BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Cold War Never Ended

So the Cold War, exemplified by a nuclear standoff between the United States and USSR did end along with the Soviet Union and the real threat of nuclear war between the United States (a social democracy) and the USSR (a quasi-communist) dictatorship. The War on Terror is without a doubt influenced by the West role in funding the Afghan rebels but the comparison ends there. The War on Terror is a separate issues, with different problems, and is far from “COLD” and does not share other basic characteristics like large militaries, stockpiles of nuclear weapons, the use of spies and intelligent gather on both sides. My opponent, if I can use a television analogy is saying basically the FX show The Americans is the same or similar to the SHOWTIME series. Even though, I would agree that many of the things that happened during the Cold War play a part in the War on Terror, I would not conclude this means the Cold War never ends. Lastly, if anything Russia today under Putin is a conventional Russian leader going back to Peter the Great, if anything Putin is scrambling, reacting. He does not have the control of Stalin did.
The Cold War Never Ended

Hello and thank you for accepting/viewing this debate.This debate is about if the cold war ended or not. It is commonly said it ended in 1985, however, the remnant's of terrorists first funded by the US to fight the Soviet Russians, is now backfiring on the U.S.A. And now, Russia gaining influence in Ukraine and is becoming a growing power. On top of that the middle eastern nations uprisings and the fact those said nations are now favoring Russia thus threatening Americas veto and influence in the region.My stance that it has died down, but never actually ended.Here is how the debate sequence goes:1.)Acceptance2.)Terrorists are fighting the Cold war in the so called "War on Terrorism"3.)Russia is dividing Europe and the world by invading Crimea in Ukraine creating a threat to the EU and U.S.A4.)The middle eastern uprisings is a direct result of America fiddling around and cooping nations in the region. And these nations are now siding with the Russians (E.G. Egypt).
"There are no right or wrong answers in ethics"

By directly quoting your disputation you said, "Ethics do have rights and wrongs, however, they can only be right or wrong if they are pertaining to specific individual cultures." By stating this you are saying that the only way that there can be a right or wrong in ethics would be to view each situation on an individual, cultural basis. However, if we were to view ethics on constantly different levels there is no way that there can ever a be a right or wrong in ethics. In order for there to ever be a right or wrong in ethics each culture, society, individual opinion, etc would need to come to a unanimous conclusion on the topic that was being discussed. You said that in order to have an ethical code of conduct, or laws, there would need to be a line drawn between right and wrong. But, if ethics is only right or wrong when concerning different individual cultures how does a country, such as The United States, which has hundreds of different cultures, create a set of laws that is fair to all involved? Referencing your example of Denmark's Dolphin Hunt on the Faroe Islands, if that were to take place in the U.S. there is no way that a law could be created equally without drawing a line. The only way that this would ever be possible would be to make it legal on one end of the country, but not on the other. If this were to happen then there would no longer be The United States, but rather two entirely different countries all based off the fact that one believes in slaughtering Whales for entertainment is fun, while the other disagrees entirely. This example shows that there is no possible way for a correct set of right and wrong in ethics. Due to the overwhelming differences that each culture has in comparison to others, how can there ever be the correct set of ethics? You said that we judge other cultures based off of our own code of conduct. Because of this we create ethnocentrism, or the judgment of another culture based off of our personal values and beliefs. Since there is no right or wrong in ethics we need to look at other cultures from the view point of cultural relativism- the view that no one single culture is superior in any way because of their ethics. In my example of the Kamikaze suicide bombers, if we viewed it from our own culture it would be wrong, however, we need to focus on cultural relativism and view it from their cultural point of view as well, which was that it was morally correct and acceptable. Overall, there is no right or wrong in ethics just because one culture agrees with something while another does not. When understanding ethics it cannot be based off of the belief of one cultural group, or ethnocentrism. Instead we need to look at it from a cultural relativism point of view and understand both sides. If there was a line drawn between right and wrong just because of cultural differences countries such as The United States would not be able to prosper because of all the influence from multiple different cultural and racial groups.
"There are no right or wrong answers in ethics"

