BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S should attack North Korea

The U.S is waiting, but insted of waiting we should be preparing for an all out war. North Korea makes a lot of claims like the number of nukes they had. Most were proven to be fakes at some propoganga marches. His nukes can't even currently reach the U.S, but if they keep waiting, they could. The same thing happened with Germany and the Nazis. The UN let them continue doing suspicious, like quick invasions to take few amounts of land, building a huge army, etc. But no other country wanted to deal with it, so they were just left alone, Next thing they knew, World War II started and the Nazis became a great foe. For the comment's part about allies, we have far greater allies, and they're only real dangerous allie in China, but they are breaking ties. It's either we attack now with a higher chance of victory, or later with a lower chance...
The U.S should attack North Korea

I do not feel it is in our best interest to force the issue with North Korea specifically because it would turn a tiny threat into a larger one due to friction that would be caused with the first class powers who could take issue with our handling of the problem ourselves. Waiting until an ally is attack would allow us justified war which can have a large boosting effect to morale. If we were to launch a preemptive attack then there would likely be large public backlash, which would be damaging in a small war and debilitating a large one. I think that most of the countries in the vicinity of North Korea such as South Korea and Japan are able to defend themselves sufficiently enough to guard against North Korea by itself, were major powers to be involved it would be a different problem. I believe we originally got involved in Korea because of the domino theory that countries weak to communism would fall one by one. Countries have proved to be less connected by the spirit of communism than the founders of that movement hoped. North Korea and communism pose little threat to the world at the current time. I do not care for individual countries involving themselves in crusades against injustice, I see our governments purpose as to protect us, mostly that's it. An individual can pursue his ideals, but I hold our government to a different standard. Not to mention the fact there are easier to involve ourselves in action which can help people in need. I am unsure about the UN or it's policies, Sanctions? Protective treaties? Actually decide as a group that North Korea commits atrocities on it's own people and should be dealt with by a unified world movement? I am unsure of actual extent of North Korea atrocities and can only remember rumor.
The U.S should attack North Korea

I very much agree with you in how NK can't affect the U.S. But like I said, leaving them alone won't do anything but make there "tiny" threat grow larger and larger until it's a big one. Also Like how you said It's not only the U.S's problem, how about other nations that can't defend themselves. Are we going to wait until our allies are attacked, or attack the enemy first. NK must realise sooner or later that they're no match for the U.S, so they could change their aim at an easier target, or take advantage of the time the U.S isn't intervening. I understand the U.S is occupied, but if they're so much stronger than NK, why don't they get the highest potential threat over with while they're weak. What do you think the U.S or other UN allies should do?
The U.S should attack North Korea

While I admit it to be dangerous to allow North Korea to develop nukes, it seems doubtful that they would ever be able to build enough to pose a serious threat to America. Even if supplied them. As I believe the building and research of such technology is highly expensive. Cuba for instance, I do not believe anyone thought that Cuba by itself was capable of destroying the United States even with it's nukes, but we found them far to close for comfort and considered them to be cats paws of Communist Russia, thus the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion which proved to be a major embarrassment to the current USA administration at the time. I believe that Germany was mostly alone before WW2 unlike North Korea. Making it easier to intervene in that case(Which we failed to do) than North Korea. People tend to want the power to control their own destinies, be it theirs or their countries. It seems hard to put an actual number or power on who is "allowed" nuclear weapons. The current rule seems to be the major powers, regardless of actual power. Over time it is possible that countries who have not made advances past nuclear warfare in the ways that more advanced countries have, will use nukes to the detriment of the world, but I do not expect it to destroy it, nor do I expect that time has come yet. If I have incorrect information that anyone notices, I would appreciate it being pointed out in the comments. This link does not apply much, but it is where I got people number concept for nukes. https://www.quora.com...
The U.S should attack North Korea

