BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drone Warfare does more good than harm

Refutations1. Drones are inhumane.This point has nothing to do with the topic, which is "drone warfare does more good than harm. No where in this point is there an example of drones doing bad things. Even to entertain this as if it had relevance to the topic, there is nothing wrong with us killing terrorists in Yemen, because they are terrorists. Also, as to it being like a video game, there is no evidence that it leads to "killing sprees" because you are in safety. In fact, as I have mentioned in my arguments, hundreds of people are monitoring each strike to make sure it goes according to plan.2. Not effectiveHere he talks about civilian deaths. As I have said, though, the civilian deaths are very low compared to other kinds of war. The tiny amounts of civilian casualty are justified by the high efficiency rates. All kinds of war have civilian casualties. If there are civilian casualties, we must make sure that terrorists are being killed, and as I have shown in my points, terrorists are killed by drones.3. Abuses of powerAgain, this point does not relate to the topic. Even if in 20 years drones are common in America, this doesn't have anything to do with "The United State's Use of Drone Warfare". They haven't used drones this way yet, so this is irrelevant.4. Other optionsFirst of all, drones did lead to the death of Osama bin Laden. They scouted out the terrain and were able to find hishouse. Secondly, a hit squad risks American lives, and also puts us on worse relations with the country we invade.
Drone Warfare does more good than harm

Let us begin!Arguments 1. Drones can be used to gather information. As we all know, humans have their limitations. Thusly, war has its limitations when it is fought only with humans. Drones have target mechanisms, and they never miss, making it easy to kill targets. Also, drones can record video of the terrain, which can give the side with the drones a massive advantage (The Daily Banter). Drones cleared the path to killing Osama bin Laden. 2. Drones save the lives of United States soldiers Judge, the answer here is plain and simple. Drones are pieces of metal and wire. They have no life, and when one is shot, all that happens is that a machine ceases to fly around in the air. They can easily be replaced for a cost. When a soldier dies, a life is lost, and lives are priceless. Since using drones poses no risk to the aggressor, United States lives are saved by drone warfare. 3. Drones are very effective. First off, using drone warfare, eighty three percent of people that are killed are people that are meant to be killed. This means that there is a very low civilian casualty rate of 16 percent. Normal warfare has a civilian casualty rate of forty six percent. Clearly drones are more effective in killing who needs to be killed. Secondly, it is the only high efficiency method for killing terrorists. There are three other methods I will cite here as inferior to drones in killing terrorists. I would be surprised the proposition could name another method more effective than drones. One, sending a hit squad. Though sending a hit squad may result in less civilian death, it endangers the lives of United States soldiers, and creates diplomatic crisis, because it would be considered an invasion by the other country. Two, missiles and bomb strikes. The problem with missiles and bomb strikes is that it gives the target more time to escape. Three, local support. This has the same issue as missiles and bomb strikes (nytimes). A third way that drones can take their time with strikes because there are no humans in the cockpit. With other operations the emphasis is speed, however since this is not the case, there is much scrutiny over each strike. 100 military personnel scrutinize each strike that is ordered, making sure it will be fool-proof and have no errors. Former national security advisor Jones says, quote “many times at the eleventh hour we waved off a mission simply because the target had people around them” end-quote. Each drone has seven joystick pilots, seven system operators, five mission coordinators, 66 CIA supervisors, 34 video crew people, and 18 intelligence operators. Drone strikes are not just manned by one man with a drone strike. Much time and effort goes into making a drone strike effective, efficient, and without much civilian loss. Note, my argument on effectivity can be split in to three different arguments for refutation.
Drone Warfare does more good than harm

