BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Armed Force War: United States vs Any Country

You can't just change the rules on me after I've agreed to follow them to the letter as spelled out in Round 1. If I have truly violated any rules, then you must prove to the voters with quotes as to where. Also, what's to stop you now from saying "This is my debate, and I declare GOD mode!" What has truly happened here, is that you were simply out-maneuvered due to some pretty limited strategies and objective planning on your part, where "maneuver" is a common principle of war. Paramilitaries, economies, geography, diplomacy, geo-political objectives, and public opinion have always been apart of armed conflict. If you had wished to create an ultra unrealistic "chess match" using only tanks, airplanes, infantry, and ships, and one army general against another, then you should have limited this scenario strictly to the map of a single battlefield (Battle for Mecca, Battle of the Persian Gulf, US invasion of Yemen coast, etc, etc,) which could then be played out at the tactical level, which we know you didn't do because you clarified in Round 3 that this was "Strategic Warfare," while simultaneously having us list in Round 1 statistic figures for gross national power; like GDP, population, defense budgeting, and energy reserves.
Armed Force War: United States vs Any Country

1. To my opponent: as mentioned earlier, I must start the attack; as a result of this attack, sanctions being made is completely invalid, for this is purely strategic warfare, not a realistic situation. This war has a Congressional authorization: as mentioned, the debaters have complete control over their own country. 2. Other nations are completely nonexistent; as stated clearly, this "is an armed force war debate, in which any country of your choice FIGHTS my nation". The political circumstances of this war are not applicable to this debate; no militant groups may be involved. This war is purely just Saudi Arabia vs United States, no intervention whatsoever. 3. Therefore, the only effect this has is on trade sanctions posed by Saudi Arabia ALONE, and no other country strictly; this is only a military debate, not an international political one. The only politics here is the trade and economic sanctions posed by THE TWO NATIONS IN WAR. 4. Yes, I have attacked the #2 oil producer of the world. Except that, right now, United States is the third largest oil producer in the world. Now, I forfeit the strategic and military bases of this round, keeping this as a rebuttal. There will be Islamic rebellion in the United States, but we will pacify them: this is a war against Saudi Arabia, not Islam.
Armed Force War: United States vs Any Country

Saudi Arabia is #3 in energy, and #4 in technology. United States Air Force sends 2 aircraft carriers and 200 fighter aircraft to the Al Sulayyil ballistic missile base, most aircraft being Lockheed MC-130s. Send one Lockheed MC-130 (Combat Talon II) and launch a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb-tipped missile. With a blast yield of 11 tons of TNT, it obliterates the whole ballistic missile base. Send a positional assault of the King Faisal Naval base with 13 destroyers, 46 submarines, and 3 aircraft carriers with 250 fighter aircraft; launch 15 Tomahawk missiles with submunitions dispensers with BLU 97/B Combined Effects Bomb warheads, shattering frigate and corvette armor and destroying oil-carrying ships on accurate ballistic aim. Also launch an air offensive at the King Abdulaziz Naval Base; with a swift following naval offensive, launch another 20 Tomahawk missiles with the BLU 97/B Combined Effects Bomb, causing great damage and destruction to both Saudi naval bases. Also send a fearsome air-strike of Sana'a, and gain control over the anarchic Yemen; position land troops at the Yemen-Saudi border. Source: Wikipedia, Global Firepower, Britannica Encyclopaedia Online, the Forbes magazine, CIA World Factbook
Armed Force War: United States vs Any Country

