BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolve: Failled nations are a greater threat to the united states than stable nations

I would like to begin by attack my opponent's case and then rebuilding mine. In the first two rounds my opponent has said many things that prove that stable nations are greater threat to the United States than failed nations. Here they are: 1. " Iran as a government dares not fight America on a 1 to 1 war however Iran has given arms to its Arab League neighbors, from Sudan to Bangladesh. More Importantly It has added Jihads and Rebel Movement notably Al Qaeda but also the Palestinian Independence Jihad and Hezballah who posse a treat to the US via The Soviet Union Effect." * This is from my opponents first contention. He basically is agreeing with me because he says that Iran gave arms to all this places that he listed above and that they pose a threat the the United States. They wouldn't be a threat if Iran hadn't helped them. Iran is the root of the threat therefore they are the threat not all these other places. 2. "West to East shift in Economic balance were to happen the United States will collapse as a Superpower much like USSR did." * This is exactly what I was saying in my second contention in the first round. If the East were to gain the economic majority, than U.S. could collapse. The only countries capable of having a better economy than the United States are stable nations. He basically just agreed with my second contention. Now I will attack his second round: 1. He stated "If anyone is preparing for War, it's Israel." * Well Israel should be preparing for war because Iran came out and said that they want to attack Israel. It is a strategic and defensive move on Israel's part. 2. The part at the very beginning with the list of countries does not make since. Yes I did get that info from Failed States Index. You say that they are Alert states but if they were Alert states they would not be on the Failed States Index. The index is for failed states. 3. "When did Nuclear research become Illegal?" * Its not the research that is illegal its the testing that the scientist are doing. They are testing uranium enrichment and plutonium separation. 4. New, previously, unstated point * I don't really think I have to state any other reason why stable nations are a greater threat than failed nations because I mentioned it in my first speech and also because you made some points in your speeches that helped my case. For all the reason that I have stated and that I disproved my oppenents points please vote con. Thank you and Good Luck!
Resolve: Failled nations are a greater threat to the united states than stable nations

Here is a list of the top ten failed nations: 1. Somalia 2. Zimbabwe 3. Sudan 4. Chad 5. DRC 6. Iraq 7. Afghanistan 8. Central African Republic 9. Guinea 10. Pakistan First I would like to begin by rebuilding my own case and then attacking my opponents case. Contention 1: My opponent said that the Non-Proliferation Treaty was ratified in 2007. Even if this is true, Iran was still engaged in nuclear activity without anyone knowing for the last 20 years. Like I stated before they were involved in uranium enrichment and plutonium separation. So you should extend my argument because my opponents argument does not apply. *My opponent did not attack my second contention so you must assume that they agree with it. Now I will attack my opponents case: Contention 1: I don't see how this would be a threat to the United States since we have the largest military in the world. Can you please extend this argument. Contention 2: The resolution is asking us to determine a fact. The use of the term "are" (as in failed nations ARE) asks us to examine the world in its presents state and determine the greatest threats facing America. "Are" is a form of "to be" as in "to exist". The resolution does not say "failed nations could possibly become" - it says "failed nations are", asking us to determine the claim in the context of now. Therefore my opponents second contention does not apply to the resolution. I have disproved both of my opponents contentions which leaves them with no evidence.
Resolve: Failled nations are a greater threat to the united states than stable nations

Definitions: Threat: A communicated intent to cause harm (black law) Failed nation: Utterly incapable of sustaining itself as a member of the internation economy. Stable nation: Able or likely to continue or last; firmly established; enduring or permanent (dictionary. com) Resolve: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than Stable nations. Contention 1: Iran is a nuclear threat *"The Iranian nuclear program has been a matter of great concern to the international community for several years. Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and has claimed consistently that its nuclear activities are directed to peaceful purposes. In 2003–2005, following revelations by an Iranian opposition group about secret nuclear sites, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conducted intensive inspections, which revealed that for almost twenty years Iran had engaged in a range of undeclared nuclear activities, including uranium enrichment and plutonium separation efforts. " (IAEA Board of Governors, "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran," IAEA: GOV/2004/83, 23, . http://www.iaea.org....) This proves that Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapon. If they were to do so, they would try to attack Israel. And in the longer run, it could pose a nuclear threat to the United States. Contention 2: China is an economic threat *Analysts project that in the near future, China will replace the United States as the world's largest economy and exporter. In this context, China's economic rise is viewed as America's decline. "It appears highly likely that China at some point will overtake the United States as the world's largest economy. Global Insight's projections (which are the highest of the three presented) project that China will achieve 7.1% average real growth over the next 20 years. In comparison, the U. S. economy is projected by Global Insight to grow at an average annual real rate of about 3.0%, less than half China's rate. Global Insight's projections indicate that China could overtake the United States as the world's largest economy by 2013. By the year 2025, China's economy is projected to be 59% larger than the U. S. economy, according to Global Insight. " Conclusion: As you can see, Iran and China are major threats to the United States and they are stable nations. This proves the cons point that stable nations are a greater threat to the United States than failed nations.
Animal habitats

