BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote.

I would like to first thank all the people that will be involved in this debate, for time sake I will make my argument short and to the point especially because it is common sense. I would like my opponent to please tell me why requiring identification is presidential or keeps a certain group from voting. In both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections ballot tampering and people being turned away from the ballot boxes. Many people in the democrat party to this day feel that Bush lost both elections. If Identification was required it would be much easier eliminate voter fraud. Currently the US is engaging it's self in the primary selection for each individual party. Reports of Obahma shipping in people from his neighboring state of Illinois, I heard the same reports making the same claims that Clinton and McCain were doing the same thing in New Hampshire. Our electoral process is simple who ever receives the most votes win. If we can implement the requirement of identification to vote corruption and many other forms of unethical behavior can be reduced.
The Unites States is not concerned with MORALITY when operating its foreign policy and entering war

'I would agree that without the APPEARANCE of a Moral Obligation, "it would be impossible for a Democracy, such as the US, to enter into any extended military operation."' --- If the "APPEARANCE of a moral obligation" is necessary then CLEARLY the "United States is CONCERNED with Morality when operating its foreign policy". At this point my opponent has conceded the topic of debate. What my opponent admits is that unless the government can Persuade the people that the war is justified on Moral Grounds, there will be no war. If you ask me, that's a pretty strong indicator of why the US is ALWAYS concerned about morality when operating its foreign policy.
The Unites States is not concerned with MORALITY when operating its foreign policy and entering war

Moving right along, a whole new bundle of arguments: What is America ruled by? All 300 Million people? 30 Million? 3 Million? 300? The more cynical, or paranoid, the fewer. Some of the readers might even subscribe to the idea that there's a shadow organization numbering no more than 30 who control the direction of American foreign and domestic policy. What do these numbers all have in common? Well, ultimately they're all a number of People. That's right, People. Whenever we speak about an American decision regarding foreign policy, we have no choice but to ultimately acknowledge that it is a decision made By People, and even if these people are not Saints, it stretches credibility to imagine that these people operate without ANY sense of morality. Do you know anyone with absolute No sense of morality? I don't. And as long as you can't either, then you can't realistically believe that the decision makers of America operate without any sense of morality. Remember, America, even though often personified, is not an actual person. --------------- Secondly, The US Government gives circa 15 Billion in Foreign Aid per year. My opponent will have to explain away EVERY single Cent to dismiss Morality entirely in regards to US Foreign Policy.
The Unites States is not concerned with MORALITY when operating its foreign policy and entering war

"MORAL OBLIGATION is ALWAYS cited by pro-war interests in the United States when decribing the neccessity of a given military aggression." --- Why do the pro-war organizations cite Moral Obligation when advocating the use of the American military on international soil? If "The United States is not concerned with MORALITY", then why bother? Unless.... well .... you would think the only reason we cite, iterate, and reiterate moral obligation is that WITHOUT a moral obligation, it would be impossible for a Democracy, such as the US, to enter into any extended military operation. ----------------------------- "If the United States where in the business of uniformly spreading democracy and human rights, our foreign policy would look very different than it does." My response: So? We're not here to argue if Moral Obligation is the ONLY consideration. The question at hand is not what US foreign policy would have been like if we only acted based on morality. The question at hand is what US foreign policy would be like if we NEVER act based on morality. Take for example the Spanish - American War. The Cuban revolution began in 1895, and although American expansionists have been wanting to war Spain for territorial gains for decades, it wasn't until 1898 that we entered. In between, long before the sinking of the Maine, was a furious propaganda war where Cuban nationals advertised the atrocities being committed against their people by the totalitarian Spanish backed regime. American territorial ambitions were NOT ENOUGH ALONE to bring the USS Maine to Cuba. If American policy was dictated by ONLY self interest, we would have warred with Spain in 1895, if not earlier. The fact that there were 3 intervening years is evidence that the Moral Considerations ARE a factor in American Decision making.
The Unites States is not concerned with MORALITY when operating its foreign policy and entering war

