BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should we be involved in the war in Irag!

First off, you must have completely misread what I said. I never said that Afghanistan was responsible for the war. In fact, I actually specified the complete opposite. Take a look: "In fact, Afghanistan (nor Muslims in general) was not responsible for what had happened. It was the result of one extreme religious group in particular - not every Muslim nation." So with all due resopect, what the Hell are you talking about? Second, it is wrong to compare the frequent terrorist attacks on Israel with the infrequent attacks on the United States. This is because your stance is that Israel gets attacked because it is typically on the military defense. My argument is that Israel gets attacked not because of its military, but because of it's location and religion. If it was a country not so easily accessible to its enemies then it would be less frequently attacked. Likewise if Israel was a country specifically affiliated with Islam then it would also not be attacked the way it is today. Thus your argument comparing the U.S. to Israel in terms of military offense vs. defense is completely null and void. Again, I don't accuse Afghanistan with having anything to do with 9/11, and would not suggest that the U.S. military go to war with ANY middle eastern nation because again it was the TALIBAN - not individual countries - that was responsible for the attacks. And finally it is completely pointless to say, "People also dont realize that we train Iraq's police force and are doing a load of good that we wouldn't have been able to do had we not gone into iraq" because it WAS/IS in fact possible to do good and help people in need in terms of food and supplies in Iraq without being at war with them. How can we bomb their villages and kill their civilians, and then try to make it better with a few loaves of bread? Also, we are only training Iraqi police because we're training them to be the type of government officials that WE want them to be according to OUR agenda... we're not doing it for the good of Iraq. Would we have trained their cops under the old regime? No. This is about the United States and how a select few can benefit while causing nothing but harm/death to millions of others.
Should we be involved in the war in Irag!

OK i understand what you are saying but first off i would like to clear up something. you said Afghanistan attacked us which is completely wrong. In fact most of the high jackers that drove the planes into the trade centers were from saudi arabia not from Afghan. My next argument is take a country like Israel. They have terrorist attacks regularly. from car bombings to suicide bombers to riots and anything else you can pretty much think of. Israel has a very large powerful army, however they mainly stay defensive. they next to never do anything offensive. Now take a look at the United States who got attacked then turned around and attacked back and went on the offensive we have not been attacked since 9-11. So my point is that if we would stand back then it will just happen again and if your saying we should have only gone into Afghan because thats where the Taliban was PRIMARILY at at that time then should we have not gone into saudi cause thats where most of the terrorist that hijacked the planes came from. People also dont realize that we train Iraq's police force and are doing a load of good that we wouldn't have been able to do had we not gone into iraq.
Should we be involved in the war in Irag!

Marine_to_be: first off, congratulations on your decision to join the armed forces. I think that being a part of the military is an important and honorable career -- cheers! Now I will attempt to address each of your individual points mentioned in your argument. First, yes I do remember 9/11. But I don't remember Iraq being any more involved than the United States were. If I recall, it was members of the Taliban from Afghanistan that were responsible for the tragedy in my hometown of New York City -- not Iraq. In fact, Afghanistan (nor Muslims in general) was not responsible for what had happened. It was the result of one extreme religious group in particular - not every Muslim nation. Not every Iraqi is a terrorist; to think so is completely ignorant. So what exactly does 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq? If you're claim is that the Iraqi regime has helped to fund terrorism, then obviously my rebuttal would be SO HAVE WE. It is common knowledge by now that the United States has helped supply Osama bin Laden himself with weapons, money and technology to help fight wars in the Middle East. So we are just as guilty ~ what's your point? You've mentioned that the media only portrays the bad things happening in Iraq and fails to show servicemen providing aid and supplies to the Iraqi people. My argument is that we don't need a war to provide relief to people in need. You concluded with the fact that your biggest gripe is not with people who disagree with the war specifically, but with people who do not support the troops. My statement back to you is that perhaps people DO in fact support the troops, and that's why they want them back home instead of off to die unnecessarily. People can support the fact that American soldiers are over in Iraq doing the job that their superiors have assigned unto them. However, supporting the troops while they do their best to survive their noble career is much different than agreeing that America should be involved in a war that is catastrophically expensive and detrimental to the economy, alienates our allies, and puts our soldiers at risk. Plus, how can you expect the American people to trust the government after we were lied to repeatedly about the imaginary WMDs? Bottom line: There are both pros and cons to the war in Iraq, but the cons far outweigh the good. And being against the war is completely different than being against the troops.
Should we be involved in the war in Irag!

