BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to U.S national security than Iran

Answers to my opponent's questions: 1. No, that is not what I'm saying. Your analogy does not apply to the North Korea-Iran situation. 2. By your logic Israel is more of a threat to the US than either Iran or North Korea, because it is stronger than both of them. 3. No, Iran does not pose a larger economic threat. 4. What can be more specific than "[the Taepodong 2] could well be North Korea's first genuine intercontinental ballistic missile"? 5. If they don't right now, they can always make one. 6. By your logic, since the Soviet Union and the US never directly attacked each other, there existed no possibility of one side using nuclear weapons for retaliation. 7. South Korea would declare war on North Korea. The US and possibly NATO would supply at least weapons to South Korea. China and Russia would supply at least weapons to North Korea. This sets up the possibility of another world war, or at least a nuclear war. 8. No, just because North Korea flood rescue money from the US and South Korea doesn't mean that North Korea heavily relies on the US and South Korea for its economy. 9. That's why we don't see a policeman as a threat to our safety. 10. Possibly, but in any case not by much. 11. Israel can handle Iran and Hezbollah by itself. South Korea can't handle a nuclear North Korea by itself and the US would be forced to take action. 12. More dangerous terrorist groups such as what (this is one of my questions)? 13. North Korea is a threat in the very near future. 14. Of course if someone can't come after you, he/she is not a threat. I'm saying that to be a threat one has to at the very least have aggressive intentions. 15. I never said the US would attack North Korea. I said the US would militarily intervene in favor of South Korea (defending South Korea with troops also counts as military intervention). A US attack on North Korea would only hasten the arrival of nuclear war. Questions for my opponent: 1. answer #12 2. Who has carried out more attacks on US allies: North Korea or Iran? Therefore, who is more aggressive? 3. Which is more dangerous to the US: a country with missiles that can hit the US, or a country with missiles that can hit US allies but not the US? 4. Does mutually assured destruction increase or decrease the degree that a certain nation is a threat? 5. How is North Korea dependant on the US and South Korea in any way? 6. You conceded in your second speech that North Korea has more desire to attack. What other incentive is needed? Also, since North Korea already has ICBM's and will be able to install nuclear warheads on them in 5-10 years, how does North Korea not have the capacity to attack? 7. What makes Iran capable of attacking the US? Its missiles can't reach the US, and its terrorist groups don't care to attack the US.
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to U.S national security than Iran

1. The man with the gun and carrot was an analogy, but for you, I'll be a little more specific. So are you saying the man with the gun who wants to kill your ally is less of a threat than an old man with a carrot who really wants to kill your ally? PLEASE just answer the question, don't bring up another analogy 2. You say that military strength doesn't equate to military threat, please explain how this makes any sense. 3. I asked you if Iran poses a larger economic threat, not what the alternative route to the Strait of Hormuz is. Can you answer the question again? 4. For you BBC news quote, it doesn't specifically say that North Korea HAS an operational long ranged ICBM. Can you please give me the quote that says so? 5. Does North Korea have a fully functional nuclear missile that can reach the U.S or South Korea? 6. You stated in your 2nd constructive speech, " neither side would directly attack the other," and " The US and North Korea would not attack each other." If they're never going to attack each other, how can a country retaliate? 7. I want your honest opinion, what do you think would happen if North Korea attacked South Korea with a nuclear missile? 8. Does North Korea heavily rely on concessions from the U.S and South Korea to help support its economy? 9. You bring up the policeman analogy but you stated yourself, in order for something to be a threat it has to have both the means and animosity to attack. So how does this analogy make any sense? The policeman has the means in this case but not the animosity , does he not? 10. Is Iran more militarily powerful than North Korea? 11. You talk about how since the Hezbollah only targets Israel, a U.S ally, Iran is therefore not a threat. But, North Korea only targets South, so going by your logic, isn't North Korea not a threat? 12. Are you aware Iran supports more dangerous terrorist organizations than just the Hezbollah? 13. You stated in your 2nd constructive speech, " my opponent is basing his case on threats to US allies that are on their way to being dealt with, while I base my case on future threats on the US and US allies that could compound and cripple the US." Just to clarify, North Korea is a threat in the future, right? 14. You also said, " aggression is the foundation of threat," and ," Without aggression, one is harmless, no matter what weapon one is carrying." Ok, so would an handicapped, old, poor, dieing, handcuffed old man with a piece of hair in his hand, who really wanted to kill you be a threat to you? Because going by your logic, it would make perfect sense. 15. You said, " but North Korea will attack the US in retaliation if we militarily intervene in favor of South Korea." You are explicitly stating that the U.S will be the first one to invade North Korea. I have two questions for you. What incentive does the U.S have to intervene in North Korea? And even if the U.S did invade North Korea, how do you think we would attack? Would we make a couple thousand charge through the DMZ?
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to U.S national security than Iran