Alright, I was only using 27% of my debate power before, But it looks like I might actually need to unleash my full power this time. Hmph. Not bad, Kid. You will have the honor of being destroyed firsthand by my FACTS AND LOGIC. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. Did you know that monkeys routinely engage in homosexual behavior in the wild? HOW CAN WE TOLERATE THIS DESPICABLE BEHAVIOR! IT IS THROUGH THE POWER OF GOD AND THE BIBLE THAT WE WILL, AND MUST EXTERMINATE ALL ANIMALS.
is jesus actually the son of God

Thank you for your argument. Firstly , I would Kirk to point out a serious issue. You cannot simply have blind faith without reason. You NED to fully understand the principles of the belief , to eliminate doubt. If you have just faith , you don't fully understand the belief. In blind faith , you can't haver real trust , and will lack the ability to defend your xcause. An atheist could easily refute that thought. Logic is there to increase our understanding of things , so that we can properly decipher their purpose and use , and apply those concepts to our sdaily lives. Everything must have a reason , if not , you are denying its rationality , and it is subject to doubt. To truly understand something , apply reason. If you blindly believe in God , then that worship cannot be whole hearted because you do not properly ubdertsand your Lord. Now for Jesus being gods son. I don't bthink it's possible. How can God have a son? That is indicating the need of succesion , and And omnipotent God has no need for that. That is saying that God needs a helper. He is God, and he needs no such thing. Saying that God has a son makes God look weak. We are given children for many reasons , and one of them is to help them. God is not an old man. He is everlivving , and all powerful. Also , Jesus prayed for and fasted for God. A son does not do this for his father. God also doesn't have a son because that indicates human desires , and mortal-like traits. God isfar , far above the need for that. He does not desire like that. GI'd cannot be given the traits of a normal human. That is not right.
is jesus actually the son of God

The awnser to this question is unfortunatly subjective to evryone not technically but just literally. I am a christian Baptist to be specific and I do belive that Jesus is the son of God because of Faith and that is unconstricted to logic of any kind because the things we like or belive in don't always make logical sense. For example a short person who is good at the game of basketball logic tells me this shouldn't be the case yet despite the odds its true it defies logic. Now as for why I belive it personally it's the way that I was brought up and according to me what i've heard,read, and learn makes sense it speaks to me. With that out of the way I can give the first crutch of my argument if we are going to actually break this down logically I have to disprove some arguments that havent been presented to me yet so what I don't address in this round is not my fault because I was presented with nothing to argue in the first place. Jesus was half man and half God not fully of either according to the bible Jesus preformed many miracles and awnsered questions no other manhad awnsers to. Jesus also did not know everything which is the most important part of this particular argument for example- the following quotation is from the raising of lazarus: When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34 "Where have you laid him? " he asked. " in this quotation Jesus simply asks her where mary layed her deceased brother but it proves he did not know everything for what other reason could he possibly have for asking a question this simple which makes it the best example of this.
Religious Freedom should be upheld alongside Gay Marriage

As for the pro-gay community and gay pride parades you should look up what actually goes on at these events, they commit unspeakable public sex acts and sometimes they even expose themselves while kids are present. In Brazil they had a young boy twerk for the perverts at the gay pride parade wearing nothing but jean shorts. If you don't believe be just look it up online, there are plenty of videos showing sex acts and nudity at gay pride parades. The stuff that goes on at these parades are criminal offenses. But if you want to defend the gay community than be my guest. you will only be leading this society to other perversions. Polygamy and Pederasty are next. It's already happening in other parts of the world, if you don't believe me that's your problem.
Religious Freedom should be upheld alongside Gay Marriage

