BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In a total war excluding WMD's, the USA can defeat any other country.

[Definition - Total War] 1. Total war is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a total mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use their rival's capacity to continue resistance. http://en.wikipedia.org... Basically, a total war is when a country/nation/etc. devotes the entiriety of it's resources at hand (ranging from military to economic) to destroy it's opponent. [Definition - WMD] 1. A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. http://en.wikipedia.org... While the definition is vague, a simple search can distinguish some weapons. Biological weapons, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and even radiological weapons. According to the resolution of this topic, WMD's are NOT involved in this debate. =====Arguments===== My position and argument is simple and brief. In a total war, excluding WMD's, the United States of America can defeat any other country existing today. My argument is that the United State's combined military power surpasses any other country today. Remember - it's USA vs. 1 (any) country. NO WMD's are allowed. It's a total war. Saying that a country can have allies help would violate the rule that it's USA vs. 1 (any) country. With these rules and definitions set in place, I await my future opponent.
We Should Have Stricter Gun Control

As is with my previous round, I remain adamant that her latter two arguments are unnecessary for this debate. Since I have been bent on proving one rather simple premise, this round need not be long. Let me go back again: we both agree that preserving the human life and the quality of living is important, which we both agree to as a presupposition in this debate. Thus, we also value a method that would decrease the amount of criminals (or at least a criminal's power to do harm). As a consequence, we agree that a method which will overall decrease the amount of criminal power in relation to law-abiding citizen's freedoms is a method that SHOULD be undertaken. This general movement stemming from an ethical foundation to pragmatic considerations is what unites much of our beliefs. So the more focused question is whether or not stricter gun control laws will decrease the amount of criminal power - I'm sure we both agree that, at least to an extend, IT DOES. However, the negative must also observe that stricter gun control laws can impede on the freedom (and safety) of law-abiding citizens as well. Therefore, we must look at the BALANCE between the too -- if some certain gun control laws were to be implemented that would tip the scale towards impeding on the freedoms of citizens, then my opponent would have palpable contentions against my position. On the other hand, if some certain gun control laws were to tip the scale towards decreasing the amount of criminal power, then I would have similar grounds to support such a change. So the question remains: do stricter gun control laws on balance decrease criminal power more than impeding the freedom's of law-abiding citizens? I would argue that most gun control laws have a much more significant impact on criminals than law-abiding citizens, allow me to explain in further detail: Take on gun control law: more extensive backgrounds. For a law-abiding citizen, this shouldn't be a problem since there shouldn't be anything to hide. For a criminal however, things such as suspicious connections or a tainted background can lead to higher attention at their activities or even rejection can curb the amount of potential gun-related violence. Another law is a waiting period; though any dedicated criminal can wait for the time, often criminals buy guns soon before committing a crime while a law-abiding citizen does not, on average, need it as urgently (there will probably be only one or two occasions in their life when it ever comes in crucial use - it's otherwise mostly rotting in their drawers). There are many other examples, but the point is that given the purpose and situations for criminals that obviously differ in comparison to law-abiding citizens, gun control laws will have a much more significant impact. Gun control laws, on balance, have a much more significant impact on impeding the powers of criminals. This is evidenced in the needs of criminals rather than citizens, thus amplifying the effects.
We Should Have Stricter Gun Control

This debate will cover whether or not we should have stricter gun control. For the first round, we will set up the perimeters and definitions. We should not have arguments/points/etc. in the first round, only introductions. From the second round onwards, we shall flesh out our arguments. Gun control would be considered as how easy it is to attain guns (meaning eligibility and sales), how strict the regulation on concealed weapons is, and how much power our government should have in terms of regulating guns. Gun control should not be considered on the levels of military and law enforcement. It is my position that we should not have stricter gun control.
God of the Bible is evil

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it's evil. Did it ever occur to you that the parables and stories within the bible are metaphors and that they are meant to be learned from? Just because you are too shallow to observe this doesn't make God evil. The stories which you referred to have great underlying messages that if you were to truly read them with unbiased opinion, you would be able to see. They show the basic principles of morality and human decency (you seem to have neither of which so far). Also your petty point that God "can't get his name straight" is a very ignorant comment. God chose different names for himself not to confuse people but to help them understand more. Different languages convey different things. Some names for God are in Hebrew, some Arab, some Egyptian, and even some Greek. The point is, the fact that God has many names does not make him less intelligent. Rather, it is you who is less intelligent by making an uninformed and insensitive comment. Consider yourself rebutted. I look forward to your next argument. Sources: 11 years of studying the Catholic church and their teachings...
God of the Bible is evil

