BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
flat earth

you seem like a genuine soul, i cant promise to see eye to eye, but i can promise respect from my end.... so lets get to it... first off, the lack of curvature, the most obvious property of a sphere is curvature no?? yet no one can find, or measure it... 50+ miles away we can see lighthouses and sky lines... for instance we will use the photo of Chicago from grand Mere state park... which is over 50 miles away... this can be proven on any map with a mile to inch scale legend... http://www.exohuman.com... here is an example of the picture taken by Joshua Nowicki.... lets do some basic math... to calculate the curvature slope of a sphere with the radius of 3,947 miles... you would take the miles, square them, then multiply by 8... so 50 miles squared is 25,000.... 25,000 times 8 is 200,000... now thats 200,000 inches, so divide that by 12 to get feet as your unit... and you get 1,667 feet... thats 1,677 feet of supposed curvature, this is mathematical fact... the tallest building in Chicago is the Willis tower at a whopping 1,451 feet, it should be 200 feet below the curve... but we can see the base of every building... this in itself proves the earth is flat, or at least much much larger than they say... there are plenty of other examples and experiments that prove a flat stationary earth, including NASA documents... i am looking forward to your reply...
The United States maintains the most powerful military in human history

Yes I realize that the U.S. has a lot of advanced hardware, but the countries that rank behind them are not that far behind. I would not attribute the amount spent on better quality. The Fiscal Times reports that since 1996 $8.5 trillion of U.S. spending has been unaccounted for. How much of that money has been doled out recklessly such as spending $1billion on getting rid of ammo, $1billion on "nuts and bolts", and billions of other dollars on trumped up defense contractors who have or had connections in certain administrations. Either way you look at it the U.S. wastes a ton of money not directly tied to anything military but it is part of their defense budget so as far as money spent goes I would not trust the numbers there. Yes Germany was defeated and occupied but, could the U.S sustain a multi-front war with multiple superpowers as Germany tried. You mentioned "The Big Three" of old but what if Russia China and India tried taking a crack at the old U S of A. If the war was fought on U.S soil I do not believe that they would be able to succeed. Even if all of its citizens were to join the fight, out of "The New Big Three" comes roughly 1.1 billion fit to fight individuals from those countries, and all of their military hardware. Germany was not taken down by just one other country. The U.S essentially is running low on funds so to sustain any long large war economically with any other country would be a challenge itself. The U.S military today also has lack of experience in large scale war. The German military was full of seasoned experienced and highly trained soldiers. I know we have experienced soldiers but Iraq and Afghanistan is not all out war by any means. The U.S military standards have dropped extremely low to meet their recruiting numbers and they are not getting the type of people fit for service like they used to. The U.S is definitely mighty in the number of hardware and spending but that does not mean anything if it is lacking in large scale battlefield experience and the war is brought to its own shores for the first time since the Revolutionary War.
The United States maintains the most powerful military in human history

Thank you for accepting. The Germans did posses quite a capable and powerful military. However, they didn't have the massive gap in military strength the United States posseses in the modern era. The Germans made amazing gains in the early years of the war against primarily weak and unprepared countries. This allowed them to mount a "lightning fast" offensive. However, the military gap between the British, Americans, Soviets, and Japanese wasn't as large as it is in the modern era. The fact that a single nation could take on 26 countries is truly remarkable. However, only a handful of countries can be credited for bring the end of the war. The Soviets, the British, and the Americans were known as "The Big Three" for a reason. Germany was still defeated and occupied. In the modern era, with our allies, nobody could successfully wage war against the United States. The US has the second largest amount of personnel, only beaten by China who has a massive population of over 1 billion. However, I don't believe the amount of active duty personnel alone contributes to a militaries capability. Now, we can explore the stats. It is well known that more money brings better quality. The United States spends 4X more than the second largest spender in the world, China. http://www.pgpf.org... Three main components of a military can determine the respective nation's strength. Their ground forces, their air forces, and their naval forces. The United States Army possess a large amount of advanced weaponry, APCs, and tanks. The United States has the 3rd largest amount of tanks in the world with 8,848. Our battle tanks are considered the most advanced in the world. APCs can do just as much damage as a tank and the United States owns 41,000. The number two in the world is Russia with 31,000. Air superiority is a necessity in any armed conflict. The United States owns 13,000 aircraft. Number two in the world is Russia with 3,500. The United States Air Force is also the most technologically advanced in the world. The United States Navy essentially has its own Air Force. The importance of an air craft carrier in warfare cannot be stressed. This allows for massive power projection in any region within 24 hours. The United States has 20 aircraft carriers. Number two in the world is Russia with 4. Although I do agree that Nazi Germany was extremely powerful, the technological, industrial, economic, and resource gap was not as large back then as it is now.
The United States maintains the most powerful military in human history

