BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States.

Thank YouI understand that some things DO happen, such as the internet going down.So, let us agree that the last round never happened.So, back to the debate.I will first refute my opponent's arguments, then go back to my own.Now, my opponent is not giving any clash in this debate AT ALL. Any argument I make in this debate against my opponent's arguments are ignored. My opponent essentially extends their arguments without refuting my refutations. This is what debate is all about.So, again, my opponent shows no evidence stating if competition with China will actually increase the US economy at all. My opponent also shows no way in how competition CAN be produced from dependency. If you are competiting, my opponent is essentailly relying on China's capability to be better than the US for competition to ensue. If this is not called dependency, then I do not know what is. My opponent says that China will not go to war. However, my WHOLE SECOND ARGUMENT says why China will go to war, and how it will be deveastating to the interests of the US. My opponent rewords their hegemony argument.However, this argument is still flawed. As the US is the most powerful country in the world, how is the rise of China, which barely has any hegemony compared to the US, be competitive against the US's hegemonic powers. It doesn't work. My opponent gives more recent articles about how China is falling. However, compared to previous economic growth in the early 2000s, the economic growth of 7% is still high. However, we are talking about the rise of China, and the rise is given in the resolution, so it should not be debated at all. Lastly, we will talk about the enviornment. Seems that the article I cited is not there anymore.However, I found an article with a graph from the Guardian (http://co2now.org...;) (http://image.guardian.co.uk...;)This says that China is about 20% higher in CO2 emmissions than the US.Sorry about the confusion, however as the evidence was my opponent's only argument against it, my argument still stands. For all these reasons, please vote CONThank YouAnd, don't worry about the forfeited round. These things happen all the time
Resolved: On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States.

Thank You for a timely responseI will be going over my opponent's arguments. Their first argument is that the US can beat CHina econonomically and politically with competition. However, there is a major flaw in this argument. If the US wants to stop the rise of China, how can China rise in the interests of the United States. This is contradicting my opponent, and should be disregarded. Also, my opponent shows no evidence stating if competition with China will actually increase the US economy at all. My opponent's second refutation is that US dependenecy on China will cause competition. Unfortunately, this is not refuting my point at all. I am saying that competition causes dependency, and my opponent is just stacking more competition on top of that. It seems this is the only argument he has to refute any of my arguments. He shows no way in how competition CAN be produced from dependency. Judge, you have to rule this false. My opponent also goes on to talk about how with NATO and other allies, US can outnumber Chinese missiles. That is not the point. Even if we can outnumber them, it is still another war we are getting into, and it is not in the interests of the US to BE in another war, even if we have the ability to win. As this debate is about the interests of the US, not winning a war against China, you have to vote this argument to the CON. My opponent also says that China is a threat to US hegemony, however, this argument flows to my side since this is about how the rise of China is NOT in the interests of the US. He is contradicting himself. Lastly, my opponent says the China is not rising at all, however, we have defined rise as the switch to industrial to service oriented economy, and China is currently making that switch (CIA). My opponent also gives an article about China's economy going down. However, this is dated in May of 2012. A lot has changed since 2012, so the evidence is outdated and shouldn't be used in this round.
Resolved: On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States.

Ok, real quick before I move on: -The US CAN benefit from the competition as it is trying to stop China from become the world superpower, the only way to do that without getting a lot of backlash from the UN and causing a 3rd world war, is by beating it economically and politically. This will actually HELP the states to increase it's economy's standing so it can stop the rise of China. -Yes, I do agree that it is not in the interest of the USA to be dependent on another nation, however that alone is motivation to the states to get a better economy, again, that's competition -Yes, I do understand that China is building its missles from the money they have, but with the NATO allies alone, the by FAR can easily outnumber the Chinese number of missiles. That's not to say China won't cause havoc, however the states (ignoring all human rights in this case) can easily beat the Chinese, not to mention what the NATO allies could do. -Even if China had the same military as the USA, the US still has a lot of allies which are almost if not equal to the states army (the UK, Germany, France, Canada, Australia, just to name a few). So even if China went in with their allies, they'd still be not match for the USA Moving on: China is a threat to US hegemony, however to have hegemony, other nations must see that you are the superpower of the world, now I highly doubt that if China tried to threaten Germany, for example, Germany will not comply. Neither will many other nations across the world. China may have a hegemony in Asia, but so does the states. This is also an example of competition, the US needs to step up their game when it comes to other nations and politically. Also, China's economy is NOT immune, and is not going to ruin america, just read this (http://www.globalpost.com...) article, I'm not saying it's going down, I'm just saying it's slowing down, which can lead to decline.
Resolved: On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States.

