BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolve: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than Stable nations.

"ok well you said the U.S is a stable right.well and you anwser no to my 2 question correct then your whole case falls because my 2 question was sence the U.S is a stable nation are they threat to itselfs you said no an the resolve states that stable nations are a greater threat to the U.S on you side well wouldent that be against your whole case so its like we both fall unless if you want to check what has not fallen?" Despite my opponent's highly incoherent grammar & syntax, I do believe that he is attempting to state that, because I agree that the U.S. is a stable nation, yet do not characterize the U.S. as a militaristic threat to itself, my case has presented itself as a logical contradiction. If this is the case, then I am a bit flabbergasted, as my position in this debate, as dictated by my opponent, is the affirmative. Hence, my job is to prove that failed nations are of greater threat to the U.S. than stable nations are. I will remind him briefly of his own resolution: "Failed nations are a greater threat to the U.S. than stable nations." To be honest, I'm not absolutely positive that I fully understand my opponent's advocacy at this point (if one even exists). He has essentially chosen to abandon is RD 1 case entirely, and has neglected to address mine, as well. Hence, I encourage readers to once again extend all of my argumentation from RDs 1 & 2, and vote for Pro. Thanks for the debate!
Resolve: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than Stable nations.

ok well you said the U.S is a stable right.well and you anwser no to my 2 question correct then your whole case falls because my 2 question was sence the U.S is a stable nation are they threat to itselfs you said no an the resolve states that stable nations are a greater threat to the U.S on you side well wouldent that be against your whole case so its like we both fall unless if you want to check what has not fallen?
Resolve: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than Stable nations.

First of all, I would like to extend my entire case and all arguments provided against the affirmative case at this time. None of my arguments or my rebuttals were addressed in my opponent's RD 2 posting. Now, to address my opponent's RD 2 posting, which was essentially a series of questions. I have answered them below. "ok i got a question for you? do you believe the us is a stable nation?if so the us as it said on the resolve stable nations are a greater threat to the united states as us is a stable nation do you believe they are theyr own threat?and tell me what does a stable nation and failed nation loseif they go to battle?what do they have to lose?" 1. Do you believe [that] the U.S. is a stable nation? Yes. According to my definition of failed and stable nations, the U.S. qualifies as a stable nation. 2. If so...do you believe that they (presumably the U.S.) are their own threat? Uh...no. Mind you, I may be misunderstanding the point of my opponent's question here, but the resolution does not imply that we are discussing the U.S. as a threat to itself. I mean, in an abstract way, certainly the U.S. could be considered its own enemy in multiple respects, but that isn't framer's intent at all. Not only that, but if my opponent were going to attempt to define the debate thusly (and somehow magically make it not abusive to the affirmative), he certainly didn't do it in RD 1. 3. What does a stable nation and failed nation lose if they go to battle? I've considered the last two questions as one, since the last question is redundant. To answer this question fully, I recommend that my opponent review my entire case, since my case sets out to establish this very thing. To recap: *Stable nations, because they have a vested economic and survivalist interest in realizing a successful world community, have quite a bit to lose by showing militaristic aggression toward the U.S. *Failed nations have no such vested interest for the very reason that they are failed. Their economy has little to do with the world community (as it is usually in shambles in the first place), and they are lead by the most fundamentalist and/or corrupt of leaders, so the concept of world cooperation is essentially lost to the ideology of the state. Hence, they have very little to lose. Not only that, but note that most failed nations have several bones to pick with the U.S. (on that same fundamental level) that stable nations do not (take a look at my education turn specifically for more on this).
a question to a religious person

By "no one" do you mean that no entity within the bounds of our plane of existence in this universe knows why the blind man is wearing the watch or what it does? Even if you could demonstrate that this were true for every single being that existed within our own universe (eg you asked them all, and they all said they didn't know - oh, and then you proved they were all telling you the truth of course), it is always possible that a being of higher dimensions to that of our own existence might have such knowledge. You would have no way to corroborate or refute this.What % of knowledge of everything there is to "know" do you reckon humanity has achieved thus far? [That includes knowledge both within and outside of our own universe.]I guess like your blind man's watch analogy, nobody knows nor could even begin to hazard a guess at that. Personally, I suspect it is not even a fraction of one over one trillion to the power of itself a trillion times...Yet I'm sure we're still well placed to assume an infinite being doesn't exist, based on nothing more than our own human logic and the parameters by which we ourselves have deemed best to measure and understand this tiny fragment of our own galaxy.
a question to a religious person

OK, I'll bite! :o) I will wait for the instigator's round 2 for them to expound the metaphor further (assuming that is the purpose of the question). My opening thoughts, addressing the question purely literally, are that - regardless of being blind or not - a person may very well have several reasons for wearing a watch that does not tell the time. For example, it could be a compass, or a step-counter, or a tracking device.
a question to a religious person

