BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anyone

Pro states no specific resolution but asks if anyone likes to participate in debates without using large words. Judging from her manner and win/loss record (1-7), it would appear she is confused by the advanced vernacular displayed by many of the members on this site. Some do it because they know what they are talking about, some like to intimidate their opponent and others are simply pretentious. Since pro hasn't clearly stated a resolution, all I can do is assume that she doesn't believe there is anyone who just wants to have "fun debates without big words." However, this isn't true. Pro doesn't seem to like complex debates and she is certainly not the only one. This debate [1] is clearly not serious and the words used are not needlessly complex. I conclude my first argument. Vote con. 1. http://www.debate.org...
The US should fund rebels to defeat ISIS.

I affirm that the United States should not fund rebels to defeat ISIS because: A. Funding rebels has never worked according to history Funding rebels hasn"t worked out before if you are familiar with U.S. History. In Vietnam, there was a Vietnamization policy where the United States withdrew its own troops while training Vietnamese. A few months later, North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam and renamed its capital Ho Chi Minn City. The United States also tried this policy in Afghanistan, where soldiers were trained by the U.S. Army to fight the Taliban. Later, the Taliban took Kunduz, a provincial capital. ISIS is well funded and it would need to take more than inferior forces to defeat it. Source: http://www.usatoday.com... B. The United States is funding ISIS The United States has funded ISIS and allowed it to rise. In a recent news story, an ISIS leader admits that they are getting funds from the United States! The United States pays $600 per terrorist rebel using our tax payer money. After ISIS is destroyed, these rebels can turn their backs on the United States. Once ISIS is destroyed, another terrorist group could take its place. Source: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...
The US should fund rebels to defeat ISIS.

I believe it is within the best interest of the United States of America to fund and support rebels in the fight against ISIS. When you look at the modern geopolitical map of the world we are seeing a loss in the USA's power grip on the world. ISIS is a threat that must not be allowed to further weaken our geopolitical holdings around our sphere of influence. If that means that we must wipe our hands of this conflict to escape the growing fear we face is simply a negative. The more one denies the growing truth of the problem the more serious the problem becomes, and ISIS represents only one truth, the USA is losing power. ISIS must be destroyed for the USA to retain it's political standing in the world, and regaining our power through the means of using rebel forces and not direct force. The USA is seeing the reemergence of a new cold war that may evolve out the next few decades, and we need to use these rebels like we used them during the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Except this time we must select the rebels and have them take the stance of eliminating not only ISIS but the whole state of Syria and Iraq, with the goal of forming a future vassal like governing body. My primary target would be with the creation of Kurdistan towards the North of Syria and Iraq. If we can use the Kurdish forces to shoot down Russian jets in the local area of operations that is an added bonus. But direct force by the USA is not an option, as this may lead to more conflict with Russia and Iranian forces.
U.S. Military is Better than Russian Military

The U.S. may even have 19 aircraft carriers you say, but you might not know that 13 of them or pre-Cold War. Also, you might think polls conducted may make a difference, but they don't. We debate on facts, not may's or maybe's or Polls. Plus, you might think the Boeing YAL-1 is the only Anti-ICBM. But, NO. Russia has also developed them, AND done it earlier than the united states. IT is Beriev A-60. It is a complex Anti-ICBM laser, which has been upgraded 23 times since 1981. Also, Russian Navy is stronger if battleships and destroyers are combined. Plus, Russia dumped all its tech after WWII, and focused on new tech. But, America still ends up using 1 carrier from WWII. Also, Russia is building 4 more aircraft carriers by Sept. 2017, which you might not know, and so is U.K., my country of origin. Also, you might think that America is politically stable, but it is not even close to it. America's current political condition, has faltered its ability to make better allies. Also, Russia, if it went to war, it will have allies like China and North Korea and Israel, Germany and Pakistan for sure, all of them being Nuclear-Capable war, while U.s. will have U.K., France, Canada, Australia, Japan and a few chances with India.
U.S. Military is Better than Russian Military

If Russia were to attack the United States, they would surely be driven back. You say Russia's DEFENSE budget stands higher than the United States, correct? False. A recent poll shows that the defence budget of the United States stands at a rather large $637 billion. Despite sequestration and other spending cuts, the United States spends more money on defence than Russia and China combined, and while Russia dominates the U.S with a larger amount of troops, the Russian military would be quickly dispersed by the advancement in American technology, overpowering them with a large number of aerial, navy and ground units. Russia having more warheads is primarily because after the Cold War, the U.S. did not build any more nuclear weapons. Instead, they concentrated on the only thing in the world that can stop an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) dead in its tracks: the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser (ABL). This megawatt-class chemical oxygen iodine laser can shoot down nuclear missiles while in boost phase, the only effective way of stopping them. The task of shooting down ICBMs is highly complex and difficult, since they would limit the ability of the ABL to reach them, due to the distance and speed. America's biggest conventional military advantage is its fleet of 19 aircraft carriers, compared to 12 carriers operated by the rest of the world combined. These massive carriers allow the U.S. to set up forward operating bases anywhere and project power throughout the world. So Russia may have more man-power, but when it comes to it, the U.S excels in all other aspects.
U.S. Military is Better than Russian Military

