BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ok to kill Thousands but not millions

I accept your challenge. I will be arguing against killing as a whole, regardless of the number of people. Also, in order to make my point, I will ask you to answer the question, "Why do we kill?". Best of luck to Pro. Let's begin: Ever since the dawn of Man, war has been an important part of a human being's life. Whether they were the victor or the defeated, the casualty or the survivor, the liberator or the conqueror, the result of that war has shaped the foundation of the society we live in today. It's effect has either been positive or negative but there are always more negatives than positives. The positives include the advancement of technology, the creation of jobs and a healthy economy, while the negative out-weight the positives due to the psychological impact it has on the stability of the human mind. So if the negatives are greater and affect us more, then why continue down the path that damages the human mind, i.e. war and intentional slaughter of human beings? For me, when I read the title of this debate, I asked myself the following questions and I urge you to do the same. What's the purpose behind such a cap over the amount of deaths? Is it international attention that stops from continuing the killing? How does one qualify to be killed? If we kill thousands now, that will eventually add up to millions in the end, so why not kill a million now in one go and get it over with? The answer to all this is simple; we shouldn't kill. Period. But the ultimate question that I ask you to answer is, "why do we even bother to kill in the first place?"
Ok to kill Thousands but not millions

II have read up about the British Concentration camps, imprisoning woman and children, during the 2nd Anglo Boer War in South Africa. Conceptualised and established by Lord Kitchener. I have just read up on German prison camps/labour camps/extermination camps of the 2nd World War. I have also read up on the USA's Guantanamo Bay "detention" camp. Completing my read were the details surrounding the Japanese America internment camps in the USA after the attack on Pearl Harbour. The Russian concentration camps exceed the numbers to those of the Germans and were as cruel. But hey, with Stalin smoking cigars with Churchill and buddy Roosevelt, granted him and the USSR (old name) immunity!!! So, we single out the Germans for atrocities. Why has the World not taken steps against the British, USA and the USSR (old name) for war crimes? It appears that killing a few, or a few thousand is OK! But heck, killing a few million, now that is overstepping the boundary. The other fact that transpires is that you only become accountable if you lose the war. My debate is thus: It is ok to have slave/extermination/brutal camps as long as you kill less than a million. This is an acceptable practise and is considered collateral damage. Killing more than a million becomes - now that is uncalled for..................
Ok to kill Thousands but not millions

Dear Con, my debate opponent, and Readers To then post my final round, even if one civilian or soldier is killed due to the direct cause of fighting, or being caught in the cross-fire, it should be deplored. Using the Western world's news media as a reference, one cannot watch world news without standing in shock as to how many conflicts are on the go, real time. This being the year 2016, it has no less conflicts than the years before. And so the world will go into 2017 with as many conflicts, if not more. The majority of these wars are fought internally, trying to settle the power struggle within each country, motivated by Religion and Politics. It has become the norm and people are numb to the numbers being killed. A few hundred are killed here, a few thousand there. We are blaze when it comes to these small numbers. Al long as these conflicts are resolved or fought in somebody else"s back yard - the 1st world countries cannot be bothered. They are only bothered when there is a significant economic impact to them and when a million or so are killed. We then have an outcry and every human rights society wants to be heard. There are so many examples; Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Syria, Palestine, Ethiopia.....and so on...and so on...... where human rights are violated in the worst ways possible. Where the numbers killed are high but the world turns a blind eye. Oh! The sabre gets rattled and muffled noises are made but nothing comes of it. Just as a final example; Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe's dictator) during his rise to power and whilst in power, killed a few thousand. Consequences.........nothing! South Africa"s new political regime (ANC) supports Mugabe. And the rest of the world turns a blind eye. Why? There is no economic impact to anybody except the luckless Zimbabwean residents and the dead number below a million""""""""""""".
Ok to kill Thousands but not millions

