BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States of America should recognize the Federal State of Novorossiya.

Like I said in round 1 the Federal State of Novorossiya a.k.a. New Russia is the confederation formed between the Ukrainian Separatists. New Russia is an unrecognized state and I don't think that the United States of America should recognize the declared for the following reasons. On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain, and the United States of America signed a treaty called the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances . The treaty had 6 agreements which are: 1.Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders. 2.Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine. 3.Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics. 4.Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". 5.Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine. 6.Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments. The countries would follow these rules as long as the newly formed Ukraine got rid of all of the nuclear weapons that belonged to the former USSR. If the United States were to recognize the Pro Russian Separatists as a country they would be breaking the 1st agreement of this treaty. Also by recognizing the rebels as a country America would take the side of the separatists therefore breaking agreement #2 by using force in favor of the separatists. Russia is backing these separatists therefore breaking agreements 1 and 2. Russia also used economic pressure against Ukraine when Ukraine attempted to join the EU and the NATO. By recognizing Novorossiya the USA would be supporting Russia and there actions against Ukraine
The United States of America should recognize the Federal State of Novorossiya.

I accept your challenge! Thank you for posting a very interesting topic that I am following as well in the news :). I am looking forward to a great debate with a fellow conservative. I hope we can have a good debate, and each learn a lot. I am looking forward to this greatly, as this is a very interesting topic that I am following along with you. Again, thank you posting this, and I am looking forward to a great debate with you, my fellow conservative, Kylar
The United States of America should recognize the Federal State of Novorossiya.

For those who don't know what the Federal State of Novorossiya ( also known as the Union of People's Republics or New Russia) is the confederation that the Ukrainian rebels formed. It is an unrecognized country. I don't believe that the United States should recognize the Federal State of Novorossiya. The 1st round is acceptance only. The 2nd and 3rd rounds are stating our arguments and rebuttals . Round 4 is conclusion. Have fun.
Barack Obama should not have been Time's Person of the Year 2008

I would like to begin with saying I have nothing against Barack Obama. I am not out to ruin his name or say he shouldn't be president. However, I do not think Obama deserves, for any reason, to be Time's Person of the Year 2008. Now first, what is Time's Person of the Year? According to Time, while discussing their choice for Vladimir Putin in 2007, the Person of the Year is neither good, nor bad. Simply influential. That would explain why Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were People of the Year. Second, is Barack Obama the most influential person in the world? No. He is not. He has done nothing yet besides getting elected. In 4 years from now, should Obama be Person of the Year? Quite possibly. But not now. Here is a Time article entitled, "Why We Chose Obama." I read it. I could not find one good reason why they chose him. http://www.time.com... And third, who is more influential? There are many more people more influential. One person I think that stands out is French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Here is the Time link to Sarkozy: http://www.time.com... It gives 4 clear reasons why Sarkozy was influential in 2008. He is a clear leader, thinks outside the box, has elevated France to a very significant country, and as President of the European Union he took action. Is Sarkozy perfect? No. But he is definitely more influential than Obama.
Geopolitical Strategy Shift: India

Specifically, Resolved: The U.S. should shift its geopolitical strategy to create a stronger alliance with India instead of Pakistan.Definitions1. Geopolitics: politics relating to certain regions or geographies throughout the globe. 2. Strategy: practical assessment used to attain a goal3. Alliance: economic, military and political cooperationRules1. No semantics2. No new arguments in the last round3. Drops are concessions4. Forfeits are auto-losses*Argumentation starts Rd. 2Good luck to my opponent!
Gay marriage is against the Bible.

"This debate is about it in a Biblical context." In that case, gay marriage cannot be considered to be against the Bible, as the Biblical canon does not recognize it in the first place. While the Bible doesn't exactly provide a definition of marriage, it never explicitly mentions same-sex unions being touted as marriages. "If you are not going to commit homosexual acts, what is the point of homosexual marriage?" The answer to that wouldn't be relevant to the overall debate. Gay marriage itself does not constitute a Biblical transgression, as it simply isn't acknowledged by the Biblical texts. One can (quite convincingly) argue that the Bible opposes homosexuality, but that is obviously not the same thing as the legal institution of gay marriage. It goes without saying that homosexual marriage can occur without homosexual activity, and vice versa.
Gay marriage is against the Bible.

