BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US Military Budget Should Decrease

This debate discusses the topic of the United States military budget. Pro argues it should be decreased, while con can either argue it stays the same or should increase. Burden of Proof BOP is shared but falls mostly on me. Current Budget The US current military budget is 611.2 billon USD, according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org.... This will be the statistic used for budget for this debate, which includes the Department of Defense and general military funds. Sub Topics Economical benefits of decrease/ increase Quality of national security Likelihood of the need to quickly mobilize in the set of war Where the money goes Wasted budget money and where it could go/ what that money could do Thank you to anyone who accepts, and good luck.
King Kong Should Have Beat Godzilla

While Godzilla may have survived a Castle Bravo bomb being detonated on him, this is largely irrelevant. He was wounded by 1,000,000 volts of electricity, not because of the power, but because he has a weakness to electricity. As Kong's electricity is up to 1,000,000,000 volts there is simply no way Godzilla could withstand it. Yes, Godzilla is very strong. He may have lifted 2,000 pounds, but Kong lifted Godzilla. Godzilla weighs 40,000,000 pounds. [1] This shows once more Kong's unbelievable strength. As to Kong being defeated by berry juice, this too is irrelevant. There is no way it would affect a battle between the two, as Godzilla doesn't usually carry a supply of berries with him. Kong's speed would allow him to overwhelm Godzilla. With speed to stay out of Godzilla' s way, long arms to deliver Kong's blows, electricity to weaken his opponent, and stunning strength, King Kong would finish Godzilla. I thank my opponent for this fun and pleasant debate. Please vote Pro! =) [1]http://godzilla.wikia.com...
King Kong Should Have Beat Godzilla

Kong may have strength, but it's no advantage compared to the King of the Monsters. Godzilla can withstand virtually everything the JSDF throws at him. Godzilla survived detonation of Castle Bravo a 15-megaton hydrogen bomb. So, i think Godzilla can withstand a billion volts of electricity. As for physical strength, Godzilla can lift weights exceeding 2,000 pounds and can smash skyscrapers. Plus, King Kong got knocked out by the berry juice..... twice! As for his speed advantage, speed may not always be the best thing. Godzilla is built like a tank, no wonder he's slow. In addition, Kong is easily distracted seeing as he's in love with a human girl. Godzilla gets the job done until his opponent is on the ground, that's why i wish there was a King Kong vs Godzilla re-make so Godzilla could set the record straight.
King Kong Should Have Beat Godzilla

Yes, the electricity gave him the power of an electrical grip. There is no reason to believe it increased his strength or endurance. It merely gave him a electrical grasp. This electrical grasp is the key factor towards Kong's victory in the movie, and it would prove key any time he fights Godzilla. Godzilla merely cannot withstand up to one billion volts of electricity. Added to Kong's awe inspiring strength, Godzilla would be defeated, and relatively easily. Kong also has longer arms, which will allow him to grasp Godzilla from afar, and then shock him into submission. This, coupled with Kong having a speed advantage over Godzilla, are more reason that show Kong would win any encounter between the creatures.
King Kong Should Have Beat Godzilla

I do not agree with your argument that the electricity didn't enhance him. If it didn't, don't you think Kong would go crazy on Godzilla instead of getting beat up? Let me read you an excerpt from the King Kong vs Godzilla Wikipedia page: "eventually knocking Kong down with a vicious drop kick, and battering the gorilla unconscious with powerful tail attacks to his forehead. When Godzilla tries to kill Kong with his atomic breath, an electrical storm arrives and revives Kong, giving him the power of an electric grasp." This line of text says that Godzilla knocked Kong out and that the electricity revived him which gave him power. Also, in the next sentence on that page it starts the sentence with "with the revitalized Kong."
King Kong Should Have Beat Godzilla

Contrary to my Opponets statement, King Kong did win the battle in the movie "King Kong vs Godzilla". Press material released by Toho (The Company that made the movie) states "A spectacular duel is arranged on the summit of Mt. Fuji, and King Kong is victorious." [1] As the company themselves stated it, there can be no debate. King Kong was the victor. All the lightning did for Kong was give him an electrical grip. It did not augment his strength in any way. With his own natural strength, Kong was capable of lifting and throwing Godzilla. Even moreso, the electricity did not increase Kong's endurance. Despite that, Kong still withstood Godzilla' s assault. The original time Kong went down was merely a fluke. Godzilla was unable to replicate it, or capitalize on it. Further more, Godzilla is shown to be affected by one million volts of electricity. When Kong was harnassing electricity, he was harnassing natural lightning. Natural lightning is known to have as many as one billion volts. With this power, it is no wonder Godzilla was defeated. So, in addition to having overwhelming strength, Kong would have massive power to complement it. Godzilla would have no defense against this deadly combination. [1] http://godzilla.wikia.com...
King Kong Should Have Beat Godzilla