I feel that we should be involved in the War. Now by looking at my name i am a part of the armed forces. I leave June 9th for Paris Island, so that has an influence on my opinon. I look back and my first question for anyone who is against the war is do you remember sept. 11 and watching people holding hands and jumping out of the 83 floor to escape the flames. because terrorist thought it necessary to attack us. Now i know alot of people make the arguement that we shouldnt have gone to Iraq because we never found and wmd's. and you are right we didnt however we do have proof and i dont think anyone will argue that the Iraqi regeem if you will helped to fund terrorism. The media shows all of the negative factors in iraq and they never portray our service men and women giving food to children. I dont have a problem with people that disagree with us being in Iraq. It is a free country (just remember you didnt get your freedom by sitting back) but i have a problem with people who dont support our troops. cause they fight for your right to protest
America bombing Japan is comparable to Nazi death camps

Thanks for accepting. The United States bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WWII. Hitler created death camps in WWII to hold and then kill Jews. My argument is about the relationship between the killers and the people they killed. In the war, the U.S. was against Japan. The Japanese had killed many Americans and vice-versa. Note these people weren't just Japanese, they were part of the Japanese army. The U.S. wanted Japan to surrender, so they decided to drop an atomic bomb on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two cities containing civilians that had nothing to do with the war. It was effective, and the Japanese surrendered. When Hitler was growing up, he was an art student. He didn't do so well, and a professor kicked him out for having poor art work. His mother also died at around the same time. This is when Hitler developed a hatred for the Jews. He believed the professor that kicked him out was Jewish, and the doctor who was taking care of his mother was Jewish. Hitler blamed him for her death. [1] Later, when Hitler became dictator of Germany, he believed he could rid the world of its problems if he killed the Jews. Note that the Jews he killed weren't the ones looking after his mother, and they weren't the professor who kicked him out of art school. Now, to my point. Hitler killed people that had nothing to do with his problems. He assigned what a few Jews did to him to the entire religion. The U.S. also killed people that had nothing to do with its problem. The people that were in those Japanese cities just happened to be part of the same country the Japanese army was part of, just like the Jews Hitler killed happened to be from the same religion . The U.S. assigned everything the Japanese government and army did to the U.S. to the Japanese people. The Japanese the U.S. bombed didn't do anything to the U.S., just as the Jews Hitler killed didn't do anything to him. [1] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
America bombing Japan is comparable to Nazi death camps

Pro's round one: " I will be arguing for the idea that the motives behind bombing Japan at the end of WWII are identical to the motives of Hitler exterminating Jews in the death camps."Pro's round four:"I messed up by using the word motivation. I used the wrong word, dumbest move. That was my fault entirely. You got that argument."By his own framework he has lost the debate.Anyway"Total wars don't exist. It's impossible to have every man, woman, and child working to help the Japanese win the war."Really? Total war[1]- " Total war is a war in which a belligerent engages in the complete mobilization of fully available resources and population."Examples of total war[1]: " The Second World War can be considered the quintessential total war of modernity. The level of national mobilization of resources on all sides of the conflict, the battlespace being contested, the scale of the armies, navies, and air forces raised through conscription, the active targeting of civilians (and civilian property), the general disregard for collateral damage, and the unrestricted aims of the belligerents marked total war on an unprecedented and unsurpassed, multicontinental scale."Vote Con."In order for that statement to be true, you would have to prove that every person that died from the bombings was working to help the Japanese win. "Not really, I would just need to show a compelling military interest in taking out those cities. Which I have.Please Vote Con.thett31. http://en.wikipedia.org...
America bombing Japan is comparable to Nazi death camps

I messed up by using the word motivation. I used the wrong word, dumbest move. That was my fault entirely. You got that argument. But back to what I meant to argue. You said, "' I was trying to argue that the people that were killed had nothing to do with the killers' problems' Oh. Already proven false in my second round, dropped, and therefore conceded to." You actually didn't prove it false by saying, "In a total war (like WWII) a government devotes all of its resources to fighting the war. The entire country is fixtated on the war, it seeps into every aspect of life. Those civilians were a part of the enemies war machine. Just because someone isn't wearing a uniform doesn't mean they aren't fighting a war." Total wars don't exist. It's impossible to have every man, woman, and child working to help the Japanese win the war. "Those civilians were a part of the enemies war machine." In order for that statement to be true, you would have to prove that every person that died from the bombings was working to help the Japanese win. Every kid? The infants that were bombed were working against us? Every single man and woman? Senior citizens? There must have been many people killed that weren't working against the U.S. Just as every Jew Hitler killed wasn't trying to screw Hitler, not every Japanese the U.S. killed was trying to fight the U.S.
America bombing Japan is comparable to Nazi death camps

