BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is This A TEST

I accept your challenge. So now your worrying about missiles. Alright, lets move away from the bombers that you were so worried about earlier and onto another weapon. One, the US and Russian arsenals of nuclear warheads are so massive that both can destroy the world by themselves if they want to. The current size of both nations nuclear arsenal is America with roughly 7300 total (1597 are deployed, 2800 are on standby, and the rest are mothballed and awaiting dismantlement) and Russia with roughly 8000 (1582 deployed, 2000 on standby, and the rest are mothballed and awaiting dismantlement). Adding any more to either wouldn't make a noticeable difference. [1] Two, Many of the defense systems that you claim the Obama administration dismantled (even though the reduction of our missile systems began as early as 1976) were both painfully obsolete (some still used floppy discs or something even older) and not worth the money to maintain them (some of these systems, like the GMD, which costs $40 BILLION). If the Russians decided to launch a nuclear strike, no missile defense system in the world could stop the amount of ICBMs and other ballistic missiles that I listed above. The Russians also know this which is why all their defense systems are focused around Moscow and nothing else. It is a waste of money to try and defend against something that can't be stopped. Three, The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system (GMD) as I stated above, is an incredibly expensive system. And get this, The US Government Accountability Office found that the GMD program was also continuing production of known faulty interceptor designs and was thus determined to not be the most "cost effective" system. The system was incredibly expensive, had several design problems that needed fixing, and was not the best defense system out their. [2] Four, Even with the US defense spending cuts (which have more to do with are withdraw from Iraq than anything else), the US military budget still eclipses both the Russian and Chinese budgets combined. By a LARGE margin. [3] Five, You claim that the New START program will allow the Russians to expand their nuclear arsenal. Well then, why is Russia reducing their arsenal by 3700 warheads, more than even what the US is reducing. Russia wants to get rid of their aging Soviet era nukes. They are costly to maintain and Russia does not have as deep of pockets as the US. Six, Nuclear weapons don't really matter anymore. Both the US and Russia have an arsenal big enough that neither will ever risk direct war (Mutually Assured Destruction and what not). If either Russia or China wants to even get close to the power that the US currently has, they have more important programs to invest their money in than in nukes. Like advancing their Navies for instance. [1] http://www.armscontrol.org... [2] http://www.gao.gov... [3] http://www.globalfirepower.com...
Is This A TEST

to 58539672.... You posted that,"The US is not that vulnerable ..." The United States has never been more vulnerable. than it is today under Obama and his leftist democrat party minions having decided to unilaterally cut our military defenses while Russia and China and other communist countries are enlarging their military capabilities. , "President Obama has reined in development and deployment of ballistic missile defenses. The president cut all advanced missile defense programs designed to keep the United States ahead of the ballistic missile threat in the future. The president also delayed and underfunded existing programs, most notably the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system...." "....Russia immediately exploited that weakness in negotiations over the New START. The final agreement allowed Russia to build up its nuclear arsenal, while requiring a significant reduction in U.S. nuclear warheads and delivery systems Moreover, the treaty included extremely weak verification provisions and ambiguous definitions, making it virtually impossible to charge Russia with a violation." Hillary Clinton was shown with Russian Vladimir Putin, smiling with her (RESET BUTTON) in her hand, Vladimir Putin then realized just who it was that he was dealing with and sized her up correctly as an example of America's naivet". "IS THIS A TEST," You bet it is..
All of those genders and false

You're simply not getting this. The problem is not about sex. It is about gender. There is no two gender. Also, Your argument about there had always been only sexes is untrue. How would you classify a transgender person? As male, But he/she have female physical characteristic and body parts. Female? He/she have male body parts and characteristic. Despite you have already shown me that you are a very conservative person. I will still try my best to instill this idea in your brain.
All of those genders and false

