BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S. should improve Sino-American relations by exchanging capital cities with China

I thank DebateSpirit for accepting my offer on this. ===DEFINITIONS=== U.S. - http://en.wikipedia.org... China - http://en.wikipedia.org... Capital city: the city or town that is the official seat of government in a country, state, etc. [http://dictionary.reference.com...] By this definition, the Capital cities of China is Beijing [http://en.wikipedia.org...] and the U.S.' capital is Washington D.C. [http://en.wikipedia.org....]. Exchange: To give up (something) for something else; part with for some equivalent; change for another. [http://dictionary.reference.com...] ===PRO ARGUMENT== 1) M.A.D. M.A.D stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. It is "a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) M.A.D. is the main reason why China hasn't invaded America, and vica-versa. If the U.S. declared war on China, China would immediately take the American capital with ease, as would the U.S. with Chinas. This heightens Americas security. 2) NATIONAL SECURITY Besides from MAD which I already explained, should another nation invade the U.S., China would send it's military to defend the Chinese Capital of Washington D.C., as the U.S. would to defend Beijing. This forms a mutual military alliance for both sides, thus improving relations vastly. 3) ECONOMIC TIES U.S. corporations would follow the congress to Beijing, thus increasing Sino-American economic relations. The same would happen in D.C. Chinese business' would go to D.C. Economic ties such as these would benefit the U.S. economy as well as promote a stronger relation between the PROC and the U.S.A. 4) CULTURAL EXCHANGE The regular interactions between the Beijing denizens and U.S. politicians would promote a cultural exchange, likewise with the Chinese government officials and the citizens of D.C. ===POSSIBLE COUNTER-ARGUMENTS=== 1) Inconvenience: The internet is a more than effective way to relay information between the U.S. capital on mainland China and the rest of America.
Politics: A game of fools and a World of Conjecture.

Hello, firemonkey. I am glad you responded in the allotted time. First off, I want to clarify what I meant by "politics". I did not specify, and you called me out on that, but the politics i meant were Presidential politics, and government politics. I'm glad that this was clarified. I also want to say that I could've used a better word for "fools". I couldve said lies, falsifications, facades, but maybe not fools. I once again wish you use proper grammer and typing skills. It will greatly increase your votes and not make you seem so inexperienced. You said in your rebuttal:"ok then also you said politics is for fools and this is wrong cause there is politics in getting married there is a political value to every thing you read you do you say and you are a politician maybe not professionally maybe just as a hobby getting in this debate make you a politician and there for by that statement you are calling yourself a fool and i doubt that is what you meant to say." I am not calling myself a fool, because as i stated before, I did not mean the kinds of politics you stated. Besides, we might as well add the politics of sports, supermarket check out lines, Wii shopping and office antics. The list goes on and on, but the point is that politics is mostly facades and twisted truths. I refer back to the Edwards discussion as proof to my theory.
Politics: A game of fools and a World of Conjecture.

ha ha wow well you are telling me the president is the master puppeter no read the book the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy it may be a comedy but the reason it is so funny is its true. in this book the president actually knows nothing everyone runs things behind his back his only job is to draw the public away from those who get things done. the president cant actually do any thing its all in those running the show from 18 lairs back in there big business suits and there multi billion dollar companies. ok then also you said politics is for fools and this is wrong cause there is politics in getting married there is a political value to every thing you read you do you say and you are a polititian maybe not professionaly maybe just as a hobby getting in this debate make you a polititian and there for by that statement you are calling yourself a fool and i doubt that is what you ment to say i know stand ready for my opponents rebutle.
Politics: A game of fools and a World of Conjecture.

Hello, firemonkey and I am glad that you accepted my challenge. In the first place, you should learn to write your debates out correctly. You said that the master puppeteers would not have been happy with the candidates if they had told it like it is, even though they are the ones running to be the master puppeteer. That is where you are flawed. If they tell it like it is (but in a good way, twisting again) the the maerican public will realize that finally we have a straighforward candidate and a candidate that we wish to be MASTER PUPPETEER. This is what America need to lead itself in the right direction. Then again, if a president is misleading (much like the one we have now) then it is all a pack of lies and he is not even the one manipulating the world. PRes. Bush has so many people working for him that he does nothing. Lyndon B. Johnson once said ""If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking." This applies towards your master puppeteer theory. Thank you.
Politics: A game of fools and a World of Conjecture.

ok political idiot here so dont take me serious but here we go what i have to say about politics is it is a game played on so many levels by every person that if it is for fools then we all are fools (i usually believe that) but next you say we need a canidit that says its like it is if he wait if someone does do that there shoot down in a second cause the puppet masters in the back want us not knowing whats going on
Politics: A game of fools and a World of Conjecture.

