BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the world wars had more negative sides rather than positive sides..........

So here in this debate i would like to say about the defects of the world wars and you should say about the advantages that goes beyond these disadvantages. First i would like to start by just saying a simple point that this world war has caused the deaths of millions and millions of innocent people. In the second world war the Nazis has caused the deaths of several thousands of Jews for no reason. You may think it as very thrilling but think of yourself in that position of death. These world wars are just two black pages of the entire world. These world wars has destroyed the vast beauty of the world. These has promoted enemity between the people and between the countries. So these are some of the many disadvantages of world wars. Here i have just introduced some of the disadvantages of world wars. So as i have said earlier this world war has made many people to lose their lives. But let me ask whether the world wars brought advantages that is better than the life of a person. There are no advantages in having a war. War is the result of a complete breakdown in any sort of diplomatic efforts to solve a problem. In the case of WW2 there were two nations Germany and Japan that wanted to acquire control over territories for 2 reasons, Japan needed raw materials that were being denied her and would result in an economic breakdown if this continued. Germany was under the control of a madman whose only desire was to conquer as much of the world as possible with no regard for human life. His efforts at genocide indicated how insane his entire regime was. Diplomacy in his case was out of the question - he simply had to be stopped. There were no advantages or disadvantages. Japan was determined to conquer territories and Germany represented what true evil looks like. Come with the answers when you post your argument. I hope that i would be able to expand my points in my next round. So hope you would post your argument against this. .. .
the world wars had more negative sides rather than positive sides..........

If you bothered so much that this is a very bad debate, then why do you accept my challenge. Since you accepted this debate you should argue against me. But this argument does not mean the type of argument you have given. You are saying that life is horrible. This argument is worthless since these are exceptional cases. All the people around us including me likes to live. Why aren't you making some good points on your debate and go on telling all sorts of these unwanted things. You said that millions were killed and this helped people learn a lesson. This clearly points out the disadvantages of the war. So your second point in the previous argument is also worthless. In you third point you gave a stupid answer. Will you choose anything over your life,anything. I am sure that you will never. Then why are you making these silly arguments. Yes billions and billions of people has suffered before the world war. But will it go above the sufferings that are caused by and after the world war. The massive bombings in Japan has lead to many disadvantages among the people of this country. Please check out the following sites. . http://answers.yahoo.com... From the following site we can see that these bombings made advantages that some were not killed. But the defect is that loads of children today in Japan are also being affected. Another advantage is that it made the wars to end up quickly which explains their disadvantages. Here i would like to depict some sites that support my argument. . http://www.ask.com... . http://ramblingofnada.wordpress.com... . http://nihatkaygusuz.com... You have only used some curse words for my points and you have not posted an argument against it. But i argued and opposed all your points. So i think all should be in the pro side in this debate. So i am thanking pro for his foolish arguments. ..
the world wars had more negative sides rather than positive sides..........

What was the point of this debate. Of course you would answer back of how much people were killed and effected."Are you saying that the advantages you have given above goes over the life of human being" Yes. SO if your gonna keep complaining of how much people have died which is like 80 million, i would not answer you back since your gonna be saying how much deaths there were and how horrible life is. Defuq would i debate.Fine, ill rebute your debate since you want me to."You have made a severe mistake in your arguments by supporting my point. You said these world wars helped people to learn a lesson. Why is this so?"All i said was that millions were killed which is obvious but you making a big deal about this."But could you imagine what they have lost? These women may have lost their husbands and even their sons who died fighting in the world war. So which is greater for the women, their rights or the life of the dear ones"Rights, millions suffer for billions in the future. Do i sound a too cruel now."The answer of this question would surely bring us to the true fact that these world wars has more disadvantages than advantages."But the advantages are that women would forever have the rights as a man does. I think thats really great to all of the women living today in everyone lives. and more stuff. "So we can say that your arguments has no importance."Facepalm* You arguement is how people suffered. Billions and billions had suffer before the WWs. Go argue how war shouldn't have happened anyway if your saying that millions have suffered. Thats it. "Are you saying that the advantages you have given above goes over the life of human being. NEVER."Again, your same old sh*t. "So all your arguments you have posted in your previous round would not go over the disadvantages."Second facepalm* "Would you ever chose life rather than other things"If the other thing is something i would choose life after. I will list advantages next round.
the world wars had more negative sides rather than positive sides..........