While people can argue that there are right or wrong in ethics, just on an individual cultural basis this can not be held to be true. Ethics is an overall acceptance of what is right or wrong and should not be based just on one sole culture or individual opinion. For an overall understanding of what right or wrong ethics are, they need to be viewed on corresponding global terms. While using the example of religious prosecution we can look at multiple examples from over time. During World War II, in Japan, soldiers were expected to sacrifice themselves in order to take down the enemy, or the Allied Forces. During this time period the military was viewed somewhat as a source of worship. The country's military then created the Kamikazes, which were considered a high honor. The Kamikazes were suicide pilots who would literally go down with their planes and sacrifice themselves in order to kill the enemy. Even in more modern times in the Eastern world religious groups still believe that religious sacrifice is an acceptable ethic. Take the terrorist attacks on 9-11, for example. Religious patrons sacrificed their lives for what they believed was best for their religion, taking not only their lives, but many more and changing the world forever. By viewing these two examples one may feel that religious sacrifice is the highest form of achievement. However, in The United States we do not view these acts as achievements, but rather as immoral, in-just, and plain wrong. So if we were to have a "right" tolerance based on religion there would be an extreme amount of violence. However, in all if not most religions, aside from the ones mentioned above, the belief that violence is the answer is wrong leaving the question of whether it is moral as no. In the case of creating laws based on ethics there is no way to form a complete set of laws that would make the whole of society happy without upsetting any one part. It would not be fair to create a system of right or wrong based on one individual culture. With that being said, there would need to be a medium that covers all cultures as well as all environments and locations. However, this is deemed impossible because of the vast differences in ethics between each individual culture. In general, there is no right or wrong in ethics just because of cultural differences. As seen in the Kamikaze and 9-11 examples they believe in killing and self sacrifice for what they believe in while in the majority of the world it is viewed as wrong. It would be incorrect to have right or wrong in ethics on separate cultural terms when the world functions as a whole and not on an individual basis.
"There are no right or wrong answers in ethics"

Ethics must have a right and wrong answer. Without a definitive right or wrong we would have no set laws. There needs to be a threshold to decipher what is right, and what is wrong. If a person thinks stealing or injuring is morally correct, there needs to be a line drawn to rule this wrong. Many will argue that there is a grey area in ethics, so much so that it renders the entirety of what we consider morally right or wrong to have no definitive answer. Granted, each geological culture has a different standard of morals, this is where we can decide what is actually right or wrong. Ethics is basically defined by a particular culture as to what is socially acceptable for the particular culture, in the particular place. With that being said, each one of these targeted areas has their own standard of what is right and what is wrong. Yes, in the United States it is not necessarily frowned upon for a couple to have a female child as it is in China, so if a Chinese couple were to migrate to America and then have a female child, it would be ethically wrong for that couple to immediately assume the child will have no bearing to the family name and send it off for adoption. A more concrete example would be a religious one. In the United States, we practice the right to be free to worship whatever higher power we choose to without the harsh repercussions of opposing religions penalizing us for doing so. Where as to particular middle-east countries would have a person executed for practicing certain religions. This goes on daily, with no hiccups because it is their social norm. This example proves that yes, each cultures ethical code may vary, however, each culture does have a right or wrong standard in which is completely normal. This is why there must be a right or wrong in civil society.
"There are no right or wrong answers in ethics"

People all over the world have various perspectives on what they consider right or wrong, good or bad and even moral or immoral. Men and women have different ethics as well as adults and children. Each individual is able to create their own ethics. Ethics, which is defined by dictionary.com, is moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior. All over the world people are raised in different environments which, effect the outcome of their personality. Because of the different cultural influence and environmental factors that everyone has there is no way that there can be "correct" or "right" answers in ethics. Concerning culture, we can compare the differences in The United States and China. Someone who is raised in The United States will have different morals than someone who was raised in China. For example, in The United States we know that it is wrong or unethical to remove a child from a family just because their sex is female. However, in China, having a female child is viewed as a disappointment and will not help the family succeed in anyway. Therefore, they will put the child up for adoption or, in earlier times, may even execute the child. Ethics does not have to just concern what is wrong, but can also include what is right or acceptable. In the southern states of The United States it is not uncommon to see someone riding a motorcycle without a helmet or driving around in the open bed of a pick up truck. But, if someone were to do those actions in the northern states people would say they were, for lack of a better word, an idiot. This proves that location is a factor of what we deem acceptable. Overall, due to cultural influences and environmental factors people have different morals. Depending on age and gender as well we can include them in what factors our own idea of ethics. Since ethics are moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior it would be wrong to say that there are right and wrong answers when involving ethics.
"There are no right or wrong answers in ethics"

