BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Another Indo-Pakistani war will end in a cease-fire or a stalemate

You base your entire argument on the idea that since India has a far larger population they could just create an army of a quarter million and simply overrun Pakistan with sheer military force............. India already has an army size of 1.3 million active personnel and 2.1 million reserve, to fulfill your requirement of 250 MILLION you would need to draft ALL MALES aged 17-49 who have been deemed fit for military service into the military.... That would be nothing short of catastrophic for an already struggling Indian economy because Women's rights in the country are so medieval that many of them would not even be allowed to fill the jobs left by the men. Also India's Caste system prevents certain classes of society from being forced into the military, so the true number of the men fit for military service who are actually allowed to even be drafted will be much lower. Even if such a massive and highly unobtainable number of soldiers could be reached India may not even be able to provide them with non-obsolete weapons... Half of India's Air Force operates with obsolete equipment 80% of ground weapons cannot be used accurately at night http://defenceforumindia.com... http://www.indiandefencereview.com... Also India has had military supremacy in numbers in the past but even those conflicts ended with a tie, In 1965 Pakistan inflicted as many casualties on India even though India had 700,000 troops and Pakistan only had 260,000 As for the other wars India inflicted far more casualties on Pakistani forces but no actual Pakistani territory fell, so how would the next war be any different? Lastly any conflict that would arise would quickly arouse the attention of the UN, who have had to settle all of the conflicts these two nations have had in the past, and they did so successfully too. Any conflict that were to arise (probably over the Kashmir region again) could be stalled and then ended with UN intervention...
Another Indo-Pakistani war will end in a cease-fire or a stalemate

Ok I disagree, as well clearly noted both have nukes so thats negates their use in the war. The population of india is 1,170,938,000 The population of pakistan 173,593,380 India would be the winner by clear numbers, all they would have to do is draft 250,000,000 people into their military.( the reason im using population is we don't know how many of them are in the military it might be signifigantly smaller however if they draft more than the population they will definitely have the advantage.) www.google.com/publicdata
Another Indo-Pakistani war will end in a cease-fire or a stalemate

India and Pakistan have had 3 military engagements with each other over the disputed Kashmir region. The last war to take place though occurred before either side developed nuclear potential. Both countries now have nukes and each is still very hostile towards each other. I believe though that if a fourth Indo-Pakistani war were to erupt over the Kashmir region there would be no clear winner and either two things would happen. The UN would intervene to try to establish a cease-fire or that both countries will fight themselves into a weak state and end up in a stalemate. Con must provide evidence that implies one nation will be a clear and dominant victor over the other country. Clear and dominant victor meaning the country that wins the war will have conquered a majority of the other country and has a military that is still relatively intact while the other is annihilated. .. .
Life after death

Whatever data about the person coming back after death may be any scientific reason as i already said that everything is in the mind and if the hearts stops some part of brain will still alive as you already said thats mean person can still feel some moments and can listen the surrounding. And it is scientifically proven that is the body is got paralaysis brain work more efficient, best real example is Stephen Hawking. This works like when heart stops beating some parts still work and working will become much more efficient as before and those who came back after death they have something new and unexeptional. Lord buddha had that, " the mind is everything" ;)
Life after death

Scientists believe that more people around the world have near-death experience when they are close to death, and drugs and medicine used may prevent them from remembering the experience, and that is why it is very a controversial thing and the point of what I am saying. Experts nowadays believed that the brain stops functioning and shuts down completely within 20 to 30 seconds of the heart stopping beating, and being said, it is impossible for it to be aware of anything at all once once it happened. Of those who survived death, 46% had experienced a deep range of mental flashback, 9% experienced compatible with traditional definitions of NDE and 2% shared full awareness with precise recall of out-of-body experiences.
Life after death

