BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US could be economically self-sufficient in oil.

President Obama asserts that the US has 2% of the world's reserves, yet uses 20% of the world's production. He clearly implies that the use could not be energy independent based upon fossil fuels. This debate is about whether or not that is true. I claim that the U.S. has sufficient resources to be self-sufficient in fossil fuels for at least a period of 50 years.Definitions"Economically self-sufficient" means that the reserves are profitably recoverable at market prices of $100 or higher per barrel of crude oil. Oil pries may plummet or soar, but that's beyond the scope of this debate.Liquid fuel is at issue. We commonly think of crude oil as the source of refined products, but there are some equivalents to crude oil that come into play. Oil shale yields kerogen, which is essentially equivalent to oil. Some natural gas, called "wet gas" contains a liquid component that is equivalent to petroleum in pricing and use. For this debate we include all oil equivalents in "oil."The is no absolute certainty is how much of a particular source of energy is available and how much it will cost to produce. My burden in this debate is to establish that there is at least a 50-50 chance that the U.S. need for oil could be met at the $100 per barrel price. There are concerns about the impact of fossil fuels upon global warming. That's not a subject for this debate. Here we are only debating the supplies available at recovery cost. Debate RulesI am attaching a set of debate rules as conditions for accepting the debate. I think these are the ordinary debate conventions and contain nothing controversial. The purpose is to make new members reading the debate aware of the conventions.Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR. 1. The first round of the debate is for acceptance and for clarification of terms and conditions only. I will provide the specific Pro contentions in R2. DR 2. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 3. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources in comments.DR 4. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate.DR 5. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Arguments and evidence may be presented in R4 in rebuttal to any previous argument, but no new arguments.DR 6. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.
Does the United States today resemble the fall of the Roman Empire

Yes the United States does have many allies over sea, but relationships can turn for the worse quickly. Without those allies, the United States would not be a rich as they are today. Plus the Roman Empire did plenty of trading with out civilization especially China.The United States is one of the most corrupt governments in the world. Most politicians are accused of corruption but nothing is done. Most people don't even care about corruption. The United States is horrible when it comes to dealing with corruption.On your points, the argument is "Does the United States Today Resemble the Fall of the Roman Empire" not "Will the United States Fall Because of Similar Traits to the Roman Empire"The United Nations is barely effective at anything, the UN tried to numerous times to resolve would problems and they are not effective at all. And if the United States pulled out of the UN, then a huge chunk of the UN's power vanishes.Yes, times are different today, but every country will eventually collapse. The British Empire used to be considered a superpower along the United States and the Soviet Union. They quickly declines even with the UN. Today, the British only have their home island, and a few islands in the oceans.
Does the United States today resemble the fall of the Roman Empire

In the debate does the United States today resemble the fall of the roman empire I will be taking the negative side. Before I layout my argument I would like point out some flaws in the oppositions argument. Rebuttal Military overspending Corruption Sharing traits My first rebuttal is addressing the oppositions point off the military overspending. The United States is incredibly different to the roman empire, and for the purposes of this rebuttal, it's economy is very different. In current days countries are allowed to spend more on military as much of the economy is located overseas. The Roman Empire was in the days leading to it's collapse was far more home based economy. The US has many more allies and has far more trade overseas and can have the freedom to protect itself. Corruption is although a problem with America's government and the Roman Empire, as you, yourself mentioned, and as I will talk about later, they have completely different ideologies which means that corruption has a different effect. In a empire that is not a democracy, these people go unpunished and keep going, however, the United States are a democracy which means that they can be stopped through mere knowledge of the events, which you have shown people have. The opposition has stated that Roman Empire and the US have some similar traits. yet what they have in common does not resemble the Roman Empire enough to say that the US is falling. Now onto my main points. The main points for the negative are as follows: Different ideologies Different times Different allies Different type of war As you mentioned the US and the Romans had different ideologies which means that anything that happens have different effects. Do not mention the fact that politicians are bad, or that spending is terrible when the effects of doing such a thing has a tremendously different effect on your career. The Roman Empire is in a different era to the United States and countries do not simply collapse like they did in the olden days. Things such as the UN and free trading helps countries stay afloat. So unless you just said 'history repeats itself' for dramatic purposes the US isn't going to collapse anytime soon. The United States has different rules and allies the Roman Empire. A nation these days cannot just up and attack when the day before they were allies. Also countries are far less likely to try and annex for a brief period without serious consequences. The only way to attack in the times of the Roman Empire was to cut off trade and attack. These days it is almost impossible to just occupy another country without the UN, shutting you down. So in conclusion the US does share some traits that are shared but due to all different factors, described above, many of the effects have different end results and due to this the US will not repeat the history of the the Roman Empire.
Does the United States today resemble the fall of the Roman Empire

