BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Missile Defense System

hello First off, thank you for the debate and not forfeiting rounds (up until now). "The government may have the supposed resources to keep a project secret, however, noting the ability of the press and public to learn of its government's operations, this is an impractical assumption." -Okay. In Thanksgiving of 2003, president BUsh made a secret trip to the Middle East, that the pres nor the public never knew about till after we got there. He is the most followed man in the world. There are tons of press surcurity etc following him. That blue plane that's impossible to miss and yet he made it out unnoticed. The government will make it secret, and we'll never find out. "if the US were to fully resume its missile defense projects today, an imminent nuclear threat from NK couldn't be countered." If I understand this right, you agree with me. I'm not sure my reasoning is right, but to me it sounds like you are agreeing with me that a missile defense system would keep us safe. There is no reason not to take a risk on our safety and not complete the mission. Okay now to the money part. I understand that 300 million citizens wouldn't be paying taxes. Now I will redo my numbers. 130,000,000 (million) people pay taxes. IT cost 10,000,000,000 annually to fund the system. That comes out to the citizens paying $76.93 to fund the system. Now I'm sure we could get corporate donations personal etc. That alone, exspecialy making a well marketed foundation could bring in 1/4 billion to 3/4 billion dollars. "fund alternative energy research to successfully eliminate US foreign dependence on oil" Vote Pro! One answer-DRILL ALASKA. There is plenty of oil there, so why don't we use it.
A Missile Defense System

kenito: "if the US cannot keep the identity of a CIA operative secret in the 21st Century, I highly doubt this country's ability to do the same with missile defense. " Where has the identity of of a CIA operative been known. I found 1 incident. So what? One person out of 50,000? workers for the CIA (couldn't find a number). We still don't know exactly what they did, how they got there, etc. It is one piece in a 1,000,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. The government has the resources to keep it secret. "US should intervene economically, politically, or with the military to prevent the missile from being launched, instead of risking it rendering damage while in the sky. " What if we lose all touch with NK. We don't know exactly what goes. It would be possible that we could wake up one day and there is a bomb in the air headed for us. We don't have a defense system, now what do we do? Try and fire something at it? That sounds like a missile defense system. "it's pragmatic"-Kenito (talking about putting a price on our security. How is putting a price on our safety. Let's just say that 300,000,000 pay an extra $20 to fund the missile defense system. It would cost $10,000,000,000 a year. SO in one year, the citizens of the US would pay have to pay a whopping $33.34 to fund it. Whew that is a real stretch. I would pay that extra $33 for a couple of people, and would be happy to.
A Missile Defense System

Kenito How do you know that a missile defense project would get great publicity. Arguably the biggest project in US history, The Manhattan Project, was top secret had very little, if any publicity. I no that was a different time back then, but we could still keep it top secret. Some of the proposed locations, aren't even in the mainland. Also, one is in Greenland. We could build these without anyone knowing. Look at what goes on in the CIA or Area 51 we don't know. THe government can make it top secret. You say multiple times that a bomb couldn't hit the US now. I know that a nuke couldn't reach the US right now, but what about in 5 10 20 years? How do we know the resources won't be available to make that statement true. IN 5 10 20 years, both sides (US Missile Defense and NK) will both have way more technology than now. SO what about the cost? We our putting a price on our safety. That's just stupid.
A Missile Defense System

Hello I don't see what is so bad about a missile defense system. We have a couple setup now in Alaska and California (note there are a couple in Calf. and a couple in Alaska). There are bases in Russia too. Also, they have new bases planned to be built in Poland/Czech Republic, Boston, Greenland, more in Alaska. It is real simple, a country like North Korea, deploys a nuclear bomb headed for New York. A military base in Alaska detetcs it on a radar. Now we can evacuate New York City and shoot off defence missile. That missile can unarm or blow it up before it ever reaches the US coast. Our next step is to deploy missiles into that nation (but that is another debate) Without a system like that, New York City would be blown to pieces. OUr biggest city, the world's biggest market gone just like that. You can't rebuild it, It will just be like that for a while. The argument will be made that it cost too much. So? does it really matter what it cost if it's a matter of national security. What is a few dollars more in taxes?
Happiness Survey

1) Do you think God is Happy? Why or Why not? 2) Does wealth constitute man's Happiness? If yes explain 3) Can man his whole life without being happy? Why or Why not? 4) What make you Happy or brings you happiness? How does it bring you happiness? Answers: 1) Yes 2)No 3)No 4) Serving God, family, and life Please respond and I will elaborate. Someone please respond of your a Christian then please don't.
Involve Police in school disciplinary actions