I think that there is no life after death, if we think logically if their is life after death then our scientist have found the way and scientist also believe that there is no life after death. It something like a mobile when there is a battery in the mobile which is charged the mobile will get on and when the battery is completely down the mobile phone will not be switch on because of the no power. However, we can charge again the battery and mobile will work as before with same OS and same memory as it have before but no other phone can get same thing which is on the mobile which has no power( means thephotos captured on the phone, call logs, voice and text chats and many more thing). Exactly a human body functions as every thing is in the mind of the body and when the body stop functioning our brain also stops but every thing in the mind remains in the mind of the dead body. But the death person life is not connected to anyone after his death.
Life after death

Many religions say that there is life after death. But many people opposed religion. However, there are many cases of near-death and out-of-body experiences that are under medical study. Even if the brain has shut down completely, there are some continued awareness. 40% of people who survived cardiac arrests at 15 hospitals in the UK, US, and Austria, according to University of Southampton, described out-of-body experiences after they were pronounced clinically dead. There are many books written by certain people who experienced this that are best-sellers. Dr. Parnia believed that many people may have experiences when they are near to death but drugs used during this process may stop them from remembering (Telegraph). A group of German Scientists announced that there is some form of life after death. The team of scients led by Dr. Berthold Ackermann monitored the operations and collected their testimonies. Most common testimonies include a feeling of separation from the body, feelings of levitation, total serenity, security, warmth, the experience of absolute dissolution, and the presence of an overwhelming light (World News Daily Report).
Computer is better then ps4

1. ) The Problem of StandardsThe question posed is whether "Computer is better then ps4. " I do not need to prove the ps4 is better than the computer, but that the computer is not better than the ps4. The problem with Pro's argument is that he uses an arbitrary standard to measure the value of a computer vs. the value of a ps4. Pro states that the computer can do things the ps4 cannot, but that doesn't mean the computer is better. In Pro's subjective view, it makes the computer better. But to someone else, the additional features can be what make the computer worse than the ps4.2. ) ConclusionTo state that the computer is objectively better than a ps4 is a fallacious argument, since the standard used to judge whether it's better is a completely arbitrary standard. Also, a person could consider more features to be a bad thing. In conclusion, it is not possible to support the claim that a computer is better than a ps4.
Abortion is compleatly utterly and totally wrong.

<> Again, you've avoided addressing my direct points that have to do with a girl being FORCED to SUFFER the physical changes brought on by PREGNANCY. < "There is no debate in the medical community, life begins at the moment the zygote is formed.">> I never disputed that a fetus was a life or not. I said a fetus is not a person. (I even defined it for you and provided a link to my source.) There's a distinct difference. I'm sure that if I go and look under a rock outside that I can probably find "life". That doesn't mean I've found a person. We kill life everyday with fly-swatters and bug-spray and mouse-traps. Are we murderers commiting murder? No. <> No, you have more circular logic in your debate. That's all. < > As you haven't addressed all of my key points, I'm going to skip your pandering for votes here. < > Abortion is legal, so the law agrees with me there. If an abortion will bring happiness to a person, then it is their Constitutional Right to have one, as it is legally acceptable. I could find a medical doctor that performs abortions daily and s/he'll tell you that abortions are legal and morally acceptable. I've met each of your moral statements again and explained to you how each is acceptable. I wish you had addressed all of my key points. < > To each his own. Thanks for the debate, Loofa. I apologize if you got your feelings hurt.
Abortion is compleatly utterly and totally wrong.

Abortion from rape should be dealt with but not to the extreme where a human life is lost. As I have shown in previous arguments a fetus is a human person. The death penalty is not dealt out to rapists, so why should it be dealt out to innocent young children. <> I unlike my opponent have a Medical Doctor (M.D.) to back up my statement of "There is no debate in the medical community, life begins at the moment the zygote is formed." And in the constitution it clearly states that all humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness. Therefore abortion is really going against the constitution by depriving a child of life (liberty and the pursuit of happyness). ALSO I have used the example of a double murder by murdering a pregnant woman. Clearly I have more evidence to show why abortion obviously should be against the law. < > My opponent here has not only insulted me but he is debating something which no one but myself should be able to debate, my mind. It is stupid for someone to think that they can debate whether or not a person has thought thoroughly about a topic. My opponent cannot simply say I did not think about the topic, heaven's sake I don't even know this person. My opponent argues that I make only moral statements but I am speaking simply in facts, backed up by the law, the Constitution, and a medical doctor if I am simply making moral statements how do I have so many sources. Since this is my last argument I would like to say this. Abortion cannot stay legalized because taking innocent lives should not be legal in any country. Thank You solo for taking part in this debate.
Abortion is compleatly utterly and totally wrong.