Charlie Chaplin was once asked what he thought of politics, and he said "I am a clown, and that puts me on a higher plain than any politician." In a sense, this is quite correct in todays political standings. All the 2008 presidential candidates are promising change. This has been promised for years, and it has happened, but come on! You can do better than that. I was listening to John Edwards speak a short while ago and he was asked where he stood on racial segregation, and he gave a long drawn out response about how he lived that and how it was a big part of society before and how it was all a part of his life. The interviewer then asked him if that was what he thought was happening now and his response was "I wouldn't know." Now is that the right way to reiterate what you just said, Mr. Edwards? I think not. Politics is a fools game and a world where the truth is construed to be lies and vice versa. We need a candidate that is going to tell it like it is, something that hasn't happened for years. We really do need change.
According to the Bible, capital punishment is justified.

I have the burden of proof. Con will post his argument in the first round. The only source tolerated is a dictionary, a biblical passage, and Christian websites. Voting: If opponent uses any sources that are not the sources above, he/she loses sources vote. If opponent curses, he/she loses conduct vote. If opponent forfeits one round, he/she loses conduct vote. If opponent trolls the debate, he/she loses convincing arg. vote. No trolling! No semantics! No cursing! Acceptance of the debate means concession to rules. Other rules: All biblical sources, scriptures, must be accepted as true; its truth in comparison to this topic will determine who has the most convincing vote. Enjoy!
According to the Bible, capital punishment is justified.

Never mind, anyways, the Bible supports capital punishment. Romans 13: 1-4 says this: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."Now, as you can see, Paul says in the last verse that God gives power to the government. Also, that if the government kills someone because they have done something evil, that they have not done this without meaning. Therefore, we must realize that God says it is okay for the government to execute people for doing evil things because God gives them that power. Murder is evil. Therefore, it is safe to assume that capital punishment is justified according to the Bible.Now, Con does know that he/she was supposed to post his argument in the first round so this was not done out of negligence. Voters, please vote accordingly with the knowledge presented.
Homeschool is superior to government provided schools

Rebuttals "Home schooling depends on the conditions of the home." There is no evidence that homeschoolers are at higher risk for neglect or abuse than publicly or privately schooled children. In fact, there is reason to believe that neglect and abuse are actually less common in home school situations. Moreover, 85 percent of child fatalities occur in children younger than six years of age, before children begin their formal schooling in any form. Children are not more likely to be abused or neglected in home school as if they were in public school. "Home schools are not universal." Parents do not have to be the primary teacher. In fact, most students growing up in high school are more independent because they have learned how to work by themselves, therefore, parents would not have to give up work or hire a tutor full time any more than they would if they were in public school. "Home schools are fertile for indoctrination of religious fundamentalism." While religion does have a big part in why many people home school, it is not the primary reason. Even if it was, it is proved that a child who has grown up in a religious home has a higher regard for society. "Home schooling parents do home school with the intention to indoctrinate." Parents should have a say in what their child is around. Teachers also spread their beliefs among students and have a strong influence on them. "Religious fundamentalism is negative for society." Many charities and homeless shelters and hospitals are entirely funded by donations from religious people all over America. This country was founded upon the belief in God. Many people strive everyday to be better people because of their faith in God. Religion, if properly directed, has a very powerful and positive influence in society.
Let's debate Euthanasia.