I am debating the notion that the God of the Bible (i.e. Jehovah, YHWH, LORD, Elohim, I AM etc.) is indeed an evil deity and that reading the Bible without the help of apologists will lead one to disregard the bible altogether as nothing more than a fairy tale book with only a few good points. My contender will obviously try to defend the latter. This argument will be about the Bible the source of this entire dilemma that people are debating about, the root cause of people's belief in the Christian God. Also, this is not going to be an argument regarding the Quran so I will not debate an Islamic person, I will reserve that for another debate. I will begin by stating that I will like to use the name Jehovah because I want to make it clear to whom I'm speaking about. Some will scorn at me stating that the tetragrammaton isn't accurate, and I am well aware of that, which is simply another factor contributing that the all-powerful God wasn"t able to keep his name straight). Next, I will like to point out that any deity who describes itself as the epitome of love (1 John 4:8) yet condones, orders, and carries out atrocities toward humankind, is not a "God of love" but rather a god of hate. I would like to make my contender understand that the following scripture I will use as the foundation for this debate. It is taken from the book of 2 Timothy 3: 16 (GNB) which says: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living." I would like to point out a few things here, first and foremost the bible writer here is stating that the entire canon of the Bible is the inspired word of God so anything that it states that it condoned, placed under law, was carried or ordered by God, is in fact in full support of the God of the Bible. With that said I will expose that the Bible cannot be used for "correcting faults", it is pretty truthful on the basis of how grotesque it is, it cannot rebuke the errors that are evident within, and it's not a suitable book to provide "instruction for the right living".
God of the Bible is evil

Rebuttals corresponding by number:1) The bible was inspired by the word of God. The bible is far from simple. It is the single most studied book in all of mankind. It was compiled after 200 years into a single dialect, not to mention the other 1000 years it took to translate it to hundreds of other languages. God did not write the bible; prophets did. People made mistakes. God did not. Implying that god made us inadequate to write his book is implying that he failed to make us perfect. Are you saying he failed to make us Gods?2) Ditto3) Again I say that many of these scriptures were written 2000 years ago. 4) I will use this to insult you: you ignorant, insensitive, crazy little bastard. Just because you don't like Catholicism doesn't mean you should insult it like that. Catholics don't say that about atheism. Even if it isn't your quote, you repeated it on the Internet. I am deeply sorry for how stupid and arrogant you are. 5) Yes I have. You just denoted it. I repeat. FREE WILL!6) If that is what you believe, then yes. follow your own religion. 7) You greatly paraphrased these. These are not the passages. This is inadequate information and I will not rebut it directly.8) for someone who is an atheist, you sure seem to believe in God. You just think that he is evil. Also, your sources seem very biased. evilbible.com???I overall hated this debate because my opponent did not understand the Catholic religion. He also failed to read and I had to repeatedly restate things. He was very insensitive to my faith and the faith of others because of his non-belief. Vote for me please...
God of the Bible is evil

1) Pro asked: "So where is the book from God for 2013?" This is a great question pro! The Catechism of the Catholic Faith takes more modern approach at interpreting god's word. Pope John Paul II endorsed it and it was published in 2005. 2) God gave the word to prophets who were not perfect or all-knowing. Therefore, their "ungodly" nature overrides God's all powerful reign through the virtue of free will.3) "Tell me where was the translation lost or misunderstood here?" Ugh. Please understand this time. It was a different culture. For example, currently zoophilia is looked down upon by society. However, in 2000 years it may not be. if you can predict the cultural guidelines for 4013, please let me know and I will alert the pope... 4) This is a good point. I consulted my theology teacher for this one. According to her, some ancient nations planned to use the bible as a basis of their law. Because of this, the bible was changed by some writers to fit their laws. Again, this can fit with my argument for #35) " Now do you know the ages that are allowed? There is no limit! Girls as young as 10 are married off to men that are much older then them, and in some sad occasions deflower her before they even hit the age of puberty. Are we to take your word in believing that this wasn't done in ancient times? When much of the culture in that part of the world have been virtually the same since those passages have been written! Understand that this type of behavior is inexcusable, wrong, and plain evil. " I am not going to defend this behavior. However, God has given us free will as a gift. Otherwise we would be forced to live a life as puppets. I am sure God does not want rape to happen. 6) John 3:16 - try and understand and be open to the catholic faith. Then think again. Jesus died on the cross to save us from original sin. That is our belief. Besides, he rose from the dead three days later.Jeremiah 29:11 -I'm sorry, but when you can see into the future and not capitalize every mistake in the bible let the world know.Rom 8:28 - Israelis did not beat people out of love for god.Prov. 3:5 - The idea is to rely on god when our own understanding is in lack of knowledge.Prov. 3:6 - DittoRom 12:2 -no, you are finding all the evil while I can only try to represent a fraction of the good within scripture.Phil 4:6 - Again, we grew closer after these things.and so on and so on. It's basically the same argument.7) Bad passages are not recorded throughout. You just pointed out the worst ones. Most of the bible teaches common morality.8) This metaphor is stupid on many levels. a. Basic scientific principles state that the poison would be spread throughout. b. Reading doesn't kill.c. 60% of the bible isn't bad. You made this up in a feeble attempt to look smart.d. I offer my own statement: life isn't perfect. It has its highs and lows. Would commit suicide because there are some lows mixed in with all the highs? e. A very wise person once said, "It is a good thing not everything is perfect. That would make things seem like normal because there is no comparison."
Guns should be more heavily restricted in the US

