BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The UN is necessary and needs to stay.

I'll go here and refute my opponent's refutation then attack my opponent's case. Contention 1: Concert of Europe Solves.This is the thing though. The UN cannot violate national sovergnty, because it's an outright violation of UN charter. [1] Such a violation would result in the organization's disbanning. All of my counter-examples are left unrefuted and I extend them across the board.Contention 2: UN Peacekeeping fails! My opponent states that when the League of Nations fell appart World War 2 broke out, but this is completely false. Why? Mainly because World War 2 occured while the League of Nations was still around. In fact, League of Nations stayed in Operation until 1946. [2] Thus we can already see that my opponent's point is null and void. Next he argues that Alliances won't solve because of the Cold War, but what about the UN? It was there when the Cold War lasted. Heck, the UN allowed the Korean War to occur due to the USSR's protest of the US on the Security consil. If you want to point fingers here it looks as though it's the UN's fault. Not to mention that the USSR threatend to burry the US there. http://www.youtube.com...'s son even admits that his father, Nikita Khruschev, was looking to pick a fight in the UN with the US and other nations. We can see that it was the UN that caused these issues. My opponent states that there is no reason to get rid fo it, but I have given examples. I remind him that as Pro, he has BOP here to prove why is should NOT be disbanned and why it's necessary. Contention 3: Broken legislature. My opponent completely drops this argument and so I'll extend all points across the board. Now onto my opponent's case. My opponent tries to justify the UN with modern cases of crisis. We have to remember that it was the UN's negligence that allowed the Iranians to almost get the bomb. [3] The US, EU, and a few other allies had to come together to defuse the situation. He brings up Syria, but the UN has botched that by harming reffuges. [4] I can go on and on, but I gave you a key example of how the UN messed up big time and a Coalition built-up to defuse the situation which is better than what the UN does.Sources1. ( http://www.un.org...) 2. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) 3. (https://books.google.com...) 4. (http://www.bbc.com...)
The UN is necessary and needs to stay.

"Through taking the Libertarian stance one can easily use the example of the Concert of Europe as a key example on how the world can opperate without a United Nations. One of the key issues many people take is that of the UN's legilature and that of their imposing on national sovergnty. If we look at history we can see many key alliances hava actually helped beter the world. " Now yes this may be true, this dose not mean we should disassemble the UN. "Here we can see direct text from the UN on peacekeeping. We can see nowhere in there does it give permission to engage. In order for them to do that they need to get certain permission from the Security concil, which I'll get into in my next contention, which they have to do on a situation to situation basis. Times when they actually get permission it's a little too late. Many times the UN just fails to do anything. The UN sent peace-keepers during the Rwanda Genocide, but yet all they did was sit and watch. [5] In the Bosnia crisis they only declared safe areas instead of intervention which would've saved lives had the UN actually helped fight. The crux is that many times that they actually make things worse. In Congo, the UN peacekeepers had actually made things worse than anyone could imagine. The thing was that the Peacekeepers were going around raping and pilidging the countryside, because they were escentially board. [6] When we cannot even help this is what happens." Now yes it may be true that the UN has failed on some peacekeeping missions it has won in some cases. But it has also done some good around the world, it may not be prefect yet but it can at least try. I'll in fact be one of the first saying it needs improvement, but the fact is the UN needs to stay. It may be more of an joke right now due to not being able to agree or in-force any laws right now, and there peacekeeping forces are to spread out and without an real lack of direction. But I'll tell you if the UN disbands then it could lead to more chaos. When the league of nations finally fell apart the world fell into WW2. The UN right now is trying its best despite the fact of an lack of man power and resources. It helps give some level of protection and trys to make the world an better place. You have yet to show why we should completely get rid of the UN, and how that would be better then allows the UN to growth in strength and power. Who can tell if this new thing you make would be worse then the UN? Also yes there have been alliances but these are usually only made to prevent war and usually lead to an state of clod war. There is no logical reason to get rid of it, rather then keeping the status quo and building upon it. http://web.stanford.edu... https://en.wikipedia.org...
The UN is necessary and needs to stay.