Good luck and have fun! First I would like to clear up a few things because my opponents opening statement was a bit vague. - Burden of proof is on instigator. - Police intervention means any form of police contact at all during an incident that happened on school grounds. (simply calling the police counts as intervention. ) - Con is arguing that police contact is absolutely unnecessary in any situation when it happens on school grounds. For example a kid steals an ipod from another kid (this is fairly common). - I'm obviously arguing against con. I believe that police intervention is sometimes necessary. - Because there are certain laws which mandate schools to call police in some situations I'm assuming we will be arguing based on logic and reasoning rather than a legal basis. Feel free to correct me on this if you want Con. That being said I will now make my opening statements. I wont go into too much detail because I want to give my opponent to actual state his reasoning. Although police intervention isn't always the best option, in school or out, it is sometimes necessary. While small things like littering in school, cheating on tests, calling a teacher a terrible degrading word is obviously best handled with old school detention type punishment, sometimes there is need for escalation. A crime is a crime no matter were it is committed. If a student decided to commit one of these crimes, there repercussions shouldn't be mitigated just because it happened on school grounds. For example if a student attacks another student and viciously beats him, injuring the victim severely, would it be ok to not charge the violent instigator with assault just because it happened during school? My opponent thinks so. I find this ridiculous.
Math should not be though in high school.

In my opinion math should not be though in the high school level. Only if the student is interested in pursuing a career in engineering, architecture, scientist, doctor, or even a math teacher. Because in the school curriculum today students need 2-3 mandatory credits in order to graduate and it is a complete waist of time if they do not plan on pursuing a career on the above occupation. Because they 8 years you spent in grade 1-8 should be enough math for you to manage your life with out getting rip off at a store or getting cheat out of your money or any other situation that will force you to use math.
Is assassins creed a good game or just something you watch happen

I think assassins creed is a good game. A lot of people give it hate and say its just something you watch happen and you don't even have to do anything. Also people say that its just tailing missions but its not. Certain critics are just pointing out the bad things and not the things that are possible. In assassins creed syndicate its not just tailing missions its mostly taking over london and stopping starrick. In origins you have the ability to choose a lot more than a few weapons and you can do a bunch of new things.
A Homework Ban Is A Bad Idea

Resolved: A Homework Ban is a bad idea France has recently decided to ban homework. This is bad for kids. Here's why. The kids have to be graded on something, so this means all grading will happen based on work done at school. Some students, including some students who would ordinarily do very well academically find themselves under increased stress at school. Many students deal with bullying. Even if they don't concerns such as girlfriends, boyfriends, and even just plain trying to socialize and fit in add even more stress. This would be especially bad for students with autism or social anxiety. The amount of stress for the student walking into the classroom is thus often immense. Thoughts about relationship issues, about bullies, about personal appearance often course through a child's head in the classroom. And then you're going to make them do ALL of their work that they get graded on inside that classroom. Some of these students because of the stress will do more poorly at work in the classroom than at home. Ordinarily these students and if it's noticeable enough their parents will begin to notice that homework grades are great but schoolwork is not so great. They then make the connection that it's because of the stress at school and work through it and deal with it. However, if all of the graded work is at school how is the child, parents, or anybody supposed to know they are doing poorly because of stress and not because of innate lack of ability or just laziness? In some cases a student may even have a learning disability that causes difficulties concentrating in the classroom setting whereas they may find themselves with a much better focus doing the work in their room. Because homework is sometimes required this problem can be recognized and an IEP (Individualized Education Plan) that allows the student to take care of non-homework assignments either as homework or in a special setting (another room) or with special accommodations (allowed to listen to music) can be given to the student and the student can still succeed. If there is no homework then it will be harder for educators to pinpoint the problem the student is having.
The existence of a god is a logical certainty

I would prefer that an atheist or agnostic accepts this debate, as I would like to see them uphold their beliefs. Now, defining terms: Existence is defined by Merriam-Webster as "actual or present occurrence" to clarify, this means that there is or once was (for the purposes of this debate) a god (at least that's what I have to prove) a god for this debate, to limit the parameters of this debate is a being or a group of beings that are powerful enough to create the Universe. Examples would include the Judeo-Christian God, the Greek and Roman gods, etc. Universe: (This will be important) the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated I don't think I need to define other terms as my opponent can present his or her own definitions if necessary. My case will be presented in a syllogism form: I will list premises and conclusions. Premise 1: Logically the Universe must have had a beginning, everything must start a some point. (Not geometrically) Premise 2: Something must have caused the Universe to be created. Premise 3: That something must also have had a beginning. Premise 4: This would continue infinitely, as all somethings must have had a beginning, and must have been created. Premise 5: Only a being(s) that was powerful enough to create itself could stop this logical impossibility. Premise 6: This being(s) would then have to create everything else in order to create the Universe. Conclusion: Therefore, only a being(s) that fits my definition of a god could have created the Universe. Premise 7: I think. (Or you think, in your case, I can only prove to myself that I think, not to anyone else, same goes for you) Premise 8: In order to think, I must be able to think. Premise 9: In order to be able to think, one must occur, or exist. Not necessarily physically mind you. Conclusion: I exist. (Or you exist) Premise 10: I exist. (Or you exist) Conclusion: The Universe (as defined) must exist. Premise 11: The Universe (as defined) must exist. Conclusion: It is certain that a god(s) once existed.
The existence of a god is a logical certainty

