BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Second Gulf War (Iraq war) can be defended

Reason 1 for my opponents justification for the second Iraq war. "the chemical weapons attack on Halabja in 1988 in which over 5000 Kurdish civilians died." Reason 2 "(Saddam's) regime was also responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Iraqi marshes throughout the 1980s and 1990s." Reason 3 An estimated 2 million Iraqi people were directly or indirectly murdered by Saddam's totalitarian regime over a 24 year period. My opponent didn't specify the 24 year period in which 2 million were directly or indirectly murdered, but obviously it would have taken place before the second Iraq war. Notice that every argument for justification of the second Iraq war is based off of events that took place "throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Yet my opponent does not want me to talk about "different foreign policy actions". I guess I can't bring up past events leading up to the second Iraq war, only my opponent can do that. Fine, I will only be arguing on a moment by moment basis that are only specific to the 2nd Iraq war. My opponent fails to prove that Iraq had or was trying to produce WMDs. My opponent claims that Saddam Hussein was seeking to build nuclear weapons. The document my opponent points to has been thoroughly discredited and since the war NO WMDs were ever found, and NO facilities to produce WMDs were ever found. This includes nuclear, biological, and chemical. It has been concluded since the 2nd Iraq war that Saddam Hussein didn't have the money or the means to produce anything because of the damage caused to his regime during the first Iraq war. https://www.theguardian.com.... Can we drop the "humanitarian" charade? It gives me angina. My opponent isn't arguing that we should have gone into Cambodia, or Ruwanda, or any other place where terrible things are happening. It costs me money to charge the tablet that I type these arguments with, and it takes me time to type them out, and I'm sure the same is true for my opponent. Lets just dump the "humanitarian" aspect of this debate and talk about what you really want to talk about. Oil. If Iraq or any of the countries surrounding it didn't have oil, would we even be having this debate? It's obvious that my opponent isn't actually interested in the "humanitarian" aspect of this. Why my opponent is bringing up the fact that oil is the central issue of this debate is beyond me, it only serves to harm my opponents debate. There was no oil crises at the time that the US and Great Britain decided to invade Iraq. The war didn't make oil more readily available. The occupying countries did not seize control of Iraqi oil. Most oil produced in Iraq is sold to Chinese companies, so the revenue from Iraqi oil is not being used to repay the cost of the war. Even the fact the my opponent wants me to not have the advantage of bringing up past events that led to the second Iraq war, but of course his/her 3 reasons for intervention are based entirely on past events, even with that disadvantage my opponent has imposed on me, their still is no justification for the second Iraq war. I assert just as strongly as before, my opponent cannot defend the second Iraq war!
Revolution is a neccessity for "evolution" of society

He started his arguments by quoting Thomas Jefferson as follows: "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent," and "Every Generation needs a new revolution". The former American President could appear, to some people, to contradict himself in these two statements, if they were to be quoted in historical isolation. Although the average American would probably place the two quotes in the context of their own national history and think of the uprising that led to their former colonial masters being overthrown, and thus consider a revolution a good thing, a Russian may think of their own revolution, which led to a tyrannical regime being installed in their country and would be unlikely to view a popular uprising in such a positive light. Furthermore, one man's meat is another man's poison. Take the current situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories, for instance. The Palestinian people have formed armed militias that have risen up in an effort to liberate their land from the military forces that occupy it. To many people, especially in the Middle East, these gunmen are thought of as freedom fighters, yet the Israelis and their allies in the West describe them as terrorists. Let's say that the Palestinian uprising was successful in overthrowing their tyrannical Israeli rulers (and since the occupation is illegal under international law, it cannot be considered anything else). In this case a revolution would be a good thing, at least from the point the Arab population that has been oppressed and persecuted for so long. To Israelis, however, especially those who live in illegal settlements on Palestinian land, the revolution would not be such a good thing. Now, in Europe, where a patchwork of nations with long and turbulent histories coexist alongside one another, there are some countries, such as France, whose society evolved to be what it is today as the result of a revolution, and there are others, such as Britain, whose society has never experienced a revolution, yet who seem to plod along at least as nicely as their Continental cousins. So, we can see that a revolution may, or may not, facilitate the evolution of society, but it certainly cannot be said that such an insurgency is a necessity.
Revolution is a neccessity for "evolution" of society