< > It's nothing like that at all. You're proposing punishment for the victim. You'd feel differently if you were a girl that were raped and as a result then pregnant. You have no idea of what you speak. <> I invalidate your argument with the same kind of circular logic that you're using: Murder IS ILLEGAL, and abortion IS LEGAL, therefore a fetus is not a person because murder is not condoned by the law. It's just that simple. <> I doubt that. You don't have the imagination to have done a proper job. You haven't thoroughly thought about anything, which is why you are able to make such a ridiculous statement: "Rape is an awful thing but, this still does not justify taking a living humans life." You haven't properly addressed the point of a raped girl being impregnanted by an assault and why she should be punished by carrying the child to term and then birthing it only to end up raising it, even though she is the victim. Why should she have to deal with her body being further violated by an unwanted pregnancy? Do you even understand how the female anatomy works? During pregnancy? Right after birthing a child? Postpartum depression? What research have you done? Surely you cannot think that having "thought thoroughly about this topic" that you are an adequate advocate for your argument without having solid facts to support your points. You make a (misspelled) moral proclamation without any reasons as to why you're "right". I do not agree with your side of the debate, at all, and find this line of thinking dangerous and backwards. Please prove to me why it is not. Thank you.
Abortion is compleatly utterly and totally wrong.

In your argument about unwanted pregnancies you used the example of rape. Rape is an awful thing but, this still does not justify taking a living humans life. This is like getting revenge on the wrong person. As I said in my previous argument If you drown a pregnant woman it counts as a double murder therefore there can be no further debate on whether or not a fetus is a living person under the law. As we all know murder is against the law, Therefore abortion should be against the law as well. As a source that life begins at conception I would like to cite Dr. Michal Barry M.D. "There is no debate in the medical community, life begins at the moment the zygote is formed." As we can see from the evidence that I have shown, first that under the law a fetus is a person, and second in the medical community there is no debate on whether or not a fetus is a person. I Have thought thoroughly about this topic and I cannot see any reason for abortion despite my opponent's arguments.
Abortion is compleatly utterly and totally wrong.

Thanks for the initiating this debate, Loofa. I hope to change your mind about this topic before the end of it. <> Just because you "cannot see any reason for abortion ever" does not mean there are not any. It simply means that you have not given the matter enough thought. < > I believe it is in greater error to have an unwanted child. Your argument makes it seems as if everyone is a willing participant in sexual intercourse and should suffer the consequences of pregnancy. I disagree. Let's say that a girl is raped and left pregnant from the violation. Society should then rob the girl of her right to abort the painful reminder of the violent assault. Society should taint her pregnancy and scar her by not allowing her to have her dream, which is to nurture an unborn child that was made in love. You are suggesting that she be burdened with the physical transformation, AND GREAT PAIN AND DISCOMFORT that her body will undergo as a response to being pregnant. < > If "person" is how you want to describe a fetus, then allow me to define "person" for you as society views the word in this matter. http://dictionary.reference.com... - a person not entitled to social recognition or respect. Your argument is flawed in the sense that it does not cater to the well-being for victims of circumstance.
Batman is a better superhero than Iron Man