"That passage seems like it is obviously stating that gay marriage is wrong." It isn't. Nothing about the passage refers to the legal institution of marriage. It is condemning condemning homosexual acts - which are very obviously not the same as a legal institution. The implications of perceived religious implications (correct or otherwise) are generally meaningless for a secular state. Unless you are arguing about gay marriage within the Biblical context (which would be pointless, as it gay "marriage" wouldn't even be recognized there), none of the given excerpts given support PRO's interpretation.
Gay marriage is against the Bible.

As a Christian, I can't see how the Bible can be interpreted to say that Gay marriage is a good thing, yet I've seen some statistics that over 50% of certain groups of priests are Gay. So here's my first argument: "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:24-27 That passage seems like it is obviously stating that gay marriage is wrong. I'm interested to hear the replies.
China(Pro) vs UK(con)

I'm not able to copy and paste and my computer keeps on crashing. I will leave a link to my forces but although he has no obligation I would really appreciate it if my opponent would state my forces for me. April 27th (2019): So china can work on a group of large engineering projects, they cut exports to by insane amounts their biggest exporter - the UK. April 29th: David Cameron announces he will step down as party leader before the general election. The SNP (lead by Nicola Sturgeon), Lib Dems (Alric8), Green party (Natalie Bennett), and Plaid Cymru (Leanne Wood), form an alliance - specifically anti UKIP, but also to see if they could win the election. April 30th: The UK is in political turmoil - the Tories are quickly becoming unpopular. All four feel very strongly about avoiding conflict, none want to renew TRIDENT. May 3rd: China's biggest period of expenditure, mostly on Sky City, a 900m tall skyscraper designed by Adrian Smith. In sudden debt (but very temporary), they look to the UK, who in return offer a deal forcing them to pay more for labour and earn less money. China have no option to accept. Their working population's morale soar, as well as the population of the UK. People's views of the UK improved, the only exception are the people negatively effected by 'the Chinese anti-statute of labourers'; The people in charge of China. The UK have to mobilise. They order more options for F-35's and Eurofighters. May 5th: The UK cannot launch a cyber-attack, but they can set up filters that make UK cyberspace inaccessible. If it is touched then a mini-cyber attack will be launched making it very hard to access cyberspace. The UK have immense defence plans, cyber warfare seems completely pointless, as it is impossible for either to cripple the cyberspace. May the 7th 2020 Is the election date (if the debate gets that far), here are my forces: http://www.globalfirepower.com...
China(Pro) vs UK(con)

As defender you could have made the first move and stated how the war started. China Total population: 1,355.692,576 Available manpower: 749,610,775 Fit for service: 618,588,627 Reaching age annually: 19,538.534 Frontline Personnel: 2,333,000 Reserve Personnel: 2,300,000 Tanks: 9,150 AFVs: 4,788 SPGs: 1,710 Towed Artillery: 6,246 MLRS: 1,770 Total aircraft: 2,860 Fighters/interceptors: 1,066 Fixed wing aircraft:1,311 Transport aircraft: 876 Trainer aircraft: 352 Helicopters: 908 attack helicopters: 196 Navy: 673 aircraft carriers: 1 frigates: 47 destroyers: 25 corvettes: 23 submarines: 67 mine warfare crafts: 6 coastal defense: 11 oil production: 4,372,000 bbl/day oil consumption: 9,500,000 bbl/day proven oil reserves: 17,300,000,000 labor force: 797,600,000,000 merchant marine strength: 2,030 Major ports and terminals: 15 roadway: 3,860,800 railway: 86,000 airports: 507 Defense budget: $145,000,000,000 debt: $863,200,000,000 reserves or foreign exchange and gold: $3,821,000,000,000 purchasing power parity: $13,390,000,000,000 Square land Area: 9,596,961 km coastline: 14,500 km shared border: 22,457 km waterways: 110,000 Since this will be your first war debate that will give you a true challenge I will let you make the first move of showing how the war started along with initial preparations.
China(Pro) vs UK(con)

