BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US is not land of the free

Thank you for accepting kind sir. the power to determine action without restraint.- definition of freedom by dictionary.com. Now when I say the US is not the land of the free, I'm not saying that its people are oppressed like North Korea. I'm just saying it shouldn't act like it has a PHd in freedom. In the early 19th century, Francis Scott Key came up with the Star Spangled Banner which said the banner shall wave o'er the land of the free and home of the brave. Land of the Free? There were slaves on US territory being whipped and abused. This is akin to North Korea's Camp 14. Blacks didn't get equal rights till the 1960s! Many other countries gave equal rights to all regardless of race but not land of the free. Also, the land wasn't free for Native Americans. They were being kicked off their OWN land all the way to the west, being killed and raped along the way. And to this very day the natives are treated like crap, still getting walked all over, this time by the mining companies. Voting is a great freedom relished by millions around the world today. Not in the 19th century however except for the US. Is that so? Only white property owning men could vote. This was 16 percent of the population. Women, Natives, blacks, poor whites could not. Not very representative in my opinion. Also, even today the citizens of the US are void of freedom. For example, freedom from search as is guaranteed in the 4th amendment. The NSA knows everything about you. If you act against the agendas of the US, the CIA and FBI will be on you. This isn't the only freedom Americans are void of. Gay Americans still can't marry in every state. (this is changing so I do applaud that but Canada legalized it in 05) You can't smoke weed in 43 states. ( The Netherlands has legalized weed for a while now) While irrelevant to personal rights, states can't secede. Really? This is like not being allowed to divorce. This is a violation of freedom of choice. These are just a few reasons the US isn't land of the free. I could say a lot more but I think I made my point. The US has many freedoms but not enough to make it special. I don't think any country can call themselves land of the free because they've all done blatant sin. I just don't get the hype about the freedom in the US. You're not that special in that regard or wait, maybe you are. You're one of the biggest hypocrites when it comes to freedom. You once were as bad as Nazi Germany with your assimilation techniques and slavery so just because you helped defeat the Axis in WW2 or saved Kuwait doesn't mean you get the title of land of the free.
Increasing Funding for Micropower (Alternative Energy)

Pro did present some opening arguments, but then followed up with four forfeits. I refuted his arguments in the second and third rounds, to which Pro did not respond. Micropower requires a power grid to back up unreliable alternative energy sources like wind and solar. There is nothing remotely economical that operates independently of the grid. The government program contains only a small amount of money for micropower and does nothing to make alternative energy cheaper or more reliable. The best application of micropower is with small gas turbine generators, a technology that industry has fully developed and now widely supports. Consequently, the government does nothing for micropower that is not being done in the private sector, without taxpayer expense. The resolution is negated.
its more likely than not that no one can know anything

i tried this debate before, but i guess it was misinterpreted what the purpose of the debate was. this is not a debate about whether or not i can prove that proving is impossible (that would be self defeating), it's a debate about what position is more likely to be true. is definitively knowing something a possibility or not? i will try to convince everyone that it is more likely that we cant know anything, while CON will try to convince everyone that it is more likely that knowing something is possible. argument 1: no one can know for certain whether or not an alleged "proof" of theirs is valid because there is a potential for their own human error. argument 2: an alleged proof must pass certain criteria to be confirmed as a valid and 100% conclusive proof. but how can we know that these criteria are infallible and cant potentially yield a falsehood? the only way to prove otherwise would be an exercise in circular reasoning, as you would be using unconfirmed criteria to try to validate your criteria.
its more likely than not that no one can know anything