Lol @ how stupidly made-up this is going to be. But I accept and agree to the rules as outlined in Round 1. My country of choice is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia's economic, domestic, and military figures for the coming conflict are published below. Wikipedia.org GDP Total: $1.652 trillion Nominal: 777.870 billion Globalfirepower.com Total Population: 26,939,583 Available Manpower: 15,246,507 Fit for Service: 13,967,609 Reaching Military Age Annually: 505,868] Active Frontline Personnel: 233,500 Active Reserve Personnel: 25,000 Tanks: 1,095 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 7,202 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 524 Towed-Artillery: 440 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 72 Total Aircraft: 652 Fighters/Interceptors: 229 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 229 Transport Aircraft: 182 Trainer Aircraft: 168 Helicopters: 195 Attack Helicopters: 12 Total Naval Strength: 55 Aircraft Carriers: 0 Frigates: 7 Destroyers: 0 Corvettes: 4 Submarines: 0 Coastal Defense Craft: 39 Mine Warfare: 3 Oil Production: 9,900,000 bbl/day Oil Consumption: 2,650,000 bbl/day] Proven Oil Reserves: 267,900,000,000 bbl/day Labor Force: 8,012,000 Merchant Marine Strength: 72] Major Ports and Terminals: 4 Roadway Coverage: 221,372 Railway Coverage: 1,378 Serviceable Airports: 214 Defense Budget: $56,725,000,000 External Debt: $136,300,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $656,900,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity: $883,700,000,000 Square Land Area: 2,149,690 km Coastline: 2,640 km Shared Border: 4,431 km Waterways: 0
Creationism is a Rational Belief System

As I’ve defined before, creationism is more than just being created by intelligence. Pro states he’s dropped no arguments, but moved on from them. This isn’t how a debate works, you need to address my responses to the arguments or else you’ve just conceded the argument is flawed. Also, isn’t dropping the argument and moving on from it the same thing? The point is, you’ve ignored my defenses and rebuttals. No one is asking you to make the same point over and over, just address and defend arguments. It’s true I didn’t make any rebuttal against quantum entanglement or string theory, because those topics have no bearing on the debate at hand. He has yet to show why or how creationism is demonstrated by quantum engagement or S.T. Pro states that it is intuitive that life came from life. He again ignored my arguments against this intuition. He ignored my argument that God doesn’t satisfy this condition. God's not biological, so biological life still had to come from nonliving material. Your first instinct is almost always wrong. Pro talks about quantum entanglement quite a bit, but Q.E. is highly unintuitive. Two separate particles being invisibility connected faster than light isn’t intuitive at all. The whole bit about the matrix is itself also unintuitive and unparsimonious. Pro is being inconsistent. Pro speculates about what reality is like and what God is like. This again doesn’t prove creationism and even if it did it’s merely speculative. Pro then posts 16 youtube videos, which are completely irrelevant. My fossil record and ERV argument have remained dropped. Conclusion This is suppose to be a debate about creationism, yet Pro doesn’t spend much time talking about it. All of my arguments were dropped and Pro dropped a majority of his own arguments.
Creationism is a Rational Belief System

Theistic evolution is typically regarded as separate from creationism [1]. Some definitions of creationism may include it, but that’s why I gave a definition in the first round to clear this up. However, Pro himself admits that we should move on from this point into actual content of the debate. Pro has dropped his argument that the evolution of human culture proves biological evolution is false. He states I have admitted to evolution being just a theory. This is missing the point completely. I’m stating that the point of evolution being a theory is trivial, as it can be a fact and a theory at the same time. This is a very different position than Pro’s. The claim that Dawkins comes close to admitting creationism comes up. This again is irrelevant to the debate at hand. The rationality of creationism doesn’t rest in one man. Furthermore, conceding we can be in a simulation or seeded by aliens falls under the category of intelligence design, not creationism [1]. This is completely trivial in the first place. Of course at least possible for ID to be true. Conceding this just makes you intellectually honest. It’s possible that I am really a telepathic mutant who hasn’t discovered his abilities yet. Nothing contradictory is in that statement, making it at least possible, but this doesn’t mean it’s logical to believe. Nobody should start making videos about me claiming I am a telepathic mutant. As philosopher William Lane Craig said “...possibilities come cheap”. Furthermore, the interview was highly edited [2] if you pay close attention you’ll see how Dawkins’ answers don’t fit with Stein’s questions. Fossil Record Pro gives two quotes. One from Darwin, and one from Steve Jones about how gradual change isn’t observed. However, the idea of gradual change isn’t the same as evolution, it is an idea of evolutionary change that isn’t necessary to the overarching theory itself [3]. This shows Pro is committing a strawman fallacy. Gradual change is an early idea of evolution, which is rejected. This doesn’t invalidate my argument at all. Lastly, if we recall my argument, I stated the fossil record proves evolution in two ways. One being the correct sorting of fossils and the other from the evolution of entities. Pro only attacked the latter, making the former claim uncontested. ERVs Pro has dropped this section. Conclusion Pro doesn’t spend much time attacking my arguments and the time he does, he attacks an outdated strawman. Nor does he spend time addressing my rebuttal to his argument. He spends time on what he thinks Dawkins believes from a small interview, which is completely irrelevant. My arguments still hold, which show creationism isn’t a rational belief. Back to Pro. [1] http://www.strangenotions.com... [2] [3] http://www.pbs.org...
The Bible is a reliable historical document