Dear Con The premise of the debate opened up by stating actual events, supported by notes from the victor, proving that the World (more about the "World" later) only takes note when significant numbers of people are killed. My question remains, why has the world not taken steps against the British, Americans and Russians for war crimes committed. Simply because they emerged as the victors and because the numbers were low. In the case of the Russians the numbers are sky high but the West was politically incapable, nor interested to address. The World rather singled out the German nation because they lost the war and the numbers were high. I'd like to pick on the comment "defining the World". The World is the collective financial and political powers of the day. Nothing to do with the American dream. (Perhaps another debate could be to discuss the so called American Society, hypocrisy, and war mongering). The World dictates, formulates and govern "free" thinking ....... Thus, the World has done very little for the man in the street. Hence he is expendable when caught in the cross fire of political and religious wars. How many civilians have thus far died in the Syrian conflict. Reports indicate 21 000 plus. How many military soldiers have died? Not published.....and very low!! What is the World doing................. very little. Hitting a few IS strong points is like farting against thunder..............apologies for the analogy. Why because circa 21 000 dead civilians is way below a few million. My reference to the United Nations was made to use this body as being representative of the "World". No argument with the United Nations being a farce!!!!! I appreciate your statement (7) but come back to the point. Look at the World today, look at Africa. I can count the stable countries on one hand. How many are killed daily?.............. What is the World doing to stop Bokho Haram in Africa? ............... nothing. Simply because there is no financial gain, or a financial interest to protect. But more importantly, the number of deaths are low..................... My debate statement is not endeavouring to provide a solution or to resolve any humanitarian issue - I look at facts and facts have shown that if the numbers are low - the aggressor is ok. To close; "What do we learn from History?".......... that we do not learn from history :)
Ok to kill Thousands but not millions

Taking stock of both our arguments, we have established that throughout the dawn on time man has been killing, be it spurned on by politics, religion or for pleasure. We have each discussed various arguments for and against the so called benefits that war (killing holds). We have also argued how the debacle of politics and religion is inexorably linked...or not!!??!! So back to the question: "Ok to kill thousand but not millions." I'd like to remove the moral obligation, the barbarism and cruelty associated with applying a number to the statement. Because our argument is not that "killing is acceptable/unacceptable". Reason being that we all agree this to be unacceptable in a so called responsible, mature and human rights society. Sadly I believe my statement remains true; it is ok to kill thousand but not millions. In short, the world will not bat an eye if the body count remains "relatively" low. Just don't let the world know the exact number. I base this on media, be it Western or Eastern............... both sides muddle the truth for their own propaganda. If the number is low not much in the news. If the number is high......a bit more sensation on the news. The higher the number things get a bit hotter. If you do kill a few million, the world will sit up, everybody holier than the next one will be citing genocide and what ever human rights violation they can think of. At some point the world will gasp and demand action by the United Nations. (Apologies for this sentence - it is a contradiction in terms :) ) Thus I have demonstrated that killing a few thousand will go unpunished. Killing a million not so easy! Thus acceptable!!!
U.S. Primacy is globally desirable.

Resolved: U.S. Primacy is globally desirable. Definitions U.S. Primacy: the fact that the U.S. can intervene if it desires and dominates multilateral and/or international organizations.Desirable: implying a more advantageous end state Rules1. Drops are concessions2. No new arguments in the last round 3. No semantics or trolling 4. Forfeit(s) will result in a loss*Rd. 1 is for acceptance. Rd. 2 will being argumentation**Do not accept this unless you are going to take the debate seriously.
Percy Jackson VS Jason Grace

Good Luck! !Your first argument is that Percy has the ability to not get electrocuted and get wet. He also has hurricanesMy response is that Electricity electrocutes water. This is science. In case you weren't aware, while Percy was fighting the Titans in NYC, In California, Jason was fighting at the Titan Base. Your second argument was about planes. Jason does not need a plane to fly, he can fly without a plane. Percy, however, only flew on a plane once, with the master bolt. Zeus wouldn't destroy him because he had the master bolt. At the end of the book, Zeus said to Percy to never fly on a plane again. Poseiden does not have power over Zeus. Percy being in more books doesn't mean that he has more experience. Instead, more people know about him. While Percy was on missions or training, Jason was doing the same in the Roman Camp.
Percy Jackson VS Jason Grace

Percy has the ability to not get wet or not get touched by water even under water himself so electricity will not reach him Percy can also turn into a hurricane which will defend him and send Jason flying. Feat wise Percy was able to beat 2 Giants and the leader of the titans 2. Plane who needs a plane when you can turn into a hurricane or even run on water Percy can also make an underwater path to his destination he can control the water to push a boat or just him faster than boats while jason still needs to buy a ticket Percy can travel on a plane the problem was that Zeus may or may not strike percy plus Percy has posiedons guidance so huge chance that zeus will not strike the plane Percy Jackson has also been in more books giving him more powers and experience since he was the first creation I got lazy and decided Feats next time
Percy Jackson VS Jason Grace

