BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The united states of america would win in a non-nuclear world war.

(sources will be available upon request) Once upon a time, there was a sparrow flying during winter. The bird was getting so cold, that its wings began to freeze over. Eventually, the birds wings were so frozen, that the bird came crashing to the ground and landed in a field. Then, a cow that was crazing in the field ambled over, and proceeded to defecate onto the frozen bird. The horrified bird, was convinced that life couldn't get worse. Then, the bird realized that the cow pie was warm. So warm in fact, that it began to thaw out the sparrows wings. the sparrow, now pleasantly warm, began to sing because of its joy. The farms local cat heard the singing, pulled the bird out of the crap, and ate the bird. There are three morals to this story. 1: people that crap on you are not always your enemy. 2: whatever pulls you out of deep crap isn't always your friend. 3: when your in deep crap, keep your mouth shut. Although the Peoples Republic of China has helped america economically, or "pulled us out of crap" it is evident that they are not our friends. I Firmly support the above resolution for 3 main reasons. 1. military hardware. The Allied powers, have a substantially large amount of military hardware between them. For example, the Allies have 10 super carriers between them, with 2 more being built (by the U.K). The Axis have 2. The allies have f 35 lightnings and f 22 raptors (both of which are 5th generation fighters) The Axis have at best, 4.5th generation flankers. not to mention the allies outnumber the axis aircraft 5 to 1. have you ever compared, the cold war tanks and Migs of old soviet union, with modern Abrams tanks and Bradley assault vehicles? it doesn't bode well for the axis. 2. quality of training. The united states have 4 branches of the armed forces, all of which have a separate special forces group. Ranging from the navy seals, to marine delta force snipers. the training for these programs have ridiculous qualifications, including going 5 days on only 4 hours of sleep, while running 200 miles. The standard training for even regular soldiers are much higher than any soldier that may be in service with the Russian, or Chinese military. 3. defensive location. think of the geography of the included countries. The U.S.A. and the U.K. are islands, no where near the axis. Israel has been a defense nation since their conception. South Korea shares a supply border with the ocean, and the most heavily armed border in the world with North Korea. they are 3 times as defensive as Russia and Chinas massive borders, which could easily be invaded. China has pulled as out of crap before. Lets not make the mistake of thinking they are our friend.
The united states of america would win in a non-nuclear world war.

The pro must argue, that in a non-nuclear world war, the following countries would be victorious: U.S.A., U.K., Isreal, and South Korea The con must argue for the following countries: Peoples Republic of China, Russia, North Korea, and Pakistan This is a military debate, and my first debate! Con must sacrifice their first round, or round 4. Thanks for looking, hope we have fun.
The united states of america would win in a non-nuclear world war.

You mention vietnam being an anomaly and i appreciate your point however, even now with the ongoing war against afghanistan families want there troops home regardless of the threat that a country such as afghanistan could possess if under the influence of terrorist organisations and with technology becoming so sophisticated and media so influential in todays society I think these 'anomaly' of wars will become more frequent simply because we are more aware of what occurs in war and what it can lead to and the countries you defend being pretty liberal detest the fact politician's are making the orders telling them what to do as it pretty much contradicts that ethos. Your point on communist countries being dependent on leaders is true, however the same can be said about pretty much every country, take the capital and you take the country, a simple but effective technique Hitler employed when taking over france which is not a communist country. Furthermore, this is far easier said than done, purely because it would require so much precision and luck to eliminate enough influential government officers to destroy all hope, these countries are prepared for such scenarios as is american and pretty much every country. I think one of the main reasons for the countries I am in support for winning such a war, is pretty much because of the very difficult weather conditions to adjust to, from the blistering cold of Russia to the swelteringly hot temperatures of pakistan it would require some serious effort to overcome these different conditions putting your countries at a disadvantage.
The united states of america would win in a non-nuclear world war.