After WWII ended, the U.S. created NATO (OTAN) or the North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation whose basic members were U.S.A. and U.K. and France and Germany. What the American authorities told at that time was "This organisation was created for the welfare of Germany for the coming 10 years AND to stop Russia or, at that time, U.S.S.R (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) from taking over the former German Lands. But after 39 years, i.e., September 3, 1984, some social officials revealed that they interviewed some WWII Generals and Admirals, and got the answer that it was secretly named "Operation Blue Water" and it was basically made to PROTECT THE UNITED STATES FROM ANY INTRUSION FROM RUSSIA< as the United States had recently bought Alaska from the former. Also, you may think that we are living in the time of American supremacy, but it is Russia, who is secretly doing the development. Also, because of the U.S. claims of Russian attacks on Germany which were FALSE, Russia's USSR fell and it had to pay a huge amount, which faltered the former's economy. Otherwise, the biggest gainer from WWII was Russia. Also, if in a war, Russia would rather not attack, because at home Russia has an advantage of temperature, and it is for a fact that American guns will freeze in a few hours time. Plus, you cannot be one to deny, that Russia has WAY MORE Nuclear Warheads than the United States. And for a fact, the total number of warheads U.S. has is the actual number of ACTIVE Russian Nuclear Warheads. Russia has nearly double the amount of Warheads that U.S. has. ALso, we all are supposed to know that the U.S. military has the largest navy, but why? It is because countries like Russia and U.K. and France and Germany and India and China, dumped nearly all their Navy after the 1960s thinking that they wanted more new tech. But, Half of U.S.'s navy is currently from WWII, and from the 19 carriers they have, 3 were stolen from Japan, 1 was taken from China and 2 more from U.K.. Now, if the other countries had done the same thing, they would've had a larger navy than U.S.. Also, we know that Russia's air force is larger than America's. Also, perceiving the size of Russia, it would be nearly impossible to gather intel as fast as attacking. Also, U.S. may have more number of troops, but Russia's reserve is larger, and also Russia's overall Defense budget is also larger. Overall, US international debt is more than Russia, and Russia is a larger arms exporter to overall countries than the US. Plus, Russia has more next-gen fighters compared to as the United States of America, which they actually put to use. Also, Russia is more experienced in Battle situations. I will be expecting a good rebuttal to this, according to the rules. Thank you.
U.S. Military is Better than Russian Military

I Object! While various setbacks in the war on terror underscore the limits of American power, it is important not to lose sight of the bigger picture: we live in the age of American supremacy. Part of the explanation for U.S. dominance surely lies in America"s economic strength. But Europe and Japan are similarly wealthy, yet their global sway lags far behind. What they lack is America"s superior military capabilities. Although the dominance of U.S. forces can still be challenged when they come into close contact with the enemy on his home turf, they are undisputed masters of the "commons" (sea, air, and space), which allows them to project power anywhere in the world at short notice. Information technology is central to American military dominance. Not all of the changes wrought by the information age are obvious at first glance, because the basic military systems of the early twenty-first century look roughly similar to their predecessors of the second industrial age " tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, missiles. The average speed of a U.S. Navy destroyer has not increased in the past 100 years. The U.S. Air Force continues to rely on B-52H bombers last built in 1962. And the Marine Corps still uses helicopters that flew in the Vietnam War. But since the mid-1970s, the communications, targeting, surveillance, and ordnance technologies that make such "legacy" systems considerably more potent have been changing with great rapidity " and to America"s great advantage. Yet in this period of American hegemony, Americans continue to feel vulnerable. As we learned on September 11, and continue learning on the battlefields of Iraq, the most advanced weapons systems and most sophisticated information technology are hardly a perfect shield against other kinds of destructive power. The paradox of our age is that modern technology is both the great separator and the great equalizer in military affairs: Technological supremacy separates America from the rest of the world, and yet modern technology leaves America vulnerable to vicious groups and gangs armed with AK47s, car bombs, or portable WMDs. To understand the future of warfare, we need to understand both sides of this paradox: specifically, how information technology has increased America"s conventional military supremacy (in land, sea, air, and space), and how this military edge may be subverted by determined radicals armed with new technologies of death.
U.S. Military is Better than Russian Military