DefinitionsReliable: that may be relied on; dependable in achievement, accuracy,honesty, etc.[1]Historical: of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history orpast events[2]Bible: the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion,comprising the Old and New Testaments.[3]Burden of ProofMy opponent's burden will be to affirm the resolution and show that the Bible is indeed a reliable marker of the beginning of the world, ext. My burden will simply be to refute my opponent's arguments and bring some of my own to show that the Bible does contain false historical information.Good luck and Satan be upon my opponent.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Bible is a reliable historical document

The Bible is a reliable historical document.I will be Pro, 5 rounds but the first is acceptance, 8,000 characters, 72 hours, and I do have a few requests for my opponent.Please limit your arguments to only one or two that you feel strongly about. Also, please no dropping or adding arguments throughout the debate.This is not a debate for the existence of God, the identity of Christ, or the inspiration of scripture. This is the question of are the Biblical scriptures reliable documents. Is what was originally written down what we posses now? Has it been changed? Can we trust the Bible? So the first round is just to accept the debate, and then we'll proceed with the actual debate. Good luck and God bless whoever my opponent is going to be.I look forward to the debate.
Apple A7 SOC is better than snapdragon 800 SOC

wow johnny boy your wrong. Significantly higher clock speed 2.3 GHz vs 1.3 GHz More than 75% higher clock speed than apple. More l2 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later( than apple) More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once than apple. More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads than apple. so look snapdragon beast and better.
The Mutilation Of Baby Boys As A Testament To Their Devotion Is Unreasonable

Accepted. I was considering arguing this from the standpoint of circumcision in general, and not just religious circumcision. However, I don't want to stray from the resolution, so my argument will remain in the realm of religious circumcision. Being a one round debate, I will rebut as well as provide my own arguments, as well as a short conclusion. R1) "Religious circumcision is a conscious decision adopted by the faithful" This is a true statement. It is a conscious decision, something that they chose to do. This does not apply to the argument however, as it is not a question of conscious decision or not. It is a debate on cruelty. R2) "but amounts to cruelty" Cruelty is not defined. Nor would this be cruel, especially when done in medical areas and by professionals. Argument 1: All I really need is one argument, as BoP was not fulfilled by Pro. Circumcision has benefits [1], and can be done in a humane way (especially if anesthetics are used). One round debate, Pro provided no arguments, failed to uphold BoP, no sources, etc... Thanks, Vote Pro Sources: [1] - http://www.medicinenet.com...
Cloning