"I will be arguing for the idea that the motives behind bombing Japan at the end of WWII are identical to the motives of Hitler exterminating Jews in the death camps."Motive: " something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive"[1] "I wasn't trying to argue that their reasoning was the same" ?????????? Then what oh you trying to argue for? " I was trying to argue that the people that were killed had nothing to do with the killers' problems"Oh. Already proven false in my second round, dropped, and therefore conceded to. Please vote Con.1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
I will not contradict myself.

If one contradiction stands, then the resolution is negated. Fortunately, all will. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1st: Infinity and my opponent's "applicable" definition. "Suppose" is the last definition on his sourced definition of consider. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Therefore, it is the least applicable. In this situation, "consider" obviously means "regard". A number cannot be regarded as greater than infinity. Therefore, my opponent's claim still contradicts the dictionary. Good try, though. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2nd: " God is able to create something that he cannot lift, and still lift it. " This is obviously an invalid argument. If God can lift this something, then He cannot create something that He cannot lift. My opponent's definition doesn't matter; there is still contradiction, whether my opponent believes that it disproves omnipotence or not. Good try, though. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3rd: My opponent's interpretation of "Drug legalization". My opponent has created an unnecessary faction in his definition. Legalizing drugs for a portion of the population is still legalizing them. Legalization- . http://www.merriam-webster.com... "to make legal" My opponent's interpretation of Drug Legalization is inconsistent with the dictionary. My opponent's rebuttal only creates another contradiction. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CONCLUSION: In one way or another, my opponent has contradicted himself. If a dictionary's applicable definitions are valid, then a number cannot be considered greater than infinity. If a number can be considered greater than infinity, then applicable definitions in a dictionary are not valid. If God can lift anything and everything, then he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he cannot lift anything and everything. If my opponent believes that abusable drugs should be a decision available to individuals at the age of responsibility, then he would support banning them. If my opponent believes that abusable drgus should be banned, then he believes that individuals at the age of responsibility should not be able to make such decisions regarding their health. My opponent has contradicted himself. Therefore, the resolution is negated.
I will not contradict myself.

First, the infinity contradiction. I will now define "consider": SUPPOSE. http://www.merriam-webster.com... One can suppose that a number is greater than infinity. That person would be wrong. Stalin considered Hitler to be his best friend. Stalin was wrong. We can consider things to be true when they are wrong. Therefore, Question 10 really couldn't accomplish anything, because anything can be considered to be anything, but that does not make it so. Therefore, the number 2 can be considered greater than infinity, although whoever is making this consideration is not very smart. This does not stop such a consideration from being possible. Now, for the God contradiction. http://en.wikipedia.org... "6.A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible." By this perfectly acceptable interpretation of "omnipotent," God is able to create something that he cannot lift, and still lift it. The ability to do the logically impossible means that the statements don't contradict, because God can lift what he cannot lift, because the definition of omnipotent allows for it without contradiction. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Some philosophers maintain that the paradox can be resolved if the definition of omnipotence includes Descartes' view that an omnipotent being can do the logically impossible. In this scenario, the omnipotent being could create a stone which it cannot lift, but could also then lift the stone anyway." And, finally, the drug contradiction. "(I don't see any other way to interpret 'Drug Legalization' without contradicting the applicable definitions in the dictionary)." The way I interpreted "Drug Legalization" was the legalization of drugs for all, not just those above the age of responsibility. "Drug Legalization obviously refers to the un-banning of abusable drugs." However, the age is not so obvious. I took "Drug Legalization" to mean allowing everybody, including those under the age of responsibility, to use any drugs. Under this interpretation, I disagree with it. However, I agree with my opponent if we interpret it his way. However, my way is what we interpret it by, by my answer to Question 2. Because of my interpretation of "Drug Legalization," the contradiction that my opponent points out is false. There. All three contradictions are false. "I'm hoping for the 'PRO admits defeat' option." Never! Thanks for this debate, wjmelements. It was great.
I will not contradict myself.

