BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
WW3 the Miner countries

Mexico- Army consists of 192,000 combat-ready immediately deployable ground troops or 559,770 including active reserve forces, The Air Force fleet is estimated to be at 241 fixed-wing aircraft and 117 helicopters, and The Navy consists of about 56,000 men and women plus reserves, over 189 ships, and about 130 aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org... Australia- The ADF has a strength of just under 81,000 full-time personnel and active reservists, and is supported by the Department of Defence and several other civilian agencies http://en.wikipedia.org... Finland- 34,700 people in uniform (27,300 Army, 3,000 Navy, and 4,400 Air Force). http://en.wikipedia.org... Canada- The Navy is made up of 33 warships and several auxiliary vessels. The Royal Canadian Navy consists of 8,500 Regular Force and 5,100 Primary Reserve sailors, supported by 5,300 civilians. In 2011, the Army comprised 19,500 regular soldiers and 16,000 reserve soldiers, for a total of around 35,500 soldiers. The RCAF has 14,500 Regular Force and 2,600 Primary Reserve airmen and airwomen, supported by 2,500 civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org... Poland- Land forces currently contain some 65,000 active personnel, Special Forces 1,700. The Navy has 80 ships and about 14,300 commissioned and enlisted personnel. The Air Force consists of roughly 16,000 military personnel and about 320 aircraft, distributed among 12 bases throughout Poland. The Polish Air Force is currently one of the most advanced in Eastern Europe, equipped with 48 F-16 jet fighter aircraft designed by Lockheed Martin specifically for Poland, including F-16 D block 52+, the most advanced in NATO. http://en.wikipedia.org... I can only use Wikipedia because my school blocks other sites. I'll leave it up to you to choose how the war starts. For the purpose of this debate, lets say Mexico's drug war is finished.
WW3 the Miner countries

Ireland- 88th largest in the world, consists of 3 million solders http://www.nationmaster.com... Czech.- 4 million in arms forces 72nd, gets 18 million in arms imports from the U.S. 7th, sources is also nationmaster.com Brazil- world's 11th largest military in the world http://www.globalfirepower.com... Venezuela- world 42nd largest military Vietnam- 9th country with the most tanks, 118th army, but 24th Air Force. http://www.nationmaster.com... Mexico- is in the middle of a drug war I really doubt that they can pull themselves together to fight in a foreign war.
Mankind Is Not the Main Cause of Global Warming

This is going to be one debate in a project I have devised to decide on the global warming issue once and for all - I will take the pro side in one debate, the con side in another debate, and make my decision from there.Part I - Take the side against global warming. Tylergraham95 is a really good debater, especially on global warming, and I'm sure this will be a great first debate.Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the not main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause.BoP is shared.DefinitionsMankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind."[1]Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2]Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect."[3]Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation."[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Extreme Religious Fundamentalists Are The Least Intelligent Humans

Hmmm.... I just wrote a closing statement and lost it. Unfortunately I do not have time to rewrite the statement. Also, it is a shame that my opponent forfeited the last round, divine intervention I assume. It is my opinion that my opponent did not to any extent, even with encouragement, meet his burden of proof. And how could he? I wondered this as I accepted the debate and have to say that I didn't find pro's arguments very compelling. I gave examples of extremely well reasoned and intelligent fundamentalists. I also gave (I think?!) Examples of extremely intelligent people chasing futile hypothesis (Newton's alchemy, if I didn't mention it, I intended to) I wonder if this debate had continued, would pro have refined his proposition to this: "the indoctrinated are the stupidest" ... It would perhaps of been easier to defend, but still I would argue no, the indoctrinated are indoctrinated, not unintelligent. If anyone who might read this would like to debate the same title with me, send it as a challange and I'll happily accept.
Transgender People's Gender Are Valid

Yes lol I agree. But the ultimate reason why I joined is because I didn't think anyone else would join. I also joined to explain that your argument is pretty obvious because transgenders genders are validated by the definition itself. So I didn't think that anyone would join, so I joined to tell you. Although I agree with what you said I don't think that anybody, or the majority, would disagree with transgender not being a gender because as I said, by definition it is. Thanks for the debate.
Transgender People's Gender Are Valid

