BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
WAR DEBATE: United States (Pro) vs. Selected Country (Con) PART TWO

Thank you, Russia.As before, the USA is split into 4 groups. Northeast, Midwest, West, and South. (http://upload.wikimedia.org...)Here we go with the armies, as before, only trained troops.The Numbers(source: http://www.globalfirepower.com...)My opponent does a good choice by picking Russia, they are about the same as the USA.Total Military (includes reserves):USA: 2,280,880Russia: 3,251,000Russia wins, by a landslide. But I have a plan to get more troops that I will discuss later.Total AFV strength:USA: 25,782Russia: 27,607Another win for Russia, so it's 2-0, Russia.Total Aircraft:USA: 13,513Russia: 3,082Well, now it's 2-1, Russia, and I dominate in this category.Fleet Strength:USA: 473Russia: 3522-2. I will use this to my advantage.So we are about even, 2 to 2 in the main categories. But, lets look at military budget.Military budget:USA: $612,500,000,000Russia: $76,000,000,000Wow, I have way more room to spend, and I will use this to train more troops. So an average of $850,000 is to train one troop FULLY, based on this: (http://security.blogs.cnn.com...)I will fund $10 billion dollars every month into training and recruiting USA soldiers. This should produce 11,000 troops a month.Dividing my military:Northeast:Troops: 600,000AFVs: 6,000Aircraft: 3,000South:Troops: 700,000AFVs: 7,000Aircraft: 2,000West: Troops: 800,000AFVs: 10,000Aircraft: 8,000Midwest:Troops: 280,880AFVs: 2,000Aircraft: 513As you can see, I have the most at the west, because a trip to the East side of the USA would take months for Russia. However, a trip to the west would be relatively short.Navy patrolling:50 navy patrolling the Alaska area.300 navy patrolling the whole west coast.60 navy patrolling all the way from Maine's coast to Alabama.Over to you, Russia.
WAR DEBATE: United States (Pro) vs. Selected Country (Con) PART TWO

Because my opponent made as he quotes "a newbie" move by choosing United Kingdom, I have decided to restart with him, and let him pick another country. I will give him another chance. Please do not vote on that debate.Rules:1. Use this source ONLY, (http://www.globalfirepower.com...) due to the confusion on the amount of troops, AFVs, etc. that I have had in the past with people. You can suggest another source, however, but I will need to look it over.2. Each country's turn will be about a month to three months long, so please take in consideration of how much you do in a turn, make it reasonable. (example: in my other war debate South Korea vs. North Korea, my opponent did all in one round what would be done in over a year.)3. Morale is a KEY factor.4. You may produce more military, but it depends on your military budget and industry of your nation.5. I am defending. You will invade and try to end the war.6. NOTE: If you destroy/liberate the capital, this does not necessarily mean you win the war, I could take it back.7. No nuclear warfare.
Every human action is motivated by self interest

I to, have nothing to add - I feel I have debated enough / as much as I could in the first 2 rounds, So I really do not have anything to add. If you vote in this debate, please consider the fact that my opponent was not English / American - when it comes to voting for best grammar, however his grammar and variety of words was definitely varied. That was a great topic for a first debate, and I hope you vote for my side (CON) ! May the best debater win! :)
Every human action is motivated by self interest

I feel as if i stated all my points of view in my previous 2 comments . There is nothing left to add on my side so I would like to end this just by thanking my opponent for a wonderful debate . If my opponent feels that he has something else to add he is more than welcome to do so . Again i apologies for my faulty english , as i stated before , it`s not my native language . If you think my arguments and my points of view are the right ones please vote PRO ! Thank you .
Every human action is motivated by self interest

Every single thing we do seeks our own well-being , or what we see as our own well-being . We give money to a beggar for our very own interest , we go to war and die for our country for our own interest(I will explain those 2 later on) , there is not a single action we do that has another goal then our own well-being . "our own interest" or "well-being" can be divided into 3 categories : -the REAL interest/well-being ( we go to school so we can have a better life later on , we are aware of it and it`s a REAL interest , going to school do helps our well-being) -the UNCONSCIOUS interest/well-being (you give money to a beggar because you seek your own selfish interest , although you are not aware of it . Being kind is something almost every society and every human being appreciates . When we give money to that beggar that`s what we involuntary seek , we want to believe that we posses a quality appreciated by everyone. It makes us feel better inside , we trick ourselves into believing we are what most of our societies define as a "good" human being) -the UNREAL/IMAGINARY/FAKE interest/well-being (Your country is at war and you voluntary join the army to help your nation , knowing you might die . Now this is an interesting situation . You join the army because you want recognition , most of the time without you even being aware of that .Everybody loves , appreciates , and respects someone who fights for his nation , for his friends or family . Plus you get to see yourself as a brave person ,you get to be proud of yourself and all these things do make you feel good . These are the reasons that get you into going to war , call it the "hero" complex . Just like in the "beggar case" , you are`t always aware of them , they are hidden in your subconscious and sometimes are disguised as "patriotism" or other feelings.Deep down there your subconscious thinks going to war is in your own interest , it`s for your own well-being , but this time he is wrong , obviously . As you might imagine being dead can`t do you much good and it`s pretty much the opposite of your own well-being ) The subconscious can create intermediate stages(or life/society/education...etc....) to make you do certain things for your own good . Take "compassion" and put it in the "beggar example". It`s the link . Well , prove me wrong ! PS>. I am more interested into finding out if I am right or wrong that I am into winning or losing .
Everyone deserves the right to personal freedom