Questions: For you BBC news quote, can you please give me a specific link to the article that says North Korea will have long ranged ballistic missiles in 5 to 10 years? As for your first contention, what incentive does North Korea have to attack other countries? Isn't it true if North Korea will never actually use their nuclear weapons because of mutually assured destruction? And if North Korea has both the means and animosity to attack the U.S, why haven't they done so? Also, isn't it true that according to globalsecurity.org, Iran is two years from acquiring nuclear weapons and because of their geographic location, have the capacity to harm more nations than North Korea? For your second contention, again, why would North Korea want to attack South Korea? What is there for North Korea to gain? If you look to your second contention, you talk about how North Korea and Iran's military power is equal however, isn't it true that according to Globalfirepower.com, Iran is ranked as a higher military threat than North Korea? What impact is there to more aggression? If an old man with a carrot really wanted to kill you, but another man with a gun wanted to kill you, wouldn't you agree the man with the gun is the bigger threat? For your third contention, isn't it true North Korea isn't unique in having biological weapons? Doesn't Iran also have biochemical weapons? Furthermore, how would North Korea use/transport the weaponized agent? Also, if North Korea has all these biological weapons, how come they haven't used it yet? Would you agree that Iran overall supports terrorism more than North Korea? Wouldn't you also agree that Iran poses a greater economic threat due to their control over the Strait of Hormuz? http://www.globalfirepower.com... http://www.globalsecurity.org...
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to U.S national security than Iran

Contentions: 1. North Korea will have longer-ranged ballistic missiles than Iran 2. North Korea is more aggressive than Iran 3. North Korea has more types of WMD's than Iran Contention 1: North Korea will have longer-ranged ballistic missiles than Iran BBC News quotes that "North Korea will have nuclear ICBM's (missiles that can reach the other side of the world) in 5-10 years" while FARS News Agency states that Iran only has "short and mid-range missiles". Iran poses a threat only to countries that are in the same region such as Israel, but not countries far away from it such as the US. North Korea, on the other hand, will be able to strike the other side of the world with nuclear warheads in 5 years, making it a threat to the US and all other nations. North Korea has the means and the animosity to attack the US; Iran only has the animosity. This makes North Korea a much greater threat than Iran. Contention 2: North Korea is more aggressive than Iran The recent North Korean Yeonpeong Attack on an island that is disputed between North and South Korea proves that North Korea is much more aggressive than Iran. Iran and Israel have not attacked each other and are starting to have diplomatic talks [1]. North and South Korea, on the other hand, have stopped diplomatic talks and have bombarded disputed territory, killing each others' civilians. Common sense dictates that the more aggressive country is more of a threat, especially under circumstances where military power is about equal. The more aggressive country is more likely to attack other nations, especially those that hinder its aims. Thus North Korea is more likely to attack the US because it's more aggressive and the US hinders its efforts to reunite Korea. The souring relations between North and South Korea also makes a North-South war more likely, forcing US involvement. Contention 3: North Korea has more types of WMD's than Iran In addition to nuclear warheads, North Korea also has a bio weapons program that although rudimentary by Western standards, is capable of producing weaponized anthrax, cholera, and plague. With ICBM's to launch the biological warheads, North Korea can infect an entire region of the United States or any other nation with a dangerous pathogen. Iran, on the other hand, has publicly denounced the use of biological and chemical weapons [4]. Remember that when estimating a nation's potential as a threat, one must factor in not only the amount of weapons that a nation has, but also the types of weapons. Some weapons are more destructive than others. Biological weapons threaten not only the nation being attacked, but also bordering nations, and depending on how far the disease spreads, nations in other regions as well. North Korea's possession of biological weapons makes it not only a threat to the US, but also to US allies and the rest of the world. Sources: [1] www.huffingtonpost.com/.../iran-and-israel-hold-secr_ws_329720.html [2] www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/bw/index.html [3] planet debate [4] http://www.armscontrol.org...
Enough is Enough!

Accepted for fun. Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note,
Enough is Enough!

If someone doesn't get rid of these trolls and spammers.... @AIRMAX and @BSH7000 GET RID OF IT PLEEEAASEEEE It's so annoying when you get on and think there are 75 debates waiting to be challenged but then find out 95% of them are just spams trying to get you to watch a free movie... ...which by the way is soooooooo fake! What kind of idiot would see that on DDO and think "Wow, free movie? Sure, why don't I just click this sketchy link and hope I don't get a computer virus!" Or even better: "Wow Baba whats-his-name will cure my infertility and find me my true love? I better call this dodgy a** number and hope it's not a scam!" My goodness, anyone else about to explode? Also, if someone actually accepts this rant just know you only have 5 minutes to answer. I'd think through it if I were you.
Professional Wrestling is more dangerous than MMA or boxing.