Thank you for a timely answer. First, I will go over my opponents case, then go back to my own. My opponent's first argument is competition, and that the US can only be better than China in a competitive relationship. However, we are talking about the interests of the United States, and it is not in the interests of the US to be dependent on another country to increase its economy and other problems. Because China now holds leverage over the US, because of the growing trade deficit, the US is now dependant on China. IT IS NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE US to be dependant on another country, as the US wants to maintain THE world superpower and THE world hegemon. In fact, For EVERY 15% increase in trade deficit with China, the US increases dependency on China by about 5%. Since 2001, using this model, the US has increased dependency on China by over 90%. My opponent's second argument is about how China, without US could lose it's army. Without an army, there could be no missle attacking the US/allies, angering US + allies, where US will strike back showing hegemony in the area. However, my opponent doesn't realize that the missile China is planning to build with the money they get from trade with US is in fact going to be so damaging, that instead of allowing the US to show hegemony, it will lower trust in US seeing that China can attack them and there is nothing US can do to stop them. My opponent's third argument regarding the South China sea crisis is that China has no interests, and US will win if involved. However, it is not in US interests to be invovled in a war, and their military operations near China might provoke war with China. Due to it's big military, China will be more likely to attack with the mindset it has a similar military to US. Now, to my argumentsFirst, China is a big threat to US hegemony. Second, China steals American manufacturing , causing a loss of 2.7 million US jobs, and intellectual property. Third, China's pollution causes pollution in US which is blamed for 3% of American deaths.
Resolved: On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States.

A lot of people don't realize that China isn't a threat to the US, instead it's more of a competitor. And like a business, competition is good because it pushes both companies to be better than the other, thus making a better product for the consumer. Now instead of a product, nations produce an economy for their citizens to live and thrive off of. The US remained the number 1 economy for a big portion of the 20th century and still is. However now that it is threatened by China, the US will need to step up its game by fixing it's economy instead of just sitting back and doing nothing (which is kind of what Bush did). China's largest importer and in turn it's largest income is the USA, and without the states China will loose a lot of it's income. And without income you cannot have a large/modernized army. Even if China sends a missile to a Naval ship that belongs to the US, it will have retaliation from not just the states, but its allies too. The US and it's allies could fire back either economically (sanctions) or militarily. That will also have an effect on China that will hit it hard. The US will most likely put economic sanctions against China on top of a military strike which will hurt its economy, and once again loosing it's budget for an army to fight the US. China will be unable to fight the United States and its allies and will most likely loose the war. This benefits the USA by strengthening the nations trust in its armed forces and its government. As for the South China Sea crisis: I don't really believe that Chinese aggression will actually benefit China. If the Chinese aggregation does lead to war with any involved nation (Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia etc) China will most likely win, however if the US and its allies manage to join in on the war against China, it will not be able to defeat the US. Now you may be saying "yeah but Vietnam has a really bad army compared to China, they won't do a thing", I agree with you but terrorists also have a low-budget minimal training army, and yet the Afgan war has been going on for 13 years.
God Exists (Cosmological Argument)

My opponent has stated many scientific reasons concerning why God must exist. Basically, these are the conclusions my opponent has come to: 1) Everything that exists must have a cause 2) Therefore, the universe has a cause 3) This cause is personal 4) This cause is God My opponent said that for me to prove his argument wrong, I must come up with reasons regarding why everything that exists does not have to have a cause, or that the universe did not begin to exist, or that the cause of the universe was impersonal. While I agree with the first two statements, I do not agree with the third. Your statement that this cause is not impersonal makes sense, but how can you make sense that it is personal? If, as you argued, it is impossible for the sufficient conditions to come together to create an impersonal object, it is definitely impossible to create something personal (with soul and intentions) out of non-existent conditions. The fact is, if everything has a cause, what was the cause of God? My opponent claims that everything that exists must have a cause. I agree. If my opponent wishes to prove that God exists, they must provide evidence of a cause for God. Their argument was "God exists." Therefore, I don't need to prove that God doesn't exist, but my opponent must prove that he does, meaning he must provide evidence that there was a cause for God.
God Exists (Moral Argument)

