BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
president obama's plan for increasing troops in afghanistan is in the u.s. best interest

Ill shall now rebutt my opponents points My opponents first point is that the war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional. First, this war is not the following resolution, I shall state it again Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States best interest. This following resolution does not say anything about war, but simply just adding the additional troops. Like I said I believe in point number 2 that we are not just sending troops for the war, but also to help the Afghans rebuild after something we did that should never have happened. My opponents second point was the addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense. Why does it matter that the remaining Al Qaeda numbers is less than 100? We still do not know what they sustain and how powerful they are, if we do not send the troops and if they are very powerful then the troops there will have no back up and they might get all killed off, you do not want that do you? Also that my opponent has said that this debate focuses soley on the 30,000 troops being sent to Afghanistan which is true, then why would you bring up that there is only less than 100 terrorists in Afghanistan? Please state your proof. And now my opponents last point is that we should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's. This 30,000 "surge" will bring US troop levels to approximately those of the Soviets when they occupied Afghanistan with disastrous result back in the 1980s. I would like to say that I think that the Soviets were fighting a different terrorist organization but how do you know that the Soviets have lost the war in the 1980's? State your proof and how will it end up similarly unsuccessful? Like I said earlier on that the Soviets may be fighting different terrorist organizations and perhaps the terrorist organization is alot stronger that of Al Qaeda.
president obama's plan for increasing troops in afghanistan is in the u.s. best interest

Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States best interest. My opponent's first point is that The U. S. should finish the war in Afghanistan in order to have less deaths. But if we don't send in any more troops then Al Qaeda will think that they have won the war since we are retreating from them. Also it will just be like sending a message to them saying that we are afraid of you and that you can attack us all you like. So that will cause more destruction than sending troops and defending ourselves. My opponent's second point is that Sending troops can make the U. S. make more friends and allies. This point does not make sense, because what does befriending with the Afghans has to do with terrorist. And being friends with them has nothing to do with Obama's plan (as stated in the resolution) for increasing troops. And just to clarify it's not that there are 100 terrorists in Afghanistan, it is 100 troops and that is a lot. So if we don't do anything about it we will be under attack. And how does it improve our economy? Please explain. My opponent's third point is that the 30,000 troops would be slowing down terrorist organizations. Well, it is better than just doing nothing is it not? This is the only thing that the United States can do. We are slowing them down and it is better than nothing. Even if the chances of winning are very low it is better than doing nothing and let the terrorists grow. My opponents have not yet rebutted my case, so my points stand strong, while his points are already attacked.
president obama's plan for increasing troops in afghanistan is in the u.s. best interest

First, I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and now I shall state the following resolution My partner and I will be standing in firm affirmation of the following resolution: Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the u. s. best interest. First I would like to state my following contentions. 1. The U. S. should finish the war in Afghanistan in order to have less deaths. 2. Sending troops can make the U. S. make more friends and allies 3. the 30,000 troops would be slowing down terrorist organizations. Pro 1. The U. S. should finish the war in Afghanistan in order to have less deaths. The USA obviously needs to send more troops into Afghanistan in order to destroy the Al Qaeda people so that they can stop killing innocent U. S. citizens as well as the Afghan citizens. Since we want to send more troops ( judging that this is in the United States best interest ) then obviously this would be a good idea. Clearly if we send more troops we can also finish the war so that people can return to there daily lives instead of killing off other people. Some people might think that this would cause more deaths but since like my opponent has clearly stated that there is only less than 100 Al Qaeda troops, this should not be much of a problem to end this war quicker and so we could also draw our troops back home to the U. S. Now for my second point 2. Sending troops can make the U. S. make more friends and allies Since we are sending troops to Afghanistan we are negotiating peace which would give us a chance to befriend the Afghans which would help us gain allies to corner and slow down the process of the terrorist of increasing considering the fact that unfortunately we can not destroy terrorists once and for all but this could help us improve things for them and to show the Afghans that this was all a mistake and that this would never happen again. Like my opponents said, that there are only less than 100 terrorists in there. We are not there just to destroy the remaining terrorists, we are also here to help improve their economy judging that their economy is in the toilets. And finally I would like to add that the 30,000 troops would be slowing down terrorist organizations. Terrorists are constantly growing. Unfortunately they can only be stopped but never destroyed. But since we are sending this 30,000 troops into Afghanistan and destroying the remaining terrorists, we would be destroying their mission of trying to take hold of Afghanistan. And if we stop them ( this may relate to point #1 ) then their will be a lesser chance that they will plot another attack on the U. S. similar like the twin tower incident which goes to less deaths. If we do not send the additional troops we might be able to win but the chances are very slim so I would say that sending the 30,000 troops would be in the United States best interest. And before I am done I would like to repeat the following resolution: Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the u. s. best interest.
It is unreasonable for a completely benevolent god to sentence all non-believers to damnation.

