BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
WWIII: a series of debates

Sounds good. I'll start then. How it starts: After years of beating around the bush, weak policy and unwillingness to confront the problem the United States and her allies allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Nearby Israel is terrified (naturally) and immediately begins to mobilize for a preemptive strike. Russia looks on smiling and applauding their allies efforts and progress while the US rattles sabers like is has been doing for the past decade. Israel has a choice to makes...and does. They decide for the preemptive strike and on a cold morning just days after the announcement of nuclear capabilities Israeli warplanes fly over Iran and bomb their nuclear facilities. The facilities are damaged and put out of commission but the Iranians were smart enough to hide the bulk of their work and results below ground. Immediately following the air strike Iran declares war on Israel and begins to mobilize. In response the United States has no choice but to jump on board and they declare war on Iran. In response the Iranians blockade the Straights of Hormuz prompting US allies Britain and Mexico to join in. Now we have a war between Iran and Israel & friends. Seeing an opportunity to assert themselves Russia joins in on the side of their Iranian allies while bringing pro-Islamic Pakistan into the fray as well. Pakistan, being a divided nation, might not fully or officially join in but the Islamic tribes and tribal factions certainly would and many Pakistanis are in favor of joining in the war against the west. At this point you have Israel and Iran mobilizing, the US Navy moving into the Straights of Hormuz as the Airforce prepares for a major air offensive. Pakistan's tribes have thrown their weight in as Russia plans on how to best help Iran. This is the start of WWIII. (I don't know now if you debate my start to the war, discuss it or move on. It's your ball though. And tell me if my responses are too short or too long.)
WWIII: a series of debates

No problem! I think that this debate should just lay down the rules and then we shall begin the real debating! There are a couple of things that we should cover; 1) How it starts; 2) Who would attack who, and who would protect who; 3) Who would win/ or would it be a tie; and finally what would happen after the fact. Also, later on we will pick a few more countries to join with. If you have anything esle you would like to add, please tell me, and good luck! And don't worry, I'm new to this too!!!
WWIII: a series of debates

Hello, I am interested in taking on this fun challenge but I am not clear on what exactly we are doing? Are we just debating on which side will win? I'm sorry that I'm new to this. My countries will be: China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan and North Korea. Please clarify what the expectations are for this debate and begin your "arguments" (I guess they're arguments) and I am excited to begin a thought provoking discussion.
WWIII: a series of debates

I've seen a couple of these and wanted to do one myself. I expect this to become a series of debates. U can pick 5 country's to start. My picks are the USA, UK, Israel, Mexico, and South Korea. I think these are a fair choice seeing as they are all allies. Also, nukes cannot be used right away because in a real life crisis, they would be the last resort. Good luck and I'm really interested in where this will go! Bcresmer
Disney Illuminati Exist !

My opponent gives a source to show the protocols of Zion; but once again it is an example of (thanks to Magic800 for providing the technical term in the comments) affirming the consequence fallacy. It is the idea that an attribute is uniquely attributed to the thing(s) one is affirming. P1: Pink is uniquely attributed to young girls' toys. P2: A book is pink. C: The book is a young girl's toy. While this is a sound argument; this is not a true argument, because the colour pink is not uniquely attributed to young girls' toys. So, the argument is not valid. Similarly:P1: Perversion is uniquely attributed to the Illuminati. P2: Disney is perverted. C: Therefore, Disney is a part of the Illuminati. Again, this argument is not valid, because it is not true. Perversion is not uniquely attributed to the Illuminati. (See my round one argument for the source, please). My opponent's argument is refuted. However, I will lastly point out a couple of other points.1) Even assuming that Walt Disney was Illuminati, he is now dead and Disney is no longer his; therefore this is not an argument to help further my opponent's burden of proof.2) Reverse numerology if another example of affirming the consequence, because other branches use it, too[1]. If you assume that all breaches that reverse numbers and letters are Illuminati; that begs the question and is therefore not logical. I will eagerly await my opponent's response(s)! Source(s):[1]. http://scrapbooking.about.com...
Disney Illuminati Exist !

protocol of zion http://www.iamthewitness.com...Protocols is a well known book published by Henry Ford. I cant prove the walt disney was a part of any secret society, the very nature of secret soceitys is there secret and the members are unkown. This isnt the case with freemasonry but other more secret societys like the illuminati and skull and bones are.Illuminati numerology is present in alot of things, emergency service numbers being one of them, like 911 is an important illuminati number and thats why they also did the attacks on 911. Multiples of 11 or combinations of 11 are illuminati numerology, so 999(9+9+9=19=9) or 666 is considered the same as 666(6+6+6=18=9) as its flipped. USA has 911 which is 9+1+1 = 11Illuminati member Aleister Croweley was made the number 666 popular in satanic culture.It has to do with ritual magick .http://www.jesus-is-savior.com...;
Disney Illuminati Exist !

