BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is America the world's greatest superpower.

Typical American stance, thinking that just because you have the largest army means that your the greatest nation. First we aought to define greatness. greatness,noun Definition of GREATNESS 1 exceptionally high quality 2 the quality or state of being large in size http://www.merriam-webster.com... Now, I would say that Russia fits both of these descriptions much better than the United states. 1.History: Russia is a very historic country, rangeing from the Duchy of Muscovy to the Empire of Russia. It rose to control the largest amount of land of any nation. Russian history sports such prominant people as Peter the Great. In it's history Russia has shown itself to be strong in underdog positions, namely Peter defeating the superior swedish army, and Stalin's forces defeating the vastly superior German army, which drove into russia like a hot knife into butter. 2.Architecture. Russia has a wide variety of architecture, notably the Moscow Kremlin. This complex is composed of several gold gilded cathedrals, great brick walls, and ancient halls from the days of the Tsar. 3.Art Russian art is beautiful and unique, it features Matryoshka dolls, amazing icon art, and Russia is famous for it's various dances and dancers. So in summery, America has a larger army, because it has always followed a Reaganesque policy of through strength, while Russia's military spending has slackened since the cold war.But this doesn't make a country great, not to mention America has very little unique history or architecture.
Is America the world's greatest superpower.

First Military Strength Army Russia has the 4th biggest army while the U.S. is 2nd http://opishposh.com... Air Force Rank 1 - United States Air Force (USA): http://military-navy-army-airforce.blogspot.com... 2,132 Fighter Aircrafts Aerial Refueling aircrafts Attack Aircrafts Attack Helicopters Bombers Cargo transport aircrafts Cargo helicopters Electronic Warfare Aircrafts Ground Attack Aircrafts Helicopters 450 ICBMs Multi-mission Aircrafts Multi-mission RPAs (Remote Piloted Aircraft) Observation aircrafts Reconnaissance aircrafts 32 Satellites Search and Rescue Aircrafts Special electronic missions aircrafts Tanker aircrafts Trainer aircrafts UAVs Utility aircrafts VIP staff transport aircrafts Weather reconnaissance aircrafts Special Operations Squadrons Aircrafts 5,573 Total Aircrafts 329,600 Airforce Personnel Rank 2 - Russian Air Force (RUSSIA): 252 Fighter Aircrafts Airliner Fixed-wing aircrafts Airborne Early Warning & Control aircrafts Air Superiority Fighters Attack Helicopters Bombers Command & Control aircrafts Ground Attack Aircrafts Interceptor aircrafts Reconnaissance aircrafts Satellites Strategic Airliners Strategic Transport Aircrafts Strike Fighter Aircrafts Tactical Transport Aircrafts Training Aircrafts Training Helicopters Transport Helicopters UAVs Utility Helicopters VIP Transport aircrafts 4,000 Total Aircrafts 160,000 Airforce Personnel Navy http://realitypod.com... You'll find the U.S. is also 1st Second Economics http://en.wikipedia.org... America has the biggest economy while Russia ranks 10th
Is America the world's greatest superpower.

"Even in Vietnam 1. America never declared a state of war. 2. Americans killed over 1,000,000 Russians and injured 600,000, While Russia killed 58,000 Americans and wounded 300,000. Proving America's armies to be superior." Can you provide a source for this? As far as i know only about 130,000 deaths were inflicted by America in Vietnam, with only 16 of those being Russian. ^ James F. Dunnigan; Albert A. Nofi (2000). Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War: Military Information You're Not Supposed to Know "On the Human Development Index, America is ranked 3rd and Russia 55th, just behind Kuwait. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living, and quality of life for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing or an underdeveloped country, and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life." Yes, America is high on the human development index.This however, can be attributed to the vast Siberian wilderness and the nomadic peoples who live there. Many Russians, unlike the vast majority of Americans still live in small rural communities. This in many ways has preserved folk culture and prevented Russia from becoming the same monotonous union America has. "Architecture On the list of world's largest buildings Russia's largest is 40th While America has 3rd, 10th, 14th, 23rd, 28th, 35th, and 38th" Again, must stress quality over quantity or in this case, size. The buildings you mentioned are nothing but giant pillars of steel with no character or culture. We're talking Russia Vs America not Communism Vs. Capitalism, to assume that Russia is in any sense communist is rather insulting.
Teenagers, Theft, And Corporal Punishment

Well, basically teenagers shouldn't be reported because their brain is still developing and they are usually reckless. Whippings shouldn't be given as they are too harsh and draw blood, and people would report the father for ill-treatment of the boys. Whippings can physically impale the person for at least a week. I hope next time we can give more directions to the debate, as this has become more of a discussion. Anyways, good debating!
Teenagers, Theft, And Corporal Punishment