First of all, let me concede that acceptance of Darwin's Theory of Evolution in the US is the lowest amongst all Western nations except for Turkey, where, as it happens, a group of more than 80 people are currently due to stand trial for attempting to provoke a coup. http://news.bbc.co.uk... Like many people in Turkey, especially in Istanbul and the Aegean region, these would-be revolutionaries were unhappy with the Islamist government, but rather than rely on the ballot box they decided to take matters into their own hands. They believed they were justified in trying to overthrow what is widely accepted to be a socially backward-looking regime as they considered the removal of the present government would be in the long-term interests of the country. Their plot came undone, however, when they failed to get the military on their side. Similarly, in a country such as the United States of America, any revolution would need the support of the armed forces. Since all military personnel are ultimately responsible to the Commander in Chief, i.e. the President, the generals would have to support the cause and defy the President's orders. This is almost unthinkable. Unless McCain gets elected and dies and that frothing nutjob Sarah Palin becomes President and, on hearing Russian troops have occupied the capital of Georgia, gets confused and orders the Air Force to bomb Atlanta instead of Tbilisi, I can't envisage a situation whereby the military would expressly disobey orders. Nevertheless, I can see that the disparity between rich and poor must be e real cause for popular discontentment, yet the concept of re-distribution of wealth is alien to most Americans. Whereas in Britain, much of the wealth of the mega-rich is inherited, in the States it is more often earned, as was the case of Microsoft and Google's founders. For this reason, the super-rich in America are often admired and people try to emulate them, whereas in Britain they are resented and despised. For this reason, a second revolution in the US is very unlikely because the military would not support it and the people recognise that it is possible for society to evolve under the direction of democratically elected politicians.
Revolution is a neccessity for "evolution" of society

http://news.nationalgeographic.com... Here is the link to the national geographic story on the article you seem to disagree with me on. I think that looking back on history that pretty much all revolutions were fought by a minority. There is about 25% who control, 25% who revolt and the remaining 50% are just complacent. This would probably be because that 50% have families and jobs and are able to get by and do not have time to contemplate such things. I mean if you chose the wrong side you could be killed leaving your family without a father or mother or worse they kill your entire family. So to say that just because we have the rights to bare arms would lead to civil war is not the case, the hippies managed a peaceful revolution that eventually led into earth day and the modern environmental movement, computers with Steve Jobs, creators of Google all people with those hippie ideals. I mean they give you massages free of charge at work and have worker ownership and are one of the most successful business models in the world!! While we have had a civil war it would be nearly improbable today because it lacks the geographical boundry of North v. South and these ideas are dispersed throughout the country. Unless everyone came together and bought up South Dakota or some other sparsely populated state and declared itself independant the likelyhood of all out civil war is not likeley. I believe you guys across the pond have that gentleman that founded Sealand and declared himself indipendant on the sea fortress. Props to him, I suspect Britain allowed it because he isnt causing any harm and he has been there for 40 years now. (http://www.sealandgov.org...) I have made my case and provided examples, and though my opponent and I disagree on some points we find agreeance in others. We live in a complacent world that has grown fat and sassy while becoming further divided underneath. Seperation of wealth and power from the majority of the minority is taking place around the world from Zimbabwe to Washington, Europe and South America and everywhere where people are affected by the global economy. Lives do not get better and though it affects a majority of the people they feel helpless. Unless they revolt, those with money will not willingly transfer it back for the good of the world, they will force you to feel complacent. Until we realize that wealth means nothing and is only a speculation of value from what THEY say it is worth, no change can be made or will because it is THEY who decide whether to change. "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." - Declaration of Independance - July 4, 1776
Revolution is a neccessity for "evolution" of society

Well, I must accept my opponent's point that the majority of United States citizens have an irrational fear of socialist principles – it seems to me that many Americans have come to associate socialism with tyranny and poverty. Indeed, some right-wingers disingenuously link socialism with fascism, pointing out that "nazi" is an acronym for "national socialist". In fact, socialists are diametrically opposed to political parties such as the BNP who have adopted Hitler's ideological mantle. http://www.socialistparty.org.uk... Neither do socialists want to oppress the people or inhibit creativity and private enterprise, but that is for another debate. Moving on, it is difficult, to say the least, to credit my opponent's claim that only 40% of Americans accept the theory of evolution. Come on, America is the most scientifically advanced country in the world, who does my opponent think he's kidding? What do the remaining 60% think then? That the Earth and all it's fauna and flora came into existence as if by magic a few thousand years ago? Ha-ha-ha-ha! Still, my opponent provided a link in order to support his outrageous slur on the people of America. However, when I clicked it the page read: "Sorry, couldn't find a resource with id ThgcEsOtha6wUUnJ_hkE2" Hmmm, thought so! Regarding my opponent's assertion that revolutions are achievable with the active support of a minority of the population, provided they employ guile and cunning and enlist the support of a treacherous truffle-munching, wine-guzzling, Citroen-driving militia. This is probably accurate, but it assumes the remainder of the population would remain passive. In the United States, the people have the constitutional right to bear arms (by which I mean keep a gun at home, not roll up their sleeves) and it is likely that many would exercise this right. The net result of this would be civil war, not revolution.
Revolution is a neccessity for "evolution" of society