Gender is a problem that needs to be addressed. However, There are indeed other genders. C1: Gender Definition: You see, Gender doesn't mean the word sex. If we are going to talk about Male and Female differences and how these people identify themselves, Then, We would talking about the word sex. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, The word gender means: "the behavioral, Cultural, Or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" While the Google dictionary says: "the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones). " Thus, There is not only 2 gender. Gender is truly what someone see themselves as. Gender is really the social, Cultural and also behavioral pattern of each person in order to identify them. Owning an organ special to that sex, Does not mean that the person is necessarily that gender as the sex indicts. C2: Genetic Influence: Also, If we are going to talk about the physical part of a human body, It is not restricted to two sex alone. There is also something called a Intersex. According to the Wikipedia page of Intersex, Intersex is defined as: Intersex people are born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, Gonads, Sex hormones, Or genitals that, According to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". Thus, There is not necessarily only 2 gender or sex. Gender is a much broader terms than that, While the word sex doesn't only indicts female or male.
ascended into heaven - verses do not contradict each other

you just chose to change the passage to something that didn't say ascend. so i focused on that as it seemed to be the crux of your argument. about the ascend doesnt have the words of one's own strength. it doesn't, but it's implied. the examples i gave show that when one ascends, it is implied. like the example of climbing stairs. there were no stairs, but to ascend would be to somehow travel with one's own effort, as with the stairs. perhaps it's not necessaily the only way ascend could be used, but it's the only way it's been shown to use.... so we have suffiicnet effort to say it very well could be what was intended to be expressed, something requiring one's own effort and such.
ascended into heaven - verses do not contradict each other

John 3:10-17 New King James Version 10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. [a] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[b] have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. Notice that again, it is never said "by his own strength". "i pointed out that the use of the word ascend means to climb up" She actually said "The word 'ascend' means to go up. " She then said the original Latin meant to climb up. Words rarely stick to their original Latin meanings and a quick glance at the definition of "ascend" shows that the meaning is different. Not only that, but to climb would not make since in this context. "To climb" requires an object for one to climb.
ascended into heaven - verses do not contradict each other

Con gives a translation that says "no one has ever gone into heaven". i gave a translation that says 'ascend'. i pointed out that the use of the word ascend means to climb up etc as in the stairs to heaven example. ascending something implies one's own abilities. con simply tries to use another definition or spin on what it means to ascend. con is simply stomping his foot and saying 'nuh ugh'.
ascended into heaven - verses do not contradict each other

I accept. Since pro is the instigator and affirming the resolution she has the full burden of proof to show that there is definitely no contradiction in these verses. Definitions Ascend- Go up or climb It is important to note that this basically means increased in altitude. If the end destination is heaven then this results in a clear contradiction. My opponent tries to draw the distinction between going up out of one's own strength and being "taken up" but this is irrelevant as both fit the definition. In both cases the individual is going up into heaven. My opponent makes the claim that ascending "pictures someone or something that goes up of its own strength" which is a ridiculous. She is simply ignoring the definition that she presented "The word 'ascend' means to go up". There are know qualifiers here such as "by oneself" or "with ones own strength. My opponent is simply giving her interpretation of the word which is incorrect and should be considered irrelevant. The original Latin meaning of the word should also be ignored because many words in the English language have vastly different meanings than their Latin counterparts. My opponent makes a bold claim about john 3 when she says "John 3:13 does not teach that no one has ever seen or entered heaven. It teaches that no man ever climbed up into heaven by his own power." Here is the context: John 3:10-15 10 "You are Israel"s teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven"the Son of Man.[e] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him." Nowhere in this passage is the qualifier "by his own strength" found. My opponents analysis is simply her biased and subjective interpretation of a clear contradiction in scripture. We can conclude that in John 3:13 Jesus claimed no one had ascended into heaven yet when it states clearly that Elijah ascended into heaven. I've tried to keep my argument short since the contradiction is incredibly clear.
ascended into heaven - verses do not contradict each other

