BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.N should create a global SWAT-styled team

This has certainly been a good debate. That said, the United Nation's Security Council posses as peacekeeping force (1). The stated mission of that peace keeping force is "to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace. UN peacekeepers—soldiers and military officers, police and civilian personnel from many countries—monitor and observe peace processes that emerge in post-conflict situations and assist conflicting parties to implement the peace agreement they have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including promoting human security, confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development" (2). The U. N's peacekeeping force tries to keep the peace after a conflict. Counter-terrorism, by definition, takes place before or during a conflict. The soldiers sent to the U. N are trained and provided by member countries (3). They undergo no new training. In most cases, the soldiers provided have only gone through basic infantry training. As I said above, counter-terrorism is delicate work that regular infantry cannot perform successfully. Counter-terrorism forces are so highly selective and go through such rigorous counter-terrorism training is because of just how delicate their work is. Counter-terrorism is like cancer surgery. The surgeon must be precise in his work because he must only remove tumor. To do that he needs a scalpel, not a hack saw. Counter-terrorism forces are a scalpel and the U. N's peacekeeping force is a hack saw. In fact, the U. N recently saw their need for a distinct counter-terrorism branch. On the 28th of September 2001, the U. N created a counter-terrorism committee (4). This committee can "Criminalize the financing of terrorism, Freeze without delay any funds related to persons involved in acts of terrorism, Deny all forms of financial support for terrorist groups, Suppress the provision of safe haven, sustenance or support for terrorists, Share information with other governments on any groups practicing or planning terrorist acts, Cooperate with other governments in the investigation, detection, arrest, extradition and prosecution of those involved in such acts; and Criminalize active and passive assistance for terrorism in domestic law and bring violators to justice" but it cannot use force. It cannot use force because it does not have force. Creating a U. N counter-terrorism force would empower the counter-terrorism committee to put actual force behind its actions. Lastly, I would like to mention that I have used 7 websites and a dictionary to back up my argument; my opponent has used exactly 0. The weight of evidence is on my side. The weight of human lives is on my side. I urge you to vote pro. 1. . http://www.un.org... 2. . http://www.un.org... 3. . http://www.un.org... 4. . http://www.un.org...
The U.N should create a global SWAT-styled team

I believe there is no difference between the training met by the UN army. An average soldier is taught survival techniques, combat and technical capabilities. I also believe that a soldier is placed in a different sector like the Marines, the Navy, the Army or the Swat because of their own prerogative. If they want to be a S.W.A.T. they chose to be one. However, in every sector you get more than the basics, like when your in the navy you learn how to save lives in the water or how to survive the open ocean. It is like the U.N. peace army. They are the one of the most advance armies and they are trained to save lives on water or land. Also, they are trained to handle situations like hostage taking and bomb defusing. If you ask about their military techniques and strategies, they are also advance. Think about five MOST POWERFUL COUNTRIES making an army that handles alot of situation. However, they didn't carry the terrorist attacks in India. Because, first they lack forces then and second the local police didn't cooperate well. Maybe, hiring more soldiers would be better rather than making another specialized group, which by the way the UN army is specialized for. If we would make a another specialized group, the UN can't afford it. Why? Because they have alot of problems concerning the international community like poverty and such. Second, it is worthless to make another specialized group in a group who specialized it already. My opponent forgot to name what is this specialized thing of his. That's why, I'll make an assumption that this specialized thing is dress making or hygiene.
The U.N should create a global SWAT-styled team

An army and a counter-terrorist force are two completely differing things. Webster's dictionary defines and army as: "a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land". War is defined as: "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations" Counter-terrorism is defined as: "measures intended to combat or reduce terrorist activities." By definition an army's job is to make war, and thus cannot be counter-terrorism. Regular infantry are not the men needed to resolve hostage crisis's, trained experts are. The U.N's army simply does not have that training and expertize. Counter-terrorism is delicate work, and as a result counter-terrorist forces are highly specialized. Delta Force, the SAS, and GSG9 have the specialization, the U.N's army does not. The proposed counter-terrorist force would add a group with that specialization to the U.N's arsenal.
The U.N should create a global SWAT-styled team

The U.N. has a Security Council which is headed by the 5 most powerful countries in the world. It is has an army and it's powerful. I am saying that they can use nuclear bombs, hi-tech gun and such. The Mumbai Bombing has alot of alleged theories considering that terrorist attacks always has a cause, either ramsom or personal and political whines. Some experts says, the terrorist group is bombing and terrorizing countries which is an ally of the US, in fact India is one. Now, the UN Security Council is built to serve the people and to maintain peace in the international community and they already sent troops in India. However, it wasn't effective. If that is so, how would making a global Swat teams better? If in the first place, it wasn't effective?
The U.N should create a global SWAT-styled team

