BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US can use military force to stop threats from acquiring nuclear weapons.

First, nations should only take actions that are in their best interest for three reasons. 1. the ultimate purpose of a nation is to protect its citizenry from outside threats or else the citizens wouldn't give up some of their freedoms to be a part of it. If a nation poses a threat to the citizens of another nation, that government has a moral responsibility to act in the best interest of its people. 2. Nations wouldn't exist if they failed to act in self-interest. They must do everything to provide for their own survival. John Mearsheimer writes: "States in the international system also aim to guarantee their own survival. Because other states are potential threats, and because there is no higher authority to come to their rescue when they dial 911, states cannot depend on others for their own security. Each state tends to see itself as vulnerable and alone, and therefore it aims to provide for its own survival." 3. Governments are most capable at analyzing what is good for their own country, not for other nations. Trying to look outside of ourselves to other goals in international relations and being altruistic has bad results for everyone. So, the United States should use force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat because it is in its best interest. Nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states or terrorists pose a threat to the US because it increases the risk that, in the event of an attack, the government will be unable to protect its citizens. Further, the risk of nuclear attack is always imminent if the weapons are in the hands to enemies of the US because it takes as little as 10 minutes to kill millions, so a preemptive military strike is the only option.
The US can use military force to stop threats from acquiring nuclear weapons.

I'd just like to point out right now that I could have ended this debate in the very beginning. Really, I only had to prove that the US COULD NOT possibly use military option, meaning to prove it's not feasible. But, for the sake of fairness and debate, I'd like to defend what I've said so far. My opponent has stated over and over again that diplomacy "doesn't work." But, they themselves have dropped the evidence that I've given regarding the success with the Soviet Union, so you can accept that there as proof. As to what they said about Iran and having military force "backing it up." First of all, there was no evidence to support this. Second of all, even if it is true, the military never actually used force, but was figuratively used to put pressure on them. So, this point doesn't support their side, or change anything about my Iran arguments. Now to Diplomacy. They claim that I don't show any methods of diplomacy, but in my last "speech" I pointed out directly the differences by definition of diplomacy and sanctions. Moreover, there is no evidence provided that using military strikes would work more effectively than diplomacy, simply because there is no evidence to support that. Over the course of this debate the Pro has dropped most of their original main points, as well as failed to effectively respond to some of mine. Remember, when a nation doesn't have a weapon, then it is not an imminent threat. Even if it were, my evidence already disproves it. Vote Con. Thank you.
The US can use military force to stop threats from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Let's launch right in. On diplomacy, my opponent says that Iran proves that we can use diplomacy and that military did not back it up. But Iran would never have followed our efforts at diplomacy if not for our military prowess. We need to be able to use our military force to stop threats to not only protect our citizens but to ensure that our future use of diplomacy means something. In other words, we need the option to use force. On my third point of diplomacy, that it harms everyone, he responds that I am only talking about sanctions. But my opponent doesn't show other methods of diplomacy so in most cases sanctions will be used and they will harm citizens. Instead, we should use tactical military strikes to take out key offensive structures in the production of nuclear weapons. So, we need to use military strikes to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by threatening nations. As my opponent has admitted, they are always imminent threats and because it's clear diplomacy doesn't work, we must protect our interests through military force.
The US can use military force to stop threats from acquiring nuclear weapons.

