BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
China will continue to rise the USA will continue to fall

The USA isnt faling. Aging population, Polluted air and the environment, Adulterated and fake food, Weath inequalities, Economic issues, Large dependence on fossil fuels, Ethnic tensions, Water shortages, Overloaded transport systems in the main cities, Neglected children in the villages, Migrant worker problems in the big cities, Rising waste management issues, Uninhabited cities, Corruption, Border issues with India and with Vietnam and Philippines in the South China Sea, Bringing all Chinese above the poverty level, Maintaining a proper trade relationship with USA and major powers, Headache from North Korea, Territorial and other issues with Japan, Choked sea lanes imposed by USA and many others are huge problems facing China today.
People who have Good Grades aren't Truly Intelligent.

Forfeit once again. I shall briefly go over my argument.Being smart philosophically, politically, ethically, etc. (being intelligent) and getting good grades are not mutually exclusive. While it may not always be the case that if you get good grades, that you are then intelligent, this is extremely possible.If a person is smart philosophically, politically, ethically, etc. it is perfectly possible for him to be book smart in addition to these qualities. While the two may not always go together, it is unwise to assume that they can never go together.
People who have Good Grades aren't Truly Intelligent.

It seems to me that the claim "People who have good grades are not truly intelligent" is a very magnificent one. Thus, the BoP should be on my opponent to show that people with good grades are not truly intelligent. DefinitionsMy opponent has provided a few definitions, and I'd like to reiterate them for clarity. Intelligent: "[being] smart philosophically, politically, ethically, etc. "Smart/book smart: "those with good grades. "So my opponent must show that those who are smart, or book smart, and thus have good grades, are not intelligent in the sense of being smart philosophically, politically, or ethically. Over to Pro!
People who have Good Grades aren't Truly Intelligent.

I will be arguing about how individuals with great report cards are not truly intelligent even though I feel that many consider them to be. Please no trolling in the debate, no personal insults, and no semantics. I will greatly acknowledge who ever is willing to debate with me.Round 1- AcceptanceRound 2- ArgumentsRound 3- CountersRound 4- More Counters and Closing StatementsI would like to furthermore like to add that for this purpose I will be calling those with good grades "smart" or "book smart" and those who are smart philosophically, politically, ethically, etc. will be "intelligent". They both may mean the same time but I will use those words just to differentiate my comparison with those types of people.
If We Use The Death Penalty We Should Use the Guillotine

The scope of this debate is that we should use the guillotine IF we have the death penalty. We're not debating whether we should have the death penalty in the first place in this debate. Con must argue that IF we use the death penalty the form should not be the guillotine. If we have the death penalty using the guillotine makes sense because... 1. The Guillotine kills almost instantly so it would be painless or at least nearly painless. Not only does this make it the most humane method of execution it also makes it the least likely to be overruled as cruel under the Constitution. 2. Frightening to onlookers so it would have more deterrence value even though its relatively painless. 3. Would leave organs intact and ready to be donated as opposed to electrocution (which fries organs) or lethal injection (which poisons them). 4. Its cost effective. All you need is some wood, a metal blade, and a rope as opposed to high tech equipment or chemicals.
The "Impossibility" of A New American Revolution

I disagree. Revolution is ALWAYS possible. I stand by that. It would only take one event. A nuclear attack, say, or perhaps Bush was revealed to be a, well, whatever the Dems are calling him these days. Perhaps not, perhaps something else. But it could happen. You think we've become too complacent, too centralized. You say our society is too complex for it to be fall down. I'm sure the Romans thought the same way you do. In many ways, they were like us--strong, arrogant, civilized. But they toppled. And when they toppled, Europe was thrown into the dark ages. It didn't really recover for more than a thousand years. That could happen in the United States. Common sense has it that there is no lock that is unbreakable. No secret that can't be found. And no country that can't be toppled. As Archimedes said, "Give me a lever big enough and I can move the world."
The "Impossibility" of A New American Revolution

Yes, I do. But listen. Let's say that something happens, take your pick. What are you going to do? You might loose faith in democracy and then put some Rage Against the Machine on your iPod. There is nothing you can do. Our country if far too large and the institutions that make up our society are too complex. There is nothing anyone can really do to overthrow our government. Again, whether that is a good or bad thing is a whole other debate all together.
The "Impossibility" of A New American Revolution

Well, I'm sure you have good reasoning to back this up. However, I don't know what your arguments are right now, so I can't try to refute them. On the face of it, however, I disagree with you. I think that revolution is always possible. Perhaps less so in America because we are, despite whatever the drive-by media tells us, a stable nation. All that is needed is a keg of powder--take your pick: Iraq, Abortion, Immigration, Nukes; and a fuse; someone or some movement that sets the keg on fire. See what I'm saying?
The "Impossibility" of A New American Revolution