Counter Refutations: 1. Drones are inhumane My opponent says this is irrelevant yet he himself decides to define elements of the prompt later in his counter refutations, section 1. If the U.S. is going to act as the police of the world and intervene in overseas affairs, then the least they can do is take humane actions. 2. Not effective What pro doesn't understand about the civilian casualty rate is that it is hugely varied. He is deciding to use one source supports his viewpoint. He does not recognize how varied the estimates are as I demonstrated earlier. I would like to point out again why they are so varied as I have earlier. The drones that make these strikes on terrorists tend to hover over the area after they have finished and have in past, shot at their destroyed target after the initial strike to scare samaritans away. I don't see how anyone could support this and how this helps our goal of stopping terrorists for reasons I will get into later. 3. Abuses of power This point relates to the topic because it's about drone warfare and this is one of the consequences of drone warfare. 4. Other options While drones might've helped take pictures of his compound, that was it. Drones did not lead to the death of Osama Bin Laden ( http://www.guardian.co.uk... ). Also, a hit squad doesn't damage the relations as much as a drone strike which is viewed negatively by many especially in Pakistan ( http://www.cfr.org... ) One last thing, my opponent said my tangent earlier in my refutation of his point on saving American lives was confusing so I will attempt to clarify it here. Known as the blowback theory, one of the reasons we are still at this war is because the longer we are in involved in a country such as in the Middle East, the more aggravated the country's population gets at us. Take for example child soldiers. There wouldn't be children killing our troops if we didn't turn the country against us by our unwanted presence. Now, as I have said and cited sources earlier for, drone warfare greatly effect relations with countries that we are trying to be friendly with so that together, both of us can catch the terrorists we are after and after the U.S. leads, the local government will enforce rules favorable to us. This does not happen if the country's people hates us, This simply 1. creates more terrorists who can take American lives 2. prolongs the war on terror and more American lives are lost 3. invites the possibility that we might have to return to this country at a later date and lose more American soldiers. Added to this, because we have this new toy (drones), we want to stay in the war longer, believing that now that we have drones, we can now end this war. This causes us to stay in these countries longer and therefore, lose more American lives.
Dress code

My oppositions: 1) I cannot understand how dress codes can make a more serious school atmosphere. 2) Yes, Dress codes can make students less focused on their wardrobe but they can still be distracted by other objects like fancy pencil cases or friends. Also, You do not necessarily have to keep up with clothing trends in school. There are many other trends like games and toys. 3) Yes, Dress codes will reduce social conflict but it will not stop all conflicts like racism. 4) Even if there were no dress codes, Kids with violent clothing will be turned away. 5) Yes, I agree that dress codes are less strict than uniforms but dress codes do not let kids wear EVERYTHING they want to wear. For example, Let's say you're a girl and you want to wear pants but the dress code says that girls can only wear dresses. That's not exactly freedom. 6) Imagine you have at least two people to live with and they don't care if you wear bad clothing. Impossible Thank you and good game
Dress code

I agree that suspension is definitely not a reasonable consequence for not wearing the correct clothes. Maybe a warning the first few times then lunch detention for everytime that it happens after that. 1) A dress code promotes a more serious school atmosphere which emphasizes academics and promotes good behavior. 2) Dress codes have proven to increase student achievement by encouraging students to concentrate more on their studies and less on their wardrobe. A de-emphasis on clothing can also save money, As there will be less pressure to keep up with expensive trends and fashions. 3) Dress codes in school settings reduce social conflict and peer pressure that may be associated with appearance. 4) Studies indicate that a school dress code can reduce the prevalence of certain behaviors which are often expressed through wardrobes such as violence or promiscuity. 5) As opposed to uniforms, Dress codes still allow students to wear what they want which leaves students with a sense of choice and expression. and if you haven't seen some students parents don't care what their kids wear to school. Thank you
Dress code

Challenge Accepted :) No, I do not believe that there should be dress codes in schools. First, You said that it puts limits on "gang clothing". There may be "gang clothing" that matches to the dress code. Second, Your whole argument is about that dress codes ban explicit clothing. We don't need dress codes to ban them. It is highly unlikely that a student's parents will allow to wear those kinds of clothing to school. Third, Dress codes disturb students' freedom of wearing clothes and is very strict. There have been countless times dress codes caused outrageous stories like suspension. That is all I will say for Round 1. Thank You (My first debate in debate. Org! )
Dress code

Round 1 What is acceptable and not acceptable Round 2 what you think can be changed and why Yes, I think we need a dress code as long as it is not too extreme. Schools don't need kids/teens walking around half naked! I think the dress code rules should be Limits on "gang-related" clothing, Sometimes described as over-sized clothing and other clothing meant to show affiliation with a certain gang or group, Such as certain colors, Logos, Brand names, Or arrangement A ban on suggestively-themed T-shirts Limits on skirt, Shirt, And pant length A ban on clothing that depicts lewd, Sexually explicit, Or drug use "Baggy pants" restriction prohibiting students from wearing clothing that exposes underwear or body parts in a way that is indecent or vulgar What I think should be allowed is Muslims can wear a headscarf Can wear cross necklaces Can wear traditional dress (such as a feather or tribal cloth) to graduation Boys don't have to cut their hair to comply with a campus dress code
Fascism was worse then Communism

