BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Resolution To Prevent Iran from Obtaining a Nuclear Weapin

I accept. I will discuss the cons since I am representing the con side. The cons of attempting prevention need to be discussed thoroughly. I will focus on tactical strikes against Iran and the results of said strikes. 1. Prevention will lead to further deterioration in relations. If the United States or Israel intervened in Iran there will be negative repercussions long term. In the long term, we will not be able to negotiate at all with Iran if we strike them directly. To have an embargo is one thing but to actually strike Iran will open the flood gates of problems.Nevertheless, the United States may do nothing but Turkey, Israel, or Saudi Arabia will consider taking action against Iran. There are several powers in the Middle East who do not like Iran.By the United States not acting, we can deteriorate relations with Iran's rivals. 2. The potential for war increases If the United States were to strike Iran for not halting their agreements, it could be an act of war. Then the United States and Iran will be entangled in this warfare. The United States would further be trapped in the problems of the Middle East. 3. Iran will still develop nuclear capability regardless of an intervention. To strike at Iran and destroy their nuclear facilities only stops a temporary problem. But there is nothing the United States can do long term. The Iranians will just rebuild their programs if they are attacked. To Iran accountable is difficult. So we shouldn't expect a clear and decisive answer. To prevent Iran from obtaining weapons, can be dangerous. Nevertheless what Iran can do after they obtain those weapons is even more dangerous. For the United States to act unilaterally with a strike is the most dangerous option currently. http://online.wsj.com... http://blogs.spectator.co.uk...
Dogs are better than cats.

Looks like its more kittens and cats!! Thanks for reading this debate!! Wait... I have one final point.Contrary to the subject of this debate, BOTH cats and dogs are awesome and YOU can help them. Visit and volunteer and donate to your local shelter, humane society, or whatever. Millions of animals are euthanized each year because nobody wanted them. So make a difference!!!!!!! 5 bucks can save a life when you add it up. Foster a cat or dog in your home until a buyer wants them. Make dog and cat beds. Have a drive for supplies at your school or workplace. Know that you can make a difference.
Dogs are better than cats.

Because YouDkMyName didn't say anything in the previous round, I will put some pictures where I would have responded to her arguments. Cuties. Additional Points:1.) Cats don't maul your guests as soon as they walk through the door. 2.) A cat is a purrfect exterminator. Cats are much better at catching bugs and other critters than dogs. 3.) Cats usually do not chew up your shoes and leave them smelling like dog drool4.) When one buys a cat a toy, it will last for years, possibly, whereas a dog can break a toy in 5 minutes.
Dogs are better than cats.

If the senior was getting robbed, there is a good chance that the intruder will be armed. They can easily shoot the dog. The problem with training pets as guard dogs is that they view almost all people as intruders and become more aggressive towards strangers. That's cute. :) Still, that is luck. Cats are lucky too, although I don't know of anything like that. The military traditionally uses dogs, German Shepards in particular to sniff out things, but cats may be part of the forces soon (see the article) Cats also cut stress. Both of them can curl up with their owner and make them a lot happier. I have a few additional points: 1.) Cats groom themselves, you do not have to brush or bathe them for the most part. They also do not smell doggy, I bet you know the kind of smell I'm talking about. 2.) Cats can be let out of the house with a higher reassurance of them coming back. They have an excellent sense of navigation. Although lost dogs have a higher rate of being returned to their owners, a much greater percent of cats return on their own, 66% of lost cats returned home on their own, whereas only 8% of lost dogs found their way back. This also relates to the intelligence of cats. Reply to Extra Note: That makes two of us. I love cats and dogs pretty equally, although it may not seem that way. Sources: Lost cat/dog statistics: http://researchnews.osu.edu... Military Cats http://www.army.mil...
Dogs are better than cats.

Thank you for accepting. Now, You said Cats are good pets for seniors. My counter argument is that What if the Senior Citizen was getting robbed? Have you ever heard of a Guard Cat? Smaller Dogs, which would also fit into an apartment, condo, etc. can easily be trained to protect the owner. You also said something about Postal Cats. In 1888 The Mascot of The Railway Mail Service was Owney, a scruffy mutt. He was said to be a "Good Luck Charm", because all the trains, when he was on them NEVER crashed. Finally, You said Cats were loyal. I am not saying that, what you said wasn't true. I'm just saying that dogs have been with people for a long long time. They aid humans in police work, by sniffing out drugs and bombs. When you walk them, you get to meet new people, and you get more excersise. They help sniff out people stuck in avalanches. They help cut human stress. The possibilities are endless. Sources: http://m.voices.yahoo.com... http://www.postalmuseum.si.edu... http://m.heraldsun.com... Extra Note: I love Cats, just as much as I love dogs, but most cats I've had in my life have hurt me in one way or another. I'm not saying that my dog's haven't hurt me. Just that more cats have than dogs.
poet colin leslie dean is a threat to world security according to NATO-for underming science