I am convinced that the use of Euthanasia is morally correct. I think that when a person is so sick that he/she cannot do anything else than suffering laying in a bed, he/she should have the opportunity to end his/her life to avoid further pain. This ideology of mine comes from the belief that a life full of suffering is not worth living. I honestly thought most people had same conviction as me, but it has come to my mind that this is not the case. Therefore, I now ask you; Is euthanasia morally incorrect? Please add a comment describing why you feel like you do.
Gun Control

If you will recall my previous argument, you will notice how I said that people shouldn't have guns unless they have some sort of government permit, which means it's ok for police to have guns. That's their job. As for knives, how often do you see knife murders on TV? Yes, there may be a lot, but compare it to the amount of gun deaths. Knives are easier to defend against, avoid, and they will attract attention if you try to attack someone. One thing your forgetting is that with guns, people will use them to attack others. We know that because of TV. Tell me, would you rather be attacked by a guy with a gun, or with a knife? With guns you can run a away and hope you don't get a bullet in the back. Or, you can hope someone saves you. Self defense isn't 100% reliable against a gun. Your mind stimulus reacts against you when you know you could die with the twitch of a finger. Knives on the other hand, you can run away, use self defense, or call for help while wrestling with the guy. Yes, guns were used in wars. Wars are to beat the opposite side , using force and killing. We don't want to bring that into civilian life.
Gun Control

So you said to take away guns from everybody. What about police officers or anybody like them. If we took guns away there would be more killing by being stabbed. Being stabbed is probably a much more painful and longer death. I should defend myself if necessary. I am a hunter too so I use guns to kill animals. But when buying a gun it is very safe and very secure. Guns is how this country was built. They were used in wars, to hunt like today, and to protect people in need. They are not always used in the right way today but that's why paper work and backround checks are used.
Gun Control

But sir, if everyone were get guns, even more shootings would happen. I can agree with you that African Americans are the root of this- recently Trayvon got shot (He was black) and, yes, left and right, reports of black people being shot or shooting are flooding the TV. However, we cannot afford to give guns to everyone. I don't think any guns, even handguns, should be allowed. Maybe that 3d printed handgun that is single fire could be ok, but otherwise, it's too dangerous. Now, don't get me wrong. If you were to get some sort of permit from the government, you have every right to get a gun. In fact, less shootings would happen if you were to confiscate the gun from people. Without guns to shoot with, nobody would need self defense guns. Please note that this does not apply to guns in schools.
Gun Control

In my opinion I am for gun control. First of all I don't care if your black, white, Yellow, or orange. If somebody wishes to own a gun they should be allowed to. A backround check should be checked first though. Many kids lately have been caught with weapons such as guns. I am not trying to be racist but every night when I turn on my tv to watch the news there is always somebody being shot, or stabbed, or robbed. But there is one thing in all of these murders that has one thing in common. They are mostly black people. Either getting shot and killed or being the shooter. I have said this before I am not trying to be racist. I think that I including black people or whatever race you are you should be allowed to have possesion of a firearm. Although when using your firearm you must use it for only good matters. Not for killing somebody unless you really are in danger.
Gun Control

Do you think that giving everyone guns is going to resolve this issue of school shootings and things like that? I think that ONLY AUTHORIZED PERSONAL can carry guns. Sure, that means you can't defend yourself, but if it isn't a gun, you have at least some chance of running away. And, even if people get guns illegally, the law will find out. Remember, if a murder is committed it is easy to trace that person. Plus, with samples from the gun in a shot victim, you can identify product info, and trace black markets or things like that. Remember, in this case, guns are bought not sold. It has been great debating with you. Let the better arguments win.
Gun Control

But what else are we supposed to do? Remember, enforcing this law doesn't just mean the government saying "don't use guns." The government will give specific orders to gun manufacturers. Yes, people will still find a way to get guns. However the number will be reduced greatly. Remember, the US has already banned assault rifles. Already, a huge difference has been made in terms of assault rifle ownership. Although, in my opinion, it doesn't do much because most shootings are with pistols, it has been, for the most part, a successful gun.
Gun Control

I know you can get shop permits, but I'm arguing that it shouldn't be that way. By making laws stronger, you do make a difference. It's a law. Especially with guns, where you already need some sort of permit, it would not be difficult to take that Rule to the next level. You also said guns protect us if used in the proper way. Many people don't use it properly. Like you said in your first argument, you always see gun murder on TV. Trayvon,, sandy hook... It doesn't stop. The us has banned assault rifles because of all this. That should prove how serious this is getting.
Gun Control