I will break my opponent's argument down, one at a time. "The protocols of Zion , a fraudulent document at the time was made by the illuminati , stating there own goals but blaming the jews. The goals of the Illuminati are virtually identical to the protocols of zion. In the protocols of Zion Goal 3 states this agenda long before Disney and modern media. "My opponent gives no source for this claim, and thus I am allowed to dismiss the claim, because what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. "3) Abolish marriage, family and home. Encourage sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, adultery, and fornication. As you can see Disney follow this agenda. " If one of the Illuminati's goals is to encourage homosexuality (as in, tell people it's perfectly OK), then props to them for that. However, we cannot see that Disney follows this agenda, in fact, if anything Disney works against it, as almost all of their adverts involve family groups having fun together[1]. My opponent again cites no source, and therefore I can dismiss the claim. "According to monitoring by American Family Association, Disney has been one of the top sponsors of pro-homosexual TV programming. "Well, I congratulate them, and, even if that were true (again, no source has been cited) it appears to be my opponent's own opinion and nothing more. Therefore, I can dismiss within the grounds of a) No source has been citedb) Opinion does not equal argument. "walt Disney freemason"Here, my opponent does give a source to "back up" his claim, although I do find it quite amusing that from the very page you cited:"walt disney was not a freemason" meaning that your argument is refuted. The Disney LogoThis means nothing and is not logical. Otherwise, I can prove that the British Emergency Services are Illuminati, because their own number, 999, is just 666 flipped! In any case, a)I cannot see "666" on the Disney logo[2] (it is just written in a font called "Walter"). Also:b)666 is only meaningful in a religious context and is otherwise just another number. It is also probable that is means "Nero"[3] and not the number of any beast. My opponent's arguments have been refuted. Also, since he didn't address my refute in round one, I'll extend that, too. I look forward to my opponent's response(s)! Source(s):[1]. http://www.youtube.com... (See the video at the top)[2]. http://upload.wikimedia.org...[3]
Disney Illuminati Exist !

First I must document that the illuminati planned this. The protocols of Zion , a fraudulent document at the time was made by the illuminati , stating there own goals but blaming the jews.The goals of the Illuminati are virtually identical to the protocols of zion.In the protocols of Zion Goal 3 states this agenda long before Disney and modern media.3) Abolish marriage, family and home. Encourage sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, adultery, and fornication.As you can see Disney follow this agenda. According to monitoring by American Family Association, Disney has been one of the top sponsors of pro-homosexual TV programming. walt disney freemasonhttp://www.phoenixmasonry.org...DISNEY LOGO -IF you look closely at the DISNEY logo it contains 666, with the first six being reversed , Reverse symbolism is the sign of the Illuminati, It has some mystical occult significance. So the illuminai take good symbols and reverse them such as the swastika , pentagram,upside down cross , pyramid with eye above instead of in the pyramid.
Disney Illuminati Exist !

I accept the challenge, comrades! I'll debate you; and jump straight in. My opponent makes only one contention, which I will outline:P1: These images have sexual, subliminal implications aimed at children.P2: The objects in these are from Disney.C: Therefore, the Disney Illuminati exists. For this argument to be refuted, I must demonstrate it to be invalid. For that, I need to show how it is either:a) Unsoundb) False, orc) Both.Sound means that the conclusion follows logically from the premises; otherwise it's unsound. True means that the premises are correct; otherwise it's false. Valid means that the argument is both sound and true; otherwise it's invalid. So:is it valid? Let's look at both sound and truth separately.Is it sound?No. The conclusion would imply that Disney is perverted and immoral. However, to suggest that:Disney is perverted, therefore, Disney is Illuminati is not logical. Otherwise:x is perverted, therefore, x is Illuminati would work. But it doesn't. Perversion has nothing to with an 18th Century secret society. My proof is that the word perversion was in use before Illuminati[1].This is argument is invalid, and thus, refuted. However, I will show how it is not true, Is it true?No. I will show you why. Premise one states that: P1: These images have sexual, subliminal implications aimed at children. Now, while one can see that some of these pictures imply as much, are they aimed at children? I don't see how they could be, when children do not look at zoomed in, grainy images that someone (who I think is much more likely to be perverted than Disney) has taken the time and effort to enhance and then show to adults. For something to be subliminal, the person has to (subconsciously) understand the message. Children won't and don't.P2 is correct, I'll grant you that, but premise one is not.Thus, the argument is unsound, false, and invalid. Your argument has been refuted.I will leave it at that; and pass the ball to my opponent. I thank my opponent, the audience, and the voters for this...different...debate. See you next round!Source(s):[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Disney Illuminati Exist !