The notion kids fooling around with hand guns should be treated as nothing more than adolescent curiosity strikes me as at least a little irresponsible. Even more irresponsible is for them to be allowed to find out if they're real. The most dangerous way for a child to find out if it's real is to try to do it themselves. As for the whippings I am not against the use of corporal punishment. But I also understand the risks and limitations of using it.
Teenagers, Theft, And Corporal Punishment

The pastor shouldn't report the firearm theft as well as teenagers' are often curious about such things and term it "cool". I think we must focus more on solutions than on punishment, and give the person a chance to live. A teenager may simply want to see if the guy really has a gun or not, or whether the bullet really fires like it does in the movies. How can we blame little children for it. As for whippings, sometimes some physical punishment is needed to remind the child of the gravity of the situation. Suppose if the dad had just said "don't steal, it is bad" versus "don't you dare steal ever" and give a little beating, wouldn't the child remember not to steal for a long time? Whipping sounds like a too cruel punishment though and I would limit it to scale beatings and simple hand-to-hand. There was a time when teachers had a stick to beat you, would you call that abuse? I must admit it motivated some students to study harder, even if in fear nonetheless. It's not like many students have the apt for learning these days. Once you come in middle school, you don't feel like acquiring much knowledge anymore. These days some students have the guts to stand up to the teacher and not do any assignments despite all sorts of threats. Wouldn't the stick be a quick solution?
Teenagers, Theft, And Corporal Punishment

If the theft involved a firearm it would raise a legitimate concern about public safety. For the pastor not to report it to law enforcement could be a serious a serious dereliction of duty. On the other hand if the theft was of a more mundane variety such as stealing stationery then the pastor using discretion to not report it is more reasonable. But there is the other part of the question- the whippings. To some the mere word whipping means a near certainty of abuse. I wouldn't go that far but nevertheless a good possibility of abuse or of it turning into abuse clearly exists. The pastor telling the father whipping the boys wouldn't be a good idea sounds to me as good advice. Further in adolescence the use of corporal punishment as a disciplinary tool tends to be ineffective resulting in the need to increase the severity to where it becomes abusive. In addition to being generally ineffective it is also often used inconsistently and irrationally-- which also raise the risk of it becoming abusive.
Teenagers, Theft, And Corporal Punishment

"You state the pastor shouldn't have contacted the sheriff's office. We don't know from the facts presented in my opening argument why the father pleaded with the pastor not to report the fact." He pleaded because no decent parent wants their children to have a criminal record and get troubled by the police. " An indefinite term in a juvenile facility probably a group home is what is likely not jail." There is limited internet access and very few of them allow good computer games, it is but a softer jail. And even then it interrupts and lowers the quality of education. "There are two reasons why young teenagers do such things." Yes, one is a lack of money and other is a prank or just for fun. Your reasons are illogical, preposterous and unrealistic. No kid wants to mess with the police, and if they have problems they would reach out for help through talk rather than steal. Stealing is a hostile act, certainly I will never understand if a monkey steals from me he is asking for help in the jungle. Whipping may or may not set the kid straight, but it is better than getting caught like a criminal. Being a criminal is matter of shame, humiliates the child and reduces self-confidence. And as for the consequences you listed, it matters from country to country and depends on the severity of the crime. If they stole a licensed gun from the pastor and were about to shoot, they will be sent to juvenile correction facilities, which is only slightly less worse than jail. Furthermore, in every school children steal stationery. Now shall I report my friend since he lost my pen after borrowing it? Wouldn't it be better for the parents to handle it, or no one to interfere at all? After all, even if its a parker, I certainly won't go to the police saying "Sir, the kid at my school stole my Parker and refuses to give it back".
Teenagers, Theft, And Corporal Punishment

