BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United States should take on the debt of the entire world for nothing in return

"Taking on someone else's debt doesn't eliminate it. Someone is still owed money, so how does that really solve anything in the economic sector? "It gives nations that are far more mindful of their spending then us a clean slate to start fresh now that they know to be careful. "Cuba pointed nukes at us"Dude people point nukes at us all the time, that doesnt mean we invade them (even though occasionally we do) "Russia challenged us for supremacy. "Can you blame them? we were asking for it when we dressed that way"Canada was British Canada and they provoked us"Canada was the sibling that was minding their own business when the US got in a fight with mother England. They had nothing to do with that scrap"We paid Mexico for their land AFTER we beat them senseless. "Yeah we paid $15 million for land that today is worth a couple trillion, seems real fair. "countries like Russia, Germany, Italy, Great Britain and Japan would be strong contenders as they've also fvcked up other nations for centuries. "Yeah but the US has screwed up more stuff in the last 200 years then most of those nations have in the past 2000 years! "There's nothing to suggest that because we've meddled in international affairs, like all superpowers do, that we should take on the ENTIRE global debt. "It goes beyond that though. The fact is that weve caused more hell in 200 years then most other countries have in their entire existence, but at the same time our debt is just MASSIVE UNCONTROLLABLE compared to others. "Unpopular congress? Divided government? Slow legislation? This is US politics in a nutshell and is nothing new"Exactly! we've never had a well functioning government which only shows how we are very near the end. "Besides, if we go down right now the world will erupt into chaos, why would we speed that along by acquiring a ton of debt? "Ever pull off a bandaid really quick rather then slowly and over a long period of time? Exact same concept. "Okay boys and girls, let's review why imabench's arguments don't work. "I would like to point out that CP thinks you all are children while I think youre all very mature, intelligent, and very good looking adults. .. . ;D"Third, the US is always in this state of political irritation. Our days are not numbered"If Obama can get reelected in THIS economy then im pretty sure our days are numbered. .. . Lets say Paul owes 2 Trillion dollars to people,Then Jack walks in and says he'll take care of Paul's debt even though Jack himself owes 12 Trillion to other people as well,Jack does this for everyone so he owes everyone a lot of money while everyone else is now debt freeThen jack dies by getting hit by a train. Now those debts arent an issue anymore and everyone is now debt freeAnd on top of that, Jack had terminal cancer which means he was going to die soon anyways! I rest my case
Resolved: The United States should take on the debt of the entire world for nothing in return

1. Taking on Debt Doesn't Eliminate DebtTaking on someone else's debt doesn't eliminate it. Someone is still owed money, so how does that really solve anything in the economic sector? The money is still owed and there still isn't anyone paying it. The real danger of debt is not being placed on the countries who owe it but rather the institutions who gave the loans. The integrity of the financial world is still in jeopardy and no matter who holds the debt, it will bite everyone in the collective a$$es. 2. Reparations To the victor go the spoils. We really don't owe anybody anything. Cuba pointed nukes at us. Russia challenged us for supremacy. Canada was British Canada and they provoked us. We paid Mexico for their land AFTER we beat them senseless. [1] If this is an argument for the taking on of debt countries like Russia, Germany, Italy, Great Britain and Japan would be strong contenders as they've also fvcked up other nations for centuries. Britain and Spain and Portugal have been doing for far longer than the US. We are not a unique case nor are we a particularly strong case. There's nothing to suggest that because we've meddled in international affairs, like all superpowers do, that we should take on the ENTIRE global debt. 3. Days Are Numbered What you described about the way the US is working right now... is how it's been working since the nation's founding. Unpopular congress? Divided government? Slow legislation? This is US politics in a nutshell and is nothing new. I suggest reading up on early 19th century politics if you doubt me. Besides, if we go down right now the world will erupt into chaos, why would we speed that along by acquiring a ton of debt? Let's Review Okay boys and girls, let's review why imabench's arguments don't work. First off, taking on debt does nothing to help the financial system, it only burdens the superpower with debt that no one can pay off. The loaners are still fvcked which means we're all still fvcked (read up on housing collapse). Second, we don't owe anybody anything. Countries have been screwing with each other since the dawn of time, we are no different than anyone else and most of the places we messed with got compensated or had it coming. Third, the US is always in this state of political irritation. Our days are not numbered and even if they were, how does piling on the debt of the world into a failing country solve anything? It wouldn't. The money would vanish if the US collapsed and so would the global economy. Not a pretty thought.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: The United States should take on the debt of the entire world for nothing in return