First, I will contend that equality is the primary thing our goverment should be achieving. Using social contract theory[1], the natural state of man is one of anarchy where the strongest rules, but this is unmaintainable for many reasons, some of which are obvious. No one has any security and the strong rules over the weak. So, what we do is create social contracts which are rules we must follow lest we be punished for our actions. These rules are manifested as our government, the entity that creates and enforces laws. These laws are primarily to maintain equality and safety, so that no man rules over any other and people do not have to worry whether someone will kill or punish them for not following someone else's self serving orders. With this in mind, I propose that the reason for restricting the sale of guns is to provide this greater ideal for the government, to maintain equality. Assuming that we have a good gun control plan that keeps guns out of the hands of most criminals, this provides a very strong barrier to violent crimes which is the breach of the contract that provides equality. Deterrence with our prisons is nice, but if we can do more, we are obligated to do it. Criminals have easy access to guns now, but if those guns are much harder to obtain for their suppliers, guns will eventually decrease and gun violence will decrease. 1. . http://www.iep.utm.edu............, primarily the philosophy of John Locke As a side note, this argument was posted so fast because used it before, three other times. I hope that my opponent can show me the errors in this argument so I can form a better one.
Guns should be more heavily restricted in the US

PLEASE DO NOT ACCEPT IF YOU WILL NOT FINISH THE DEBATE. Thanks. This is like my fourth debate on this topic, but only one was completed and in that debate my opponent didn't even try to refute my original argument. So unless you feel confident that you can defeat my arguments. Please do not accept. I will be arguing that guns should be more heavily restricted in the United States. Let's have a good debate :)
The Best London Underground Line

However, he makes one unfortunate mistake that invalidates several of his points. The first thing that ought to be considered is that the Circle line is not a circle. Before I am accused of playing semantics, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Circle line is not only not a circle in terms of strict mathematical definitions, but it is not circular unless by the term 'circle', my opponent means to imply that it looks kind of like an oval with a line coming out of it. For anyone who isn't overly familiar with the Circle line, check Wikipedia to see what I mean (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). That is not a circle. Now, I will attempt to refute CON's otherwise excellent case.1. Topology of the Circle lineWhile not being unique for not being simply connected is interesting, I doubt anyone would prefer a specific Tube line just for its topology.2. The Circle line is the friendliest line. It's funny that CON should claim that the Circle line's 'friendly' sharing of tracks is a good thing. I actually believe that it makes the Circle line near useless, as to the best of my knowledge there is no stop unique to the Circle line.3. It doesn't matter which way you take it. Although I respect my opponent, I'm afraid I must disagree with him here. I believe it does matter which way you take. For instance, the new Circle line extension cannot be reached by going around in a Circle. Even if it could be, I would still argue that there is a 'right' and 'wrong' direction. There is one way that will get you where you want to go faster, and one that is slower. On any other line, you could arguably take either direction, simply riding the 'wrong' direction until it terminates and then waiting for it to start going the way you want it to. However, that would be a huge waste of time, which is why no one does it. The most efficient route is generally considered the best, and so I believe that there is one way that is much better than the other. Sure, you're stop would come around eventually, but you would probably have to transfer trains (as the Circle is no longer even vaguely circular) and it would be a waste of time.4. Its name tells you where it's going to take you. Every line's name does have some relation to it, for example the Bakerloo line runs as quickly as a baker who really needs to use the loo. However, the Circle line neither takes you to Circle, nor goes in an actual circle.5. It's all in one zone. Not anymore, it's not. Although it is arguable that the inner-most zone is the only zone anyone would ever want to go to, it is definitive that the Circle line stops at places such as Hammersmith, which are clearly outside of Zone 1. Also, corporate Gray is the best colour ever. I apologise for the random semicolons in my first round, and for the brevity of this round. Sources:1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(London_Underground) #Stations
The Best London Underground Line