Thanks for arguing. In this round i wish to oppose your points. You have made a severe mistake in your arguments by supporting my point. You said these world wars helped people to learn a lesson. Why is this so? This is because of the great defects or disadvantages of these world wars. So you have proved yourself that these world wars had more disadvantages. You have also proceeded an argument that women granted female rights after the effect of the world wars. But could you imagine what they have lost? These women may have lost their husbands and even their sons who died fighting in the world war. So which is greater for the women, their rights or the life of the dear ones? The answer of this question would surely bring us to the true fact that these world wars has more disadvantages than advantages. Similarly a lot of women got rights after the first world war. But were these rights strong enough to prevent the death of Jewish women in the second world war. So we can say that your arguments has no importance. We know that the humans are the greatest resource of the world. Games,advanced technology.......... all were brought up by humans and humans were killed in the world wars.Is this good? Are you saying that the advantages you have given above goes over the life of human being. NEVER....So all your arguments you have posted in your previous round would not go over the disadvantages. Would you ever chose life rather than other things.... Watch some of the destruction in this world wars... http://www.history.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Just remember the fact that these are some of the destructions or disadvantages caused by the world wars........ Hope you understand them. So i think the people should be in the pro side of this debate.......
the world wars had more negative sides rather than positive sides..........

The World Wars indeed had cause over millions or billions of death though advantages from World War 1 & 2 are quite great.The World Wars has made people learned a lesson. After experiencing aftermaths of world wars, countries and their controllers would try avoid going through a War.WomensI will talk about how during the WW showed how womens influenced Female rights. You know how womens were always treated as dogs. Well during the world war, women were given privliges to work and when they work, people were impressed. They were the supportive side of the army, they carried loads of machinery. They built planes, cars and much more things. This showed how great women can be unlike how men thinked of women in the past. They are why women's rights exist today, what a great feeling. Everything we have today is defined by the pass including the WORLD WARS.Games, anime, computers, safety, weapons and everything. Call of duty, Battlefield would not exist because both games were influenced by World War 2. Including shooting games. So we know that without WW there would be no:Call of duty or Battlefield.Advance technology because the WW forced tech to get into the next levelEpic WW documentariesbetter economics Women rightsI cant think of anything now. So i proved that WW has great advantages Oh yeah, there wouldn't be epic war movies like Wind Talkers.So much things to list i don't even bother.So no cod, battlefield, war games for you.Oh yeah, they wouldn't show badass YouTube videos of trolling and epic montages. Without WW we wouldn't be having this debate now lol.
Environmentalists picked the wrong 'poster child' for Global Warming.

Like i said before , if the public see it as dying its ok , enviromentalists ( well most of them ) have not really claimed the polar bear is dying as we speak , they claim that if something is not done and thigns continue as they are , the polar bear will become extinct in a few decades , which sounds a long time but its really not. The public are thinking that enviromentalists are telling them lies , which to some extent may be true. However like i said the polar bear is in trouble and there is no denying that , maybe it does not look like it now , but i can guarantee you , unless somethign drastic is done , the polar bear will become exctinct a lot sooner than the penguins. Like i will say again , it is widely been accepted that the large increase in the polar bear population is due to hunting restrictions on them now. The decrease in penguins was inevitable as they were over-populated to begin with and hunting penguins has not been restricted becuase they are not classed as endangered or under threat animals. Now to the part were you are making a thing about polar bears killing seals , i will say it once its nature , you cannot justify using that as a case agaisnt polar bears , because you are a human , now go to a slaughter house if it will enlighten you to waht exactly humans do to animals , also humans kill baby seals baby slowly clubbing them to death , polar bears kill them quickly , but like i said its nature and you wouldnt be having this debate if polar bears didnt eat seals. also my last point , my picture was a joke lol , but its actually a baby seal thats been photoshoped :P
Environmentalists picked the wrong 'poster child' for Global Warming.