This debate is essentialy on whether or not the United States promotes good in the world through its military interactions with other nations. I am mainly thinking in modern times but its open ended. Because its impossible to know the true intentions of why the US does what it does, i ask the voters to consider both arguments withought prejudice and pick the one that is most supported by evidence, logic, and reasoning. MORAL OBLIGATION is ALWAYS cited by pro-war interests in the United States when decribing the neccessity of a given military aggression. War is carried out under the banner of LIBERATION regardless of the circumstances (or will) surrounding those that are allegedly being "liberated". The US claims to be the chief exporter of DEMOCRACY, which it toats as the primary way to societal justice and prosperity. Throughout the world America has claimed that democratic government is the answer to all ailments and has vowed to encourage democracy, while simultanously destablizing democratic regimes and funnelling influence to dictators in the very areas in which it claims to support democratic change. In reality, the Unites States is only concerned with promoting democracy when politically convient and has shown no substantive effort to create a more democratic world (a world where individuals have rights). It has in fact prevented a more democratic world from existing by systamtically exploitting conflict to create a better market for its interets, whether that means supporting genocide or assasinating a democratically ellected presedient. If the United States where in the business of uniformly spreading democracy and human rights, our foreign policy would look very different than it does. This claim is ONLY used as a devise....a justification...and has no correllation with reality or the constuct or american policy realting to foreign states.
America is not a Christian nation

Contrary to popular mythology, our founding fathers were not Christians: they were deists. Take for example Thomas Paine: before Thomas Paine, most Americans were royalists, but in 1776 he published a pamphlet entitled 'Common Sense 'which changed public opinion and led to the American Revolution. For this reason, Thomas Paine is considered by most historians to be more responsible for the American Revolution than anyone else. Thomas Paine makes his religious beliefs very clear in his book 'The Age of Reason,' in which he systematically refutes Christianity and attacks organized religion in general. Here is what he had to say about the bible:"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel. We scarcely meet with anything, a few phrases excepted, but what deserves either our abhorrence or our contempt, till we come to the miscellaneous parts of the Bible." - Age of Reason, Part 1 Section 4George Washington, Thomasa Jefferson, and John Adams were all deists as well.
America is not a Christian nation

More or less, yes that is exactly what I am saying, I wish you had elaborated more on your point about Roman and Greek Republics being the basis of the Constitution but I'll just have to make assumptions as to what you mean't. Assumption 1: The Roman Republics ran in a democracy as does the American Political system, a lot of political systems run this way it does not mean they were founded on them, the idea I am putting across isn't how they work but the core values and beliefs laid out by them, what is seen as legally all right and what is not, the laws in Ancient Greece and Rome are so far different from that of early America so you can't be basing this statement solely on the legal side. So I am unsure if this is what you mean't. Assumption 2: You're saying that the Romans and Greek ideologies were a major factor in that of the American Constitution, if this is the case you seem to be forgetting Rome played a large part in forming what we see as Christianity today. Assumption 3: You are saying that perhaps we can trace roots back to the Roman and Greek times that correlate with modern America, in this case we could say all constitutions were taken from values found in Africa were all humans evolved from? I don't really understand your argument and really wish you had elaborated as I stated above, It seems like you didn't really want a logical debate but instead wanted to push your idea's and weren't willing to take anything else into consideration.
America is not a Christian nation

My argument is nothing of the sort, I don't claim they are Christians, I claim their belief systems and social understandings are from a Christian background, an ideology they were brought up on which was integrated into their subconscious understanding of morals and the world, making there core belief system and in turn the laws and regulations they passed based on a Christian belief system. The same way most Eastern cultures laws and traditions are based on some for of Zen belief system whether they are Buddhist or not, and they same way Arabic countries have laws surrounding Koran culture even though not all all makers believed in the Koran. My argument is quite simply whether you associate yourself as a Christian or not, if you were brought up in a Christian society your morality system and the systems you put in place are largely influenced by the religion.
America is not a Christian nation