Recently, terrorists took several hostages in various Mumbai hotels. The Indian police force ended the crisis with force. The resultant conflict left at least 188 dead and 293 injured (1). The Indian commandos took ten hours to reach the terrorists, were never supplied with adequate maps of the hotel, never attempted to take the terrorist alive, and did not posses any non-lethal weapons (2). The attack has been considered a major failure and lead to the resignations of the Indian Minister of Home Affairs, National Security Advisor, Maharashtra Chief Minister, and Deputy CM of Maharastra (3). It is evident that the Indian counterterrorism forces could have done a better job. Furthermore, there are numerous highly trained and experienced counterterrorism forces around the globe (delta force, SAS, GSG9, et cetera). If The United Nations were to create a global version of such forces, then this force could be employed in cases such as the Mumbai attacks. This force could be brought together quickly, do its job, and then disperse. Each contributing nation would only have to send a few members of their counterterrorism force. The costs would be minimal, but the benefits, especially the lives saved, would be dramatic. 1.http://news.bbc.co.uk... 2.http://economictimes.indiatimes.com... 3.http://ibnlive.in.com...
We should take under God out of the pledge of allegence

It is true that over 70% of surveyed Americans said they were Christian/ believed in God, according to several polls[1], but that number is quickly declining[2]. Also, it is unnecessary to mention religion at all. I said earlier that it was put there to end the "threat" of communism, discriminating now against many religions AND a political group with great ideas and a bad reputation[4]. Even if you are against communism, the big 'war' on it is over and it is time for it to be gone. It is even against the law to discuss religion at school[3](to quote it says "When it comes to religion, public schools must obey two legal requirements that are hard to reconcile: let it be, and push it away", so this shouldn't be allowed). It is hypocritical for those who enforce that law like teachers to make us talk about God every day. It feels weird saying it ,too. Imagine yourself saying "One nation, under no God" or "One nation, under Allah". It's not fair to have to make kids have to say those, In conclusion, we should not have "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance because fewer and fewer people believe in God, it is unnecessary, discrimination, technically illegal, and unfair. I look forward to your counter arguments. Sources: 1: http://religions.pewforum.org... 2: http://cnsnews.com... 3: http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org... 4: http://undergod.procon.org...
We should take under God out of the pledge of allegence

In the public schools of the USA, it is required that students must say "One nation, under God". I am not bashing any religion. I understand that origionated to stop communism, but most of our communism struggles are over and if we took that part out it would have little to no effect on communists. I think it is unfair to students raised to be polytheists or athiests to have to say that. It is also supposed to be a law to not incorporate religion in school. Thank you.
WAR DEBATE: United States of America (Pro) vs. Russian Federation (Con)

It seems that the American invasion stopped dead in its tracks as the general suddenly disappeared without a trace. Some think he ran away for fear of having the loss of the war blamed on him, others theorize that he was eliminated by the Russian Spetsnaz, but we'll never really know. With the loss of central leadership, miscommunication and general loss of moral struck the US forces. Soon enough, they were surrounded, choked and then destroyed. Within a month, all US forces on Russian territory surrendered or were pushed out by Russian infantry and tanks with aerial support.
WAR DEBATE: United States of America (Pro) vs. Russian Federation (Con)

As I am defending and already had my response and preparation to my opponent's latest advances, there's not much I can say here. Plus, I wouldn't want to mess up the time frame we have. And so it seems my opponent must advance all the way to Moscow in merely one remaining turn, very unlikely. Considering the circumstances present in the last Round, the likely outcome (it seems to me) that the US forces won't be able to push far past Kirov and might even find themselves surrounded and destroyed there (as the forces from Urals are now moving in that direction). Also I'd like to remind my opponent and voters the difficulty of trying to supply a large force all the way through Siberia considering the terrain, climate and lack of serious infrastructure.
WAR DEBATE: United States of America (Pro) vs. Russian Federation (Con)

