BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
NATO Must Pull Back Troops From Eastern Europe

The mobilization of NATO's forces in response to Russian aggression is indeed reasonable. Pro says "It is also a violation of the Geneva convention to continue militarization on a nation's border without violations of international law directed against the nation who is militarizing." NATO is indeed responding to Russian military formations. Even now Putin has called for 'snap drills' to test the readiness of his military. These mobilizations are a brazen front and show of force ahead of the NATO summit meeting next month [1]But let's get real, we all know why Russia is in the dog house today, the Ruble falling fast. We let Russia get away with attacking Georgia (2008) and annexing the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; but Putin put his hand in the wrong cookie jar this time. The annexation of the Crimean peninsula in early 2014 broke the treaty known as the Helsinki Final Act (1975) when Russian forces violated the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine [2]. The various economic sanctions against Russia are fully justified.We've been observing Russia mobilizing their forces. In 2015 Lt. Gen. Frederick "Ben" Hodges, commander of the U.S. Army in Europe said "I believe the Russians are mobilizing right now for a war that they think is going to happen in five or six years —not that they're going to start a war in five or six years, but I think they are anticipating that things are going to happen, and that they will be in a war of some sort, of some scale, with somebody within the next five or six years." [3] It's very possible that Putin is preparing for war because he plans to start one. NATO is only responding to Russian maneuvering. Russia wants to portray itself as being bullied by NATO, it is not. NATO is the states of of 28 states who see Russia as the bully, funding brutal dictators like Bashar al Assad in Syria. Putin's been kicking his neighbors recently and the former lands of the USSR that now are in NATO have good reason to fear and have every right to call upon the combined forces of the US and Europe defend themselves. Even Canada, one of the most peaceful countries on earth is considering sending troops against Russia [4].Russia must acknowledge that they are the aggressor and NATO's actions would not be necessary if they had not shown military aggression in the first place.Sources:[1] http://www.newsweek.com...[2] http://foreignpolicynews.org...[3] http://www.atlanticcouncil.org...[4] http://www.cbc.ca...
NATO Must Pull Back Troops From Eastern Europe

My argument towards NATO is simple (as can be for foreign international law). Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the rise of troops and funding towards NATO skyrocketed. Russia is surrounded by troops in the Western front. The UNSC, UNGA, and multiple member states of the EU have all declared the advancements of these troops unjustified and an incentive for war. It is also a violation of the Geneva convention to continue militarization on a nation's border without violations of international law directed against the nation who is militarizing. This means, for 35 years, the existence of NATO troops within the Baltic States, Eastern Finland, and Polish-Kaliningrad border outposts is one long massive violation of international law. This doesn't mean that Russia hasn't committed violations, but NATO outranks Russian violations in the International Justice System many times over. It is also very skeptical that the lead nation in NATO, has never signed membership to any Court of International Justice while Russia, who is considered a nation of totalitarian and war hungry politicians has signed multiple treaties.
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies.

"My opponent is a sick sick man. Only a complete pervert would suggest that dead rotting flesh makes one a better lover." I am willing to accept this statement. Being sick does not make my subjective understanding of better any less valid. For the record, I never said zombies were my thing. But if it's yours, that's fine, because no one gets hurt except for the person performing the activity and dead people, and they're not really people because they're dead. Admittedly, I have no idea if the state of undeath changes this issue, but it seems proper to list a creature that must eat humans of necessity as something separate from humans, and so I am inclined to say that human rights do not enter into the equation. As for my opponent's contention that dead rotting flesh is unappealing, the solution for him is as simple as the best practice of selecting fish: only take the fresh ones. As for my opponent's contention that werewolves can be human, that's fine, but if you're attracted to the humans ... why not just date humans? Clearly to discern the advantages of werewolves against zombies as alternative love (or lust) interests, we need to look at what makes them less human, not what makes them more so, in order to distinguish them. So we're looking at either a nine foot tall fur covered, drooling wolf-(wo)man or an actual honest to goodness wolf, which amounts to bestiality. I'm pretty sure that's about as shunned as necrophilia is in polite society. As for zombies being unloved, that just makes them a virgin market. Well, that is to say, unless they were very busy while they were alive. Speaking of living, if you must look for a more human lover between the two, a zombie made by a bokor (see the wikipedia article) is as human as they come, does not need to eat people, and can be treated essentially as an entirely complacent lover if under your control. Not terrible exciting, but not lethal either. Of course, human rights probably do come into play if you select this type of zombie, but just look at it as if you were buying a new car: you can get the beater (regular BRAAAAINS zombie) that you just use until you can't anymore, or the luxury vehicle (voodoo zombie) that you need to maintain and keep up a bit. See, versatile. Finally I answer my opponent's lyricism with my own rejoinder: Once you go undead, you just plain lose yo head.
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies.