This paragraph will attack all the arguments my opponent threw at me and show how Jason (con) wins against Percy (pro)Reyna said gods visited the CAMP, she didn't say if a god visited Jason on a mission. and again, how do you know if Jason fought anyone before going to the Greek Camp? Juno was there to guide Percy to the Roman Camp and Mars was there to tell the camp an imporant message. Poseiden talking to Percy was important. All these are important. I know, he could have blasted him, but didn't because he is his favorite son. Zeus hates Percy since the first book. Jason helped Hera kill the Giant. This overpowers fighting some ghosts on his terrain. Posieden has nothing against Jason, but Zeus does have something against Percy, so I win that argument. In that same book, Hephaestus said that Percy couldn't control his power so that quote is counter intutuive. Percy would never fight Jason as they are friends. By the way, Jason is also a son of the Big Three. Hazel never said anything about Jason's powers in the Son of Neptune. Most of the powers the you state is currently there in a son of Posieden, but Jason has powers too! He can fly (Lost Hero caught Piper and Leo in the air), has inhumane strength, (Lost hero, caught the dragon), Call for lightning (Lost Hero against Midas) and Call for wind (Lost Hero near the wind palace). He can use his lightning to hit Percy and melt his snow and electrocute his water powers. For all these reasons, please vote Con (jason)Thank you for a great debate and I hope we could debate some other time!!!
Percy Jackson VS Jason Grace

Good Luck!!You say first that we know that Jason only saw two gods. As there are no books on him, we must give him the benefit of the doubt as he is a good fighter. You say that Zeus was not busy, but if you had read the Lost Hero and the Son of Neptune, All the Gods were busy on Gaea and had no time to shoot Percy out of the sky. As you can see, he is still alive...You said it would have shown in his fighting ability, (his feats) But, then why do I remember him fighting bunches of giants and holding off a hige giant while piper and Leo got Hera out of the cage? You say that Poseiden Then why is Percy scared of flying on planes but Jason is not scared of water?For all these reasaons, Jason (con) will win this debate against Percy (pro)
Percy Jackson VS Jason Grace

GOOD LUCK TO YOU SIR-I believe I win the debate and here is why-I do not agree with this and here is why--First off, there were no books on Jason, so one cannot know how many gods or titans he defeated-Actually one can know why because Rick Riordan states such facts in the latest of his books it is one of the reasons we do know that he fought 1 titan Plus The Camp Jupiter only encountered Gods twice in Reyna's words(leader of camp jupiter)and at that time Jason was still in Camp Jupiter which means all he did was train and attack the Titan Base the 2 encounters they had with Gods are with Mars and Juno in which both where not to battle them and simply tell them what to do which exactly shows his feats and if had so much feats of defeating Gods and Titans it will have been said in the book--Second, OK, i consent that Percy rode a plane twice, but Zeus had other matters at hand, and did not have time to smash Percy out of the sky. -I beleive he did not have matters they are gods that can talk to there children what more simply shoot somebody flying without even knowing they have this capabiltiy he can simply think of lightning or be angry and it will be enough to hit Percy --Third, Again, Jason could have been doing many feats. We have no idea what he was doing as there are no books on him. Also, Didn't Jason Fight Midas and a bunch more giants in the Lost Hero?
Percy Jackson VS Jason Grace

Good Luck! !I believe I win the debate and here is whyFirst off, there were no books on Jason, so one cannot know how many gods or titans he defeated. Second, OK, i consent that Percy rode a plane twice, but Zeus had other matters at hand, and did not have time to smash Percy out of the sky. Third, Again, Jason could have been doing many feats. We have no idea what he was doing as there are no books on him. Also, Didn't Jason Fight Midas and a bunch more giants in the Lost Hero?
Percy Jackson VS Jason Grace

REFUTE THAN EXPLAIN-My response is that Electricity electrocutes water. This is science. In case you weren't aware, while Percy was fighting the Titans in NYC, In California, Jason was fighting at the Titan Base. -I do understand what you mean but Percy can control which water touches him and has complete control which means the water will not touch him and merely surround him and bend the water back to Jason which still can get hurt by his own attacks.I do know that Jason was fighting the titans base but With a huge army and merely killed 1 titan while Percy killed The father of zeus hades and posiedon which is Kronos--Your second argument was about planes. Jason does not need a plane to fly, he can fly without a plane. Percy, however, only flew on a plane once, with the master bolt. Zeus wouldn't destroy him because he had the master bolt. At the end of the book, Zeus said to Percy to never fly on a plane again. Poseiden does not have power over Zeus. -I do know that Jason can fly but you said that not me Percy flew on a plane twice once in the lightning theif issue and on the son of neptune issue which means even if Posiedon does not have control over zeus Zeus is smart enough and has enough mercy to not start a war and let his brothers son use planes--Percy being in more books doesn't mean that he has more experience. Instead, more people know about him. While Percy was on missions or training, Jason was doing the same in the Roman Camp. -Percy still had more experience having this featsBEATING KRONOSKILLING 2 GIANTSBEATING ARES,HADES,TITAN HYPERIUM in combat shows more skill than jason BEING ABLE TO LIFT THE SKY(ATLAS CURSE) FOR SOME TIME SHOWS MUCH MUCH MORE TALENT THAN JASON--THANK YOUVOTE PRO
Obama's Economic Policies Have Been Successful