C1: BATMAN NEVER KILLS Counter-argument 1: Batman moral code says he'll never kill. And we are supposed to see this as a good thing. Sometimes it can be but it allows his enemies to love and fight another day. Namely the Joker. You see, Iron Man does not mercilessly slaughter his enemies. But if you're a danger to society, a danger to civilians, he will kill you. That's his sacrifice. He'll live with blood on his hands just so some maniac doesn't blow up a boat full of women and children. C2: BATMAN REFUSES TO COMPROMISE HIS PRINCIPLES Counter-argument 1: see above C3: BATMAN HAS HELPED PEOPLE IN NEED Counter-Argument 3: I'm not sure what point my opponent is attempting to make here. Argument 1: Iron Man is much much more effective Well first off his suit is a thousand times more complex and advanced. Had been in the Dark Knight trilogy, he would have made very short work of all three villians. Argument 2. Bruce wayne is useless Batman is a symbol for peace and all that but Bruce wayne, as far as the world is concerned, is an idiot. Tony Stark donates billions to charity, builds intelli-crops in developing nations, and is working on free, clean energy. Batman tries to do clean energy. It gets turned into a bomb.
Batman is a better superhero than Iron Man

I agree to my opponent’s request. C1: BATMAN NEVER KILLS Clearly, a quality of a hero is someone who refuses to stoop to the level of his opponents, someone who uses non-lethal force, someone who refuses to let another person experience what Bruce Wayne experienced that fateful night in a dark Gotham alley. Batman has never killed if he could. Is a superhero someone who mercilessly slaughters his enemies, claiming that since they are criminals it’s justified? No, Batman has never stooped to that level. In the Dark Knight, Batman purposely swerves his motorcycle out of the way of the Joker and crashes, almost resulting in his death. C2: BATMAN REFUSES TO COMPROMISE HIS PRINCIPLES Someone who is a hero refuses to compromise what he believes in. Batman believes so fiercely in not killing, in the Dark Knight Rises movie he knocks a gun out of Catwoman’s hands in the middle of a fight. In the Dark Knight he takes down the people who are trying to help him (help him using a healthy amount of lethal weapons) and ties them up, leaving them for the police. Batman has never taken the easy route and has always stuck to his principles and has never compromised them. “You truly are incorruptible, aren’t you? You won’t kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won’t kill you because you’re just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever! ” – The Joker to Batman in the Dark Knight C3: BATMAN HAS HELPED PEOPLE IN NEED This is clear point, but not in the way that you think. It is true that Batman has helped people in a direct way, saving their lives, combating crime etc, but Batman has had a much more profound impact on the people of Gotham. Batman has instilled into the people of Gotham hope, the idea of good. In the Dark Knight, the people on the boat come awfully close to detonating the bomb on the other boat, but they don’t. “This city just showed you that it’s full of people ready to believe in good. ” – Batman to Joker in the Dark Knight. Batman has been the role model for this good. Batman has forever shown the people of Gotham good.
Batman is a better superhero than Iron Man

I believe that Batman is a better superhero than Iron Man. The Dark Knight Trilogy was awesome (go see the movies, NOW). We will have a shared BOP. Definitions: Batman - the superhero Bruce Wayne from the DC universe Iron Man - the superhero Tony Stark from the Marvel universe Better Superhero - the person that best exemplifies heroic qualities using their super powers There will be no semantics and no trolling. Any definition changes my opponent would like to make MUST BE POSTED IN R1. Note: the two aren't fighting each other and the debate is on who would win, the debate is on who is a better super hero.
Batman is a better superhero than Iron Man