First of all, Kong did not win. It was a tie. Godzilla was buried and re-emerged in Godzilla vs. The Thing. Just because Kong buried Godzilla does not mean he won. I do agree with you that Kong had potential with the electricity, but it's no match against Kong or any other monster. Every time Kong got up, Godzilla would put him right back down again. If Kong wasn't revived by lightning he would have been dead from the start. Godzilla beat Kong senseless, but he got shocked with electricity an awoke like something out of a Frankenstein movie. Also, the only reason Kong was able to pick Godzilla up was because of the electricity. It got him all juiced up. All the things you say about Kong being strong aren't so true, it's just his electric steroids talking. If Godzilla and King Kong were two humans and Kong did win, he wouldn't even have the satisfaction of saying he won because he had assistance. That proves Godzilla is better! Kong needed a handicap to battle!
King Kong Should Have Beat Godzilla

King Kong should have defeated Godzilla (Which, he did in the 1962 movie, "King Kong vs Godzilla") One thing to remember is that both Godzilla and King Kong have many different incarnations. Godzilla' s first era, the Showa era, is entirely separate from the Heisei era. My opponent has mixed the two eras. For instance, in his argument concerning the size of Godzilla' s brain, he references Godzilla defending his Son in the movie "All Monsters Attack" (Showa Era) and Godzilla morning his son's death in "Godzilla vs Destroyah" (Heisei Era). As the Movie "King Kong vs Godzilla" is a Showa era film, the second point has absolutely no bearing. Now, on to my argument. King Kong was capable of harnassing the power of electricity ("King Kong vs Godzilla"). As Godzilla has shown some weakness to Electricity, this is extremely valuable. In addition, Kong was capable of lifting Godzilla up, something few other Kajui have done. With this combination of strength and electricity, it is no wonder that Kong defeated Godzilla.
King Kong Should Have Beat Godzilla

Godzilla should have won (which he did, may I remind you) because of his superior powers. Godzilla is able to shoot nuclear energy from his mouth and is nearly indestructible. If you follow the English dub of Godzilla vs. King Kong it mentions that King Kong has a larger brain than Godzilla's. This is not a very believable fact once you look at the traits of the two monsters. King Kong is a killer, like when he killed Gorosaurus in King Kong Escapes. While I admit Godzilla can be pretty beastly as well, he kills monsters to protect something like a city or his son. We also see that Godzilla has feelings like when he protects his son from Gabara in Godzilla's Revenge and when he mourns his son's death in Godzilla vs. Destoroyah. This proves that Godzilla has a superior brain. Sources: (1) godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/Godzilla (2)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla (3)godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/King_Kong (4)godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/King_Kong_Escapes (5)godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/Gorosaurus (6)godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/Son_of_Godzilla (7)godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/Godzilla's_Revenge (8)godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/Minilla (9)godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/Godzilla_vs_Destoroyah (10)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla_VS_Destoroyah (11)godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/Godzilla_Jr (12)godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/Godzilla_vs_Hedorah
Abortion

Thoughts on incest: As disgusting as it is, aborting an unborn human because of this is again a stupid reason. And we're assuming both parties are ok with the act and is not rape. Rape: I believe everyone has the right to life even the unborn human. The unborn human is not the mother's body because it has different DNA and often a different blood type. Therefore the fetus is not apart of the mother but a body within a body. The fetus is alive and who are you to decide whether or not he/she can continue to live?
Abortion

First of all, I'm not "calling it whatever I want." Fetus is the scientific name for an unborn animal or human. [1] So I'm not trying to dehumanize it; I'm simply using accurate language. You are the one who is using inaccurate language to further your own case, which is a subset of the judgmental language fallacy, a type of red herring. [2] It is not a baby, as "baby" refers to the fetus after it has been born. By that same logic, a fetus is not a child. Please refer to it as a fetus in the future.Thank you for clarifying your stances. I notice you left out the one about incest, though. What are your thoughts on this?About rape: the child was not the mother's autonomous decision, therefore she cannot be expected to raise it, care for it, or go through painful and possibly dangerous childbirth for it. As it was not her choice, she should be able to get an abortion. You expect women to carry the weight after she is violently assaulted by a dangerous criminal? Shame on you.Adoption: No, not necessarily. I'm simply pointing out that for many women, it's not a feasible option.Again, I'm not advocating killing babies or criminals. I'm simply pointing out that crime rates went down when abortion was legalized, and the study I cited proves causation. I'm not calling for anything to be done, I'm just pointing out a practical benefit.Yes, I know the fetus is alive. But only biologically. Whether or not it's alive from an ethical standpoint is another question. I like to think of it as somewhat like the debate regarding euthanasia. Yes, the patient is biologically living. But they're completely brain-dead as well. It's somewhat similar with a fetus. It cannot feel pain or sense anything at the time when most abortions are performed, and it is not conscious.Thank you for the debate and I look forward to your rebuttals.Sources1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion

Call it whatever you want it's still a child. What you do by calling it a fetus is you dehumanize it. This is what Nazis did to make themselves feel better killing Jews. My stances: If the mother's life depended on it (which is only 0.1% of the time) then it's the mother's choice because it's her life that hangs in the balance but only when she's absolutely going to die without a single doubt. If the child has a birth defect that's not a valid reason to kill him/her. How do you know the child is going to live a terrible life or die right away I've heard stories of this sort of thing where the child is expected to die but survives and lives a happy life. Abortion because of rape: only 1% of abortions are this reason, my question: Why should the baby have to die for the crime? Adoption: So your solution to this is just to kill them? Crime rates: If you're concerned about the crime rates being to high and your solution is just to kill the babies before they can do anything, then we shouldn't stop there we should kill every criminal that's ever done anything bad or even is suspected of doing anything bad. Remember 99% of the time the mother already made the choice by choosing to have sex. In conclusion: The baby is alive (how can it feel pain and not be alive?). The baby is conscious as he/she can react to noise, light and touch. Every human being should have rights including the unborn humans. I look forward to your response.
Abortion

First of all, a minor clarification. You keep referring to the fetus as a baby; it is not. It is a fetus.Next I would like to point out a few inaccuracies. You say that the process is "extremely painful" for the child. This is simply not true. Depending on which source you use, the fetus is able to feel pain at sometime between 20-24 weeks following conception. [1] 91% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester, and only 0.1% of abortions are performed after 24 weeks. [2] So your claim about fetal pain is simply not true.Just out of curiosity: what is your stance on abortions if childbirth would cause the mother to die? What if the fetus has some sort of birth defect that would cause it to die as soon as it was born? What about abortions performed because of incest?About adoption: you have a good point. But adoption and foster care services are not able to handle a new influx of children."Currently, there are close to 400,000 children in state custody; only half have permanent plans for placement. Meanwhile, employees in protective services are underpaid and overworked, treading water to try to ensure that all of the children in their care are happy and healthy. Anyone who believes that adoption or foster care is a natural solution to growing restrictions on reproductive rights is kidding themselves." [3]Finally, just as a more practical point, legalized abortion lowered crime rates. Since most abortions are from unwanted pregnancies or because the mother feels that she wouldn't be able to be a good parent, children born from mothers that would have liked to get an abortion are likely to not receive the care and support they need. This leads to problems in education down the line, and results eventually in higher crime rates. [4]As a conclusion: The baby does not feel pain, is not conscious, cannot perceive its surroundings, and it's up for debate as to whether it is alive or not (in an ethical sense). I thus argue that abortion continue to be legal as it respects women's rights and prevents crime.Looking forward to your responses!Sources1. http://www.nytimes.com...2. http://www.foxnews.com...3. https://rewire.news...4. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...
Abortion

Most abortions are the result of unprotected sex, Irresponsible sexual behaviour and stupidity and for that the living infant human being must be sucked out of the womb via a vacuum, this is extremely painful for the child as he/she gets literally ripped apart. A survey conducted in 2004 concluded that 74% of woman that have an abortion claim that it's because the baby would change life for the new mother, which is ridiculous they could have just put the baby up for adoption. Only 1% of abortions are because of rape and if the reason is for rape, why should the baby die for the man's crime? The baby can just be given up for adoption. Not only does the baby die for a stupid reason but he/she dies inhumanely. Source: . https://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion

Hello! I will accept your debate.Just so you know, I am anti-abortion but pro-choice. In other words, the topic of abortion is unpleasant to me, but I'm for a woman's right to choose. As we know, being "pro-abortion" in the most literal sense means that you believe the default when a woman becomes pregnant should be abortion. And nobody, not even the most pro-choice people, thinks that. If you're confused on my stance, read this: http://www.miamiherald.com...Looking forward to a great debate!
Abortion

The trouble with abortion debates is that it all comes down to when, from an ethical standpoint, life begins. You have not given any proof that the fetus is ethically alive; I have: it is not conscious, it cannot feel pain or perceive sensory information until viability, etc. I realize that this is not sufficient proof that the fetus is alive from an ethical standpoint; thus I believe that this debate has ended in a stalemate. Neither of us has given substantial evidence that the fetus is ethically alive. Thus we must move on to practical standpoints. You have dropped my argument about crime and adoption, and instead replace it with an argument from assertion (another logical fallacy) that the fetus is alive, which you have failed to prove. I have dropped none of your arguments. As neither of us has proven that abortion is immoral or moral, it is a stalemate on that count. However, I have submitted several practical arguments, both of which you have dropped. Thus I strongly urge voters to VOTE PRO. Thank you for the debate.
Regardless of the existence of God, the Bible is wrong about many, many things.