In this argument, the pro (me) is arguing that the fall of Rome resemble the United States today while con is against that.Keep in mind that "even though I may disagree with what you say, I will fight to the very death for you to have the right to say it."My argument: The United States in today does resemble the fall of the Roman Empire. Even though the Roman Empire was an empire and the United States is a republic, both are or were imperialist. Here are some of the reasons the Roman Empire fell: The split between east and west Military overspending Corruption The rise of Christianity Hiring barbarians to fight Rebellions The Ottoman Empire Loyalist to generals, not the empire The split was by far one of the biggest reasons why Rome fell, the split was caused by the empire getting to big for one emperor to handle, so the solution was to split the emperor for 2 emperors. Which caused the west to be cut off from the rest of the world leading to economic decline. The United States does NOT have that problem even if the US does split, each side can trade with one another and which the countries on the other side of the Atlantic and Pacific. And travel is very easy.Another cause was military overspending. With any civilization overspends on the military, they can't use that money to invest into the economy because they are using it on the military. The empire used 2.5% of the empire's GDP and the United States uses 3.8 of its GDP on the military.Another cause was corruption. Corruption causes instability within any civilization. During the Roman Empire, bribery was the norm. In the United States corruption is common, the government is notorious for not fighting corruption and corporations regularly lobby money to government officials.There are endless reason why Rome fell and the United States share some traits, and remember, history repeats itself.
Does the United States today resemble the fall of the Roman Empire

As a response to your rebuttal I will lay out my points to counter yours. Rebuttal Trade Corruption UN The British Addressing your point on the trade with the Chinese, yes the Romans traded with the Chinese, however, as I stated, times are different. An ally these days would not just suddenly turn on an you as a war would not be the same as before. In the times of the Roman empire a war meant constant back and forth campaigns until one side surrendered or was destroyed. Bad, yes, but these days it could mean the annihilation of the human race and every country with the capabilities to use nuclear weapons, and even most that can't, know this. So, again due to different times large scale, country collapsing, war, is far less likely to happen. Corruption, again yes it is a big problem in the US, but still due to the different ideologies thing, people aren't elected more than a few times, if they are corrupt. Or possibly they resign which is the far more likely thing to happen because they know they won't get elected again. Therefore it is either not big enough to make headlines and therefore won't mean the end of one of the largest countries in the world, economically speaking of course, or it does make headlines and that politician resigns. The UN is easy to throw shame at it because it is good at it's job. It wouldn't still be around if it wasn't. All you hear about the UN is bad things because that is what makes the news because it is rarer for it to fail than it is for it to succeed. To demonstrate this point I show you the amount of car crashes, in monitored areas of the ASIRT (on average 3,287 deaths a day) to plane crashes (one passenger per 11,501,886) yet what is more likely to make the news. To show that the UN actually does do it's job I show you this link. -http://www.un.org... Yes, all countries will eventually fall and that includes the US, but, it won't be soon, and it won't resemble the fall of the Roman Empire. The British Empire is a completely different situation, first, it has been around for hundreds of years with far more time to corrode. Secondly, the British still are the head of the commonwealth and their monarchy is still in charge of Australia, Canada and many more. So in conclusion, your rebuttal doesn't discredit my argument and my point still stands.
Figs are an abomination