My opponent is a sick sick man. Only a complete pervert would suggest that dead rotting flesh makes one a better lover. That's absolutely disgusting. Now, having sex with a half-wolf half-woman lover... DAMN! That's hot! I've seen a vast number of zombie movies and you know how many times I've seen people have sex with zombies? About twice. And both of those times were pretty much because the individual hadn't turned yet and turned at an inopportune time. You see, it wasn't the zombie that ever attracted the lover but rather the human and guess what? Werewolves are human most of the time. Seriously! Think of the best sex you've ever had, (virgins just imagine your English teacher), now just think... that sex could very well have been had with a werewolf and you didn't even know it. Every full moon you could have a total spice up the sex life manimal romp session and still have all the romance and normal lame human sex you want. Zombies however are disgusting! And, for all the ladies out there (or guys who swing that way), just think... his junk might fall off. Then where would you be! Zombies make horrible lovers! Werewolves are an animal in the sack. Once you go Lycanthrope; to other sex, you say "nope".
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies.

I refute my opponent's resolution. Werewolves do not necessarily make better lovers than zombies, and in some cases will be a worse choice, depending on one's subjective interests. Clearly, zombies are the choice love interests of necrophiliacs, where as werewolves are of interest of those with ... other kinks. See http://en.wikipedia.org... In addition, zombies are more versatile. Arguably you could snap off a few pieces and use them for various odd activities, which shall remain nameless, where as werewolves would suffer injury if employed in the same manner. Actually, that brings up another very useful attribute of zombies as lovers: those with a more sadistic streak could enact any brutal fantasy desired on the zombie with little more than a moan of displeasure, where as werewolves would probably fight back instinctively. The zombie biting issue can be handled with the appropriate restraints. Also, zombies includes this particular zombie: http://images.google.com... Not to mention Living Dead Girlz. Look it up, I'm not sure if I can link it or not. I challenge my opponent to find an attractive werewolf of either gender that can actually be howling and acting like an animal while retaining its more attractive features. Google does not seem to be replete with hot werewolves. Well, the fur might make them hot, just not in a very sexy way.
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies.

Werewolves are an animal in the sack whereas zombies just kind of lay there like a dead fish and occasionally try to bite you. And not one of those sexy give you shivers kind of bites but actually eat your fricken neck. It's a total turn off. Further, zombies claim they want your for your brains. But they don't seem to do anything but groan... and not in a sexy way either. No conversation no lusty toss you against the wall and howl. It's kind of sad. Werewolves clearly make better lovers than zombies. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies.

. http://www.instantrimshot.com... However, I think my opponent failed to understand that this is a debate of werewolf versus zombie. The point of the zombie is to pose an alternative to humanity, just as the point of the werewolf is. The difference is that I would understand if you wanted to select something that's sort of human, while my opponent wants you to go prancing with wolves. The analogy is not clear. Any given person may find a different trait better as a matter of sexual preference. Some may prefer something that doesn't turn into a slavering furry beast on occasion. God help you if your werewolf lover changes when its in heat. My opponent recognizes the limitations of his argument, he's just not willing to face it. That is why he resorted to ad hominem attacks. My opponent accuses me of being a racist against werepeople. That is patently false, as I am merely comparing the pros and cons of werewolves and zombies based on their objective physiological limitations. My opponent, on the other hand, is clearly guilty of typical political doublespeak, accusing me of being a racist when he puts down hard working Zombie Americans with aspersions like "disgusting," comparing them to"dead fish," emasculating them (literally), calling them "horrible lovers," and even, *gasp*, suggesting they are pointless. What have zombies ever done to my opponent? How dare he suppress their unlifestyle! I have never suggested that zombies are "sub-human" as my opponent asserts, but rather inhuman, which is completely different. A dolphin is not a human, therefore inhuman, but you could have a PETA rep and a whale poacher debate all day about whether or not the dolphin is 'subhuman. ' Human rights just don't attach to things that aren't human. That's not to say that zombies don't have any rights at all, as my opponent suggests. As for the brain eating thing, I have already shown you how to select the zombie that's right for you and informed you of the conditions of its upkeep that are necessary. Real life zombie brain attacks are significantly fewer in number than they are in movies. Around 0%. I think you'll be fine, if you prefer zombies over werewolves. Which you should, seeing as how my opponent was unable to provide an example of an attractive werewolf to counter my initial response. Finally my opponent asks you to ignore my words. By what other criteria are you supposed to judge this debate? Scent? That may work for my opponent's werewolf lover, but it doesn't work for me and it probably doesn't work for you either. In conclusion, you don't have to select a zombie as a lover, or a werewolf as a lover. Select what you want, whether you prefer stiffies or yiffies. There is no absolute better in a free society, except in this debate, where I believe I have surpassed my opponent.
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies.

