BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
U.S. army is the most powerful army in the world

Please note that unless specifically stated, China will refer to the People's Republic of China, not the Republic of China (Taiwan). Also. I assume that Pro is fine with me using Wikipedia as a source, but if you question the validity of Wikipedia, I would be more than happy to find other references. Your description on American military training is very detailed and 'original' (copy-pasted directly from Wikipedia), but it still doesn't prove that it is the best in the world. Israel's military training is much more rigorous than the U.S., and American special forces actually travel to Israel for the most advanced training. (http://www.guardian.co.uk...) China's communist government makes it much easier for them to attack, because they don't have to go through the lengthy American process. They could very easily set aside hundreds of billions of dollars for warfare if need be. Martial law can be declared quite easily in China, especially when compared to the U.S, as evident in the June Fourth Incident. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) America's major disadvantage is that many people will be against the war, and will protest to the government. This can cause major problems like in Vietnam where the U.S. actually had to pull out its troops from Indochina, resulting in a communist victory. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The US would be extremely hesitant to use nuclear warfare, especially due to all of the legislation banning it. (http://en.wikipedia.org...); (http://en.wikipedia.org...); (http://en.wikipedia.org...) But if this theoretical war did include nuclear warfare, Russia would definitely win. Russia is much bigger than the United States (by around 3 million square miles), so the US would have to use much more of their nuclear weapons to completely eradicate the Russian population. (http://en.wikipedia.org...); (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Russia also has 2,500 more warheads than America (see link in previous round), so it would be the United States that would be defeated.
U.S. army is the most powerful army in the world

Before I start, I'm going to assume by U.S. Army you mean the United States Armed Forces. Just tell me if you literally meant the United States Army. Also, it would really help if you included sources, because it makes it much easier to validate information. Anyways, onto the debate! "They also have one of the best training systems in the world." I agree that the United States has very good military training, but I couldn't find any website that gave evidence that it was one of the best in the world. "The United States has more nuclear capability than anyone." I'm not sure if you are talking about nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons. The U.S. does have the highest megawatt capacity in power plants (http://www.world-nuclear.org...), but I'm not sure what that has to do with warfare. If you are talking about nuclear weapons, that statement is flat out wrong. Russia has significantly more warheads than the United States. (http://www.fas.org...) Although their technology is less advanced, I think the People's Republic of China is the most powerful. They have about six hundred million more available troops than the United States, and about five hundred million more that are fit for military service. America's money can only go so far. If the Liberation Army and the U.S. Armed Forces fought head-to-head, it's pretty obvious that the Liberation Army would win, simply because of their size. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
U.S. army is the most powerful army in the world

There is no place in the world, which can't be attacked by U.S. army. They also have one of the best training systems in the world. There is no scenario that has not been addressed. Moreover, U.S. military units can coordinate their actions with each other. So they are really effective. The United States defense budget is the largest in the world. In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Defense has a base budget of $533.8 billion. Therefore U.S. army has the latest weapons such as fifth-generation fighter F-22 Raptor. The United States has more nuclear capability than anyone. So I think that none country can defeat it.
The Big Bang is currently the most credible scientific theory on the evolution of the early Universe

"The Big Bang theory, on the other hand, has practically no evidence against it, and evidence for it just keeps pilling up. "This is because every piece of evidence that shows up against the Big Bang always conforms its theory in order to avoid conflict with this new evidence. This is what we call science. Even with all the evidence against it, YEC does the same exact thing, by using "science" to assimilate the theory to go along with new evidence found. This whole debate, I argued that the Big Bang is not currently the most credible scientific theory on the evolution of the early universe. Even though I used YEC as a most often counter-argument (because it is the most often used), "science" can be used with more theories, to morph theories in co-existence with evidence, or vice versa. My argument can only be hazed if not seen with an open mind, so assuming any reader has read the whole debate, with an open mind, I thank you for that.
The Big Bang is currently the most credible scientific theory on the evolution of the early Universe

This debate is impossible to accept. If you are interested in debating this topic, leave a comment stating that you are interested in the comment section.I will be arguing that the Big Bang theory is currently the most credible scientific theory on the evolution of the early Universe. My opponent will argue that the Big Bang is not the most credible credible scientific theory on the evolution of the early Universe.First round is for acceptance only.In the second round, both sides will present their arguments(no rebuttals)Third round is for rebuttals.Fourth round is for both sides to defend their arguments from the rebuttals in the third round(no new rebuttals).
You can be pro gay and believe Being Gay Is A Choice

