only 2 other listed examples seems to be nothing more than an convience. The issue being roadblocks. Such roadblocks are important to the effort. The article runs based off an unsupported claim/opinion of the Army's 'true' intentions, and doesn't actually back their accusation.The other example being individual accounts. The actions of a few soldier isn't relevant to whether or not Israel is wrong for "killing innocent people in Palestine."Pro cherry-picks who is bad. If we followed his example, than the UK shouldn't have gone to war in WWII, nor should the US... In fact, every army in the world and every nation ever would have to be punished. But I see Pro only think Irsael should be held accountable.Pro's whole case is this."Because Israel is using roadblocks and some soldiers are mean to Palestians, they should stop killing people."His whole first argument is irrelevant to the Resolution.Terrorists are terrorists , they cannot kill other innocent people because of some terrorrists.Pro never accounted for any of my argument and ignored the facts reguarding it. I shall repeat for him:"The Civilian to Militant death ration in Palestine is 1:30"For every 30 terrorist militants killed, ONE civilian is killed. This hardly backs up Pro's logic. By his logic, the Police should be disbanded as well.Pro does not understand Terrorism.Dropping "warning notes a day before a bombing so no one is there to get harmed..." and calling "off pursuits if a child ends up involved as to protect the children, regardless of if the child is Palestinian..." is not Terrorism."Because there are cruel israel soldiers, doesn't mean all Israelite are cruel."Pro has literally refuted his own first argument...===========================================================Pro never answered my arguments: Dropping them all.Pro never made a relevant case.Pro Plagerized his whole first argument.
Israel should stop killing innocent people in Palestine

http://www.theguardian.com... A leading Israeli human rights group has accused Israeli soldiers of "malicious and cruel" treatment of Palestinians and the military leadership of indifference to widespread abuses. The Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) issued its annual report yesterday with denunciations of violence by Palestinian groups and the army during the intifada, but the spotlight fell on the Israeli military. "Most of the abuses occur not as a result of operational necessity on the part of the army, but from vindictiveness on the part of soldiers, who receive implicit approval to denigrate the dignity, life and liberty of innocent Palestinians," it says. The report notes that in the year to June, the military's "targeted assassination" policy killed 80 alleged militants but 90 innocents also died in the process. The ACRI is also strongly critical of the hundreds of Israeli army roadblocks. It states that they are intended as a collective punishment, rather than to prevent bombings as the army claims. The report also lists numerous individual abuses by troops, including a case in which a soldier carved a Star of David on a Palestinian's arm. It concludes that the military's failure to prosecute encourages further abuses. The army issued a written statement rejecting the charge. "The opposite is true," it said. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com... ----------------- Terrorists are terrorists , they cannot kill other innocent people because of some terrorrists. Because there are terrorrists in Palestine, it doesn't mean all Palestinian is bad. Because there are cruel israel soldiers, doesn't mean all Israelite are cruel.
Evolution or Creationism

Creationism is right. You look around at this world and all the small details of it and it has to have been created by some Creator. This couldn't have just happened out of a bang. If natural selection was true, Eskimos would have fur and be hairy to keep warm, but they don't. They are as hairless as everybody else. If natural selection was true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have dark skin, which the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.
Evolution or Creationism

The ideology you believe is called intelligent design, in the 20th century, it was banned in some teachings of the school, because the law requires that religious teachings must not be taught in school. The reason was that intelligent design was like the bible and how god created man. However, in the modern times, hard evidence, fossils have proven, that humans did evolve. Since you think that the big bang created humans, you are wrong, the big bang happened, earth it took billions of years to form and have life. Now here is the tricky part. The misconception that you have is that life animals appeared instantly. However, that is false. At first, it started out as bacteria, cells, and small organisms. Then, in a long time, more complex cells are created by the making up of normal cells. Lastly, the cells create complex organism aka. animals, humans, life. Now if you are in a class room, you start from one end to another. Get a piece of hair and put it at the end. It was theorist that is how long life existed on earth. So you think about it, if that is how humans started, then how long did it take to form animals, cells, and life. Now onto my arguments. Natural selection doesn't happen instantly, it happens bit by bit. however, by theory, the reason why we don't have the traits like you say above, is because humans are all the same, the differences like our faces to our body is called genetic mutation. That makes up how we look different and how some people are nicer to another. Secondly, if your idea of creationism is true, then how did that "Creator" get created? Please elaborate more on it. Lastly, humans are adaptive, it is our nature to adapt. if you put a human in a freezing environment, they would kill animals and use it's fur to keep warm. In the end, vote for my side. and Please Elaborate
God Is Subject To The Law Of Noncontradiction

Just for reference, Aristotle described the law of noncontradiction through these three angles: "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect," "No one can believe that the same thing can (at the same time) be and not be," and "The most certain of all basic principles is that contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously." If God is exempt, and is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, a number of consequences may both follow and not follow. The problem of evil may both become and not become much worse of a problem if God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction. Suppose person A argues that the sentence, "God has a perfect reason for allowing evil to thrive," is true, and person A's opponent, person B, argues that the sentence "It is not the case that God has a perfect reason for allowing evil to thrive," is true. If God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, then the law does not prohibit person A and person B from both being correct. They may also both be incorrect, if it is neither the case nor not the case that God has a perfect reason for allowing evil to thrive. Even if God does not exist, it is still subject to the law of noncontradiction. Suppose person A argues that the sentence "God exists," is true, and person B argues that the sentence "It is not the case that God exists," is true. If God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, then the law does not prohibit person A and person B from both being correct. They may also both be incorrect, if it is neither the case nor not the case that God exists. Even if God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, then it still may be subject to the law of noncontradiction. Suppose person A argues that the sentence "God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction," is true, and person B argues that the sentence "It is not the case that God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction," is true. If God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, then the law does not prohibit person A and person B from both being correct. They may also both be incorrect, if it is neither the case nor not the case that God is subject to the law of noncontradiction. I'd like to point out to my future opponent that your challenge is to rule out the case that God is subject to the law of noncontradiction. Ideally my opponent will demonstrate that absurdities result if we conclude that God is in fact unable to violate the law of noncontradiction, and that the above three paragraphs do not demonstrate absurdities by concluding that God is in fact able to violate the law of noncontradiction. Hopefully my opening statement demonstrated that if God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, this fact alone does not rule out the possibility that he also is subject to the law of noncontradiction. I would like the argument to take this format: 1. Pro Opening Statement (this) Con Opening Statement 2. Pro Rebuttal Con Rebuttal 3. Pro Conclusion Con Conclusion
Santa exists

First off, I didn't say Santa exists. If you actually read it, you will find that I am saying that Santa is a non-existent object. Therefore, he is placed in a non-existant universe, which doesn't exist anyway. (P.S. That wasn't my statment, I just copied and forgot to cite it from another debator) http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... I ask you only one question... did Pro convince you that Santa exists? After all I have refuted his only point, therefore vote Con!!! :D
Santa exists

My First Point: Saint Nicholas is the actual model for Santa Claus. The parents then, taking it as a tradition, told their children that a fat man called Santa Claus exists. He apparently brings presents on December 25, and eats cookies and drinks milk while doing it. https://en.wikipedia.org... My Second Point: People say Santa has a workshop on the North Pole, well humans have many satellites around the world and would know if one was jammed to not show Santa's Workshop. https://en.wikipedia.org...