BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
United States of America vs China - Conventional War

Thank you for a very good argument. I will attempt to counter it. As you have stated, an invasion through South Korea would likely be A. Unsupportable B. Basically impossible. The US could hold some of it's Military in south Korea as a precaution, or as a surprise force when China isn't suspecting it. Meanwhile, for russia, just the US's allies have a higher manpower than Russia, this could give an advantage in production and attrition. The US can hold it's navy back, as a defense and focus more of its military into Europe. the UK, has some of the best trained soldiers in the world. From your argument "Furthermore they cannot match the replenishment rates for military aged males coming of age for military service every year" Yes that might be true, but that can't go on forever. Eventually something's gotta give, and if most of your population is focused on Production, your military is going to suffer. China would need to divert it, half and half, If not the side with less is going to suffer. Being as China cannot invade mainland USA, where would they invade? THe only suitable option would be through Alaska, or Canada, but i doubt Canada will allow them Military access. Yes, China has a staggering industry, but they can't get thousands and millions of supplies in a few days. Depending on how long it takes to get China's industry into War Production, the USAF can quickly bomb high priority areas of production, knocking out the rate at which China and produce military supplies. Note too, that because of the high amount of aircraft in the USAf, we can send waves after waves towards your Anti-Air batteries and weaponry. Yes we would sustain medium to high losses, but if we can cripple China's air defense, what is there is stop the USAF from bombing the country's valuable supplies and Infrastructure, and Production locations. Now, the USA has a much much higher number of serviceable airports. Meaning we have much more places to launch aircraft from. This being the USAF can knock out Chinese Airports, this can limit the area's China can launch aircraft from, giving the US an even bigger opportunity to bomb valuable areas. It is worth noting, the US would sustain heavy losses in these attacks. Now, back to the problem with China having such a larger military. I said it before, i'll say it again, Numbers do not win a battle. For example, here is a battle scenario: At the chinese city of Tonghua. 1,250,000 million US marines have captured the city, however 3,500,000 Chinese soldiers are 50 miles away, heading for the city. As they march into the city, the US marines can hide around the city, and at one point, surround the Chinese Soldiers, completely cutting their numerical advantage. The landscape can also provide a large advantage, if a battle takes place in a forest for example, the US marines need only to hide in bushes, awaiting the chinese military. Giving them the stealth advantage. I have provided my counter argument, good luck in the next round. Again i refer to http://www.globalfirepower.com... as my source.
United States of America vs China - Conventional War

I will comply to your suggestion. If the US has allies China can have North Korea and Russia on it's side. The US will have France Uk and Germany on it's side. I will be referring to globalfirepower.com as my source/evidence. China can undoubtedly supply a large army with ease, being that china has such a high manpower availability (Almost 800 million) However, an army of 5,000,000 can lose to an army of 1,000,000. China would not be able to invade the US succesfully, China has 1 aircraft carrier, compared to the US's 20. The USAF would knock out Chinese ships without having to sustain heavy loss's. Also, i do not believe we would be able to invade China from the ocean, so my proposition would be to invade North Korea though South Korea. The US Navy can create a blockade around china to stop trade/supplies coming in from sea. The US owns 5,366 transport aircraft, to china's 876. We can land soldiers into china directly through the air once our air force knocks out the Anti-Aircraft bombardments. The toughest part would likely be invading through North Korea. Once the US owns Air Supremacy, we can bomb bases knocking out crucial centers. Meanwhile, i do not think we would invade into russia just yet, my guess is that we would focus our power onto china. As i said, China has a staggering industry, they can get tanks, planes, ships out faster than we can. It would be a tough war.
United States of America vs China - Conventional War

Thanks to Dark_Soul for proposing this topic for debate. While I generally agree with him, I will argue this one for China based on many factors. While the United States posessess some of the most advanced equipment on the battlefield they are weary from extended deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, their equipment is in dire need of a refresh and they cannot match the sheer manpower China can pump out. If the US and NATO were to intervene against China, it is quite likely that Russia would enter the fray as well. I do ask for clarification though as to whether or not Allies will be involved in the calculus of this scenario. If so I would argue that North Korea and Russia would both intervene against a US and NATO alliance because of their shared hatred of those forces.
United States of America vs China - Conventional War