After debating with myself a lot, and talking to my Christian friends, I believe if you own a bakery then you should have to serve everyone (with a few exceptions of course) I think if you want to avoid being involved in a gay wedding services, you just need to bake the cake and put the frosting on etc. then the customer can put the gay theme on their own cake after all the baker's job is to bake the cake you don't have to put any themes on it, this way you're not forcing anyone to go against their conscience and no one is imposing their believes on anyone... just bake the cake and the customer can decorate it any way they want to put any message they want to or make it a gay or straight cake etc. I think that is a very reasonable and fair compromise. The baker gets to keep their business and the customer gets what they want. We need to stop treating certain demographics more special than others. I think this is all political correctness and it's destructive for our communities. The baker should bake the cake and decorate it, but if you want special messages or two grooms or two brides or even a bride and groom then you should do it yourself. Personally I would not mind doing it myself but I know people would most likely disagree with me.
Religious Freedom should be upheld alongside Gay Marriage

I am a Christian so obviously I do not support homosexuality and I voted against gay marriage. However I do believe marriage should be a state issue and I have a few Christian friends who are well educated and agree with me. I Believe if homosexual people want to get married than fine. But do not force churches to marry gay couples, I also believe it is wrong to deliberately target Christian owned bakeries and then attack them when they refuse to bake a cake. I believe that is hypocritical of the gay community and I am upset that they only target Christians for this gay civil rights movement. Why are they not targeting Muslims, why are they not focusing more on Mormons or Scientologists or Hindus, why are they focusing their efforts on the protestant Christian community? and if you don't believe me just watch the news it is almost always a Christian owned bakeries or photographers and remember that ridiculous attack on the Christian owned pizzeria. Out of all the other businesses they deliberately chose a Christian owned business. I understand that they are a public business, but why not go after other anti-gay establishments. It's not just Christians who are against gay marriage. Why is there zero outrage in the media about Islamic countries that are murdering gay people. Especially after the supreme court ruling. A few Islamic countries protested their anger by killing gay people in their communities they even made videos of these heinous crimes but of course the media just sweeps that under the rug because the bigger threat is conservatives and Christians. But putting that aside. There is a way to have marriage, without violating the religious rights of Christians and other religious groups. There is no need to force the church to marry gay couples. As I said before, I believe marriage is a state matter, and the church and state should not be mixed. Several Christians do not like that, but I know many well educated who agree that church should stay out of it. The government does not need to impose on the church in order to have gay marriage. Likewise some churches accept gay marriage, they're not that difficult to find and they will perform a wedding for gay couples. However the rest of the Christian community does not accept these Churches because it is against scripture. I would like to co-exist without all this politically correct nonsense in the middle.
Religious Freedom should be upheld alongside Gay Marriage

This is a debate about whether or not the United States should uphold certain religious freedoms regarding homosexuality. Specifically, I believe that people/businesses should be allowed to deny service to homosexual couples on the basis of religious beliefs, but only when that service relates directly to their homosexual marriage and/or family (ie wedding planning, marriage services, couples counseling, adoption services). Things like refusing service at a fast food restaurant because of the customer's sexual orientation do not fall under this category. If you have any questions about what I'm referring to, please ask in the comments before accepting the debate. I reserve the right to clarify which services are included, within reason.
Haiku diss debate

Happy birthday, thett! Ima make this easy now. You 'bout to go down. The last haiku round Was not even an insult, bloody scalawag. Sure, you're cute... enough but you haven't any skill so your haiku's suck. But today's your day Happy, this date of your birth. At least you've got that. And I know you tried but today was just a fail, like your pirate act.
Haiku diss debate

My account is real Just like bsh's love for me. Sorry you're left out. It must suck that you lost a debate for my hand in marriage. He's mine. And you're just alone with your right hand. Oh wait now your hand says "we're through." That's got to suck, dude. You can't even masturbate to lady Royale. But no worries though You can come when bsh and I #get married. (# = hash tag)
Haiku diss debate

Thett3's no cockteaseWolf, a weak, sad, jealous manWith a fake account Inciting envyWith his multiaccount boyA fake little BshI rap hot fireLike God rained down on SodomCrushing this lib b!tchWolf can't outsmart meCompared to what Thett3 spits, His rhymes be all like:"RefrigeratorFridge fridge refrigeratorRefrigerator"
The 1st Amendment does not protect free speech