To start off, i understand your reasoning to mention other countries. I only selected the ones i did because i was trying to prevent as many tangents as possible. Your argument about how it could turn into another Vietnam is an excellent and interesting point. I don't that would happen however, for the same reason the population of America did not show Vietnam-like unrest during the major extent of the cold war and earlier wars. Vietnam was an anomaly in wars, for the main reason that the citizens did not have any idea why we were in Vietnam. (my apologies for not being clear as to the start of the war) Assuming this war is like all other wars besides Vietnam and there is a decent reason, I believe that they would not tire for a long while, especially if the allied countries were invaded (which they would almost certainly have to to effectively win the war). Although south Korea is almost completely isolated from the other allies, the "axis" has few advantages besides the obvious advantage of population. As for your point on guerrilla warfare: In today's warfare guerrilla warfare has proved less effective, and considering the citizens are almost completely reliant on their government for support in more communistic countries, all you would have to do is eliminate the government officers and supplies, and the majority of the citizens would loose will to fight.
Should Gay Couples Be Allowed to Adopt

I think that these children will learn from their parents to be good human beings. Like I said before, they do not need a man and a woman to be good people. If that were true, only a small percentage of people would be "right" in the world, since divorce and single parenting is so common today. They can learn from society and their peers. They might be subjected to ridicule, but I feel that these types of incidents will make them stronger. There are so many kids that are in foster homes. I think it would be better if the adoptive children stayed in a gay household than in a foster care. I do not see anything wrong when a man or a woman want to express their identities. This is who they are and we are no one to judge them. I also think the child will embrace his diversity and be happy of who they really are. They will be positive and learn to see the world in many points of views, not just the same, typical view that I grew up in. I grew up in a Catholic household, but I've learned to accept many ideas and views from other people. Many of times, my parents do not agree with what I feel and think, but as long as I am happy and confident then I will be happy.
Should Gay Couples Be Allowed to Adopt

Well I'm going to start off by saying that same sex couple aren't going to have the skills that a man and female parent would. For children to grow up to be well-balanced adults, they are going to need role models of both sexes. Furthermore its not going to be a stable home for the children to be raised with same sex parents because children will be subject to ridicule and shunned by their peers for being different from them the rest of the world.;)
Should Gay Couples Be Allowed to Adopt

I am a heterosexual female and I believe everyone should be treated equally regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. I feel that gay couples should have the right to adopt because we are all humans and should have the same rights. If that is what they want and it makes them happy then they should adopt without being judged by society or their families. Society is changing and people are not just fitting in the "traditional" nuclear family. In many states it is now approved for them to get married, so why not let them adopt. They should be able to enjoy raising a child like a heterosexual couple. If they love each other they will be able to raise a child. I feel that they will be able to provide a loving, nurturing, and stable environment. Many a times one of the partners is already the biological parent, so the other partner just takes the child as their own. I do not think that you need a man and a woman to raise a child. I think that gay couples form relationships that are more stable than heterosexual marriages. These children will be brought up in a healthy environment. We have to try to overcome this type of discrimination. I also feel that these children will be brought up in an open environment. They will be less racist and prejudice towards society and people. Many children are also being raised by one parent only during these times. They have to struggle financially and emotionally to raise kids. If a gay couple wants to adopt, then that child will have the advantage of having full time parents. I also feel that it is better for a child to be raised by gay couples then by heterosexual parents who always fight and stay in the relationship because of the kids. What would the kids learn in this type of household? They will learn to be rude, stubborn and be angry most of the time.
Should Gay Couples Be Allowed to Adopt

Hey lissy20 I accept this challenge!! To be frank with you I strongly disagree with same sex adoption. Let me say one thing I'm not judging gays or lesbians couples. We are all human being and if we love someone and show our, emotion, kindness, and respect towards one another then that's fine. And yes it can be true that same sex couple can share their love and joy with their adoptive children, however its not human nature for same sex couple to raise a child on their own. Same sex couple do not have the same qualities as a man and a woman would have in raising children. Children's are always going to need a female and male figure in there household. And to have a stable home and raise well rounded good children you need a man and a woman. :)
Should Gay Couples Be Allowed to Adopt

I am a heterosexual female and i believe everyone should be treated equally regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. I feel that gay couples should have the right to adopt because we are all humans and should have the same rights. If that is what they want and it makes them happy then they should adopt without being judged by society or their families. Society is changing and people are not just fitting in the "traditional" nuclear family. In many states it is now approved for them to get married, so why not let them adopt. They should be able to enjoy raising a child like a heterosexual couple. If they love each other they will be able to raise a child. I feel that they will be able to provide a loving, nurturing, and stable environment. Many a times one of the partners is already the biological parent, so the other partner just takes the child as their own.
Evolution is almost certainly true

First of all, evolution is backed up by many discoveries and scientific papers. Here are two discoveries backing evolution: 1. Fossil Record The fossil record includes numerous fossils showing evolution. From tiktaalik to Australopithecus garhi, it is clear that evolution is a fact. 2. Pseudogenes Pseudogenes are like normal DNA code except that they are deactivated from a mutation. It is much like a spelling error in a book or a misplaced island on a map. If two species have the same pseudogene, it is very strong evidence for common descent, one of the key factors for evolution.
Evolution is almost certainly true