I'll go right to my opponent's attack: The pro is suggesting that military action can be used to prevent the assembly of a weapon before it takes place. However, both of the pro's examples could be done through diplomacy. There also isn't any evidence provided that military action could indeed provide solutions, and that diplomacy cannot. My response to the pro's attack on diplomacy: 1. We were able to stop Iran's nuclear program without the military backing it up. 2. Let me bring up a different example that could better prove this point: the Cuban missle crisis. Now, the Soviet Union definitely was a rational nation, and responded rationally. When the Cuban crisis came up, they still bent to diplomacy, even with a bomb and coming so close to their goal. So, rationality means nothing when nuclear weapons are involved, whether it be Iran or Russia. 3. This third point is completely wrong. The pro is claiming that diplomacy harms the general populace, but this example only applies to sanctions. Diplomacy is convincing the nation to give up their weapons by means that is reasonable to them. If anything, military action would have a more devastating effect on the population. And now for their case: 1. Their first point they brought back up was that nuclear threats are always imminent. But even in imminent cases (like with the soviet union) diplomacy is the best option. 2. A government has a responsibility to respect its citizenry. As I've already proven,as with Iran and the Soviet Union, diplomacy was able to work. 3. (see first point) self-interest of nations 4. Pick the choice that we can predict the results of (what they say). Ok, I think I see. Well, historically, military action has produced unpredictable results. Take the Iraq War's example, in which an unexpected outcome came from an attempt to stop nuclear weapons. Overall, this point doesn't stand up to the fact that diplomacy has proven positive outcomes. So in summary. So far, the pro hasn't provided any real evidence that military action could honestly do better than diplomacy, so a con vote is in order.
The US can use military force to stop threats from acquiring nuclear weapons.

I will begin by addressing my opponent's arguments then moving onto defend my own. My opponent first states that "there is nothing to attack". This statement is completely false. We can have information about the location of exchanges for nuclear weapons, or, the more likely scenario, we prevent nations that don't currently have a completed nuclear weapons from assembling one from parts. His second point is essentially that diplomacy works. I have two responses. 1. Diplomacy means nothing without some form of military force to back it up. We are seen as tacitly consenting to the nuclear program if we allow it to continue unabated by our military. 2. Nations that pose a threat to the US won't respond rationally to diplomacy. If anything, the NIE example my opponent brought up proves that Iran didn't cave to sanctions immediately. Further, the NIE report only says things with "moderate certainty" and believes that Iran could still construct a nuclear weapon. 3. Diplomacy is always worse for civilians than military force because we take away the food and shelter of innocents whereas all the pro side is advocating is destroying military complexes. The pro only harms the military whereas diplomacy hurts everyone. Onto my arguments. The first important one is that nuclear threats are always imminent so a government that fails to stop the acquisition of nuclear weapons has few if any other options for protecting its citizens from them. The first argument I make is that the purpose of government is to protect its citizenry and my opponent agrees to this but says that it would be foolish to use force if diplomacy is possible. I have just shown that diplomacy is an inappropriate response to a nuclear program, so it always goes against the best interest of the government and its citizens to not use force. On my second argument of self-interest, he asserts that diplomacy is absolutely necessary because it has been proven to work in the past but I have already shown that military force is the necessary action to stop the acquisition of nuclear weapons because the threat is always imminent. In response to my third argument, my opponent fundamentally misunderstands it. The argument is that the government of a nations is best at analyzing what is best for itself only, not for other nations. We don't know if democracy (which is good for America) will work out for the best in, say, Palestine. Of course we should care for the state of other nations, but in examining our relations with other nations, we should pick the action that is best for use because it's the only one that we can predict the results of. So, in summary, the United States must prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons because, once they are built, the threat will be imminent and no US action can ensure the protection of American citizen interests.
The US can use military force to stop threats from acquiring nuclear weapons.

