BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A-10 Thunderbolt Mk. 2 VS F-35 Lightning Mk. 2

Henry Ford once said "If I had listened to what people wanted, they would have said a faster horse!" whereas the majority of military professionals advocating for the A-10 nowadays continue to incorreclty assume that the airforce will continue to operate in the same 80s and 90s tech threat environment that the A-10 was designed for. Word of caution to all, it's not. The A-10 has proved its vulnerability and ineffectiveness against surface to air missile threats in Desert Storm and the Iraq War (loosing a total of four airframes) where we should not confuse this facet for evidence of survivability. The point of the F-35 Lightning will be to not get hit in the first place. The A-10's much acclaimed CAS mission that requires low speed loitering and oversize gatling guns can also be accomplished by the AC-130 gunship, Predator drones, or Army attack helicopters armed with hellfire missiles and 20mm cannons. There simply is no reason now to keep the A-10 in service at the cost of more F-35s when three branches of the military (Army, Airforce, and Marines) are badly in need of newer aircraft to replace thier aging fleets. We can thus believe that the F-35 is better airframe for the US military. -- Congrats to Pro for his work and a side well argued.
A-10 Thunderbolt Mk. 2 VS F-35 Lightning Mk. 2

So without further hesitation, I would like to summarize my points and why I think the A-10 should not be retired. -Its unparalleled when it comes to CAS missions, the A-10 has been quoted by air force brass to do the dirty job "excellently", while other planes (such as the F-35) will be doing it "reasonably well". The warthog has saved allied lives and took those of the enemy with great prejudice. -The A-10s survivability is paramount. It's true that the original Warthogs lacked the capabilities to find targets at night or in adverse weather, but today's A-10C has digital avionics and targeting sensors that greatly enhance its capabilities. And the idea that the A-10 is not survivable is laughable, given the aircraft's original task of killing Soviet tanks; the Warthogs would have faced a plethora of Warsaw Pact anti-aircraft gun and missile systems in performing its role. - The F-35 is not suitable to replace it because of: cost, the F-35 is over 60 million dollars and that's just its flyaway cost, CAS capability, the F-35 will not be able to directly provide CAS (the air force probably won't let it fly under 10,000 feet because of its thin-skin), leaving our troops without support within 500m of their position, due to the F-35 only being able to drop bombs or fire missiles. The F-35 only carries enough ammo for 2-3 "trigger pulls", the A-10 potentially has a dozen. - The Ac-130 would not be a suitable replacement because it is to thin-skinned and to slow to outrun MANPADs, at night time for specops it is awesome but during large battles during the day, well the A-10 can't be beat. -Finally I believe the A-10 should not be retired because it's what the grunts want, those who truly win our wars. If anything I believe the law dictating whether the army should have fixed wing aircraft should be repealed and the army should get the A-10 Thunderbolt.
A-10 Thunderbolt Mk. 2 VS F-35 Lightning Mk. 2

The ultimate 21st century air-threat environment... You seem to be under the misconception that the A-10 can only survive under low threat conditions. Again it was designed to survive the Fulda Gap, not really a hospitable place, one teaming with Soviet armor, infantry equipped with MANPADs, these armies supported by the Soviet air force and anti-air regiments, all while NATO air forces were struggling for air superiority. Only 5 A-10s have been destroyed in combat (only ONE pilot has DIED), but the first four planes were destroyed during the first Gulf war, a place not exactly lacking of SAMs, but they were inevitability pulled off the line but only after 8,100 combat sorties.144-0 kill/death ratio I didn't know that about the F-22 and that is amazing.Continued software updates DAS is in later versions of the software, how long tell it's operational? The F-35's gun already won't be working until 2019.(http://www.thedailybeast.com...)Comparing driving an automobile to flying a jet aircraft is like trying to compare an apple to an orange. The point of this example is objects are very blurry to the eye when traveling at 60, let alone flying at 1000 mph at high altitudes, little objects on the ground will be hard to identify, even with sophisticated equipment. The A-10 has the lowest number of friendly fire incidents (excluding the AC-130).But don't even get me started on what happens to an A-10 in the event of a coordinated cyber attack. What of the F-35, it is highly sophisticated and computerized.The F-35 will not need fighter escorts Actually the F-35 needs the F-22 "If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22,” says Hostage to Air Force Times. (http://theaviationist.com...)The A-10 is slow moving, low flying Slow moving is an advantage in C.A.S missions, (which the A-10 excels at), and low flying planes are harder to pick up on radar.Vulnerability > Survivability SAMs can shoot planes down at altitudes of 30km or 98,425 ft, the ceiling of the F-35 is about 45,000 ft (http://www.globalsecurity.org...). So when the F-35 is picked up on radar ( some, sadly,will be) it will be shot down with no armor to protect the pilot or get the plane home safely. They shouldn't have to spend $7 million per A-10 just to keep it on life-support. The AF, Marines, and Navy shouldn't have to spend 68, 87, and 92 million dollars respectively, (only the flyaway cost) on a plane whose combat effectiveness is constantly dropping. (http://www.wired.com...) The A-10 is old but has been barely upgraded, if it was given the wing replacements, laser counter-measures*, precision engagement mod (already being implemented), new data-link, integration of the AGM-114 Hell fire missiles, scorpion helmet mounted sights, AIM-9x sidewinders, and the NG34 general electric engines. This plane would reach new heights that its creators didn't even dream!* I didn't mean point-lasers (as cool as that would be), but directional infrared counter-measures to protect aircraft from infrared man portable homing missiles.
A-10 Thunderbolt Mk. 2 VS F-35 Lightning Mk. 2