Thank for agreeing to accept the challenge. You state the pastor shouldn't have contacted the sheriff's office. We don't know from the facts presented in my opening argument why the father pleaded with the pastor not to report the fact. We might infer these boys have been in trouble with the law before and is anxious as to what may happen to them if they end up before the Judge agree. If they have been in trouble with the law before there is an increased the boys will be placed in the custody of the state. But it is not likely to be 15 or 30 days in jail. An indefinite term in a juvenile facility probably a group home is what is likely not jail. Now the father took the boys home and gave them each a whipping-- a spanking that is. Now one could assume the man didn't believe the pastor would be calling the sheriff's office, or that he is pretty stupid, or hard headed. or this community whippings are acceptable. Maybe he is not a very good father and is afraid he will lose custody. There is another possibility and this is the boys first criminal offenses--delinquent acts since their juveniles. Maybe the pastor could have let it go and let the father deal with it. But he didn't. If they are only first time offenders and there are no problems in the home or say at school here is what most likely will happen. Keep in mind this isn't a serious offense. 1. The boys will be released back to the custody of their parents unless they complain of abuse -- not likely -- then they may be placed in a shelter care place pending a child abuse investigation. 2. The boys will have a juvenile intake hearing at which the charges will probably be dismissed with a warning and perhaps some kind of remedial counseling. However there will be no court adjudication of the charges. If there is a child abuse case that will be pursued in juvenile court as a CINA (child in need of assistance) matter 3. If it is a CINA case the judge will decide if the boys have been abused or neglected and if so the judge will then decide if the boys should be removed from their home if they haven't been already. Placements could be with extended family members, foster care, or in a group home. The matter of the theft could be a factor in the placement decision I understand there were only very minimal facts presented in the opening. So you and I have to speculate and infer to fill in the holes. Again thank you for debating me. If you want to make more simple it's basically this as to the theft and the pastor calling the police. There are two reasons why young teenagers do such things. One, they're kids who are testing boundaries and will stop once they're caught and dealt with. The second is they have problems at home, at school, or in the community; and it's a way of reaching out for help. Either way the pastor is doing the right thing by reporting the incident
Teenagers, Theft, And Corporal Punishment

Your story is just one unreliable example, but I will attempt to rebut it. The Pastor got back his stuff and caught them thieving, didn't he? Why he needs to be a jerk and report it? He could have asked for extra money, or simply given them another chance. Now, after being reported, the teenagers would have a criminal record all their lives and as soon as they show it they will be getting the odd-stares. They may not even get jobs in the city. Furthermore, serving the term of punishment (15-30 days, I think) they will miss out school and fall back on education. There is only 3/12 probability that it will be in the holidays, and an even lesser chance that the punishment would end in the holidays as well.
Teenagers, Theft, And Corporal Punishment

In our story today a pastor catches two boys ages 13 and 15 stealing from the collection plate. The boys' father pleads with the pastor not to report the incident to the police and each boy will get a whipping when they get home. The pastor tells the father whipping the boys isn't a good idea and he'll be contacting the police The father stomped out of the pastors office, grabbed the boys, went home and administered the whippings. Meanwhile the pastor contacted the sheriff's office and reported the theft. Did the pastor do and say the right things? I say he did and will take that side Four Rounds
According to Carl Sagan, Intelligent Design Science = Valid and Observable Science

My opponent wrote: "Intelligent Design Science proves conclusively" that all life on the planet was designed by an intelligent agent." That is true, actually: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =) I provided conclusive proof for all of my assertions, but you have provided none at all for any of your atheistic assertions. Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between proof and lack thereof. "Carl Sagan is well-known for having been the front-runner of the failed "SETI" program in the 1980's, in which he tried desperately to find life on other planets, but embarrassingly failing to do so. During his time as frontrunner of SETI, he personally coined the phrase "Intelligent Design," steadfastly declaring to the world at large that Intelligent Design is valid and observable science: These are all well-known and undeniable historical facts." That is all true. I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
According to Carl Sagan, Intelligent Design Science = Valid and Observable Science

"Intelligent Design Science proves conclusively" that all life on the planet was designed by an intelligent agent."That is true, actually: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)My opponent is once again attempting deception through the practice of quote mining. I provided conclusive proof for all of my assertions, but you have provided none at all for any of your atheistic assertions.You have yet to provide any valid citations at all. Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between proof and lack thereof.This claim requires significant proof which you have not provided for this claim.Carl Sagan is well-known for having been the front-runner of the failed "SETI" program in the 1980's, in which he tried desperately to find life on other planets, but embarrassingly failing to do so. During his time as frontrunner of SETI, he personally coined the phrase "Intelligent Design," steadfastly declaring to the world at large that Intelligent Design is valid and observable science: These are all well-known and undeniable historical facts.If they are well known and undeniable historical facts then I am sure it will be easy for you to provide citations for Carl Sagan coining the phrase and declaring it valid science without further quote mining attempts.
According to Carl Sagan, Intelligent Design Science = Valid and Observable Science

