BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the US pull out our military force from foreign soil except South Korea and Japan

Ok before we start I just want to say I am not anti-war or anti military I'm actually planning on joining the US military soon so I just want that to be apparent I am not against the military or against military action to aid other countries in need. I just want to get another persons point of view on this subject; I believe that the US is right to aid foreign countries but the image of the US is skewed the world sees us as killers and a country that does nothing but invade countries and are only self interested and egotistical the US invades countries for a reason like protecting Kuwait from Iraq even though they offered us a huge deal on oil but we denied it in order to protect the Kuwaitis we later went back to Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 to fight Al Quedia after they confirmed that they orchestrated the attack on the twin towers, the pentagon, and the Philadelphia flight yes I think the war in the middle east is correct as were the only country as of now protecting middle east oil and were fighting the enemy on there soil so they don't attack us here. That all being said the world has a sour view of America now we are not well liked around the world many people call us martyrs and invaders and that we should just step away. I believe that America should just remove our presence from the world except for south Korea because technically there still at war and if we pull out millions would die with in a couple of days and also Japan just because there are really the only non nuclear nation in that region and if we were to pull out they would have to build up nuclear weapons to assure M.A.D but it its self could cause a nuclear attack on Japan but our bases in the Philippines Afghanistan Germany, Brittan etc is just rediculace Brittan, Germany, France all have huge military that can protect them selves and can fight/ intervene if need be so why is America still in Europe they can defend them selves, the cold war is over and were wasting money for our bases over there and in Afghanistan were still fighting the Taliban and Al Qudia and all but if were so worried about protecting our selves why don't we just pull our troops out and reduce the military budget enough so we can defend our selves if need be but us that money to fix our economy build up or defence at home improve living conditions make medical break through find/ make new renewable no waste energy source (nuclear fusion) and let the world take care of its self if something like Yugoslavia happens again let Brittan or France or Germany handle it we've done it for too long a lot of people in the world hate us and our economy is terrible we need to fix these things and I think that can be achieved with what I propose but that just my thought I cant wait to hear your side con http://www.youtube.com...
Should the US pull out our military force from foreign soil except South Korea and Japan

Sorry about that, not having internet at home can really cut into you on this site. Ill go ahead and say I actually think we SHOULD pull them out, but I wanted to do this for the sake of argument. One may ask why we have so many troops in Germany and France, and to answer this question one must really look at the geopolitical situation. Currently in Europe we have a economic powerhouse that has twice tried to turn its economic power into political power, and both times American's have involved itself in the war with this powerhouse. We keep more troops in Germany more than anywhere else in the world, including most middle eastern countries, simply for the fact that Germany is an "unreliable partner" (the reason it's been monitored so much http://www.bbc.com...) that in itself is capable of pulling great weight in the EU. (http://www.investopedia.com...) What happens in Europe affects American markets, which makes America hesitant to do something like "pull out" of Europe and risk all that economic interest. The idea of bringing morality into it is silly. The Nazi's didn't think they were the bad guys, they rationalized all they were doing. As did most kings and elected officials throughout history, "protection" is just a causes belli, and while this sounds as an argument for the other side, in reality, American officials are elected to protect America. The idea that we can look at it and say "We do it for freedom!" Is really so the American people can stomach the hard necessity of what it takes to run a country. It takes boots on the ground, and when you run a world wide empire, like America, you need lots of boots on many different grounds.
America needs more socialism.

"All of human history has shown your position to be a foolish fantasy." First off, the word "fantasy" is the correct word to describe socialism and its benefits. The definition of fantasy is something that you imagine [1], and socialism is certainly not an imaginary concept. In fact, history has shown socialism to be beneficial. For example, extreme socialism (communism) caused Russia to come out of a period of time with a weak czarist government that was unindustrialized compared to the Western world. I am not saying that the US needs communism as the country is currently in a much different situation than WW1 Russia, although I have now proven socialism/communism has worked in the past to boost the economy, which is not a "fantasy". Socialism has also shown to be successful in modern societies, such as Denmark. Denmark is currently ranked #1 in the world in terms of the happiness of its people, and other countries that follow are Iceland and New Zealand [2]. These countries aren't considered to be "socialist", but they are some of the most socialist countries on the earth (excluding communist nations). Keep in mind this debate regards America becoming more socialist, not completely socialist. "Only Capitalism frees people from poverty. Enslaving people to the state increases it." This is completely untrue, as the goal of socialism is for the public to own means of production. It focuses on benefits such as free healthcare, free college, child care, etc. [3], as illustrated in Denmark. Capitalism causes poverty and homelessness because it focuses on private ownership of means of production, therefore the small amount people that own corporations and even smaller businesses hold most of the power. In the United States, the large amount of people that don't own businesses (99%) only contain 1% of the wealth, therefore a large portion of this population suffers financial problems. Communism enslaved citizens of China in the 1950's during the Great Leap Forward, although this debate doesn't regard communism, but rather regards an increased amount of socialism the the United States. [1] https://www.vocabulary.com... [2] http://www.sciencealert.com... [3] http://www.cnn.com...
America needs more socialism.

