BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Avengers can destroy the Justice League

For this debate the real person we should focus on is Scarlet Witch. As you said we can use these characters to thei full potential I will use her to her full power. At her peak she can manipulate reality. She can take away gravity or friction with ease. She can give visions to all the JL members which would render them weak. One vision could make aqua man scared of water. For batman a vision about his parents would get him. For WW make her think she is fighting an equal. For super man let him see his parents and the rest are easy. Also Thor is known to teleport with his hammer, travel at light speed, regenerate body parts and even control weather. There are more but those are for examples. He also has thousands of years of combat experience. After a while of doing something you will eventually have a feel for it and it will seem natural for you. The same goes with Thor because he battles all the time so super man with just having about 30 years of experience means nothing Thor. Thank you for this debate I was not able to post everything I wanted to stay due to the fact of being busy. In the future I will do this debate again but with different characters.
Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.

In conclusion, unilateral military force by the United States for the purposes of nuclear non-proliferation are unjust, because it has never been shown to work historically, unilateral actions of the U.S. have been historically against the will of the people, and it is highly unlikely for any country with nuclear devices to attack the U.S., or for an independent group to even make a nuclear device to attack the U.S. or their allies with.
Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.

I would like to first to over my opponents arguments and then my own if necessary. My opponent's first point seemed to just talk about why its a bad idea, but the question is: do we have good reasons to (Justification)? Nuclear proliferation is one of our largest threats to our security today which is in itself a perfectly good reason to use unilateral military force. We use it to fight all our other threats, so why not this one? His second point was on the improbability of another country being able to use these kinds of weapons. The billions of tons of TNT was an example of what these bombs can do, and now even Iran is coming into possession of them according to the New York Times and The Economist. If Iran could get them, who knows who else? We need to stop this before anyone gets a chance to uses them offensively. Again, we are also getting rid of ours so it would not be hypocritical if we got rid of these. These are not for defense either so it we are not taking away their protection either. How do I know they are not for defense? Well, next time an army is marching toward you, try firing a nuke straight at them and see what happens. Oh wait, you would be dead. Burnt to a crisp to be exact. Thirdly he tried to disprove that the Cuban Missile crisis was unilateral, but that is defined as common knowledge that is is. If you would like proof even though it is not needed, ask. He also used Wikipedia as his source which is terribly unreliable which makes his argument. .. That's right: unreliable. I would like to conclude saying that justified does not mean the best way, the only way, or the right way. It just means that we have good and acceptable reasoning.
The legal drinking age should be lowered to 18 years old

People as young as 18 are sent into the mitiltary to fight for our country. Some of them lose their lives because of something out of their control. People are premitted to drive as young as 16 - and if they are reckless on the road then then can take OTHERS lives. The legal smoking age in most states is already 18 - another controversial right for the younger generation. Here is the point I am trying to make out of all this - if people are sent to fight for our country and possibly DIE at the age of 18, if people by the age of 18 are already driving and endangering theirn lives and OTHERS, and if smoking is already permitted for ages 18 and up - then my question to you is: why can't people have a drink? If our government thinks 18 year olds are responsible enough to handle people's lifes, then how can they not be responsible with a alcoholic drink? We expect too much from our younger crowd - and if we keep pushing them to put their lives in danger, then we might as well grant them permission to use a substance that is dangerous ONLY FOR THEM if they choose to consume it - no innocent bystanders (like on the road).
The USFG should abolish the Electoral College