Round 1 - Opening statement Round 2 - 4 - Argument's/rebuttling Round 5 - Closing statement/conclusion Before people start commenting "That would never happen" blah blah. I know it would never happen, it's just fun to debate who would win if it did. I'am on the side that the USA would win. It's military is above that of any other country and it has a lot of allies to back it up. No Nuclear Warfare.
United States of America vs China - Conventional War

My closing statement: I have one thing to say, that is from your round 3 argument. You say that Russia and China would focus their attack on Eastern Europe, that leaves them more vulnerable for the US to attack. Feel free to counter something i said if you want. (It's only fair! ) Do not post an entire 5 paragraphs argument as a closing statement. IF you counter something, use 1 - 3 sentences.
Muslim Ban Policy

Topic is the Muslim ban that Donald J. Trump had proposed during the GOP primaries. I will arguing against the policy. In terms of the standards of this debate pretend we are two politicians arguing in a conventional debate format. We want to show why our side is superior in the real world. The official wording (this is from his website, . https://www.donaldjtrump.com...): "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. "
ninjas are superior to spartans

A few responses to m opponents attacks before I move on to voter issues. First, an issue I would like to clear up a quickly as possible to avoid any misleading remarks, I HAVE attacked my opponents case, THROUGH my framework. My opponent has spent most of his responses trying to bring down my framework. I have attacked his case and defended my case simultaneously. Now, my opponent has claimed that armor should not be a factor in this case, since a ninja can pick up any armor he or she sees fit. However, since armor is clearly NOT a factor in stealth (you could even argue that it hinders the ability to move around silently and so forth.) Stealth is my opponents contention, yet it seems he wants to say that stealth is optional. To this I can only say that you cant have your cake and eat it too... If a ninja uses stealth, then the ninja can't use armor; It really is as simple as that. My opponent mentioned the fact doctors are present after a battle, however he ignores the fact that the Spartans had knowledgeable doctors in the age which at the time was at the cutting edge of health care. The discoveries made by Spartans are far more significant than anything Ninjas have contributed to modern medicine. Finally my opponents suggested alternative framework is flawed and does not take into account any exterior factors. While a ninja can use stealth, there is no reason why a Spartan can't and there is no reason why a Ninja can't use straightforward warfare. My opponents framework is abound with these types of flaws and loopholes. We need a way of judging this case that will pit the two warriors in a fair and unbiased manner. My framework does this, and my opponent has not met it. Finally, my opponent has made claims that I have not attacked all of his contentions... To this I can only say that I have and if the judge cares to do so, he or she can clearly see that this claim is not grounded. To conclude: My opponent did not attack my value, he has not mentioned my second contention, and he has not met my framework. For this the vote should clearly go to the Con side. I'd like to thank my opponent, my judges, and, of course the Spartan. I hope I too have managed to share some of the strength of the great ancient Spartan.
ninjas are superior to spartans

In response to my opponents claim that fighting is not the better way to prove that aomeone is superior to another, I'd like to say that since the MAIN FUNCTION of a spartan and a ninja is to engage in violent conflicts, how superior the two are should in fact be judged by how effectively they fufill their main functions. My opponent used debaters as an example of a situation where fighting would not prove superiority. To this I can only say: of course. The main function of a debater is to debate. I am only setting up a fair framework to judge these two warriors. They could also be judged by how well they knit, but this would be irrelevant to what their main function is. Therefore I must urge my judges to disregard what my opponent has stated about this in his attack of my value criterion. In his response to my first contention, my opponent claimed that since spartan armor is heavy, it would therefore be useless in stealth. Stealth is simply a function of combat, however. It is one way to achieve an ultimate goal. It is NOT, however the only way to achieve a goal and this is what my opponent does not seem to understand. While a ninja may achieve one thing one way, a Spartan can achieves the goal through another way. Since these two ways are equally valid (since they both all lead to achieving the goal), my opponents statement that since armor is useless in stealth is true, but irrelavent. Armor does provide an obvious advantage, it protects the wearer. This is an advantage that only a spartan can have since a ninja can only use stealth. My point is that since a spartan can only have this advantage, it makes the spartan superior. My opponent claimed in his response to my second contention that I am putting ninjas in the place of spartans. No, I am only trying to set up a clear framework, which if my opponent acknoweldged we could both be avoiding some of the confusion we are having. He also states that there is no way to determine a spartan will win in a battle. He gives the example of the American Revolution, saying that this proves there is no way to determine who will win a battle. However, this particular eample is clearly irrelevant. Both sides in the Amreican Revolution did not employ stealth tactics, they actually employed simple warfare, much like a Spartan. Would the Britans have won if they used Stealth? Such a question would be more relevant to the case. My opponent claims I did not entriely attack his first contention. I did; I used a point he made in the argument to try to bring down the argument as a whole. To end: my opponent states that matching ninja verus spartan as a whole. However, since my opponent has not offered up an alternative way to judge the two warriors, he essentially agrees. Therefore I must urge the judges to vote for the Con side. Thank you.
The Following Quotes Effectively Refute Christianity