Pro, pro, pro.... I am not stating that personal freedom is terrorism; but i am merely using the boston bombings as an EXAMPLE to how personal freedom can be used to violate others. People who deserve personal freedom should be people who have never commited a crime or act against others. This is not going against my own side (CON) because the topic IS that EVERYONE deserves the right to personal freedom. So Pro, I know I am CON. You have not offered any arguments, only EVIDENCE that support your case. Just because the Natural Laws and Rights articulate the fundamentals; it does not necessarily mean that is being put to use. For an example; search up Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech". You will find it there.
Everyone deserves the right to personal freedom

I believe Con is slightly confused per his round 2 "argument"... Con, I (leonardlewis4) am Pro. You (SmileyRainbow1999) are Con. Okay, now that we've put that to rest... Con says I haven't offered any arguments. I have. Primarily, my argument is an appeal to Natural Law, Natural Rights and a couple of contemporary documents that articulate the fundamentals of those concepts well. Granted, my argument is an appeal to authority, but it is a proper appeal. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, is a well-accepted, thoroughly established historical codification of Natural Rights underpinning of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights (recognized virtually universally). I included sources in the interest of time to provide all the information one might need to understand the argument represented by the concept of Natural Law/Rights. I also argued in favor of the authority to which I appealed using the logical progression of Con's argument to further make the point. As for Cons claim that I have merely offered rebuttals... Well, there hasn't been much to rebut. Again, Con asserts that some people "deserve" personal freedoms some "do not deserve" personal freedoms. However, Con still has not provided an objective standard for declaring a person to be either "deserving" or "undeserving"... Hopefully he will. If/when he does, we should also expect sufficient warrant for imposing such a standard--something beyond, "bad things MAY happen". |Con: "Not everyone (as in the world) deserves the right (have a claim to) to personal freedom (the ability to not be | controlled by a wider force. Because it WILL be used against people. Such as the Boston Bombings, the man had the | freedom of travel which in then, he used to bomb Boston." Thus far, Con's equation seems to be: "Personal Freedoms" equal "Terrorism"
Everyone deserves the right to personal freedom

Con has not supported his argument that everyone deserves the right to personal freedom, instead he has just been rebutting. Hopefully he will have some new points for me to rebut. Not everyone (as in the world) deserves the right (have a claim to) to personal freedom (the ability to not be controlled by a wider force. Because it WILL be used against people. Such as the Boston Bombings, the man had the freedom of travel which in then, he used to bomb Boston.
Everyone deserves the right to personal freedom

I appeal to Natural Law [1], Natural Rights [2], and two resulting contemporary declarations: The Declaration of Independence [3]: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The preamble to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that rights are inalienable [4]: "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Granted, there have been many attempts throughout history to articulate and enumerate natural rights, but almost all include the right to life and liberty as the two highest priorities. Con states that, "People can use personal freedom to pursue what they like--which may be harmful." The implication being, that people should therefore be denied personal freedom for their own good. However, this would be self-defeating... Denial of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is intrinsically harmful! If people are denied the freedom to "pursue what they like", who (or what) does Con assume will provide or seek their happiness? If a person is denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they are suffering harm at the hands of an oppressor (or oppressive law). Con also states that "Many people also use personal freedom as a way to hurt others which can be seen in events in ... history." The implication being, that people should therefore be denied personal freedom for the good of others (whether or not the denial is otherwise warranted). Con also has a concept of people who "deserve" personal freedoms and people who "do not deserve" personal freedoms. One can only assume that the point of withholding rights from the "undeserving" would be to secure rights for the "deserving" (in Con's mind)... However, Con has provided no sufficient warrant for declaring a person to be either "deserving" or "undeserving". It appears by his positions that one must earn their personal freedoms (by some merit-based system) in order to be declared "deserving". In other words, no one is born (or can be assumed to be) deserving of personal freedoms--because of what "may" happen as a result. Hopefully, Con will further explain his statement, "Overall, not EVERYBODY should have personal freedom, only the people that deserve it should have it." I (Pro) say that people can forfeit certain rights by violating law. Essentially, that everyone is deserving of personal freedoms until they demonstrate otherwise. However, this is not the same as Con's position. Con says, essentially, that we should make no assumption that people are deserving of personal freedoms--because of what "may" happen as a result. However, he has not given us a standard for determining who is deserving and who is not deserving--or a standard for meriting freedoms. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Everyone deserves the right to personal freedom