(Sorry for the late reply)Ah, this debate was aimed at people who disagree with me as I've met some before who believe gender is real and is the same as sex even. Though it seems me and you are mutual and in agreement with each other on both matters so I think there is nothing to debate and this is the last round lol. Though by intersex I meant people who are born with both male and female organs(though judging by your statement I must've used the wrong term or those people don't have a sex.) and when I said "your body and it's parts" I meant to include organs and everything that makes up your person. Don't worry about it I know you weren't trying to be mean, it is a debate after all lol, so no need to apologize and I understand, I just wanted to see if I'd come across someone who actually disagree's with me on the matters lol. Though thanks for taking to time to enter even though there wasn't much to debate lol.
Transgender People's Gender Are Valid

I accept. Firstly, I respectfully do not know what you are arguing. That might sound weird but let me clarify. Yes, gender is obviously made up. All the word means is a person being socially accepted as something because they want to be identified that way. We know that and you can't argue against that because it's a fact. http://www.merriam-webster.com.... This is why I did not understand your argument and what you are arguing for. I agree that transgender is validated as a gender, because all that it means is what they want to be identified as. Although transgender is a gender it is definitely not a sex. You quoted something which is most certainly not the correct definition of sex. If you search the definition of sex on webster and even google, they both show that sex does not include intersex. It specifically includes male and female. Your biological organs determine your sex. Not "your body and it's part's" as you said. Which can obviously change with surgical removals. I came to this debate to tell you this because I don't really think that your argument makes much sense. I am not trying to be mean but just had to tell you. Nobody on this sight can argue against a fact, so I just thought I would just say something. No hard feelings. :)
Transgender People's Gender Are Valid

I'm arguing that transgender people are valid, in other words, they are the gender that they claim. My reasons are based on this statements here according to the American Psychological Association; "Sex refers to a person's biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex."----"Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex." So based on the statements above, gender is made up whereas sex is not and is based on your body and it's parts. Based on that, transgender people's gender are validate. Maybe my opponent can prove me wrong.
Spider Man 4 will be a bad movie.

. http://www.boxofficemojo.com... . http://www.boxofficemojo.com... . http://www.boxofficemojo.com... According to the above sources SM1 had less than SM3, SP2 had th worst though. Thus it is impossible to foresee SP4 being a bad movie, in fact it is possible that it will beat the Titanic, but it is impossible to know before it happens. I ask my opponet to show me a cite that shows that SP4 is a bad movie (from a reliable source), and he may have a point so far all he has is a void arguement about it getting steadily worse.
Spider Man 4 will be a bad movie.

I don't really like SM, but my brother does, so I ave seen them all. How can you prove it will be a bad movie? Maybe the special effects for the prvious ones weren't so great, but what if they decided to get really good sets and equipment to make the fourth one better. Do you know EXACLY what the storyline for it is? If so please share. Do you know how much it will sell? Because movies are based on popularity, you can't prove that it will be 'bad', because bad changes for each person, that is why there are so many styles, of clothes, generas of books and movies. Thus there is no way you can prove what the future holds for 'good' or 'bad' movies. Thus my opponent has the burden of proving the future.
The School Year Should be 12 Months Long (Get Rid Of Summer Vacation)

Schools should be kept going all year long. First of all, they would have short breaks in between so it isn't like school would be going 5 days a week January through December. It is a proven fact that students forget more of what they learned over summer vacation than any other break they get from school. A lot of what is taught within the first month of two of school is material that was taught the previous year, just the students had to be re-taught because they forgot. And other than the students who have to do homework over summer break because the are in an Advanced Placement program, what student would actually go over the material they learned during their break away from work? If schools were kept in session 12 months a year, they wouldn't have to be re-taught half of the material and the teachers would be able to focus their attention on moving forward with the learning material. That brings me to my second argument. The teachers would be kept at their jobs longer which would give them an increase of money in their pay checks. Let's face it, teachers don't make a lot of money, so the year-round schooling would benefit them as well. Also, how many students go through their summer vacations getting drunk, high, or doing other things they shouldn't be doing? As long as they are kept in school, they have a higher chance of not getting into stuff they shouldn't for the simple reason that they have something to do constantly. Year-round schooling would also help the families. I say this because the families of the students would be able to take more mini vacations through out the year instead of one big vacation. Which brings me back to helping to keep kids off drugs and alcohol. If they are able to spend more time with their families through out the year, they will more likely than not be drug free because their family will be keeping a somewhat closer eye on them. One last thing I would like to point out is the fact that schools staying in session all year long would benefit the parents, as well as the students and the teachers as I mentioned above. This would help the parents because they would not have to pay for child care near as much, which in turn would enable them to save more money for family get togethers such as mini vacations, going out to dinner, or just simply having a family night. This could also help them save more money for gas, house bills and the grocery bills, since everything is going up in price. So, in conclusion, I think schools should stay in session all year long, as they can very highly benefit the students, as well as the teachers and the parents.
The Confederate flag should be banned.