No matter what scale, large or small, cultural or viewed by country, we are viewing ethics on the matter of whether or not there are no right and wrong in ethics. No matter if it is a cultural difference, such as the Dolphin hunts on the Faroe islands in Denmark, or the Kamikazes during World War II and the terrorist attacks on 9-11, there is no correct right and wrong. When it comes down to the final conclusion of right and wrong in ethics there could never be a right or wrong because of the vastly different opinions and influences that everyone has. It does not matter which society you are raised in or belong to because overall there is no possible way for one hundred percent of the population to agree on the fact that something, no matter how large or small, is either correct or wrong ethically. Since each culture has their own set of ethics how could there ever be a correct set of right or wrong? You state in your argument that we cannot view another cultures traditions, such as the Dolphin hunts in Denmark, as ethically wrong just because according to our own opinions on ethics we view it as wrong. By doing so, we are using ethnocentrism, which I explained in my previous argument. Expanding on your example of breaking into your neighbors house, you say that, based off of your opinion and the law, that it is ethically wrong. However, there are large amounts of people in any society that believe that stealing is not wrong. Take gypsies for example. They live off of the valuables that they steal from people that they don't even know. To someone who knows nothing but the way of a gypsy life that is perfectly normal for them. But if you view it from our society we see it as wrong. Just because one society thinks that something is correct and another believes that something is wrong it does not mean that ethically it is wrong, it is just a matter of cultural views. In conclusion, there are no right or wrong in ethics. Because of environmental, cultural, racial, and personal beliefs that we all have differences in, we view ethics from cultural differences that base our opinions of others that are different than our own off of our own personal beliefs. Creating ethnocentrism, we are not viewing an idea or action as a whole on whether it is right or wrong, but rather whether we personally believe that it is right or wrong. The examples of the Kamikaze pilots, the terrorist from 9-11, the dolphin hunts in Denmark, and the gypsies prove perfect points when debating this. With this in mind there is no way that we can ever possibly have a right or wrong in ethics. Instead we should view other cultures in their own context, called cultural relativism. By doing so we open up to a majority of different beliefs on what is right or wrong. By doing so, we prove that there is no possible way for there to ever be a right or wrong in ethics and that instead there are things that are culturally acceptable in other places that are not as accepted in others.
Piplup is the best WATER starter

I would first like to say you are not following the rules I set in round one. "evolves at a lower level than Empoleon" what does that have to do with the price of eggs in china. he may evolve earlier but that means Totodidile does not have to work as hard he gets the easy path. " Blaziken,could one shot without using a fighting move, and ground types faster than it can probably one shot it. When i didn't set levels, my level 60 garchomp(mega eveolved) one shot my friends level 80 empoleon with earthquake before he could even touch me." In this argument I am referring to the trading card game. And your garchamp is mega evolved giving a great boost in stats so this is an unfair comparason. I am looking forward to your turn to talk about my argument that I made in round 2. No sources used none were needed
Piplup is the best WATER starter

Piplup is good, but Totodidile is also. At level 20 it already learns ice fang and evolves at a lower level than Empoleon. Feraligatr is a pure water giving it 2 weaknesses, grass and electric while Empoleon a steel water has 3, electric,ground, fighting(for lucario and infernape to murder). Along with that, at its final stage fire is normally effective, meaning really almost any fire starters can beat it. Blaziken,could one shot without using a fighting move, and ground types faster than it can probably one shot it. When i didn't set levels, my level 60 garchomp(mega eveolved) one shot my friends level 80 empoleon with earthquake before he could even touch me. http://www.serebii.net... http://www.serebii.net... http://www.serebii.net...
Piplup is the best WATER starter

I believe Piplup is best because; 1: piplup is american. On the sites (wiki) It says piplup is a proud Pokemon and is very free spirited 2: Piplup is a great Pokemon in general piplup can learn great moves while still "young" 3: when he evolves piplups flippers become razer sharp and can cut 5 feet of ice in one swipe empoleon also is the fastest swimmer (trading card fact)
Piplup is the best WATER starter

You say Piplup is the best water starter. I don't think so. The best Pokemon in my opinion, in my name is Lucario, look at my name. But for water starters i don't believe Piplup is the best. Better than Froakie,yes i will say that plain flat. I'll get more in detail after i see your argument, but FYI I won't try to win this debate with Froakie. I won't argue, Piplup isn't bad, but not the best. Let me see you argument, trust me even if you win, it will be a close win.
Piplup is the best WATER starter

What do I think is the best water starter? I say Oshowatt, 1. He is to many one of, if not the most adorable starter. 2 He has a good signature razor shell. 3. Has 2 weaknesses Grass and electric. 4 Samurott looks awesome and has good stats all around. 5. Pok"mon game wise, the only starter for black and white my friends and I were really able to efficiently use was Oshowatt and we're all really good. 6 My friend was able to make a glitch for it to go to his Diamond(no joke) 7."Piplup is American yeah and the Hundred year war was 116 years long don't see benefit on either of them"Piplup is also Japanese, Pok"mon came from Japan and the Japanese didn't give up in World war 2 'till we killed 150000 people with 2 atomic bombs.
Piplup is the best WATER starter