When I hear a person say, "being gay is a choice so if you chose to be gay you choose to be evil" I'm really not surprised that this kind of person would make such a error, but when I hear the rebuttal, "Why would you hate someone for something they didn't choose to be" I get taken aback. After hearing these two statements I find myself wondering which argument I should side on. The problem with the first statement is that there is no reason to believe that being gay is harmful to anybody in any shape or form and I agree with the second statement on that you shouldn't hate anybody, but if being gay is truly harmful then you should want to change it. These arguments are filled with inefficiencies. One is claiming a position that is unsubstantiated i.e. being gay is harmful and the other is implying a non sequitur i.e. being gay is a choice so it is okay to be gay. I will not delve into why the first argument is wrong because showing the fallacies of the second would further my point easier. The main problem with the second argument is that the conclusion(being gay is okay) can be right or wrong with the implied premise being true(being gay is not choice). If being gay was truly harmful the fact that it being a choice or not will only point us in the direction of how to fix the problem. What I mean by this is if being gay is solely determined by genes that would mean that we would have to find a genetic solution, assuming that being gay is destructive. The same thing goes if you think being gay is a choice, that would mean you have to rehabilitate the person. This assumption that if you think people have a choice in their sexual orientation means that your against homosexuals comes from a time when people thought being homosexual was a mental disorder, so to take the blame off of the person they would say they didn't choose to be gay. Obviously this no longer applies now.The ability to chose one's sexual orientation is a matter of nature vs nurture and has nothing to say on whether homosexuality is negative. So, for all those self righteous gay activist who catch a hissy fit when I say being gay is a choice please shut up because you don't know what you are talking about. Being gay has a neutral to positive impact and the fact that it is a choice does not hurt the lgbt movement at all.
You can be pro gay and believe Being Gay Is A Choice

Ok, then. This has mainly just been rambling. Since my opponent is the instigator, he has the burden of proof. While he has eventually stated his opinion and defined the resolution in the third round, he has failed to provide any real proof and has instead imposed this on me. As the con side, I have to negate the resolution, which I did in round 2 and he has failed to provide any rebuttal to this. While this debate has mainly been a failure due to the absence of him providing any real proof, I believe that he has not actually presented any arguments on the fact that someone can be pro gay and believe gay is a choice. I on the other hand, first set out to source a study linking homosexuality to genetics and then offered a con side in which he did not provide a rebuttal to. All and all, vote con. -Thank you
You can be pro gay and believe Being Gay Is A Choice

I understand my description of the debate was not very clear, but I do believe I clarified myself in the second round. My opponent was given the task of showing that "being pro gay" is contradictory to "believing gay is a choice". Showing that one can be pro gay and not believe being gay is a choice does not deride the resolution, but further exemplifies my point, which is that there is no mutual exclusivity between any position of "nature vs nurture" and "pro vs anti gay(gay is destructive)". Even though we got off to a rocky start I still enjoyed the debate. Good luck in the voting and I will be happy to participate in any future debates.
You can be pro gay and believe Being Gay Is A Choice

Ok. If one looks at the resolution, and I as the con side, it can be You can be pro gay and not believe that being gay is a choice. I for one have no prejudice against gays but I in fact believe that being gay is not a choice and more to do with the genetics of the individual. If one refers to my previous source, it cements my idea that people who are gay are just different, but not inferior nor superior but people who are gay have a different mentality to their sexuality. Thus, this defies the resolution that one can b pro gay and not believe that being gay is a choice. :) - Thank you.
You can be pro gay and believe Being Gay Is A Choice

This debate is really only a discussion on one point: I pose the argument that holding the stance that "being gay is a choice" is not contradictory to the position that "being gay is non problematic." Unlike the position that homosexual christians take thinking their god doesn't condemn them(meaning their god accepts them without repenting). Furthering my position, I previously tried to clarify that providing "being gay is a choice" as a premise and "therefore being homosexual is okay" as your conclusion is essentially stating a fallacious argument. The conclusion does not logically follow the premise. This is all to exemplify the point that one can be Pro or anti-gay(the belief that homosexuality is destructive) without it also entailing a fixed position on whether being gay is a choice(the fixed positions being; pro gay must believe no choice and anti gay must believe in choice). Yes, I stated that being gay is a choice(never clarifying to what degree), but this debate is not focused on that discussion. It is focused on the argument I explained above. I will be glad to have a debate on whether being homosexual is harmful and also to what degree being gay is a choice; however, I would like to hear a rebuttal to the one I put forward. Hopefully that explains everything.
You can be pro gay and believe Being Gay Is A Choice