Even with the claimed "benefits" of cloning, how many more millions of dollars would that cost? Forbes Magazine estimated that one human clone would cost a whopping $1.7 million. Dolly the Sheep cost around $750,000. After all, one egg costs between $3,000 and $5,000. With such large numbers, ask yourself if it's worth it. Cloning is commonly wanted for transplants and adoptions, but it's not a necessity. Alternative treatments and adoption agencies do exist. The money that is being put toward cloning research and procedures would be more beneficial in a different department with more experience and understanding. Cancer and Alzheimer's Disease are just two options of many that would benefit from more funding. An uncountable number of deaths have occurred with embryos alone in cloning. Are all of these deaths really worth the amount of time and money wasted? Parthenogenesis, the term that applies to when an egg activates spontaneously on its own, is one of the best alternatives to cloning. Like cloning, parthenogenesis produces stem cells but from the patient's own eggs. It doesn't require the egg to be fertilized. On April 9th, Britain introduced its first cloned dog. However, even scientists raised ethical concerns about the pup. Robin Lovell-Badge, a geneticist at the National Institute for Medical Research, described the dog as a "ridiculous waste of money." That being said, the amount of time and money being spent on cloning would be better spent elsewhere.
Cloning

Every medical technology carries with it a degree of risk when first being introduced; cloning is one of many. Cloning techniques will eventually be perfected in mammals and will then be suitable for human trials. The risks with cloning are only temporary. Once it is perfected, cloning would introduce a new opportunity for scientists to make more medical advances regarding health. Cloned organisms would allow for testing to find treatments of diseases or disorders. Since they are genetically identical, they would provide a body that would react to operations and substances like a natural organism would. Specifically, human services would improve such as therapeutic development, the treatment of burn victims, or vital reconstructive surgery. With practice, luxuries like cosmetic surgery would be more reliable and consistent. Even more, new testing done on humans could be lethal. Instead of making offers to draw in reluctant volunteers, or controversial animal testing, genetic copies could replace. This would make clearer and quicker advances medically that would ultimately benefit the health of our population.
Cloning

Cloning is described as a number of processes that are used to create a genetically identical organism. The copied material is described as a clone, and has the same genetic identity as the original organism. However, there are many controversial issues with these processes. Cloning has been proven in numerous cases to be unsafe. According to Center for Genetics and Society, 95% of mammalian cloning has resulted in failure, the reasons being stillbirth, miscarriage, and life-threatening anomalies. Statistics show that the success rate ranges between .1%-3%. Thus meaning that for every 1000 attempts, only 1-30 clones are made, while the other 970-999 organisms die. It's rare that these clones are born without abnormalities. The cloned organisms have been presented with deformities that could eventually end in death. Cloned cows have been born with increasingly large hearts and lungs. Times Higher Education has proven the presence of Parkinson's Disease in rats. The famous cloned sheep, Dolly, has abnormal weight gain, premature arthritis, and even progressive lung disease. Some clones experience large baby syndrome, which means they are irregularly large. This ends up killing the mother during birth.
Cloning

Cloning techniques have a long way to go, but just like any other medical advancement, it will improve with time and there will be a lot more known about it. Cloning can go beyond the boundaries than just humans, as well. Improve quality of crops by making them immune to herbicides pest damage infections and diseases. Cloned plants like wheat, rice, maize, soybean, and potato are ready to be put on market in the near future. If the need ever arose, i.e. famine, it could be used to produce large quantities of food for poorer countries. Statistics show that 70 to 80% of grain grown in the US goes to feeding our livestock, while people go hungry. Cloning crops could create a surplus amount of food that would be able to feed everyone. When used to the benefit of our health, knowledge, and happiness, cloning would be very beneficial to the world.
Cloning

While the patient will be notified of what could go wrong, there are still many unknown consequences and risks relating to cloning. It is feared that the clone might age faster than the original individual because an older cell was used. Also, the patient may not truly understand the dangers involved. All in all, the idea of cloning is still so premature. We can't take the risk of damaging the process of evolution or individuality anymore. Like it was discussed in Round 2, parthenogenesis has been proven productive for patients. That process creates stem cells from pre-existing ones, too. It is also argued that scarce resources should not be wasted on the concentration of cloning while there are more pressing matters, like curing diseases. There are alternatives to cloning, unlike diseases. The fact of the matter is that cloning does not have a purpose or place in our society just yet compared to other, more important issues our society is facing.
Cloning

