BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is probable to assume that the U.S. and China will go to war within the next 50 years

Russia and the USA never went to war against each other, I am saying if China and the US did go to war how could you call it a proxy war? Western Europe probably will involved in this war and then of course stop trade for a period of time. But China still has all of Asia even Japan, almost all of south and central America as well with Russia and Asia Minor. Also do not forget Africa. China has truly grown apart from America seeing them not even as equals but as a old stupid sub-country that is continuing the mistakes of all the old great empires that eventually fell. They house most of our debt and soon America will be a bother or even a slow, corrupt, in debt and angry country. I am not saying China will provoke or even start this war, it will all be played by the US. President Obama has put multiple troop bases and several new navy bases all surrounding China. When the new and second largest economic engine hits the market and the US dollar is no long backed by OPEC and basically every other country and when a can of Arizona is 6$ instead of 1$ America will be ticked. Its people as well as its leaders will demand for war because America has no idea what it feels like to be a 2nd world country and to get the US out will be the answer of war. The leaders of both countries have grown apart and with the creation and goals of BRICS these countries want to destroy the US and send them to destruction and the reasons are very reasonable. The US has been the over protective mother of the world and the countries that have grown into rebellious teens are plotting against Her. With the recent CIA scandal Germany agreed to drop the dollar and take in the Yuan. So yes not even Western Europe is on the US side anymore. The only true ally the US has is Israel. The brics nations are going to instate mandatory credit cards in order for any citizen to buy or sell any product of any scale, sounds kind of like Revelation if you ask me. Also these nations call there plan the Order of the New world.
It is probable to assume that the U.S. and China will go to war within the next 50 years

Thank you for the definitions, but saying a proxy war "could not exist between the two most powerful nations because it just wouldn't", is false. The USSR and the USA(the two most powerful nations in the world at the time) had a proxy war back in the 1960's and 1970's called the War of Vietnam, as I am sure you know. You are correct that China could stay afloat without the help of the USA. However, most of, if not all of, the biggest countries in western Europe are allies with the USA, and likely wouldn't trade with China if they were at war with the USA. China may be irked that the USA takes the side of Japan on some issues. However, they are very happy that we recognize Tibet as a part of China. You say that many economists believe that a bank that the BRICS nations will launch will cause a chain of events that will lead to a chain of events leading to the inevitable war between the USA and China. I respond to this statement by reminding the audience that the fact that some economists believe an event that will happen that you say will make China and America will go to war does not make it likely that China and America will go to war. As a matter of fact, many experts on this subject believe that China and America will not go to war.
It is probable to assume that the U.S. and China will go to war within the next 50 years

Thanks and yes I did not provide any definitions about war. I am not talking terms of nuclear war because the people in charge do understand the mass trauma, widespread destruction and absolute environmental collapse of all species if a nuclear war were to go into affect between any two major nuclear powers. A proxy war could not exist between the two most powerful nations because it just wouldn't. I am talking about a land invasion, air invasion and sea guided war. Correct China and US are major trading partners but china could still stay afloat just trading with it's allies and western Europe. US needs China way more in this regard for extremely low prices on like you said almost everything. Your point on WW2 help, we did bomb China's mortal enemy but ever since have revived Japan and made Japan a very strong rich nation. Obama and other top senior US officials take Japans side on many issues like those of the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. A very touchy and deep subject for Chinese people. You think I would use the North Korea argument but to be honest it is irrelevant. The real issue lies with the China's other friends particularly the BRICS nations. Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa. Next year these nations will launch the second largest bank and trading association. There 'wall street' will be located in Shanghai and these five nations along with many of their allies including Germany will drop the US dollar as their Oil currency and switch to the Chinese Yuan. Also many economists believe that after this launch many middleastern countries will drop the petrodollar and choose the petroyuan. This will cause a depression worse than the Great Depression not only for America but for the entire globe. Also in the next 5 to 7 years China will surpass the US in GDP and in 25 years the average Chinese citizen will be richer than the average American citizen. When huge world wide depression occurs normally follows worldwide war. Sources: Chinese foreign exchange students at my high school www.slate.com/.../the_senkaku_or_diaoyu_islands_where_world_war... WW2 History
It is probable to assume that the U.S. and China will go to war within the next 50 years