For far to long the world has been divided and fragmented. It has been country vs country, neighborhood vs neighborhood, brother vs brother. But we need to end this circle of war and destruction, we need to end it before it end us all. Our technology advance every day, now it is at the point that if an gobal war ever breaks out every nation goes down in it. Look at WW1 look at the technology and the year the war happened, now look at the amount of people that died. Now lets fast forward a bit there is a group that was sort of like the UN, but it was far to weak to stop the coming tidal wave. Lets look at the technology used the years the war happened and the amount of people dying for there nations. After that war Europe and Asia where in ruins, but that was 77 years ago, an war by the way most kids do not even know what country was what, an war where they do tell the millions killed by both slides. The weapons that we both used. Now let look now we can see the world is starting to heat up, Russia building its military up, and building more nuclear warheads. Along with moving into Ukraine, helping Syria's dictator who should be charged with crimes against humanity, and the Georgian invasion. Along with violated our allies air space, and flying closer and closer to our land only to turn back we we lantch our jets. China build there fake islands and threating Japan, Vietnam and the Philippians. We need the Un more then ever before. Terrorism is on the rise on a worldwide scale, if we do not untie then things will turn from bad to worse. You already see an unwillingness to fight and to protect our believes. The UN helps people in nation needed it, food ad medical aid are just some things they help with. The UN maybe isn't prefect but they are an key part of the worlds political stages. They can not slove every problem but we can not just give up on it and return to the early 1900's. The world is heating up in more ways then you think, and getting rid of the UN would be an dire mistake.
The Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap.

The Bible - the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Also: http://en.wikipedia.org... Immoral - conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Bit - a small piece or quantity of some material thing (http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]) Utter - carried to the utmost point or highest degree (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Crap - defecate (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Offensive - causing displeasure or resentment (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) So, the Bible is a book, and cannot be immoral, because it is the basis of 1/3 of the world's traditionally held moral principles (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Additionally, to call what a religion reveres to be sacred a piece of defecate is considered blasphemy (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and does indeed cause me to feel displeasure and resentment, because you are insulting my religion, so yes, it is offensive. I await my opponent's response.
The Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap.

In the comments of the debate http://www.debate.org... : DATCMOTO's offered a counterargument to my claim that thought-crimes were immoral by citing some thought crimes in the Bible. I contended that the that was not an argument against my position but a splendid argument that "the Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap." You claimed that this was offensive: As proper conduct dictates I now offer this debate on two points to be proved: 1) The Bible is an immoral bit of utter crap. 2) It is not offensive to say so. I understand that these are both rather vague but I'll happily support both opinions if accepted.
The Proof of the non-existence of God

Pro said: "But I digress, too much teaching not enough Sophist fighting" Rebuttal: You hardly taught a single measure of understandable material. You have yet to bring forth proof to disprove God. This "thing", that you've presented as evidence, is not revealing the absence of deity. I illuminates your insecurity. It's clear that you'd prefer God not to exist. The burden of proof is still on you. What you've established in your rhetoric, is a formula for possibilities. Vague possibilities. That's not proof. Your summary (the logical portions) are best described as:"God possibly doesn't exist." For the record, I think Pro is quite mad, and I deeply regret having to engage him on this topic. I thought he'd be a little more grounded. By the way, nobody will ever quote your material. Pre-algebra is not a stroke of genius. If you really want to claim intellectual property on those three letters and their "sophisticated" arrangement, feel free. In the next round, bring proof or forfeit.
The Proof of the non-existence of God

The debate is entitled "The proof of the non-existence of God". Pro has the burden of proof. It is not my burden to prove God exists, but rather that Pro cannot disprove God. I am currently enrolled as an electronics engineering major, although I find it quite arrogant for Pro to assume a layman could not challenge him/her on this topic. Concerning the admission of foolishness on pro's behalf, I move that the debate is already over. A fool cannot prove anything. Fools make foolish errors. This debate is not fool-proof.
The Proof of the non-existence of God