The reason why the US should take on the debt of the entire world for nothing in return..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Is because we are already F*CKED Of the 50 trillion in debt the world has, the US alone owns 12 trillion of it..... about 25% of all debt in the world belongs to the US and lets face it, there is NO-HOOO-HOOO way in hell we are ever going to pay that off.... Because the US owes more money then what actually exists o_O http://www.economist.com... http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com... Seeing as how the US government is incapable of being fiscally responsible, let alone enough to even put a dent in this debt we have, the US should do the logical thing and take one for the team (team = humanity, take one for it = take all of their debt) Why should we be nice to other nations? Well we kinda owe it to them both literally and figuratively..... In addition to our massive debt, we drove Russia into financial ruin, we nuked Japan, weve invaded both Canada and Mexico on different occasions and never apologized for it, we also drove Cuba and North Korea into economic collapse, completely demolished Iraq and Afghanistan, weve invaded numerous countries in Latin America for bs reasons in the late 1800's, weve meddled with Iran for ages and act like weve done nothing wrong, the list goes on and on. The other reason we should do this is because America's days are numbered.... Seriously we are right on the path to failing and the US probably wont be around much longer. Our debt is exploding, Congress cant even pass bills with 90% public support, agencies left and right are f*cking up their job, the president cant do anything since Congress is so divided, the Supreme Court takes forever to decide on issues, and Obama is STILL emailing me asking for money even though he won the presidency months ago! The government is failing and our debt is exploding.... If the US is still a country by the time you read this sentence, ill actually be surprised. I await the con's response while I go out and buy more ammo for the impending chaos and anarchy.
American Men Should Never Get Married

My opponent didn't give much of a fight and mostly agreed with me.Like I said before, anything a married American man can do, a single American man can also do. My opponent asks, "Are the risks involved with getting married so excessive that no reasonably minded man should ever bother?"I just proved that the answer to that is "yes".A man can lose his money, property, children, career and even his own freedom. Talk about excessiveSince the divorce rate is over 50% the odds are not in his favor.My opponent agrees with me that "even something with a high reward should not be engaged in if it also involves excessive risks."My opponent also wants to compare a marriage to a trophy. I guess that's where the term "trophy wife"comes from. Marriage isn't about love, it's about status in the eyes of the public.Once again I agree with my opponent: "If there are risks and potential consequences involved, a man must understand what those risks are and be aware of how they can affect him in a permanent way. If he chooses to get married come what may, then the happiness must be worth the risk to him."Once again I'll point out that a man can lose his money, property, children, career and even his own freedom. The happiness is not worth the risk since he can have the same happiness without the risk, just by not getting married.Thanks for the debate.
American Men Should Never Get Married

I can certainly concede that divorce litigation in the US is a complete mess and horrendously stacked against the husband/father in most cases. However, I do not think it is enough to say that men should never get married because there is are risks involved. When a man weighs the cost/benefit analysis of getting married vs living in an unmarried arrangement, he considers the prospect from an personal basis of preference and values. In other words, each man must decide for himself if getting married is something he wants and is important to him. However, even something with a high reward should not be engaged in if it also involves excessive risks. I suppose that would may the true question of this debate: "Are the risks involved with getting married so excessive that no reasonably minded man should ever bother?" The answer is no. The reason is personal and cultural. Men get married because they want to better their lives by achieving mutual happiness in a relationship with another human being. Marriage is the symbol of a bond with that human being. To many people, just being with that person is not the same as it is when you make the public covenant to remain faithful and loving to each other. If that notion sounds stupid and naive to anyone reading this, I invite you to throw away any trophy, award, memento, or nostalgic item you have in your possession. If you're a gamer, delete any saved data for any game you have already beaten. Are you resistant to that idea? Why? Awards and trophies have no practical utility. Those old things are cluttering up your space. That saved data could make room for newer useful data. Why does anyone feel the need to have some sort of physical, symbolic representation of things that are important to them? Isn't the accomplishment enough? It is because, as human beings, these things enhance our experience and appreciation of what we have. When people get engaged, they give each other wedding rings sometimes spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars on them. They could easily keep that money to pay bills. They could buy each other something more useful with the money. They could go on a huge vacation and make memories together. However, many people still opt for wedding rings because of what they represent: Marriage The idea that you can give up part of yourself to someone else and receive a part of them in return. Could you do that without a marriage, or a wedding ring, or a ceremony? Yes you could. For some people, that is enough and that's ok. However, for many, many people in the world, their happiness and their experience together is enriched by making that promise publicly and legally to each other. If there are risks and potential consequences involved, a man must understand what those risks are and be aware of how they can affect him in a permanent way. If he chooses to get married come what may, then the happiness must be worth the risk to him.
American Men Should Never Get Married