BOP is shared... Con must provide sufficient warrant for his argument that everyone does not deserve the right to personal freedom because of the potential for abuse or because of problem scenarios to which that freedom "may" lead. Specifically, as Con stated, "...because they may use it to violate other peoples' freedoms. It can also lead to [corrupt behavior] and power which may harm others in several ways, physically, mentally and socially." Note: Con did not argue (as I have) that certain personal freedoms may be taken away after committing a crime (for instance)... Rather, he states that certain people (we know not who) should never be allowed to experience personal freedoms because of what they "may" do with it. I (Pro) must provide sufficient warrant for my position that everyone deserves the right to personal freedom unless and until they demonstrate that they are no longer worthy of that right by violating established law such that the rights of others are violated in such an egregious manner as to warrant denial of personal freedom according to the law.
Resolved: The initiative "UN Global Classrooms" is beneficial to American students.

Judges, it is my belief that to explain to you why I should be the winner of this debate at this point is pretty much an insult to your intellect with consideration everything I've stated in the previous round and the fact that my opponent hasn't even shown up to make any sort of counterargument to anything I've said. Every single argument I've made from R2 has been completely extended across the flow, and my sources actually validate the reasoning behind every single one of my arguments in contrast to my opponent, who just took whatever argument came to him on a biased article and slapped on slippery slopes. I'm pretty much the owner of the conduct vote in this debate because I've been punctual to every single round. I said before that I would be perfectly content with providing my opponent with some leniancy in this debate if his forfeits were as a result of a legitimate reason, yet he has not provided that at all. If you look back into his profile, you would've consistantly seen that my opponent was present on this site during the time period that his debate was due, meaning that it must've been obvious that my opponent in no way made the effort to respond to what I have said. His arguments are irrelevant to the context of the resolution, meaning this whole time, he hasn't in any way argued the proper debate, and he hasn't responded to any of my contentions in my case. Going back to my Observation 2, my opponent has completely and implicitly agreed with every single one of my points. My opponent could've proven that this was harmful to American society (even though I provided arguments against his reasoning), but this would've been counterintuitive to the burden I outlined and he accepted.
Resolved: The initiative "UN Global Classrooms" is beneficial to American students.

Argumentation Point: Not only has my opponent failed to argue any of my rebuttals, but my opponent also hasn't rebutted anything against my original case, meaning that both have been extended across the flow. It's evident that I'm already winning the argumentation point. For the sake of emphasizing this fact, however, I'm going to return to some essential arguments around the end of the round.Conduct Point: I'll agree for the judges not to count off on my opponent in the conduct vote if he has a legitimate reason to have forfeited a round. However, for the time being, I'm also winning the conduct vote because I've been punctual to every single round so far including this one.Conclusions: The pinnacles of reasons why the judges should already be considering voting for me in this debate are the following. Because of my better utility in my evidence in comparison to my opponent's, the sources vote should definitely be mine. While my points are solidified in their reasoning through my evidence, my opponent seems to have just pulled an argument from a conservative source on this issue and just planted slippery slopes on it. His evidence does not prove anything that he says in the ideas of what will be the results of MUN and that conditions for these results will inevitably occur. I emphasized throughout my entire rebuttal that even if my opponent were absolutely true in everything that he's saying, his entire case is irrelevant anyway because the negative effects he speaks of are negative effects to the society rather than the individual, which is essentially what this resolution is focusing on from the perspective of American students.
Resolved: The initiative "UN Global Classrooms" is beneficial to American students.