Yeah I said it.. Everybody would like there to be a god. Who wouldnt want to be sure we have some place to go after we die and have a purpose to life.. I think we have both but are current conception of god needs to be out of the way first. It is not religion that is the problem per say but rather fundementalist Ideas. These have always been the real problem. That is salvation is through reason. Its the only form we could ever know it in. The Fool says: I may be a fool, but I try my best. What I claim is a simple as pi. Must atleast be in college or university to challenge!!
The Proof of the non-existence of God

My opponent has been long winded and erratic. The arguments presented lack substance and evidence. The debate is entitled "The Proof of the non-existence of God". I ask the reader:" Have you found the proof in my opponents rhetoric? " The opponent started the debate and took responsibility to furnish the evidence. The opponent failed by any measure of science or logic. Socrates is turning in his grave at the sight of this self-proclaimed "sophist". It would appear to me, that the opponent would like to be recognized for outstanding mental prowess. I find it so sad and unfortunate that the opposite became true. How ironic, that the opponent claimed to be a "fool". For those who do not know, Socrates claimed to be a fool. He admitted he knew nothing. My opponent attempted to liken herself/himself to one of the deepest thinkers of human history. Isn't it a bit suspicious for a self-proclaimed fool to assume he/she can disprove deity?
The Proof of the non-existence of God

Pro argues that truth is quantifiable. Pro believes all true things can be counted and measured. Pro would reference examples of 1 visible star= 1 truth concerning the existence of the star. His argument against God is thus: 0 visible aspects of God= 0 God, thus God is false. I argue, that is not proof to disprove God. That is proof for limited Human sight. A powerful telescope will reveal countless more truths to you. You have assumed your search for God stops at your limited flesh. I have added some wisdom from God. He knew you would argue this way. Look at the evidence, he even mentions Pro by name. Thus "1*fool=fool". Apply your absolute truth to this writing. Psalm 14:1-3 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.
Barack Obama is the best democratic presidential candidate to beat a republican nominee in 2008

President Bush is predicting that Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, First off, the said the best to beat the Republican nominee, so I will pick the candidate Mike Huckabee, since the Aff did not give one.Democrats still give Clinton a 46-to-35 percent edge over Obama on electability, but two months ago her margin on the same question was better than 4-to-1. Hillary has shown in her wins in New Hampshire, Nevada, and of course Florida, that Dems can have her to beat the Republican candidate. Why, reason one according to a recent poll on CNN, more people would vote for a Woman, then a African American. Two, another poll shows Hillary being a little more moderate of a liberal. Obama is the extreme liberal, now, you may say hey you endorse Barack, I do, but not because it can win, but because what he stands for is what I stand for. Hillary also has the Clinton Machine, this campaign program, she has with her can pick apart every opponent with accuracy and effiency. Obama team is less then scary, because he is trying to run a positive campaign, but the Clinton Machine is too strong. Hillary's approval rating is higher than Barack, and he may have one primaries, but he does not have enough experience. Hillary is the choice to beat the Republican, also because voters, know Bill and Bill is a Rock star to Democrats and independents. People loved him, and because of this love for him, will give Hillary the Win. If Barack went in he would not get the majority of the crowd, because of his experience and his own self. And I haven't even started with a head to head matchup with Huck.
Murders should be executed

Murderers Should Be Executed Murderers should be executed because they have taken a life on purpose. This is very important because a life cannot be brought back, no matter what you do. The death sentence for murder now is a life in prison. That is not right because if a murderer kills someone, the murderer should be killed. " An eye for an eye" is a famous quote, which means that if someone breaks your arm you can break his. This quote and its meaning is very important and should be a law. Therefore, if a murderer kills a person, the murder will be killed. Also, if murderers were sentenced to life, there would be many problems. Jails would be overcrowded. It would be difficult to build more jails because it would cost to much. The U.S is in a $16 trillion debt. There is no space to build more jails because jails are very costly. We cannot hold more prisoners in jails If a city had no rule to kill murderers, then there would be no fear of death by them. That would lead to more murders on the street. No one would fear death because they can"t be killed. Therefore, if we kill murders that deserve to die, then there will be less crime. Therefore it is a good idea to execute murders. The murders deserve to die because of what they did. Another reason why murderers should be executed is because the family of the victims suffer, If a family member is murdered if it fair to the family of the murderer is freed? The family is suffering because they will never see their loved one again while the murderer is easting a sandwich in jail.
Atheism