Greetings Geo, thank you for the challenge I hope to have a good debate. My opponent asks that I try to avoid semantics; however, if i am going to do this I need some clarifications. The resolution is worded in a peculiar way, because "Christianity" is belief in the Christian God, but your quotes do not refute belief in the Christian God, but rather it seems he is attempting to say that Jesus undermines his own morality? So, as you wish I will not debate semantics, and will await your clarification. What we must notice is that what the resolution requires in order for it to actually effectively refute Christianity. Definition of refute: To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony. Dictionary.com In order for something to refute anything, it must make an argument that presents evidence that adequately shows the incorrectness of the opposition. But what my opponent has done, has merely posted quotes that SAID Jesus is an unpleasant character, racist, hysterically insane etc. With absolutely nothing to back it up. The quotes do not present any evidence whatsoever, nor do they give examples Jesus presenting the said kind of behavior. Now, my opponent may think that he himself can present evidence for his quote's cases, but it would be irrelevant. The resolution states "The following quotes effectively refute Christianity" this means that the quotes themselves must prove the entire case themselves. As you can see, the quotes carry a heavy burden, a burden that must have something to display what it is talking about, such as examples from the Bible, or some other form of evidence to prove it's case. But seeing as none of the quotes actually do, there is nothing to hold them up. Only useless, petty insults with nothing to back them up. As you can see, the quotes by themselves cannot carry the burden that they must be able to carry to effectively "refute" Christianity.
The Following Quotes Effectively Refute Christianity

To start this debate, I will provide quotes that I think, effectively refute Christianity from a philosophical standpoint, and expose it to be morally unsound. My opponent (must be a Christian to accept) is tasked to completely vindicate Christianity, philosophically and morally. (*Try to avoid semantics please.) ======= - Quotes - ======= "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." – Richard Dawkins "Strange, indeed, that you should not have suspected that your universe and its contents were only dreams, visions, fiction! Strange, because they are so frankly and hysterically insane - like all dreams: a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell - mouths mercy and invented hell - mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him!" - Mark Twain "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." - Thomas Paine "[Religious belief] is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you - who must, indeed, subject you - to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life - I say, of your life - before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead." - Christopher Hitchins "We can accept God becoming Man to save Man, but we cannot accept Man becoming God to save himself" - Vernon Howard "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi "Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters." - Thomas Paine .
Abortion should not be legal in any situation

== What is conceived in the womb? == (Pro's question) There are multiple steps in the gestation period. In the beginning, sperm and egg fuse in one of two fallopian tubes to form a zygote. The zygote moves towards the uterus, a journey that can take up to one week to complete. Around 24 to 36 hours later, cell division begins. The division continues at a rapid rate, and the cells form a structure called the blastocyst. The blastocyst attaches itself to the uterine wall, in a process called "implantation." The blastocyst's inner cell mass forms the embryo in the first ten weeks of gestation. The embryo continues developing the equivalent of organs of the future infant. [1] After the first ten weeks, the embryo becomes the fetus, a twelve-inch long body. The early body systems/structures developed in the embryo continue to grow. The fetus makes involuntary motions and the heartbeat begins. In the fifth or sixth week of gestation (second month), electrical activity in the brain begins. In the third month of gestation, sex organs develop. Synapses begin forming at 17 weeks and begin to multiply quickly at the twenty-third week. [2] For *at least* 24 weeks, the fetus lacks any form of perception. Some research suggests that prenatal perception only properly begins at 35 weeks. Since there's no "harm" to abortion (no one is there to perceive the harm as even existent) and since there are disadvantages to banning abortion, vote Con. [1] Stephanie Dyonne Shirk, "Prenatal Development," Gale Encyclopedia of Children's Health [2] Judy Iles, "Neuroethics," p. 142 https://books.google.co.in...
Abortion should not be legal in any situation

