BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States of America should go to War with China

Both the USA and the PROC are terms for NATIONS-- involuntary groupings of people based on whether they live in territory under a given government's jurisdiction. In order for the statement "The USA went here" or "The PROC went here" to make sense, the entire population of the country has to go there. The estimated combined population of the two nations is over 1 billion, 600 million. Obviously, this greatly exceeds the safe capacity of any concert venue. If nomal speakers were used, many attendees to the War concert would be unable to hear. This means that they would be unhappy, and angry at the existence of the other nation that invited them to this ripoff. If somehow speakers that could reach that many people were invented, those closest to the stage would be deafened. Also, my opponent likes listening to the government about all kinds of things, including presumably fire codes, which would be ripped to shreds by such an occurrence, so perhaps he should reconsider. Also, many people do not like such sappy music. They would make wry comments about how music like this is why we can't be friends, and thereby be hardened against such friendship. The proposal to send a few individual politicians to a concert is irrelevant to the resolution, as it is insufficient to amount to the attendance of the nations.
The United States of America should go to War with China

===DEFINITIONS=== United States of America (U. S. A) : . http://en.wikipedia.org... China (PROC): . http://en.wikipedia.org... War: . http://en.wikipedia.org... ===PRO ARGUMENT=== Firstly, such a move by the U. S. A would improve relations with China. Many of War's songs have a feel good theme to them, such as Low Rider . http://www.youtube.com... and Why can't we be friends . http://www.youtube.com... (Which is particularly suitable given the current standing between the PROC and the U. S. A. ) Possible Chinese attendees to such a concert could be Hu Jintao . http://en.wikipedia.org...) and Yang Jiechi (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). American representatives could be Bill Clinton (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) and Barack obama (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). It would certainly be a mans night out and give the two nations a chance to reconcile with each other. Overall, it would be beneficial for the U. S. A to go to War with China.
The United States of America should go to War with China

" Furthermore, taxes are the mechanism in which everyone in the United States would take part, paying for the various expenses of such an endeavour as going to War with China." War, the state of affairs, and War, the concert of the band by that name, are completely different things. Taxes involve you in a legal state of affairs. They do not, however, teleport you to a concert venue. See the difference? "Again, the United re sending representatives of the U.S.A to these talks, and the way in which every citizen contributes is through taxation for the bill involved. " Talks are a specific action. They may be involved in diplomacy in the general sense, but in the specific sense of talking this is not the case-- you cannot talk by paying taxes, talking is done with your mouth (unless you are Steven Hawking). "The United states was a generalisation for the majority of people within it" This is not true. I am a citizen of the United States, yet I am not a part of it's electoral majority. "If my opponent attempts to use this sentence against me, again, this is implying emotion, something an inanimate object cannot express" No inanimate object involved, just the distinction between majority and totality. "The fulfilment of my interpretation of the resolution is sending representatives. The fulfilment to YOUR interpretation of the resolution is the taxation each American citizen would foot." Neither is the case. A concert is a specific venue (as opposed to a generalized legal state of war), one cannot attend it via paying taxes. And one cannot attend it via sending representatives. Even if "the united states" referred solely to the majority, the wording still requires the majority to attend-- not their representatives.
The United States of America should go to War with China

It means that someone who holds your allegiance is. Taxes are the mechanism by which the entire nation is at war with Iraq. --> Partially true. The citizens of a state elect representatives to government. The choose these people to represent them in domestic, national and international affairs. They put trust in these people to make these decisions. If they choose to go to war, they are representing the people (or the majority) in their decision. If they go to war, they send representatives who fulfil the given agenda. In this case, it's kill people. Furthermore, taxes are the mechanism in which everyone in the United States would take part, paying for the various expenses of such an endeavour as going to War with China. "The fact that this linguistic sloppiness exist does not automatically make it correct. Entering peace talks, unlike "entering a war," does imply personal talking, and the media's usage is simply incorrect on this account or at best imprecise. Debating resolutions, on the other hand, require high precision. " --> Again, the United re sending representatives of the U. S. A to these talks, and the way in which every citizen contributes is through taxation for the bill involved. "the people" can have no literal meaning but "the totality of people. " Majorities are irrelevant. The United States was not angry about the election outcome. Certain segments within it were. " --> The United states was a generalisation for the majority of people within it. If my opponent attempts to use this sentence against me, again, this is implying emotion, something an inanimate object cannot express "In other words, the resolution is meaningless and impossible by the definition you have just sourced. That does not further your case. Sending representatives is an ALTERNATIVE TO the resolution, not a FULFILLMENT OF the resolution. " --> The fulfilment of my interpretation of the resolution is sending representatives. The fulfilment to YOUR interpretation of the resolution is the taxation each American citizen would foot. ( And Ragnar, knowing you you'll attempt to discredit of taxation. But please, just not this topic :) )
The United States of America should go to War with China