So, I think this is a good topic to debate about so we can prove for a fact around here that who among the the two superpowers is the better one. There will be 3 rounds, with a maximum writing of 10,000 characters including spaces.1. Rules (me)/ Argument (opponent)2. Arguments (me)/ Rebuttals (opponent) 3. Rebuttals (me)/ Defense (opponent)4. Defense (me)/ Rebuttals for defense and conclusion (opponent)5. Rebuttals for defense and conclusion (me)/ Waive (opponent No forfeits because of the FF glitch, no trolling, no semantics, and K's. Sources can be in an external link, but arguments need to be in the argument text. MY STARTING LINESI believe that Russia, when it was actually called a SuperPower, is still very good in their original form, and from my point of view is probably better than the U. S. Military. U. S. A. is usually all about show-off, and most of its new technology, especially in Military Regions, is not for real use, but kept for show. But, Russia is better than that.
"god"

I dissagree with religion period. the idea of a supreme being is just impossible. there are absolutely no clues pointing to that conclusion. "god" is just something man created to fill in the gaps theat couldn't be explained through science due to lack of technology or inteligence. although evolution on the other hand makes total sense and has proof and countless scientifical discoveries in it's favor. i believe we formed from small particles in to complex beings through billions of years and were "created" on accident through a chain of coincidences and logic.
i am smarter than you

Spelling and grammar and formatting won't lose you debates because it's only worth 1 point out of 7. Formatting won't lose you debates either but possibly conduct (2 points) if it's atrocious. Therefore if you were always right but had terrible formatting + spelling and grammar, you'd still win your debates on sources and arguments. My IQ is around 136 and been measured at 151+ I got a perfect score on the SAT without studying. My mom is smarter than your mom and she told me I was the smartest person in the world. God told me I was the smartest person in the world after he told you I like algorithmic calculus, hypothetical quantum gravity, fecal economics and more.
i am smarter than you

in my debates, i am always right. i have a high IQ, often around 135 but has been measured at 150+ i got a 29 on the ACT without studying for it. i do worse on debates statistically only cause i'm a sloppy writer and dont follow formalisms. my mother told me i am the smartest person in the world. God told me i am the smartest person in the world. i like cheese. and cats. but dogs are better than cats.
17. In matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means.

Alrighty then, good luck to my opponent and lets have a nice debate To start Ill define the word justification http://dictionary.die.net... The definition states Justification n 1: something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary: So on the first definition this will be the first world that the debate shall involve, where the affirmative has to prove that by collecting military intelligence there has to be a "reasonable or necessary" reason to collecting this information. The second world is based on a consequentialism idea of thought. This is one where the affirmative will argue that morality is solely based on the outcome of the action. This is going to be the framework for this debate. WORLD 1 Our world is in terrible shape in these modern times, gas is high, the economy is dwindling. The US needs more options to help get ourselves out of this slump. A way to help is to stop this out of control war, to do so we need to gain the advantage against our opponents. So it should be deemed that to pull the US out of a draining war and to protect our troops from further harm the US should do anything in its power to gain information that could lead to the end of the war and lead to more prosperity in the US WORLD 2 From a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence. So it is through this train of thought that using any "means" to obtain this information would be for the betterment of society. It is also through this thought process that to sacrifice one life to save the many is morally sound. A branch of consequentialism is also known as Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons. This ties in with the above argument and is a reinforcement as to why ends justify the means in terms of over all happiness. Thats all for now Ill post more in round two
Abortion should be illegal.

In the previous round, I was not arguing for making abortion to be illegal, I was arguing that since my opponent made the statement that rape should be the only exception to abortion, my opponent could not argue that fetuses have the right to life since he would be nulling that right by allowing the decision of abortion to rest in the hands of mothers who were raped.So far my opponent has not provided a single argument to why abortion should be illegal. What is wrong with abortion? My opponent hasn't said anything wrong about abortion to justify making it illegal.If there's nothing wrong with abortion, I don't see why it should be outlawed.
Abortion should be illegal.