When everyone is still using 80s tech That's true, but our enemies are still using crappy tech, ISIS, Russia, and China just to name a few. Even countries with high tech seem to be lagging behind us. Also the A-10s purpose was to fight in the ultimate hostile air combat situations.So what. I don't think saving thousands of lives is a "so what" issue.But the F-22 is meant to knock planes out of the sky from a distance, tell me where these the F-15 strike eagle or the average run of the mill F-15 eagles?The F-35 is equipped with DAS DAS still exhibits high false-alarm rates and false target tracks, and poor stability performance, even in later versions of the software.(http://defense-update.com...) Next time your driving 60 mph down a road look out your side window and try to focus on stuff that's on the side of the road, not easy is it? Now imagine flying at 1,000 mph at 850 feet.The A-10 has absolutely nothing going for it in the event of a dogfight. The A-10 wasn't designed for dog-fighting, that's when the F-22 or the F-15 comes in. Although the A-10 is excellent against helicopters as this war game shows ( https://medium.com...). Although the scorpion helmet and sidewinders would make a good addition to the A-10 giving a significant boost in AA capabilities. "The A-10 is a high-survivability and versatile aircraft, popular with pilots for the 'get home' effectiveness." (http://www.airforce-technology.com...)Dozens more came limping back.Again, "The A-10 is a high-survivability and versatile aircraft, popular with pilots for the 'get home' effectiveness."The F-35 is meant to replace the aging A-10, F-16, F-18, and harrier jumpjetThe A-10 does need upgrades, but thats the thing the air forces refuses to upgrade it. If the A-10 got its much needed wing upgrade,Scorpion helmet, integrating the AIM-9x sidewinders with it would give it a massive jump in air-to-air abilities and situtional awarness, also much more fuel efficent and powerful engine versions of the A-10s exsist now. The A-10 has finally been cleared to fly with external fuel tanks. This plane dosent need a replacement it just needs an upgrade!Sorces: http://www.airforce-technology.com...https://medium.com...http://defense-update.com...http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...
A-10 Thunderbolt Mk. 2 VS F-35 Lightning Mk. 2

Thanks for accepting. Basically the A-10 was created to fight World War 3 and live to tell about. It is the best C.A.S aircraft ever invented, it's saved countless American and allied troops lives in it's time in service. The F-35 is fast and it will have trouble spotting enemies on the ground, possibly resulting in friendly casulties. Also the A-10 is thick-skinned, the cockpit has a thick titanium bathtub, to protect the pilot. The A-10's low level capability may give it a decisive edge for battlefield interdiction when compared with the F-35, especially if laser countermeasure systems were to be installed throughout the A-10 fleet. In other words, the A-10 may have a better chance of surviving the threat of infrared guided short-range surface to air missiles while flying low over enemy territory than the F-35 has flying stealthily at altitude in hopes of sneaking past long-range radar guided missiles that are being supported by a "data-fused" network of various radars operating at different bandwidths.The F-35 cost about 150 million per plane while the A-10 cost about 9 million per plane, you could buy about 16 warthogs for every lightning! Sources: http://www.fool.com... http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...
Living Organ Donors Should Be Allowed to be Compensated

