BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United Nation should grant India pernament membership on the security council

1. ) The man power is 1, 443, 921 active military personnel. Working in a permanent status with the UN will provide India with the help it needs and subsequently the world with the support it needs. 2. ) Yes, But I am not just guessing random numbers. I try my best to be accurate and factual in this debate, But since this issue is on the other side of the world from me, Some assumptions need to be made. 3. ) The small unemployment rate is already a great improvement. There used to be a rate of nearly 60 percent living below 3 dollars a day. The fact that it has gone down to only 3. 6 percent is very impressive. India is already on the right track to employ many of the other 46. 8 million soon. India is developing a space program, As well as putting gadgets into production that enable deliveries to hostile parts of the world and make water more accessible. India is already helping greatly towards the UNSC's benefit, Even though it is not a permanent member. It is always better for something to help you rather than hinder, And if india and the three other countries are not granted permanent membership, They might be a hindrance. 4. ) We can't really do anything about the reform, And if it is already underway that India is going to be granted permanent membership, Why work to stop it?
The United Nation should grant India pernament membership on the security council

1) What is the manpower? 2) If all your text was based on an assumption, Then isn't it kind of not accurate? 3) Wait. Just because India has an unemployment rate doesn't mean that India can just sit back and relax. India has a greater population, And India is supposed to solve it's own country's issues first. India needs to help those 46. 8 million first instead of trying to deal with the whole world. 4) We can't really do anything about the reform. In the charter, It said that if veto rules have to be changed, Every permanent member must agree before they change something. Would it be likely that China would agree with doing something that would help India? All other permanent members have supported the idea, But China didn't.
The United Nation should grant India pernament membership on the security council

1. ) A country with a huge population can provide manpower and that can help international security. The other comparisons I made are to show that India is very similar to china and china already has a permanent seat. That covers your points 1, 2, And 4 2. ) I made an assumption area of the non-permanent seats having a higher crime rate than India because there have been so many countries since the forming of the council and currently that are just too confusing to attempt to make any comparisons beyond current crime rates among the current seats. 3. ) Unfortunately, You are right in the point that video games are not the most reliable source for politics. The game was only what sparked the idea to join this debate and has likely cut corners when it comes to politics. 4. ) India has an unemployment rate a full percentage lower than the united states. It also has 4 times the amount of people than the united states. That means that united states has roughly 15 million unemployed (4. 9 percent) and 310 million employed. India, Meanwhile, Has an unemployment rate of 3. 6%, Meaning that even though there are 46. 8 million unemployed, A higher number than the US, There are also 1. 25 billion people employed in India. That is the kind of workforce that can literally move mountains, Go to space, Create AI, And save millions of lives through peacekeeping and volunteer work. 5. ) A house divided against itself cannot stand. Cheesy as that may be to bring up, No sane world leaders would make it so that any one country is able to completely veto anything going through the council, Especially if they were at war. The most logical opportunity for all the seats to receive any help in the first place would be if there as some kind of voting system. A country should only have the ability to veto something if the something concerned itself, Such as a localized disease or a new terrorist threat. If that is not already what is in place, The reform should include that in its place.
The United Nation should grant India pernament membership on the security council

1) Many people say that because of the population in India, India should join. That doesn't really help. If you think about it, How can a country with a huge population help international security? Just because a country seems really powerful doesn't mean it could really help on international security. 2) Many say India is older than China. That doesn't prove anything. How can that help international security? 3) Although India's crime rate is lower than most of the non-permanent seats, It doesn't have the least crime rate. If you think about it, My opponent said: "most" which means that there are non-permanent members that have an even lower crime rate. Those members should join, Not India. 4) Ok. How can nuclear warheads help international security? I think it causes more people dying. 5) Having evidence of video games isn't really correct. Video games often change some things. Video games aren't accurate. 6) India may seem powerful because it has some successful developers. There's actually an uneven workforce. There are some incredibly poor people in India that the government hasn't dealt with yet. I believe that the government should solve its country problems first before dealing with the whole world. 7) Permanent members can block off any resolution going through the security council. If more and more countries join, Every single resolution will be blocked off, Because some of those countries are enemies, And some of them don't want to maintain peace for certain countries. For example, The US may say that the US wants to attack some country. Russia doesn't want the US benefiting from anything, So Russia will obviously say no. If more and more countries come in, Soon the chance of a resolution getting declined will be greater and greater, Because every country would want to benefit for themselves.
The United Nation should grant India pernament membership on the security council