I accept your challenge. However, you provided no definitions. What is war? Are you talking about a proxy war, or a full on nuclear war? I will assume you are talking about a land invasion. China and America are major trading partners. We owe them, sure, but we have majorly contributed to their economy. Do me a favor. Look on the back of a product you have purchased. There is a very large probability that it will say "Made In China" on the back. Also, we saved China during World War 2. I think they would be grateful enough not to go to war with us, at least for the next 50 years. I am prepared for the argument that "North Korea has a bad relationship with America, North Korea and China are allies, so China will likely go to war with America." To this I respond: Have you ever had a friend that was friends with somebody you hate? I know I have. Take your time in proving my arguments wrong, thanks for reading, and good luck.
It is probable to assume that the U.S. and China will go to war within the next 50 years

In order for me to win this debate I must prove that it is probable to assume that the U.S. and China will go to war within the next 50 years. In order for you to win this debate you must prove that it is not probable to assume that the U.S. and China will go to war within the next 50 years. 1st round is NOT acceptance. Thanks and I hope for a fascinating discussion.
Public schools shouldn't have entrance exams for 1st grade.

I don't think that public schools should have entrance exams for 1st grade, because it puts pressure on kids and their parents. Some kids can't handle the stress, and can fail in taken tests. Also, their parents get nervous too, because they're afraid that if their kid doesn't get into a good school as early as in 1st grade, he/she will never be sucessful. So thanks to that, they make their kids insecure. I really just want to see all the reasons you could think of why public schools should have the right to do entrance exams for 1st grade, so please give me all you can. Thank you!
Abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimester is immoral

I would like to start off by clarifying what I mean by saying that abortion may be permissible. I only say it would be fine in the case where the child couldn't be born, and the Mother needs a medical treatment that would otherwise harm the child. This is a very small window of possibility, and the only reason I argue it is that the fetus will die if she goes on with the treatment. It would be wrong to say a woman, who is lets say 5 weeks pregnant and needs chemo, should ride it out until the fetus can be born. Otherwise, if she is lets say 19 weeks pregnant, then she can wait and possibly have the baby (very) premature, and go on with treatment. You may say that the baby has a good chance of dieing if we do this. Well, it will most certainly die from an abortion, so why not try and preserve the life of it? I am not saying that the right of the Woman necessarily trumps that of the baby, just that logically, in very few cases, it may make sense.And yes, if the woman is raped and a child is conceived, I believe the fetus should be allowed to live, because it is human life, deserving of the human right to life.1. Human vs. PersonSo now we have a problem. When does a human being inherit the human right to life? Does it's mental state and social status have anything to do with it? I argue no, it doesn't. You say that this would then mean, that since " a skin cell through DNA is a human, scratching your skin is therefore murder." This isn't true, because it isn't human. What I am arguing is that human beings, not components of human beings (ie, skin), have a right to life, because they are human, and the right to life is a human right. I am also not arguing that eating meat should be illegal, because we do not eat humans, we eat animals, cows, chickens, fish, none of which have a right to life because they are not human.So I do not see your logic. You are saying that it has to be mentally developed and have a "social status" to have a right to life. Now, does this mean a brain dead individual doesn't have a right to life? What I mean is, would it be ok to euthanize a brain dead human being? No, it doesn't. So why does it permit the killing of an innocent life? What I am arguing is that a conceived child is alive, it is a human being, and so it is entitled to the human right to life, because it is a human being. I don't believe the mental capabilities of human determine whether it is human or not. If it is a human life, then it is morally wrong to kill it. Like I said, I don't think mental capabilities or social status determines whether a human is human or not. The problem, in my opinion, is that there is no legal definition of a human being. So, I see it as, a human is human and alive upon conception, and therefore is entitled to the right to life.Conclusion My opponent believes that the right to life isn't universal for human beings, rather for "persons", with a social status and developed mental capabilities, whereas I see it as the right to life is for all human life. Because it is a human right, rather than a personal right.
Abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimester is immoral