First, and foremost, I am not against the government using military force if it has actionable intelligence that they are about to be attacked. However, your topic asks whether or not the US can use force to stop the "acquiration" of nuclear weapons. The answer is no. Military action cannot be used if there is nothing to attack. When dealing with the prevention of gaining a nuclear weapon, the only choice is to use diplomacy, to stop development. For instance: there was a recent report from the Director of National Intelligence which stated that Iran had halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003. This is primarily as a result of diplomatic sanctions, etc. by the United States. Therefore, diplomacy and sanctions do work, and should be used as often as possible. And now for your points: 1. "the ultimate purpose of a nation is to protect its citizenry from outside threats." That is completely true. However, it would be foolish to resort to it when diplomacy could be used. 2. "Nations wouldn't exist if they failed to act in self-interest." It certainly is possible to protect a nation's self-interest, while also preventing war in the process. The point of diplomacy is to achieve a certain goal through the most peaceful means necessary. When dealing with nuclear weapon acquisition, diplomacy is absolutely necessary, simply because it has proved to work. 3. "Governments are most capable at analyzing what is good for their own country, not for other nations." So, basically what you are saying is that we shouldn't care for the state of other nations? Well, first of all, that sounds an awful lot like the Bush Doctrine to me. Second of all, what happens to other nations absolutely affects US interests. If the US attacks a country, and there is no immediate threat, then we are seen as the aggressors. And I'm guessing that the whole point of a nuclear attack on the US is because we had a negative view in their eyes. Just to restate things, we are dealing with the acquisition of nuclear weapons, which is different from a case in which someone already has nuclear weapons. Like I said, diplomacy can prevent the acquisition, because it's impossible to attack when the threat doesn't exist. If there is actually a weapon, then we can attack.
The Earth exists as an oblate spheroid

Pro has the burden of proof. They will begin arguments this round and waive the last round. Rules: 1. Semantics/trolling not allowed 2. You must waive the last round. This means not saying anything more than "I waive the final round" and some thanks to me if I deserve them. You must also begin the debate in the first round. 3. No forfeits. 4. Be civil Failure to comply with these rules will result in a loss. Definitions: exists: has objective reality oblate spheroid: An oblate spheroid is a surface of revolution obtained by rotating an ellipse about its minor axis [wolframalpha] This is the shape of an oblate spheroid: http://upload.wikimedia.org... Thank you whoever accepts.
The Earth exists as an oblate spheroid

I don’t know why Con wants to debate this. The shape of the earth is a fact of generalized knowledge so universally well known that it cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. Con states that Pro has the burden of proof, but does not state the required degree of certainty which must be demonstrated. Clear and convincing evidence should be sufficient. I need not demonstrate the truth of the proposition beyond the shadow of a doubt. Con says in the comments section that “I just want pro to prove an oblate spheroid earth, they don't have to meet the definition 100%, just a very close approximate.” So, I don’t have to demonstrate that the earth is a geometrically perfect oblate spheroid. I can ignore features like canyons, undersea trenches, mountains, or other negligible variations in local topography. I suppose the most straight forward evidence would be that people and machines went high above the earth and took pictures and videos for everyone to see. Evidence of the earth’s spherical shape: NASA says so: https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov... A video from the International Space Station: A picture of the earth from near the moon: http://www.nasa.gov... Many pictures of the earth from the Galileo space probe: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov... NASA put these pictures from the Galileo space probe together to form a rotational earth video: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov... Evidence of the earth being oblate – NASA indicates it – Equatorial radius (km) 6378.1 Polar radius (km) 6356.8 http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov... A credible astronomer explains it – “but because the earth is spinning, it is about 21.5 kilometers flatter at the poles, and bulged-out at the equator by about the same amount.” http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov... http://en.wikipedia.org... (The scientist) Systemic errors in lightning ground strike tracking systems that assume that the earth is a perfect spheroid have been dramatically reduced by taking in to account the oblate spheroid shape of the earth – ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910023392.pdf
Muslim women are seen as equals to Muslim men in the Qu'ran.

Given the topic I must notify you that your evidence is irrelevant. Presenting evidence in favor of the proposition cannot prove the proposition which is stating a universal declaration. Giving examples of where in the Koran men and women are treated equally does not advance the proposition one jot. If I said that this basket only contains red marbles and show you several red marbles I would not prove my statement or even provide evidence for the statement. Rather, to disprove the statement would simply involve removing a blue marble from the basket. Examples of gender equality in the Koran do not matter. I must, in order to win, provide you the proverbial blue marble: 4:11 Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. The Koran says that God instructs you to give your male children twice as much as your female children. This is not equal. Done. Needless to say there are dozens more clear and obvious examples of men and women being unequal. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
Muslim women are seen as equals to Muslim men in the Qu'ran.