"Today, it would simply represent the southern heritage and culture." Yes, the Civil war was about not only slavery, but the southern way of life-- which involved slavery. It was about southern economy, which was build off the back of free slave labor. This shows a willingness to abolish the Constitution. There would be no point going with merely one amendment concerning the freedom of expression if the whole Constitution was abandoned in this expression. You don't see the issue? Okay, let me state it outright for everyone to see: It is a reminder of a horrible time in America's past. The use of it is torturous, and the people who fly it only cause sorrow or pain. It's a symbol of hatred. All in all the Confederate flag should be banned because it reminds us of the terrible past, including slavery and racism. We do not need a reminder of that. Good first debate! If you keep this up you'll become imabench! (debate-power wise, not troll-wise)
The Confederate flag should be banned.

Again, slavery was just a factor. The big issue was states' rights. In the end, it is good that the Union won (I oppose slavery and I am not racist), but the Confederacy had a good case. Their economy and way of life depended on agriculture, unlike the Union's. A half-agriculture, half-industry country can work, but it would be difficult to get the two sides to compromise and work together. Therefore, it is reasonable to secede and forge a new nation. The war was not over slavery; it was over state's rights, tariffs, and political affiliations. Slavery, again and again I say, was just a factor. Back then, the Confederate flag represented a free people and a lifestyle of agriculture. Today, it would simply represent the southern heritage and culture. I do not see an issue with flying the Confederate flag. I see your points, but I don't necessarily agree with them.
The Confederate flag should be banned.

you have yet to counter my argument, only to have added to my initial argument--a factor of states' rights. Why would we want a reminder that we had a civil war between the north and the south over slavery rights? And how does it represent people who yearned to be free? It was not used by those kinds of people. Sure, it was used by "racist-hate" people, as said in my first round, but do they yearn to be free? Not really, they just hate people who don't put black people and white people on the same scale. Even if the flag symbolizes equality, it still does not strongly show the unity of the 50 states and the 13 colonies as the U.S. flag. Therefore the Confederate flag cannot be flown just like the U.S. flag. You have made a big mistake by comparing this flag to the U.S. flag.
The Confederate flag should be banned.

I will not deny the fact that slavery and segregation existed. I may be a Confederate, but I am not racist. Many people believe that the South seceded primarily over slavery. However, that is incorrect. The Confederacy was formed upon the principle of state sovereignty and the southern states wanted to maintain their rights. Slavery was just a factor. It was not the cause of the Civil War. The real issue was states' rights. Honestly, I believe that secession should be legal and that the flag should be flown. The flag should not primarily represent slavery and racism; it should represent a people who yearned to be free.
The Confederate flag should be banned.

http://www.infoplease.com... It is shown here the flag is a "shameful reminder of slavery and segregation", and "more than 500 extremist groups use the Southern Cross as one of their symbols." Oh my! That's terrible! I think it should be banned! You might argue that we have freedom of expression, but bad things are often looked down upon. America is the "Land of the Free", the opposite of what the flag represents. We don't want people to express that they don't want America to be "the land of the free", yes? Then the flag must be banned. I also disagree with "flown just like the U.S. flag"....seriously, the U.S. flag resembles the 50 states as 50 stars and 13 colonies as 13 stripes, showing us the unity and relationship, the complete opposite of the Confederate flag. What do you have to say for yourself? Good luck!
Dogs are better than Cats