My opponent wrote: "Intelligent Design Science proves conclusively" that all life on the planet was designed by an intelligent agent." That is true, actually: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =) I provided conclusive proof for all of my assertions, but you have provided none at all for any of your atheistic assertions. Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between proof and lack thereof. Carl Sagan is well-known for having been the front-runner of the failed "SETI" program in the 1980's, in which he tried desperately to find life on other planets, but embarrassingly failing to do so. During his time as frontrunner of SETI, he personally coined the phrase "Intelligent Design," steadfastly declaring to the world at large that Intelligent Design is valid and observable science: These are all well-known and undeniable historical facts. Therefore I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
According to Carl Sagan, Intelligent Design Science = Valid and Observable Science

intelligent Design Science was initiated by scientist Carl Sagan, circa 1985.Short related video: https://www.youtube.com...;https://m.youtube.com...The only proof my opponent has provided as of yet for Carl Sagan being related to Intelligent Design much less initiating the movement is a YouTube video. However, the video provided by my opponent is out of context and misleading. The full video, which I have provided above, at 56 seconds shows that Carl Sagan actually called natural selection "far more compelling" than intelligent design.Although Intelligent Design Science also applies to the issueof the origin of life on this planet " and indeed Intelligent Design Scienceproves conclusively the fact that all life on this planet was designedby an intelligent agent -- Intelligent Design Scienceis certainly not Creationism. My opponent is making a bold claim saying that "Intelligent Design Science proves conclusively" that all life on the planet was designed by an intelligent agent. Calling it a fact more bold still. However, no citations or proof of any kind for these assertions have been provided as of yet.My opponent has not provided citations for most of the claims, and the only citation provided is a YouTube video cut directly before Carl Sagan outright says natural selection is more compelling than intelligent design.
According to Carl Sagan, Intelligent Design Science = Valid and Observable Science

intelligent Design Science was initiated by scientist Carl Sagan, circa 1985. Sagan, now dead, was agnostic, not a Creationist, and Intelligent Design Science was originally intended as a scientific method for detecting life on other planets. Although Intelligent Design Science also applies to the issue of the origin of life on this planet " and indeed Intelligent Design Science proves conclusively the fact that all life on this planet was designed by an intelligent agent -- Intelligent Design Science is certainly not Creationism. Short related video:
According to Carl Sagan, Intelligent Design Science = Valid and Observable Science

My opponent did not respond to any of these facts: My opponent wrote: "Intelligent Design Science proves conclusively" that all life on the planet was designed by an intelligent agent." That is true, actually: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =) I provided conclusive proof for all of my assertions, but you have provided none at all for any of your atheistic assertions. Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between proof and lack thereof. "Carl Sagan is well-known for having been the front-runner of the failed "SETI" program in the 1980's, in which he tried desperately to find life on other planets, but embarrassingly failing to do so. During his time as frontrunner of SETI, he personally coined the phrase "Intelligent Design," steadfastly declaring to the world at large that Intelligent Design is valid and observable science: These are all well-known and undeniable historical facts." That is all true. I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Strong Atheism is a Sound Position

*Leave a message if you want to accept this debate*Details:I am rehashing my previous 'God Most Likely Doesn't Exist' debate with a cleaner resolution more in line with my own personal position. The BoP is on me to demonstrate the resolution is true. My opponent may either rebut my arguments (so I fail to meet my BoP), or provide stronger arguments of his/her own for the antithesis (that Strong Atheism is an Unsound Position). Definitions:Strong Atheism: The belief that there is no god(s) God: An intelligent being that includes the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, creator, perfect, and free will. Note that omnibenevolence has been omitted from God's qualities (I don't intend to use arguments from evil etc).
need for inculcating reading habit in children

I don't think there is any need of inculcating reading habits in children. After all, what is the use? Children only waste their time reading books. And as far as learning a language is concerned, one can even learn it by conversing in it and listening to it. Further, there are many other constructive things that one can do during one's free time. So, I don't think that inculcating the habit of reading books is important......
need for inculcating reading habit in children

"I don't think there is any need of inculcating reading habits in children. " I beg to differ. "After all, what is the use? Children only waste their time reading books. " Lets see. Reading any sort of material helps one increase their knowledge of the the subject which they are reading, improves an individuals comprehension abilities, enables one to function well in a civilized society (given that societies in general have a demand on their citizen's being educated . . . and reading is essentially a given), allows one to use most of the resources on the Internet . . . heck, I could go on and on and on; the benefits are nearly limitless. To save time, I shall merely offer a link which goes into detail as to how reading greatly impacts one's life:. http://ezinearticles.com... "and as far as learning a language is concerned, one can even learn it by conversing in it and listening to it. " As pointed out, the ability to read is essential to civilized societies as a large quantity of the information one intakes requires reading. "Further, there are many other constructive things that one can do during one's free time. " Perhaps, but given the benefits, reading is one of the (if not, then the ) most constructive things which a child can do on their free time. Ladies and gentleman, CON has failed to provide any compelling reason as to why reading habits should be dismissed entirely. As I've pointed out, without reading skills, one may not even be able to function in a civilized society. What my opponent would have children do is take the path of illiteracy, but I assure you that this is possibly the worst path one can take. Thanks for the debate.