Greetings and good luck. This looks like an awesome debate! Definitions: (from my computers dictionary) worst - of the poorest quality or the lowest standard Fascism - an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach. Communism - a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Here is why I think that Fascism was worse than Communism. Fascism set out to destroy the world, communism set out to make it equal. Communism believes all men were equal, whilst fascism believed its chosen race had the right to enslave and subjugate the other. Fascism was based on the concept of social Darwinism which meant the elimination of all of the perceived inferior races. The world immediately recognized fascism as being worse than communism and set out to destroy it. The capitalistic, imperialistic and Islamic fundamentalist regimes had no qualms allying with Communism to stop the fascists, who were a much bigger threat. Fascism was not flexible with religion but rather religion was flexible with fascism. If a denomination did not conform to and support fascism it was banned. A prime example are the Jehovah's Witnesses, who were murder by the thousands in the Nazi death camps because of their pacifist stance. Only the religions that endorsed fascism were allowed. Fascism was very rigid in its treatment of religion, not flexible at all. Most of the people who died under communist regimes died from the failure of Communism to provide for its populace. Famine etc. In other words, it was accidental. The Communists did not set out to murder, but later found it more convenient. The fascists set out with one purpose in mind, to murder. To murder the Communists no less. The Communists were content to let the fascists live. (They did want to overcome them, but not murder.)
Fascism was worse then Communism

Some say that Fascism was worse then Communism. I say no to that! Both systems of government are bad and have cause millions to die but I believe that Communism was worse the Fascism on the bases that Fascism was a least a little flexible with religion, Communism lasted longer then Fascism did, Communist governments killed more people then any Fascist government, and finally Fascism never had the power to destroy the world like the Communist government of the USSR did with their nuclear weapons. Now I want for someone to debate with me on this topic.
Harry Potter is better than The Lord of the Rings

So your excuse for why LOTR sucks is because "LOTR is older"? I got some news for ya kiddo. Both the first Harry Potter movie and first LOTR movie where released in 2001. AT THE SAME TIME. Considering they both had a level playing field it becomes OVERWHELMING obvious why LOTR absolutely sucked at the box office. BECAUSE IT FREAKING SUCKS! ADMIT IT YOU FREAK!
Harry Potter is better than The Lord of the Rings

I accept the challenge. I will be arguing that Lord of the Rings is better than Harry Potter. The reason Harry Potter has a higher networth/has more fans is because it is more recent. If you compare a movie that just came out to a movie 50 years old, obviously the newer movie will be more popular. I would like to argue that the villains in LOTR are better, such as Gollum, Sauron, Sarumon, the nazgul, etc. Meanwhile, the only real villains in Harry Potter, the death eaters and voldemort, don't come close. Sauron is much more sinister, turning once happy normal people into monsters, slaves to their greed to the point where an entire war is started. Voldemort is evil, yes, but not nearly as much. The worst he does is kill some people and destroy a school, which depending on who you ask, is a public service. The supporting characters are better, like merry and pippin for example, and one of the best heroes ever, samwise gamgi. Gandalf is better than dumbledore aswell, according to J.K. rowling dumbledore is gay, and he doesn't really do anything ever. Gandalf has many epic fights, and generally is a more likeable character. I hope you take the red pill and accept that I'm right and you're wrong.
Harry Potter is better than The Lord of the Rings

Movie studios need to make money. They make money by making BETTER movies. Movies people ACTUALLY like. The Harry Potter Genre has a net worth of $25 Billion[1] while the Lord of the rings has a laughably small value of $2.9Billion[2]. Making Harry Potter over 22 times better than Lord of the rings. A movie producer would laugh at you to try to defend such a stupid claim that "Lord of the Rings" is better than Harry Potter! You are CRAZY! How about them apples? [1] http://ew.com... [2] http://www.pajiba.com...
Children should not be brainwashed with religion