Latest Miley cyrus scandal once again confirms satanic brainwashing of our children courtesy of Disney . This classic tactic to reach the minds of innocent children with disney cartoons and other shows like Hannah montana shows a agenda to Sexualise children . Think of disney cartoons , all have very sexy women like pocahontas and little mermaid .Later it was found these cartoons have subliminal penises and other sexual objects hidden in the background of disney cartoons. http://4.bp.blogspot.com...http://2.bp.blogspot.com...http://4.bp.blogspot.com...http://1.bp.blogspot.com...http://2.bp.blogspot.com...http://2.bp.blogspot.com...http://2.bp.blogspot.com...The next step of Disney was to get good looking young girls and put them under mind control, at some stage they go slutty and shave there hair off like britney spears and hannah montana.The young fans of these girls are then shown very bad examples of behaviour by their role models.
Disney Illuminati Exist !

Well, we come at last to the end of the debate - I will make my closing statements. My opponent's sources:One source is - a) Clearly bias from Christianity which makes itb) Only evidence if one follows Christianity. Satanism for example is fine for lots of people. Well, modern Satanism. Thus this is not evidence.The other gives several other sources which do not mention the Disney CEO or other members. Thus, this source a) Provides no evidence, just a wall of text andb) Is also like Wikipedia, and is likely to be a troll who uploaded something linking various irrelevent (and in one case non-existent). articles. Therefore, my opponent's final contention is refuted.That is all from me, as I want to give as little time as possible to further backing up - my counter evidence should be enough to convince the voters! :DSo, finally, I would like to thank my opponent, truther1111, for this entertaining debate. Another big thanks goes out to all the audience and the voters for taking their time to read through this debate. Good debating - until next time!J
Disney Illuminati Exist !

I have found evidence that disney members are part of the illuminati . Disney CEO and other members of Disney visit Bohemian Grove(2), a Satanic illuminati ritual held every year(1)The ritual is satanic or demonic in theme.The ritual is kept secret from the public .Very powerful people meet there to plan future events ( conspire ) The ritual is therefore evidence of a secret satanic conspiracy . Because Disney members go they are also involved. 1.http://www.jesus-is-savior.com...2.http://beforeitsnews.com...The number 33 and illuminati/freemasonry Pope John Paul I, the 33-day pope. One of the shortest reigns in papal history, and it resulted in the most recent 3-pope year. 33 the highest degree in the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. Harry S. Truman. As the 33rd President, this 33rd degree Mason initiated the Nuclear Age, the crowning success of alchemy, when the first A-bomb exploded at the 33rd Parallel Trinity Test Site, (Almagordo) White Sands, New Mexico. He was responsible for killing of thousands of Japanese (the Yellow Peril) at two cities close to the 33rd Parallel, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Disney Illuminati Exist !

"While it is impossible to prove Disney is controlled by the illuminati" This sounds like a consent from my opponent, could he please clarify? If my opponent admits to his burden of proof being impossible; that is almost a direct forfeit. Please clarify. ". .. the actions of Disney correspond with those of the Illuminati . Whether or not they are controlled by the directly by the Illuminati or whether its staff and members are chosen because of their tendency to align themselves with beliefs or lifestyles that are close to the Illuminati" My opponent gives no source for this, I will thus dismiss the claim without evidence. (Please note, the protocols of Zion are not a source, because that is just a set of rules and goals - not whether Disney is following or not). "Disney clearly shows Illuminati numerology and symbolism. " This is another example of affirming the consequence fallacy. Numerology and symbolism is not unique to the Illuminati[1]; therefore this proves nothing other than the use of numerology (or maybe it's just the font) and potentially some accidental symbolism. Not the Illuminati. "Club 33 located on 33 royal st founded by 33 corporate sponsors all suspected of being illuminati controlled as well. Disney Occultism in all its movies, magick,witchcraft , occult topics. Disney perversion in its movies etc. Disney stars like miley cyrus and britteny spears showing satanic behaviour . " My opponent gives no source for the "33" aspect, and as for:a) These topics are affirming the consequence; it is a fallacy. b) Perversion is affirming the consequence, too. It is a fallacy. c) No source given for satanic behaviour, and this is also showing a religious bias. All in all, I feel that I have refuted my opponent's contentions. I thus extend all my arguments and refutes. I eagerly await my opponent's next argument(s) and closing statements! Source(s):[1]. http://scrapbooking.about.com...;
Disney Illuminati Exist !