Russian military as of 4/29/16: MANPOWER: Population: 142,423,773 Available Manpower: 70,000,000 Fit for Service: 47,000,000 Reaching Military Age Annually: 1,355,000 Active Frontline Personnel: 766,055 Active Reserve Personnel: 2,485,000 LAND SYSTEMS: Tanks: 15,398 AFVs: 31,298 SPGs: 5,972 Towed-Artillery: 4,625 MLRSs: 3,793 AIR POWER: Total Aircraft: 3,547 Fighters: 751 Attack Aircraft: 1,438 Transport Aircraft: 1,124 Trainer Aircraft: 370 Helicopters: 1,237 Attack Helicopters: 478 NAVAL POWER: Total Naval Strength: 352 Aircraft Carriers: 1 Frigates: 4 Destroyers: 15 Corvettes: 81 Submarines: 60 Coastal Defense Craft: 14 Mine Warfare: 45 April 29: War is declared. LAND AND AIR: Russia begins mobilizing its reserves. Russia begins repair, refurbishing and re-armament of older Soviet aircraft and equipment such as the Tu-160 (Blackjack). Mobilization of tanks, artillery and infantry. SEA: All ships are put on highest level of battle readiness/alertness. The Russian Northern Fleet begins making its way to join the Pacific Fleet. The Russian Black Sea Fleet mobilizes to take control of the Bosporus Strait. The Russian Baltic Fleet mobilizes, but does not significantly change location, staying in the Baltic area. April 30: LAND AND AIR: Russian anti-air defense systems such as the S-300 and S-400 are activated, particularly in key areas such as St. Petersburg, Moscow and Crimea. Most ground forces are concentrated in Western Russia, where the capital and virtually all key cities and industrial centers are located. SEA: Russia's large mine-warfare force starts going to work in the Black Sea and Pacific Ocean to mine the Bosporus Strait and the Sea of Okhotsk, respectively. May 3: LAND AND AIR: Ground forces (mostly infantry and artillery) are moved into passes in the Ural Mountains to fortify choke-points. Anti-air defense systems soon move into the area as well. SEA: The mining operation in the Bosporus Strait is nearly complete, and the Black Sea Fleet has taken a position in the area. Parts of the Northern Fleet have entered the Pacific Ocean. Behind the line/field of sea mines, Russian submarines were given instructions to start hunting and attack any foreign ship. And now the Russians anxiously await the first move...
The internal combustion engine in motor vehicles should be banned.

Other vague issues: Pro supplied evidence that 7 million people die due to pollution. While apparently true, what they did not mention was that the same piece of evidence said that most of these deaths were in Asia and due to wood or coal stoves, not vehicular motors. I personally assumed that this resolution would only pass in The United States, but if we introduce it world wide, the negative effects would be catastrophic, or at least very inconveniencing. World wide economy will stagger: car trade is one of the larger international commercial product. What about airplanes? While technically jet engines, they also burn fuel. Electric motors are not yet near powerful enough to fly planes. What do we do about this? In regards to the section concerning the conversion from combustion based to electric based cars, the evidence was supplied from a "treehugger.com" Despite the reassuring name, this source gives a hillbilly DIY explanation of how to convert your car. If you think that the National Highway Administration is going to let a DIY motor fly in this day and age, I'm afraid you are sorely mistaking. In terms of the oil job market, it is approximated that there are 5 to 6 million people in the oil industry. Assuming that half of them lose their jobs because of this resolution, it is certainly a force to be reckoned with. 3.5 million people out of a job. That's like the whole city of Los Angeles unemployed. Pro claims that EV1, a fairly common electric car, is said to be perfectly reliable, but he got this information off of the EV1 website. I dare say bias is a fairly realistic possibility, don't you? Pretty much all car manufacturers make combustion-based cars. Practically every auto mechanic is trained in only combustion based cars. If we ban combustion engines, there will be huge numbers of problems, resulting in far greater damage than the comparatively small issue of car pollution.
The internal combustion engine in motor vehicles should be banned.

While possibly a good idea in theory, there is no way it would ever work in reality. The word "banned" is far to vague. Does this mean that any vehicle that runs off of a combustion engine is now illegal? Or simply that car makers will not be allowed to put combustion engines in their cars in the future? Obviously, recalling the 2.5 million cars in the United States is ridiculously implausible, so, assuming you mean the latter, this too would be far too difficult. The oil industry is enormous, and if we remove its main source of income, thousands of jobs would be lost. Also, electric cars, the only realistic alternative, are very unreliable and require charging ports, which in of themselves would stack thousands of dollars upon the US economy.
The internal combustion engine in motor vehicles should be banned.