The United States of America was formed after severing allegiance to the monarchy of Great Britain, after which time several documents and laws were passed that would later shape the culture and structure of what we see as the USA today (such as the Bill of Rights, Deceleration of Independence, so on and so forth.) These are what The United States was built/founded on, these were and are the moral stand points, because all laws are is quite simply the moral opinions of society's leaders and/or people depending on the political make up of the country put onto a document, in the case of the USA, being a democracy I would say it is a mixture of both the peoples and leaders beliefs systems. Now we have to look at where these Moral compasses come from, for someone's moral compass that helps them determine what is "right and wrong" is solely based on the society they are in and the society they were brought up in, for example in the western world it is seen as morally wrong to beat a woman for showing her face, but in the middle east this doesn't register as an immoral act, not because one society is any more or less right than the other but because good and bad is simply a relative thing. Almost all of the original "American citizens" were either British or French, both of which are countries that have Christianity as the leading religion and doctrine in their society, all of the founding fathers of America were raised Christian whether or not they grew out of that, there beliefs and the beliefs of America's people stem from the belief system and moral stand point of a Christian society. There is nobody impartial, one can only judge by the moral standards given to them from the culture they were brought up in, knowing this we can say that the United States whether by the active choice of its founding fathers and its citizens or not, was founded on Christianity and follow in their laws and regulations quite parallel to the laws a regulations passed down from the Christian god to Jesus (if you believe that sort of thing). By conscious decision or not The United States was founded on Christianity and its belief systems.
DC Comics: At their prime, Batman is a better vigilante than Green Arrow.

First of all, I'd like to say that my opponent has conceded that my entire case is true which means that my arguments stand. However, this time is cross-examination so I will cross-examine my opponent. Cross-Examination 1 - What did I define vigilante as in the 2nd round? Follow-Up - Is writing a book about jobs "advocating or taking the law in one's own hands? " Follow-Up - Did I define a vigilante as someone who is "effective in the down and dirty duty of fighting crime on the streets? "Follow-Up - Is "changing public policy, governing a city, or building playgrounds, etc" as the mayor any part of "advocating or taking the law in one's own hands? "Follow-Up - Is "making war against crime" as a mayor "advocating or taking the law in one's own hands? "2 - How does being married help you take the law in your own hands? Follow-Up - Are you saying that Green Arrow has a more powerful will than Batman because Green Arrow has a spouse? Follow-Up - Are you saying that being married gives Gren Arrow more incentive to do what he does? Follow-Up - How does having someone to support you make you a better vigilante? Follow-Up - Is there anything wrong with being distrustful of others? Follow-Up - Doesn't being distrustful of others make Batman a better vigilante because it allows him to be careful of taking the law in his own hands?3 - How does cleaning up make Green Arrow the superior vigilante? Follow-Up - How does Green Arrow cleaning up make him fight crime and supervillians on more leves than Batman does? Follow-Up - How does any of this relate to being the vigilante?4 - Are you saying that Green Arrow's talent with one area makes him incredible? Follow-Up - Is it just that because he has great versatility in one area that it makes him a superior vigilante? Follow-Up - If this is so, then doesn't Batman's versatility in detective work, analyation, observation, etc. make him the superior vigilante?5 - How does Conner Hawke's ability in martial arts make him the superior vigilante?6 - How did I put a huge focus on the sourcing in this debate? Follow-Up - I asked for more sources because you only gave two sources, so is asking for a few more sources naively putting a huge foucus on the sourcing in the debate? Follow-Up - We're not getting any details of what happened, we're bringing up individual events that can prove his talent so how is it that it can be contradicted? Follow-Up - How did your two non-comic sources have more weight compared than my eleven comic and non-comic sources?
DC Comics: At their prime, Batman is a better vigilante than Green Arrow.