>>I honest-to-goodness do not recall stating that there were no passages of the Qu'ran that said anything negative or unequal about women. It is implied by the topic. If Muslim women are seen as equals to Muslim men in the Koran, then there must be nothing unequal about women in the Koran. Mostly would be a completely different topic. I might even agree with it. Although, the references which litter the Koran almost all consistently give women's worth to be exactly half that of a man. They get exactly half as much of inheritance. You need two men for something and don't have them you can use four women or one man and two women. You could have made the argument anything you'd want. But as it stands it is absolutely false. They may be seen as equals in many place of the Koran but that can't and doesn't win the argument for you. Having already proven the above topic, let me sully my chances of victory by noting that in the Bible they are treated as property. As far as gender equality goes I'd have to say the Koran is far better than the Bible. Although, most of the followers of the Bible nowadays are westerners with enough enlightenment and feminist thinking that even with more retrograde divine edicts are far less inclined to make women walk around in bee-keeper suits. As the Koran however is purported to be the actual word of God (rather than a series of books inspired somehow) it a much more direct slap in the face to the potential truth of the religion. When the Bible screws up... eh... translation error. When the Koran messes up and says stupid things, that's God making a mistake. -- Okay, even though I won the above argument... pissing everybody off with that last paragraph might give you a fighting chance. I'll blank out my fifth round when it comes back to me.
Muslim women are seen as equals to Muslim men in the Qu'ran.

"You did specify that there were no "blue marbles"." I honest-to-goodness do not recall stating that there were no passages of the Qu'ran that said anything negative or unequal about women. "Such is required by the topic itself, that "Muslim women are seen as equals to Muslim men in the Qu'ran." -- If they are seen as equal in places has no bearing on the topic unless it is universal." I probably should have thought out my topic title a bit better. Maybe saying "Muslim women are mostly seen as equal to Muslim men" would have been better. "You concede the argument: "I know that women are not seen as entirely equal in all aspects, bit in many they are." -- I need only show that they aren't seen as equals. I have done that. The argument of degree is a different argument all together. You could argue that the Koran is better than the Bible in respect of women's rights or that it's at least 90% equal. You cannot, however, successfully argue that the Koran sees men and women as equals... because it doesn't." According to the above statement it does. In many aspects they are seen as equals. I appologize for being rather amateurish with this debate, In all honesty with the confusion I caused I think you deserve to win more than I.
Muslim women are seen as equals to Muslim men in the Qu'ran.

You did specify that there were no "blue marbles". Such is required by the topic itself, that "Muslim women are seen as equals to Muslim men in the Qu'ran." -- If they are seen as equal in places has no bearing on the topic unless it is universal. Allow me to draw a parallel. 1) All men and women have the right to vote. 2) All men and women will be paid the same for the same work. 3) All men and women will have equal protection under the law. 4) Wives will cook their husbands dinner, husbands will not cook. 5) All men and women have freedom of speech. Do these laws see women and men equally? Are they perfectly acceptable on the grounds of equal rights and gender equality? All men and women have the right to vote is perfectly equal. As is guaranteeing men and women freedom of speech and equal pay. Clearly these five rules treat men and women equally as we see by the examples I give! However, rule 4 sticks out like a sore thumb. I cannot say that all five rules treat women and men equally because rule 4 is clearly sexist. Similarly you cannot say that the Koran sees men and women as equals if there are sore thumbs all over the place. You concede the argument: "I know that women are not seen as entirely equal in all aspects, bit in many they are." -- I need only show that they aren't seen as equals. I have done that. The argument of degree is a different argument all together. You could argue that the Koran is better than the Bible in respect of women's rights or that it's at least 90% equal. You cannot, however, successfully argue that the Koran sees men and women as equals... because it doesn't.
WHY DO PRESIDENTAL HOPEFULS NEED BIG MONEY CLEBS TO HELP THEIR CAMPAIGN EXCEPT JOHN EDWARDS