I will make this quick and I am sad my opponent deactivated his account. He was good, he really was. July 5 With the lack of response from the UK China raids London killing all their official. China declares ownership of Britain. Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland are given their independence. China strengthens ties with the US and secretly from a treaty to share the spoils in they attack North Korea to stop them from threatening South Korea and America. They plan to do it in a few years. July 10 All territories Britain has , China now has control of everything Britain had besides Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland which immediately let Ireland annex them. I win although I am sad.
They shouldn't need a recount

Round 1Arguments1. Everyone has the right to a recountThe law guarantees the right to a recount. This recount was asked for because Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were close enough to warrant a recount. The recount effort was able to raise enough funds to start the recount, so there are obviously enough people who want the recount.Rebuttals1. Argument doesn't connect to issueMy opponent's argument does not connect to the issue in the slightest. Their points are either false or irrelevant
Is child abuse beneficial for disciplining or abusive behaviour

The difference between child abuse and child discipline may seem obvious to most. However, to an inexperienced parent who isn't sure where to draw the line, there may be some confusion. Or to extremists on both sides of the child-rearing fence, there may seem to be no difference. Child discipline is - in a word - training. God has given parents a duty to train and teach their children appropriate behaviors and actions. In fact, we come into the world as little howling bundles of selfishness. Parents must invest their time, and yes - patience, in training their children, displaying lots of love and modeling exemplary behaviors for their children to mirror. Nobody said the job would be easy!
Is child abuse beneficial for disciplining or abusive behaviour

Yes that's true to discipline them physical gestures should not be against them. and so as I said sexually harassing a child is incongruous and in today's day and age parents or stepparents or anybody for that matter is illegal to proceed in taking care of their child who have been harassed in any way and so lawyers would take those children and keep them in a safer environment to spend the rest of their lives in with others affected or new parents
Is child abuse beneficial for disciplining or abusive behaviour

Certain actions involve natural consequences. If a child touches a hot burner, for example, they will get burned. When an action results in pain, we learn pretty quickly not to repeat it. That is common sense. Example: Then there is an imposed consequence. If Johnny takes baby sister's toys, talk to him and/or give him "time out." He should not be beaten and screamed at for this behavior; he needs to be taught that following our own natural desires is not always the right thing to do. In fact, it is usually not. Imposed consequences help train children in self-discipline
Is child abuse beneficial for disciplining or abusive behaviour

Most disciplinary techniques or punishments are focused on instilling a sense of right and wrong in a child. Obviously, you cannot hope to curb unacceptable behavior by meting out a harsh punishment that is more likely to seem unreasonable and unacceptable to the child. Another aspect to parental punishments is the justification to oneself that, "my strict parents often used these punishments on me and that is why I turned out fine, therefore, this has to be the correct punishment". The authoritarian style of parenting is thus passed down through several generations across cultures. Not that there is a total lack of mutual love and respect between authoritarian parents and their children, but there's a strong possibility of the bond between parents and children falling apart in due course. Children who may have conceded in response to punishment temporarily, and appeared to have been "set right" by parents demanding obedience, find that adolescence and early adulthood bring back those memories triggering rebellious behavior or feelings of strong resentment against the "perpetrators".
Homosexual acts are immoral