I accept. (UN Global classrooms) is not beneficial but harmful to American students. We will use the full definition of beneficial. BENEFICIAL- involving the personal enjoyment of proceeds: conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful. One rule. No plagiarizing. Rounds first acceptance and Last for conclusions. I accept these conditions. I WISH MY OPPONENT GL. Back to Pro->
Best National anthem battle

America http://www.youtube.com...I would like to offer the following conclusion and voting issue: 1. Con states: "we just post a youtube like (video square) of one national anthem we like, and the voters choose who had the best one! ... we know what this debate means..."If we all know what this debate means, it wouldn't hurt but to elaborate. "We just post 'a' youtube like (he means link) of one national anthem we like."Clearly this means this debate will be between two national anthems. His choice was the Russian, mine was the American. However, throughout this debate Con has posted 5 different national anthems, not following his own, obvious, rule.By saying we will post a youtube link, we are to assume this debate will be about only two anthems, because only one link will be posted for each debater. One debater picks on Anthem, and the other picks a different one. Then we would assume we back up our choices in the following rounds. However, Con has jumped all round the place. The final voting issue is the "best national anthem" if Con claims 5 national anthems to be the "best" this debate is flawed in his regard.
Reproductive Technology

Yes in using this treatment there is a higher possibility of having twins, but when a mother has multiple births in using reproductive technology it can lead to many problems as stated in my previous arguments. There are also other ethical issues raised by ART such as the "fundamental issues of human dignity raised by the technology of surrogate motherhood. Preservation of human dignity is an important role of government. Reducing humans to commodities that can be traded in the manner of farm animals is highly destructive of human dignity" (Source: Goldmark, S. M.Stingl, Alexander. "Counterpoint: Surrogate Motherhood Attacks Human Dignity By Buying And Selling Children." Points Of View: Surrogate Mothers (2013): 3. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 14 Apr. 2014).
Reproductive Technology

The aim of ART may be to ensure a healthy sustainable pregnancy, but the horrible effects previously stated can happen or occur either way. Not only can ART cause harmful effects to the child and mother but they also "use, storage and destruction of excess IVF embryos, and research involving embryos" )http://www.bioethics.org.au...). An embryo is "growing organism after being a zygote and before being a fetus" (http://www.biology-online.org...).
Reproductive Technology

however it is up to the couple to decide if they are willing to take that risk. also compared to many other types of life altering operations that the couple could undergo say an unwanted abortion this technology isn't as bad as a abortion or other surgeries and operations that a couple can do because instead of taking life they are bringing it. also to rebuttal your earlier argument that it can cause many problems according to http://www.infertilityfocus.com... "ART (assisted reproductive technology) is not just about conception taking place, its aim is to ensure a healthy sustainable pregnancy."
Reproductive Technology

I'm not playing god and I am certainly not telling a couple that they can not have a child. What I am saying is that reproductive technology has horrible effects to it; of these horrible effects one of them may be neurological problems with the child and or mother. Neurological problems and other symptoms may consist of: "changes in weight or sleep, psychomotor agitation or retardation, fatigue or loss of energy, feelings of worthlessness or guilt, concentration difficulties and suicidal ideation" (http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org...), these problems can be seen in both the mother and the child.
Reproductive Technology

While I do not in fact agree with mothers and infants dieing in complications of child birth. You by comparison are saying that you deny couples the pursuit of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as according to the Constitution you want to prohibit couples for there god given right that it is there body there for there decision. it is not the place of the government to say how they want to control the bodies of the couples. also if it may not be considered "Moral" by a certain persons point of view. it is not them who are getting the procedures done it is the couples decision there for I ask my opponent "who are you to play god and tell a couple that they can't have a child" and as you can see in ( http://www.archives.gov... ) that people have there American rights to say what happens to their body
Reproductive Technology

Yes, although it is true that reproductive technologies provide infertile couples the ability to have children it is not true that the couples may have a healthy child. Mothers who go through ART (or Assisted Reproductive Technology) have a higher chance of having multiple births. According to http://www.cdc.gov...: “multiple births pose substantial risks to both mothers and infants, including pregnancy complications, preterm delivery, and low birth weight infants.” These problems stated by http://www.cdc.gov... can all lead to death of the mother, death of the child, and/or death of both the mother and child. So, by being on the pro side (for ART) you are essentially saying that you are ok with mothers and babies dying.
Non-members should be allowed to vote on debates.

"First of all you said you support universal suffrage. Well when it comes to voting in a local, state, or federal election one must register to vote. Registration allows those who are holding the election to see where the vote is coming from and to convey a sense of legitimacy in the election that was just held. Without proper oversight you allow the process to be potentially be undermined." What does that have to do with anything? I didn't say I disapproved of registration. "Bsergent, you mentioned in your other debate how you feel people just look at the topic and vote based on the Pro and Con without considering the argument. Dalzuga, the gentleman that posted a comment on our debate page essentially refuted that argument by stating that even though he disagrees with you, at this point in time his is more inclined to vote for you." My argument was that people vote along opinion lines. And I won that debate, go check it. I didn't say ALL people vote along opinion lines.