The comparison between not believing in a car and not believing in god are not equivalent. I can touch, feel, see, and unfortunately taste a car, while the same can't verifiably be said for god. Therefore, while a person who denies the existence of a car that they can see and feel is delusional, someone who doesn't believe in god (though not necessarily actively denying the possible existence of one) is merely skeptical. "God gave them chances and put others on their paths to tell them about God so it is not even Gods fault. " Simply having people tell someone that god exists should not be enough to fully convince them. I'm not saying that absolute proof is required because in many of the ideas that we take for granted there is no such proof. However, unlike in many of those ideas (gravitation, evolution, etc. ) there isn't really much evidence that would point towards the existence of a god. Therefore, if god has not provided people who question the way the universe works with indications that he/she exists, then it is god's fault that they don't believe. In regards to the statement about god not being able to come in contact with sin, in what way are believers less sinful than non-believers? If it's because, as I've heard it described before, accepting Jesus as your savior and believing in god absolves you of sin then I refer back to my previous paragraph where I say that it's god's fault that non-believers don't believe. To further explain my idea that it is not the fault of the individual that they don't believe in god, I will explain my own situation. My dad has always been the kind of person to question most everything and anything he hears. Because he has been a huge influence on me through us talking about viewpoints and the like on hunting trips and just in idle conversation, it naturally follows that I have developed a similar mindset of questioning the world and trying to the best of my ability not to simply accept that something is true just because I was told so. If my mindset has been molded, not by choice but by my surroundings, to be skeptical, then how is it my fault (and therefore a logical reason for damnation) that I don't believe in a being when I have nothing to indicate that he/she exists?
It is unreasonable for a completely benevolent god to sentence all non-believers to damnation.

I do not find it unreasonable that God would do such a thing. If the people did not believe in God in the first place then why would they be allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven? A person who does not believe in something should not be allowed to have or enter it. If for example I were to stop believing that a car is real or never believed cars were real then would I be able to accept a car as a prize? No because I would believe the were lying. That is the same thing that happens with God. If a person were to not believe in him or his kingdom of heaven then they should not be allowed to reach it if they do not accept it as truth after the reign of the anti Christ. God gave them chances and put others on their paths to tell them about God so it is not even Gods fault. A perfect God cannot come into contact, let alone live for eternity, with a sinful man. That is the exact reason for Satan, or the devil, and his angels to be cast to the earth. He cast them there since he could not live with sin. Sin would remove his sinless purity. He is perfect and cannot survive with imperfection in heaven. A man who betrayed God with sin is Satan's blood. That is why Satan tempts us with sin. If we are Satan's belongings we live in eternity with him. The same way that in the Chronicles of Narnia when Edmund betrayed Aslan he was considered the White Witches "blood" and "belonging." That is also why he was thrown in jail which was a symbol for hell. God cannot take you back from Satan if you do not ask for forgiveness. With these points I state that this resolution must and will stand. And yes I would like to view this debate in a Christian viewpoint not a catholic viewpoint but a baptist or presbyterian one.
It is unreasonable for a completely benevolent god to sentence all non-believers to damnation.

Definitions from Dictionary.com: Unreasonable - not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational Benevolent - characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings If my opponent wants to restrict our discussion to the god of Christianity then I would be fine with that. Let me know if there are any further parameters that need identifying in the comments section as this is my first time setting up a debate. We will start debating in round 2. Good luck!
Quickfire Debate - Night 1