Yes I agree with that but where did it all start just magically the fossil came from the sky and the world was here already but how?Where and how did we all end up here with everything that we see?The fact is that God created the earth and many other things like monkeys which we didn't come from but he created us and scientist took fossil and experimented with it and then when they combine one matter's D.N.A to another matter of course it will not remain the same you will get something different from what you had in the beginning.
The First Amendment Defense Act

The First Amendment Defense Act has been proposed by the Trump administration, and it states, in general, that a business cannot be punished by the government for refusing service to an LGBT+ consumer. This is okay. It is okay because capitalism is the most unbiased system in the world. If a company chooses to engage in a discriminatory act, other companies will decide not to do that, and will effectively steal the consumer basis from the discriminating producer. That discriminating producer will be forced to either stop being hateful and sell to LGBT consumers, or lose massive amounts of money. This is promoting a free and open market where the exchanges are always consensual between the consumer and the producer, and is a better option than forcing the companies by point of gun of the government to do what they want them to.
Who can find the craziest Nfl play? Resolved

Okay so this one of the best plays in NFL history. Miracle at the new Medowlands. The play in question finished off the greatest comeback scoring run in NFL history. The Eagles scored 28 points in the last 7:30 of the game. The last TD came after the last punt with :07 left in the game. Check out the highlight reel for the 4 TDs and pay attention to the last play which is the play I pick for this debate. This is the only game in NFL history to end the game on a punt return for winning TD. It is also the best comeback in NFL history making the final play that much crazier. DeSean Jackson fumbled the punt return before running it all the way back for a TD with no time left.Crazy stuff. Just watch. http://www.youtube.com...;
Who can find the craziest Nfl play? Resolved

This is another debate about seeing who can find the craziest NFL play. Rules: 1.The play has to be a play. 2.If it didnt count but is still a crazy play then it is eligible. 3. Round 1 Acceptance. 4. Post the video and explain why you believe it is crazy and the circumstances that make it an out of the ordinary play. 5. A play that happened but didnt count an example was the Bears vs. the Packers where a punt was called back due to a penalty. (The play can still be used even though it didnt count) 6. Have fun :D
We can be certain of nothing, not even this statement.

My opponent has given no ideology behind why there is nothing to put it simply. But there are certainties in life born from the mind of our being. Things such as hate love greed and envy are all intrinsic to our beings belief. We are naturally envious and hateful and loving it is not ideas born of necessity for this physical world but ideas born from the mind or being that we occupy and my proof for our minds being real is that no illusion is palpable enough to stop the free thinking of our being thus I have the ability to write this debate all because of my mind, therefore proving it is real. And in summary we have at least onw thing for certain and that is our minds.
We can be certain of nothing, not even this statement.

Everything is real but we are actually in a false reality who are you to prove that we are not actually in a matrix type of state in an allusion of life. I'm taking the mindset of Platonism or the philosophy of Plato stressing especially that actual things are copies of transcendent ideas and that these ideas are the objects of true knowledge apprehended by reminiscence. This is only the beginning let us move on
The Constitution is and was meant to be a living document.

Thank you for this debate. No I'll start off by pointing out that my opponent says that a living document changes with the times. However, this cannot be how the framers meant as a type of law system. Take this example: In the distant future, "freedom of speech" is defined as "you can say anything you want, as long as it is not criticizing the government". Now obviously, you can tell that the framers meant for a right to criticize the government. However, if this "changed with the times", the new times would take away that right. My opponent is correct, however; the Constitution is a living document - but not for the definition he gave. A "living document" is a document that can be changed , or amended in our case. This allows for the formation of new laws and the altering of old ones. But with the definition my opponent used, the Constitution is not living, because it was not meant to "change with the times".
U.S. Citizens have the right to Rebel (But Won't)

However, he has very selectively rebutted things that I have said, while leaving others. While I am on the topic I would like for the judges to note that he dropped my Shays Rebellion argument, failing to come up with a rebuttal, therefore, using standard debate rules, I have won, according to Dr. Jim Spears, Nancy Isreal, and Amy Mussatti (3 physical sources, more than Pro). I will agree that the whole "occupy wall street" contention was not correct, and I would ask that the judges note that I am admitting that it was not relevant, My main point that I would like to bring up is that my opponent has said that, paraphrasing, "shays rebellion is irrelevant because the majority of the people didn't support it. " If that had been the definition of "rebel," I wouldn't have accepted this debate! But no, Shays rebellion does fit the definition of rebel, and therefore, my opponent has lost.
U.S. Citizens have the right to Rebel (But Won't)