" 'The United States went to war (war in this case meaning an armed conflict) with Iraq' " To be "At war" with someone, does not mean that you personally are shooting them. It means that someone who holds your allegiance is. Taxes are the mechanism by which the entire nation is at war with Iraq. " 'The United States has entered peace talks with North Korea'" The fact that this linguistic sloppiness exist does not automatically make it correct. Entering peace talks, unlike "entering a war," does imply personal talking, and the media's usage is simply incorrect on this account or at best imprecise. Debating resolutions, on the other hand, require high precision. " 'The United States was upset with the 2008 election outcome' In this context, it is clear the people of the United States were upset, as it implied emotion, and as the U.S.A is technically an inanimate idea, it implies the people within the U.S.A, or the majority, were angry. " "the people" can have no literal meaning but "the totality of people." Majorities are irrelevant. The United States was not angry about the election outcome. Certain segments within it were. " To further my case, the definition I gave for the United States was http://en.wikipedia.org....... According to this, it says [the very first sentence] "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district." . This means the U.S.A isn't an animate object, meaning it can't go to a War concert with the People Republic China, also an inanimate object." In other words, the resolution is meaningless and impossible by the definition you have just sourced. That does not further your case. Sending representatives is an ALTERNATIVE TO the resolution, not a FULFILLMENT OF the resolution.
The United States of America should go to War with China

I thank Ragnar for taking up this debate. The cornerstone of his argument is the use of language. He claims for the U.S.A to go to War with China, all people of each nation must be in attendance. However, consider the following sentences: 'The United States went to war (war in this case meaning an armed conflict) with Iraq' 'The United States has entered peace talks with North Korea' In the first sentence, it doesn't imply every American citizen was armed and sent to Iraq to fight, nor does it imply every Iraqi citizen was armed to fight against the incoming Americans. It implies the two nations in fact went to war. In this context, representatives of the United States (Namely soldiers and the government) were at war with Iraq. The United States is not a general abbreviation for the people of the United States in most contexts, exceptions are: 'The United States was upset with the 2008 election outcome' In this context, it is clear the people of the United States were upset, as it implied emotion, and as the U.S.A is technically an inanimate idea, it implies the people within the U.S.A, or the majority, were angry. Context is the key to this. As the context implies no emotion, it implies that someone representing the states is involved rather than everyone. To further my case, the definition I gave for the United States was http://en.wikipedia.org.... According to this, it says [the very first sentence] "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district." . This means the U.S.A isn't an animate object, meaning it can't go to a War concert with the People Republic China, also an inanimate object. Instead it must send representatives of the State, as must China. So, these resolution implies that both States (PROC and USA) should attend the War concert, however as they are not animate objects, they must indeed send representatives, such as Hu Jintao or Bill Clinton. I wait my opponent's response.
All proven maths statements cant be true-fron Godels theorem

australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean notes All proven maths statements cant be true-fron Godels theorem (if there is only one definition of truth in mathematics) godel proved that there are true mathematic statements which cant be proven http://www.scribd.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... ?Any effectively generated theory cap ?Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250) For each consistent formal theory T having the required small amount of number theory ? provability-within-the-theory-T is not the same as truth; the theory T is incomplete.? this means then Godels theorem means All provable mathematics statements cant be true including his own theorem godel proved that there are true mathematic statements which cant be proven so that entails then that what ever a true mathematics statement is a condition on it being true must be that it cant be proven (if there is only one definition of truth in mathematics) that means then that all provable mathematic statements cant be true as a condition on being true is that it must be non-provable corollary Thus godel giving a proof of his theorem means his theorem cant be true as a condition on being true is that it must be non-provable This place godels theorem in a paradox Godels theorem is considered true but if it is true then it cant be true as he has proved his theorem but his theorem means then his theorem cant be true as a condition on being true is that it must be non-provable
All proven maths statements cant be true-fron Godels theorem

con says "For something to be true, it must be provable, not un-provable" please address these two points 1)godel proved http://en.wikipedia.org... "arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable" therefore your statement that "For something to be true, it must be provable" is wrong 2)godel proved "arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable" so by a simple use of logic it entails that for a mathematics statement to be trues a condition on it being true must be that it cant be proven that entails (if there is only one definition of truth in mathematics) All provable mathematics statements cant be true including his own theorem
The intolerant must be tolerated if they do not break the law