Science is my only good subject endless im playing sports. this is his formula. 40. reduAxiom(x) V60; W07;u,v,y,n X04; x. vtype(n,v) W43; vtype(n + 1,u) W43; "free(u,y) W43; isFm(y)W43; x = exists(u,forall(v,equiv(seq(u) a02; paren(seq(v)),y))) I don't understand the problem
poet colin leslie dean is a threat to world security according to NATO-for underming science

I did agree. But there is things that I didn't agree with. 'His thesis, as I interpret it, is that due to limitations in language, scientific observations cannot be elocuted with complete accuracy, thereby undermining the accuracy of the theories and principles we promulgate. Even if he was accurate in this (which he is not-- by it's very nature, language evolves in order to properly express abstract ideas and innovations), this does not exactly ADD anything to human scientific or philosophical understanding. '
poet colin leslie dean is a threat to world security according to NATO-for underming science

His thesis, as I interpret it, is that due to limitations in language, scientific observations cannot be elocuted with complete accuracy, thereby undermining the accuracy of the theories and principles we promulgate. Even if he was accurate in this (which he is not-- by it's very nature, language evolves in order to properly express abstract ideas and innovations), this does not exactly ADD anything to human scientific or philosophical understanding. In essence, it's merely an appeal to a lingual, rather than general sensory, solipsism; an idea held in some scorn for its status as untestable and unfalsifiable nature. Indeed, even if we accept it as fact (which no right-minded person would), we are left with two options: either we renounce all attempts to understand the universe, or we proceed in our current manner regardless. In this way, Mr. Dean's thesis is both of no value, and as merely a reapplication of solipsism, unoriginal.
poet colin leslie dean is a threat to world security according to NATO-for underming science

Australian leading erotic poet colin leslie dean is a threat to world security,according to NATO Deans books pointing out science/maths ends in meaninglessness are attacks upon science which NATO regards as a threat to global security NATO finds anti science a threat to world security beware colin leslie dean and his followers http://www.informationclearinghouse.info... The Group's Report identifies six key "challenges", which may often result as potential threats to global security: point 6 says Quote There is also the more philosophic problem of the rise of the irrational ? the discounting of the rational. Though seemingly abstract, this problem is demonstrated in deeply practical ways. [These include] the decline of respect for logical argument and evidence, a drift away from science in a civilization that is deeply technological such works as these the absurdities in psychoanalysis and science that makes psychoanalysis a science gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/.../psychoanalysis/absurd_in_psych.pdf http://www.scribd.com... "Man can not know the universe as his language used to know it only falsifies the universe. This results in the death of man i.e. the death of asserting a privileged observer of the universe." gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Decentred1.pdfR06; "MAN IS DECENTRED. BY. COLIN LESLIE DEAN ... falsifies the universe. Thus man looses his ability to be a privileged knower of the universe Godels-incompleteness-theorem-invalid-illegitimate http://www.scribd.com... GODEL?S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM. ENDS IN ABSURDITY OR MEANINGLESSNESS GODEL IS A COMPLETE FAILURE AS HE ENDS IN UTTER MEANINGLESSNESS CASE STUDY IN THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS http://www.scribd.com... Mathematics Ends in Meaninglessness ie self-contradiction http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com... Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples
poet colin leslie dean is a threat to world security according to NATO-for underming science