I would also like to say the rock solid word of any DC sources of any kind is not that rock solid can only be taken to mean so much on this debate and I will argue to the last round if necessary why much of it can and should be thrown out of consideration by the voters or at the very least the comic source does not get the final word. But I will of course treat them all as important sources to define our competing heroes of-course good luck to my opponent as await your opening round
DC Comics: At their prime, Batman is a better vigilante than Green Arrow.

Rules: 1. No trolling at all. Any trolling by a debater will cause the opponent to gain the conduct point. 2. No usage of semantics. Any usage of semantics will cause the opponent to gain the conduct point. 3. Must follow the debate order. Any failure to follow the debate order will result in the loss of the entire debate. You can use any DC Comics source including television shows, movies, books, comics, etc. The 1st round is only acceptance without any definitions or that kind. The 2nd round will be opening arguments with no rebuttals. The 3rd round will be for new arguments and rebuttals. The 4th round will be for cross-examination only. The 5th round will be for rebuttals for the entire debate and the conclusion. I hope someone accepts this comics debate.
Best Pun

Same rules as this:http://www.debate.org... So that Pirate made me walk off the plank and I asked, "Can't I have one last mug of root beer?", and he said "That would be fine", so then I took the mug and jumped! And you know, I would've drowned if it hadn't been for one thing: Root Beer Floats! [1] The marvelous misadventures of Flapjack S1E10
Steve Vs Mario Fight

A rebuttal:1) Steve's lifting capabilities.Mario can actually lift more than Steve. How? I'll explain.In Super Mario World, if you beat the 7th Castle (Larry's castle), you will see a cutscene of Mario lifting and kicking the entire castle off screen.https://youtu.be...One must then ask, "how heavy is this castle?" I don't want to bog you down with unessesary math (if you want to see it, check it out here: http://www.ign.com...), so I'll give you the answer: 203,501,923,216 pounds, or 101,750,961.6 tons. Comparing this to Steve's lifting power (392,832 tons), it's clear that Mario can not only lift just as well as Steve, he can actually lift 101,358,130 more tons than that of Steve! 2) Steve has things other swords and bows. You mention potions. Is there one to counter ice? Is there one to counter explosives? Is there one to counter... well, you know what I'm getting at. Steve's potions cannot counter everything, they can only counter about one or two of his abilities. 3) Steve cannot fly but he can glide with an Elytra.He can only glide if he has the high ground, and, as you yourself pointed out, this is supposed to be a "fairsih fight." It certainly wouldn't be fair to have someone get the high ground over the other, right?4) One tactic he could use would be lava, Mario is not immune to lava even with the star power. One tactic Mario could use would be to jump over the lava, Mario can jump even without the star power. The point is lava moves incredibly slowly (1/30 m per tick, 20 ticks in a second, so ratio of movement would be 1 meter/1.5 seconds). To conclude, Mario has more raw power to run, jump, and carry, as demonstrated in both of my rounds. He also has more firepower, something that Pro admits to. "Overall it seems Mario has the upper hand for items and powers..." I have also disproven his attemps to make Steve seem like a powerhouse by highlighting Mario's power. And now, a freestyle.Yo it's me again, boy, I'm back from the deadLooks like you still be wearin' makeup on that headI mean look at you, you just look so damn cheapYour stupid shirt makes you look like you forgot how to eatBut if you step up to me, then you best be running'Cause I'll be tearin' it up, yeah, I look so stuningMy graphics got a boost since I first came outBut your game still looks like a destroyed JPEG readoutSo take it from me, I suggest that you forfietOr I'll pop a cap up your a$$, bag it, and then store it!
Steve Vs Mario Fight