I dont know what category to put this into. .. philosophy, misc, science? Anyway. I argue abortion is morally permissible 1st and second trimester. > Definitions1st trimester - 1-3 months pregnant2nd trimester - 4-6 months pregnant Abortion - Termination of pregnancy before the baby is born (in this debate 1st and second trimester)******************************These definitions are common knowledge, any semantics with them is an FF. Immoral is common knowledge, any semantics or trolling here is also an FF. > Rules1, Any FF's = well an FF :P2. No trolling3. No semantics 4. You must think abortion is immoral (or devils advocate, as long as you argue correctly)> BOPI define this if you do not like the BOP dont accept. I prove abortion is not murder, and a fetus is not equivalent to a human, it is not a person. PRO says a fetus is a person with rights etc. *****No semantics here either, we basically go head to head on if it is moral to kill a fetus, or if it is even killing. > Layout R1. Acceptance, and instagator to do his opening thing2. Arguments begin3. Arguments rebuttals, one or the other, both, just argue in a non-abusive way4.
Abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimester is immoral

I have not conceded that the Woman's right trumps that of the fetus, I believe they have an equal right to life, but in very few, rare circumstances, it would be ok to abort because it comes down to either 1 person dies (the fetus), or both die. The fetus would die anyway. This seems a hypocritical statement, but it's a very difficult situation when dealing with human life. So yes, in very few, rare circumstances, it may be ok, like when the Mother is 5 weeks pregnant and has cancer. If the treatment can wait, then I believe it should. I completely understand that this is a moral issue, and as I have stated, I believe that the killing of a human life is morally wrong. I believe that as soon as human life is conceived (human life, meaning a human fetus, not the components of a human being) the fetus is entitled to the right to life because it is human. I will again state what I said in my previous argument, the mental state and social status of a human doesn't change it's human state. As soon as it is conceived, it is human, and therefore deserving of the human right to life. Life, once again, is a human right, not a personal right given to "persons", but to humans. And because I believe that it is immoral to kill human life, it can be determined that abortion is immoral. Conclusion My opponent believes that the right to life isn't a human right, but a right of a "person", with a social status and developed mental capabilities. I argue though, that since the right to life is a human right, and because a fetus is human upon conception, it can be deduced that abortion is immoral because the killing of human life is immoral.
Facebook should be banned for highschool students.

Facebook should not be allowed for high school students. First off, facebook is a distraction. For those who need to study or do homework, facebook distracts them, causing them to fall behind in schools. Secondly, facebook makes people unsocial, as it doesnt promote face to face conversation. Thirdly, facebbok is an inferior alternative to simply picking up a phone and calling someone. Fourthly, if a student ever required facebook, they could simply use their parent's. Finally, while some people use facebook to reconnect with old friends, it is once again easier and less awkward to call them.
Republican vs. Democrat Political Cartoon Debate

OK, Let's begin:Immigration A.) Lol, immigrants denying immigrants? B.) Hmmm, I'm seeing a patern Minimum WageA.) Those damned, greedy poor people B.) GOP's response to + $1.75 Gun ControlA.) Obama is a muslim terrorist B.) There is a reason to restrict guns, people... EducationA.) America's Future, All Bronze but no Brains? B.) Crushing the Next Generation AbortionA.) The Game of Sorry...but with Less Equality and Rights B.) Seperation of Church and State...Ohhh, just the Islamic State
Humankind is a parasitic species

================== =The Definition of Parasite= ================== (Provided by PRO) Parasitic: Of, relating to, or characteristic of a parasite. (Provided by CON) Parasite: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host; it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host (According to PRO) "The purpose was to engage with someone who really felt Humans are not parasitic in relation [to] the earth (the natural environments around them)" Thus, to be parasitic, or parasite-like, in 'relation to to the earth' PRO must show that we live off the environment without benefitting it or killing it. ======== =Summary= ======== Simply enough: If we kill the environment, then we are not parasitic, because parasites do not kill their hosts. PRO never contests that we kill the environment; he even says: "we have drained the natural life around us for our own advancement" "we live [by] draining resources and destroying the natural environment around us" "humans that do kill for enjoyment or profit are killing for a gain of sorts" "humans natural tendencies [are] to live off of the world and leave destruction in [their] wake" Further, he drops my arguments that: "Rather than simply take the nutrients you need and leave the animal in peace, humans viciously kill animals (for example, boiling lobsters alive) before devouring the dead flesh in many disgusting ways. " "Americans alone kill 9 billion chickens annually for consumption; that's 30 chickens per person! " "We kill the environment, we kill animals, we kill all that benefits us. " If humankind were parasitic, none of the above statements would be true. If humankind were parasitic, we wouldn't benefit the environment, but we wouldn't kill it either. If humankind were parasitic, PRO would win this argument. But alas, humankind is not parasitic because, as PRO agrees, we kill our host, the environment and the world around us.
Humankind is a parasitic species

