BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Iran is not a threat to world security

>Finally, I agree that Iran is currently in a defensive military posture, though I do not think that matters terribly much. Iran's posture is defensive; Israel, too, is in a defensive posture vis-a-vis Iran, but both parties are wary of the other striking out. History is full of wars between nations that each party considered defensive. That said, Iran's own military is only part of the story. One must also consider its proxy support of organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which are more actively aggressive. The West is rightly wary of Iran's intentions based on this support. I would agree that Israel is largely defensive, however the amount of aggression that Israel shows to its neighbors is staggering. both Hezbollah, and Hamas were elected due to Israeli aggression. One could also say the same for the United States support for dictators around the world. Israel also receives weapons from the west, which according to multiple human rights organizations is used for ethnic cleansing in the region. Iran, with a much stronger case, is weary of the west (read: U.S.A.) due to its support of Israel, and long train of coups d'etat around the world. >My opponent has provided no rebuttal to the fact that Iran has continued overt nuclear refinement operations, has strategically placed these operations in locations protected from military strikes, and has ramped its operations up to a level that could be weaponized in very short order. So Iran has the means to obtain nuclear weapons, relatively quickly. upon deciding to do so As a country under the constant threat of preemptive it makes sense to place critical weapons producing facilities out of reach of strikes, as to ensure you have the capability to counter the attack. Any sane country would do this, I have not robbed a bank just because I place my money in a safe. I just want to make sure my money is safe. Iran may decide, like Japan, to acquire the technical know how to build the bomb, but not actually build it as to avoid the nuclear arms race in the middle east. Also, Relatively quickly may be under estimating the time it would take to build a weapon. It may take one year for an extremely simple weapon, and two to three years for a more complex weapon, assuming everything goes correctly. [1] This would give the U.S.A/Israel plenty of time to neutralize threat. The constant perception that Iran is constantly under threat from world powers is driving them to obtain a nuclear weapon. If sanctions were lifted, and NATO forces removed from the borders of Iran, the perceived threat would disappear. Israel would also have to show that it is willing to stop the aggression they are committing in the Middle East. Israel has three times in the past (1967, 1973, 1991) almost started a nuclear war due to perceived threats. [2] As long as this remains in the Middle East, Iran will be driven to pursue nuclear weapons to deter any aggression against them. [1] http://issuu.com... [2] http://www.au.af.mil...
Iran is not a threat to world security

So it seems that we both agree that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon at the present time. Also, there was no rebuttal put forward that would counter that any attempt by Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon would be for deterrence by the West, or Israel.[1] The point of the "history lesson" was to show that Iran would have every incentive to pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent against western aggression. The threat of preemptive strike, and western aggression in the region has been a major reason Iran has pursued nuclear weapons. Starting with Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons against Iranians, with intelligence provided by the U.S. to maximize its effectiveness. [2] President Bush also famously declared that Iran, along with North Korea and Iraq were part of an "axis of evil", and has threatened Iran multiple times with regime change, and preemptive strikes against its facilities. This has done nothing but incentivize gaining nuclear capabilities as a deterrent against these threats. I agree that having nuclear arms race in the Middle East would be disastrous, which is why Rouhani has called for a nuclear free Middle East, and has urged Israel to sign the non-proliferation treaty. [3] Israel has also demonstrated in the past that it would threaten other countries with nuclear strikes, and lash out to all countries with nuclear weapons called the "Samson Option". [4] With that, I think we can both agree that as long as nuclear weapons remain, the threat of their use will remain, and total disarmament should be a goal for all countries. However the threats of collapse, and strife are not exclusive to Iran. Iran spends very little on its military when compared to other countries in the region. [5] Iran's military posture is defensive, which means the possibility of Iran using nuclear weapons offensively is extremely tiny. [1] [1] http://freebeacon.com... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [3] http://rt.com... [4] http://www.au.af.mil... [5] http://iranprimer.usip.org...
Lakers vs Clippers or Heat. Pro Lakers.