The circle line is the best line in the London Underground. The main reason for this is: it's a circle.1. Circle line has the best topology -- it is not simply connectedShapes can be simply connected, or not simply connected. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) All of the tube lines except the circle line are simply connected. Only the circle line is unique. The other tube lines are all roughly the same shape, differing only in how many stations they have. The are all homeomorphic to each other (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The circle line is actually different.2. Circle line is the friendliest lineThe Circle Line is the most friendly, because it shares tracks with the most other lines: 3. It runs along the same route as Hammersmith & City, District, and Metropolitan lines.3. It doesn't matter which way you take itEvery other line has a "right" direction and a "wrong" direction to get to a particular station. Circle line has a "short" direction and a "long" direction. Wherever you're going on Circle line, it doesn't matter, you'll get there eventually. In fact, if you miss your stop, don't worry, it'll come around again.4. It's name tells you where it's going to take youDoes the Bakerloo line take you to Bakerloo? No. Does the Victoria line take you to Australia? No (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Does the Jubilee line take you to Jubilee? No. But, guess what. Where does the Circle line take you? In a freaking circle.5. It's all in one zoneEvery other line crosses between zones so you might get charged extra. The circle line is all in the inner-most zone, which really is the only one you would ever want to go to. You ever ask a friend, "hey how much money you got on your card? I'm not sure which zone we get off in"? Well guess what? On the circle line it doesn't matter. You can ride it around and around all day and never leave the zone.Also, yellow is the best color ever.Circle line is the best.
The Best London Underground Line

This debate is about which Tube line is the best. I consider any of the following a "Tube line": Bakerloo, Central, Hammersmith & City, Jubilee, Metropolitan, Circle, District, Piccadilly, Northern, Victoria. In general, I do not consider the Waterloo & City or the Docklands Light Railway a choice for this debate, but if the person accepting this debate feels very passionately about one of those and wishes to argue in favour of it, I will not object. Rules: 1. I request that both sides refrain from arguing over the meaning of every word, as this is to be a serious debate in which quibbling over semantics will detract from the ability of both sides to make thought-provoking points. 2. Unless specifically otherwise defined, assume that a word is defined with the first or second meaning from the Oxford English Dictionary as appropriate. If there is reasonable cause to claim that a word was misinterpreted in context, that claim may be submitted but it is ultimately up to the voters to decide whether or not the claim is an attempt to manipulate a definition. 3. I request that the voters deal with infringement of the rules by granting the "Conduct" point to the opposite side. However, I do not propose that violating the rules should result in an automatic loss, but I do additionally propose that all arguments made in violation of these rules should be ignored for the purposes of determining who had stronger arguments. 4. Acceptance of this debate implies acceptance of these rules. Format: 1. The first round is for accepting and selecting the line to advocate. Both debaters are not to select the same line, for obvious reasons. Additionally, PRO is to set out the format for the debate and rules in this round. 2. The second round is for presenting the case in favour of your selected line. I request that CON not use this round to attack my case. 3. The third round is for attacking your opponent's line. 4. The fourth round is for defending your line against your opponent's attacks. I have no objection with this model being followed a little bit loosely, but I would prefer that CON not do anything generally considered to be unsportsmanlike, such as posting arguments at the end of the fourth round so that I cannot even address them. If anything about this appears ambiguous, please leave a comment and I will attempt to clarify. To begin the debate, I propose that the Jubilee line is the best in the London Underground.
Should immigrants in the United States illegally who are parents of us minors be deported

I'd like to run a topicality today on the word illegal immigrant Interpretation - NEG"s interpretation of illegal immigrant is anyone who crosses the Border including ISIL members Violation - The Affirmative does not clearly define the resolution allowing them cheat Standards - This is bad grammar You will be voting apriori and on the Education The AFF loses this round because the illegal aliens broke the law. Their motives don't matter they still broke the law.
most people are credulous.

dang what is the deal with little kids doing these debates. they need to have a kid section on this site because im sick of having debates with children who think their parents logic is perfect. lol ill digress to get to the topic at hand. this is quite simple and it shouldnt really be debatable. no matter what you believe there are thousands of beliefs out there that contradict your beliefs. so only far less than .1 percent of people can be right about their beliefs. these beliefs come with no evidence which is why we call them blind faith. its irrefutable people are credulous. if they werent most people would have the same beliefs and then id still call them credulous if they still had no evidence or premises for those beliefs. as the con side kido you will have to explain what evidence or premises christians and buddhists etc. have and how their beliefs can all be true.