Have you ever read the medical reports of wrestlers. Let me put it like this, 95% of the injuries that they wrestle with on a weekly basis would put you and me out of a job. I'm not saying how much it hurts people as compared to injuries. I kind of feel like you weren't listening to my last argument. Yes, they do practice (they often times wrestle 3 to 4 shows a week) and yes, they do agree to get hurt. But injuries are different. A broken nose, broken jaw, or busted lip or busted eyebrow (injuries commonly faced by MMA fighters and boxers) won't send you to the emergency room immediately. But broken ribs, concussions, herniated discs, and even internal bleeding (injuries commonly faced by pro wrestlers) could cause irreversible damage.
Professional Wrestling is more dangerous than MMA or boxing.

Opponent, I do not think you are getting my point. How much you get injured does not tell anyone that it is a hard sport. In baseball, there was a tragic accident where two players sprinted into each other in a head-on-head collision. They were both sent to the hospital. This proves nothing that baseball is a hard sport. And besides. The pro wrestlers PRACTICE and AGREE to get hurt during a match. ITS FOR PUBLICITY. Once again, how they get injured means nothing about the difficulty of the sport.
Professional Wrestling is more dangerous than MMA or boxing.

Thanks for the luck. Sure wrestling is a fake sport, but people get hurt all the time, and sometimes the damage is irreversible. Owen Neidhart paralyzed 2 people with his piledriver before being killed himself. Rey Mysterio Jr. had surgery on his leg on multiple ocassions. And during a barbed wire match while still wrestling for the original ECW, Terry Funk nearly lost his life, while his opponent Sabu, had a gash on his bicep so threatening to his immediate health that he actually had to get his manager Paul Heyman to get him tape for a makeshift wrapping. And although MMA and boxing might be real, they do not take even a fraction of the risks that in a year that a professional wrestler takes in 1 night. Good luck in round 2, Schwetzky.
Professional Wrestling is more dangerous than MMA or boxing.

Thank you for making this debate and I would like to start out with refuting my opponents points. First, my opponent said wrestling is perceived as a fake sport. Well, face it. It IS a fake sport. Pro wrestlers are not wrestlers at all. They are actors. Are they buff? yes. Do they practice? Yes, they practice how the fight will play out. Even the title of pro wrestling proves it is acting: WWE= World Wrestling Entertainment. My opponents point of wrestlers get injured more proves nothing of the difficulty of the sport. It just proves that they are really good actors.(and willing to get hurt.) MMA and boxing are real, legit sports that require being in shape and practicing the actual sport. I have no more area to type, good luck,Opponent:)
Professional Wrestling is more dangerous than MMA or boxing.

Although pro wrestling is often perceived as being a "fake sport" it has become known that wrestlers constantly wrestle with injuries that would put most boxers & MMA fighters out of the job. Look at Mick Foley, for instance. On his book "Have a Nice Day," he points out that he had 8 concussions, 2/3 of his ear ripped off, broken ribs, over 400 stitches, and many more injuries, and he still wrestles. Now, look at a professional boxer or MMA fighter. On occassion, the worst injury they face is a broken nose or jaw, rarely a broken bone or concussion. And while a boxer or MMA fighter might only fight a couple times a month, a wrestler does several shows a week. That's all I have to say in round 1.
Should Human Cloning be Banned

Hey! Thanks for debating with me, Wizardzav! (Sorry for the very, Very late post! ) First, Lets look at what cloning really is. The definition of cloning is: "replicate (a fragment of DNA placed in an organism) so that there is enough to analyze or use in protein production. " Now this seems all good at first look. We have cloned animals, Why can't we clone humans? Well, That comes down to some moral and ethics issues, But I will get to that later. So lets take a look at cloning in recent history. Dolly the sheep was the very first mammal to ever be cloned using a process called nuclear transfer. Amazing! But then you see that it took 277 unsuccessful embryos to clone the sheep. It was finally successful in 1996. It has been 22 years since this, And technology has definitely advanced. But, That does not mean things can still go wrong. More times than not, Clones die from organ failure and suffer during their lifetime. This could be similar with human clones, And that would just be straight up cruel to the "human. " Along with suffering, The clones would have to grow up like a normal human, And many of them would never reach adulthood. If-and this is a big if-the clones make it to adulthood, They would have to live with the fact that they are a clone, Not real, And their soul purpose is to entertain the real humans brains. That could lead to severe depression, Along with the suffering they have already endured.
Less Gun control