America needs more socialism mainly because the country is facing a wealth distribution in which 99% of the country owns 1% of the wealth. With a more equal wealth distribution, poverty and homelessness would decrease, as well as the power of individual business owners. To improve the public ownership of capital, the rich need to pay significantly higher taxes, including college taxes. With socialism, more government spending could help smart and capable individuals reach their full potential, and this spending would be paid off by increasing tax rates for the 1%.
America needs more socialism.

Considering you have provided almost no evidence for your claim, there is not much else to say. I have already provided evidence that more socialism would not be "enslaving Americans", as it actually does the opposite. Again, I am not suggesting that America become extremely socialist or communist., but rather MORE socialist. Communism often enslaves. Socialism wouldn't enslave people in a nation that contains too much capitalism, such as the US. The key is balance. You told be to mention one socialist country that has a higher GDP than the United States. This question actually goes in my favor since Switzerland and Norway, two countries that practice a good amount of socialism, are currently ranked ahead of the US in terms of GDP per capita [1]. Venezuela is also a communist nation, not rather socialist like many economically successful countries in Europe. The question regards America becoming more socialist, not communist. [1] http://www.indexmundi.com...
The development of space travel should be primarily entrusted to private corporations.

This debate is part of bsh1's tourney and represents Round 1 between Cobalt and ThinkBig. The resolution and sides were agreed upon by both parties. Round Structure: Round 1 - Acceptance/Statement of Position Round 2 - Opening Arguments Round 3 - Rebuttals [No new arguments] Round 4 - Rebuttals/Closing Statements [No new arguments] The Burden of Proof is shared. I look forward to this debate.
I will debate ANY TOPIC

I choose the topic "The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound". Pro will argue that the Kalam Cosmological argument is sound, while I will argue that it is not sound. The Kalam Cosmological Argument goes like this:1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.2: The universe began to exist.3: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.4: If the universe has a cause of its existence, there exists a personal, transcendent creator.5: A personal and transcendent creator exists. Thanks to Pro for setting up this debate. Vale
I will debate ANY TOPIC

I will take the challenge of debate ANY topic. The contender can post any topic as long as 1. It is logical and debatable The burden is shared as I have to justify the action or take the side of it... Debate goes as follows Round 1: Acceptance/topic Round 2: Consgtructive Arguments Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Rebuttal/Voting Issues Good luck to whoever accepts
Lee Myung Bak`s new english plan is not worthy

It's exactly what you said (parents will spend money for English education) which is why we need to implement President Lee's plan, regardless of whether South Koreans like him as president (that is another issue) or not. The significant increase in the costs of academy and private teachers is making a significant drain on the Korean household. Such drains when measured in future costs will create a negative balance in the retirement policy as most Korean families will not have saved enough to retire which will require the Korean government to spend additional funds to assist families who have no retirement income. President Lee's education reform plan is the only plan out there that is at least attempting to address the issue. His plan will help parents to lower their costs instead of increasing as you state. The proposed cost of 500 billion won to save 15 trillion won is simply too good of a deal to pass up. Just imagine what the Korean society can do with the extra 14 trillion 500 billion won. Furthermore the 30 trillion won is more money than what was borrowed during the IMF crisis which put Korea in jeopardy. To allow Korea to continue down this ecomic tract is to invite Korea into a path of economic destruction.
Lee Myung Bak`s new english plan is not worthy

However if English is taught in our public education -mostly in private schools- our parents might want to enroll their child in that focuss on english education. Most parents do, they had always want the best for their child. They may consider putting investing in private education so their child can receives better marks in their public education system.English education should simply be incorporated in public schools and taught as its own subject. Every child in Korea, should have the right to learn english. It should be incorporated in public curriculum. Therefore, English education can be taught to all children belonging to different social classes.
Lee Myung Bak`s new english plan is not worthy