"The Council of Trent, the canon determining council for the Bible (although some prostestant denomnations made variations), made it basic doctrine, that continues today in most denominations." --> The Council of Trent were Roman Catholic. This was their answer to the reforming of the other churches at the time. I assure the voters,... this is not the universal "laws" of Christianity. - None the less my opponent failed to provide the decree and session that proved his claim of man having free will. - This point is null and void. "Of course, but God is not allowed to go all deus ex machina on us and interfere in the works of man." --> According to the Bible it is man that are the works of God. "All are to be given forgiveness if they ask." --> All of my opponents claims are brought full circle to make the point that all is to be forgiven. The Bible tells us that foregiveness was not given, and repent was not part until God provided a son to be the Savior of man. All of my opponents claims in regards to contradicting Gods forgiveness are false,... as the Savior was not born until after ALL of the events my opponent has claimed above. The new testament speaks of foregiveness. Old testament speaks of damnation. "- If free will exists,.. this is impossible, as man would have free will to communicate back." "I don't understand what you are saying here. Clarify." --> My opponent claims in one hand that free will exists,.. yet that free will goes away if God communicates with them,... I don't see this at all,... The will to act and be concious of the actions would not be limited in any ways, and my opponent has yet to prove otherwise. "Regardless means that assuming God exists, the Bible is wrong, and that assuming God does not exist, the Bible is still wrong." --> But the results of the assumptions are to seperate ones,... If you are to assume the existence or non existence,.. you are obviously giving FULL REGARD to the existence of God,...Your resolution calls for us to be unmindful, without concern towards, without regards towards the existence, ( non or otherwise), of God. --If my opponent requires the assumption of Gods existence to back up his claims, he is in turn opposing his own resolution by asking all of us and himself to give regard to the existence of God.
Regardless of the existence of God, the Bible is wrong about many, many things.

"---> Hmmm,... If he is as described by the doctrines,.. the Bible is wrong?,.. If the bible is right, then its wrong? I am not sure what my opponent is trying to say here." No. I mean that if the Bible is right about God existing, it is still wrong about most other things. "--> What doctrines would these be,... please explain." The Council of Trent, the canon determining council for the Bible (although some prostestant denomnations made variations), made it basic doctrine, that continues today in most denominations. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) "---> Human choice of both good and evil originates within the person's own volition or will; it is free in the sense that he is conscious only of his own freedom of action. We are never as uninfluenced as we think." Of course, but God is not allowed to go all deus ex machina on us and interfere in the works of man. If he does this, the divine has an undue influence, and he loses the impartiality upon which to judge us. Continuing on the impartiality point, the idea that God loves all equally, but treats all justly is contradicted several times throughout the Bible. The Israelites are God's chosen people, yet he still somehow is an impartial judge. God, by making any interference into the realm of men, has violated free will. This isn't to say however that he didn't make men, et cetera, as free will only had pertinence after the fall of man. "- No, it is said in Genesis, man was wicked,.. Satan worked within them, the unregenerate. Ephesians 2:2" All are to be given forgiveness if they ask. Also, even God admitted in Genesis that the Flood was wrong. This means that he wouldn't be all good, as he is supposed to be. In fact, several times throughout the Bible, GOd punishes people unduely, turning Lot's wife into salt, destroying Sodom and Gommorrah, et cetera. God is contradicting himself, acting beyond the prescibed punishment for the fall of man, and contradicting the free will gained by the knowledge of good and evil. "- If free will exists,.. this is impossible, as man would have free will to communicate back." I don't understand what you are saying here. Clarify. "4.) God proved his own existence" Exactly, and God proved his own existence in the Bible several times, appearing as a burning bush, making bread fall from the sky, et cetera. That violates free will. "Need I remind my opponent that his own resolution is REGARDLESS of existence of God. My opponent in pretty much his entire second round completely ignores his own resolution by calling regard to God and assuming the existence of God to back each of his claims." Regardless means that assuming God exists, the Bible is wrong, and that assuming God does not exist, the Bible is still wrong.