Thanks to Lady4Liberty to challenging me to this debate. As she's new to the site, I've offered to initiate, and so here it is. The full resolution is as follows: The United States federal government should abolish the Electoral College. I'll provide the necessary definitions this round. United States federal government: This is relatively obvious, but to be clear, this involves the legislature drafting and passing a bill, and the President signing off on that bill. Should: This simply designates that we are engaged in a policy debate, and therefore what should happen. This is distinguished from "could," as what we are discussing is whether abolition should or should not happen, rather than whether it could given current impediments in Congress and elsewhere. This also implies a net benefits framework, where we'll be debating the merits of our respective cases. Abolish: To abolish means to formally put an end to something, in this case an end to the Electoral College. This does not preclude my usage of a different system in its place. The Electoral College: It's a process, established by the Constitution, that consists of a selection of electors by popular vote for each state, a meeting of those electors where they purportedly represent our votes through theirs, and through those votes elect a given President and Vice President. [http://www.archives.gov...] Note that what we're debating here is not an idealized Electoral College, but the Electoral College that exists in its present form. If my opponent has any disagreement with any of these definitions, they should be expressed via PM or comment, and the definitions altered to make them more amenable. Usual rules apply: 1) First round is for acceptance and clarification only. My opponent may not present arguments until R2. 2) No new arguments in the last round. Any arguments given in this round should be disregarded by all voters. Apart from that, I'm just looking forward to an interesting debate. I formally welcome Lady4Liberty to the site, and await her acceptance.
Atheism is right

I will now present my counter-arguments. I refute Pro's claim that there are natural explanations replacing supernatural ones. Throughout the Bible, diseases, evil, and good are all determined by God. Yes, there might be a natural explanation for why that person is being affected by a particular phenomenon, but does that completely rule out God at work? Absolutely not as natural explanations cannot replace what is supernatural. What caused this universe to come into being? As i've pointed out before, the big bang theory describes the development of the universe from a single point, it does not explain how that single point came into being. Pro has failed to provide ample evidence for how we got here. My argument rests on divine revelation. God exists based on experience. Science rests on observable data, however he has failed to provide a reason for why Science and Atheism are the only means of finding truth. 2. Just because there is no agreement between world religions on God, doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. There are disagreements on the theory of evolution, should we then conclude that evolution isn't proven? I'm sure you wouldn't go by that logic. Just as you go by the observations of evolution to conclude it to be true, regardless of what people think, we go by an experience of God himself, regardless of whether people accept him as Lord or not. Once again, what God does, what he wants from us, how he acts, what his being is, etc. is all given by divine revelation of the Bible. To answer your question "And if God existed, he"d be a whole lot bigger, a whole lot more powerful, with a whole lot more effect in the world, than a tree. Why is it that we can all see a tree in more or less the same way, but we don"t see God in even remotely the same way?" He is all-powerful because he is invisible. A tree can be destroyed, it can perish, and fall, but with God, absolutely nothing can destroy him as he is beyond natural limits. 3. You haven't given a solid argument for why the Bible is mistaken. Some of your objections to believing are rhetorical questions or arguments with a faulty understanding of God. On another note, the analogy you gave is inaccurate. We don't base reality on the feelings on our hearts, we base it on a revelation of God's Word. We as Christians simply trust what God says about himself through his Word.
Atheism is right

Once again, my opponent did not present evidence for humans created God to answer their deepest questions, thus we cannot verify his claim. While yes, creationism is a specific interpretation of the Bible, it does not imply that it is the only correct interpretation as the Bible has many different kinds of literature. A good student of the Bible seeks to understand the Bible in it's ancient historical and cultural setting. To summarize my position, this does not make atheism right. This is aimed a particular group of people who hold a particular set of biblical interpretations, assuming that this is what the Bible teaches when this is a flawed approach. Disproving creationism does not equal disproving the Bible if the Bible conflicts with this mode of thought in the first place.
Atheism is right

Dinosaurs existing doesn't imply that evolution is proven, thus it is illogical to conclude that God is false. I am not sure what you are trying to explain in bringing up human evolution, so i would like for you to clarify your position. You claim to have research showing the big bang was not the beginning of time, but a point in a new dawn, but this is false. The Big Bang theory describes the development of the universe, not it's origin (1). First of all, you haven't provided evidence for a multi-verse. Second of all, the concept of "heavens" (plural) in the Hebrew mind is not only made of the outer atmosphere of a planet, but also of outer space. Even if the multi-verse exists, God is still the creator. This does not disprove God. Sources: 1. Wollack, E. J. (10 December 2010). "Cosmology: The Study of the Universe". Universe 101: Big Bang Theory. NASA. Archived from the original on 14 May 2011. Retrieved 27 April 2011. "The second section discusses the classic tests of the Big Bang theory that make it so compelling as the likely valid description of our universe."
Atheism is right