TheElderScroll and I are redoing this debate since I forfeited the last one. We will simply copy our original arguments until we get to round 4. Full Resolution: President Barack Obama's economic policies have been successful. Definitions: Barack Obama: "...the 44th and current President of the United States."[1] Economic policy: "...the actions that governments take in the economic field. It covers the systems for setting interest rates and government budget as well as the labor market, national ownership, and many other areas of government interventions into the economy."[2] Successful: "[having achieved] the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors."[3] Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed from all moments after the debate has been formalized. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. NOTE: Sources may be posted in an outside link. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources: [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debating Seminar

Win this debate? In round 1 you specifically say you re-instated it and the first time you made it you specified 'no votes, this is for fun'. http://www.debate.org... How about I critique your critique? You said 'third round' but my debate was in the first round. The rest of your critique was subjective in every way. There is no winner here because neither was debating the other, get over it.
Debating Seminar

I believe that the only reason to hate and despise Hitler is that he didn't finish the job. Jews still remain and the whole world isn't speaking German. He failed and that's a pathetic thing for someone with his intelligence and level of motivation to have done. He perhaps could have worked out a way to still win it if he let the people take him in as a war criminal but he chose to p***y out and killed himself first. Of all his traits up until the failure, he was a brave guy with serious resistance to peer pressure and criticism. His failure to finish betrayed his reputation and the traits he'd shown up until that point.
The argument from evil (AE) is sound

It is my intention to generate a deeper discussion on debate. org regarding the the Problem of Evil. Preliminary As Pro says, his goal is to show that the evil in the world is “not logically necessary for an adequately compensatory good” and that this somehow disproves theism. In my response to P1 of this argument I shall be presenting a Theodicy along with an argument for the "Consistency of Suffering with Divine Love (an argument which I'll designate as "S+DL" hereafter). Against P3, I'll present a case for Skeptical Theism. The work I'll be consulting from the theistic camp regarding the problem of evil or pain is thus: Theodicy (contra P1)-. http://commonsenseatheism.com... S+DL (contra P1)-. http://www.robkoons.net... Problem of Evil Extended to Hell (if it's brought up)-. http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org... Natural Evil Regarding Beasts (if it's brought up)-. http://ndpr.nd.edu... Skeptical Theism (contra P3)-"Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview"Kvanvig's accusation of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam I also draw from the work of Alvin Plantinga regarding free will. . .. Now that citations are out of the way, my parlance in the rounds to come will be dedicated to whatever arguments I've cahsed out from the work just metioned, together with my own thoughts. Contention From all this and from my own philosophical work on the matter, I've loosely constructed two contentions for this debate, 1) In principle, aparent gratuitous evil is experienced in this life wouldn't furnish a proof against theism, but (2) in fact, there really is no good reason for thinking the evils in the world are actually gratuitous. I’ll be defending these two contentions against Pro's argument and, if successful, would seem to force our denial of the resolution, if we are to remain reasonable. My ‘in principle’ contention (1) involves both a Theodicy and the S+DL (remember that S+DL is, "the argument for the consistency of Suffering with Divine Love"). Whereas my ‘in fact’ contention (2) involves a Skeptical Theism of sorts. Finally if space remains, I'll argue something to the effect of what I think to be the rightful place for any Problem of Evil; i. e. , the arena of negative existentialism and not the arena of a positive ‘proof against theism. ’ However, if no space remains for this then I'll just save it for a forum discussion or whatever. Definitions Divine Love: God’s way or path of pursuing the intrinsic good of happiness where the nature of which is just and when consulted in choosing something for the sake of happiness, results in justly achieved happiness. Perfect-Complete Happiness: the proposed end, aim or purpose of human life which is sought by sharing & participating in the way of Divine Love. Wholeness: the state of having been made Whole in order to experience Perfect-Complete Happiness through the way of Divine Love. Self-Forming-Choice (SFC): Those moments of indecision during which people experience conflicting wills. Robert Kane discusses this here, . http://seschmid.org...