Whether or not an adoptive child fits in just as well as a genetically related child, there are couples who have a preference as to who is in their family. What needs to be understood is that not everyone lives a religious based life. When cloning becomes accepted, no one is obligated to test it out. People still have the choice to say no if that is what they stand by. If someone decides to go through with any type of cloning, it will not harm their neighbor in any way, shape, or form. Cloning will be done on a modest scale because not every family wants a clone for a child unless they have extreme circumstances. People will have the opportunity to have a family without having to suffer through painful infertility procedures that are common today, according to Health Research Funding. HSR also concluded that as humans continually reproduce, damage to the DNA lines increase causing mutations and defective genes. This could be eliminated with the cloning of healthy human cells. Like any other medical procedures, any patient will be made aware of everything they need to know to make the right decision for themselves.
Cloning

There are plenty of happy couples who have went through the process of adoption to complete their family. Though there are cases where the couples cannot have a child, they should consider the children who do not have a choice. Children everywhere are put up for adoption because their parents do not want them and/or cannot take care of them. The fact that a reasonable couple not wanting to adopt solely because the child is not genetically similar to them is immoral. The couple should recognize the fact that a child is a child, whether it looks like them or not. Religion is one of the greatest factors that influences ideas. The idea of killing an embryo can be classified as murder to a large part of the population. Dolly the Sheep wasn't successfully created until after 276 failed attempts. That's only a mere number compared to the amount of embryos killed due to cloning. The fact that we can create and kill life goes against the very idea of God. People argue that God has a plan for all humans and for them to sexually reproduce. Since the beginning of time, humans have been granted the ability to sexually reproduce. If it's worked this long, who's to say we're to stop it now?Therefore, there should be a gap between knowing and believing.
Cloning

The cloning process would clone cells that are from the individual's body, so the genetic code would be the same and the body would not see it as a foreign object. Though it may seem like an unnatural process, it is just adapting and using technology as an advantage. The clone would contain the same genetic information including disorders. It would not be classified as murder, because no one inflicted the disease or disorder upon it. Instead, it is a search for a cure so that it would not result in death. Cloning could also bring happiness to couples who may not be able to have children. Couples who are infertile do not have any way of producing a child, except for adoption. This will give even homosexuals a chance to have a family. According to Genetics and Sockety, this means lesbian couples are able have children without a sperm donation, and gay couples to have genes derived from an egg donor. Also, parents can seek redress for a kid who died early on in their childhood. Cloning could even produce a better understanding of miscarriages and ultimately lead to treatment for spontaneous abortions.
Cloning

Although organ transplants have been sufficient in the past due to cloning, there's always an unknown range of possibilities that could result in worse outcomes. The body could identify the organ as a foreign object and attack it. With the potential ability to create human life, we must ask ourselves of the moral and ethical issues surrounding the topic. The whole idea of cloning goes against the natural process. Cloning represents a shift in mankind's relationship with nature. Because it duplicates an original copy of DNA, cloning slows down the natural process of evolution. Evolution strengthens species' diversity and their survival instincts. Without evolution, the human race cannot continue to evolve into a more sufficient mankind. Also, considering the fact that the cloned organism does have the original's DNA, there is always the question if the clone would carry the same genetic disorders as the original. This could increase the likelihood of the population developing that disorder. On top of that, if the clone developed that disorder, could that be considered attempted murder? For example, if the original organism had ovarian cancer and the clone developed it, would it be classified as murder? Even with other genetic disorders the clone could develop, most medical organizations would not provide support because it would be considered a pre-existing condition. The ability to create human life reduces the overall value of life itself. Cloning increases the chances of humans being viewed as commodities and not individuals. This unfortunate, yet true, reality would decrease the sense of individuality.