You have logically stymied yourself. It doesn't hold that no-one knows about the watch, because you as the proposer of the question know about the watch.Unless the watch doesn't exist of course, but then it renders your question redundant. It is about as logically worthwhile as a sign that states "please do not steal this sign".Now if it is the case that the watch is a straw man argument in place of God, then this too doesn't work. eg I could say to you that the blind man is wearing an invisible watch. I can't prove it, noone has ever seen it, but I just know it is there - and you just have to take my word for it. But that is entirely baseless, there is literally no evidence behind my proposition. In exactly the same way as there is no evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.God does not suffer from this same void of evidence though. As there is recorded evidence of the man Christ who existed and appeared to eyewitnesses, who claimed to be the Son of God and performed public miracles to back up his claims. He in turn pointed back to even more ancient texts about God's interaction with humanity through the Jews and an earlier promise that a Messiah would indeed come to Earth for our salvation. All of these texts are historical evidence.Now of course you can try and argue that this evidence has become corrupted over time, or that the information was outright false by the person who originally penned the evidence in the first place - that is a conclusion you need to decide upon based on reviewing the evidence. But the one thing you can never say is that there is no evidence. Because that is simply not true.In fact, Atheism is the position with no evidence. Atheism is purely a stance taken by an individual human being based on their own internalised conclusions, and almost always it is an opinion which has been reached only after reading a book by another atheist who in turn was only merely voicing their own internalised conclusions (no-one is "born atheist", to use your own argument back at you from another debate). The one thing the Atheist doesn't have is any written evidence. In fact, the Atheist has to go further and either ignore or refute the religious texts that DO exist (the actual evidence) and then stand on their own conclusion for which they have utterly zero written evidence to support it - and only their own opinion that the religious texts that do exist must all be totally false. Even though they have no actual evidence to directly disprove these texts.
US Universities Should be Required to Give Preference to Applicants of Underrepresented Minorities

I accept, but the round format you posted is impossible to follow since you are con. Everything has to shift half a round forward and there will be no final post of "end of debate" I am only arguing in terms of admission to medical universities since that admission process is the only one I have spent much time looking into. I definitely agree with rules mandating preference being given to URMs and will make my opening argument next round.
US Universities Should be Required to Give Preference to Applicants of Underrepresented Minorities

I made this debate so, "only a member who is ranked as good or better than me" can accept (to avoid forfeits mainly). R1: This/Con Opening Arguments R2: Pro Opening Arguments (no rebuttals)/Con Rebuttals R3: Pro Rebuttals/Con Defense & Conclusion (no new arguments) R4: Pro Defense & Conclusion (no new arguments)/Con posts "end of debate" Underrepresented Minorities: A racial group that is represented at a lower rate at a university than it is at the population at large. For example, if Harvard has a lower percentage of blacks than there are in the population, Harvard is required to give preference to accepting black students.
Abortion

Abortion is a very personal and important topic that is constantly discussed on a personal and political level. The primary issue seems to be whether a fetus is considered a human or not, and if it's morally wrong or right for the life of the fetus to be ended. I think we often miss important psychological, social and, philosophical factors when determining if a fetus is a human or not. I would argue that a fetus does not have the societal impact, the level of consciousness, or the experiences to be considered a human. If we use the biological and the issues I brought up in conjunction with each other, I believe it helps this debate on abortion towards the pro-choice side.
Batman is the best D.C superhero

Intro: Time to get serious you forget thay my argument is stating not only is Batman the best superhero but also he has the tools to take down any hero or villain. And you chose The Flash which is commendable. And you frequently bring up the Flash's abilities which is cool and all but you have yet to explain how he can stop batman from taking him down. It's a part of my initial argument that you completely ignored but before I address that I'd like to point out one of your three Superhero definitions actually fits Batman. So you once again defined Batman as a superhero while trying to disprove him as a superhero with actual definitions which also raises a red flag you may not know much about Batman to rebuttal this another way.The Tower of Babel Arc: I will now focus on the Tower of Babel JLA comic book arc. You know when Batman has stored files on the weaknesses and strengths of each Justic Leauge member. Amd a method of taking them down as a contingency plan the Injustice Leauge returns or if one of the heroes decided to go rouge on their own. The Flash was taken down by one of Batman's contingency plans which was a specially designed " vibra -bullet" that struck him in the back of the neck, causing him to experience seizures at light speed before it was destroyed by Superman's heat vision. Although he was exposed to the weapon for 22 minutes Wally's relative speed makes the experience feel like months.- Side note though Batman has no virtual super powers the Tower of Babel arc is a excellent example of my initial argument that Batman can take down any hero or villain. Granted it should be noted in the Tower of Babel it was infact Ra's Al Ghul that used the contingency plans against against the Justice Leauge. It was Batman's plan of attack to take each of them down if he needed to. And I do not need to stress how close each hero came to almost their ends respectively. Conclusion: You fail again at disproving Batman as a superhero, you also fail at arguing both points ofmy initial statement. What you succeed in doing however is repeating the Flash's abilities. And you succed in once again not explaining how Batman cannot take down take down any hero or villain. Well the Flash in your case since this is whom you based you argument on. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Batman is the best D.C superhero