This is an argument I have seen numerous times and it still has me perplexed as to how people can still believe this.Genesis 1-12 "he earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good."God saw that plant life on earth was good. He did not say everything is good except for fig trees. One does not generally hate what they would consider good. Also Jesus was using that fig tree as an analogy toward the Hebrew people. Even after years of God being good to the Hebrews they did not yield spiritual fruits and so when Jesus cursed the fig tree (and he cursed only that fig tree) he was also cursing the Hebrews for their ill faith. Thank you and I await Pros response.Sources: http://biblehub.com...
Figs are an abomination

This is why I take the stance that self-professing Christians cannot eat figs while still professing consistent faith: Mark 11:12-14 "12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: 13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it." The message of this passage is clear. Jesus does not want people to eat figs ever. Yet few self-professed Christians actually follow through on this command. It is your burden to prove that this command somehow does not apply to modern Christians.
Figs are an abomination

Jesus uses parables through out the new testament to teach his disciples. The cursing of the fig tree is more of a live example. You are also still not able to refute the fact that he cursed only that tree. Jesus did not say "No man eat fruit of any fig tree". He said "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever". It is clear that he meant that single tree. The point is not the interpretation of the parable/analogy. The point is that he was making one. The bible isn't the direct word of God. It is comprised of stories and letters from many prophets and disciples. The Quran is considered the direct word of god but that's another religion.I'm not a catholic because I was raised a protestant. If it makes you feel better I'm agnostic now. I don't personally believe in God but I recognize that it's impossible to know.
Figs are an abomination

"Christians follow Jesus"Christians follow the teachings of Jesus and accept him as their saviour for his sacrifice. They also believe in the trinity where God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are one body and that there is one GOD. GOD says what he hath made is good. Therefore it is good. "And as for the metaphor, how would you know?"Well for one being a protestant for years and being taught this in church. It is the most told and accepted interpretation and can be found from multiple sources. Although the Hebrew people were the main followers of god this parable was also meant to speak to all people who did not follow god. Sorry for reserving it exclusively to Hebrews in the previous round. Isaiah spoke of the Israelites neglect of their God, "The ox knows his owner, and the donkey his master’s crib, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand” (Isa. 1:3). This shows that they were not recognizing their creator. It can be extended as well to all people who do not exhibit real faith in God. [1] [2] [3] Note that Pro has dropped my argument that Jesus only cursed a single fig tree. No matter which interpretation you believe in the point is that Jesus was not cursing all fig trees. Just the one and it was an analogy. To what the analogy is of is up for interpretation but the ones I have provided are the ones that are most accepted. Case in point is that figs are not an abomination and figs are not cursed Thank you. Sources : [1] - http://www.rc.net... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] - https://www.christiancourier.com...
Iran should be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal

Thank you very much and I hope you can join my side when its over lol. Please, no need to apologize for these minor errors; its more important to get a well rounded idea backed with facts, rather than using fancy words sounding smart. (I dont call your ideas "folderol" which means non sense, i hope you respect me in the same way) -Firstly, I am glad we have common ground on Israel; since it goes hand in hand with Iran. Here is why; the only reason we are even talking about Iran's nucluear issue is because of its close proximity to Israel (and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia). Does it not occur to that the most powerful lobby in Washington is that of a foreign nation?(Israel). Then tell me why are we concerning ourselves with a stable country like Iran gaining Nuclear capability. They will never reach our soil. and honestly you don't understand how international politics work; all nations of the earth's leaders have a mutual incentive to maintain power and stability which brings them money. ISRAEL IS THE ISSUE NOT USA. Persia and Iran are one in the same! what is your argument. Let me name you a few inventions that the Iranian empire created, Persia was a name given by great britian. The first Taxation system (under the Achemenid empire). - Alcohol (medicine). the invention of brick. They led the world in science and astronomy when Europe was stuck in the dark ages. North Korea Zimbabwe Pakistan Belarus Uzbekistan cannot say the same! Likewise, these countries you named are extremely laughable. Belarus and Uzbekistan were once part of the Soviet Union, they are largely Russian origon. North Korea has no great history; it has a korean history which is different from the political creation you see today. Pakistan, don't even get me started. PAKISTAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS DONT YOU KNOW THAT? THE REGION AND WORLD IS JUST FINE IF NOT SAFER FOR THAT. They are an islamic republic that DOES NOT wish to spread islamic revolution around the globe. Please give me evidence of them trying to spread islam outside of the middle east. Do you not know the history; they democratically elected Mossadegh in the 1950's and we replaced them with a dictator who abused the people and sold his countries natural resources to the west. And for "brevity's sake" i wont bore you with the U.S.'s claims, quotes(evil empire); please.
Iran should be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal

First off I'd like to apologise for two spelling faults of my own those being appealing instead of appalling and mantra instead of maxim (however the latter still makes syntactic sense somewhat) now swiftly moving on. To begin with I actually assent with your point on Israel's weaponry monopoly fueling unrest (iron dome). However I feel that by granting Iran the same mistaken privileges we only duplicate the problem and further the unrest. I support the exact same restrictions been put on Israel to! The proposal wasn't about the Israeli arsenal, and to focus in on it so much signifies a folderol argument frivosuly shifting the debate's burden. Furthermore I'd dissent that Iran is a "proud civilisation" I'd support the claim that Persia was one but I'd disagree with Iran being called such as it is a society of autocracy (first the shah now the ayatollah). Arguably North Korea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan Belarus and Uzbekistan are also proud civilisations but would you feel comfortable with the prospect of any of those regimes building up a nuclear stockpile - I think not! I have no problem with Iran's nuclear enrichment program as it. Creates energy and jobs; I merely support them bringing it down to the 5% level of uranium enrichment that was specified, as that makes it clear that Khameni is sticking to his fatwa, and not caving in to the climatic anxiety of the Iran-Iraq war where Khomeini began creating these weapons to challenge saddam's poisonous gas,and that the program is only being utilised for positive , productive scientific means. Whether I think Iran are going to use the weapons or not is irrelevant;there is a restrictive cap for a reason, and by refusing it iran only arouses more suspicion an counterpoises it's legitimacy. They're an Islamic Republic and wish to spread Islamic revolution around the globe. For brevity's sake I won't bore you with tehran's claims, quotes, flag emblems spotted by journalists in the nation and criticism of volatile/vitriolic and straining foreign relations, alliances and rivalries (w hitch arguably all countries have 'only referring to last'). Tis a dangerous fallacy to claim that any nation has a sovereign right to nuclear armament!
Iran should be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal

Israel's regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel's nuclear arsenal, not Iran's desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced. Iran is a proud civilization thousands of years old; it's extremely extremely doubtful and hateful propaganda to think they would blow up the Middle East
Iran should be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal

Basic Reasons to kick start discussion - Iran is a Shia Theocracy and by allowing them this you grant them more power and influence (sharia law will spread), alarm Sunnis' (who'd make a prime target), Endanger both Israel and more so Iraq (war could start up again). - The ayatollah is tyrant who can't be trusted. - Rouhanni can't be trusted either even though he's supposedly liberal: since not only is he subordinate to the conservative ayatollah; he also is a holocaust denier, and the mastermind behind the deplorable response to the student protests of 1999! - Iran sponsor and support many insidious regimes and appealing terrorist groups - this will only catalyse that. - Nuclear weapons are obsolete deterrents, necessary in the Cold War - we shouldn't be encouraging and endorsing furthering of the Manhattan project. - They're run by dogma not rationale doctrine. - A global mantra forms which Will allow other countries to enrich their own WMD arsenal. (bad economically, socially, environmental and philanthropically) "We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita... "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." "There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." Oppenheimer
Your account is a troll account. Prove me wrong.

First off, I will clarify that I am not a troll account. You also said that my only account settings were that I liked Trump and was a Conservative, yes, I am both, and the only reason others have not been changed is because I have not gotten to them yet, this account is new. And no, I do not hate gays or anyone in the LGBT community. Although I do stand by my statement that they should be given help (I will state evidence in the next round.) and I will admit that I was a bit rash in saying being gay was not normal. But no, I am no troll.