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Some say yes, because it produces vibrations through the air. Others say no, because it doesn't produce an auditory experience. But they don't actually disagree about what's going on in reality. Both of them expect the fall to produce vibrations in the air, and not auditory experiences. Meaning they're not actually arguing about what reality is like, they're merely arguing over which words to use to describe it. It is my impression that we don't disagree as to how reality functions. We both expect Congress to be prohibited from limiting free speech, and not other things to be prohibited from limiting free speech. So we're just using the word "protect" differently, like the arguers above might use the word "sound" differently. I'm satisfied with the discussion as is; we can forward it to the end, unless you want to add more, or maybe I've misunderstood your position.
The 1st Amendment does not protect free speech

I am Con the resolution, meaning that I am arguing that the first amendment does protect free speech. The BoP is entirely on Pro since they instigated and are making a claim. Pro's argument is that only Congress cannot remove your freedom of speeach, but that state authorities can. The important thing here is that Pro concedes the entire resulution; Con concedes that the First Amendment (FA) protects Congress from taking away your freedom of speech, thus the First Amendment protects your freedom of speech. Even if State and local governments can take away your freedom of speech, the FA still "protects" freedom of speech.
The 1st Amendment does not protect free speech

There's a sentiment among some that makes them say things like: "You can't tell me to shut up or call me stupid because of what I said. The 1st Amendment protects free speech." Actually the 1st Amendment just prohibits Congress from passing certain kinds of laws, like ones that take away free speech. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Doesn't say that state governments can't pass laws that take away free speech. Or that local governments can't. Or that your school can't, or your book club or your business or boss. They're all free to throw you in jail or detention or shun you or fire you, as far as the 1st Amendment goes. Here, let me recognize that you might appeal to something ELSE to oppose these. Decency or respect or something. Just not the 1st Amendment, since it only restricts Congress' actions. And it's still another level up to say that an INDIVIDUAL can't do something about your speech. Sure, they can't break laws to injure or rob or defame you. But they bloody well can call you names or yell at you, as far as the 1st Amendment goes. How on earth do you get from "Congress shall make no law" to "Citizens of the United States shall never?" And then besides being wrong about all that, even if they were right about it, they'd still be wrong. Because if the 1st amendment protected free speech, instead of just telling Congress what kind of laws it could pass, then it would protect the free speech of the other people in your arguments and squabbles. You would be free to say whatever you want... and then they would be equally free to say whatever they want, including how stupid you were or that you should shut up. And then you can say it back. And you can even say something silly like "You can't say that to me, we have free speech." And you would be wrong to do so. And they would be free to say so. Like I just did. Yeah, I mean, wow, if you just think about that phrase for a second... "You can't say that, we have free speech."
No God = No Purpose

Unfortunately, my opponent has made it almost impossible for himself to win. He must prove that a God does definitively exist, that this God has a purpose for us, and that we are aware that we have an obligation to His allotted purposes. All of the evidence my opponent has presented to the existence of a God is completely circumstantial and speculative at best. He has brought the burden solely on himself to prove what I have mentioned above in order to win the debate. Well, my arguments still stand. While life may be temporal on this Earth, who is to say that we "go" anywhere after death? Most of my opponent's refutations are assertions based on belief and no true "evidence. " I feel no need to rebut when my opponent has not substantiated the resolution and must create more definitive argumentation.
Resolved: There is at least one absolute truth.

Under extremely unfortunate circumstances, my opponent was unable to post an argument because he accidentally closed his account. But please make sure you still vote for CON, hopefully my opponent would agree that voting PRO would serve no good considering that his account no longer exists. Furthermore, please vote CON, because, I proposed five arguments in response to his two contention, as well as establish the fact that there is no such thing as an absolute truth, these two points were never refuted, therefore, despite whether or not you agree with them, these arguments are to be extended. Therefore, the only person that you can vote for is CON, as all of my arguments still stand. Thank you for your time. -Alexander
Resolved: There is at least one absolute truth.

Resolved: There is at least one absolute truth. Definitions: Absolute Truth: something that is true no matter what, not up to interpretation. Contentions: I. Law of Gravity. Gravity exists everywhere no matter what. It is a scientific law. This cannot be disputed. II. The Truth of no truth. Lets say there is no truth. Then thats a truth. If the truth is that there is no truth, then there is truth. Therefore, even by claiming no truth, you are claiming truth. Refute that Con...