I do wish however he would do a better job. He offers as a mitigating factor that if you don't want a rotting zombie you could just have a freshly dead one. Why not just have a human at that rate? What's the point of the zombie. It's my contention that due to the added spice a werewolf would be a better lover than a human and most of the time would be in human form and thus the same. However it's his contention clearly that zombies are sub-human lovers. The analogy is clear. If humans are better lovers than zombies and werewolves are better lovers than humans then clearly it must be the case that werewolves are better lovers than zombies. My opponent equates having sex with a werewolf with bestiality. But, werewolves can often be perfectly human at different phases of the moon. So my opponent is clearly calling having sex with humans bestiality. What do you have against humans? What do you have against werepeople? That is racism through and through. If you go undead you will lose your head. They will rip it off to eat your brains! Readers, don't be fooled by my opponents clever word play and his fancy college words. The decision is clear. You can either suggest that a dead rotting corpse that stinks and kills you is somehow a better lover than a wild, kinky, hot, animal in the sack werelover, or you can accept the truth. .. the sexy sexy truth!
Is a theory of forms essential to an understanding of philosophy

Do you think God is impressed with your argument? Do you think your argument buys you the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell? You are wasting your time if you are not sure you will not burn in Hell. If all you want to do is argue as if you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell, there will be no end to your arguing even if you find yourself in Hell with no way out. That is the last thing I want for you or even for my worst enemy......in fact I don't want it at all for anybody , I don't want anybody to burn in Hell. I know God has justified my existence outside of the fire of Hell by paying for my death-deserving crimes with His own life's blood as God the Man, Jesus Christ who rose from the dead to be my justification for existence outside of Hell and I know I will be with Him forever because he bought me back from the penalty I was doomed to pay in Hell forever with His own blood. I know you can be secure in knowing your sins are forgiven and you will not burn in Hell, but the way you are trying to find form in theories that can prove nothing beyond your own death, I doubt that you will ever know for sure that you will not burn in Hell. Your theories cannot secure your right to exist outside of Hell. The form of your theories is full of uncertainty, and can never be secure in it's own arguing.
Is a theory of forms essential to an understanding of philosophy

I expect to die; and I deserve to die, and I deserve to go to hell in your choice of A.: A Hand basket. B.: A Handcart. Or C: A Text message. If you want to talk about religious drivel I can drivel with the best of them. Rather; I would urge you to do your best with all your mighty powers and see if you can conceive of your God. Which may be our God, but since such transcendent concepts are always subjective, you might have to own up to the way in which your God is unique to you. My God is forgiving, and thank God because I am Guilty as sin. No joke. I spit in the eye of God and humanity. What do you think of that. And I cannot conceive of my God, but I am guessing Santa Claus with the Easter bunny and tooth fairy all rolled into one might describe him. Except the him part, because women are more my God. No male every created anything but a mess in the kitchen. But back to the subject at hand. No one gives a shet about this debate. And I only posted it to get the privilege of voting and commenting on other debates. I do not think I am right about forms. I know I am right, and then it is only a question of whether people want to consider philosophy in a rational manor. Let me give you an example. Duns Scotus who lived about the same time as Erasmus, who like Erasmus was a cleric- was the one most responsible for the official adoption of the idea of the Virgin Birth of Jesus as official Catholic Dogma. Erasmus understood the terms in the Bible correctly identified Mary the mother of Jesus as a young girl. In any event Duns Scotus was a nominalist who could say the name is the thing, that thought proceeds through words, which does not disagree with my conclusions; and at least points to our information on the thing named, its definition. Scotus was clear about the relationship of the concept or form- to the reality behind it. What he said was that between the thought and the thing, there is an abyss of difference, called heterogeneity, and yet there are areas of agreement called: Homogeneity, and the bridge between these two is called Analogy. Your God, how ever you conceive of your God, is but an analogy for the God of reality that I presume, and you think you know exists. Still; the point of this exercise is to tell the use of forms. It is to understand what can be conceived of with some objectivity through forms, and where forms only provide the barest outlines of knowledge as when we talk of God, or love, or peace, or honor and on and on. And, If you can understand forms, you can use them as a judge of relationships, and you can use relationships as a judge of forms. Religion is your form of relationship; but it is hard to say where or with whom you may fit in. I will not deny you, or your humanity. Sinner that I am, you are my brother. I only wish you cared for your own salvation as much as you seem to care for mine.
Is a theory of forms essential to an understanding of philosophy

