BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Life is fair

I'm sorry but I am only able to post one contention for I am really busy with schoolwork.PRO has the burden to prove that life, as defined, is just or appropiate in the circumstances.Contention 1: Life itself, is filled with natural unfairness. People are naturally born into natural circumstances that they do not deserve and are not just. More than 852 million people -- about 13 percent of the world population -- do not have enough food each day to sustain a healthy life, according to the Rome-based Food and Agriculture organization (FAO). Also, in wars between different countries civillians are killed when they have no intent on fighting whatsoever. In WWII, approximately 46 million innocent civillians have died. My opponent has to justify how these are just or appropiate in the circumstances. We also see innocent fetuses killed at massive amounts. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 45 percent of preborn black babies were aborted in the United States in 2007 (the most recent year for which federal statistics are available). There are approximately 36 African-American civillians living in the United States and there has been approximately 16 million African-American babies aborted. I don't see at all how it is justifiable for so many innocent beings to have been killed when they haven't even had a chance at life yet. Finally one of the most controversial topics of life, death itself, is a natural unfairness. Due to the fact that there are people who die consistently as I have proven with no apparent reason, undue deaths are not just at all. Conclusion: Life is not fair. People who have caused no harm get killed as we I am typing this case. People who do not deserve high rewards get high rewards when those who have been working their entire lives get barely anything. However, just because life is not just or appropiate in the circumstances does not mean life is not good, that isn't what the debate is about. I apologize for such a poor round and am eager to hear my opponent's response. Thanks and for these reasons I urge a CON ballot. http://www.commondreams.org...http://www.all.org...http://www.blackgenocide.org...
Life is fair

Intrigued by Blackvoid's debate on this topic and wanted to try it out myself. As CON I will be arguing that life is not fair. PRO will be arguing that life is fair. Structure: Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: CasesRound 3: RebuttalRound 4: Rebuttal and Conclusion/Voting IssuesFor clarity here are some definitions:life-living things and their activityfair-just or appropriate in the circumstancesLet's get this started.http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Burnley is the worst soccer team in the BPL

Burnley's record this year has been below subpar. It is 4-10-14. They have not won a cup in a long time and they will likely be relegated for the next few years, and years after that. This cycle will only be broken if they are bought by a new company, who is rich, they will be able to get world-class players. Also, if they start to develop their own players, the old-fashioned way.
Utilitarianism is the only viable system of morality

I presented my argument where a moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to social norms, going with the social flow minimizing civil resistance (Constructal Law). Social norms is a dynamic evolutionary construct of group mutual positive-feedback over generational time. Utilitarianism is simply a philosophy, a belief, on a “system of morality.” Pro claimed that “Utilitarianism is the only viable system of morality.” To make such a claim Pro failed the Burden of Proof (BoP) comparing all other “systems of morality” demonstrating that utilitarianism is indeed the only viable system. I hope this debate encourages Pro and those following the debate to explore the Constructal Law. Science is about studying repeatable patterns in nature and trying to understand our place in the universe, while using those patterns to advance our standard of living. In today's social climate, we could use more science and less philosophy in the social sciences; especially, when dealing with morality. With that said, and approaching the New Year, I wish Pro a long and healthy “Life,” having ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the moral “pursuit of Happiness.”
Utilitarianism is the only viable system of morality

In this debate, I explained why only morally non-absolute and consequentialist systems were viable. These arguments were largely unresponded to. Con provided arguments that either don't make sense or weren't well explained. My burden in this debate is only to respond to arguments that actually make sense, so there is no need for me to respond to these arguments. Therefore, I should win the debate because I am the only person with arguments left on the table.
Utilitarianism is the only viable system of morality