The United States does indeed have the most powerful military now, but as for human history I would have to disagree. The Nazi German Military at its height had a fighting force of around 20 million soldiers. Their military technology at the time was unparalleled, and their implementation of the "Blitzkrieg" made it look easy to topple over several neighboring countries. If it was not for the defeat by the hands of the Allied Powers, which was made up of 26 nations, who knows how far the Germans could have flexed their military might.
The United States maintains the most powerful military in human history

The United States is the most powerful country to ever exist. The US spends more on their military than the next 10 combined. The US alone accounts for 40% of global military spending. Our NATO allies account for 70%. There is not a single country on Earth powerful enough to defeat the United States in a war. For the first time in history, a superpower is currently unchecked, operating without a counterbalance.
POFO debaters April topic, Practice only POFOers please

Ok so on your definitional response I agree but, you need to prove sucessful mitigation that is directly attributed to this act. Not slight lessening that you can't directly attribute to this act so up till now you haven't. On your response to my first contention, first of all i provide evidence that it was not actually sucessful and logic out why. But even if you provide evidence in your case that says in order to be sucessful "an economic stimulus package must direct money to those who will spend it quickly" So at the point where we obviously agree it won't be spent you negate there.Because if its not spent by your own evidence we can see it to not be able to sucesfully mitigate, and therefore not fufilling your side of the resolution.Also as far as the saving and paying of bills is benefitial that doesn't make sense because by them not spending the money it doesn't provide a stimulus sucessfully under your own evidence. Ok and as far as your new evidence that it work I have provided counter evidence that says it didn't work, how ever even if it did. How does your advocacy account for the fact that these recessions are based upon different things, this one is based on the housing market collapse while that wasn't so the fact that we aren't 100% sure it solved the problem last time coupled with the fact that the causes are different leads us to beleive it probably won't sucessfully mitigate. Now You don;t attack my overview which said you need to provide a CAUSATIONAL link, and to this point you have not which is an issue, because until you direclty prove to me how this is going to solve you can't get a negative ballot. Next you have no answer to the harms other then saying they won't happen this year. However that is not true because inflation will happen IMMEDIATELY and raise our costs of living so lets extend that. Next you need to see that if we know that there will be many consequences then we will not get a socialogical boost which contradicts and logically takes out your next arguement. Then you don't respond to the logic for why they won't solve, in fact your own evidence provided in your case agrees. Your case says it needs to be spent but I prove it won't be spent, so at that point look to the neg. Then you don't respond to my professors saying that this type of action has never worked by itsself. All you say is well someone sayds the 2001 act helped. However I explain to you that the economy did remain stagnant and that TAX CUTS a little later did solve the problems. The reason the economy remained stagnant was people didn't spend the tax cuts and the logic behind it is faulty as I explained in my case so vote negative there. Finally on my responses to his case all he said was "I am not going to say anything to your attacks other than blaah. Vote Aff." Well the fact that he hasn't said anything to my responses means that we should extend them and see the flaws in his case which he hasn't responded to. Insofar as that is the case we must vote Neg.
POFO debaters April topic, Practice only POFOers please

I don't have to prove are economy will recover I have to prove successful mitigation, not the end to the recession. Your contention 1 has to do with budget deficit, but it is not topical because budget deficits do not have harms until years later, not 2009 and you have to have deficits to help downturns, so you are saying it will harm us in the far future not now so disregard this evidence. To your contention 1.The bill says successful mitigation, the government is expecting the effects of the last stimulus bill which was in 2001 with a little better outcome because it is a bigger act, so it is successful, successful mitigation does not mean it all has to be spent. Why? If you spend you help business make profit, profit equals jobs. If you pay off bills you still are paying off businesses. If you save it, then banks have liquidity that they can use to work with individuals to prevent foreclosures which continue the downturn. So it is mitigating the probelm. First off I have evidence as of March, http://www.businessweek.com... according to this research from another source a newer source the tax rebates provided a substantial stimulus and like I said it. I am not going to say anything to your attacks other than blaah. Vote Aff.
POFO debaters April topic, Practice only POFOers please