I have to disagree with your last statement that we will move toward socialism. Even though our government is buying up the banks and spending like a drunken sailor at the same time and has increased government size significantly under this president who claims he is a conservative, the new president (most likely Obama) will move toward the center in an attempt to bring the country together. We have such a fear here of going toward socialism and the redistribution of wealth because for some reason, the majority of the public believe that if you raise the taxes on the top 5% that somehow it is raising taxes on them, it is assinine to say the least but yet that is what you get when you have a nation has such a declining education system and where only 40% of our population believe in evolution. (http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com...-) Your other point about complacency is refutable on the basis that when we had our first revolution it was the decision of a very few brilliant men (approx 27%) against the majority (http://www.redcoat.me.uk...). We employed pirates as our navy, drug up those willing to fight for a price and created a situation that forced others into action. By Creating alliances with France (whom many of us Americans shun today again ridiculous) and working through diplomatic means to establish this overthrow of rule by the crown we were able to gain a sypathetic ear in the world. These few were all it took to create the revolution that soon spread itself to France and servend as a changing factor in a great many countries. We did not win through overwhelming force and were considered dishonorable by many British soldiers for our hit and run tactics and use of camoflauge. By creating this war of attrition it is easy to break to economic spine of a greater army by siphoning money overseas and disheartening the soldiers and nations will to fight by not actually winning any decisive battles. (wow how familiar does this sound!) Sun Tsu's "Art of War" covers this in vast detail when it comes to engaging in long lasting wars. Paraphrasing it states basically that if if you are constantly winning it is always going to end in failure if your resources are tied up in the army. (how I wish it was a requirement for EVERY politician to read this book) So I illustrate that even though the majority may feel complacent to rise up and say enough is enough, a very few who understand that governance is more about philosophy than it is about enforcing laws and dominance can in fact create a revolution. Our hippie movement of the 60's is a good example of the few creating such an uneasyness throughout the country that change was neccessary to ease the divide and bring us back together.
Revolution is a neccessity for "evolution" of society

Now I see what my opponent was driving at – the wealth of nations such as the United States is not distributed even remotely evenly amongst the population – a huge proportion of the country's assets are owned by a tiny number of incredibly rich people and this imbalance between rich and poor can destabilise society to the point where a revolution may ensue. To a point, I agree with this analysis. Indeed, I recently made a similar argument myself. http://www.debate.org... However, I am losing this debate because, in the case of developed countries, it would be difficult to muster sufficient support to affect such a coup d'ï¿½tat. The reason is that, while people can see the moral injustice of so few owning so much, the majority of people would feel they have too much to lose if the revolution was either unsuccessful, or the redistribution of wealth caused major economic problems. In the US, for example, even the blue-collar workers lead comfortable lives, even compared to their cousins in Western Europe. Since the 1960's the average factory worker in America has been able to afford to live in a relatively large, well-equipped house and keep a decent car on the road. Contrast that to my own experience of growing up in the industrial north east of England. Our first family home was the ground floor of a terraced house. It had two rooms – a bedroom and a living room with a small scullery. There was no bathroom or kitchen, no hot running water and we had to share an outside toilet with our neighbours upstairs. Then the government closed down the shipyards that my father and tens of thousands of other people worked in and things got even worse. However, instead of rebelling, my family, along with countless others, simply moved away in search of a better life. In reality, only the most dispossessed members of society would take an active role in deposing a democratically elected government and that would not be sufficient to make the venture a success. However, that is not to say the country will not evolve. I believe that in America and Europe, given the current economic situation and meltdown of the finance industry, capitalism in its present form has become discredited. Ordinary people in the street are asking why, in a laissez-faire system of governance, are trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money being used to bail out private financial institutions that have failed as a result of the greed and incompetence of their management? Why aren't they allowed to go bust so that more reputable and prudent banks can take over their business? Why capitalise the profits but nationalise the losses? This sea-change in the public mood could lead either way – towards libertarianism or towards socialism, but whichever is the case, society will have evolved, and although the global financial crisis is dramatic, it cannot be called a revolution.
Trans-humanism is the future of the world.