Atheism for many is due to skepticism of the claims made by religious. Personally, my atheism is the result of doubting the claims of my peers of Catholicism (I am decedent of Catholics). Atheism is the doubt of one's own intellect. But, everyone should always have doubts about claims with no evidence to back it up. If you believe in something without evidence, like fairies and unicorns, you should discontinue the belief. That is exactly what I did. I had no evidence, no proof. Is God impossible? No, but unlikely. Reasons why will come in later rounds. But another thing, atheism is the rejection of the claim of an existing dogma. No two atheists have to be alike in any way other than not accepting the "god" claim.
Water Privatization

I continue on my arguments. Thirdly, a private company must assume legal responsibility. The activity of private firms must be accepted not only by the customers or society but by banks or stockholders. ``The free market system itself would be a regulator for the private company`s performance. Only success and profits would attract stock shareholders, whereas poor performance could run the company out of business in such a competitive market system. Municipalty run organizations would not have such pressures and as a result is arguably less accountable than private companies.``( http://globalcitizens. pbworks.com) Finally, privatization of water business contributes to the betterment of the local community. For example, in the United States ``privately owned utilities serve by paying local, states and federal taxes. ( generally, municipal utilities do not pay taxes.) So in addition to providing top quality water service, a privately owned utility also help fund schools, police and fire departments, etc.``(http://grist.org...) From above arguments, I firmly believe that water privatization is justified and reasonable project.
Water Privatization

Let me begin my argument for round 2. There are number of advantages which can be brought about by promoting water privatization. Firstly, water privatization contributes to reducing the financial burden facing many local governments of the United States. The reason is that they lack the financial resources to upgrade and to renovate aging water supply systems for the community. Therefore, these days water privatization is gaining popularity in the U.S. For example, ``the trend is for local governments to relinquish some or all their control over the design, construction, ownership and operation of water services. This trend has accelerated as giant multinational corporations have sought to enter into the U.S. utility market. Today, approximately 15 percent of U.S. delivery systems and 5 percent of wastewater utilities are privately owned, serving about 15 percent of U.S. utility consumers.``( http://serconline.org...) Moreover, today, ``roughly half the drinking water utilities in the U.S. are privately owned. They serve about one in every six Americans.``( http://grist.org...) Secondly, by privatizing the supply of water people and industry can get stable supply of water with reasonable price. A company engaging in water business are required to supply water which can be met to certain standards set by the local government. If it could not live up to the demand by those public institutions, it would be punished or would be required to close the operation. And ``because of the competition, the business will try to operate efficiency and to maintain higher quality of service while still cutting cost to eliminate waste. ( http://globalcitizerns. pbworks.com) Social responsibility is urgently required for water business as all the private companies must assume. My arguments will be continued for round 3.
Abortion should remain legal in the United States

"I wouldn't eat a baby fish, but I would eat an adult fish." The next logical course of action for me would be to inquire about why this is so, and what shapes your reasoning. However, considering that this is the final round of the debate, I will make an assumption. I am assuming that you would not eat a baby fish because it has not yet had the chance to experience life in its fullest. It is, therefore, on a personal level for you, immoral to eat a baby fish. I am also assuming that you would eat an adult fish because you consider it morally permissible to eat fish in general. Allow me to apply this to the issue of abortion. Subsequently, you state that you would not kill a baby. (I am assuming that you accidentally used a double negative.) I am also assuming that the reasoning behind this involves the fundamental respect to life. May I remind you that babies have already developed considerably from a first trimester fetus. Due to such a high degree of neural capability and possessing sentience, if would be unethical to kill a baby. As well, for the same reasons, an adult human also possesses fundamental rights associated with sentience. As well, you did not refute some of my claims regarding first trimester fetuses and their limited neural progression at such early stages of development. I, again, am arguing that it is ethical to have first trimester abortions remain legal. Finally, I would like to thank my opponent, revleader5, for accepting this debate. The debate was fun. Thanks, Oboeman.