Ok like lets look to his last arguement first then ill show you again why to negate. So he argues that 21% of the people will spend but thats not enough, which is why it has never worked in the past. Also I show you that it will lead to more inflation and lower the value of our dollar which he never refutes so that is a voter. The important of this is that it will negate any benefits this may provide and leave us WORSE of overall. Now lets look at the negative voting issues. 1.) On the top he never gives you a brightline for sucessfully mitgating at that point he doesn't show you that this act would achieve this so we negate. 2.)He never responds to or solves for my overview that he needs to prove that there needs to be direct benefits from this and that this WILL BE THE CAUSE of the economy getting better. Nor does he show you that the economy will get better at all. 3.) He doesn't show you directly how this act solves for the problems in our economy including the realestate collapse and the falling only the dollar, in fact he furthers that claim and at that point you vote neg. 4.) He doesn't respond to any of my refutations to his case that I provide to him in my first speech and at that point lets extend those and see the holes in his advocacy and vote neg there. 5.)He doesn't provide you any voting issues or any direct reason to affirm. 6.) He has no responses to the harms of deficit spending and doesn't respond to my analogy which explains the reason this doesn't work. 7.) On the same type of note he doesn't respond to the logic of why it won't work nor does he respond to any of my case. So because he doesn't meet my burdens or his, doesn't respond to my case or my responses to his case and can't prove to you any sucessful mitigation or any slight mitigation for that matter you will vote for the NEGATIVE.
Arguments involving moral standards are weak and useless.

I intend to prove that arguing a topic based on moral standards is a bad idea, and should not be done. Moral - of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior Standard - something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example Opinion - a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matterThese are the definitions that will be used in this debate. They can be found here: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... First of all, moral standards are weak arguments because they are not set in stone. As the definitions show, morals are the difference between right and wrong. This clearly can vary. In World War 2, Hitler thought it was right to kill off everyone who wasn't Aryan. Obviously, almost everyone else disagreed with him. This is because the Axis Powers(Hitler's Group) and the Allied Forces(America, Britain, etc. ) had different opinions on right and wrong. A standard is something that can be based on custom or opinions. I will use World War 2 again. Hitler and the Nazis thought it was right to eliminate all who weren't Aryan. Since they were in control, this became the standard goal of Nazi Germany. The Allies, however, disagreed. This was an overwhelming public opinion. Therefore, the standard goal of the Allies was to stop the Axis Powers. Next, morals are opinions. Since opinions are views formed by a person, they don't have to be shared. Due to this fact, morals can't be used because they might not be shared by both sides. This is obvious in a debate I took part in because I said yes, hunting should remain legal, but my opponent said no, it shouldn't remain legal. We had different views based upon our opinions. Our opinions had facts, and so they did become useable. The moral factor, however, did NOT always have facts. I had reasons why my morals could be accepted, but my opponent didn't. Regardless of facts or lack of, both moral arguments were very weak. Finally, moral standards are weak arguments because standards can vary. For example, in China it is normal to eat dog, but most Americans wouldn't dream of eating dog.
Arguments involving moral standards are weak and useless.

For my closing statements, I'm just going to repeat my R1 statements. First of all, moral standards are weak arguments because they are not set in stone. As the definitions show, morals are the difference between right and wrong. This clearly can vary. In World War 2, Hitler thought it was right to kill off everyone who wasn't Aryan. Obviously, almost everyone else disagreed with him. This is because the Axis Powers(Hitler's Group) and the Allied Forces(America, Britain, etc.) had different opinions on right and wrong. A standard is something that can be based on custom or opinions. I will use World War 2 again. Hitler and the Nazis thought it was right to eliminate all who weren't Aryan. Since they were in control, this became the standard goal of Nazi Germany. The Allies, however, disagreed. This was an overwhelming public opinion. Therefore, the standard goal of the Allies was to stop the Axis Powers. Next, morals are opinions. Since opinions are views formed by a person, they don't have to be shared. Due to this fact, morals can't be used because they might not be shared by both sides. This is obvious in a debate I took part in because I said yes, hunting should remain legal, but my opponent said no, it shouldn't remain legal. We had different views based upon our opinions. Our opinions had facts, and so they did become useable. The moral factor, however, did NOT always have facts. I had reasons why my morals could be accepted, but my opponent didn't. Regardless of facts or lack of, both moral arguments were very weak. Finally, moral standards are weak arguments because standards can vary. For example, in China it is normal to eat dog, but most Americans wouldn't dream of eating dog.
The area of a country is a more important factor than the population.