1. What are the burdens? The resolution states that abortion shouldn’t be legal in any situation. Pro’s burden, therefore, is to show that abortion should be legally impermissible. My burden is to show that, in at least one situation, abortion should be permissible. 2. Life of the motherI believe that abortion ought to be legal in cases where there is a threat to the mother’s life when not aborting. The American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians explains, “Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event.” [1] The cases where abortion is necessary include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia [2].Pro might argue that there are alternatives in such cases, and that medical technology has sufficiently progressed to prevent necessity of an abortion. First, those are wrong misconceptions, and abortions are actually often necessary. Second, even if that were the case, when there is a better chance at the life of the mother being saved from an abortion, it ought to be done. Why value the mother’s life over the life of the fetus? First, the fetus lacks any sentience or ability to experience sensation. Morality hinges on fulfilling interests, and the fetus does not have an interest to avoid death. Second, if the child is born without a mother, there might be multiple psychological difficulties faced by the child -- which are definitely harmful. 3. LibertyPeople have the liberty to do whatever they want -- without the state controlling them -- unless this liberty causes actual harm to non-consensual others [3]. The reason to support this is that the government lacks any legitimacy if it legislates against self-regarding acts. The purpose of government is to prevent harm from others, else people don’t recognize the legitimacy of the state. Abortion doesn’t actually “harm” anyone, because the fetus is unable to feel or perceive anything [4, 5]. Lacking any interest, the fetus does not experience any harm from an abortion, so nobody who doesn’t consent to the abortion is harmed. As such, the right to have an abortion is a part of this liberty. 4. ConclusionFirst, I have shown that abortion should be permitted in cases where the mother’s life depends on it, since the state ought to value the mother’s life over the fetus’s life. Second, I have shown that the right to have an abortion is an essential part of liberty since it causes no harm to the interests of a non-consensual other. For those two reasons, vote Con. [1] http://www.acog.org...[2] http://www.usatoday.com...[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...[4] https://www.newscientist.com...[5] https://rewire.news...
The United States Federal Government Should insert ground troops into Iraq to Fight ISIS

My road map for the following round is: 1) I will state why this does not provide any benefits to the United States. 2) Why the aff has failed to attack any of my points and why the NEG has one the debate. So my oppents case does not warrant direct attacks on their individual harms because none of them pertain to U. S. benefits. We can all agree that the AFF writes their whole case around protecting the rights of the people in Iraq. I'm not sure as to how this would directly benefit the United States and I certainty don't see how it is the duty of the United States to protect the rights of ANOTHER COUNTRIES citizen's. Why would we risk even more blood to uphold the rights of another countries citizens, The answer, We shouldn't. Regardless of what the AFF states a simple minded person is able to determine there are no benefits of going to Iraq for a SECOND time. 2) The unrelevant attacks made on my case. So the AFF states that it is our job because Iraq is Un-free. Well based on the AFF's world, they would want to go to every countries government that is un-free, Attack them and hope they learn their lesson, Not caring how many lives will be lost. The AFF cares more about upholding the rights of citizens in other countries over the lives of the citizens in our country. There is another word for this. .. its on the tip of my tongue. .. Oh yeah. .. Its imperialism. Which has proven to not be beneficial. The second AFF attack is that the First Iraq war will have been fought for nothing if we dont go to war. This is the exact reason that we should not go back because the efforts and programs that were set up were completely taken away in the two years following the war. .. Meaning the first one was Useless and had no benefits. And this exactly why we cannot go back. Do the fact that the AFF never really attacked my case so it flows through the whole round of debate. So we can clearly see that the aff has provided absolutely no benefits that will effect the U. S in another war in Iraq. I have stated the simple and most important facts that this war will lead to . .. MORE DEAD AMERICANS and the other fact is that IT IS NOT OUR DUTY TO SERVE THE CIVIL NEEDS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY. It is for these reasons that the entire NEG/CON side has Flowed across the bored meaning it is the winning side in this debate.