First of all, I'm not saying I want to overthrow the government or that we need to. I just read an article, and concluded that it is fact "impossible" to have a legit revolt in this country. Whether this is good or bad is beside the point. But I'll wait for a challenge to get more in depth. I put impossible in quotes because I previously started a debate with someone and they went all philosophical on me and said, "you can't know that anything is impossible." So don't take the topic literally.
The "Impossibility" of A New American Revolution

Washington DC, 2013. White Supremacists destroyed Washington and its vicinity with a dirty bomb. The government, which is very centralized in the Maryland-Virginia-DC area, is decapitated. They have successfully launched a revolution. That's all it takes. What I think you're failing to grasp here is how fragile our society is. We are the greatest society in the world. The most stable, and the strongest. But one event could end that forever. Civilization, especially a particular one, rests on a knife's edge. The only thing I can think of to compare it with is the distance between the Earth and the sun. That distance is precise, and doesn't change more than a tiny fraction of the distance. But if it were to change any more than that--ANY more, the results would be disastrous. Now, that might never happen (I hope) but can you see where I'm going? Heck, it could just be a stock market crash. Rome was not, in my opinion, the best analogy. But the comparison is still valid. The Romans were mightier in the world in their time than we are now, but they were toppled. The point that they had an empire, and not an bureaucracy, is a fair one, but does not contradict my original point. Just think: you could take out the emperor of Rome, but it wouldn't be a revolution. The power would probably pass to someone of the same ilk, and little would change. It would be a power grab, not a good-old revolution. On the other hand, if you decapitated the government with the aforementioned dirty bomb or something like it, it would lead to anarchy because our government is so centralized. Perhaps people would be complacent at first, but they would harden. They would harden or die. If something that cataclysmic happened, it would be survival of the fittest. I might read that article. It does sound interesting. However, I think my original point still stands: no government, no bureaucracy, is big or strong enough that even something as comparatively small as a stock market crash can't topple it.
The "Impossibility" of A New American Revolution

First of all, it's a little presumptuous to compare modern day America to ancient Rome. In Roman times, there was one ruler who was responsible for almost every aspect of society. If someone wanted change, there was an obvious target. Today, there are hundreds of people who make decisions. Even if you managed to get to, say the president, there would be more that not only would replace him, but also have the same ideals and beliefs as the person you just assasinated. Also, theres one thing that we have that Romans didn't: a middle class. In Rome, you were either poor/lower class or an aristocrat. The peasants had nothing to loose. We do. We (middle class citizens) have enough money to afford luxuries and stuff, but not enough to have places of power. If one of us revolted, we would risk our jobs, our houses, and our way of life. Imagine if you have a wife, kids, a nice house, nice job, good friends, you know all that stuff. What would it take for you to risk all of that for a revolution? I can't imagine that it would be an easy decision. Third, people these days are complacent, no matter what you may think. I know it's just a movie, but theres a scene in "Fight Club" where they have an assignment to start a fight with one person. But, it turns out to be very difficult. Most are willing to avoid conflict at all costs. In the article I read, the author said that there are two types of people: rock throwers and (I forget the other) not-rock throwers. Think about it. If someone started throwing rocks, who would follow him? Say he lives in AZ, like me. He's 3,000 miles away from Washington D.C. So even if he gained support. What is he supposed to do? Would anyone want to join forces with a "rock thrower" type? Since this is the last round, the name of the article that inspired this debate was called, "So You Want a Revolution?" by Chuck Klosterman. You should read it. Even if you don't agree, it's really funny and a good read.
TTT: Dumb Liberal (Pro) vs. Dumb Conservative (Con)

Those darned Republicans! They hate women! They hate children! They hate gays, undocumented immigrants, the poor, the Government, and everybody except for straight Evangelical angry armed Faux News watching White males! They believe in a book that teaches rape, slavery, homophobia, and genocide, so that doesn't surprise me. You see, they hate women because they won't give women the right to abort fetuses whenever they want! It's the woman's choice and no one else's, because she's the one providing sustenance to this baby! She never asked to be pregnant, she just had sex and that's all! Then, they hate children because they won't spend billions of government dollars towards giving kids a proper education! In America we spend more on each child's education than most nations, but it's not enough! The future generation of Americans has poor grades in school and the solution is to pump in more money towards education! Those Republicans are hindering the welfare of American students because they hate children! Then, Republicans hate the poor because they won't give the poor affordable healthcare from the Government! The ACA Government spending is very very low yet those wicked Republicans won't let us make Healthcare mandatory! Also, we want to help the poor with free welfare but those wicked Republicans want them to work! How insulting! A wise man once said, "Give a man a fish every day and he will eat for life." What a wise man that was! Then, Republicans hate gays! We want them to embrace a wondrous lifestyle of STUds and other wonderful problems but those dang Republicans are trying to keep them from embracing the lifestyle that is natural to gays and other sexual minorities Republicans are just so EVIL! Then the Republicans hate immigrants because they want to restrict the rights of people who came here illegally and don't pay taxes and those dang Republicans want to close the border that would cost money and Muslim terrorists will not sneak across the border to blow us up because they are actually nice people even though the beheadings may make them look bad in the eyes of bigoted Republicans. Republicans are EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TTT: Dumb Liberal (Pro) vs. Dumb Conservative (Con)