Let me address my opponent's points."Let's consider abortion. My opponent in the second round clarified that people who are raped should be able to have an abortion. But take a look at the fetus. The fetus knows very little of anything inside the womb. The fetus does not know if it was the product of a rape, a product of marital sex, or the product of two teenagers messing around. But my opponent in this debate says that a fetus isn't worth as much as the mother if the mother was raped. The value of life in this case in unequal because the mother still maintains her right to life while the fetus is denied the right to life."So now you are arguing against abortion? You have took the CON position, thus you must for abortion because you want abortion to be legal. I am saying rape should be an exception because if not, it would be like forcing someone to get pregnant and have a baby. How fair is that? Nobody can be forced to have a baby. "But what's so wrong with getting an abortion if two teens were screwing around and they have the financial capacity to pay for an abortion?"It is the mother's fault for getting pregnant, therefore, abortion should be denied to her. They should have known better, it's there fault. They would never learn their lesson if abortion was an option to them. Women should have the right to control there own body, but they did control their own body by having sexual intercourse and causing the pregnancy, thus, abortion should be illegal to people who caused the pregnancy themselves. If they did not want a baby, they should not have gotten pregnant. It is that simple."Why are you suddenly saying it's wrong for the killing of a fetus produced under consensual sex?"Because they chose to get pregnant themselves, they caused it themselves, and now they want abortion? I am saying rape should be an exception because if not, it would be like forcing someone to get pregnant and have a baby. How fair is that? Nobody can be forced to have a baby.My opponent's argument is that abortion should be legal for all women, even if they willingly caused the pregnancy. My opponent argues that even if a woman willingly got pregnant, abortion should be illegal. That is illogical because the woman could have avoided all the trouble by simply not getting pregnant! They decided to get pregnant, they should bear the result of their actions.I look forward to seeing my opponent's response.
Abortion should be illegal.

Hello, thank you for accepting. Hopefully, this will be a fun debate, I am working on my debating skills. "Rebuttal 1: My opponent states that a person who wants an abortion shouldn't have gone out an gotten pregnant in the first place. By my opponent has yet to explain what's so wrong with getting an abortion because of an accidental pregnancy. There's no basis for her argument. The argument is also flawed. Some women are forced to have a baby due to being raped. Telling this woman she cannot get an abortion is wrong because she did not have any say in the matter to get pregnant. It would also force the raped person to live with a condition she was not prepared for. Termination of a fetus should be acceptable in this case." I forgot to add something in my first post. Rape should be an exception. Otherwise, abortion should be illegal. Because rape is already illegal, I forgot to add the exception. There are many cases these days in which women get pregnant without getting raped, and they still want abortion. This is unfair, it is the woman's fault and she is killing the baby. "There's no basis for her argument." For your information, I am a male person. With that said, I will wait for my opponent to argue and I will build off of my opponent's arguments.
Abortion should be illegal.

I will be arguing that abortion should be legal. Definitions:Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. Rebuttal 1: My opponent states that a person who wants an abortion shouldn't have gone out an gotten pregnant in the first place. By my opponent has yet to explain what's so wrong with getting an abortion because of an accidental pregnancy. There's no basis for her argument. The argument is also flawed. Some women are forced to have a baby due to being raped. Telling this woman she cannot get an abortion is wrong because she did not have any say in the matter to get pregnant. It would also force the raped person to live with a condition she was not prepared for. Termination of a fetus should be acceptable in this case. I will start the rest of my debate in Round 2. Good luck, 1dustpelt, may this debate serve to be an informative one and I hope to learn a lot by researching the topic.
Abortion should be illegal.

Abortion should be illegal. Rules: Forfeit, you lose. No trolling, spamming, etc. Now I shall argue. I will only give one argument now so I can save stuff for later. 1. If the woman does not want a baby, she should not have gotten pregnant, so it is her fault she wants abortion. It is not her right to kill the baby because she decided to get pregnant herself. Now I will wait for someone to accept.
World War 3 won't happen for at least the next 20 years.

My opponent failed to provide any kind of evidence or site any reliable source that supports the idea that World War 3 could happen in the next twenty years. However, my opponent did bring up ISIS. ISIS has actually done the exact opposite of what my opponent suggests. The Daesh (ISIS) has actually united the world, as countries that are generally hostile to the US are actively engaged in defeating the Daesh right beside the West. Iran, Hezbollah, and even America's sworn enemy Al-Qaeda has declared war on ISIS. Russia and the US are coordinating air strikes together. The Chinese also consider the Daesh to be enemies as they executed a Chinese national. For the first time in history, the entire world is united in their hatred of a single group. ISIS also doesn't have the military capabilities to initiate World War 3. They aren't a country, nor a major world power. They are a non-state terrorist organization that has the entire world ready to annihilate them. They've united the international community, the exact opposite of what my opponent is trying to debate.
World War 3 won't happen for at least the next 20 years.

I only have one argument which is that about IsisIsis is being crazy, make a terror in Paris. They are making bad things around the wars, bombs and more. This will probably make wars, because the other countries need to pay back. Isis might cause a new war of World War 3 until 2036. . http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org...Sorry for such a bad argument. I will try harder next round. . http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org...