Thanks Pro. Rebuttals: Cost benefit analysis If Pro is going to do a cost-benefit analysis then he needs to consider the impacts that poaching of endangered animals has and weigh them up. It is difficult to qualtify the effects of poaching, but the two most well-known are those of blue whales and rhinos, which originally had populations in the hundreds of thousands, which are now just a fraction of that.[ http://www.rhinodotcom.com...][http://en.wikipedia.org...] Secondly, Pro does not weigh up the impact of successful aid to the actual economic input of aid. For example, one thousand programs of aid with only one success story isn’t particularly good cost-benefit trade. Pro has not assessed the cost. Furthermore, the very reason why many of these animals are endangered in the first place is because of human activities, especially in poaching and loss of habitat. Furthermore it is not appropriate to use today’s figures, since they represent a suppressed population. A flourishing population would be significantly larger, thus we are not just denying the animals that are immediately killed of their lives, but of the entire putative population that it would be if it recovered (hundreds of thousands-millions). Humanity Pro argues smallpos and tuberculosis is a problem, yet smallpox has been eradicated! It no longer exists!![http://www.who.int...] Thus Pro is talking nonsense, furthermore Pro is overly simplifying his numbers., Just because there are 2 million people with AIDS, etc, doesn’t mean the impact of aid is to eliminate all 2 million. We know that aid for AIDS has been rather ineffective when we have implemented it.[ http://www.ipsnews.net...][http://www.fas.org...]
Quickfire Debate - Night 1

!C1:CON says that we have an interest in preserving the environment and habitat. Sure, but does extinction of endangered species affect our environment and habitat? Between 200 to 2000 species go extinct every year[1]. This periodic extinction has not caused any significant known problems to the functionality of the world. Thus really, the transition from being endangered to being extinct for these endangered species really doesn't have any negative effects that are worth our concern. Thus even if we have an interest in preserving environment and habitat, endangered species are not included in this concern!C2:I will let the readers weigh this argument against mine on humanity. Are human lives or animal lives more important? I assert that animal lives are more important and that, since endangered species are by definition quantitatively few in numbers, the milllins of human lives at stake in foreign aid, when weighed against the animal lives of endangered species, are much more significant. Endangered animals just aren't worth more concern than the people whose lives can be saved by foreign aid.!C3:As I've pointed out, 200-2000 species go extinct every year. There has been no correlation to the extinction of these species and environmental damage or loss of habitat. Not that it matters. Human lives are simply more important. Why should we care about endangered species and their relation to genetic diversity? In fact, they're being endangered is part of the evolutionary cycle [1] http://wwf.panda.org...;
Quickfire Debate - Night 1

Thanks Pro. Especially for instigating a topic I know nothing about. Woot! C1. Human Natural Values The institutes that donate aid to these countries have an interest in preserving the environment and habitat of our planet. With the provision of aid, we have a tool at our disposal for exercising our national self-interests. We do this already with other considerations, such as pollution, global warming, etc, which do not directly affect humans economically. Thus our values are less myopic than humanitarian. C2. Animal Rights By providing aid at the expense of animal well-being we in turn make the statement that we put animal rights and values below our own. But there is no apparent reason why we should do this. Animals are known to experience pain and suffering, and thus very well-established ethical systems such as altruism or utilitarianism would equally regard animal suffering with humans.[http://en.wikipedia.org...] C3. Depletion of Genetic Diversity It is a human-self interest scientifically to maintain a large bio-diversity, since this allows for greater scope in gene therapy, research, as well as loss of habitat.
Quickfire Debate - Night 1

Cost benefit analysis America ought to provide foreign aid to countries that kill and sell items from endangered animals. Foreign aid is responsible for saving human lives. ' "The lifesaving power of aid is so obvious that even aid critics acknowledge it. In the middle of his book White Man’s Burden, William Easterly (one of the best-known aid critics) lists several global health successes that were funded by aid. Here are a few highlights: “A vaccination campaign in southern Africa virtually eliminated measles as a killer of children.” “An international effort eradicated smallpox worldwide.” “A program to control tuberculosis in China cut the number of cases by 40 percent between 1990 and 2000.” “A regional program to eliminate polio in Latin America after 1985 has eliminated it as a public health threat in the Americas.” "[1]While endangered animals only number a few, they are not as important as the lives of the millions of people that foreign aid helps to save.HumanityHumanity is important.Are we really going to let children die of smallpox and tuberculosis because of a few endangered species being poached? I assert that human lives, especially the fact that there are quantitatively more human lives (2 million people suffer from AiDS, malaria, etc.[2], and foreign aid really helps to alleviate these problems) than there are endangered species' lives at stake. Biodiversity of these commercializable species are not our concern. We simply don't have the luxury nor the obligation toward these species. Tigers are endangered, so what?[1] http://dish.andrewsullivan.com...;[2] http://www.theguardian.com...;
Quickfire Debate - Night 1