I meant there is no moral law in the context of objective morality. Of course there are morals, but these are predetermined by society. If there was objective morality, why would it ever leave? It surely hasn't been around as long as we have! So, what, does it just have to be discovered? That's ridiculous. Why do only some people have these morals? There is no constant. Of course humans think it's wrong, but nothing about it is intrinsically wrong- if someone is going to kill you and decide to kill them, you would NOT feel bad at all. Minds are not the same as the brains. Plus, you avoided answering the question entirely. Why would we need God for morals? If there was a God (or wasn't for you), the world would look exactly as it does now. Obviously morality exists, but it is not objective and is purely based on societal beliefs. The candidate for regular morals is SOCIETY, for the 3rd time. Thank you.
God Exists (Moral Argument)

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. That is unsubstantiated. The entire above argument is thus a non sequitur. The only way that works is if we define objective morals as "morals, values, principles, and duties declared by God". This is called begging the question, where you include the claim of your argument within your premise. Regardless, this argument does not prove any specific God, let alone an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent one. To demonstrate, let us replace God with, say, unicorns. Do you see how ridiculous the output is? Your argument only loosely 'supports' theism, not necessarily monotheism or your specific Christian God. Objective moral values do not exist. A person is raised based on the opinions of his parents quite often. This is why, according to http://www.gallup.com..., at least 71% of people have similar political views as their parents. Similarly, if you raised without religion, you would be atheistic- it is the default of all life. But I digress. If your parents were terrorists, you would be raised under their beliefs. Society as the few around you greatly influences your morality and thus beliefs. And if objective morality was real, why would so many individuals (especially in the past, the Bible, or even God) not subscribe to it? Humans are one species: https://coelsblog.wordpress.com.... Therefore, since by definition, objective morality is not dependant on humanity, it should apply to all beings. But it does not. In fact, this concept only applies to us. You may argue that most animals are not as intelligent as us, but I would say they still teach their descendants morals.
Capital punishment should be illegal, and abortion rights should be respected.

uhmm….I'm sorry that taking something out of context to support your argument is wrong. uhm…I'm sorry that we don't like it when people who don't bother to study what they refuted act like professionals. I mean I wouldn't see why a scientist would get mad if I approached a scientist with 3 sentences of a textbook and used it to disprove science. I mean your completely right, asking someone to study what he opposes, not just what he supports is completely illogical, why the heck should anybody reject something after finishing an objective study? No the answer is to Reject before! Then you can always flip through it to find out ways to support what you support. I'm sorry that the Christians that go to [and study for] AND school, know the bible and the science books, but I'm sorry that it doesn't work the same way for most atheist. But hey you're the one offended I'm not, I'm use to anti-Christians ranting and raving and perfecting their craft of taking the bible out of context and using against us. Really I like it when they do it, because they make a neat little trap for themselves every time, only a novice Christian would fail to see how to capitalize on that trap and get offended. Ok I shouldn't be so mean, maybe its just someone not into apologetics , or maybe the hateful words spoken against us finally got to them even though we're suppose to be the hateful ones. Now that I have addressed your bickering I will get onto serious matters and the subject. Sure I agree that if Jesus came today he would be disgusted with a lot of things Christians have done and are doing for example, the crusades, the Spanish inquisition , the Russian purge. All done by Christians all very hateful 2/3 using the Christian banner. But whats worse is the lack of justice that occurs when a woman forgoes the legal system that Jesus does support and makes a life and death decision on her own. I think Jesus would want somebody to do something to stop that, or at least that we don't commend it as a responsible action. I am an individual in Human Development. I have more cells being created every day than dying, therefore I have positive growth, I am growing. My parents are also individuals in Human development, they are loosing more cells than are being created, they have a negative growth, they are becoming brittle. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, it creates an embryo. That embryo is an organism that is developing into a human, it is undergoing human development. His cells are growing and dividing at a faster rate than anyone of us , and getting organs online one by one. That is his stage of Human development. But we're all going through that development. And I think when we destroy that development it is the same as destroying my development or your development. The only people who have the right and responsibility to decide on terminating Human development is a jury after a thorough legal process.
Capital punishment should be illegal, and abortion rights should be respected.