I believe the next president of South Korea has a plan that is indeed worthy. You make the argument that his plan will cost more and add undue burden to the families. I believe that his plan will do exactly the opposite of what you are proposing. For example, in an recent December article of the Korean Herald, President Lee's proposal was to cut the 30 trillion won expense of academy cost by half to 15 trillion won, mostly which is due to the desire of parents to have their children learn English. His proposed plan is to introduce the creation of 300 special schools (150 private schools hands free from the government, 100 specials schools to the country-side and another 50 technology based schools), the introduction of 3,000 English teachers followed by regular testing to be administered quarterly. His proposal for the plan would cost only 500 billion won compared to the 30,000,000,000,000 trillion won that Korean families are spending. That saved money can then be routed to savings and investments as Korean families are spending on average more than 12% of their income on educational expenses (Korean Herald, Feb. 29 edition).
Lee Myung Bak`s new english plan is not worthy

I think Lee myung Bak`s new english plan is not worthy. Because the money we use in education will increase. Parents will have to pay more. President Lee Myung Bak has stated "I will make society in which poverty is not passed from generation from generation by providing high quality public education" which means parents won`t spend a lot of money on their child private education.Through this research, expert said that Koreans spend an estimated 30trillion won on private education. President Lee said he had to increase that money used in private education.
Lee Myung Bak`s new english plan is not worthy

roxygirlz proposal that we need to teach all the teachers in Korea is incorrect as President Lee's plan is to first and foremost hire 3,000 specialist teacher to enter into the schools. Based upon preliminary results, that program can continue to grow and more funds can be drawn if necessary. I believe that I stated the cost will only be 500 billion won compared to the 15 trillion won that parents are spending now. Roxygirlz brings up some points but she offers no solutions to Korea's current education crisis. There is no alternative and what she brings about are more complaints and no solutions that can provide relief to the parents. President Lee's plan to introduce 300 specialist teachers along with 300 special schools to be built throughout all of South Korea will benefit not only the Seoul area but the countryside as well allowing for all students the opportunity to garner a good English education at a significantly reduced price.
Lee Myung Bak`s new english plan is not worthy

But where and who will teach 14hundred thousand 7thousand 4hundred 97teachers. Maybe they learnt english before. But it is old fashion english, so we have to teach them a new pronunciation. Also we needs foreign teachers. But we have to give them lot of salary and where is moneys? Those moneys means our taxes will increase. For example if a business man had a one million salary but these moneys probably go to their education.
Romney To be President

Well, unfortunately jayredthegreat has forfieted without posting a single argument in his favor. Furthermore, I techniquely do not have to post anything at all until he fulfills his burden of proof. He has the burden of proof because he is the challanger. But I will provide one contention just so the readers and voters do not leave empty handed.Contention 1: Mitt Romney's Economic Policy would effect the U.S. negatively.I will base this contention on two seperate studies that show that Romney's economic plan would hurt this country real bad. They were conducted by the Tax Policy Center and the Center for American Progress. They are:1. The first shows that The group said that Romney's plan would reduce federal tax revenues by $360 billion in the year 2015, with the tax breaks overwhelmingly favoring the wealthiest Americans. It looked at what would happen if Romney explicitly sought to cut tax expenditures for those making the most. It found that even under that assumption, those making more than $1 million would see their after-tax incomes increased by more than 4 percent - with an average tax cut of roughly $87,000. To maintain revenue-neutrality, those earning less than $200,000 would have to see their after-tax income decreased by 1.2 percent, with an average tax increase of $500 per household [1]. 2. In a white paper outlining his economic platform, Believe in America: Mitt Romney’s Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth, he offers a 59-point plan to create jobs and lower unemployment. Unfortunately, no amount of economic theory, real world evidence, basic arithmetic, or just plain logic could substantiate the belief that his 59-point jobs plan could create even 59 net new jobs in the U.S. economy…In total, by a conservative tally, Gov. Romney’s 59-point plan would actually cost the economy about 360,000 jobs in 2013 alone. So as one can see by the studies Romney's plan would only help the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, while costing us 360,000 jobs in the very first year. It is obvious that his economic plan would hurt us and therefore, he should not be president. I will now await my opponent's case.Thank You.Sources[1]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...[2]http://www.americanprogressaction.org...;
We Are All One