Debating with people like you is cool. I'm guess I didn't realise that North Korea wasn't just the U.S's problem. But the nation may be 82 times smaller than the U.S or who knows tinier than all of the UN partners combined, but NK has something that we should all be afraid of... nuclear bombs. Or potiential ones. It's not like back in the day when if a nation is bigger with more numbers they'd win. Now, if a country has just one of these "Death Grenades" they'll be a threat. NK has the military power of Belgium, but one of those nations has nukes. It may not be the U.S's problem, but they are arguably the leading nation in defense and military power. And if theirs a nation NK hates the most other than South Korea... it's the U.S. Since SK and NK are currently at a sort of declined war... NK will turn to America. If not just the U.S, but UN keeps waiting, it'll be a WWII with nukes. Sadly it would probably be a WWIII no matter what, but one fate would allow one with far less casualties.
weight is gravitational pull.. gravity, i think

I know you're just a troll who usually answers no sense, but I'll take the challenge anyways since it's always good to find someone with crazy ideas in order to test how much you know about a particular subject. Since you used terminology like "weight/attraction", I will use classical mechanics mainly, I may make a reference to general relativity but I won't give much details of it since my knowledge on such theory is very limited. You do attract other objects but the force of attraction from you to other objects is much smaller than the force of the Earth attracting those same objects. A simple proof is the Cavendish experiment performed on 1798 - https://en.wikipedia.org... - . This experiment shows the gravitational attraction between lead spheres, while you're not made of lead, you do have mass just like the lead spheres so just like the lead spheres you do attract other objects. I expect a fun answer!
Football is better than basketball.

Selfishness is only exhibited on poor teams, Michael Jordan averaged less than 20 points per game as Dean Smith at North Carolina required Team work and established a passing game offense which promoted spreading the ball around and utilized individual players strengths while downplaying their weaknesses.ï¿½ Basketball players are far more well rounded athletes.ï¿½ In Football you have specialist, many of whom are required to gain excessive weight and actually develop unhealthy life styles in order to satisfy the demands of a particular position. It should also be noted that the average NFL player dies in there 50's, this is a result of the unhealthy lifestyle mentioned above.
Football is better than basketball.

Yes you can get out your anger, butt Football is much more deadly. From my research I have found that more than 50 people have died playing football since 1980. From 1931 until now there have been over 1000 death related to football, Far more than basketball, for which I have found none. You must remember that to be hit is to get hit, and this may lead up to becoming a statistic. If you want to get out your anger, try soccer, kick people in the shin, and if you don't use your hands it's legal! http://wiki.answers.com...
Abortion should remain legal in the United States.

Thank you for accepting. I too look forward to this debate. -------------------------- My opponent brings up several good points. However, when examined many of her points are flawed. Allow me to elaborate: 1) My opponent states "I agree that there is no excuse for destroying a human life; however, I do believe that there are some exceptions to this point." Here she is affirming the resolution by saying abortion should remain legal in the United States. 2) In her argument, my opponent pronounced that we ought to do something to prevent dark alley abortions. Allow me to clarify. These are only performed during times when abortion was illegal. 3) Later my opponent states, "the number of clinical abortions performed in the United States was 1,200,000." and, "If abortion was illegal, this number would drop significantly." This argument is unsound in the sense that she simply says illegalizing abortions will cut this hefty number but provides no statistical evidence to support this opinion. Contra positively, I have provided evidence that abortions will still be performed in a gruesome manner even if they are illegal. My opponent strengthens this point in saying, "Yes, the sad truth is that abortions are going to happen whether you legalize it or not;" 4) In supporting abortions for rape victims, my opponent supports the resolution because she wishes for abortions to remain legal in the United States. 5) The sad truth is that most teenage girls have neither the maturity nor the resources to give birth to and care for a baby. According to Bank of America, less than 2% of teens posses more than $1000. Nowadays, driving to the hospital for regular check ups will consume all their money. Additionally, "if a girl is foolish enough to not have protected sex," she is most likely immature seeing as thesauruses consider the "foolish" and immature to be synonyms. 6) I never stated that abortion is good for decreasing the surplus population. I merely state statistic proving aborted children, if born, were likely to become a burden on society and are likely to have a lower quality of life. As terrible as it sounds, terminating these pregnancies protects the fetus from harsh lives and lower the amount of money the US has to spend on welfare, unemployment, and prisons. 7) My opponents case is purely based on her personal bias and opinions. Throughout her argument she offer 1 stat whereas she said "I believe" or something to the same effect once or twice in every paragraph. I remind my opponent and judges that personal afflictions do not win debates. I urge a pro vote from the judges based on my refutations and 3 points of analysis; previous attempts to illegalize abortion have been harmful to society, severe situations demand abortions, and abortions have a net benefit for the nation.
Abortion should remain legal in the United States.