I've addressed your so-called point and given a reply. However, I'll recap here. First, using celebrities is a valid tactic to win the support of voters. If a soda company's allowed to use celebrities to get more support for their product, why can't a presidential candidate? Second, debate.org is not for posting an advertisement, it's for actually debating something. Most of your round 1 was you saying how GREAT he was, even though most of that had nothing to do with the topic. Third, all-caps makes you sound ignorant. Refrain from using it in the future. Fourth, as has been noted by someone in the comments section, a celebrity just joined Johnny E's campaign. Fifth, you're expected to reply to your opponent. This is debate.org, not placeanadvertisementandleave.com
WHY DO PRESIDENTAL HOPEFULS NEED BIG MONEY CLEBS TO HELP THEIR CAMPAIGN EXCEPT JOHN EDWARDS

I'm gonna be honest here, I only took this debate to get it off the list of outstanding challenges. Either way, I'll make a brief case against you. Not all presidential candidates use celebrities to advertise for them. Even if they did, they would be doing it because it's just a little something extra. Just like it would be unfair to call Pepsi evil for using celebrities in advertising (they had a few Britney Spears commercials a few years ago), it is equally unfair to assume that a candidate is trying to trick you when he (or she) does. I actually haven't seen this use of celebrities in campaigns, I'd appreciate if you pointed it out with sources. Also, whoever told you that using all capital letters is an effective way to get your point across... they lied to you.
WHY DO PRESIDENTAL HOPEFULS NEED BIG MONEY CLEBS TO HELP THEIR CAMPAIGN EXCEPT JOHN EDWARDS

HERES WHY I THINK WHY THESE HOPEFULS EXCEPT FOR JOHN EDWARDS ARE ALL ABOUT THE MONEY AND POWER BECAUSE THINK PEOPLE WHEN YOU NEED TO BIG MONEY CELEBS,AND POWER C.E.O.'S,FORMER PRESIDENTS. TO PROMOTE YOUR CAMPAIGN MOST OF US CAN'T RELATE TO BECAUSE WE WORK FOR WHAT WE OWN AND STRUGGLE TO KEEP IT. WHILE THEY MAKE MORE IN ONE DAY THEN WE WILL EVER SEE IN A LIFETIME HOW CAN THEY EVEN STAND UP THERE GIVING THEIR WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR SPEECHS WITH THEIR BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR FRIENDS I'M SO TIRED OF HEARING A WRITTEN SPEECH FROM ONE OF THEIR COLLEGE EDUCATED SPEECH writers i'm READY FOR THE REAL DEAL AND WHEN YOU HEAR JOHN EDWARDS SPEAK ITS FOR REAL HE KNOWS THAT THE BACK BONE OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY IS THE ONES THAT GET UP EVERYDAY AND STRUGGLES TO MAKE ENDS MEET AT THE END OF THE DAY AND HAVE THE SCARS TO PROVE IT AND THE ONES THAT KEEP THOSE BIG BUSINESS UP AN RUNNING AND MAKE THOSE CEOS HAPPY SO THEY GIVE THEMSELVES BIG RAISES AND A THANK YOU TO THE ONES THAT MADE IT HAPPEN SO LISTEN AMERICA TO JOHN EDWARDS ONE TIME AND ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO THINK HE'S A LITTLE LEFT MAYBE WE SHOULD VOTE LEFT THIS YEAR MAYBE A REAL CHANGE NEEDS TO HAPPEN IT CERTAIN THAT THE PAST 8YRS haven't BEEN THE GREATEST JUST LOOK WHO GETTING RICHER IT SURE ISN'T THE MIDDLE CLASS JUST REMEMBER THIS WHO WAS MR BUSH JR AND MR CHENEY BEFORE THEY BECAME PRES,VICE-PRES OIL-BEARERS....AND IF YOU NOTICE MR. EDWARDS TALKS THAT OUR GOVERMENT NEEDS TO BE OVERHAULED AMEN TO THAT AND FOR THIS INSURANCE COMPANYS HAVE TO MUCH POWER OVER THE PEOPLE AND THE GOVERMENT DON'T GIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A VOICE WHAT HAPPEN TO THE " WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"