As I explained in round 1, this is a serious debate. Since my opponent has provided a position that is largely incoherent and non-sensical, I should win this debate by default. "Hence, Thomas Jefferson's discovery, which he declared "self-evident"" - Just because Thomas Jefferson said something was self-evident, doesn't mean that it was self-evident. "The following is a video overview of the Constructal Law" - here my opponent isn't even making their argument themselves, but passing it off to another person. That is not the point of debating, just like you can't win in javelin by paying someone else to throw it for you. "The Laws of Thermodynamics deals with the direction of energy flow. Constructal Law deals with patterns and systems generated by this energy flow as a function of optimization relative to resistance, in the evolution of biology, physics, technology and social organization. At the biological level, there is a bio-program common to all life, once inanimate matter becomes alive" - my opponent has provided some kind of semi-mystical, pseudo-scientific, techno-babble. "The objective of morality is doing Right keeping a group alive" - just because we have a survival instinct, it doesn't follow that "And in saying that, it is my position that the title of this debate is incorrect, for there are many unknown "systems of morality" yet to be discovered." - my argument is utilitarianism is the only viable system is as follows. Utilitarianism is simply moral non-absolutism and consequentialism. I provided an argument in Round 2 that any non-consequentialist system was incoherent. I specifically referenced virtue ethics and deontology, but these were merely examples. My argument works against any non-consequentialist system and the argument I will provide in the next section works against any system of moral absolutism. Here, I'll explain why we must accept moral non-absolutism. Suppose everyone in an entire country would die unless you killed an innocent man in cold blood. On this scale, the choice is obvious. Anyone who insisted that their own life is more important than a country of millions of people must have an enormous ego. Anyone who suggested that some vague feeling of "killing is wrong" should mean that we should let a whole country be destroyed, is making an emotional, rather than a rational argument. Once it is accepted that murder is required if the stakes are sufficiently high, it follows that any action is justified if the stakes are sufficiently high and the result sufficiently certain. From this we conclude that there are no moral absolutes. As is, this argument is kind of vague - but I'll break it down in more detail if my opponent starts arguing seriously.
Utilitarianism is the only viable system of morality

I want to argue that Utilitarianism is the only viable system of morality. Utilitarianism includes normal utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism - I can argue for either or both of these schools of thought. You can argue that another school of thought is most likely true instead, or merely argue against utilitarianism. I'd prefer that we assume that some form of morality exists within this debate. Whether or not morality exists would be an interesting debate, but it isn't the clash I'm looking for here. Debate is now open to anyone who wants to accept it.
Chess should be encouraged in schools

I think chess should be encouraged in schools because of the following reasons: 1. Improve skills Chess is not just about pieces and how they move, it is about considering advantages, both short-term and long-term, sacrifices to checkmate the king, and strategically thinking and making huge decisions that may make a difference about checkmating and being checkmated. America's Foundation for Chess (AF4C) has been working with 2nd and 3rd grade students to see if students will score higher marks on tests and exams. They found out students who learn chess at an early age achieved way better marks on exams. In addition, they found that students who learn chess at an earlier age achieve better scores than students who wait later on and learn chess. 2. Make students think schools are fun In third and second grade, many, if not all, students like to be though of smart. Playing chess certainly makes them smarter; therefore, it would be a great chance for students to think of school as fun. If students associate fun with school, that may motivate them to do better in schools, try their best, and of course, achieve better marks. 3. Many schools are using it Dalton School, for example, is teaching chess to energetic 5-year olds. Dalton School is one of the best private schools in New York and has one of the best chess teams. P.S. 194, a public school in Harlem, is also using chess to improve youngsters' education. Many other schools are rushing to make chess programs and clubs in order to improve their learning system. In conclusion, if chess is not useful, then why are so many schools using it? Sources: http://www.chessinschools.co.uk... http://www.parents.com...
The "fine-tuning" argument is NOT a good argument

P1: DNA is a complex thing.P2: This complex thing is either due to nature, randomness, design, chance, or Hitler.P3: It is probably not due to nature, randomness or chance.P4: Therefore, this complex thing was due to design and Hitler.P5: Hitler is god.C: DNA was designed by Hitler.C2: Dna was designed by god.C3: God exists.Ok, obviously DNA is a complex thing. If dna wasn't complex, then I would have passed biology with an A. But sinceI failed biology, it follows logically by the modus ponens form of arguments (I think that's what William Lane Craig called it) that dna is a complex thing. Now, by the logical law of four possibilities and a Hitler, it follows that the only explanations of this design are nature, randomness, design, chance, or Hitler. Why can't it be due to nature? Well, let's took a look at the nature around us. Have you ever seen a deer create DNA? Obviously they can't. Deers are made up of DNA and they never cause DNA. Indeed, this would require some bizarre form of quantum mechanical retrocausality, which is refuted by the Jesus Interpretation as set out by the physicist Malcom Malum (1). Iit can't be due to randomness because if I get a deck of cards, put them in a box, and shake them around, I never get DNA. The complexity of DNA cannot be due to chance because if I allow one side of a die to represent a DNA nucleotide, and I roll a million dice, then there is only a .1 out of six hundred trillion chance that I would roll a nucleotide sequence that codes for a protein. These odds are about as high as the chance that RationalThinker will stop smoking weed. it follows that the coplexity is due to design and Hitler.Hitler is god by definition.Therefore, god made DNA...Therefore god exists.QED.http://www.debate.org...
If the US and China should go to war, the US will have a greater chance of winning.