"1. Should abusable drugs be legal for this 'responsible' population?" Answering this question would mean agreeing that this population is generally responsible, which I am not willing to do. "2. Can anything possibly be considered greater than God?" Yes. "3. Are you against drug legalization?" You've admitted yourself that the BIG issues are hard to understand. It would depend on what you meant by drug legalization, as there are many possible interpretations. If you go into more detail, I'll answer this in the next round. "4. Is this question 4?" Yes. "5. Is this question 5?" Yes. "6. Is this question 6?" Yes. "7. Can God create something more powerful than Himself?" Yes. "8. Can one infinity be considered greater than another?" Yes. "9. Can something possibly be more powerful than something omnipotent?" Yes. "10. Is there a number that can be considered greater than infinity?" Yes.
I will not contradict myself.

I have seen several contradictions, but I will wait until next round to post them. If my opponent sees them and is willing to concede, we would save time, memory, and bandwidth. 1. Should abusable drugs be legal for this "responsible" population? 2. Can anything possibly be considered greater than God? 3. Are you against drug legalization? 4. Is this question 4? 5. Is this question 5? 6. Is this question 6? 7. Can God create something more powerful than Himself? 8. Can one infinity be considered greater than another? 9. Can something possibly be more powerful than something omnipotent? 10. Is there a number that can be considered greater than infinity?
I will not contradict myself.

"1. Can God create a stone that he cannot lift?" Yes. "2. Can God create something greater than himself?" Yes. "3. Can God lift himself?" Yes. "4. Is God omnipresent?" Yes. "5. Is smoking tobacco acceptable at the age of responsibility?" As long as it does not affect others. "6. Is smoking marijuana acceptable at the age of responsibility?" As long as it does no harm to others. "7. Should it be legal to smoke marijuana at the age of responsibility?" As long as it does no harm to others. "8. Should it be legal to use pain relievers when not in pain at the age of responsibility?" As long as it does no harm to others. "9. Does banning 'abusable' drugs infringe on one's ability to make decisions regarding their own health?" Yes. "10. Does your profile say you are against Drug Legalization?" Yes.
I will not contradict myself.

1. Can God create a stone that he cannot lift? 2. Can God create something greater than himself? 3. Can God lift himself? 4. Is God omnipresent? 5. Is smoking tobacco acceptable at the age of responsibility? 6. Is smoking marijuana acceptable at the age of responsibility? 7. Should it be legal to smoke marijuana at the age of responsibiliy? 8. Should it be legal to use pain relievers when not in pain at the age of responsibility? 9. Does banning abusable drugs infringe on one's ability to make decisions regarding their own health? 10. Does your profile say you are against Drug Legalization?
I will not contradict myself.

"1. Is a dictionary a reliable source?" Sometimes. Not all definitions are applicable to any situation. For example, school does not always refer to fish. "2. Do you agree with all your own positions on the BIG issues and with the religion stated on your profile?" Yes, assuming that I get to define what the BIG issues to how I interpret them. "3. When in conflict, should public health be valued over liberty?" That depends on how extreme it is. If a guy wants the liberty to release a deadly poison into the air, putting everybody into a coma, yes. If a guy wants the liberty to not pay for another man's ills, no. "4. Should people be able to make decisions regarding their own health?" At the age of responsibility. "5. Should people be able to smoke cigarettes in their own home?" Yes, assuming that they don't expose any person to secondhand smoke that minds, or is under the age of responsibility. "6. Can God create anything?" Yes. "7. Can God lift anything?" Yes. "8. Can God create everything?" Yes. "9. Can God lift everything?" Yes. "10. Is God omnipotent?" Yes.
I will not contradict myself.

I, the diabolical wizard, will now proceed to conquer. I accepted on the premise that PRO would not change his BIG issues. I have taken a screen shot and hope to have a fair debate. 1. Is a dictionary a reliable source? 2. Do you agree with all your own positions on the BIG issues and with the religion stated on your profile? 3. When in conflict, should public health be valued over liberty? 4. Should people be able to make decisions regarding their own health? 5. Should people be able to smoke cigarettes in their own home? 6. Can God create anything? 7. Can God lift anything? 8. Can God create everything? 9. Can God lift everything? 10. Is God omnipotent?
I will not contradict myself.

I will now try to defeat the diabolical wizard, as well. Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. Good luck.
Should young children be allowed to play rated M games

Mature games are technically more better than games for younger people. Mature games possess a very challenging challenge and are usually for people who has taste for gaming. If you like minecraft, i will challenge you in the future. You see, the graphics, lag are not so bad and its funny that the more rated a game is, the better it is. So if a young person completes a mature game, that means he is a real and good gamer.