Thank you for the debate topic, greatly appreciate sports talk every now and then!Point Guard.Steve Nash wins the PG battle over Mario Chalmers, but not by very many points, 4-6 at best. They are both known to perform well on the defensive front, be good 3pt shooters, and be excellent slashers. Let's say 5 point advantage for LA.Shooting GuardThis match-up is a wash. Dwayne Wade is stronger, quicker, and faster than Kobe Bryant at this point in their careers. That being said, Kobe is more deadly when it comes to shooting than Dwayne Wade (Long distance & mid-range). They both, however, play great defense. Any given night, one of these players can play better than the other one in a head to head showdown. I'll give you a very SLIGHT edge for Kobe, I like him a little more. Let's say 4 point advantage for LA. Small ForwardWe're talking about the best player of our generation, Lebron James, (Possible 2nd most talented of all-time) against Meta Worldpeace. An easy 20 or so point differential; to negate the scoring lead of Nash and Kobe's personal match-ups above. 20 point advantage for MIA.Power ForwardUdonis Haslem or Shane Battier vs Pau Gasol. Though he's been extremely soft lately, Pau gets the advantage here. 5-10 point advantage. Let's say 8 Point advantage for LA. CenterDwight Howard is the clear Best center in the NBA. No question about it. Great post defense, and very strong post presence. Chris bosh is, however, one of the top 15 players. And a pest on big men when he's on offense because of his ability to play the high post and mid-range particularly well. Bosh Averaged 18 ppg last year, to Howard's 20. Let's say 2 point LA advantage. Game over! Or not...So far we have a +1 for MIA. But we haven't even factored in the supporting cast for the MIA-LA match up. This is where LA is at it's most obvious disadvantage. It's not even close. MIA Bench players: Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis, James Jones, Udonis Haslem, Norris Cole, Mike Miller & Joel Anthony.vsLA Bench players: Antawn Jamison, Jodie Meeks, Steve Blakes, Devin Ebanks, & Jordan Hills. The MIA bench, to NBA fans, could easily make their own team and be middle of the road in either conference. The LA team couldn't at all, they'd struggle to win a single game. To those not so alert on NBA players: On one team we have the most successful 3 shooter of all times (Ray Allen), his co-star from their Supersonics team (Rashard Lewis), the guy who scored 18 points hurt against the Thunder (Best team in the west) in the NBA finals, some VERY good 3 point shooters (We're talking possible 3 point contest winner, good). On the other we have what is considered a traditional bench. Guys who most teams would have on their bench. Some ok, but not good or great basketball players solely there to give the stars a rest while contributing to the lead.In conclusionBoth teams have a Super starting line-up, but MIA has arguably the 2nd best player in the history of the game . And when comparing their bench players, it's not even close. We're talking embarrassment. http://espn.go.com...
Lakers vs Clippers or Heat. Pro Lakers.

Ok let's start with the starting 5. Nash-Chalmers Kobe-Wade MWP-Battier Pau-LeBron DH12-Bosh Nash wins the PG battle with Chalmers because he is more experienced than him. He also scores more and gets more assists. Kobe beats DWade because Kobe is a deadlier scorer and also gets more assists. It's a Legend vs an all star. Kobe wins. MWP and Battier are tied because they both score well for their team but Peace has a bit of an edge on defense. Pau and LeBron can go 2 different ways. It is versatility vs athleticism. But I have to admit that LeBron does win this PF round. Dwight certainly overpowers Bosh. He is a better scorer, rebounder, and defensive player. He has won 3 Defensive Player of the Year awards and is capable of shutting down Bosh. Alright Your Turn.
Battlefield Takes More Skill Than Halo

I disagree with the idea that its is hard to master vehicles in Halo. A new player in a scorpion can take out a team of SR-130s easily. The problem is that most vehicles are either one hit, one kill, or will kill a player in a matter of a few seconds. A shot from a scorpion can take out an entire team, or splatter from a ghost. In battlefield a tank round can't take out 5 people in one hit, in fact the machine gun is more powerful than the tank gun when fighting infantry. Also the method for destroying vehicles is harder in Battlefield. In Halo a single hit from a spartan laser will destroy any vehicle, the most powerful rocket launcher in Battlefield can take a jeep out at the most in one hit. In Halo vehicle boarding is cheap, because once the grenade is in the vehicle pilot is doomed, also the vehicle pilot is helpless during the boarding. The Battlefield equivalent of the is Recon and their C4. The things is that the vehicle driver or gunner can run over the sniper, or can shoot the Recon player while he is trying to blow the C4. All in all Battlefield is the harder game.
Battlefield Takes More Skill Than Halo

I never countered your argument against cheap weapons because there are. There are also very cheap combinations of weapons that people use. Like a plasma pistol and a gun with semi-automatic (DMR, lightrifle, carbine, or pistol. snipers are harder to use with this combo) or a three-round burst weapon (battle rifle and lightrifle). Very cheap.. but counterable. Usually mine is a suppressor and melee. or a sticky grenade. or just a grenade in general. I've had to play halo for many years in order to get this good at it. Battlefield doesn't take that long at all to get good at. I quickly was mastering a tank, a jeep, and most other vehicles. Yes, the vehicles are harder to use. But here is the kicker. Since they are so hard to use, most have a lot of room to get good in them. And that range of skill is huge. With halo, however, the vehicles are simple, and although they are very easy to learn, mastering them is very hard. Which matches everything in halo. Easy to learn, but hard to master. With Battlefield, however, is the opposite. Hard to learn, but easy to master.
Battlefield Takes More Skill Than Halo