I am taking the position that if one wants to be tolerated at large, one must tolerate the intolerant for the sake of consistency so not to pervert the principle. You will argue that this is not the case. " Well, I might as well argue this semblance of an argument. First of all this doesn't really fit the resolution, "The intolerant must be tolerated if they do not break the law", and it is not like my opponent couldn't have made his resolution fit this debate. The tolerant must tolerate the intolerant if they don't break the law, perhaps. Despite this as my opponent has made no arguments I may as well take apart this stance as well. The resolution states "unless they break the law" which I am assuming still applies under this new topic. This means your argument refutes itself. If they "pervert the principle" while the other person is not breaking the law, why do they not "pervert the principle" if they do break the law. What if the law broken is one that should be broken?
The intolerant must be tolerated if they do not break the law

Sigh... I'll never understand why people don't follow through with their own topics. Anyways, this resolution pretty much negates itself as it is intolerant of the intolerant of the intolerant. (This really is quite a ridiculous debate.) Not only that, but it also creates a double standard, and quite a dangerous one. It represents the idea that somehow intolerance is okay, so long as it is not discouraging intolerance itself. The only way this could be seen as a good thing is if Pro is for the continuation of intolerance. I would go further, but seeing as how my opponent hasn't made an argument I will stop here.
We will replace textbooks with iPads.

You don't get what I mean right? What I am trying to explain is that the world cannot keep up with technologies! Are you sure that every school in every part of the world can afford to replace textbooks, which they used for decades, with high-tech equipment like iPads and PCs? Impossible! The world is not as advanced as what you painted it to be! Most importantly, I am talking about the fluidity of education. which is serving students of different needs with different things. You see, my counter-policy for replacing textbooks with iPads is using both iPads and textbooks. I bet you will say,'Why can't we only use iPads since they are so advanced," Well, my answer is that not all students are fit for an all-technology way of education. Maybe some people, like you, can self-study and do your work on the iPad without help, but not everyone studies like you. Some students need special attention, teachers could help them by textbooks, of course, but imagine an iPad trying to explain a hard question to a student who has thinking difficulties. The solution to these problems are being more fluid in the way of teaching. Both iPads and textbooks can cater to different students, but a combination of these two is what an advanced, high-tech world should be like.
We will replace textbooks with iPads.

What is your evidence to support that completely ditching textbooks is a bad idea, kids from early ages are starting to use iPads more and more and wouldn't it just make sense to have them continue using them throughout their middle school and high school years? While 65% of work is done on paper in law office the debate is over textbooks and not law. Im not saying converting from text books to iPads will increase test scores or improve students time management, but it will reduce waste and it will be easier to keep up with constant changing of the world.
We will replace textbooks with iPads.

Well, I agree with the good points you said about iPads and the bad points about textbooks. But, as their are benefits to both, their are 'non-benefits' for both too. What I am trying to say is replacing textbooks with iPads 100 percent is no good either. By the way, it is impossible to do that too. Now, 65% of work is still done with paper in law offices. Even though the world is aiming to be paperless, it is still stuck at the transitional stage. My facts justify my opinion, I beg to oppose and please vote for what you think is right.
We will replace textbooks with iPads.

I think that our world is constantly changing and having text books means we just can't keep up with what is changing in our world. The text books I use in school are just math, now I will use more going into my first year as an IB student but they can easily be downloaded into an iPad or other tablet. Text books take up too much space and are expensive and heavy, and while they have been used for decades they are just too impractical for our generation. If we just give students their own iPad or provide them before class we could save a lot of time and money. I usually place my math text book in my locker and it just becomes a hassle to have to go back to my locker and pick it up. I think now we are starting to convert to using iPads and the era of text books is fading and while textbooks might be beneficial to some students I think the majority would prefer iPads. Also having a touch screen could boast some benefits over traditional text books in the sense that kids could work on the actual iPad versus using a work book and so on.
We will replace textbooks with iPads.