I have seen a lot of death penalty and abortion arguments on this website, and I would like to cut to the meat of the matter here. Pro-lifers are always discussing innocence as the factor in this matter, and how innocent babies should not be killed but guilty murderors can be killed without worry. Innocence is not actually the issue here though. First of all, you are not the judge of innocence. Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Jesus is trying to say here that you cannot be the judge of someone else's innocence, for you yourself are a sinner by default. Second of all, everyone knows that a certain number of executed prisoners are found to be not guilty of the crime they were executed for after the fact. This is a grave injustice that cannot continue. You pro-lifers who are for the death penalty are walking a very fine line, and I think your pro-life arguments would be a lot stronger if you would stop acting like you can morally judge a person to be fit to die. I think Jesus would be ashamed of you for this, and why you can't see that I just can't understand. How can you call yourselves Christians, as if you are following Jesus's lead, and support death by electrocution! I guess when your religion has perpetuated 2000 years of murder, crusades, persecution, and oppression you can get that mixed up. Personally I'm a lot more worried about Christians than I am about Islamists, and I think that if it weren't for our own eccentric religions here at home then Islamists wouldn't consider us such a target. Now here is my argument in support of abortion. A fetus is a human being, in all respects. Granted. Let's stop arguing about that now, OK? But what a fetus is NOT, is a PERSON. Personhood is not easy to define, but we have to accept the fact that while all human beings are life forms, not all life forms are people. A sperm and an egg are not people, and I don't see why a very young fetus is any more of a person than sperm and eggs. Christians will say that a soul is created at conception, which ends that argument, but there is no scientific evidence that a soul exists. It is simply superstition, and cannot be taken seriously in debate. Personhood is the defining element that seperates man from beast, and seperates what can be possibly justly put to death and what can never be justly put to death. The hard part of my argument is finding that point in which a fetus becomes a baby, or when a human being becomes a person, in other words. Birth should be viewed as the absolute latest when this happens, and to be on the safe side, it should be earlier. Perhaps when the first brain activity occurs, or after a few months has elapsed in the womb. Ideally, I think a woman should have at least a few weeks, when the developing embryo is still just a very minute bundle of cells, to make a responsible choice of abortion. I don't personally believe that late abortion is justified, because the lines are too fuzzy concerning personhood late in the pregnancy, when the fetus is producing brain activity and the like.
In the united states, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the c

Seeing that this is the last any of us will be typing i would like to go over just a few key points in today's debate. ONE my opponent has not given any evidence to refute my argument and has not defended hers in any way. So as of now she has no case. Her points are not Topical and not even part of the Resolved. The Resolved is that we treat them like adults not sentence them as adults. Which means we can have them in a Juvenile court and treat them as adults. TWO She has not attacked my case in anyway. There fore my case stands strong and the better of the two based on the stats and reasoning in today's debate. THREE For the ones who are Judging Please keep in mind that my case is the stronger of the two and has not been attacked, while I attacked my oppoents case and there was no defense fron my oppoent so she must have accepted the facts. So in this Debate i can only see that i Have won Because my opponent has not defended her cases so accepts my points against it and she has not attacked my cases at all so therefore she agrees with my case as a whole, and i have Stated my case brought more evidence forth in the debate.
In the united states, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the c

allowing juveniles to be treated as an adults if they are convicted puts them in an adult state prision there for not null and void. your whole argue ment is about recidivism and according to the sentenceing guidelines commision a juvenile who went through adult prision has a higher risk of recidivism and like i also said in my arguement a juvenile needs the opertunity to rehabiltate and they have a less chance of being sentcenced to a rehablitation program along with the correct consequences of their actions in an adult court. your value is justice yet through out your entire case i have yet to see how putting a child in adult court leads to justice so there your value of justice falls \you have also failed to atack my value of justice and my caule criteria of human rights so they stand to the next round you have also faild to atk my first contention ofjuveniles neededing to be allowed to rehabiltate. so it continues to the next round we are going in ld format yes?
The chicken came before the egg.

I have 3 theories to prove the chicken came before the egg. 1)The chicken came before the egg because without the chicken, there would be no egg. The chicken somehow appeared together with the first humans, dinosaurs and giant insects. (Big Bang Theory, Theory of How the First Living Things Appeared) 2)The chicken still came before the egg, because God created the chicken to lay eggs. Of course He didn't create an egg and hatch it like a chicken. (Christianity Belief) 3)The chicken still, very still, so 'still' it's like a wooden chicken (Chinese proverb--呆!509;木(481;+A289;because some other bird (not chicken) laid an egg and the egg evolved and mutated into a chicken. (Evolutionary Theory) +This means that sb is so surprised, he stays as still as a wooden chicken.