Full resolution: The internal combustion engine in motor vehicle should be banned, with the exception of emergency service vehicles and people with a legit excuse like living in rural Alaska. This is a normative resolution. "Internal Combustion The ­principle behind any reciprocating internal combustion engine: If you put a tiny amount of high-energy fuel (like gasoline) in a small, enclosed space and ignite it, an incredible amount of energy is released in the form of expanding gas. "[1].I Pro will contend for the resolution.Con against the resolution.Links1. http://auto.howstuffworks.com...
dogs are better pets then cats

Ah a forfeit. An interesting tactic to take for the final round when you're really far behind in the debate. But it was his choice.But what does this forfeit mean for the debate?1. Since he still has yet to defend the refutations against against his case, his case is effectively taken out. There are no arguments there that he can pull from to win the round.2. Since he did not respond to my defense of my case, they are considered valid. So my entire case can be extended. There's no arguments for him to pull from to win the roud there, either.So this raises the question of "How can my opponent win this round?"The answer is rather simple: he can't. Thus, I urge a con ballot.
dogs are better pets then cats

That's start with you first argument that people can only admit the secrets to a cat. Just because a cat is small and "cuddly" does not mean they will cuddle with you. Cats have crawls and scratch at you. They are independent animals and prefer to be in solitude. Dogs however look to please you at all times, hence why they learn to obey. Cats have no obedience towards humans. Now with the second argument you posed cats are less expensive then dogs. Cats may not eat as much as a dog, but cats need a litter box which requires you to purchase litter. Which since you own a cat you know can be very expensive, and timely. Litter boxes must be scooped daily of their fecal matter, or they will not use it they will go in you bath tub. Not only must you clean the litter daily but you must empty it at least once a week and clean the entire box out. For the toy situation, cats do require new toys, scratching post?! If they do not have that they will be scratching your furniture, your carpet, and your walls. Cats also enjoy sleeping up in high places, so maybe on top of you fridge, which now makes you have to clean and sanitize that area, unless you enjoy cat hair in your food. For your third argument, they take less management, yes you do not need to brush and wash them such as for a dog. Cats do require multiple visits to vets. They are more prone to tapeworms. Cats may not roll in the dirt but they do bring in mice and birds, dead ones. Your most "potent argument" is a really bad one considering I do not sit on the computer and search Google, I have never heard of this LOLcats you speak of, this is because I am too busy playing and enjoying my dogs. If you have a cat obviously all you can do is stare at a picture of them because they do not want to play, they want to sleep and be by themselves. So for the above reasons, I submit that dogs are better than cats!
dogs are better pets then cats

I am personally appauled by my opponen't position. Being the current owner of both a dog and a cat, I know from first hand experience that cats are better than dogs. I shall attempt to prove such today, as well as disprove my opponent's position.First, cats are lovable felines. They're just bundles of cute fur and purring and lovable to cuddle up with. Cuddling up with a Great Dane can get a bit awkward, since the Great Dane is almost as big as you are. Thusly, people can only truly admit the inner most secrets and come to terms with harms and personal suffering when snuggling with a cat. Second, cats are much less expensive than dogs. Dogs require feeding three times a day, walking, cleaning up after, and constantly replacing toys that they destroy from their inferior intellect. Cats need feeding maybe once, twice a day, and eat much less. You don't have to take cats out for a walk, and giving them one toy will generally last them their entire life time unless a different idiot dog destroys their fun. Third, cats take much less management to take care of than dogs. Like I stated above, dogs require walking in the mornings and nights, need to be taken outside often to do their dirty business, and cleaning up that dirty business can get really problematic if it involves picking up their "numero dos" from the wet ground. Cats don't need to be taken outside. They generally are able to take care of themselves. And it's much easier to safely pick up a cats doo-doo from a box of kitty litter than dog fecal matter from the damp earth. But fourth, and my most potent argument, is that without cats, we would not have LOLcats.[1] Don't lie, everyone at one point or another has been on LOLcats and laughed at their incredible cuteness and funniness. It's practically a fact. But there is no LOLdogs. For this reason that it is more massively accessable to view the cuteness and amazingness of cats than dogs, cats are ergo better than dogs. So for the above reasons, I submit that cats are better than dogs. Now I will refute my opponent's arguments. My opponent claims that dogs will protect you from criminals better than cats. But this isn't true. If a big, burly criminal walked into my house in the night, what are the chances that my pet chiuaua would throw down with this frightening intruder? Not very likely. But cats? Cats can protect. Dovahkitty will always Fus Ro Dah any burglars that try to steal away your lolcats pictures.[2]My opponent claims that cats are also dirty and disrespectful, while dogs are not. But I would like to make a note to the viewers that if they have ever seen a dog rolling around in the mud and then come promptly charging into the home, getting mud everywhere, they would not call this good behavior. But cats are not disrespectful. So, since I have sufficiently refuted my opponent's case, and supplied arguments of my own, I urge a vote for the con debater.FUSS RO DAH!!!!!Sources:[1] http://www.lolcats.com...[2] http://www.lolcats.com...;