Guys their is no gawd and it is proven fact that Christianity is comparable to Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny and there is no eyewitness account of Jesus because I say so thus Jesus is mitth because I say so so checkmate Christians You see I once Christian but then 15 year old goldfish died even though I pray for goldfish to live I realize luving God who make goldfish die don't exist so I become atheist I become atheist because I think for self Christians are brainwashed and barbaric and theocracy in United States separate church state checkmate The Bible condone rape slavery genocide misogyny oppression the Bible condone rape because Bible say that rapist take responsibility for crime the Bible condone slavery because indenture serpent is slave and Israel only ancient culture that have slave and slaveree evil because modern standard of freedom supreme is standard that right across history and Bible condone genocide it is proven fact that Canaanite innocent because people who practice infanticide saintly and God have no right to do what He want with His creations because I say so because I know better than God because I say so because I omniscient because I say so I once Christian until I realize that if I cannot see God who in Bible is stated to be invisible then He not exist and miracle never happen I assume all miracles explain through science just because I say so and I see no evidence of God so checkmate ATHIESM IS WAY TRUTH LIFE AND CHRISTIANS EAT BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TTT: Dumb Liberal (Pro) vs. Dumb Conservative (Con)

Guys it is proven fact that Liberal works and Conservative is failure I heard it on CNN so it must be true if you say disagree then you cannot think for yourself you must be brainwashed by Faux News regardless of whether or not you actually listen to Faux News you see I was once a Conservatism but I realized that Conservative is result of Faux News brainwashing and I realize that Liberal Evolution Atheism is the way the truth the life and all Liberals think for themselves not a single Conservative thinks for himself reality has a liberal bias the majority of society who listen to the media and watches Kim Kardashian and Justin Bieber are Liberals so Liberals think for themselves and every Liberal is unique and thinks for self but every Conservative is part of Faux News herd Conservatives are brainwashed by Faux News Conservatisms claim that abortion is wrong but actually they are MISOGYNY RACISM HOMOPHOBIA OPPRESSION who hate women and all Conservative are male and they want to oppress woman so checkmate they say that fetus is alive but that is Faux News lie that gullible misinform Conservative believe because fetus is Latin for "not yet baby" and only woman should decide what woman does with body same way only slave owner have right to decide what slave owner do with property but only blacks should own slaves and only whites should be slaves because whites are evil conservative monster so checkmate People should marry whoever they want and love whoever they want because right to have sex with whoever you want is guaranteed by Constitution if you don't believe me you are unamerican misinformed FAUX NEWS BRAINWASHED MIND CONTROL CONSPIRACY conservativism who doesnt know constitution it is because you homeschool that you are so stupid conservative because it is proven fact that homeschool stupid and Pubic School student smart Speaking of homeschool you have no right to homeschool but government have every right to make you go to government school because government is god of atheism liberal and how dare parent teach his or her own child to believe a certain thing in Government school you receive neutral unbiased education that is why Government school teach you to experiment gay and have sex before marriage and how Christianity ruin world because Pubic School education is unbias Christianity evil book of rape slavery genocide evil and racism misogyny oppression so Bible must be ban from Pubic School and Pubic places while Freedum from Religion Foundation pamphlets which exist only to insult Christianity must be spread everywhere and protesting Anti-Christian sentiment is protest against freedom speech while hotel putting Bible in room is HATE SPEECH VIOLATION SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE checkmate Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Harsher Punishment for Animal Abusers