1. Country size matters in this debate. With a larger country and development there is a larger population and population density. Now if the country was small it likely that the other country military move around easily whereas in a bigger country they have from place to place and the country military can move. 2. Population contribute significant to war. When there's a war, the patriots and nationalistic will pick up a gun to defend their motherland. Now in terms of population China has a greater chance. But in terms of patriots and nationalistic Americans will likely defend their motherland as they enjoy more freedom. 3. The U.S has the most powerful military force in the world. It can take on any country, ex: Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. The US has more branches of military than the US. The US has...Army, Navy, Marine, Navy seal, Coast Guard, National Guard, Air Force. If this war was to play out the "Army will be on ground", the "Air Force fighting in the air", "Navy" fighting in the sea, and Marine fighting "Land and Sea." While our "Navy Seal" secretly try to take out their leaders. This is fighting aboard. And than if they come to fight in our land the "National guard" will act as the army while the "Coast Guard" act as the navy. this is fighting at home. 4. In this debate let's forget about allies. Because you're right it'll lead to World War. This is just 1 on 1. 5. The US has a much greater Defense spending than China. 6. The US has a much higher national security than that of China. National Security agency in America... 1. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 2. National Intelleigency Agency/Central Security Service 3. United States National Security Council 4. Department of Homeland Security 5. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 6. Defense Intelligence Agency 7. National Defense University There are alot of security agency, but these are the few's. These agency are vital to the US security and these can prevent or encounter attacks as fact as possible. Now i'm not saying China doesn't have agency but they do not have as much as the US. 8. Influence will also be taken out of this debate. It was suppose to talk about the influence each nation have alround the world. And simply put it US has a much greater influence the world so alot of nation will back it up. but since this is 1 on 1 we talking about its out of the debate. 9. Yes both countries have something in the back pocket so we can know. but which one have more? US of course. We got more warheads than any other nation on earth. 10. Resources in this case of all of the the things you need to fight a war. manpower, weapons, information, everything. 11. The US has a style of military that is volunteer. While China is compulsory. so China has a much higher advantages of simply sending people in the war. P.S i clarify the points for you. I went into further detail. so i am not refraining it.
If the US and China should go to war, the US will have a greater chance of winning.

1. Country size in a war like this is a weakness, smaller country has an easyer time defending and in a large war like this defense is the most important thing 2. Chinas population as of 2011 reported by CIA which is the most accurate is 1,344,130,000 and U.S. is 313,914,040 as of 2012. China has 4 times our population 3. U.S. military size is bigger than Chinas military by around 1,000 troops, but in total war at max military for both countries China would have around 70,000 more troops 4. For allies it would not even mater to avoid world war it would be a 1v1 5. Defense spending met forced labor... its more affective 6. See point 5 7. History has told me US is bad against gorilla warfare, china uses gorilla warfare 8. See point 4 9. Both countries have something in the back pocket so we can know 10. See point 5 ( again ) 11. See point 3 conscription = a better military P.S. Please try to make new points dont just refrains one you have already said. See point # gets old
If the US and China should go to war, the US will have a greater chance of winning.

Resolution: The US will have a greater chance of winning the warThings to consider in this debate. ..1. Country size2. Population size3. Military size4. Allies5. Defense Spending6. National Security7. History of wars8. Influence9. Warheads10. Resources11. Style of military (Compulsory or Volunteer)BoP is shared. Rules1. The first round is for acceptance and appreciation. (only) 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. All resoultion, definitions, rules, and structures are as stated. Voters, we hope you enjoy the debate. And that your vote is as stand.
Can Russia defeat the US (Defensive/Offensive)

Ok, so he obviously indicated Russia would invade by several comments.I am short on time, so I will make 1 argument this round.Argument 1: America spends an extreme amount of money on defense compared to Russia. http://www.rickety.us...Currently, the United States spends more money then the 12 countries behind us combined. There is just no realistic way Russia can defeat us. Sorry, I would love to put more down, but I'm short on time.
Can Russia defeat the US (Defensive/Offensive)