I disagree that establishing alternatives, even preferable ones, to allowing compensation for living organ donors is not sufficient to win Con's case; I stipulate Con must establish that not only is compensation for living donors not the best option, but it causes so many problems without providing sufficient benefit such that it should not be allowed as an option at all. I respect Con's referencing his statements to back up his claims, but it is apparent some information eludes him regarding the difference to the recipient of a receiving a live organ donation as opposed to one from a similar organ from a recently deceased person, and it is apparant Con also lacks information on the effects of compensating living donors on the waiting list. On this first point, regarding whether organs donated from the recently deceased are just as good as live donors, a number of medical professionals disagree. [1] [2] [3] The outcome of the donation for the recipient is, generally, better for a live donor than one who has passed on. This is likely due to the fact that a live organ donor is generally brought to the hospital where the needy recipient is (unfortunately at their own expense, including travel, meals and lodging! ) so the removal of the organ and transplant into the recipient happens all at once, with very little time the organ is dead and subject to decay. In a transplant from a deceased person, the organ has died the moment the donor has, and time spent finding what recipients the donor is most compatible with, removing the organ from the dead body, securing it for transport and then getting the organ to the recipient takes many hours during which the organ is decaying, suffering permanent damage before it can get to the recipient. On the second point, there is in fact one nation that has authorized financial compensation of donors: Iran. In 1988, Iran began to allow live organ donors to be compensated, and the waiting list for recipients needing renal (kidney) transplants plummetted to zero in 1999 -- since 1999, no one needing a kidney transplant in Iran has had to wait for a donor. [4] In all other countries (no other permitting donors to be compensated), waiting lists are years long -- in the United States, waiting lists for kidneys range from 5 to, in some cases, more than 10 years. While Iran may not seem like a model for social justice, this medical practice I believe proves that compensating living donors definitely reduces the time those needing transplants of live-donatable-organs such as kidneys must wait to receive a transplant. This reduces deaths, since those waiting for an organ transplant can die as a result of the failure of that organ (renal failure, for those whose kidneys are failing). [1] . http://cme.medscape.com... [2] . http://www.kidney.org... [3] . http://www.mayoclinic.org... (see "The Pros and Cons of Living Donor Liver Transplant" about 2/3 down the page) [4] . http://cjasn.asnjournals.org...
Living Organ Donors Should Be Allowed to be Compensated

A lot of Americans check the box when getting their driver's license renewed to be an organ donor so that, in the event of their own death, their organs can be used to save the life of someone else in need or in research. A lot of Americans also donate blood and get some compensation for this. A lot of Americans also volunteer to participate in experimental research trials of new medications, before risks and side effects of the medicines are known. There are a few Americans who volunteer to become living organ donor, giving up a part of their body -- such as one of their two kidneys -- for which such a sacrifice does not bring serious long-term harm, but someone else on, say, dialysis faces much lowered quality of life and may die from their failing kidneys. The ratio of those in need of organ donation to willing donors has been getting steadily worse. In 1980, those in need of transplant were on waiting list for organs on the order of 1 year. Today, the average wait time is 6 years with many having to wait more than a decade. Eight percent -- about one in 12 -- patients die waiting for a needed transplant. Clearly, the supply has been dropping relative to demand. There has been some very despicable activity going on human organ trafficking. Some people are outright abducted and their organs taken without their knowledge or consent, especially from third-world countries. Many more are coerced or forced into it, and many more still are never educated about the costs and risks and do not know what it is they are getting into. Because of abuses like these, the United States currently has a complete and total ban on any form of compensation to living donors. No one who volunteers to donate an organ may receive even a small cash payment. The donor recipient's insurance coverage is required to pay for the donor's operation itself in giving up the kidney and a little after-care for, at most, a few weeks, but beyond that any risks or lasting consequences are entirely at the risk of the donor. Often, the donor is also responsible for paying their own travel and lodging expenses to get to and stay in the city with the recipient to actualy donate, though technically the law does not ban recompense for those specific expenses. I argue that, while well-intended, this ban on compensating organ donors is an obstruction that reduces the supply of much-needed living donors and very regulated but navigable paths should be created in law to allow willing donors of sound mind and body to be offered and provided compensation for sacrificing their organs that someone else needs to survive with a decent quality of life. CON will need to argue the contrary. I do not follow any formal format, CON is free to use any debate format for his/her arguments.
As the Bible describes God, He is inconsistent in His nature

Quite simply, although certain recorded actions of God in the Bible may appear to the untrained eye to be contradictory, an understanding of God's nature and attributes will show that God has done nothing contradictory that one can find in the Bible. My opponent need not agree with a single word in the Bible or that God exists, but we will not be debating such issues. As the written Bible exists today, I expect my opponent to cite examples of God being contradictory, and I will explain the alleged contradiction as NOT a contradiction. We shall keep strictly to the topic of GOD being contradictory; any issues of the Bible making contradictory statements with regards to science, geography, the sign above Jesus' head on the cross, how many times the rooster crows during Peter's denial, etc. , fall under a different topic of possible contradictions that I plan to address in a future debate challenge. If my opponent chooses to defer first arguments to me, I can begin with an explanation of God's attributes and cite some examples of God being consistent in His nature. As I feel this will bore most readers, I encourage my opponent to bring his arguments first, citing specific examples from the Bible. Multiple translations of the Bible can be accessed from a site such as www. youversion. com for reference.
time is just the onlookers own representation of movement therefore does not exist