Thanks, again, for your rebuttal.Laws of the universe do imply a law maker, and a law maker must be intelligent. This is obvious and intuitive, contrary to my opponent's claim. I do not need to defend the self-evident fact that laws can't create themselves.My opponent attempts to distinguish between the concepts of the creator of the universe and God. This is an illogical semantical argument. An intelligent designer of the universe must be God, for God is simply a more personal title for the intelligent designer.Pantheism is not a coherent alternative to theism within my argument. God, as an individual being, cannot be composed of other beings. That makes no sense.Pandeism and Deism are also not coherent alternatives to theism in my argument. Theism is proven by Christianity, which in turn is proven by the resurrection of Jesus (who was crucified and speared) three days after his death, as recorded in the Bible. (1) The Bible is a reliable source because it is the best-selling history book of all time. (2)(3) Jesus' resurrection is proof of God's interest in human affairs.My opponent, were he to claim that theism is not true, would have the burden of proof; the status quo says that theism is true. (4)My opponent wrongly tries to shift the burden of proof onto me to show that my God exists; my God is the same God as everyone else's, regardless of the fact that their descriptions of him may vary. The description of your mother may differ depending on whether you or your father is the one making it, but this doesn't affect the identity of your mother.My opponent claims that the description of God by liberal Christians wouldn't suggest any condemnation of homosexual acts. This is irrelevant. By definition, liberal Christians are open to new behavior or opinions on God and willing to discard traditional beliefs of God. In short, liberal Christianity is a lie; it is a heresy that does not reflect God's true nature. The fact remains that God destroyed two cities partly because of their homosexual acts. This proves God's condemnation of homosexual acts, and thus, the immorality of such acts.My opponent may argue that it wasn't homosexual acts that are recorded in the Bible. That would be false. In Genesis 19, men of Sodom demanded that Lot's seemingly male guests be handed over for sex. These men did not accept Lot's daughters. (6) Further proof of the homosexual nature of their sin is in the Book of Jude, which describes the men of Sodom as "indulging in unnatural lust;" (8) this unnatural lust is described as an "abomination" in Ezekial. (7)An explicit condemnation of homosexual acts between males is made in Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination [...]" (5) Thanks for this debate. I digress.(1) Matthew 28:1-9(2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...(4) http://www.adherents.com...(5) Leviticus 18:22(6) Gensis 19:8-13(7) Ezekial 16:50(8) Jude 1:7
Homosexual acts are immoral

God's existence.Pro's argument is essentially as follows:P1: Experience of the universe suggests an intelligent designer.P2: If an intelligent designer exists, it is God.C: God exists.P1 itself isn't obviously or intuitively true, making an argument in its support necessary. But Pro's only line of support is in his own interpretation of experience. He claims that temporality and physical laws imply a designer. But why? Furthermore, Pro fails to justify theism generally if his argument is successful. Pantheism, pandeism (religions based on the conception of God as existing within and throughout the universe but who doesn't interact in human affairs) and deism are still coherent alternatives.On Pro's conclusion, his argument (even if successful) fails to successfully justify the existence of *his* conception of God. Let's assume for arguments sake for a moment that an intelligent designer does exist. This still doesn't go so far as to show that (a) this God interacts in human affairs/ has interest in how we act or (b) that God is the God of orthodox Christianity.Which God?The fact that Pro thinks only one God exists is a non-sequitor in relation to this point. The point isn't that multiple Gods can exist simultaneously (this wasn't my point at all actually), but that Pro hasn't forwarded a reason for us to think *his* God (the one which supposedly condemns homosexuality) is the ONE that exists. The conception of God by liberal Christianity/Islam/Judaism or by deism and pantheism wouldn't suggest any condemnation of homosexual acts whereas the conception of God by more orthodox theism would. Pro hasn't given us any reason to prefer the existence of the latter type as opposed to the former.Condemnation.Refer to the first point wherein Pro failed to justify the existence of the Christian God.
Homosexual acts are immoral

Thanks for your rebuttal.1) God exists. The temporal dimension, together with all its laws, implies the existence of an intelligent creator. This being would necessarily exist outside the bounds of space and time; it is the cause of the temporal dimension, and thus, the only uncaused cause. It must be intelligent, because the laws it made imply an intelligent law maker.2) Con implies that Islam, Christianity, and Deism worship different gods. This is impossible, since there is only one God.3) Proof that God condemns homosexuality can be found in the historical account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as written in the Old Testament. (1)(2) One of the reasons God destroyed the two cities was because of the homosexual acts of their people.I await your response.(1) Genesis 19:1-13(2) Jude 1:7
Homosexual acts are immoral

Since Pro lacks a justification of anything related to his case, I need only call out his lack of warrant. 1) Pro lacks a compelling proof of God's existence in the first place. If he can't show that God exists than his "argument" amounts to little more than what he thinks a fictional character might think. 2) Pro lacks a coherent definition of "God". Is it the God of Islam, Christianity, deism,.....? Without a definition we can't theorize as to what such a being would condemn or not condemn even if Pro can offer up a proof of its existence. 3) Pro lacks any justification as to his claim that "God" condemms homosexuality. Even if we grant that it exists and that it exists in whatever religious sense Pro claims, we're still left wondering *why* Pro thinks it condemns homosexuality. Once Pro can get his case in order we'll be able to have a meaningful debate. Until then, this is just knocking presuppositions against one another.