First let me say something about my Opponent I respect you greatly for your effort you put in your argument I respect those who always try to get and fight for what they believe I like you so far and I can tell so far this is going to be a great debate so lets continue . My opponent says that the reason dinosaurs existed does not prove god is false But I believe that is false because if dinosaurs existed then evolution existed and with evolution Come the dawn of the first humanoid creature witch adapted and grew more intelligent but sadly all but 1 survived homosapeans while we were the only one . In our DNA remains the DNA of on onother humanoid creature I forgot the name but it begins with n . My opponent claims that the Big Bang does not prove god but yet my research shows that the Big Bang was not the beginning of time but was the point of a new dawn were a the universe was like before the Big Bang . Also during my research I found that the universe is expanding but at an growing rate which is caused by inflation but if inflation doesn't stop everyone at he same time. Then what happen of it stops at one point and continues the multiverse which disproves god because in the bible it claims that god created the universe when if the theory of the multiverse I'd right then who created them .
Atheism is right

My opponent will argue in favor of Atheism while i am opposed to it. I will now argue for my position: The fact that dinosaurs existed and the Big bang is a proven theory does not disprove the existence of God as he logically created the universe, thus he is outside the boundaries of this realm. Where is the evidence to support that these gods are false? Pro has given no evidence. The fact that God has no evidence doesn't imply that he doesn't exist. The Bible may not mention dinosaurs, but that doesn't imply that it neglected their existence. The Bible doesn't necessarily support a literal 24-hour set of days taken for the creation. A day in Hebrew can mean a period of time, thus there is no contradiction. Atheism is not right because it fails to completely disprove God.
Atheism is right

Who challenges Me if you challenge me you'll get a hard debate to win but it is possible to beat me first you must come up with a worthy argument and see if it will be enough to win so let me begin for millenniums humans have believed in so many gods but now we say there all fake and that there is only one god why believe I a god that has no proof when when we so much evidence to prove evolution and the Big Bang theory when god has almost no evidence dinosaurs existed but the bible says nothing about them when the bible says it took god 7 days to create earth when it was formed after billions of years it says the earth is less then 20000 thousand years lets see if anyone can brogue with this
Capitalism

I'll make this short: Refutations: 1. Capitalism cannot exist within socialism, and vice versa, so capitalism cannot have "seen the survival of all socialist nations," as indicated by the respective definitions of both; 2. "No government of the world" still does not mean the world is without GOVERNMENTS; 3. The existence of capitalism within imperialism, according to the definitions supplied in my above arguments, need not apply universally to all imperialist states. Contentions: 1. Capitalism can exist with anarchy 2. Non-capitalist nations need not be socialist 3. We are meant to be arguing the merits of capitalism 4. Capitalism is not good. Why am I against capitalism? Capitalism requires the exploitation of workers by business owners, and the business owners earn more than the workers do. This leads to wealth inequality, which is not necessary. Inequality leads to conflicts, and conflicts are not good.
Capitalism

It isn't possible to be a non-capitalist and at the same time non-socialist. If you look at Imperialist economics, you will find countless aspects of capitalist economic traits within imperialism, there is no ONE definition of capitalism, trying to define it as one precise model is disregarding the multitudes or varieties. In Imperialism we find international trading and global branding, such as the British East India Company. We see the participation in the stock market, we see private enterprise and free market economics. Even in today's 'Communist' China we see State capitalism, whereby the state owns a percentage of companies, which participate in the stock market, foreign investment and exploitation of foreign resources. Capitalism has seen the survival of all socialist nations, for otherwise they would not have succeeded. And as for anarchy, read Waltz's Man, the State, and War - his 3rd image shows how the world operates without government. There is no government of the world.
Capitalism

We are arguing the merits of capitalism, not socialism, as indicated by the title of this debate. It is possible to be non-capitalist and at the same time non-socialist. Pro has still not refuted this fact, which I have made apparent previously (regarding imperialism) Socialism is, by definition: "A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" It is possible for private business to be outlawed and socialism STILL non-existent in a government by this definition. A dictator/monarch could easily outlaw private business without the input of the "community as a whole". The definition of "anarchy" is thus: "Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal" In the world there still exist governments, ergo anarchy does not exist in the real world. Sources: Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English.
Capitalism