con says my Question to you is ' what has he done so wrong' It seems like every scientist is blamed for using things they need there are 4 points which point to 3 things he has done wrong http://www.scribd.com... 1) Godel TELLS us that he uses the axiom of reducibility from the PM ie 2nd ed Quote http://www.mrob.com... "A. Whitehead and B. Russell, Principia Mathematica, 2nd edition, Cambridge 1925. In particular, we also reckon among the axioms of PM the axiom of infinity (in the form: there exist denumerably many individuals), and the axioms of reducibility and of choice (for all types)" ((K Godel , On formally undecidable propositions of principia mathematica and related systems in The undecidable , M, Davis, Raven Press, 1965, p.5) yet Russel dropped axiom of reducibility from his 2 nd ed of PM 2) "In the Introduction to the second edition of Principia, Russell repudiated Reducibility as 'clearly not the sort of axiom with which we can rest content'"Russells own system with out reducibility was rendered incapable of achieving its own purpose" quote page 14 http://www.helsinki.fi.... "Russell gave up the Axiom of Reducibility in the second edition of Principia (1925)" mathematicians have said ie Ramsey etc that 3) Such an axiom has no place in mathematics, and anything which cannot be proved without using it cannot be regarded as proved at all. This axiom there is no reason to suppose true; and if it were true, this would be a happy accident and not a logical necessity, for it is not a tautology. (THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS* (1925) by F. P. RAMSEY by useing axiom of reducibility in his proof Godel make a logical flaw which invalidates his theorem 4)Godel sentence G is outlawed by the very axiom he uses to prove his theorem ie the axiom of reducibiility -thus his proof is invalid-and thus godel commits a flaw by useing it to prove his theorem http://www.enotes.com... russells axiom of reducibility was formed such that impredicative statements where banned http://www.scribd.com... but godels uses this AR axiom in his incompleteness proof ie axiom 1v and formular 40 and as godel states he is useing the logic of PM ie AR "P is essentially the system obtained by superimposing on the Peano axioms the logic of PM" ie AR now godel constructs an impredicative statement G which AR was meant to ban The impredicative statement Godel constructs is http://en.wikipedia.org... "the corresponding G"del sentence G asserts: "G cannot be proved to be true within the theory T"" now godels use of AR bans godels G statement thus godel cannot then go on to give a proof by useing a statement his own axiom bans but by doing so he invalidates his whole proof and his proof/logic is flawed we have a dilemma DILEMMA 1) if godel is useing AR then he cannot use G as it is outlawed thus his proof collapses 2) if godel is not useing AR then he is lying when he tells us he is and thus his theorem cannot be about PM and related systems
poet colin leslie dean is a threat to world security according to NATO-for underming science

con says "Science is my only good subject endless im playing sports. yes that explains your objectivity con says "this is his formula. 40. reduAxiom(x) V60; W07;u,v,y,n X04; x. vtype(n,v) W43; vtype(n + 1,u) W43; "free(u,y) W43; isFm(y)W43; x = exists(u,forall(v,equiv(seq(u) a02; paren(seq(v)),y))) I don't understand the problem" reduAxiom( that looks like Russel's axiom of reducibility if it is then Russel dropped it in his 2 ed of PM Godel used it in his incompetness proof as his axiom 1v and in his formular 40 thus introducing a flaw in his proof because the axiom of reduciblity out laws his self referential G statement th making his proof invalid see http://www.scribd.com... IV. Every formula derived from the schema 1. (W07;u)(v W04; (u(v) X01; a)) on substituting for v or u any variables of types n or n + 1 respectively, and for a a formula which does not contain u free. This axiom represents the axiom of reducibility (the axiom of comprehension of set theory). "Godel sentence G is outlawed by the very axiom he uses to prove his theorem ie the axiom of reducibiility -thus his proof is invalid-and thus godel commits a flaw by useing it to prove his theorem http://www.enotes.com... russells axiom of reducibility was formed such that impredicative statements where banned http://www.scribd.com... but godels uses this AR axiom in his incompleteness proof ie axiom 1v and formular 40 and as godel states he is useing the logic of PM ie AR "P is essentially the system obtained by superimposing on the Peano axioms the logic of PM" ie AR now godel constructs an impredicative statement G which AR was meant to ban The impredicative statement Godel constructs is http://en.wikipedia.org... "the corresponding G"del sentence G asserts: "G cannot be proved to be true within the theory T"" now godels use of AR bans godels G statement thus godel cannot then go on to give a proof by useing a statement his own axiom bans but by doing so he invalidates his whole proof and his proof/logic is flawed"
A hybrid of capitalism and socialism is the best economic solution

I understand the brief as you put it in R1, but to argue that the USA is a hybrid system which is failing and then say 'what we need is a hybrid system' is clearly not a satisfactory argument. Specifics were required to clarify how exactly a hybrid system would be a better solution, given that you already think it's failing. Your apartment example encourages poverty: why work or do anything if your housing and sustenance will be provided for free? Is this fair? Government councils can provide housing to some citizens, but it is never 'free' and requires some capitalist output (utility) from each worker. 'For the US not to be considered a hybrid you would have to prove all services are not socialist.' I wasn't arguing that it wasn't a hybrid, it has been since the government became interventionist, just that it only uses socialist policies under capitalism. So this point is a straw man. The US government in providing Social Services and Medicare and other like services uses our taxes to pay companies for them. They do not own the means of production; in many enterprises you have mentioned like the military they invest in companies, they do not produce. Making missiles for the USA, companies like Lockheed Martin profit. Medicare is an insurance investment; it gives finances to certain people so that they are able to access private health care companies. In these cases, no market socialism exists. It is political socialism in that it provides services yet economically capitalist. Refer to your definition of socialism in R3; these cases violate it. There are some exceptions however. The government owns several companies. This is why I pointed towards China initially. Their state has owned the means of production and yet operate de facto in what is called 'state capitalism'. We have to ask why. Is it that global capitalism forces each power to operate under capitalism in order to compete and have a strong economy? http://www.economist.com...
A hybrid of capitalism and socialism is the best economic solution