John 3:13 states, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." 2 Kings 2:1 And it came to pass, when the LORD would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal. 2 Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. " The Bible does not say that Elijah ascended to heaven. It says that he was taken up. The word 'ascend' means to go up. It pictures someone or something that goes up of its own strength. The word 'ascend' comes from the Latin word for 'climb' and it literally means to climb up. We speak of someone ascending the stairs. The first biblical use of the word is in Genesis 28:12 where Jacob sees "a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. John 3:13 does not teach that no one has ever seen or entered heaven. It teaches that no man ever climbed up into heaven by his own power. The only one who has ever ascended to heaven in His own strength is the One who originated in heaven and came down to earth before He ascended."
The Death Penalty should handed out liberally =P

Should be noted that the death penalty will also be changed. 1 bullet to the head no lethal injection wha ever 6m for appeal than after that u get what u get. Reserved for heinous crimes, prison escapees, and repeat offenders (sex, drug, DUI, burglary, etc have to be serious crime). i negate for the following reasons: 1. The death penalty is more humane than other forms of punishment Compared to "incapacitation", which is a kinder phrase for lobotomy, or sentencing a criminal to solitary confinement for the next 25-50 years, executing a criminal may seem like a more humane option. A criminal sentenced to life without parole will never again see daylight, and will have to consider the consequences of their crime until the day they die. From an emotional standpoint, ending this elongated, intense level of suffering for a prisoner could be considered a mercy. 2. Saves the state money that could be used to benefit society The cost of incarcerating a prisoner that serves life without parole will cost the state roughly 70,000 per year including food, healthcare, construction of facility, etc. In our current society teachers are paid no more than 40k a year. is it is just to spend more money on incarceration as opposed to eduction? 3. Some criminals are above the law and still represent a threat to society while in prison Some criminals are truly above the law, in that their influence can reach the outside world even if they are behind bars. For this reason, some criminals are simply too dangerous to live at all. 4. Better deterrent to crime -Singapore The crime rate gap between Singapore and the United States is rather vast; in fact Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. In a country where smuggling over 50 grams of heroin is certain to result in the same punishment as slaughtering another human being, obviously, a criminal has to decide if breaking the law at all is really worth their life. An abide law or die stance IS the most efficient and cheapest known way to prevent capital crimes. 5. Karma!
Jodie Marsh is a Real American Hero

The Negative will prove that there exists a spectrum of character that ranges from Real American Hero to the AntiChrist and Jodie Marsh falls squarely on the latter end of that scale. Definitions: Jodie Marsh - Incompetent English Floozy Real American Hero - It has been widely known since 1982 that G.I. Joe is the embodiment of the Real American Hero. Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org... Contention 1: Jodie Marsh's character can be judged by the intelligence of her followers. I would like to submit the following quote from an anonymous Jodie Marsh fan, "Peoples perception on Jodie marsh are usually negative , people ridiculing and proclaiming she is a " whore" slut" etc, Though people are naieve and dont realise the good she has done for young teenagers, her problems have been outcasted because of her risque appearence, but dosent society say dont Judge a book by its cover?! So why are we constantly contridicating ourselves, I do admit jodie marsh has done some shameless stuff in her life but none the less this is a true indication of what she has yet to make up for, and she has!...Nobodys perfect Jodie marsh is a beautiful person :)" It is a widely accepted scientific fact that a person's character can be judged by the grammar and spelling of their fans. Here we have systematic proof of Jodie Marsh's idiocy. Contention 2: She sucks the blood from our brains Men who spend excessive amounts of time staring at Jodie Marsh's photos, particularly her fully nude work, report a sudden loss of blood in the brain. It seems that merely staring at these photos can cause the blood to rush from one's brain and occupy unknown appendages elsewhere in the body. Contention 3: The inerrant truth of the Bible prophecies the coming of Jodie Marsh. Proverbs 5:3-5 " for the lips of a loose woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil, but in the end she is as bitter as wormwood, sharp as two edged sword. Her feet go down to death." Most Celebrity Theologians agree that this is a direct reference to Jodie Marsh. The book of revelations offers even more insight into the character of Jodie Marsh: Revelation 13:1, "I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name." We now know that name is Jodie Marsh, "And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority." There we have it, direct proof that Jodie Marsh gets her power directly from the devil. My opponent may not refute the accuracy of Biblical prophecy, it has been scientifically proven with carbon dating. In conclusion, Jodie Marsh is very nearly the opposite of the Real American Hero. The Negative has proven that Jodie Marsh is an incompetent floozie. Her followers attest to this fact, she has been consciously sucking the blood from the brains of American men, and the Bible accurately asserts that she is a messenger of the devil.
Capital Punishment