Suppose that Pro's radical skepticism means he is a solipsist, believing that the universe exists entirely in his own head. That doesn't mean he doesn't know that some poems rhyme. Even if he thinks poems exist only in his imagiation, he has come across them, and some of them did rhyme. Pro is just denying the obvious. He knows that some poems rhyme. Therefore, knowledge is possible. The resolution is refuted. Now, in this last round, Pro posits an equation that has been solved repeatedly to produce a very high degree of confidence. One thing to note is that Pro is not positing a simple equation like 2+2=4. We know the answer to 2+2=4. We grok. Solving that equation repeatedly doesn't increase our confidence, because we already know the answer. Some things we do know. Therefore, the resolution is refuted. Next, note that, in order to make his example work, Pro has to assume that he knows how many times he solved the equation, and that he got the same answer every time, and that he remembers the answer. If he doesn't know these things, then his claim of a very high confidence level is absurd. In order to achieve that high confidence level---which Pro says we do achieve---we have to know all those things, which would be impossible if the resolution were correct. Which brings me to my first point of the debate: Pro's resolution is self defeating. If he proved that we don't know anything, then he'd be proving that we don't know even that we don't know anything. According to Pro's logic, he doesn't even know which side of this debate he's on. Doesn't know whether he's trying to win or lose. Doesn't even know whether he believes the resolution is true. I've offered many examples of things we really do know. Pro hasn't refuted any of them, didn't even challenge the fact that we know Pulp Fiction is better than I Spit on your Grave. Didn't challenge the fact that I know I think I disagree with him. Didn't challenge the fact that some of us know where we went to grade school or that 2+2=4. These are things we actually know. And since we do actually know them, the resolution is false. I offered the JTB (justified true belief) definition of truth in round one. Pro never challenged that definition of truth. According to JTB, a justified true belief is knowledge. Some beliefs are justified. Some beliefs are true. Some beliefs are both. Therefore, some beliefs are knowledge. Pro never challenged any of this. Therefore the resolution is refuted. All of Pro's arguments are refuted. None of mine are refuted. The resolution is refuted.
its more likely than not that no one can know anything

has anyone ever thought they were 100% certain of something, and then changed their mind? of course. it could happen to anyone. let's say i solve a simple math equation, and come up with the answer "5". let's say im about 99.9% sure that i did the math right. if i solve the equation again and get the same answer, i may be around 99.9999% sure that it is the right answer. i continue this a 3rd, 4th, and 5th time and beyond that. the more i double check to see if i've made a mistake, the more sure i would be that i didnt make a mistake as long as i keep coming up with the same answer. i would argue that after 10 attempts with the same result, there is still some chance that i made a mistake, and that no matter how many times i solve it, there is no point at which 99.999999999...% certainty would magically become 100% certainty. you sound like you are happy with jumping to conclusions. i assume that you'd say that you'd know 100% before you even get to the 2nd or 3rd attempt. to me, this debate comes down to this question: is there even a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that you might have made a mistake coming to any given conclusion? even if it seems like the most irrefutable thing in the world, the wise and open minded person would consider that they might be wrong about it.
its more likely than not that no one can know anything

"The better Pro is able to defend the resolution---or any other claim---the less likely it is that the resolution is true. "-this is false. being 99.9% sure of something does not mean that being 100% sure of something is possible. all it means is that being 99.9% sure of something is possible."We know that two plus two equals four, [etc]"-no we dont. like i said, you could have made a mistake in coming to any conclusion. your reasoning, logic, and math, could all be flawed. even if ones reasoning isnt flawed, they cannot be sure that it isnt."Pro's first argument is false because some of our justified beliefs are true. Therefore, some of our justified beliefs are knowledge."you are implying something like the following:1. X is true.2. Bob is 99.9% sure that X is true.conclusion: Bob is 100% sure that X is true.that conclusion doesnt logically follow. in fact, it contradicts premise 2."It's like he wants me to have to prove things 100% conclusively, and infallibly, and in a way that can't even potentially be false. But all he wants to prove is that it is likely that the resolution is true. That's a double standard, special pleading."-i never claimed that either of us must provide proof for the resolution, in fact i said the opposite (although since you are the one who believes in proofs, you might as well prove your position if you can...that certainly wouldnt hurt your case). anyway, my second point makes a good case for the improbability of the ability to know anything, so of course it's relevant."Or it's like he wants us to use, in this debate, a special language of skepticism that we wouldn't use elsewhere...In real life, and in regular language, we do know things."well sure, after all, the debate isnt about whether we can be 99.999999999% sure of things, it is whether or not we can definitively know something 100%. just because we use the word "know" loosely in everyday life, doesnt mean we can literally know something 100%. much of the words we use in everyday life, arent to be taken literally."Pro has undertaken to prove that it is a fact that the resolution is more likely true than false."-no i said the opposite: "this is not a debate about whether or not i can prove that proving is impossible, it's about what position is more likely". i think i have adequately shown that my position is probably more likely to be true.
It is okay to kill animals for food