I thought I was pro :( I am rather confused on my opponent's argument but I guess i will refute it. Personally, I have never heard anyone say why they should hate someone for something they did not choose to be. In this website, http://www.guardian.co.uk... researchers have found out that there are chromosomal differences between people who are gay and their genes. For more information ,refer to the source. Now if my opponent agrees, can we change the debate to that being gay is a choice and is destructive? My opponent's logic currently better fits this resolution. I am not against people who are gay, but I believe that there is more to it than just a choice. Gays used to be persecuted, but now they are accepted in society. Even at a time when gays would be persecuted, if they had a choice, many people wouldn't choose to be gay. Thus, I believe that gay is not so much a choice and instead is much more complicated that that and involves genetics. In this website: http://www.guardian.co.uk... it says how researchers have proven that being gay is not a choice. -Thank you I ask my opponent to clarify his points as opposed to the rambling. No offense.
It is childish and counter productive to create voting blocks on Debate.org to support weakarguments

As the con may well be suffering from the poor constitution which he referenced in his opening round, I graciously extend to him my hopes that he is able to recover from his aliments. Out of respect to his illness, I will not be furthering my argument with this round. I ask that the fellow users of Debate.org join me in wishing him a speedy recovery.
It is childish and counter productive to create voting blocks on Debate.org to support weakarguments

Thank you for providing definitions for the purpose of this debate. It is childish to create an organization to support weak arguments because you agree with them ideologically. In fitting with the Merriam-Webster definition, it certainly indicative of lacking poise. It also shows the immaturity of the individuals involved, unwilling to accept that they lost their debate simply by arguing poorly or choosing a poor argument to make, while being unable to support it. As far as being counter productive is considered, it depends on the goal of the user of Debate.org. Many come here to debate, and as you said rant. The Debates are then subject to what many would hope to be a relatively fair review by fellow users. So, for users who specifically hold this goal it is very counter productive. Individuals that are interested in belonging to a community online will also find voting blocs to be counter productive. The online community will suffer if individuals debating are left with a nasty taste in their mouths as the votes come in because they have been in a debate targeted by one voting bloc or another. This will naturally lead to hostility. While violence is certainly one way to create an unsafe environment, it is not the only way. With the use of the internet, there are many ways that a person can attack another without ever getting up from their key board. This could lead to a number of poor results, causing financial damage and emotional pain. There is also the possibility of terrible personal attacks being made that are completely unfounded. Having groups of debaters forming voting blocs and launching personal attacks at one another hardly sounds like "fun" to me. To have these personal attacks then supported by more talented users of technology with cyber attacks doesn't sound safe, although it could possibly add to the fun - but I doubt that's the kind of fun the creator of this website meant. My resolution still stands that voting blocs are childish and counter productive to create voting blocs to support weak arguments. I was not making a statement that all voting blocs are childish and counter productive, fore instance it might be quite beneficial to the community if a voting block was formed to support grammar or polite arguments. However, creating a voting block to support weak arguments because of an agreement with ideology, for an example, is childish and counter productive. The difficulty is, of course, the that inspired this debate dictated that you support the arguments "If you agree with them." It doesn't say to support the argument that was the strongest, just the person you agreed with. Voting for what you agree with is different than supporting the strongest argument. It is supporting the weak argument that will make fun and safety less apparent on this website.
It is childish and counter productive to create voting blocks on Debate.org to support weakarguments