Is this murder to you? Yes. Batman would have gotten owned if he tried to save these people. Incorrect. In the Batman trilogy, Batman saves numerous hostages without being shot and without having to kill anyone. Note at the end of Batman Begins he blows up the train tracks and chooses not to save Ra’s Al Ghul. My opponent clearly doesn’t understand the Batman universe and the fact that Ra’s Al Ghul has survived so much more than a train wreck. Ra’s Al Ghul didn’t die. Has he really? Before Batman all the people of Gotham City had to worry about was Mafia dudes and crooked cops. Once again my opponent shows a lack of Batman knowledge. The entire city was ruled by the Maroni and Falcone family, Ra’s Al Ghul would have destroyed the city anyways, and it was far worse before Batman. Barely. Does he get the job done or not? Having a suit doesn’t make Iron Man more of a hero. The world sees him as an idiot because he wastes his money instead of doing…I don’t know…literally anything else. Just because Batman doesn’t build schools in Africa doesn’t make him less of a hero and as I have already shown Batman has been doing philanthropic work for Gotham for YEARS, yet my opponent just brushes this point aside. Ok Forbes has no idea what they’re talking about. First of all, Forbes is a very respected magazine that doesn’t just randomly compile numbers. Secondly, it doesn’t matter who is richer. My point was that Batman has money to do philanthropic work, and he does. Yes it’s his fault! If you think it has the potential to be dangerous, get rid of it! Don’t keep it as a trophy! It wasn’t kept as a trophy. Secondly, it had a safety mechanism and it was thought to be safe. It wasn’t at all Batman’s fault. My opponent has failed to fulfill his BOP, he hasn’t shown why Iron Man exemplifies heroic qualities more than Batman. His only arguments were that Iron Man has a fancy suit and he does philanthropic work. I have refuted both arguments. I have brought forth the fact that Batman doesn’t kill, refuses to compromise his principles, and has been a symbol of peace, prosperity, and good for the city of Gotham. He has given Gotham hope.
Batman is a better superhero than Iron Man

I would now like to take this time to refute some of the arguments brought forth by my opponent. Batman moral code says he’ll never kill. And we are supposed to see this as a good thing. Sometimes it can be but it allows his enemies to love and fight another day. What my opponent is essentially saying is that if someone is posing a menace to society, it is acceptable to kill them. Following this logic, police officers should be allowed to shoot to kill thieves, jaywalkers, and speeders as they are posing a threat to society. Batman’s moral code is what separates him from the villains, it is the line that divides hero and murderer. It doesn’t matter if he is killing the Joker or Two-Face, it is still murder which is most certainly NOT a hero characteristic. Batman’s will power is so great, he can operate a Green Lantern Power Ring. [2] Batman would never compromise his morals and beliefs, something a hero is. Would we consider Abraham Lincoln to be a hero if he just quit his attempts to end slavery? Counter-argument 1: see above. This counter-argument has already been refuted. I’m not sure what point my opponent is attempting to make here. My point is very clear. Batman has been a role model for Gotham, showing the people that good is possible in a city like Gotham City, a city that has been condemned by many as a wasteland. Through his position as a role model, he has helped people do good. Well first off his suit is a thousand times more complex and advanced. Had been in the Dark Knight triology, he would have made very short work of all three villains. I don’t understand my opponent’s point here. I would invite him to elaborate on how having a complex suit helps him exemplify heroic qualities. Does Batman get the job done? Yes. Batman is a symbol of peace and all that So my opponent is essentially agreeing with my 3rd Contention. But Bruce Wayne, as far as the world is concerned, is an idiot. First of all, Bruce Wayne isn’t just some “idiot”. His behavior is just an act to hide the fact that he is Batman. Also, Batman has genius level intellect so he isn’t a complete moron. [2] Tony Stark donates billions to charity Yet Bruce Wayne is richer according to Forbes. [1] Furthermore, Bruce Wayne is also a philanthropist. He has funded many projects, built many things for Gotham, and has even donated his mansion to a boy’s home in Gotham. Batman tries to do clean energy. It gets turned into a bomb. Is this somehow Batman’s fault? I would invite my opponent to elaborate more on this point. So it is clear that Batman exemplifies heroic qualities far more than Iron Man. I have refuted all of my opponent’s points and my opponent has failed to refute any of my points. It is clear for Voters to Vote Pro! SOURCES 1. . http://www.forbes.com... 2. . http://dc.wikia.com...(Bruce_Wayne)