Well, with the second round forfeit, I suppose I will just wrap up with a few last comments since I don't have anything to rebut. Perhaps the Holiday time has my opponent busy-so I will not hold it against them. As time marches on and we progress with human civilization and technology, we will come at a point to where the merging technology and human is the only sensible thing left to do. Either technology will surpass us to where we are replaced as a species and it takes over, or we merge with it, becoming on new species of our own design. The stronger, smarter, more social species I spoke of before. A species of unique individualism that also does not have the quarks that hinder them. In a world of trans-humanism run rampant, poverty, most religion, and terrorism simply does not exist and neither does war. Because in order to transcend humanity, we must also give our thoughts and minds to the machine to cull out the dangerous aspects of our humanity once and for all or we will continue to live on as a species before we destroy one another with a level of technology capable of easily wiping out a planet, far more easily than any nuclear missile ever could. All the war vets of the past could be fixed, grandmother would never have to visit the hospital and stay there, old peoples homes would be a thing of the past. There is an unlimited variety of things that we could aspire to. Each person would be given full authority to become the entity they want to be. Have the social skills they want, the knowledge they want downloaded into their mind, all the while robots, machines and automated creatures take over the mundane and simple, such as factory worker, fast food employee, and all the other garbage jobs we once had to endure. We would be a world of science, love and prosperity; instead of a world filled with slavery, war and the poor.
Trans-humanism is the future of the world.

The history of human development has been one defined by our evolution into a "greater, better, faster, stronger, and smarter" species. We are at this moment superior to humans of the past. Trans-humanism as suggested in the pro's argument can only at best accelerate current evolution but cannot replace it as homo-sapiens have set physiological and mental limits. I understand the definition of trans humanism to be the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology.
god has no moral compass

"I may be 15, It I have more wisdom and knowledge than you ever will. " Sorry. No that crap fro under your skin doesn't slide with your munching green. I haven't killed anybody. Your god has and for no reason. I haven't enslaved anybody. Your god has and throughout YOUR bible and has never ---ever--- revoked it. I haven't made up stupid carnivorous immoral rules that require death such as death to all gays, Death if you blaspheme, Death if you work on the sabbath in which YOUR christ should have suffered, Death to everybody who curses at their parents, Death to everybody who wishes to NOT worship YOUR s--t for a god, Death for everybody who commits adultery etc. That's YOUR god. I've done none of that and I do not practice that. IF you believe in YOUR god that's exactly what YOU are forced into believing because that's what YOUR god orders you to do in YOUR bible. Oh gosh golly gee gosh darned it all, You haven't read your bible now have you? Well that's one big fat duh. Sorry I will not lower myself to YOUR god. I have standards. So do billions of others who are not suckered into your hate. I am an atheist. I do not believe in any god(s). Here's the difference between you and me kid. . . You cannot prove your god even exists. I can prove what I know is 100% true. AND I can back up what I say with something called "evidence". You don't even have a shed of proof for anything about YOUR god. Nothing. Nada. 0. Ziltch. But you need not worry, The same is true for all religions. No god has ever been proven to be true. "You say all this stuff about "my" God, Which is my God, Your God, And everyone else on Earth"s God. " OK I'm ending this. Contact me when you get a clue that everybody doesn't believe as you. Because what you have done is you'd declared war on everybody who is different from you. It is so easy to see why you like so many here on debate. Or has no genuine friends or loved ones. What do I mean by genuine? Those that will go way way wayyyyyyy out of their way in time of dire need to help you out and never ask you a single question. For that I cannot pity you. But you did it to yourself. You must like it. Otherwise you would not do it as you deserve it. You will die alone. UNLESS YOU CHANGE. Even if someone were to agree with what you were say and think and it was an EXACT match, You would still manage to find fault with that one person. Oh and btw, You have no ability to give a lecture to me. I've seen punk kids like you come and go all the time. And POOF believe me, You will go. And here I will stay. You see, I believe in peace, Love, Care, Harmony, Kindness etc. You are the ab-so-lu-te furthest from it because YOU believe in YOUR god AND YOU want to convert EVERYBODY into YOUR way of thinking. Dream on.