I understand what you are saying, but you missed my point. Like I said, I don't blame the citizens for having guns, I blame the government. However, let me ask you this, what future do you see for America? Do you believe that by defending yourself, all the "bad guys" are going to be killed with the guns of all the 'good guys'?The point that I was trying to make is that the cycle needs to be broken. Yes, I am with you, that those criminals would still fimd some illegal way to weaponise. Plus the issue here is gun "Control", I am not for the complete abolition of guns. But if you like at the facts in 'the guardian', the US has the highest gun rate ownership in the world. It is stated that the US is home to roughly 35-50% of the world civilian-owned guns. An average of 88 per 100 people. Enough to weaponised all of Nato's armed forces over 5 times. Is this a society that what you want? Let's say it is alright for people to own A gun. Man, be honest to yourself, civilians are becoming collectors now, not owners. Out of this rate, over 50% admit to owning more than one gun, and 5% of these say they have created a haven for weapons at the home with 30-40 pieces. Its become a necessary household item, just like food. It is amazing how so many civilians are armed, and when one of them commits a crime, he becomes a criminal straight away. They forget that this criminal was a civilian just like all those other baffoons calling for loosening gun control. What is to say that none of them will have a brain snap?Now think about it for a second. If the majority of civilians did not own weapons, law enforcement can act to differentiate between civilians and criminals. We hear everyday that somebody has had some sort of 'mental impairment' and gone on a killing spree. Let's take the guns away, so those people may or may not become mentally impaired won't start killing people. As you said, trust in the law enforcement is critical, and you are right that this is lacking in America. I am not arguing that gun control should just be acted upon tomorrow and then stripping everyone of guns. I am saying that the future and prosperity of America and the maintenance of human existence depends on a process whereby gun control is easily tightened and to minimise the impact of criminal and 'mentally impaired' idiots which will eventually allow civilians to build rapports with law enforcement. Somebody must bite the ice and take the first step, and it seems that civilians need to do this. Or, this will remain a society whereby people are known for constantly looking over their shoulder.......
Less Gun control

Ok. FYI, that man I live by that you seem to know all about had a hunting rifle. Plus his record was clean so what law of yours wouldn't prevent a law abiding man from getting a hunting rifle. And that six year old had no intention of killing his friend and I'm sure he is scarred for life because of it. But yes that was lack of parental responsibility. And about your whole "70% of guns from third world countries", in Mexico, it is illegal to have a gun. So tell me, how are the police doing there? How good of a job are they preventing murders? And an individual like yourself might blame it on the drug war, but the truth is, people can't protect themselves. They can't defend themselves and families from the people with guns. And if 70% come from there, then do you think that if guns were outlawed or not available for purchase that it would really stop the criminals from getting them. Then you would go all BP on us and say "Whoops. Sorry." Well then welcome to Mexico amigo, because that's what it would be like. And why would you need to defend yourself from "racism"? You need to get your evidence correct and fast. And I'm sure everyone wants your vision of peace. I mean who doesn't? But what about the people that have no intention of that and have the outlawed guns. I too understand your point but I'm saying that it won't work like that. They could never get all the guns from the good citizens of this country, and especially the bad ones.
Less Gun control

First of all, the man that lives 2 blocks away from you would most probably not have a gun if there were tighter gun controls, and therefore not going off on a 'massacre'. Secondly, what do you classify as being criminal and disabled? In seems every person that commits any form of shooting in America is a criminal and is at the very least mentally disabled. The fact is that in America there is a lack of faith in Law enforcement and their capacbilities, but by all means gives no right for every tom, dick and Harry to have an assault rifle and shotgun. Plus, if every that is committing these so called massacres is either a criminal or is disabled, how do you explain the 6 year old that shot his four year old friend a couple of weeks ago? If it was a one-off incident, yes you could blame a 'lack of parental responsibilty'. I believe the American government, through its foreign wars, has created such a police state whereby fear is on the back of every citizens mind. However, this blame must also be shared with such a lenient gun policy. You would think that Weapons would be smuggled from a third world country like Mexico into a well-developed country like America. However, it is estimated by W.O.L.A. that over the past 3 years, 70% of the weapons seized are smuggled from America. Why is it that you need a gun to defend yourself? For e.g.: You wouldn't need a gun if someone was being rascist and you needed a gun to protect yourself from rascism. The only reason anyone would need a gun under the facade of protection is because someone else has a gun. Why does that other person have a gun? Because another person has a gun? And why does the latter person have a gun, because another has a gun............. The cycle needs to be broken. Citizens need to take the first step to greater and wider peace by putting greater faith in tighter gun laws and law enforcement. I udnerstand what your coming from regarding self-defence, but you must understand that if everybody had that reason, every single citizen would be armed in defence of the next armed person. If most of these people did not fear the next person with a gun, they wouldn't have a gun, and this is where the government must step in.