Here we go. . . To begin, I am an American so I do not understand the issue the best, But I am going to try anyways. The UN security council is a group of 15 nations working on the topic of international security. (But you probably knew that) My opinion stems from this, With knowledge that the security council helps to solve problems happening in countries internationally. India should be granted permanent membership on this council. It is a country with 1. 3 billion people in it. India is also older than the people's republic of china, And though it has a higher crime rate than many of the superpowers on the permanent council, It is lower than most of the non-permanent seats. Because of this, India is able to realistically solve its own problems. When India's problems are solved by its government, It will become a modernized, Well governed, High population superpower. If India is not granted a seat, And is forced to do everything itself, It will, And it won't be happy with the UN when it finishes. The propositions for new security council members are: India, Brazil, Germany, And Japan. The four powers added to the council creates a total of nine, So there will be no stalemates during voting. The four powers are all deserving of the seats, But India is the most so. India has 17% of the world's population, It is the only proposed member with nuclear warheads, It is contributing 7. 5k peacekeepers to the council, And it has over a million active military. India working for the council will mean greater peace, More efficient solutions to problems, And less chances of war between superpowers. One could say I have related personal experience of this. In the video game Stellaris, My star empire is part of the "United Star Federation". We have formed defensive pacts and federation fleets made for the purpose of protecting all of the smaller empires that are in need of help. This seems directly related to me, And in the game it is a constant case of "the more, The merrier. " If a new empire were to join the federation, It would contribute ships and men towards the common cause. India would be like that new member. If given a seat, It would be able to help more of the world and in doing so fix its own issues internally because of the people wanting to work together with other nations instead of only focusing on themselves. In conclusion, The results from India joining the United nations security council would help the country and the world. Though there will be a rocky start, It will flatten out quickly in the foreseeable future and the Indian superpower will rise, Hopefully working with us.
Christianity v Atheism

I as Con will be arguing the atheist narrative by urging that atheism is the more correct world view. DEFINITIONS & ASSOCIATIONS: Atheism:"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods[1]." [1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Christianity:"The religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices[2]." [2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... INTRODUCTION & PREMISES: As we see in the definitions I have offered, atheism simply means living without god or the gods. If my opponent is arguing in favor of Christianity as being the correct world view, he must prove how it is the correct world view compared to all other world views. This mean my opponent is not making the case for theism but Christianity in particular. My opponent must make the case that Christianity is the more correct world view. ARGUMENTS: #1 Atheism mean simply living without a god or gods Atheism is not a formal religion or an organized philosophy of sorts. It should be properly understood as a statement that one is in disblief about the existence of a god or gods. Atheism has nothing to do with good or evil, right or wrong, or similiar dualisms. Atheism does not assert values. Therefore, atheism does not need to defend the rightness or wrongness of the world. Atheism is just merely a statement that one lacks the belief in the god or gods.Atheism does not assert anything. Therefore, atheism does not need to defend anything. Atheism does not deny the existence of god becasuse a negative can't be proven. It just lacks the belief in the existence of a god or the gods. The lack of belief in a god or gods does not prove the existence of a god or gods. #2 Christianity is a formal religion If my opponent intends on arguing Christianity is the more correct world view; he must show how Christianity is correct. Unlike atheism, Christianity makes many assertions about the world and how people should function within it. My opponent will not only have to defend these assertions but he must also show us why Christianity is more correct than atheism.
Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated

You don't care If they are addicted or not. There are no good ways to start vaping. 85 percent of vapers grow up to smoke. If you think about it you are just vaporizing chemicals and breathing them into your lungs. Vaping harms nearly every organ in your body, Including your heart. Nearly one-third of deaths from heart disease are the result of vaping and secondhand smoke.
Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated

I've never claimed that I'm okay with "kids" acquiring an addiction to electronic cigarettes. I simply do not care. It's not only nicotine but other harmful substances that are present. You provided examples of why they're bad, Without any sources. I'm just saying that there shouldn't be any regulations because it will be utterly pointless and time consuming. Juul for example is a good way to start vaping, A teen hobby that adds a sense of smoking cigarettes whilst it does contain harmful chemicals similar to cigarettes; "Traditional cigarettes contain a laundry list of chemicals that are proven harmful, And e-cigarettes have some of these same chemicals. " Thus, There is a small percentage of chemicals in e-cigs than the classic cigs. http://www. Center4research. Org/vaping-safer-smoking-cigarettes-2/
Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated

So you're ok with kids getting addicted to nicotine just because they think it makes them look cool. Companies advertise that it is safer than regular smoking but it really isn't. The chance for second-hand smoke is almost the same. There is no research at all backing that they help people get off smoking. In some cases, It actually makes your addiction worse. One student was carrying a Juul in his pocket when it just exploded. Kids are going behind their parents' backs and using them. Research shows now that e-cigs and Juul's are more popular than cigarettes now.
Matt Smith is a better Doctor than David Tennant

That's the thing though! Matt Smith is lighthearted and funny. Doctor who is after all, a family show. That means that it shouldn't always be serious. Matt Smith is perfect for that. He knows when to be serious, and when to be a little more upbeat. I do agree with you on Capaldi though, I feel he's too grumpy and mean. Technically we are having a very pointless argument to be honest. It's all from Steven Moffat. Most of it is scripted, so if you think Matt Smith has " boyish and stupid antics" then blame Moffat, not Smith.
Matt Smith is a better Doctor than David Tennant

David Tennant wasn't "always angry or sad". If that's what you really believe then I'd like proof of that please, or argument is invalid. And I also struggle to see what hair has got to do with anything. Doctor Who relies on intelligence and wit to create vibrant drama, not just boyish and stupid antics - which Matt Smith's episodes were nearly all full of. It is clear that Doctor Who remains a "better" (for want of a stronger word) television program when it is dramatic and heartfelt, as opposed to the Smith and Capaldi era when it simply gravitated into a dumb comedy. Tennant brought the dramatic weight, compassion and wit to craft four seasons of television gold. As soon as Matt Smith danced his stupid way onto the scene and Moffat took over the show, Doc Who was damnably dragged through the mud. Remember the height of Doctor Who's power, back with episodes such as "The Girl in the Fireplace", "Human Nature/The Family of Blood" and "Blink"? This was true and great Doctor Who.
Matt Smith is a better Doctor than David Tennant

I have seen all of the Matt Smith and David Tennant episodes of Doctor Who. Although Tennant is good, Matt is funny, clumsy, and happy, yet he knows when to be serious. Also, David Tennant was always angry or sad it seems. Now, Compared to Peter Capaldi he's as happy as a unicorn but I'm getting off topic. Matt Smith also has the BEST hair by far. There's no competition there. He is charming, especially when he trips over things and says they are cool. "Bow ties are cool" ~Matt Smith
Power in the middle east

Debate accepted. Added power in the Middle east for Western Countries is not for democracy. Though my opponent says this is not a debate. I disagree. This is the purpose here. If I am the only one to debate a stance and not my opponent, I then must ask for votes. My opponent must prove that Western Countries in fact are for the developement of democracy in the Middle East. Rules: 1. Must stay on topic. 2. Must be respectful. Rounds: 1. Acceptance 2. Arguements 3. Rebuttals 4. Rebuttals 5.
Power in the middle east

This not a debate so much as a conversation, I just want to hear your opinion on the subject. The wests interference with middle eastern affairs has, for the most part, been in support of democratic or less extreme middle eastern forces (ANA, Syrian opposition) against oppressive regimes (Taliban, gaddafi regime) Now my theory is that part of this motivation is coming from the fact that should the syrian opposition take political control or the US install a diplomatic government in afganistan, the west will have new friends in the east. There fore providing a closer and stronger front against china should war break out between the west and the far east.
There is no justice nor morality therefore animal cruelty is justified.