On the declaration of independence: You were using it as a list of our American rights, however, it is not in our law book, it is simply an important document. If you went into a courtroom and used the declaration of independence as a source, the judge would note that it should have no effect on the jury, as it is simply on the status of "important document." And yes, the FF did change their minds. The articles of confederation is the first "constitution" but then it was changed. "You say it is used only for other countries. That is not true. It says for security. It doesn't state what that security is for. Security to protect your land from an opposing force, security from the Government taking your rights or security from another country. Anything you can attach security too." true..... but doesn't this help me since thats the FF saying that wee should always be armed, ready to rebel? Occupy wall street IS a rebellion, since the people there are trying to overthrow at least a SECTION of the government. Oh yeah, and I misread that part on Shays rebellion. Still helps me immensely. Wait, so we are debating on two topics at once? That is unbecoming of a debate. I thought that since I agreed that we have the right, that the debate would be on whether or not we would. And onto what the burden of proof means. My opponent, since he instigated the debate, must provide proof that he is correct. I have to rebut that, with no sources needed. It's like a courtroom, where the defendant doesn't even need to open his mouth, for it is the prosecutions job to prove him guilty. So, with me having no sources, that is irrelevant, since you conceded to my statement of your having the burden of proof.
U.S. Citizens have the right to Rebel (But Won't)

The Declaration of Independence was used to free us from Britain but if the Founding Fathers stated that people have the right so when they write the Constitution they obviously believed the people still had the right. That or you are saying the writers of the Constitution believed the Colonist had more unalienable (endowed by the creator) rights then we do. That literally make absolutely no sense. Why the same people that worked on the Declaration and the Constitution would change their mind on unalienable rights. You say it is used only for other countries. That is not true. It says for security. It doesn't state what that security is for. Security to protect your land from an opposing force, security from the Government taking your rights or security from another country. Anything you can attach security too. You are trying to prove that we don't have the right to rebel? right? That literally makes no sense that Thomas Jefferson quote helps your side. None at all. He stated we should rebel every twenty years...you are trying to say we don't have that right. I'm confused as to were this helps you whether they succeed or not. Americans are not rebelling. Occupy Wall street is a protest. Big difference. They are asking for change. Not forcing it. protest 1. public, often organized, dissent or manifestation of such dissent[1] rebel 1. To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority. 2. To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention[2] Now you put words in my mouth. I never said Shay's Rebellion is irrelevant because it failed. I said is is irrelevant because it wasn't the feelings of the majority of the people. Meaning 51% of people didn't agree with the rebellion. Therefore it is not a proper rebellion for a change in Government because if they majority of the people DISAGREE with the Rebellion then the Government is protecting the Majority of people. The fact that Americans have rebelled proves me right. You wrong? I am arguing that we DO have the right. You are arguing we DON'T have the right. The reason the Government can say it was alright they put the rebellions down is because they were protecting the majority. Conclusion: Your whole rebuttal made no sense. (To me) Used absolutely no sources, looked up no facts or were just false. Your argument was almost entirely for my side of the debate. [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
U.S. Citizens have the right to Rebel (But Won't)

My opponent quotes the declaration of independence as to why the government allows american citizens to rebel. My simple statement is that the declaration was not used to the formation of our government, it was used to say to Britain, "we will fight (rebel, yes) for this land. however, my opponent using it to say that we can is misusing the document My opponent states the second amendment to the constitution. This amendments purpose was to keep other nations from invading America, not to keep the government accountable. Note how it says "security"not "accountability." He states thomas Jeffersons famous quote on a rebellion every twenty years. There really should, but since my opponent agreed to my definition that success is not guaranteed, if there was, then this quote helps my side. Thank you. Now, to my contentions. 1. Americans are rebelling. Have you ever heard of "occupy wall street" or the "tea party movement"? these protests are obviously meant to overthrow the current system that is put in place by our government, but there success is not guaranteed, which doesn't matter. My opponent accepted my definition. My opponent also shays rebellion, saying that it is irrelevant because it failed. Doesn't matter. Americans rebelled, and that proves pro wrong