Thanks johnny. ==Rebuttal== R1) Movement If we were somehow caught in a stasis field and nothing was allowed to move, it would be significantly harder to measure time, since we measure time using the Earth's rotation (24 hours is one rotation) and its orbit around the sun (years). However, it would not be impossible to measure time using radioactivity and half-lives, even if the Sun didn't exist. R2) We don't exist This has more to do with ancient philosophy, which posited asked whether objects exist if no one is there to perceive them. However, redshifted light that we can perceive now from the early stages immediately after the Big Bang proves that the Universe did exist prior to our existence, so it is not necessary for us to perceive something for it to exist. Time obviously existed before humans evolved. R3) "Everything happens at once" My opponent says, "I have a theory that everything is happening at once yet we are riding physical molecules that move so therefore feel bound by time." My opponent needs to explain how it's possible for a cause and effect to occur at the same time. How are we even alive then? Our lives and deaths should be occurring at the same time. We could do a simple experiment to test my opponent's theory. Put someone in the vacuum of space, outside the Earth's orbit, and see if that person ages. I think the reason we haven't tried this is that it is so obvious that the person will continue to age.
time is just the onlookers own representation of movement therefore does not exist

Very well put sir thank-you. Yet I still have an argument. Imagine if there were no moving things like the sun etc and no us.. what would time apply to?.. when Einstein says time is relative . He is pointing out a contradiction of time. I think we invented the experience as time and this only exists in our minds . We move and so does everything around us.. giving us the impression that everything is linear and needis to be measured. I have a theory that everything is happening at once yet we are riding physical molecules that move so therefore feel bound by time. Without physical matter and movement I really dont think time exists
time is just the onlookers own representation of movement therefore does not exist

Thanks for the topic johnny! My opponent's argument seems to be simply a misrepresentation of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Einstein demolished the idea of time as a universal constant. The faster you are travelling, the slower time is moving for you. However, unless you are travelling close to light speed, the differences in time will be nearly imperceptible. This does not mean that time does not exist, just that time is relative. It is my opponent's burden to show how movement can instead be used to describe time. ========== Time travel ========== The fact that the Arrow of Time is always pointing forwards is still a mystery in physics, since all of the equations work equally well if time also travelled backwards. Perhaps this is explained better by philosophy, since an effect cannot precede its cause. However, just because time travel is not possible does not mean time does not exist.
time is just the onlookers own representation of movement therefore does not exist

time is just the onlookers own representation of movement therefore does not exist as we describe it in the world as we know it.. time travel is impossible as time is differently perceived to parties. if i was to turn time back 50 years with a time machine, as i turned the magical device it would and could not change the physical world at all as it is obviously not a force at all but relative . i believe what we measure is merely the waves on the sea caused by an invisible ship . no i don't read books and you can probably tell. i know absolutely nothing about anything but still have the will to start a debate on such a well informed argument, challenging einstein.. i should probably give up now but cannot keep my fingers shut... this will infuriate some 'clever' (able to regurgitate information) people, yet hopefully tickle an open minded individual into shedding some hard hitting argument to my opinion.. please dont use big words..
time is just the onlookers own representation of movement therefore does not exist

Thanks for the debate johnny. Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal...Rebuttal... ============ Spiritual Realm ============ My opponent says: i meant existing at once in a spiritual world/reality/realm .. not "happening" now in our physical world. However, we're only debating whether time exists in our actual physical world, not some imaginary spiritual realm. The fact that my opponent draws this distinction actually proves that he doesn't believe his own theory is true in the real world. ============ World with no matter ============ My opponent tells you to imagine a world with no matter and only energy. First problem, such a world can't exist. E = mc^2. Energy doesn't exist without mass/matter. Secondly, the problem is, the only way such a world could exist is if the Big Bang never happened. However, the Big Bang created both matter and time. According to Stephen Hawking, "time itself began at the moment of the big bang." [1] Essentially, my opponent is asking you to consider an imaginary world where both matter and time don't exist; however, this world will remain imaginary. My opponent thus fails to prove that it is possible for time to NOT EXIST in real life. Lastly, remember the resolution says that time is the onlookers perception of movement. You can't have movement without matter. My opponent fails to ever explain how this resolution is true. It is simply a misunderstanding of Einstein's Theories of Special and General Relativity. Different observers perceive time differently, just like different men perceive the same woman differently. Bluesteel may think Girl A is extremely overweight and unattractive. Bluesteel's friend, Sam, may be very drunk and believe that Girl A is very attractive. Just because our perceptions of Girl A differ does not mean Girl A does not exist. Although the next morning Sam may wish that Girl A had never existed. Vote Con. [1] http://www.christianpost.com...