First, my opponent claims that if there is a shadow of doubt that a god(s) exists I lose. This is false. I said "logical certainty," that means under the rules of logic it is certain there is or once was a god(s). Then (s)he claims that the god(s) must also currently exist, which is false. Merriam-Webster's definition of existence is "actual or [emphasis on the "or"] present occurrence" That means that a god(s) either is occurring presently, or occurred actually. So it does not mandate the present existence of a god(s). Then (s)he says that the Judeo-Christian God can't exist because there is evil in the world. First off, (s)he shows complete ignorance of scripture, about the fall of man, but that is irrelevant. I merely must prove that there was once a god(s). This doesn't have to be the Judeo-Christian God. Next, (s)he says that the Greek and Roman gods can't exist because they are supposed interact with people, and they don't. Okay, so, I was merely using them of an example of gods, I don't believe they exist either. Then, (s)he says that although (s)he agrees with premises 1-3, I must prove that the god(s) will live forever, which I already proved false. Anyways, if you take the interpretation my opponent gave of existence, the god(s) would still exist, if only as a legacy of creation. Oh, sorry, I see now, my opponent misunderstood my fourth premise. I meant that unless there was a being powerful enough to create itself, there could be no beginning. i apologize if that was poorly phrased. Then, in response to premise 5, where I state that a being must have created itself, (s)he says I have no evidence. This is false! If (s)he agrees with my first premise, then (s)he agrees that something must have come first. It must have not been created by something else. (that was what premise 4 meant), and if nothing created something, it must have created itself. that's all the evidence I need. Finally, (s)he says that my existence argument works against me. I merely used this to prove that the Universe exists, because if I exist, the Universe does. Without this, my argument fails. (s)he also assumes that the god(s) is all-powerful, so he wouldn't allow doubt. Again, the god(s) could be gone now, or only capable of creating the Universe, or evil, etc. This argument holds no weight.
debate.com is unfair

Thanks for taking up this debate. My opponent implies that the administrator would of simply "forgot" to add a 11 digit number. # Firstly debate.org is used for people fromm any contnents countries etc, so the administrator should of took that in.and provided numbers in association with where people live, to make this a fair site. oponent stated #2. It's not stupid, because there are several reasons why Phil never implemented the system of a cell phone number containing more than 10 digits. where are them reasons then? hmm... i would like to reinstate another thing my oponent stated #4. It's not biased because you can still win in a debate you don't vote in. Do you have proof that if you can't vote that you're more likely to lose? Thats not what my debate is about its about ENGLISH people from this site not been able to vote, and the fact that relations between debaters would be different. also my oponent implied "so english people dont have more of a fair chance!" Sure they do, they have as much as American people who can vote AND can't vote. You are trying to imply that voting for yourself is a big deal. It's not. If you vote for yourself, your opponent will most likely vote for themselves too, negating the vote. Therefore, it's not a big deal if you can't vote, because debate.org community will decide whether you lose or win based on the debate. ^^ My debate is not about "voting for yourself" if you read my debate you would of seen what i was talking about. For eg: I stated a debate on a english vocal singer from birmingham england was amazing, my oponent ( from america) judged that he wasnt and stated why.. he established the fact that this person hadnt reached number one and hadnt made as much singles, and cant be a legend in accordance to america, but music rating are very different in america and england , the singer would be better known in england and made more singles releasing in england, ..Of course americans voted for my oponent.. yet english people defended my rights on comments because they couldnt vote. This proves the fact that americans see some views very different from british ones.. and will side with an american if they cant understand views.. yet if the english people on this site agreed with me they cannot vote, making the debate extremely UNFAIR. I have fully proved this.. My oponent wanted to provide him with facts and he would see the facts if he looked at some debates based on here. I also have english friends on this site who is also angry about this unfairness and the biased facts on this site. Dont get me wrong im not saying every debate is like this.. im saying the ones that are based on society from different areas. My oponent also said this "phil" ( asuming he is a administrator) cant impliment the site, well i can suspect an administrator on this site can provide numbers in conjunction with debate.org as they do this on other sites. TO conclude my arguement i know i wont win! ( based on votes) but im glad i put my view out there..and put this across.
debate.com is unfair