Well since my opponent has forfeited. I guess I'll start off. I'm considering the USA the main factor in this. First ill list top five most populated countries and give reasons whey they are important because of population, and/or I'll give why the population is more important. 1. China 1.3 billion people -First off china is very big, but it is also the most populated nations in the world. China is very powerful because of this, the people is what run the government and help create what China is today. Land is not a big part of this because the USA is around the same size so it is. to necessarily focusing on this. 2. India 1.2 billion - India is much smaller than the USA. So the many ties with India are because of governance and the people. 3. USA 300 million - If the population were not so large it would be more of a agricultural area. I don't mean a drop by 100,000 but by maybe 1 to 1.5 million. 4. Indonesia 240 million - group of islands, therefore harder to judge area as well. Yes, the land is beautiful, but this is about area not land. The Indonesian government created by the people, provides for people. People, people, people, population 5. Brazil 190 million - This one I kind of have to agree with you on. Conclusion: the size doesn't make the country, the governance and people do.
Globalism, giving equal rights to head choppers.

CON suggests that globalism DOESN'T give equal rights to "head choppers". The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: (This declaration became international law in 1976) Article 6: "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." Article 11: "Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense." http://www.un.org... In the United States we use the term "innocent until proven guilty" coined by Sir William Garrow. This comes from the Latin phrase "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" (The burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies) Now that I have provided such evidence for my argument, this burden falls squarely upon CON. CON should now provide evidence or concede. I now give the floor back to CON.
Globalism, giving equal rights to head choppers.

The most broad understanding of globalism: An ideological concept of international integration between cultures and nations brought on by globalization. Everything including laws, ethics, societal expectations, economics and much more have the potential be altered by this integration. I will be PRO in the argument that globalism, and by extension globalization, would bring equal rights to "head choppers" as globalization spreads the likelihood and enforcement of universally accepted rights. I give the floor to CON and await the first argument of this debate. Thanks and good luck!
Globalism, giving equal rights to head choppers.

CON claims that globalism does not give rights to "head choppers". I have provided ample evidence that those who support and extend the ideology of globalism desire equal rights for every man, woman, and child. Even criminals are protected under the concept in the sense that they are innocent until proven guilty, and are thus given equal rights under international law. CON hasn't provided evidence for his claim, nor has he made a defense against mine.
Should Students be allowed to listen to music during seminar

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhoe
if you agree w minimum wage, employers shouldnt be allowed to pay 2 or 3 hourly to tipped employees

The reasons for tipping are not relevant to this debate, as the debate revolves around the tip credit. In states that allow a tip credit, it is just that, a credit. From the Department of Labor: "Where an employee does not receive sufficient tips to make up the difference between the direct (or cash) wage payment (which must be at least $2.13 per hour) and the minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference." http://www.dol.gov... So, if one believes that a waitress should make minimum wage, they already do with the tip credit. If no one tipped any employee ever, the waitress would still be paid minimum wage. It does not matter if the minimum wage is paid solely by the employer, or comprised between the employer and tips. It is up to Pro to show why employers must pay the entire minimum wage, instead of a lessor amount, given certain occupations where tips are expected to be earned (i.e. servers).
Children with younger siblings should have 10x more respect and authority then their sibilings

Thank you for this debate. So, after exploring both sides of this debate I have come to the conclusion that children with younger siblings should not have 10x more respect and authority then their younger siblings. I am not going to give any reasons of why, if you are however curious just scroll on up to see my previous arguments. Voters: I think you should vote for me (CON) because I put out several meaningful arguments. I used good grammar and spelling throughout this debate. My arguments proposed were relevant and came from reliable sources. I did not forfeit any rounds whatsoever. I kept true to my opinion unlike PRO. Voters please vote for me, thank you for your time. :)
Children with younger siblings should have 10x more respect and authority then their sibilings

I actually am also a half humble middle child but I know that their perks from being a little higher up, for exampleMiddle children: they will give respect as they know what your feeling is to be the one being bossed around or giving ordersYoungest the baby and to prove in my opinion that the youngest are unusually spoilt and are used to having everything done for them. some giving respect to older children teaches younger children to respect older human being just as being the oldest come more and more responsibility as new baby brothers and sisters.yes I do however agree with a reason that the youngest should a perk of giving respect earns respect(thank you for excepting my topic)
Children with younger siblings should have 10x more respect and authority then their sibilings

I disagree wholeheartedly with your opinion. Sure seniority plays a big part in life but as a family, we siblings should have the same respect and authority as each other. I am speaking for all those "middle" children out there, not the strict bossy ones, not the spoiled pampered ones, but the humble middle children. Just because we are second (or in some cases even further down) in the pecking order does not mean that we do not deserve respect from our other siblings.