Thanks for joining the argument. Your youtube video, although funny, doesn't really say much or prove much of anything regarding this topic or argument. I am arguing that because humans and life are 'something' and 'something' can't be made from 'nothing' then we are all the same. As your little cartoon video showed we all grew from the same small pond into what is now 7.1 billion different people on earth. We and everything around us consists of Atoms and empty space [1] so in turn, the same. Genetically we are all linked to our predecessor and that link goes all the way back to the big bang. If we can be clear on that, then I feel it's clear are all linked. Now onto the mind. As humans we feel split from others because we all perceive a different mind. A mind that experiences things uniquely from person to person. I would like to argue that much like when our physical bodies are broken down into atoms, that if the mind (our conciseness) is examined closely enough, we can find traits and knowledge that are one and the same for all humans. Much like atoms are for physicality. Looking forward to your response IAMCOFFEE 1. http://www.physlink.com...
Flat Earth

I will be challenging, perhaps, one of the better known proponents of the flat earth theory from DDO: Edlvsjd. NOTE TO EDLVSJD: rule one is changed to a different rule, since I am, instead, using a google doc for argument 1. As you wanted(I think) I am posting my first arguments in round 1. Rules of debate 1) Google Docs are not a violation of conduct, but character limit is still 10,000, so that voters don't have a book to read. 2) The last two rounds should be used for rebuttals against your opponents arguments or as defense againsttheir rebuttals. 3) The first round of debate should just be main arguments. For example, if you are the second person to post an argument, it should not be used to directly rebut anything your opponent said in their first argument, that is for later rounds. In this case, my opponent should not respond directly to my arguments in their first round 4) The second round may be either rebuttals to your opponent's main arguments, or you can bring up more new arguments, or both. 5) Be respectful of each other, no ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults. Violation of any of the above rules means that voters should vote for the one who did not violate, or who violated to a lesser degree, these rules for the point in conduct. Violation of the above rules means that voters should vote for the one who did not violate these rules in the category for "conduct". Here are my arguments, I'm using a google doc mostly because I don't know how to post images on here, and I have images to show. I believe at least a couple of my arguments are completely new arguments, that my opponent has not encountered on here yet(as I've been looking at each of their previous flat earth debates) such as the Coriolis effect, the orientation of the moon, and how telescopes should work with a flat earth model. https://docs.google.com...
Free Trade is better for American society than Protectionism

1. Free Trade Undermines Policies for the Social GoodThings such as Labor Unions, Environmental protection, minimum wage, child labor, health and safety standards causes prices of goods to go up. Since it would be cheaper to produce the same products in places that don't have these, free trade allows them to move to those countries and avoid those policies. While Protectionism makes everyone play on the same field, and even encourages countries to adopt some of those polices to try to avoid tariffs, or quotas. "While corporate profits soar, individual wages stagnate, held at least partly in check by the brave new fact of off shoring -- that millions of Americans' jobs can be performed at a fraction of the cost in developing nations near and far" [1]2. Free Trade causes job lossWhen countries can make the same products at a lower price than America then those jobs move there causing unemployment. 2,273,392 jobs were outsourced in 2011 [2] When Jobs are loss less people earn money, when less earn money there is less spending, when there is less spending companies cut cost by outsourcing or firing workers, and it continues from there. Also trade deficit caused by free trade creates more unemployment. 3. Free Trade causes Trade DeficitsWhen companies outsource jobs it makes the US export less and/or import more which causes trade deficits. "In 1993, before the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect, the U.S. had a $1.6 billion trade surplus with Mexico, which supported 29,400 U.S. jobs. Since then, imports from Mexico have grown much faster than U.S. exports, resulting in large trade deficits that have displaced 682,900 jobs nationwide since 1994." [3] "U.S. Trade Deficits Grow More Than 440% with FTA Countries, but Decline 7% with Non-FTA Countries" [4]4. Free Trade creates undesirable interdependencyWith economies all linked together it does prevent wars as long as everything is good, but lets say a country, Greece, starts experiencing economic problems. The whole European Union would be effected eventually effecting the whole world. The economic downturn in one country quickly effects all other countries. This is can also be seen in the great depression. Countries that were self-sufficient like the USSR or Japan had significantly less unemployment than countries like the US, UK, Germany, etc. [5]Sources[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.statisticbrain.com... [3] http://keystoneresearch.org...[4] http://citizen.typepad.com... [5] http://elsa.berkeley.edu...