For guns you do not need a permit issued by the government. You can simpily fill out all the paperwork needed and get your permit at a gun shop. A backround check is needed to buy a gun too. But there is always a way to get a gun. Making gun laws stronger will not and never has made a difference. I am for gun control and always be. Guns protect us if used in the proper way. But if we make laws stronger people will be very angry all across America. People such as gang, hunters, or just people who own them.
Society would be better off without religion

Christopher Hitchens once issued a challenge to all religious people, saying "Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer." He goes on to say that, though he has never heard any tenable responses to this statement, he has never met anybody who has any trouble naming an act of violence or destruction performed in the name of religion. Without religion, we would have peace in the middle east. We would be free of movements to inhibit scientific progress by banning stem cell research or teaching the faux science of intelligent design in schools. Contraception would no longer be condemned by the Catholic church, for no such church would exist! I do not mean to condemn all religion in one fell swoop; I do not deny that it does provide many valuable services. I simply contend that these are outweighed by the numerous inhibitions to moral and scientific progress it creates.
Society would be better off without religion

I still don't think that teaching intelligent design is against the first amendment. If you teach both, which is what I said, then you aren't censoring anyone. If you only teach one thing that means that you are being biased. Maybe don't teach Intelligent design in science class, but maybe in history or literature. Many books that you read need you to have basic knowledge of the bible to understand them. Or in history when you need to know about the roman religion. Don't ban it's teaching, but teach it in ways that allow both sides to talk. I couldn't quote it because my keyboard was all ghetto. But I didn't feel like re-wording it so sorry about that. I fixed it so if I do it in the future then I can quote it. Sorry about that. I didn't think italics would be appropriate. Our evaluation didn't create morals until religion made a basic foundation. Many of these tribes believed that the bear or the sky was their god. Maybe paganism. So their morals were more flexible, like kill people who believe in different things, but these were created by their religion. Before this people would 1. get food, 2. get water, 3. make shelter, 4. get a mate/wife whatever you want to call it, and 5. bash you neighbor with a rock. well those bear religions didn't sound good, but this was just kind of a random rage. When the main religions began to form more civilised morals came to form. So a few morals where through evolution, but the big ones (not killing for example) was because religion said not to. You say that the benefactors are less then the disadvantages. Radical Islam is one of your sole examples. Radical Islam isn't a religion. Muslims look down on them and think their traitors. My Muslim friends say that their the most sinful people on earth. If there is one true God, why would he desire death, martyrdom, war or murder in his name? Muslims, Judaism, Christianity are not about killing. If you go into depth into the Jihad belief it is that killing is self defense. It needs to be self defense. So the radicals are exaggerating their faith so much that Muslims don't consider them a religion. This is my first philosophical debate so please write down on you vote or in the comments on my performance so I may critique my performance, and know why I lost/won.
Society would be better off without religion

I just want to say that that's the second time you've just copied and pasted an article from somewhere into this debate: http://www.heritage.org... You did it earlier with the USA Today article. Anyway, there's no need to teach the controversy, because there is no controversy. If you believe in intelligent design, by all means teach it in a church or some sort of religious forum, but don;t mandate its teaching in public schools- this is an obvious violation of the first amendment. I did provide an explanation of where morals come from. They are a product of our evolution, a result of our tribal nature. As we do not possess claws or sharp teeth, nor small size or great speed, we needed a means of defending ourselves. Thus we came to rely on communities to protect us from predators- one man may not be a formidable foe for a wolf, but ten certainly are. Due to the critical nature of these communities, we developed what we now called morality- that is, an innate desire to help one's fellow man. This trait was obviously beneficial, for the societies which relied on mutual beneficence prospered while others died out. Thus evolved morality. This is obviously an enormous oversimplification, as it would take ages to write out the entire evolutionary history of this trait, but you get the gist of it. Religion is certainly not all negative. It does often provide group solidarity or social stability for families in strenuous circumstances. My assertion is simply that the overall benefits are outweighed by the negative effects it has on society. To quote Pascal, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction". The pervasive influence of radical Islam on modern society is evidence of this. From Northern Ireland to New York City, acts of religious violence have rent apart the lives of millions of people, and these simply cannot be overlooked by noticing that religion often does some good.