A better topic for this debate might be: Dogs are more intelligent than Cats. However, Here is the thing, The cats are definitely smarter and more intelligent than dogs. While dogs are dumb enough to crawl beside you when you are a poor man who lost his home and had to beg for money in the subway station, It will always remain by your side; the cats will run off, Eat foods you can never imagine, Drinking milk from other families, Or even just have intercourse with another cat or two. Thus, Cats are better.
Dogs are better than Cats

Cats are absolute evil. They poo and pee in boxes you have to hand shovel out all their poo while inhaling all the poo fumes. Dogs poo in the wild outdoors. If you live on a big piece of land you don't even have to pick up their crap because it will have disintegrated by the time you would have noticed it. You don't need to scoop up clumps of their pee if you have a dog. While walking your dog you simply have to pick up their poo in a little bag and throw it out. Usually if your cat is an outdoor cat he will also poo outside. But some coyote, Eagle, Car, Hunger or the cold will kill your cat. Now the poo factor of cats aren't the only evil thing. Cats also enjoy bringing you gifts of dead backyard wildlife. Now I know dogs like killing stuff too. But you can actually put these skills to use and take your dog hunting with you. Finally cats like to pick the flowers out of your garden and pee in the kiddie sandbox.
Dogs are better than Cats

First of all, If this debate is pointless, Since you are the instigator, You are obliged and responsible for explaining why this is not pointless. I am quite confused about why you would have created in the first place. It seems that you have some kind of paranoia over cats. I want to point out Instigator's problem to the readers. The debate is pointless due to your paranoia to the cats. I urge readers to see sense that my opponent simply refuses to acknowledge that cats are also domestic animals. They maybe fierce, Irritant, Or even aggressive, But they are still domesticated by human. Why? Cat have 3 benefits: 1. They are great rat catchers. In the modern developed country, There is not often rats or mice, Thus making cat's ability to catch preys useless. However, They are often kept in developing country due to the health condition and the problem with rats at home or even in governmental buildings. 2. They are cute, Soft and also quite smart: and I am running out of space.
Dogs are better than Cats

Also I know what superior means but thanks for the explanation. The reason why I think dogs are better is for this: . https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=HrgbZlE7q7k cats sneak attack you and try to kill you for no reason. About your argument that cats can live on their own. I can't agree with that. No domestic animal that lives in a cold area can live on their own. They will freeze to death. Secondly, If the cat is de-clawed it can't survive. However if you were talking about wild dogs and cats (wolves, Tigers) your statement would be incorrect as well. Wolves or foxes can live without the help of humans as well as a lynx or tiger. My final argument is this . http://www. Froot. Nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/dogs_vs_cats_16-560x294. Jpg That is how cats perceive you 100%. Dogs are loving creatures and will love you forever. Cats, I'm sure are going to take over the world someday and kill us all.
Dogs are better than Cats

First of all, This debate is pointless. No species is more superior(which is the meaning of better) than another. However, I must argue with you upon the entire issue of psycho dogs. Do you know why there is Dog Meat Hot Pot? Because there is something called a male husky. In order to reference, Refer to here: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=oNytjc0qlSY You think dogs are better than cats? Dogs can't live on their own. They rely on foods provided by owners. While Cats can just run off and live off it's own. That single statement is efficient enough.
Dogs are better than Cats

Well its unfortunate that it isn't a debate on dogs are more intelligent than cats because dogs are more intelligent as well. You can't train a cat. They won't listen to you. Dogs however, Can be trained to sit, Stop panting, And can be used as help dogs to help blind people and people with various conditions. Furthermore, Its been proved that people laugh more with dogs than cats. When you laugh more you live longer so by having a dog instead of a cat your elongating your life. You can also buy hypoallergenic dogs my Dad is terribly allergic to dogs we have owned a golden doodle for 4 years and his allergies have never acted up because of him. You can also buy hairless cats but they are so ugly and aren't even hypoallergenic. There is no such thing as a hypoallergenic cat because its the cats dander that makes you react. Also dogs are more family friendly than cats. Of course there is the odd psycho dog but, That is usually because someone has beaten these poor creatures.