I think this is going to be a good debate. =) Also let me say that I agree that there is no excuse for destroying a human life; however, I do believe that there are some exceptions to this point. ------------------------------ You mentioned "Dark Alley Abortions. " Yes, the sad truth is that abortions are going to happen whether you legalize it or not; however, we as a nation need to do SOMETHING to control this devastating trend. Like seeking out those that perform this heinous act. Let me elaborate: According to www. mccl. org/abortion_statistics. htm, the number of clinical abortions performed in the United States was 1,200,000. Granted, this number is significantly lower than that of 1990 when the number of abortions was 1,600,000, this number is still very large. If abortion was illegal, this number would drop significantly. Also, you brought up the point of rape. Yes, I understand that women who are raped cannot bear to carry the child of a rapist. That's why I believe that rape is one of the exceptions to the illegal abortions rule. If a woman is raped, she should have the right to get an abortion if she chooses. Granted, the woman would have to be examined to determine this; simply so not every woman who had a "one night stand" can claim to be raped and get an abortion. You mentioned teenage girls getting pregnant. Here is where I also believe that this should be an exception to the rule. A girl cannot get pregnant until she has her first period, so if a girl is foolish enough to not have protected sex and she gets pregnant, I believe that she shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion. Only in cases of rape. If a girl is "mature" enough to make the decision to have unprotected sex in the first place, she is "mature" enough to suffer the consequences. Abortion should be illegal, because the whole idea of an abortion is to get rid of a child that you do not want. I do not believe that women should have the right to abort a child because of their foolishness, only cases of rape. Also if the pregnancy is detrimental to the mother, then she has the option of having the child and possibly dying or having an abortion. Cost to society. While I can kind of see where you are coming from in terms of women getting abortions cuts down on the population, which costs society less, I cannot agree with you. The population will always be rising, that's a simple fact. Yes, the population is growing at a rate faster than we have ever seen. But as much as I agree that we should do something about trying to balance out the birth and death rate, I cannot stand behind the idea of aborting babies simply because it will help society. In China, couples are limited to one child per household. Should that mother get pregnant again, then that family immediately goes to an abortion clinic. If we say that getting abortions help the economy, I can't help but wonder if we might end up doing the same thing; aborting a child to control the population. We as a nation can do things to encourage a slower population growth, like strongly encouraging only 1 child per household.
Abortion should remain legal in the United States.

First, it must be established that I oppose the principle of destroying a human life, no matter how small. This moral implication do not compare to my three contentions which will show all voters that abortion should remain legal in the US. Initially, abbortion has been previously illegalized. The results of this ban were catastrophic. Women received "Dark Alley Abortions." Allow me to elaborate. Women were determined to get an abortion, regardless of the legality. Since it was illegal, these women could not go to a respectable doctor in a sanitary practice for a good doctor would not break the law for them. Instead they had to go to sleezy, unlisenced practices who no little about how to properly abort a baby. It doesn't stop there though. The doctors rarely sterilized equipment and did the operations in unsanitary alley ways or other dark dirty locations where the police would not likely find them. Many women were raped by sleezy doctors and died of blood loss or infecion caused by unsanitary equipment. There is no evidence to suggest that this same scenario would not occur if it abortion became illegal. To prevent this horrible scenario from reoccuring, abortion should remain legal. Secondly, desperate situations such as rape demand abortion. Many women are emotionally unable to bear a rape child for nine months. As a matter of fact, news sites such as CNN provide plenty of instances where women in this situation have committed suicide. Abortion must remain legal to protect rape victims. This right must be maintained for all women though otherwise it could be considered a bill of attainder. Finally, the majority of abortions are done by impoverished and/or teenage woman. A recent university study proved that children of these groups of women usually have a low quality of life, often become a burden on society, and are more likely to end up in trouble with the law. Additionally, if unwanted children are born, they will be forced into foster homes or orphanages where they will unfortunatley cost society. As sad as it is, most abortions leave society better off. I urge a pro vote.
Abortion should remain legal in the United States.