Skills come in many different forms, all of halo's skill comes from fps, but Battlefield's skill comes from many things other than mastery of fps. To be an effective Battlefield player you can't just be a good infantry man, its like mastering how to walk in Halo, you have to know how to work with your team, spot your enemy from out of the back drop, learn to fight in vehicles, and how to use each class effectively A person can't snipe as an assault or rush in as a sniper. All you need to be good in Halo is to have good aim. Even though the people in Battlefield have less health than the Spartans in Halo, its harder to hit a solider in Battlefield than it is in Halo. The recoil on guns in Battlefield is crazy compared to that of Halo's. Usually Halo matches are dominated by the team that can outkill the enemy, but if one team in Battlefield has all the good player, the worse team can win if it can get the tank were it needs to, or the attack jet taking out enemy tanks. Also you didn't counter my point about cheap weapons in Halo.
Battlefield Takes More Skill Than Halo

I hear ya with the vehicles and that stuff. But I am not sure if you've fully mastered both. In halo, you must know how to go around those things. How to avoid them and actually rock the hell out of it. Battlefield is something that is actually easier to play when considering the shooter part. It is easier to get kills. And after playing halo for the longest time, i switched to battlefield and damn near instantly was pretty good at it. Although that isnt exactly fair because im just pretty damn good with shooters in general. And when considering game modes, you have to compare them via their similarities. Like i would have halo compared with a normal deathmatch round and a Big Team battle. It requires some strategy with battlefield because it is a massive effin map. Halo is much more confined, and that changes the gameplay style and strategy. The vehicles were never a key component in Halo. Just a small bonus. Most of halo is the fps. Once you master the fps, the game is yours. With battlefield, being a boss in the shooter portion was way to easy. Hell, after the first playthrough on Battlefield 3 i did it on its hardest mode, within the same two days. Halo was a different story. Halo 4 is friggin hard in the campaign. Much harder to get on its hardest difficulty. And the thing with a team can still win even if some of the other players suck? Same thing with halo, if you have good people.
Battlefield Takes More Skill Than Halo

Thanks for debating. What I mean for skill level is how hard is it to play as in mastering the gameplay, and how hard is it to beat other players in firefights.Like how Halo takes more skill than Call of Duty. Battlefield is the game that takes more skill. Mastering vehicle takes far more skill. For example a helicopter takes far more skill to pilot than it does in halo. The jets in battlefield are much harder to control than the Banshee in Halo. In Battlefield a person has to learn how to spot enemies out while they are trying to ambush you or trying to hid while you try ambushing. In Halo people can use cheap weapons like the Incineration Cannon and Binary Rifle, which are easy to kill with. In Battlefield a person doesn't get a triple kill from firing a rocket, a person who did that might kill one and then get killed by the other two while in Halo a rocket will take all of the players out. In Halo, players don't need to compensate for bullet drop while in Battlefield snipers do. Also the main Battlefield game mode, Conquest takes more skill to win than Halo's most played game mode Slayer/Big Team Battle. Both of Halo's game modes just require a team to kill as many opponents as they can, while in Battlefield a team still can win with less experienced players if it is well coordinated.
The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition by Sagan:is true

I'd just like to point out that the Pro side actually hasn't pointed out any flaws in that last round, and is defaulting to trying to say that I don't understand what I'm talking about, and suggesting that I "study first," which is both highly unprofessional and uncalled for. Furthermore, my case is not that the universe directly molds our ambitions, which my opponent has repeatedly pointed out. My case is that the universe indirectly causes us to change our ambitions, because our ambitions are limited by the universe's laws. I recognize that human ambition is wide and often stretches widely. However, at the end of the day, it still can't exceed the universe's laws. Our ambition is nearly unstoppable, but the universe's laws do not give way. Despite our best efforts, changing the universe's laws is not possible. We can't simply decide that more mass equals less gravity, even if everyone in the world was trying to believe in that. We can't breathe underwater like fish, because we don't have gills and the same circulatory system. Thus, regardless of what we may want as humans, our ambition will ultimately always be in harmony with the universe, simply because we constantly operate by its laws. Thank you.
The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition by Sagan:is true