The argument is that a hybrid approach is best in general, not arguing for one of many specific detailed approaches. In R1 I stated this debate would be high-level rather than detailed. So, in this debate I am not require to go into specifics or degrees of socialism/capitalism which are the “best” option, only that the best end product be a hybrid approach. Outcompete issuesLet’s take welfare for instance, from a socialist view it’s fine, from a capitalist view it’s a money pit. But what if you hybridize and build an apartment complex where half of the residents pay rent for a “nicer” apartment, and cover the costs for the ones who eat and live there for free?For the US not to be considered a hybrid you would have to prove all services are not socialist. If the property is owned by the state and controlled by the state it falls under the preview of socialism by the vast majority of the definitions. It doesn’t matter if capitalist companies were used to create it or not. AGREED! There is not one universal economic model that is effective everywhere, that is why we need to break free of capitalism OR socialism and start discussing the merits of combining them, how to combine them, and in what categories.In conclusion, I have shown that hybrids are in use already. I have shown that neither capitalism or socialism is effective and desirable in the short and long term. If an economic solution is to work long term it must encompass more than just profits, and more than just resource management. There should be a balance between sharing the resource and giving the people and incentive to work. My suggestion is to take the best parts of both to cobble together the best solution. If we want a sustainable future we must get past the either/or mentality, and economics is required to encompass more.
A hybrid of capitalism and socialism is the best economic solution

'We can already see a hybrid approach in every major economic country in the world, to varying degrees.' So, what we need is a hybrid approach to ensure that global economies are no longer 'doomed to fail'. Contradictory? The question you need to answer is to what degree. I still don't see them as practically compatible given the data on global economy. Take my home, the UK-- a nationalised rail service, the NHS (free medical care) and of course the military (because the state always needs to have a monopoly on the permissible use of physical force). But, capitalism outcompetes socialist institutes every time... businessmen have more expertise than the government in their enterprises, they always make more money and thereby outcompete the frequently insolvent government. The result is that the government sells off national services to private powers--in the UK, British Gas, the buses, and now maybe the NHS and prison system. My point was that the US government gets taxes, and uses these taxes to pay private companies to manufacture weapons or build its roads and so forth. It may be publicly-funded, but is fulfilled in practice by capitalism. The US doesn't have government-employed road makers. Only service industries (teachers, social workers, police...) could be said to be socialist and this requires our taxes. I exempt doctors and nurses for the USA. I would argue social services however exempt from economics in the sense we are using it; it is an economic outlet and not a source of profit and industry. What is true of Iceland, is not true of the world: a small population that largely imports its goods. Each nation has to adopt the economic model which suits it best (in Vietnam, Communism was a better option in the 70s for it than Capitalism, given the village cotton industries of its people). There is not one universal economic model which is effective everywhere; the economy has to be catered to the country, its resources, trade links, wealth and industries.
A hybrid of capitalism and socialism is the best economic solution

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Captialism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. I refute the claim they are mutually exclusive. Ownership, and trade can be controlled by both private and state depending on the sector. (like national parks versus water parks) Also it could be private ownership with state regulations. In either case, it’s a possible situation of socialism AND capitalism, The socialism addresses not sharing, while the capitalist portion addresses efficiency. When you take a holistic approach, efficiency becomes more than just profits. So, it’s no longer efficiency to strip mine the world in unsafe working environments just for profits. The only difficult part, and the reason we need to look past pure capitalism is the regulations we apply ff we want to survive long term. We must utilize our resources efficiently (capitalism) and desirably (socialism). I refute that claim we do not have socialism in the US. Owned and controlled by the goverment: roads, military, USPS, etc. These are examples of socialism in the US. Others mentioned are hybrid, controlled by the government but privately owned. (Your link is broken) All I’m saying that we need to accept it for what it is: A hybrid of capitalism and socialism. If we don’t, and we are not asking the right questions to fix our problems, then in my opinion we are doomed to fail. We can already see a hybrid approach in every major economic country in the world, to varying degrees. We can also see the problems with corruption that capitalism brings, socialism can address these if we have intelligent government regulations. I mean look at Iceland. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...