Evening, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I want to apologize to my opponent for the extended delay; a series of damning events have prevented me from reaching the keyboard until now, and I cry your pardon. Hopefully you have used this time well. Some clarification before I begin. [Childish]: 1: of, relating to, or befitting a child or childhood 2 a: marked by or suggestive of immaturity and lack of poise b: lacking complexity : simple c: deteriorated with age especially in mind : senile [Counterproductive]: tending to hinder the attainment of a desired goal Both of these definitions came from the Merriam-Webster dictionary accessed online. An online "voting bloc" has apparently been discovered by my opponent, the sole purpose of which is to cast votes for each other's debates. Patrick_Henry labels such individuals as "childish" and their mission as "counter-productive". My job is to negate either one of these claims. This is, after all, a debate, and that means the greatest minds sparring against each other mercilessly no matter how reasonable a proposition the opponent might suggest. Firstly, I wish to address Patrick_Henry's claim that the voting bloc's actions are against the mission of Debate.org. "The mission of Debate.org is to create a global online arena for debate and open discussion that is safe, fun, and free. We will accomplish these goals by offering a technologically comprehensive website that hosts formal debate, and open communication for all who wish to participate." "Safe, fun, and free" are vague terms, but it would be fairly safe to say that one does not encounter physical assault or is approached for payment on this site. Likewise, Debate.org's sole purpose is to establish an arena for verbal gladiators to spar; it does not infringe on the participants' right to vote, which also means it does not prohibit an individual's right to create his/her own "voting bloc" as he/she sees fit. I also do not see Debate.org's mission of "discovering the truth". The facts are as thus: Debate.org does not, and for that matter, cannot, to the best of its ability, prohibit voting blocs. It sets the structure for us to carry out our opinionated rants, but as for the evaluation of said rants, the task falls on the ranters to give points as they see fit, no matter how "misinformed" or biased they may be. After all, are not people who are reading this debate already harboring their own preconceptions? Is that not a voting bloc in essence, guided by the title of said debate? And does Debate.org deem this malignant undercurrent counterproductive? No. Debate has always been a subjective science, and voting blocs are naturally inevitable, something Debate.org understood and thus, did not include its prohibition in the mission statement. To say that voting blocs undermine the "discovering of truth" is an ironic statement at best. In effect, voting blocs do not undermine Debate.org's mission anymore than killing people undermines the war effort. Awaiting your reply.
It is childish and counter productive to create voting blocks on Debate.org to support weakarguments

I resolve that it is counter productive to create voting blocks on Debate.org to support weak arguments. Debate.org is an online community, and like many online communities there is very little control over the quality of those that participate in the organization and contribute to the forum, or in this case to the process of debating. The reason why we vote for debates is to express which arguments we felt were best argued. It is a check against the indeterminable quality of members of this website. Anyone may sign up for an account and participate, but voting and comment sections allow that person to discover what is and isn't accepted by the online community. Recently, I received a series of messages from a group of individuals who are attempting to organize an online voting block to support weak arguments that agree with their ideological positions. Rather than contribute to the community with rhetoric and wit, they have decided to simply take away from it by blindly supporting the arguments of their fellow ideologists. This is childish and counter productive. It does not in anyway contribute to create a site which supports the value of arguments and rhetoric. Nor does it support any attempt at discovering truth, which makes it counter productive to the mission of Debate.org In fact, it is a clear admission that aside from being childish and counter productive, the individuals involved in the organization acknowledge that the arguments they support are the lesser arguments. It shows that they on some level know that the positions they take are untrue, or unsupportable. Indicating that since they feel that there is a need for this kind of organization that they refuse to acknowledge better arguments and truth when it comes to their positions. The zeal for their beliefs has caused them to undertake a subversive organization. In this discussion, among the many recipients, several agreed and advocated for the initiative. I have decided to place their user names below in order to encourage them to take part in this public discussion, and this debate, so that they may have the opportunity to defend against my argument that they are childish and support weak arguments. Jamesothy advidiun the_conservative joshandr30 CiRrO wjmelements I would like to make public in the same measure individuals who argued against their attempts to organize their coalition of blind support, and even accused the above of being childish. MitchPaglia DucoNihilum In closing, it is childish and counter productive to create organizations of individuals with the purpose of supporting weak arguments.
social networking sites should be banned..!!!

Arguments for Social Networking Sites:1. Increased communications with distant relatives.2. Increased communications with friends.3. Entertainment (because who, at some point on Facebook or Myspace, hasn't tried Mafia or Farmville or something?)Refutations to my opponent's sole argument:"Social networking sites bring privacy into the public doman."1. False. We bring privacy into the public domain. Social networking sites are inherently public, and posting private information is something only we can do. If you don't want your personal information out there, don't put it out there.2. Even if social networking sites are responsible for privacy becoming public, my opponent never establishes why this is a bad thing, but a) merely asserts that it happens, and b) merely asserts that it's a bad thing and cause for banning. He has proved neither.Resolution = Negated
belief=be lie, as i dont know is true

belief=false know=true knowledge=truth(past) unknown is false by default, believing that my sights was fabricated by the matrix is false the problem with that stuff is, there are possibilities i havnt even thought of, so there is an unknown part, there has to be, and that part is simply not known, what is your neighbour doing right now? but to go further, if you ask me, is there a poison that exist that can poison you such that you wouldnt know you were asleep on the floor dreaming/hallucinating, becasue i would have to know all the poisons that exist in the universe to know there isnt a poison like that, BUT belief isnt true, and possibilities are imaginary am i lying about taking the drug? how do you assume anything to be true if you are not true? is life true? i dont have beliefs