While it is impossible to prove Disney is contolled by the illuminati, the actions of Diney correspond with those of the Illuminati .Whether or not they are controlled by the directly by the Illuminati or whether its staff and members are chosen because of their tendency to align themselves with beliefs or lifestyles that are close to the Illuminati's.Disney clearly shows Illuminati numerology and symbolism.Club 33 located on 33 royal st founded by 33 corporate sponsors all suspected of being illuminati controlled as well.Disney Occultism in all its movies, magick,witchcraft , occult topics.Disney perversion in its movies etc.Disney stars like miley cyrus and britteny spears showing satanic behaviour .
Abortion should be allowed.

REBUTTAL ROUNDClaim 1 - The doctor isn't the one nurturing the fetus, then on he/she must have no rights to terminate it.Fact- In any kind of of medical cases,no doctor has right to take descision on behalf of patient. It is the patient only who takes their own descisions. Claim 2 - Such cases very much demand no need for abortion unless the mother's life is in danger, with abortion being legal the life of the human fetus is over and the mother will remain saddened by her rape.Assumption- There isnt any kind of medical treatment available that deals with recovery from the menatal sacr on the women.Fact/Rebuttal- There exists therapies where the rape survivors are made to undergo therapy which ultimately leads to reinstatement of her self confidence and belief. http://www.healthyplace.com...Claim 3 - If the teen mother isn't mentally matured enough to nurture a child in the future, a safe haven or adoption agency is an option.Assumption - Care taken by adoption agency.orphanage is equal to care taken by parents. A child put up for adoption will be adopted in no time.Fact/Rebuttal - My opponent here thinks if the child is unwanted by the mother,then it can be sent to an orphanage from where they would be adopted by someone else. What he doesnt mention is the fact there are already many children who have filled up the orphanages and there arent enough parents who want to take up children. Also a child cannot be well nurtured as well in orphanage as she/he would by parents. http://ceped.org...;(Read pages 4,5,6)
Abortion should be allowed.

Argument 1- Ability to abort is not a doctor's right unless the mother's life is in danger-(i) The doctor isn't the one nurturing the fetus, then on he/she must have no rights to terminate it. (ii) During any kind of rape a doctor still has no right to abort a fetus unless the mother's life is in danger- In such cases the woman might want a doctor to terminate the pregnancy. Such cases very much demand no need for abortion unless the mother's life is in danger, with abortion being legal the life of the human fetus is over and the mother will remain saddened by her rape. (iii) In cases of teen pregnancy a doctor still has no right to abort a fetus unless the mother's life is in danger. The reason behind it is simple- If the teen mother isn't mentally matured enough to nurture a child in the future, a safe haven or adoption agency is an option.
Abortion should be allowed.

Let me first put up what is abortion- Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by the removal or forcing out from the womb of a fetus or embryo before it is able to survive on its own. #ARGUMENTS Argument 1- Saves the life of the woman if her life is in danger - There are many cases where due to medical complexities, the fetus becomes reason of danger for the woman. In such cases, it should be made legal for the woman to abort the fetus no matter how weeks old the fetus be. The life of the child saved will likely be destroyed without a mother,but the mother? She can give birth to another child and carry on a good life. http://en.wikipedia.org... This is what denying abortion can do. Nothing but ignorance and apathy Argument 2- Ability to abort a basic civil and women right-(i) The fetus undergoing cell differentiation and cell maturation obtains all its raw materials from the to be mother (except for the sperm cell) Therefore it is logical to accept to take decisions on the fetus solely by the mother. If she is the only one nurturing it,then on she must have the rights to terminate it,nobody else. (ii) During any kind of rape- In such cases it is obvious that the woman would want to terminate the pregnancy. Such cases very much demand the need for abortion,without which both the life of the child and the mother will be spoiled. (iii) In cases of teen pregnancy. The reason behind it is simple- (a) The teen mother is neither physically nor mentally matured enough to nurture a fetus or a child in the future for that matter. (b) Since the teen mother herself is a child,her priorities are much different than a matured woman. Her age is to gain education and learn about the world and not nurture babies. Also since they a children themselves,they dont posses enough knowledge on parenting,thus spoiling the life of the mother and the child. I will put forward more arguments in the next round.