If you can't prove that you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell, this is all a waste of time (for you). No theory of philosophy is worth a moment of time if it does not give you assurance that you won't have to burn in Hell. I know I have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell because God Himself paid for my sins with His own blood, so I am justified in His resurrection, forgiven of all my sins, and secure in faith, His good faith gauranteed by His own Word, written in the blood of His covenant to give eternal life to all who repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. I cannot prove I have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell, but I know that I do have this right as it is God's gift paid for by His own blood to secure my pardon from Hell. He took my punishment so I can be forgiven, and I am forgiven as I have received Him and He is my Saviour. My home is heaven. I need no other argument, I need no other plea. It is enough that Jesus died, and that he died for me.
Should school foods be healthy

My opponent fails to provide any definitions for their side, which I will now proceed to do: Healthy - free from disease or pain; enjoying health and vigor of body (Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com...) With this definition, I have disproved my opponent's argument; "healthy" is not necessarily low-calorie. Furthermore, a wholesome diet would lead to better academics: "Learning information depletes the brain's supply of glucose, according to Scholastic.com. Therefore, it is important to refuel children's glucose supplies with a healthy lunch. Scholastic.com suggests whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and lean sources of protein. A healthy lunch can give children the energy they need to stay focused, pay attention in class, and learn the information presented to them in their classes after lunchtime." (Source: http://healthyeating.sfgate.com...) Numerous studies have shown the affect of food on a student's education: "Nutrition also indirectly impacts school performance. Poor nutrition can leave students" susceptible to illness or lead to headaches and stomach aches, resulting in school absences (Brown, Beardslee , & Prothrow-Stith, 2008). Access to nutrition that incorporates protein, carbohydrates, and glucose has been shown to improve students" cognition, concentration, and energy levels." (Source: www.wilder.org) With a simple definition I have affirmed the resolution, and I urge you all to vote for Pro. Thank you.
It's time to use DNA taken from the Turin Shroud to clone Jesus Christ

Good to have another debate with you brian, you always have such interesting resolutions.I have simply 2 contentions.1) The Shroud of Torin does not have Jesus's DNA: it's been speculated it was most likely created by Leanardo Da Vinci. Though the artiest of the Shroud can not be proven, that it never covered the body of Jesus can, simply because the blood stains are not left on the cloth in such way that it show's signs they came from a bloody head the cloth was wrapped around. Instead they show all the evedince of having been projected onto it from distant body shaped object. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 2) Cloning would not accomplish your objective: Even if the Shroud was not a fake you would not succead in bringing back Jesus by cloning him from the DNA. you would only create a new human life that has a twin copy of Jesus's body.if there are any comic book nerds out there reading this debate I make a refrence analagy for you that you might understand. this would be like when Robin (Time Drake) tried to make a clone of SuperBoy (Conner Kent) after he had died, and Wonder Girl (Cassandra Cain) had to explain to him that it would not matter even if Robin could succesfully Clone Conner because "he wouldnt be our Conner..."In summery:The real Jesus will come back when he is good and ready, and has waited for the last sinner to have there opportunity to be saved, in his own divine and perfect timing. He is the Lord of all Creation, and King of a Kingdom that is not of this earth, It's not really anyone's place to make any suggestions for what Jesus is supposed to be doing right now, he is the king not us, How we can serve him , not how he can serve us, should be what is on our minds.
It's time to use DNA taken from the Turin Shroud to clone Jesus Christ

You'd think after over two thousand years of slacking, dossing about and generally doing nothing much Jesus Christ would rattle his dags and come back down to Earth to assert his father's dominance over the heathens, wouldn't you? But no, he obviously can't be bothered. Fine, if Jesus won't come of his own accord, we should force him to pay us a visit. That's right, we humans have come a long way since he was last here and we now have the technology to clone humans from DNA, and we've got his on the Turin Shroud. [1,2] What's more, these days we've got 'planes so there'll be no excuse for him to hang about in the same place like last time; this time we should make him convert the Hindus in India, the Buddhists in China and the savages in Africa; just to prove he's not a racist who only wants white people to find salvation. A visit from Jesus is long overdue and that's why I affirm that it's time to use DNA taken from the Turin Shroud to clone him and bring him back to Earth, whether he likes it or not. Thank you. [1] http://www.extremetech.com... [2] https://www.shroud.com...