-------------------------------- POLAR BEARS: My opponent claims that polar bears will eventually die if global warming keeps going. However, as I have sourced, so will Penguins. However, penguins would have been a better choice for the reasons I discussed. There are many arguments on both sides of the debate as to why polar bears are increasing in population. The cause is not so important as the results. Because polar bear populations have increased in times of polar warming, the polar bear is not a good poster child for global warming. Again, I argue that the penguin would have been a better choice. "even if it is considered mis-leading that is good for the enviromentalists because people will become concerned , remember we are not here to say which one is the true poster child , we are aruging in a way which one is the best , and if more people are concerned about the polar bear then it can only be good right ? " Your run-on was very confusing, but what you are arguing is that even though it is misleading, it is effective and that effectiveness is all that matters. However, what you do not take into consideration is that when people figure out that polar bears cling to ice chunks voluntarily as means for transportation, they will not consider anything else spewed by the greens to be propoganda as well. When people lose confidence in a group, it is seldom regained. For this reason, the polar bear is not a good poster child for global warming. -------------------------------- CHIHUAHUAS My opponent sources a picture of a chihuahua to prove that 'not all baby seal are cute'. ------------------------------ SEALS Seals are not malevolent to humans like polar bears, and humans do not like to watch cute little baby seals get torn apart. -------------------- PENGUINS On the flip side, penguins are actually decreasing in population, so they make much more effective tools of propoganda than polar bears on a cruise from one glacier to the next. People think penguins are cute, and are emotionally attached to them, especially after the movie, Marching of the Penguins. -------------------- FALSE CLAIM "or also because its hungry because of global warming. " Polar bears do not get hungry because of global warming. The seals they eat off of are also booming, so their food supply is increasing. . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... ------------------------- CONCESSION My opponent concedes that penguins are dying because of global warming. "penguin populations are decreasing because thhey are over-populated in the first place and also because of global warming" ----------------------------- CONCLUSION Something that is actually dying because of global warming is much more effective as propoganda than something that's not. Therefore, penguins would have been the right choice as the poster child of global warming. The environmentalists chose the polar bear instead, and because they didn't make the right choice, they made the wrong choice.
Environmentalists picked the wrong 'poster child' for Global Warming.

You say polar bears are not the right poster child for enviromentalists. i say they are. heres why , i will present no sources though for many reasons , one their are to many mixed views about this subject and to many claimed hoaxs , also i really cant be botherd and if you dont belive me look it up. Polar bear population may be increasing , but this has been due to stricter production of the bears from hunting , hunting kills them a lot faster than global warming and a lot more of them. however very soon ( 30-40 years soon ). You are going to realise that the polar bear is bonned. If the polar ice caps keep melting at these rates , and will probably speed up , the polar bears will almst certainly die , unless they are re-homed in some crappy zoo. your other poin which you quote from the telegraph "Pictures of a polar bear floating precariously on a tiny iceberg have become the defining image of global warming but may be misleading, according to a new study" is true because i told you why they are thriving its no secret , and since its true it can only be good , even if it is considered mis-leading that is good for the enviromentalists because people will become concerned , remember we are not here to say which one is the true poster child , we are aruging in a way which one is the best , and if more people are concerned about the polar bear then it can only be good right ? now onto your point about baby seals , which i shall present my one source http://www.thechihuahuadiaries.com... not all baby seal are cute. besides who cares polar bears look big and cuddely , and i forgot to mention if they dont eat baby seals chances are there would'nt be any around here today ! eating them is part of the polar bears survival. There are i think only around 15,000 polar bears in the world , however there are tens of millions of seals , so exchanging a few of those seals for the survival of 15,000 polar bears is good. Also when you say penguins are better than polar bears , think again for every child that has a cuddely penguin , there are probably 5 kids with a cuddely polar bear. also when you say that the polar bears attack the humans , thats because they can and penguins fail , normally polar bears only do it to protect their young or scare off some stupid looking human , or also because its hungry because of global warming. and penguin populations are decreasing because thhey are over-populated in the first place and also because of global warming , remember , it doesnt matter which one is affected the most , unless the penguin numbers drop below the number of polar bears soon , or if they become extinct or decrease by the millions , the polar bear will always win public sympathy and will generally be seen as more in danger , remember enviromentalists can use propaganda as well.
Filing a fake police force is as bad as commiting the crime