A poll of people believing or not believing justice exists in no way supports your argument. Many people believe in angels, this does not mean they exist. By giving money to a homeless shelter that IS charity, not an impersonation of it. It meets the accepted definition of charity "char"i"ty G2;CHerədē/ noun noun: charity; plural noun: charities 1. the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need." Obviously giving money to a homeless shelter in this case is charity. "You have to ask why the person would steal the $20 in the first place. Perhaps because the powers at be forced that person to steal to survive. Then, arresting that person would not be justice." This is illogical being forced to steal to survive does not mean it is just in the first place, and you can easily throw out all instances of being forced and look at only cases where it was not forced. "Since there is so many injustices in this world, I present that justice does not exist." -Pro "I'm not admitting injustice exists. The idea of injustice exists just as the idea of justice exists. What I was stating before is, if performing acts of justice made justice exist, surely acts of injustice would do the opposite. Therefore, since so many actions have been performed that fall under the idea of injustic then there is no justice left. " -Pro You definitely did admit injustices exist, as you said "there are so many injustice in the world" implying there existance not the idea of such, you then went on to deny this. Also even if didnt just admit injustice exists your argument is flawed, you cannot say all the injustices in the world negate all the justice and there is no justice, all the negatives in your checking ledger balance out the positives on final balance(net justice in the world) but do not erase eachother they are still there independently. There can be just as much injustice in the world or more as justice and justice still exist in some cases. "A liquid can be either hot or cold but not both at the same time. Just as an action cannot fall under the idea of justice and injustice at the same time. Justice and injustice are mutually exlusive. Therefore, if an action is injust, it cannot be just. Thanks for the debate." The system you are evaluating as just or injust cannot be both at the same time under the same viewpoint, however with two different liquids(or situtations) one can be hot(or just) and another cold(injust) you cannot average the temp between the too just as you cannot say there is just as much injustice therefor justice doesn't exist, in the one liquid cool(justice) exists the other hot (injustice) can exist. The bottem line is justice and morality are constructs(ideas) of sentient thought. When these ideas are applied to the real world through us striving for them that is where they come into existence.
There is no justice nor morality therefore animal cruelty is justified.

Here's another way of looking at things, on this poll the majority think justice doesn't exist. 28% say yes and 72% say no."Obviously acting like an elf or monkey does not make a elf or monkey exist an impersonation by definition is not the object it is impersonating. Charity Justice or morality in implementation is not an impersonation. If i give money to a homeless shelter that is charity, charity now exists in the transaction of monetary transfer to that organization, " ConI beg to differ. By giving money to a homeless shelter you are impersonating charity just like a person impersonates an elf or an orc. "This is absurd If i give 20$ to charity and someone does the opposite(either steals 20$ from the charity or spends it on vices) it does not undo the fact that charity existed in my giving of that money. It just creates an injustice that our legal system would then hopefully address. An injustice does not "make" justice not exist, it just means it does not exist yet, when that person is arrested and made to pay restitution for stealing that 20$ then justice to some degree exists again not injustice." Con You have to ask why the person would steal the $20 in the first place. Perhaps because the powers at be forced that person to steal to survive. Then, arresting that person would not be justice. "I would like to point out admitting injustice exists but justice does not is a very weak position" I'm not admitting injustice exists. The idea of injustice exists just as the idea of justice exists. What I was stating before is, if performing acts of justice made justice exist, surely acts of injustice would do the opposite. Therefore, since so many actions have been performed that fall under the idea of injustic then there is no justice left. "Injustice existing would not be evidence of justice not existing on smaller scales anyway this is a logical fallacy" Con A liquid can be either hot or cold but not both at the same time. Just as an action cannot fall under the idea of justice and injustice at the same time. Justice and injustice are mutually exlusive. Therefore, if an action is injust, it cannot be just. Thanks for the debate. Nice and long. You certaintly didn't give up.http://www.debate.org...
There is no justice nor morality therefore animal cruelty is justified.

"Acting upon the idea of an elf or troll does not make the elf or troll exist. Jumping around trees like an elf does not make an elf exist. Just as giving money to poor people does not make charity exist. Besides by that logic stealing from poor people would make charity cease to exist." -Pro Obviously acting like an elf or monkey does not make a elf or monkey exist an impersonation by definition is not the object it is impersonating. Charity Justice or morality in implementation is not an impersonation. If i give money to a homeless shelter that is charity, charity now exists in the transaction of monetary transfer to that organization, it is not an improv or impersonation of charity, it is charity. When justice is attempted to be done some degree of justice exists in and of itself, we don't go to court for entertainment. "Con seem to think acting out the idea of charity or justice makes charity or justice exist. Then, I present the opposite. That performing the opposite of charity makes charity not exist. Just as injustice would make justice not exist." -Pro This is absurd If i give 20$ to charity and someone does the opposite(either steals 20$ from the charity or spends it on vices) it does not undo the fact that charity existed in my giving of that money. It just creates an injustice that our legal system would then hopefully address. An injustice does not "make" justice not exist, it just means it does not exist yet, when that person is arrested and made to pay restitution for stealing that 20$ then justice to some degree exists again not injustice. "Since there is so many injustices in this world, I present that justice does not exist." -Pro I would like to point out admitting injustice exists but justice does not is a very weak position Injustice existing would not be evidence of justice not existing on smaller scales anyway this is a logical fallacy