I believe that in a nuclear war, Russia clearly has the advantage. Russia has about 7500 nukes while the United States has only about 6500. In this situation it really depends on who fires first, but I will argue a traditional, no nuclear war. In a Russo-American war, I believe the factions will/could be :Russia, China, North Korea, Iran VS United States, European Union, Ukraine. Putin has proven that he will invade quickly, and without hesitation, similar to the bliztkrieg, or "lightning war" demonstrated by Nazi Germany. Obama, on the other hand, has proposed sanctions that don't seem to work for him. Obama will not be the one to declare war or send troops first. If China were to ally with Russia, China could draft millions of people, while the US could only draft maybe a million or 2. If China felt that it's survival was threatend, they could force up to 1 billion people, and the US could not stand up to that. Of course, this is far-fetched, but possible, considering China's dictatorship. I leave the floor to Jiffpop.
Can Russia defeat the US (Defensive/Offensive)

Well, if it were simply Russia VS America, then yes, America would most likely win.However, if all the ex- soviet and ex- communist countries were allied with Russia, such as China, then America wouldn't stand a chanceThis, I consider to be a full concession. There is just no possible way to confirm that either side would have allies, excluding definite pacts. Considering Russia is invading, they would have to deal with eery member of NATO. But since my opponent appears to hae misunderstood the rules, I request voters tie the debate.
Mongolian Empire was the strongest state in the world history.

I will argue only one point while my opponent is idle. If he does not reply, I will extend my arguments all the way through to the last round. 1. Land The mongols did not conquer more land than the Brits, the Brits obliterated the Mongols in land mass. The Mongol Empire at it's height covered 9,300,000 sq mi of land, or 24,000,000 km. The British empire, on the other hand, covered 13,012,000 sq mi of land, or 33,700,000 KM. This is quite a big difference in land. 2. Population The British Empire reigned over 458,000,000 at their height, the Mongols only reigned over 110,000,000. The Brits therefore reigned over 4 times more people than the Mongols. 3. GDP/Wealth The Mongol empire is not even listed on the top 15 empires in GDP, Britain is though, and is ranked at #1 with a GDP of $918.7 Billion. 4. How Long Did the Empire Last? The Mongol Empire only lasted a mere 162 years (1206-1368). The British Empire, on the other hand, is technically still existent today with the 14 overseas territories, their first annexation was of scotland in 1708, so this means they have technically existed for 304 years. If you want to be realistic, they really officially ceded to have major territories after they gave control of Hong Kong to China in 1997. So either 289 years, or 304 years, either one is more than 120 years than the Mongol empire. 5. Military Might The Mongol Military, even with their 110,000,000 subjects, only had a 105,000 person military, this means only roughly 0.01% of their population was part of the military. The british empire at it's height reached 3.5 million people, or 0.08% of their population. Links: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mongolian Empire was the strongest state in the world history.

A few warnings: - I am allowed to mention specific empires that could be superior to the Mongolian Empire, and give info on them about why they were superior. - Since my opponent did not directly identify what strength was, he forefits the right to let me pinpoint what it is: - Military Strength (Size, tech and skill) - Economy (GDP) - Resources - Political Climate - Significant of conquered nations - Geographical significance - How long the empire lasted - Population of homeland and conquered areas - Regional Influence - Global Influence - Research&Development in non-military tech - Reach of Empire (in KM/Miles) - Stability (was the empire under the constant threat of domination by another empire/nation) He can add his own factors, but can not say mine are not legitimate, since he did not post his factors. Since my opponent is the instigator, I will give him the first opportunity to argue his point.
Deism is more Reasonable than any Revealed Religion

This will be a debate on whether or not Deism is more reasonable than the revealed religion of Con's choice. A revealed religion is a religion founded primarily on the revelations of God to humankind. These include Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and more. The burden of proof will be on Con, as Con will be the one attempting to prove that their religion is true, and I will be negating their claims. I will allow Con to start off the first round with his or her points.Rules:-No trolling-Only accept if you are willing to debate all the way through. I really don't want to wait 3 days for a round forfeit. I hope for a fun and fair debate!
Deism is more Reasonable than any Revealed Religion

I have given my best arguemnt possible. I have given clear historical proof of the life of Jesus Christ and his lesson's, but my opponent has argued every single possible proof i have given. No matter what proof i give, my opponent believes truly that his belief is better, he belives that his historical understanding is greater than that of the proven historical minds that have granted our generation with knowledge of our past. There is no further evidence I can provide you all with. All I can say is vote Con because I have truly proved that Deism is a truly unreasonable belief. Thanks again to my opponent for a great debate.