Introduction I would like to start again by showing that Batman is not a superhero. I will conclude with some facts about The Flash. Is The Batman a Superhero? No, because although being a costumed crime fighter is one of the criteria to be a superhero, another very important criteria is having superpowers (see superhero defenitions). Being a good martial artist or having a high IQ is not a superpower seeing as any human can be a good martial artist and any lucky child can be born a genius. Since The Batman does not have superpowers, he cannot be "The Best Superhero. " Superhero Definitions [1]: "By strict definitions, characters require actual superhuman powers to be deemed superheroes. " [2]: "A figure, especially in a comic strip or cartoon, endowed with superhuman powers and usually portrayed as fighting evil or crime. " [3]: "A fictional hero having extraordinary or superhuman powers; also: an exceptionally skillful or successful person. " My Opponent's Debate As to address the rest of my opponent's argument, anyone could rattle off facts about any superhero. You are not establishing The Batman as better than any superhero. I will match every single one of your Batman facts with some about The Flash. Though The Flash does inherit superhuman powers as I mentioned in the previous round, he relies on his intelligence, athletic prowess and his abilities as a chemist. He is also one of the fastest superheros in all of the D. C. Universe. His speed is said to rival Superman, kid Flash, and other speedsters. His speedsuit can shrink to a size that fits on a ring due to a special gas he creates that shrinks cloth fibers to a fraction of their original size. He has a high moral aptitude and refuses to take a life. Regardless of the situation with which he is faced. Batman also has taken on and defeated a vast majority of foes ranging from common criminals to outlandish supervillians. As you can see, The Batman is not more special than The Flash, or any superhero for that matter, when all the opponent presents is a wide range of facts. Conclusion The Batman is not a superhero and he is not more special than other superheroes. I turn it over to the pro. Sources 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Batman is the best D.C superhero

Well your source you gave on the term superhero credits Batman as a superhero if you actually read the whole thing since he is a coustumed crime fighter. And costumed crime fighters are deemed superheroes. Though Batman does not inherit superhuman powers as I mentioned in the previous round he relies on his intelligence, athletic prowess and his abilities as a detective. He is also one of the most proficient martial artist in all of the D.C. universe his skills are said to rival Lady Shiva, Bronze Tiger, and Richard Dragon. His Batsuit also aids him in combat it protects him from gunfire and other significant impacts. His most defining characteristic is his high moral aptitude and his refusal to take a life. Regardless of the situation with which he is faced. And to acknowledge Batman as a superhero Superman himself says " Sometimes, I admit I think of Bruce as a man in a costume then with some gadget from his utility belt reminds me that he has a extraordinary mind and how lucky I am to be able to call on him". Batman also has taken on and defeated a vast majority of foes ranging from common criminals to outlandish supervillains. Source http://en.wikipedia.org...
Batman is the best D.C superhero

I will be going about this debate in two ways. Firstly, I will discredit Batman as "the best superhero" And secondly, I will be providing a better candidate for best superhero: The Flash. 1. Batman cannot be the best superhero simply because of basic definition. Superhero is defined as "A benevolent fictional character with superhuman powers, such as Superman [1]." Seeing as Batman does not have superhuman powers, he is not a superhero and therefore cannot be the best superhero. 2. Perhaps the best superhero is The Flash. The Flash is also a human, but with the ability to run faster than the speed of sound (light in some cases), use superhuman reflexes and vibrate through solid objects [2]. He is not only smart and strong, but also funny. Seeing as my opponent has the burden of proof, I ask him to not only show to us how Batman is a superhero, but also how he is better than The Flash. Conclusion The Batman is not a superhero by definition and is not better than The Flash. I turn it over to my opponent. Sources 1. http://www.google.com... 2. http://dc.wikia.com...(Wally_West)
Batman is the best D.C superhero