I disagree with you: 1. Animals kill animals because they can't think like people, they just do what their nature says. It's their instinct and animals can't control it. But people have a choice, we have a mind and can decide what to do by ourselves. That's why there is a big difference between calling animals and people "killers". 2. People can live without meat. It isn't necessary for our survival and health. We can find all nutrients in other food. For example in beans, broccoli, nuts, lentil, mushrooms etc. Meat has only bad influence on people's health. It leads to heart and kidney diseases. If you didn't know, people want animals to grow faster, especially it's about chicken, and give them a lot of injections which are destroy their organisms. When you eat meat, this bad substances enter your organism and begin to destroy you. That's why vegetarians are much healthier than meat eaters. http://mobile.foodnavigator-usa.com... 3. People weren't created to eat meat. Our organism has very big difference with organism of predators. For example, we don't have this big and sharp teeth, like predators. Because we don't need to eat meat. 4. Jay Bost, agroecologist and winner the New York Times essay contest on the ethics of eating meat, said that "eating meat raised in specific circumstances is ethical; eating meat raised in other circumstances is unethical". I agree with him, because in specific situation, when there is a choice between animal's life and human's life, people can kill animal, but just for saving their lives. Thank you!
It is okay to kill animals for food

Case 1: It is natural Many animals kill other animals for food all the time. We don't call them killers! Yet, if a human kills an animal for food, it is a huge deal! even if they don't need the food, animals will kill. (Think cat kills mouse even though he was just fed) Therefore, I do not see the big deal of a human killing an animal for food. We are in kingdom animilia, so I think we have just as much right to kill an animal than any other species for food. Case 2: Survival Here is a scenario that is very probable. Jeremy goes with his friends to go hiking in the forest. Jeremy and his friends have a man waiting to pick them up at their end location. They reach the location, but finds that the man took off without them. His friend then confesses there was no man in the first place, and he thought that the forest would end there. For days, Jeremy and his friends do not know which plants are good to eat, and which are bad. Jeremy finds a deer, and takes out his rifle that he brought with him, and shoots and kills the deer, giving him and his friends days worth of food! So, you are saying Jeremy should have let the deer go? It saved people's lives! Is the deer's life, more important than 6 other humans? The deer can't even reason! Case 3: Many people need animal meat Many poor people in India need animals like fish. They don't have the luxury of buying beans! (1) So, all those people should die because those fishes lives are more important?! Fish don't even have a brain! 1. http://www.fao.org... These reasons are why it is okay to eat animals. Thank you!
The USFG should give military aid to the Nigerian government to fight Boko Haram

First I'd like to ask the voters that, if my opponent posts their Round 3 arguments in the comments before the voting period begins, if you would take this into consideration and not penalize them, because I think this is a very interesting topic and would hate to see the debate go to waste. Thank you! Now in response to my opponent's case: Point One: To this point I will have one major response, which is that our military aid will not save Nigerian lives. Refer back to my case, and we can see that without our help, the Nigerian military force is doing nothing in terms of protecting their people, and are even running away from conflicts with Boko Haram (BH). By only giving them surveillance drones as aid, we are not doing anything that will strengthen their ground forces to the point where they will be a capable fighting force. They will still not be able to protect their own people and will not save lives. Point Two: Their second point revolves around the fact that they will not be putting boots on the ground, which is apparent in an earlier observation. To this point I will have two main responses. 1. They say that in the future BH will be a big threat, yet as I proved in my case, this is not going to happen. This is not an organization bent on global conquest or destroying Western society, but rather a group of fed-up underpaid individuals from a region the government is neglecting. Their grudge is with the Nigerian government, not the world as a whole. 2. Although American lives will not be put at risk, our taxpayer dollars will be funneled toward this useless project. By saying this plan will be funded through "normal means" my opponent is attempting to use a euphemism in hopes that the voters don't realize that "normal means" is taxes. So we'd be spending our tax dollars on useless projects that won't work. Point 3: I will have one main response to Advantage 3. My opponent had no evidence nor logic as to how exactly the 10,000 jobs would be created, so we can't just accept my opponent's assertion. Now I'm going to do something a little different and attack their conclusion. 1. bin Laden was killed by Seal Team 6, not drones. We had to have capable boots on the ground to supplement the drones. As I've repeatedly shown, these Nigerian troops aren't capable. 2. al Qaeda is still a threat. For these reasons, I urge a negative ballot. Thank you.
The USFG should give military aid to the Nigerian government to fight Boko Haram