Well, seeing as how my opponent decided to forfeit this round too I will give my closing argument based upon solely what was presented. Abortion does more harm than good for the woman having the abortion. Scientific studies prove this by stating that serious risks are involved, as well as pyschological problems that arise as the result of having an abortion, not to mention the long-term effects. There is no excuse for using abortion as a form of birth control. Considering that most abortions are used in this way (as justified in my previous argument), I believe that abortions should be illegal. Yes, rape and physical condition are exceptions, but these account for only a small percentage of all abortions, (less than 5%, if I'm not mistaken. The stats for this are in my last argument) and have legitimate reasons for being performed. Even in that instance, the woman would be able to choose whether to have the child or not.
less money should be spent on education k-12 by the federal government

I will be making the argument that the education budget of the US should not be cut. This is because education is one of the most important services provided by the government, and lowering the amount of education given to students is the last thing we want to do. Education is one of the most important things that a government provides because it assures the long term well-being of a nation. The more the children are educated, the better they will be at doing work, innovating, and being an overall help to society. If we lowered the funding of education, we would soon see a decrease in the knowledge of future generations, as well as a decrease in the prosperity of society. As someone who has gone through public school in the past, and knows people who still are going through public education, I have noticed the poor funding that schools already get. Across the country, schoolteachers have very limited supplies with which to educate the students, and cultural classes are losing funding left and right. Considering the already poor funding that schools get, taking away the money necessary to educate the next generation is the last thing that we as a society want to do. Pro makes the claim that the majority of the money spent on schooling "goes to support a burocracy, not helping to further education". I expect my opponent to cite evidence of the majority of school funding going to a "burocracy".
less money should be spent on education k-12 by the federal government

on average, they spend about 1500 per child in those grades. might not sound like a lot but if you look at it like a class of 100 and they spend 150000. schools are mostly funded by local taxes. so the money the feds spend is cake. don't you think the school could benefit from 150000? it goes to support a burocracy, not helping to further education, at least not very efficiently. perhaps the feds can have a role in helping out, but as it sits, most of it should be just cut. .
less money should be spent on education k-12 by the federal government

federal spending doesn't give schools supplies, so con hasn't really addressed whether federal spending is excess. why do you think even with all that federal spending, that con had a poor upbringing from a poor school? we see con is relatively young, so one would think all that money would have made a difference if it's like con argues. con asks that i show money goes to bureocracy instead of actual education. i showed common core and all the policies of the department. they have lawyers and lots of persennel to maintain all that. that's burocracy. "Wouldn't the most logical fix for such a decentralized education system be raising the funding of federal education, so it can cover more costs for the local schools?" i might actually invite some redistribution by the feds. but federal money doesn't go to things like supplies and teachers and concrete things like that. it goes to common core and other policies of the feds. "Please provide an argument supporting the claim that holding educators to a higher standard is "unnessaary"." ive shown how costly it is. we can have standards that dont cost so much money. it's like the republican thinking that any spending cuts to the military are automatically bad, and increases automatically good. you have to look at the actual spending to determine if it is good or not. "That claim you have made is ridiculous. All Leaving education to the free market would do is keep the rich smart and successful, while dooming everyone else to much poorer educations. It is the responsibility of the state to provide an education for those who live in it." again, fed money doesn't go to supplies or cause any redistribution. but we know the free market will take care of itself. it will get the education it needs. when we throw so much money at the stuggling students by such indirect means, we're at best just creating a better educated populace for the sake of a better edcuated populace. im not saying leave education to the free market. there should be intervention to give people equal access, an equal shot. but tha tdoesn't mean spending excessively to do it. what i did say is the free market will ensure adquate education to function as a free market. a business man who needs someone with math skills would teach them math if he had to, for example.