My opponent still don't understand :) Ambitions are infinite,you can prove it through yourself. You've pointed out too "the seven deadly sin" the seven deadly sins that I've pointed fits to any religion,If I based it upon religion I will defend it;You can tell that it is inherent by proving it to yourself. So there's no reason to explain further by providing such holy religions. *The reason that I've posted seven deadly sins is because through that innate ability of ours;If we are not molded by the society and religions we could enhance that abilities and almost destroy the world just by providing such ambitions. *By providing such evidence in the field of science is futile. *You said:In addition, I think you're straying off topic a bit by defining who our ambitions are set by. We directly set our ambitions, but the universe plays a heavy hand in setting boundaries for us. Although the universe isn't stepping down and saying "Hey, don't do that," it has an indirect part. ~ what? Your case is that universe is the one that molds ambitions.That is why I pointed it out.don't you still get it? :) *I don't have to post anything related to sources to clarify that you are wrong since your case is neglected just by carefully understanding what I've posted earlier in other rounds. :) I will just give one phrase for the voters to understand clearly: "Everything can hold us firmly;Laws,advices,and all things around us.People can give us advices but the final forming is up to us,whether we accept it or not.Laws can handle us(ex. is law of universe);We can't break it,but we can break ourselves upon it. *My opponent didn't understand what he is saying;Perhaps,You should study first recently before opening a debate with me. *I don't have to post anything related to sources to clarify that you are wrong since my opponents case is neglected just by carefully understanding what I've posted earlier in other rounds. I will just give one phrase for the voters to understand clearly: "Everything can hold us firmly;Laws,advices,and all things around us.People can give us advices but the final forming is up to us,whether we accept it or not.Laws can handle us(ex. is law of universe);We can't break it,but we can break ourselves upon it. Again thank you for this debate Mr.weizhong :D please vote for Pro. :) sources: http://www.deadlysins.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition by Sagan:is true

I think that regardless of whether or not you believe in the existence of God, a god, or gods, human ambition is INDIRECTLY shaped by the universe. If you believe in the Abrahamic god, then your ambitions will be stopped by God. For example, in the Bible, humans tried to build the Tower of Babel to defy God, or in essence, the universe itself. God stopped them by creating languages. The Seven Deadly Sins have no part here, because although they could be human ambitions, they are not exceeding the limits of the universe, or God. If you don't believe in God, then trying to defy the laws of the universe are equally impossible. The "universal speed limit" is the speed of light. Surpassing it is impossible, as anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of physics is aware of, due to energy limits that become nigh-on infinite. We can't surpass the universe's laws, so we change ourselves to follow them. This is what I meant by saying that the universe molds our ambitions. It molds them indirectly, because we are forced to change our ambitions to follow it. The universe has set many definite laws that are impossible to break. That's the point of laws. They're made to be followed, and in the realm of science, laws of the universe cannot be broken, regardless of human ambition. Defying gravity by yourself is impossible, because the universe states that it is not. In addition, I think you're straying off topic a bit by defining who our ambitions are set by. We directly set our ambitions, but the universe plays a heavy hand in setting boundaries for us. Although the universe isn't stepping down and saying "Hey, don't do that," it has an indirect part. For example, consider if you've ever seriously thought of flying through space like a superhero, or picking up cars with your bare hands. I don't mean idle daydreaming, but actual serious consideration. Probably not, because even without consciously focusing on it, we are aware that certain things are impossible, and dreaming about them is unrealistic. The universe has such a strong hand here that we don't even consider setting our ambitions higher. Human ambition simply cannot be out of line with the universe simply because it is impossible to do so. We dismiss these things, such as swimming to the bottom of the sea, or flying, out of hand, because we know that they are impossible, and adjust our ambitions accordingly.
The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition by Sagan:is true

As humans who live in this universe, we are constantly shaped by the universe, since it constantly defines our perspective on the world, and our resultant actions. Because of this, we operate within the laws of this universe. As such, our ambitions must also necessarily be limited by what these laws. For example, the laws of the universe state that it is impossible for us to swim to deepest depths of the ocean unassisted, and because we as intelligent creatures recognize this, we change our ambitions. What child has not seen the fantasy realms of Star Wars, and wished that they could be like Luke Skywalker, flying in a starfighter across the stars, and traveling from planet to planet like we travel on road trips? However, physics has proven that such travel is unrealistic, and defies the laws of the universe. Scientists understand this, and those former kids temper their ambition by seeking for other goals that fall within the constraints of the universe. Thus, our ambitions are necessarily grounded within the universe, and are in harmony with it, simply because we are controlled by the universe.
Use of capital replaces labour capital and is bad for the economy

Realising poor policies and already unimplemented unemployment eradication policies eg GEAR in South Africa, i doubt the government will ever implement income distribution policies. South Africa is one of the countries with highest Gini coefficient thus high income inequality. Corruption is at its toll and those in government will always think of themselves. Unendless and senseless projects will always be in the pipeline eg Nkandla.
Use of capital replaces labour capital and is bad for the economy

The use of capital replaces the labor capital thereby increasing unemployment. Machines will replace in a bid to increase profits but neglecting the needs of people. Robots do not feed families nor do they have responsibilities apart from the services they may go through with time. I object to the laws that allows firms and organizations to retrench humans from their daily wages. These laws are with no humor and sense of humanity. Only selfish people would impose and approve such laws.