Thank you Con. To quote yourself "Pro seems to think that his new definition has somehow won him the round" I'm afraid Pro's definition has been the same from the initial argument: "Humankind or mankind are a parasitic species" This has not changed therefore please retract this statement. Your miss-interpretation of my statement in your initial argument led you to the conclusion that I have changed mine but that is not the case. To re-iterate my statement once again: "Humankind or mankind are a parasitic species" therefore (using the agreed - and only - definition of "parasitic : to be like a parasite") we are like a parasite upon the earth (if you will allow the simile that the earth could represent an organism upon which we are parasitic but do not entirely destroy it as we could do through the release of all of our Nuclear weapons). You state that parasites are kind and loving creatures which is purely subjective and impossible to define or prove at present (since we cannot communicate with parasites as we know them). You also state that parasites "let" their hosts live on yet you give no example and offer no proof. Maybe the parasites simply feed until they become so bloated they can no longer keep in contact with the host or require rest somewhere else? A virus for example is a parasite and can infact kill the host so your argument is definately flawed. The purpose of my raising this argument was to engage with someone who really felt Humans are not parasitic in relation the earth (and therefore the natural environments around them). However you seem to show a definite resentment or hatred of Humankind quote: "Humans are wretched beings, killing their hosts, cutting down trees, and slaughtering animals for food." and have simply miss-interpreted the true meaning of my argument to pursue your own agenda. Getting hung up on the definition of a single word, parasitic, which in fact you broke down to "parasite" when that was nowhere to be found in my first argument. I must hold that you have not contested humans natural parasitic tendencies to live off of the world and leave destruction in its wake (as parasites can open hosts to infections etc) but restrained enough not to completely blow the planet (or host) to oblivion....
Humankind is a parasitic species

Pro seems to think that his new definition has somehow won him the round. I fail to see how; it changes nothing. We kill the environment, we kill animals, we kill all that benefits us. That's PRO's own argument. This makes us fundamentally different from parasites. Parasites are kind, loving creatures that take only what they need to survive from their hosts, while letting their hosts live on to be fed upon another day. Humans are wretched beings, killing their hosts, cutting down trees, and slaughtering animals for food. This makes us quite unparasitic. In conclusion, Yes, we should strive to be more like parasites; but, No, humankind is, unfortunately, not a parasitic species.
Humankind is a parasitic species

Thanks for your input. I have to accept your definition of a "parasite" but if you read my statement closely you will see my reference to humankind is that of "parasitic": Parasitic: 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a parasite. So my argument stands that we are "like a parasite" in the way in which we live, draining resources and destroying the natural environment around us wherever we live outside of forested pre-farming communities for personal gain. You go on to speak of the destruction of animals for our own pleasure / nourishment which goes some way to proving my own statement. I agree that parasites do not kill for pleasure or without personal gain but in some regards the humans that do kill for enjoyment or profit are killing for a gain of sorts, albeit different from that of survival. Therefore with the definition of my argument "Humankind or Mankind are a parasitic [Of, relating to, or characteristic of a parasite] species. I ask you to challenge me again.
Humankind is a parasitic species

The definition of parasite: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host[1] Humans might be real @sses when it comes to the treatment of animals and the environment, but that wouldn't classify them as parasites. Rather than simply take the nutrients you need and leave the animal in peace as your average kind, parasitic vampire bat would do, humans viciously kill animals (for example, boiling lobsters alive) before devouring the dead flesh in many disgusting ways. The ancient Romans (prior to the discovery of spices) would let meat rot for days before consuming it in order to give it flavor. Esquimaux of North America would consume flesh raw. Some human tribes would even consume other humans. It is disgusting! Americans alone kill 9 billion chickens annually for consumption; that's 30 chickens per person![2] I wish we could classify humans as parasites, but, alas, we can't. While we certainly don't benefit our hosts, we aren't friendly and parasitic enough to leave them be. We are a vile species that feels it necessary to slaughter our benefactors, an act that, according to Dante Alighieri, would place us in the 4th round of the 9th circle of hell, the lowest part of hell, closest to Satan, and the most despicable place one could possibly be.[3] [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://www.upc-online.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(Dante)#Ninth_Circle_.28Treason.29