I would like to start with 2 points 1: I think I'm losing this debate 2: The other is who do you think the best water starter is you are arguing for the best water starter in your opinion Sorry about not saying the card game part you see I don't have a D.S. So all of things come from cards or online pokedeck. (sorry I don't know how to spell that part) and the anime. Now I am going to defend my argument You made an attack on my argument "Piplup is American" The fact is he has to be! Piplup is a pokemon that wont give up (very american) Thinks him/her self knows everything (again american) You made an attack on my argument "Piplup learning moves while young" means he/she is great at lveling up and becoming stronger than OTHER WATER STARTER. (keywords are "water starters") Please state the water starter you think is best. Thank You For Accepting (forgot to say in round 1) Sources: Head Wiki Trading card game poke deck Now I wish to type so I can use up the Remaining Characters
Piplup is the best WATER starter

Really you're talking about the trading card game? Maybe you should have said that more clearly beforehand meaning you aren't what this was all about. Unless an Empoleon card it has more than 150 hp or does more than 150 damage, my Tyrantrum card could one shot it easily. What you said about Piplup learning moves while young, doesn't mean everything, if its not good enough to beat the elite 4 and the champion(Cynthia has a Garchomp to probably one shot it). If a Pokemon isn't good long term, it has little purpose. Empoleon's good stats are its special stats , but it lack in the others meaning a good move like electric punch, earthquake, or karate chop can one-shot. Trading card game wise, my luxray, or genesect could probably beat an empoleon. "Piplup is American" yeah and the Hundred year war was 116 years long don't see benefit on either of them (Try to be more clear on future debates)
Private Property

Rules/ Clarifications1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. Burden of proof will be shared.4. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Argumentation begins in R2.The purpose of this debate will be for me to attempt at demonstrating the ethical and logical consistency behind private property while my opponent's purpose will be to expose private property as either being unethical in itself or being an illogical or inconsistent concept.Property will be defined as something to which one has complete control over inasmuch as they do not infringe on another's property.For property to be private will mean that it is owned by a single person and not owned by a collective such as society or a government.I would like to thank in advance LiberationMedia for areeing to this debate. I am excited to see an exchange of ideas between adherents to the collectivist and individualist schools of anarchist thougt. Good luck to my opponent.
Abortion

First of all, "releasing the baby into the world" is actually called "adoption." Adoption is a great option, and an answer to all of those cases. When the mother "can't handle a baby" or "another child" or even "rape." Adoption is truly the answer. My uncle looked to adopt, it took him 6 years to find a child. There are plenty of families out there that WANT children, adoption is truly the answer to abortion. I am actually adopted. I could have been aborted, my parents didn't want me. But they did realize something, that even a child inside the womb of a mother is still a child. I am going to share with you a law that I heard about a few years ago. Did you know if you shoot a pregnant woman in the stomach and kill her baby you will be charged with man slaughter even if it doesn't kill the mother? This law proves that under law, unborn babies are still human beings. I am going to end this with a quote "all men are created equal" created, not born
Abortion

Whoa, whoa, whoa my friend, I have never said that "life and death" abortion's are wrong. They are morally right considering the fact that in most cases, both the baby and the mother will die. Your arguement is invalid. Secondly, I know you never said that baby's are clumps of cells, but I am talking about what most pro-abortion activists tell me. You didn't make arguments yet, so I had to make mine first. My next argument is something that his been argued for a long time. Mothers can abort their babies DURING labor! Isn't that sad, disgusting, and inhumane? Just to show how evil abortion is, I am sharing another image of a 1st trimester abortion. Please view it. http://www.google.com... Do you really think that abortions (besides life and death and rape) are necessary? Does that image look like a baby? Hell yes it does. Abortion is the murder of a human being.
Abortion

Did I say aborting a clump of cells? No, I didn't. So why are you trying to disclaim what hasn't occurred yet? In some cases a pregnant woman can die because their baby is relatively big, squashing the brain and causing severe internal bleeding. And then the baby won't get nutrition because it's mother is dead. Do you want a dead mother and a malnourished baby, or an alive mother and an aborted baby? The living mother will live to continue work as usual. Or a malnourished baby will require lots of nutrition for nothing in return. Until they're fully developed + 18 years, they'll require lots of nutrition. While the living mother case, she can contribute in ways other than pregnancy. I'm usually against all modern practices, but when it comes to life or death, we should be grateful.