Quickfire.10 minute debate.2000 character limit.'Select Winner' voting.The topic is chosen from one of the 60 listed here:http://712educators.about.com...;via a random number generator.21 folks!I, as instigator, will be PRO.The topic shall be: Should America provide foreign aid to countries that kill and sell items from endangered animals. As PRO, I will be arguing that America ought to provide foreign aid to countries that kill and sell items from endangered animalsCON will be arguing that America ought not to provide foreign aid to countries that kill and sell items derived from endangered animals.StructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Constructive ArgumentsR3. Arguments and RebuttalsR4. Rebuttals, closing statementsRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. Any rule infraction is frowned upon and is considered a forfeit.Note: impossible to accept. I'm leaving this up for personal reference and will open the debate up later.Real-time communications is a must. I prefer to use this google hangout:https://plus.google.com...
Why We Need Profanity Warning Labels on Books to Protect Our Young People

Hi My position is that it should be up to the businesses to decide whether or not they want a rating system. It should be the parent's, and the individual's responsibility to research what they are buying before they purchase it. Regardless of what the material in question is, it is up to the companies to choose if they want to put a rating system to warn customers of the adult content of what they are buying. To hit on your example, it might not be profitable to Penguin Publishing to exclude a rating system from books. If there is no rating system, it is likely they will lose profit and possibly go out of business. If you buy the book for your child, unknown to it's "vulgar" content. You will tell your friends and family not to buy it, then they will do the same. Therefore the company loses potential buyers for their book. Sure they deserve warning labels, and because of that, they will lose profit just like a movie theater would if they decide not to post ratings for the movies they show. It should not be the government's job to force companies to have a rating system. The market will punish those who don't anyway
Sea lions are seals

It's not a truism. I'd have to take the Con side and show you why it isn't, but I'll give you a few hints.Look more closely and be more imaginative than googling and using the wikipedia for less than a minute. Realize that encyclopedias and dictionaries are descriptive and establish only presumptively what things are and what they are not. Words mean only the meaning that we give them. There is a higher authority on what something is and what something isn't than a dictionary. That authority is what the majority of people actually think they mean in that particular region; The fact that so many people accept these debates so readily is a significant indication that there is substantial disagreement about this issue.
Resolved: A just government should provide health care to its citizens.

"This debate is currently not acceptable. Comment here or PM me in order to let me know you are serious about this. This is a series of debates that I am going to be starting in order to further my skills in this form of debate before competing next year. "I did not say that posting in comments allows you to accept this debate. I said that if you wish to accept, you should comment or PM me. The link between commenting and accepting the debate was to be set by me and me only, and accepting this debate was not fair. If you would like to debate this resolution later I would be glad to but unfortunately I do not have the time right now to do such a thing. Additionally, if you would prefer the pro side instead of con or would rather stick to con please let me know. I would be glad to have a debate with you but not right now.DO NOT VOTE ON THIS DEBATE!
Resolved: A just government should provide health care to its citizens.

Well first off, I'd like to start by defining government and healthcare. (1) : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control 2obsolete : moral conduct or behavior : discretion 3a : the office, authority, or function of governing b obsolete : the term during which a governing official holds office 4:the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : rule 5a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out 6: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency b capitalized : the executive branch of the United States federal government c capitalized : a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs: : such a group in a parliamentary system constituted by the cabinet or by the ministry: administration 4b Healthcare: efforts made to maintain or restore health especially by trained and licensed professionals "usually hyphenated when used attributively. Fist, I would like to start by saying that nowhere in the definition of government does it say it's the government's job to provide for healthcare. I would also like to point out that governments throughout history have never been entirely responsible for the healthcare of it's citizens. Healthcare should be left to the private market. Keeping government in charge of healthcare would cost up to half a trillion dollars of taxpayer dollars (2). I would aslo like to point out from Forbes that according to their statistic, one in four patients come under some form of harm on their visit to the doctor. If healthcare was kept in the hands of the private market, it would cost less taxpayer dollars and because of natural competition, there would be a higher degree of care. Vote Con. 1. Merriam-Webster.com 2.http://www.forbes.com...