I would like to present my rebuttals to Con's arguments:1/ EconomyCon said that the death penalty has cost 4 billion dollars since 1978 (actually he wrote "four thousand" but I assume that it's a typo) so on average it will cost around 130 million per year. Then he said changing to life without parole (LWOP) it will save 170 million per year. I'm sorry, how does that work? Unless LWOP makes money instead of costs money.I would like to show the cost comparison between death penalty and LWOP [1]Cost of Life Without Parole: Cases Equivalent To Death Penalty Cases- $34,200/year for 50 years, at a 2% annual cost increase- $75,000 for trial & appealsTotal: $3.01 millionCost of Death Penalty Cases- $60,000/year for 6 years, at a 2% annual cost increase- $1.5 million for trial & appealsTotal: $1.88 millionWe can see that LWOP costs more than death penalty per case despite having lower trial cost.One more thing that we should take notice of is the plea bargain. The death penalty affects the willingness of defendants to plead guilty and receive a life sentence. In his study, Scheidegger said that "repeal of the death penalty would likely result in fewer pleas to life or long sentences, requiring that prosecutors either take more cases to trial at a substantial financial cost or accept bargains to lesser sentences at a substantial cost to public safety". He concluded that "The widespread assumption that repeal of the death penalty would produce an immediate and dramatic savings in trial costs is not justified on the information currently available". [2]2/ Societya/ RacismFrom Con's own source: [3]- In the current death row population, there are 41.93% is black, 43.17% is white.- Of the defendants executed in the U.S. since 1976, 35% is black, 53% is white.How is this racism?Regarding Con's other arguments, if there is racism in the prosecution and trial, then we should fix the system, not the punishment.b/ Mental Illness and DisabilityCon said "It is illogical to allow a system that punishes those with mental troubles". If it is wrong to punish mentally ill people, then it is wrong with any kind of punishment. If putting them to death is not okay, then is putting them to jail for life is okay? The problem here lies with the system, I fail to see how it is the death penalty's fault.3/ MoralityCon's arguments are confusing. I find it difficult to understand this part "We are taught at a young age that should we be bullied or misjudged or otherwise wronged, we should take retaliation against those who wrong us. Yet, when we get to an adult age and when we talk about crime, we forget this and use retaliation against those who kill."Then Con used the case of Timothy McVeigh to justify his argument, but I can't see how it is relevant to the debate. What McVeigh is illegal killing, the death penalty is legal killing. If someone begins to lock up people illegally, is it hypocrisy if we condemn him? Or should we stop putting criminals in jails as well? [1] http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...[2] "The Death Penalty and Plea Bargaining to Life Sentences" (2009), Kent Scheidegger[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
America and the Straights of Hormuz: Interference

I would like to point out that Con did not refute any of my arguments but instead decided to give us a gushy history of Iran-US relations.I am aware that the threat to close the straights came about by a recent threat to impose tougher oil sanctions on Iran. I understand that Iran has had a tough half century. My points still stand as thus:Closing the Straights of Hormuz violates international law regulated and imposed by the UN. The United States is a leading member of the UN and is seated on the Security Council.Therefore when international law is threatenedthe United States has justification to intervene militarily in order to uphold UN law based on the status as a signer of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and its seat on the Security Council, among other things previously mentioned.Rebuttal: These points still stand since they have not been effectively refuted by my opponent. This debate was never about whether or not military intervention was the best course of action or the most logical course of action etc but instead the debate was about whether or not the United States has justification to intervene militarily in an Iranian threat to close the Straights of Hormuz which I have clearly showed that they do. Your points therefore are irrelevent in relation to the topic at hand. I hope you can reorganize and refute my topics more thoroughly this round instead of trying to sway my opinion of Iranian relations with the United States for that is a different debate entirely.