Let's duel! I thank my opponent for this debate and would be glad to have the opportunity to show that Debate.org fair, contrary to the resolution. Observations: "Why cant People from england vote on debates?" #1. My opponent demonstrates her anger and frustration at Debate.org inability to accept 11 digits of cell phone numbers. She forgets that there's a contact website that she can use to help her problems, negating the resolution that debate.org is unfair: http://www.debate.org... If debate.org. If debate.org was truly unfair, then there would be no way that she can fix that. However, since I proved that there IS a way, debate.org isn't unfair. #2. There could be a number of reasons why people from England can't vote on debates. Perhaps Phil never had the chance to implement the system or forgot. He may never knew that people may have more than 10 digits to a cell phone number or he may never knew how to implement the system. There are so many possibilities such as he was too busy or that he is unable to change the system even if he had wanted to. To make sure, why don't you ask him by using the contact website I gave above. "Its stupid, unfair and biased." #1. My opponent then resorts to ad hominem attacks to demonstrate her anger, which should be immediately discarded. Ad hominem attacks do not provide proof to your claims or help your clause. #2. It's not stupid, because there are several reasons why Phil never implemented the system of a cell phone number containing more than 10 digits. #3. It's not unfair, because just because you don't vote in a debate doesn't mean you'll lose. Wins and losses are decided by how many the community voted, not just ourselves. #4. It's not biased because you can still win in a debate you don't vote in. Do you have proof that if you can't vote that you're more likely to lose? "Topics on some debates can relate to what country your from for Example politics, goverement ..Prostitution. credit crunch etc. && Obv people from america will agree with other americans based on the arguement , bieng more of their society norm." Proof? Sources? Evidence? "so english people dont have more of a fair chance!" Sure they do, they have as much as American people who can vote AND can't vote. You are trying to imply that voting for yourself is a big deal. It's not. If you vote for yourself, your opponent will most likely vote for themselves too, negating the vote. Therefore, it's not a big deal if you can't vote, because debate.org community will decide whether you lose or win based on the debate.
debate.com is unfair

Why cant People from england vote on debates? Its stupid, unfair and biased Topics on some debates can relate to what country your from for Example politics, goverement ..Prostitution. credit crunch etc. && Obv people from america will agree with other americans based on the arguement , bieng more of their society norm. debate.com only provides a number with 10 digits not 11 ( which is the british digits).. so english people dont have more of a fair chance! DONT ALL U AMERICANS GO CRAZY AT ME NOW. Lol its basic facts :)
Sanders is on the side of some Billionaires. Zuckerberg.

Thank you.I would like to conclude by pointing out how my opponent was unable to provide any evidence whatsoever on their side of the argument, whereas I was able to clearly point out Bernie's not being on the side of billionaires. I encourage voters to vote with a lack of bias and based off of who had the better argument.Again, thank you Max.Wallace for giving me this opportunity to debate this topic. I wish you good luck in the voting process.
Sanders is on the side of some Billionaires. Zuckerberg.

I am sorry to have seen you waste your second round on a simple question. Saying he is "on the side of" some billionaires is vague and could mean multiple things. I will try to argue each point, as you have clearly shown your inability to clarify a broad term. The first possible meaning: Bernie Sanders will allow billionaires to keep much of their income. This is false, he is proposing increasing the income tax on the wealthiest people: http://i.imgur.com... Second possible meaning: Bernie Sanders will make policies in billionaires’ favor. This is also false, because he doesn’t accept money from billionaires, as well has no PAC or Super-PAC (Political Action Committee), he is not indebted to creating policies favoring the billionaire class. If there are any other meanings that you would like for me to touch upon, please let me know, as you were unable to previously. Also, I hope you do try to debate here, instead of focusing on the nitty gritty aspects of my arguments.
Sanders is on the side of some Billionaires. Zuckerberg.

I accept as to argue: Bernie Sanders is not on the side of some Billionaires. Firstly, let me ask a question: What do you mean by "on the side of"? Once this is clarified, I can begin constructing my actual argument, before this, let me define some terms, and provide my opinion. Senator Bernie Sanders: A democratic presidential candidate with hopes to reform several aspects of this nation, one of these being pertinent to this debate: Decreasing the wealth gap. Bernie's policies will increase taxes on the wealthy and attempt to remove tax-avoiding loop holes, thereby showing him to be "against" the billionaires.