OpeningI will begin this debate going light no need to go overboard right away but I wlll point this one fact out, the fact that Batman is a normal human being. My point being he does not have have any super powers to aid him in battle. To compensate for this he relies on his wealth, intellect, and martial arts. I will point out certain movies and comics that show Batman utilizing these tools to save not only citizens of Gotham but also saving members of the justice leauge as well. And also how his intelligence almost literally destroyed the Justice Leauge but that's for later. I don't want to say too much in the early rounds.
Batman is the best D.C superhero

Introduction I will be finishing off this argument by making rebuttals to every single one of my opponent's point. Forfeiting the Debate Pro makes the argument that I have forfeited the debate because The Flash cannot defeat the Batman. While it is true that The Batman can beat The Flash, the debate is not "The Batman can beat a superhero of your choice," but rather "The Batman can beat any superhero or villain using his intelligence and tools. " When I realized that The Batman did indeed beat The Flash, I had to switch to a new counterargument. Batman is a superhero because he is in the Justice League of America The Pro agreed that technically, Batman does not fall under the definition of a superhero because he has no superpowers, but since he is in the Justice League of America, he is a superhero. This is false because many non-superheroes are on the Justice League as well. These include The Green Arrow and The Black Canary [1]. The Joker Argument In this portion of the debate, Pro makes the statement, "he is defeated at times," which is more than enough to win this debate. It is the duty of the Pro to prove that Batman can defeat anyone, but if the Batman can be defeated, clearly he cannot defeat everyone. Not to mention, stopping most of the Joker's plans is not defeating him. The Joker still gets away with much havoc. Spiderman vs. The Batman I believe that Pro misunderstood my point. My point was not "Spiderman can defeat The Batman," but rather "The Batman cannot defeat Spiderman" because they exist in different Universes so a clash between them could not ever happen. By claiming that The Batman can defeat ANY superhero, the pro makes the mistake of failing to address superheroes that exist in other dimensions that could never end up in a brawl with the Batman. Doomsday This is the core of my debate. Doomsday is a villain famous for the murder of countless superheroes. Every time he is "taken down" he returns stronger than before. There is no way for the Batman to defeat him simply because he is "invulnerable"[2]. The opponent clearly concedes this topic. Conclusion Batman is not a superhero and even if he were there are many superheroes/villains he is incapable of defeating such as The Joker, Spiderman, and Doomsday. Seeing as I have addressed and rebutted all of my opponents arguments and he has not met the burden of proof, I urge the audience to vote for the Con. Sources 1. . http://www.ranker.com... 2. . http://dc.wikia.com...
Batman is the best D.C superhero

Introduction Pro's argument can be taken down in two ways: technicalities and comic book knowledge. I will use both methods. The Three Blaring Technicalities 1. The Batman does not have a superpower as addressed before and therefore cannot be the best superhero. 2. Being the con, I do not have to prove anything. It is the duty of the pro to prove both parts of his argument, both that Batman is a superhero and that he can take down any hero or villain. Con has failed to do so and instead challenges me to prove that Batman cannot. 3. The Batman cannot take down any superhero or villain because he lacks access to more than half of them. They exist in various universes such as the Marvel Universe. For example, Batman cannot take down Spiderman because they are in different Universes. The Comic Book Debate Although the Batman may have access to the Tower of Babel, Batman does not have what it takes to take down his archenemy, the Joker. In the entire comic book series, the Joker runs rampant leading goonies and other villains to cause madness in Gotham City. Besides the Joker, the Batman gets defeated many times by lesser opponents if defeat just means loses a battle. Batman is not an invincible hero. The point of Batman is to have a human hero and part of that means that he will get defeated like he has in many battles. Finally, I'd like to see how the Pro can prove that Batman has what it takes to defeat "Doomsday. " Doomsday, the overpowered villain endowed with super strength, super speed, super agility (dodges vibra-bullets), super endurance among other abilities, killed Superman and other superheroes. I sincerely believe that The Batman is no match for him. Conclusion The Batman is still not a superhero. The Batman still cannot take down every hero/ villain. Because both of these facts are true both technically and in the comic book sense, the pro still has much work to do in the last argument.
Resolved: Debates Between Members Who Know Each Other Personally are Acceptable

My argument throughout has been that if one cannot tell from the debate that the members know each other personally, then they are outside of the resolution, as it is self-evident that it is acceptable. This, however, is not a concession, but rather a statement that if they do not make it evident that they know each other, then for all intents and purposes they do not. As I have repeatedly stated this (starting in my opening argument) and you have not disagreed, I can only assume that this argument carries through and is part of the definitions for the debate. Therefore, as you have still not refuted my second and third arguments above, I must assume that you agree with me when I say that "it is all to easy for personal, previous conflicts between the debaters to be drawn in or created by the debate" and " in many debates between people who know each other personally, references are made to outside events." Since you agreed with my first point and did not dispute my second or third, I have won this debate. Thank you for your time.