I accept your observations 1-4, as well as your definition. I will prove my stance through the following 3 contentions: 1. Military aid in the form of surveillance will not help. 2. Boko Haram is not a global threat. 3. Military intervention will further provoke Boko Haram. Back to my first point, surveillance will not help. The Nigerian military is an ill-equipped one with soldiers that lack loyalty and integrity. For example, when a local militia was preparing for combat against Boko Haram, the military promised aircraft for backup. The military never delivered on this promise, and the militia was unable to go on the offensive. Locals have reported front line troops running away from confrontations with Boko Haram. In September, nearly 500 Nigerian soldiers fled Boko Haram, retreating all the way across the border into neighboring Cameroon. Giving surveillance equipment to a military that wouldn't make use of it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. Ultimately, surveillance help would do nothing to strengthen this incapable military. Now to my second contention, Boko Haram is not a global threat. Boko Haram is a relatively primitive group, without the technology and support of other terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or ISIS. Without adequate technology, they pose little threat outside of Nigeria, and virtually no threat to the world as a whole. On top of this, they have a relatively weak leadership structure, another reason they will not reach the level needed to be deemed a global threat. Finally the third contention, military intervention will further provoke Boko Haram. Boko Haram's primary reason for rebellion is due to the fact that the Nigerian government neglects the northeast. Supporting this government would only further anger the radicals, and make them attack with a renewed vengeance. According to the Economist, "The only way to defeat the insurgents is for Nigeria to do what it should have done long ago for other reasons: sort out its governance. Politicians should concentrate on building institutions, such as a fair-minded police force and a competent health care system..." There are better ways to undermine the support of Boko Haram than through giving military aid to a corrupt and inefficient government.
The USFG should give military aid to the Nigerian government to fight Boko Haram

First I'd like to start off by thanking you for your acceptance! Obs 1. Resolution Analysis The USFG should give military aid to the Nigerian government to fight Boko Haram Definitions: Military Aid- any aid given by the US military Boko Haram- Terrorist group located in Nigeria known as Boko Haram Obs 2. Criterion I would like to define should as ought to, therefore making this a policy round. The criterion for this debate should then be net benefits for the citizens of both the US and Nigeria. Obs 3. Background Boko Haram is most commonly known as the terrorist group that abducted over 200 girls from a small village last spring. They are an Islamic sect that began in 2009 and has attacked the police, military, schools, civilians, and more. The US Dept. of State designated Boko Haram as a terrorist group in 2013. Obs 4. Plantext Mandate: We will send military aid to the Nigerian Gov in the form of spy planes which will relay intel about the group and it's actions, movements, and members to the Nigerian Gov. Agent of Action: USFG Agent of Enforcement: US Military Funding: Normal Means Time Span: As soon as possible Obs 5. Advantages Adv 1. Saving Nigerian Lives Uniqueness: As of today Boko Haram has killed over 5000 people, and has displaced over 3000 -Suicide attack on UN Building -Killing students -Burning villages -April 2014 abducted 200+ girls -Last thursday seized the town the girls were from Link: With our plan we will be giving the Nigerian government valuable information that will help them combat BH. impact: LIVES ARE BEING SAVED Adv. 2 Won't endanger US citizens Uniqueness: As I stated above BH is extremely dangerous and has killed thousands of innocent people. Link: With our plan, since we will not be sending any ground troops that can be harmed by BH we are preserving US lives while still helping the Nigerian people Impact: We are saving our lives in the future, as if BH is not controlled now when they aren't as strong they will be able to grow larger and more powerful until we won't be able to stop them. That will put the lives of the US citizens at risk. Adv 3. More stem jobs Uniqueness: Our world is powered by technology- it is the basis of our society. This is why we need more STEM jobs to create a larger interest in them at a young age (elementary and middle school) so we create a strong foundation for future generations. Link: With our plan, as we will be using spy planes, it will create up to 10,000 more jobs in STEM fields. Impact: More interest in STEM field jobs at an early age will keep our country moving forward (it leads to human progress) and to new innovations that will aid our daily lives. Our plan has been proven to work, as we killed Osama bin Laden with the use of spy planes, and we stopped a major threat in Al Qaeda. We will be helping the Nigerian people while keeping our own citizens safe. Thank you, and this is why I urge a strong vote for the affirmation.
Bruce Wayne is smarter than Tony Stark

Stop capitalizing words that don't need to be. This is clearly the work of a cowardly amateur, who has no place amidst the big boys. You know nothing of the comics that created the legend of Batman, although you pretend to. It's just sad. Tony Stark could completely mind rape silly Wayne. The man is nothing more than a fool who dresses up like an emo and pretends he can fly. Stark is a real man. He uses real ingenuity to make his suit, and it's a suit that is not only weaponised, but gives him, a normal man, just like Bruce Wayne is, great power. Hell, even Bruce Wayne has been trained to fight, but Stark needs no training. He is evidently superior upstairs. Just like I am with you. You are weak. I am strong. You know nothing, and are a feeble fool. Please attempt something a little more intellectual next time, instead of delivering this miscarriage of an argument.