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. I am not arguing for any of Karl Marx's points, anarchy is not a system that can work or not, it is a platform for the conduct of war and capitalism, it is a feature of the international system. By taking a realist stance on this, I am arguing that the ideals of socialism could not exist in such a system, where one nation practices socialism, and the other capitalism, the socialist state will inevitably face defeat, because the capitalist will take advantage of it. Looking at historical examples, the USSR reverted to capitalist measures because its socialist planned economy was stagnating. Lenin allowed the Kulak's to earn a profit, and later Gorbachev implemented capitalist measures through Perestroika. The PRC, following the Cultural Revolution, had to implement reform to its socialist planned economy, because it was facing imminent economic crisis. So it integrated itself into the world economy. They both resort to capitalism.
Capitalism

I extend my above arguments. I will now attempt to refute Pro's current contentions. I am fully aware that the end result of communism, a system of socialism, according to Karl Marx, is supposed to be a complete "withering away" of the socialist worker's state- anarchy, in other words. I assume that you are arguing for capitalism with the existence of a state, as you don't seem to think that anarchy can work. Very well. But you also need to be aware of anarcho-capitalism: "A term coined by Austrian-school economist Murray Rothbard to describe a market-based society with no government." As you can see, capitalism is compatible with lack of government, whereas your contentions are such that capitalism requires a state. Which it does not. In an anarcho-capitalist society, services such as food, water, and protection would be provided by private companies. Imperialism is different from capitalism. In imperialism, the state is still able to control industry. http://www.investopedia.com...
Capitalism

When we take a look at Kenneth Waltz's take on the international system in Man, the State and War - he argues that the actors within in this system (nations) operate under an anarchic structure, where there is no enforcing power to stop another actor from waging warfare. So with this in mind, take the British Empire as an example, where Imperialism - a subject of the capitalist system, has destroyed the existence of many actors through exploitation. This capitalist driven nation, saw the end of various tribes and kingdoms in Africa, and replaced them with the modern day states we now know. The point being is that survival is reliant on those 5 necessities that you listed, however those necessities are not granted to everyone. With the anarchic system in place, there is no stopping an actor from taking those neccesities for their own gain, and because they want to secure their own security. This is because humans are innately selfish. This selfishness creates a capitalist society.
Capitalism

I assume that Con will be arguing against capitalism, and Pro will be arguing in favor of capitalism. Definition of "capitalism": noun an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Definition of "survival": noun the state or fact of continuing to live or exist, typically in spite of an accident, ordeal, or difficult circumstances. It seems to me that Pro is trying to argue that capitalism is necessary for survival. Which it is not. The three things that are necessary for survival are: 1. Water 2. Energy 3. Oxygen 4. Shelter 5. Sleep Thus, capitalism is NOT essential for survival, as it clearly does not fall, by itself, under any of those categories listed above. Sources: Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English, . http://www.brighthub.com...
Capitalism

Capitalism: Humans have been born with the instinct to survive. Pre historic beings, hunter-gatherer types would do what they could to survive. They normally found safety in groups yes, but the socialist argument that the idea of egalitarian hunter-gatherers does not take into account that these people are using these methods to benefit their own community. This is because the groups' survival relies on the success of its community, which has subsequently adopted the human trait of greed in a collective sense. Just like we see today, nations have naturally adopted the human traits of greed and survival, because in a world where nothing is free, you have to earn it through means of power. By pursuing this model, a nation is effectively pursuing capitalism, and by pursuing an idealist socialist model, a nation state essentially undermines its security in an anarchic system, where capitalist countries thrive, and those socialist countries see themselves resort to capitalist economies.
You are a troll

Past histories: basically just spammed this debate and his final argument of the nice "you suck". http://www.debate.org... This he also trolled and purposefully had bad grammar and, well, basically wasted a debate. http://www.debate.org... He FF'd and basically spammed here as well. http://www.debate.org... He tried to get an easy win, and well is going to lose. http://www.debate.org... My opponent is a spammer and, well, has trolled many debates, therefore I win this debate.