Okay Steve may not be able to break bricks as fast as Mario but Steve can break just about anything with his fist without hurting himself. Obsidian,Wood,Rock,Solid Iron....etc. But Steve can lift a lot. Gold has the highest density out of the blocks in Minecraft with a density of 19.32 grams per cubic centimeter. Well a gold block in Minecraft is exactly a cubic meter. There are 1000 cubic centimeters in one cubic meter. So 19.32*1000 is 19320 kilograms. A gold block is not the heaviest item though. That ribbon goes to the Notch Apple. I like to call it a god Apple. It gives regen, resistance, fire immunity, uhh... I'll look up the other things later. Anyway back to the point. A God Apple takes 8 blocks of solid gold to make. And if you wanna add 2 extra pounds add the Apple. 19320*8 is 154560 kilograms or 170.5 tons. That's over the weight of a blue whale. That's just one God Apple though. The maximum items you can carry in Minecraft is 2304 items. This is due to the fact a stack is 64 items. There are 36 inventory slots so 64*36 is 2304. 2304*170.5 is 392832 tons. We can add slightly more weight to this due to golden armor. A full set of golden armor takes 2.7 gold blocks. A extra 43 tons. The grand total Steve can lift is 392832 tons. Now I don't about you but to me Mario can't lift this much. Steve has other things other swords and bows. He has potions. A lot of kinds. Mario shoots fire He drinks a fire resistance potion. He also has enchanting. I don't think Mario is immune to fire. Steve cannot fly but he can glide with an Elytra. One tactic he could use would be lava, Mario is not immune to lava even with the star power. Steve could just use a God Apple or a fire resistance potion. Overall it seems Mario has the upper hand for items and powers but Steve has more counter attacks and advantages. Yo its Steve I like cocoa beans I also wear jeans You are fat Eating spaghetti all day long Wow listen to this groovy song Your just jealous I rule all the gaming platforms I take you like a swarm My epic rap (lol that was horrible)
Steve Vs Mario Fight

I'll rebut arguments by Pro.1) One reason Steve would win is because he is super strong and can lift a great deal of weight while still running and jumping.Why is Steve "super strong?" It takes him ages to break a stone block, while Mario jumps and breaks bricks without breaking a sweat or even taking damage. In other words, Steve is powerless without his tools, while Mario doesn't need anything other than to jump and run to clear any of his stages.Second, to the point of Steve's dexterity. Mario is the same. He can carry coins, mushrooms the size of him, gigantic flowers, and still run and jump with ease. They are equal on this level.2) He also has swords and bows.Mario can shoot ice and fire out of his hands with the respecting flowers, can ride the wind with his propeller power-up, can pass through walls with a Boo mushroom, can fly using a Bee mushroom, and countless other power-ups (1). Steve's incredibly limited array of weapons (bows, swords, and axes) shrivels in comparison to the vastly superior firepower that Mario has at his disposal. In conclusion, Steve is no where near an equal to the raw combat abilities that Mario has. For this reason, Steve would get his a$$ kicked if he ever stepped up to Mario. And to wrap things up, a brief freestyle.Yo, it's a me, Mario, and you're in the wrong part of townYour same boring old skin is gonna get taken 3 sizes downYour games don't scare me, they're child's playMy game still makes adults go insaneJust look up dashiegames in your youtube browserHe's not playin' Minecraft, he tryin' to beat bowserJust take it from me, your games get old quickSo back off, bro, or Yoshi'll make you his bi*ch!Sources:(1) http://www.mariowiki.com...
Steve Vs Mario Fight

Steve would beat Mario in a fight, Rules: but first I would like to say we are not including hacks, mods, etc. This debate will be done with vanilla Minecraft and Mario. Also you can use the latest version of Mario. (Not Including Mario Cart). Lastly you can only use Mario's power ups NOT YOSHIE!!! Or any other allies. Refrain from spamming super star. Fairish fight. One reason Steve would win is because he is super strong and can lift a great deal of weight while still running and jumping. He also has swords and bows.