I will argue that anything a married American man can do, a single American man can also do. This includes: live together with a partner, have sex together, raise children together, etc. The reason why American Men shouldn't get married is because legally they don't have any rights, once they are married. Marriage is a legal contract that makes a woman 50% owner of everything the man owns. Even with a pre-nuptial. a woman can sue for 50%. In case of a divorce, and there are children involved, the woman will have custody of the children. It's almost impossible for a man to get custody of children. That means a man will become an ATM machine to pay for the children, but he will be lucky to get visitation rights to see them at all. If a man can't afford the payments, he will be put in jail and will no longer have a way to earn money, yet be responsible for paying the child support. He is also responsible for paying the court costs and his spouses' attorney! Here's a good example of that:www. justice4carlos. com. http://www.youtube.com... Because American laws favor women, American men should NEVER get married.
Islam is a Dangerous, Violent Ideology

Before I start argumentation, I would like to state that I am atheistic, and as such I don't have any pro or anti-Islamic bias, and simply treat it as I would any other religion. As the Con, I will be arguing that Islam is not Dangerous and/or Violent. As the Pro, my opponent must prove that Islam possesses BOTH (as the resolution states) Dangerous and Violent Ideologies. If he cannot properly prove both, then the resolution cannot be considered to be true. Therefore, if I can disprove at least one of the two points, I will have won the debate.Ideology: A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.[1]Violent: tending to the use of violence, esp in order to injure or intimidate others.[2]Dangerous: Involving or filled with danger; perilous.[3]Well, that sums up my intro, and I anxiously await argumentation :)Works Cited:1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;2.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;3.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
The Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2

Thank you. The Tiger I had a range of about 68 mi and about the same for the Tiger II, depending on factors such as terrain of course. The T-34 had a range of 188mi, however, the t-34/85 had a range of only 86mi, which while superior to the Tiger's, is not that great a difference for the T-34/85 to be considered the best tank. The reliablity of the russian tanks is also not that good. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing (reference to muzzle velocity), speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running. -"Major-General of Tank Armies, Khlopov, 2nd Department,"Evaluation of The T-34 and KV Tanks By Engineers of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds USA, Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army (n.d.) via"The Russian Battlefield, retrieved"November 23,"2011 As for why they were used after the war, they were cheap. That is the only reason they were used and if you find a list of countries that use them, you will find that they're all poorer countries, such as Cuba, Afghanistan, and North Korea. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.militaryfactory.com...
The Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2

Alright!! My opponent had stated that fuel consumption does not reflect on tank"s quality. The fuel consumption DOES actually affects the tank"s quality. For example, excessive consumption of fuel will put pressure on logistic chain, especially for invaders. What"s better, A tank that will run out of oil within a maximum of 75 miles, or a slightly inferior tank that will run out of oil within a maximum 185 miles? I ask my opponents and commentator to consider this question. (I also remind you that the topic of the debate is the BEST, not the most powerful/superior) Now the reliability problem. While King Tiger (Or Tiger II) has superior armour (7.3 inches) and firepower (3.5 in KwK43 L/71), it had a huge problem of mechanical reliability. What"s better, a tank that will break down few time within short time or a tank that will break down every once in a while? ---------------------------------------Conclusion------------------------------------------ T-34/85 is the best tank of WWII. While its opponent, Tiger, surpass it in terms of firepower and armour, T-34 possesses qualities that Tiger does not have. It"s reliable, simple to make, and cheap. Its oil consumption is lower than Tiger (And King Tiger), which allows it to travel longer in the battlefield. It successfully balanced together 3 essential quality of a tank: Firepower, armour, and speed. Its legacy is also considerable. Considering that while Tiger was fearsome, it did not see much use after WWII. Meanwhile, T-34 was continued to be used in the battlefield all the way to end of the 20th century (There was some unreliable report of it in action during Arab Spring and stuff..)
The Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2

The Tiger's speed may have been lower, but it wasn't a slow tank by any means. From your statistics it was only 7mph slower than the t-34, which overall isn't that significant. The Christie suspension may have had greater maneuverability, but greater maneuverability won't help you if you can't move at all because a rifleman shot out your suspension. Due to Germany's lack of resources near the war's end, they did produce very few King Tigers and they did run out of oil and fuel, but that doesn't reflect on the quality of the tank, simply the current state of Germany. The tank itself was a masterpiece, the country it was produced in was not.
The Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2