Animal abuse is a problem in our society today. Animals are continually put through horrible, inhumane, acts of violence everyday, and it seems as if people aren't even paying attention anymore. It seems as if some people have given up on them. But many animals are like children: they are defenseless, helpless, and for the most part, unless purposely aggravated, harmless. So why, do animal abusers only get a 2 year probation of animals, when child abusers lose their ownership of the child completely? Do we as humans really think of animals so poorly? In consideration of this, I urge you to vote affirmative for this bill. Point 1: The punishment for child abusers should be the same as the one for animal abusers. Animals are just as vulnerable and innocent as children. They are playful, innocent, and they should be treated that way. To some people an animal is their child. It's been shown that the way one treats an animal is the way they will treat a child (ASPCA). It's said that the way an abusive man treats an animal is the way he threatens his victims. Therefore, an animal abuser's punishment should be the same as a child abuser's punishment. The way they treat an animal reflects the way that they would treat a child. If someone beats and bruises an animal, I would feel worried about a child in their possession. Point 2: Animals have no voice: they are helpless and defenseless. An animal cannot pick up a phone and dial 911. An animal cannot cry or scream or plead for help. Animals suffer in silence. They get bruised, beaten, and tortured in silence. Animals have no trusted adults to run to for help. They are alone, helpless, and defenseless. And yet, when their attacker is captured, the only punishment they receive is two years without animal ownership. How is that fair? People beat and batter around helpless creatures, and barely get more than a tap on the hand. Imagine that that animal is your younger brother or sister, your best friend, or your child? Would you still sit back and do nothing? I beg to differ that you won't. Point 3: Animal abuse is inhumane. There is not a shred of remorse, kindness, or compassion in the act of abusing an animal. It's just wrong. It's evil, horrible, mean negative, and it should be taken more seriously than it is. A lot of people don't take animal abuse as seriously as they do child abuse. They get furious and bloody thirsty when a child is abused, yet they just shrug their shoulders when an animal is abused. Why can't animals be treated and given the same respect as children do? If they did, then maybe they wouldn't be being hurt every day. Conclusion: So in conclusion, the punishment for child abusers should be the same as the one for animal abusers, animals are voiceless, helpless, and defenseless, and animal abuse is inhumane. Animal abuse needs to be taken seriously because it is a serious matter, and it has unfortunately become more and more common. Animals should not be thought of so poorly and disdainfully. For these reasons I urge you to cast an affirmative vote.
polygamy is wrong

Sorry I can see that I have not made myself clear. If all parts are okay with it I do not see it as a problem. But in this debat I am against polygamy and think it should be illegalized or just done something about it. What I see as a problem is in those places/cultures where young women are "given" to old men. For example in FLDS where the prophet is seen as a earthly leader and communicator between god and man. Women on the other hand are sat on this earth to serve and obey their husbands and the prophet. If the women sussed to do so, their husbands might take them to join him in the Celestial kingdom when he dies. In these communities it is the prophet there is in charge of these young girls" marriages. The social level of the girl"s placement is depending on her sweetness. Mostly it is most powerful men who get the most women. These powerful men often marriages women there are a lot younger than themselves and they often have a lot of wives in advance. Some of these young women say they have been very uncomfortable in these marriages. One of these women that have been in such a marriage is Rebecca Musser who married an 85 year old man, who had 64 other wives. You can see her story on YouTube: I do not think there is anything wrong in being religious, but this is too much. and if you make it illegal to be in a polygamous married, it will of cause also effect some of those people who is okay with it. But it cannot see how, it can be fear that some of these young women, who do not know better has to go through this.
polygamy is wrong

Polygamy is basically a married between more than two persons. Most often it is a man with several wives. Polygamy was once more comment, than it is today, but in some countries and some religions it is still accepted. Moses book says that a man can have all the wives he want to, as long he can provide them with food, clothes and sex, if he cannot he must liberate her. He cannot demand the money he paid for her back again, now that she is no longer a virgin. Many years ago a king called Salomon had around 700 wives. There is no way that man could satisfy all those women, not sexual at least. Is it not also an oppression of women? I do not see why one man should be allowed to marriage 55 wives? I believe married shall be between two persons, and not between 56 people. I understand that a human can love more than one person at the time. But the whole idea of getting married today is to say before god, I am yours and you are mine, if a man marries more than one woman at the time he is not really hers.
Politics, Bans

I still disagree. The idea of giving things to others on a massive scale and calling them "human rights" when others worked hard to earn them is wrong. I believe in charity, but not forcing people to be charitable. This is one of many liberal policies I am against, but I can't focus on everything so I'll tackle this. Let's paint a picture. John has lost his job, but he goes on welfare and is able to support himself on this program at the same rates he was making before. His welfare can be renewed for a long time. He therefore has no incentive to work and will continue to collect checks from tax paying people who work hard to live. Liberals want to keep these periods of unemployment long, when the best answer is people settling for a lower paying job. At least it's a job, which will support them for the time being. Another one. Liberals want socialized healthcare, so my premiums for the care for which I pay good money have gone up 4x. Thanks. Really smart, letting the Federal Government run healthcare when they can't secure the border, balance a budget, protect their own diplomats abroad, keep known terrorists in custody without trading them for a deserter, stop spying on their own citizens, giving weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood, or even produce a functioning website. ... Detroit, Chicago, the State of California, Connecticut ... Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid and Eric Holder. Therefore it's in the best interest of the continuation of a functioning nation to deport liberals to Antarctica with all of their pot.