We should not replace textbook with iPads. Instead we should stick to the Status Quo, where we use both of them together. This can serve to students who need special help, as my main topic is the fluidity of education. Yes, I agree that iPads have a lot of benefits. I also agree that times have changed and textbooks should take a step back. But only one step. I believe that replacing one rigid system with another would not help. Instead, education should be very fluid and flexible, so that it can serve to many different people.
Euthanasia should be legal in all states!

Of course people cannot just says, "I want to die now". I know drugs can take a lot of the pain, but a lot of sick people stop with taking their drugs because they want to die! Why let them die in pain?? Why not make a deal with the sick persons family? If the family say "Ok let my dad or mom die in peacefully". No one will ever see someone from his or her families die in pain. The patient can take drugs themselves, while the family holding the patients hand, so the patient fell save. Today patients can die, while the family not is there with the patient. The family don"t have a chance to say goodbye. I think all human being have rights to decide how and when to die, without commit suicide. Instead of all these people who commit suicide, they can talk with a doctor about active euthanasia, and get an executing.
Euthanasia should be legal in all states!

Withholding treatment for non functioning brains is legal already. One aspect of what you state here that is not covered is the people that can be helped by those that are in contact with a terminally ill person. BTW, you never stipulated any criteria other than "some "demands," so I must ask you what are these 'demands' you speak of? & what level of pain before one says it's too much & poof, they volunteer to die. You do not specify anything really, so please clarify this OK? People do not necessarily have to die in pain. There are many drugs out there to help in these instances. Different people react differently to pain, disease, injury, etc. & many times people are touched by those that I think you want to include in your 'euthanasia' group. Who are we to be selfish with our own suffering when others can see our strength & model themselves from it. People nowadays want to quit too easily when things get tough. Just another example here. (I preface this with not knowing what criteria you deem acceptable for euthanasia, so once we establish that, we'll have better direction). I must end this round because there is not enough of specifics in your opening argument to see the direction you are attempting to follow.
Euthanasia should be legal in all states!

There are two kinds of euthanasia, Active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is when a person does something to help you die. Passive euthanasia is when a person doesn"t do something to help you die; they stop helping to keep you alive. I think both kinds should be legal in all states. Some people have to die in pain. Why do they have to feel the pain in such a long time, if they could die peacefully? Of course I think there should be some "demands". I only think it should be very sick people who gets help to die. A lot of teenagers commit suicide. I DON"T think they should get help to die, just because they have a bad time I their life. Teenagers are young and a lot can happen to them in the future. It"s different with old people, who is sick and just want to give up their life, and just want to die. So let euthanasia be legal in all states!
Save a whale, Harpoon a fat chick

Shaming is the best method because exercise doesn't work. Most women are lazy and would rather prefer to eat tubs of ice cream and binge watch Netflix than exercise. By shaming them, It encourages them to get off the couch and THEN join the gym and lose weight. With women it's all about first impressions and appearances, That is why they wear makeup, And dress up all the time. By shaming that plumper you are letting her know that she is fat and should do something about it. If you mention a gym, She will just take it under advisement but will go back to stuffing her face with cupcakes and cake! Fat shaming is the best form of weight loss for women,
Save a whale, Harpoon a fat chick

Hi Pro, First of all, It isn't your business if a woman is fat or not and it is certainly not your job to fix it. A woman should only lose weight if she wants to. How to best lose weight is a tricky question, Different techniques will work better for some people and poorer for some, Fat shaming might be your thing but it is probably not the best method. Here's why: When you are fat-shaming someone as you propose the intent is to make someone lose weight through them being ashamed of themselves. Making people ashamed of themselves is not very nice and while being overweighed certainly isn't good, Shaming someone for it is just making people lose motivation. A better technique would be to make the woman slowly start losing weight through small exercises that you gradually increase.
Save a whale, Harpoon a fat chick

Fat shaming is the only way to make a plumper lose weight. Since public image is the number one reason women dress up and buy millions of dollars in makeup and skin and hair products, Image is everything to a woman. Diets don't work, They are all fake news, You lose 10 lbs in the first week and in a month you plateau and go back to the ice cream tubs and chocolate. Therefore fat shaming is the best method of making a woman lose weight, As she doesn't want to be a fat chick or considered a whale. Therefore I'm all for fat shaming. Prove me wrong Why shouldn't I harpoon that plumper with no ankles LOL