Alright! My opponent made a point by pointing out Tiger has superior firepower and armour, which made it have higher killing ratio; BUT at the cost of mobility and maintenance. As you can see in Round 2, Tiger"s average speed on road were 24 mph. Comparing this to T-34"s 31 mph, Tiger is certainly slower. "On the Christie suspension, the Americans tested it extensively and found that it was vulnerable to even small arms fire or mortar rounds and was rejected by the American military, being unfit for their tanks.". Christie Suspension may be "vulnerable" to firearms, but it make up for it by having greater maneuverability and more stable ride. "The Sherman Firefly and other heavy tanks DID start to challenge the Tiger, but were not able to perform at the level of later Tiger variants such as the King Tiger, which had thicker armor and better weaponry than the original Tiger I." King Tiger may have thicker armor and better weaponry, but there"s a reason it was produced in low quantity (About 485). Many of them were taken out of action not by enemy fire but by engine failure or a shortage of gas (Which was, by the way, 400 gallons of gasoline for every 100 miles. It"s also mechanical unreliable and ponderous due to its engine being constant strain. Tiger"s purpose was originally for offensive, not defensive. So when German came to defensive, Tiger had to move constantly around to fight the enemy. Constant movement wore tank"s component, which was why many Tiger tanks were using their full complement. Many of my points against Tiger had already been made in Round 2...so I don"t have anything else to state now. Source: Weapons of World War II by Alexander Ludeke http://forum.worldoftanks.eu...
The Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2

Thank you. While the Russian philosophy may have been based on numbers, leading to Germany's eventual destruction, that does not make it the best tank. It would be similar to saying that if a soldier equipped with an assault rifle was attacked by 10 enemy soldiers with pistols, and was killed, the pistol is the superior weapon. Con made the point that the Tiger was too heavy to cross European bridges. To combat this the Tiger was equipped to travel through relatively shallow rivers and streams that could otherwise only be crossed by a bridge. This could be helpful in the case that if a bridge were destroyed, the Tiger could travel through a shallow river, while other tanks would be forced to find a way around. A commenter made a point that con used different units when comparing fuel consumption, making it out to be a better ratio than it actually is. The t-34/85 still has a lower consumption rate than the Tiger, however. On the Christie suspension, the Americans tested it extensively and found that it was vulnerable to even small arms fire or mortar rounds and was rejected by the American military, being unfit for their tanks. The Sherman Firefly and other heavy tanks DID start to challenge the Tiger, but were not able to perform at the level of later Tiger variants such as the King Tiger, which had thicker armor and better weaponry than the original Tiger I. This can be seen from the Total loss-kill ratio of the Tiger throught the war. Tiger losses-kills (all variants): 1715-9850 http://www.alanhamby.com... This is evidence that while not invincible, the Tiger clearly outperformed any tank that came into its sights.
The Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2

Thank you I will now begin the rebuttal. My opponent had stated that Tiger tanks are superior to T-34/85. His statement contradicts the title "The Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2". What we are arguing here, is whether the Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2, NOT however, whether Tiger tank is superior to T-34/85. "You also have to consider that the German tank crews were better trained than their Russian counterparts." You would also have to consider the fact that Russian philosophy was not based on quality, but based on quantity. So basically, Russian philosophy was this: "Instead of fighting my opponents 1 on 1, I will simply overwhelm my opponent" ----------------------------------------------------------Argument--------------------------------- I will now add more argument Engine: T-34/85 engine is 38-liters water-cooled V-2-34 V12 diesel, which is very sturdy and reliable. This allows little maintenance over the engine. Tiger, unlike T-34, is/was not very durable. After the Operation Citadel (Which was a failure for Nazis), Tiger had to move frequently for defensive position. This wore out Tiger chassis,engine, and transmission, which meant that most of the Tigers on the East Front weren"t operation on full complement. Also, after mid-1944, Tiger became less invincible The Sherman Firefly and Allied heavy tanks became to emerge; they were capable of destroy Tigers, thus Tiger"s original advantage was gone. Also, to counter Tiger"s gun range and their armour, T-34 commanders used their mobility to close the gap, and target Tiger"s thinner armour: Side armour. These are the quotes from the German commanders and general regarding T-34: "Very worrying"-Heinz Guderian. "The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army. Source: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com... http://www.achtungpanzer.com...