A fake police force has no jurisdiction nor power to do anything, Regardless of how you file them (single, Double, Etc. . ). Also, While a fake police force trying to exert power over others by pretending to be a real police force is a a heinous activity and one that is almost universally a crime, They can't really be doing that if you are occupying them all by filing them. Thus, Filing a fake police force is not as bad a committing the crime (whatever that crime may be).
Filing a fake police force is as bad as commiting the crime

I think we're not communicating well here. Of course there's no argument that filing a fake police report is crime. It's there black and white in our laws. But there also seems to be no argument that filing a fake police force is not a crime, As there is no law against filing a fake police force. And it's the latter that's the topic at hand. That said, As you pointed out, There are various classifications and degrees of crime, Which set up how "bad" a crime is considered to be. Filing a police report is a worse crime than stealing a bike, But attempted murder is a worse crime than filing a fake police report. Again, Though, All of that doesn't speak to the statement of debate.
Filing a fake police force is as bad as commiting the crime

You used to get along really well with your next-door neighbor, But the relationship has quickly soured. His raucous, All-night party (which kept your infant awake until dawn) was the final straw, Prompting you to call the police. But since they didn't break up the party or even knock on his door, You've decided to get your revenge by filing a police report claiming your neighbor stole your bike (which, In reality, You had lent him a couple of weeks ago). But soon after the police show up at your neighbor's house, They're knocking on your front door. Turns out, Your neighbor showed them a text message exchange in which you've agreed to lend him your bike. Now you're the one facing criminal charges for filing a false police report. This is an example of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment and is in fact considered a crime against justiceitself. Legal specifics vary by jurisdiction, But the following information provides a general overview of the crime.
Filing a fake police force is as bad as commiting the crime

I agree. At the same time, Filing a false police force is not a crime at all. It actually happens all the time when they set up for shoots on movie sets. (As an aside, While filing a false police report about a murder is a class d felony, Attempted murder is a class b felony. So, By definition, Attempted murder is punished more severely than lying about an attempted murder. To put it another way, Trying to kill someone is worse than saying someone tried to kill you [unless your objective is to get them killed via the death penalty, In which case it amounts to the same thing]).
Christians cannot be reasonably assured of eternal salvation.

I agree with the new resolution as "Christians cannot be assured of Salvation." Thank you for your complement on my avatar, by the way.I agree with the definitions.John 6:38-40 Let's look at the context of the chapter as it is important for determining the correct interpretation.“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day," Jesus says the following: All that the Father gives Me shall come to me - A reference to the Christians. I will certainly not cast him out - In other words, Jesus promised that no matter what, the Christians will not be cast from Jesus. Jesus says that he came down from heaven to do the will of Him that sent me - What is this will? All that he has given me, none shall be lost; but will be raised up. EVERYONE WHO BEHOLDS THE SON AND BELIEVES IN HIM MAY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE Jesus made this promise.The context shows it is much more than how to be saved, but it is a promise to those that are saved. Matt Slick from CARM notes: "We can easily draw the conclusion that the will of the Father is that all who were given to the Son (v. 39) will not be lost and will be raised on the last day. But, the common objection is that the will of the Father is not always accomplished. In other words, it is the will of the Father that none be lost, but since his will is not always accomplished, there will be people who were saved but become lost. This might seem a possible interpretation, but when we look at the next verse we see it doesn't work. In verse 40 Jesus continues to tell us what the will of the Father is by saying that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him will have eternal life and that Jesus would raise him up on the last day."John 10:27-28My partner adds to the text which is uncalled for. "Unless of course if I choose to walk away from God by sinning and or rebelling. Something that would appear to be a near certainty given that once you are in heaven and residing with God you now have an entire eternity to eventually screw up." We already determined that it is impossible. 19 aThey went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; butthey went out, bso that 1it would be shown that they all are not of us. (1 John 2:19) My partner drops his original argument. As such, I urge a con vote._____________________Sources 1. http://carm.org...;