The link you asked for: http://www.slate.com... You keep stating that religion is not true, and there is no solid proof that religion is true. I disagree. How do you explain things like the bible? Did someone just write that in their free time. Your point saying that religion isn't real is invalid, due to you have nothing that says religion and god isn't real. I'm also finding it a little sketchy that you're basing my arguments off of my political views. Yes, I am about as conservative as it gets, and I dislike the idea of abortion, but parents under United States law have the right to commit that act. So therefore just because I am con on abortion, doesn't mean I can't use it as an example. On your next point, "General Physician." I'm assuming that either a. you are atheist or b. you had some traumatic experience with religion. You say time and time again that these other things are more important than religion. In some cases I agree with you. I wasn't saying that a General Physician and Education were more or less important than religion. This all boils down to my point about a parents right to choose. A parent can choose to send their kid to school, or take them to a general physician. That boils down to their choice. They have the choice up until their child turns 18 or is emancipated from them, to make these decisions for their children. A parent ought to have the right to make the decision with religion. Not allowing them to is wrong, when we allow them to make other huge decisions for their children. You stated that children needed to think critically and analytically on a spiritual level. According to this: http://www.bbc.com... , Children are not able to function and make decisions such as these until they're 16. Therefore your statement saying that young children need to be able to think for themselves on a spiritual level is wrong. Another statement that you brought up that is incorrect as well, is the statement that those 34% of extremists cause violence. I disagree. Close to 1% of those extremists cause violence. Therefore, a statement such as yours is a lot wrong and I think you failed to look up the actual information. You can not prove that religion is a hypothetical thing. Thanks.
Children should not be brainwashed with religion

"I would respectfully disagree as religion has unfortunately been a major aspect of our society for years." I misspoke when saying this. What I was trying to say was that religion is a huge deal in society, but there is plenty of worse things to expose your children to. I disagree with you when you say the Easter Bunny and Santa are fictional characters that represent innocence. Mark Joseph Stern, believes that subjecting our kids to The Easter Bunny and Santa is a worse idea then subjecting them to religion. The Easter Bunny and Santa make kids believe things that are 100% not true.Several studies do seem to corroborate the conventional wisdom that kids raised with religion"any religion"are psychologically healthier than kids raised without it. [1] Religion as I just shows makes kids psychologically healthier. The next point I would like to address again, that you didn't address earlier is "A PARENTS RIGHT TO CHOOSE." A parent has the right to choose these types of things. A parent has the right to choose whether they want their child to see a general physician. A parent has the right to abort there fetuses before they're born. Parents have the right to choose whether they want their kid to receive a proper education or attend specialty schools. Why shouldn't a parent have the right to choose whether or not their kids should be exposed to religion. Technically under United States law, the legal guardian of the child has control of everything their child (anyone under the age of 18) does. So, under United States law, if a guardian wants their child to be religious, until that child becomes 18, the parents can choose to do so. "Richard Dawkins' paragraph." You stated that children should learn from their morals and mature without religion controlling them. I disagree with that entirely. Unless you're a religious extremist (which only 27% of Muslims are, and 7% of Christians.) then you don't believe that religion should control your child's life. Obviously, Richard Dawkins is and Atheist, and has his specific views about religion. He therefore is not extremely reliable, considering he doesn't believe in religion at all. **Note**' Considering you live in Australia, and I live in the United States, lets not bring up the religion is schools, because we have conflicting information, so therefore that point can't be true.
Children should not be brainwashed with religion

"Religion is not a huge deal." I would respectfully disagree as religion has unfortunately been a major aspect of our society for years. I believe that the comparison between religion and fictional characters such as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny is inaccurate. These are childhood legends/myths that represent a child"s innocence. Apart from feelings of excitement on Christmas Eve or Easter, they do not, unlike religion, tell a child what is right and wrong, that there is a higher power and what God they should believe in. They are harmless legends, and once children reach a certain age, they cease to believe in these fictional characters, and they lose their innocence. Adults don"t believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, but can believe in God. Meanwhile religion is likely to stay with a person forever as they have been exposed to it from such an early age. When we are young, are brain is developing and it is the best period to learn crucial skills. Exposing children to religion at this age is why people still believe in God today. I see that you live in America, and I don"t know what the system is over there, but in Australia, religion is used in schools all the time (and I assumed the same of America as well.) From the age of 6 in Primary school I was "indoctrinated" into Catholicism as I attended a Catholic school, and this continued into High School. However since then I have reverted to atheism. Yes it is true that parents teach children their beliefs anyway, but religion is not needed to do this, people can form moral values without belief in a hypothetical higher power that MAN created. Children should learn the basic skills and once they reach a mature age when they are able to make critical decisions, they should then choose if they want to adopt a religion or not. It should not be forced on them, as unlike other things they learn in school such as maths, writing etc., religion is purely hypothetical. Lastly Richard Dawkins, fellow atheist and a person who believes children should be taught the theory of evolution, not that the world was created in 6 days shares a similar view, stating that: 'What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child therefore that is what you believe." Children should not be taught that if they are bad they will burn in hell, and if good promised heaven. They should learn, form their morals and mature without religion controlling them, and telling them what to believe.