BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Italy was an inferior nation in the early modern era

Indeed I was referring to the many scattered Italian states. I was simply making it easier for less educated people to understand. You never know what kind of person might accept your debate. I'm sorry you were confused, but I thought you would be able to figure out what I meant. Apparently I was wrong about you but oh well. Now that you concede with my argument there is nothing left to debate about. You were too busy criticising my work instead of actually debating with me. So this is over.
Italy was an inferior nation in the early modern era

I am aware of what the Early Modern Period is, but throughout the period, Italy was not a nation, it was a group of small feudal states and republics. The entire debate is irrelevent, as it is impossible to judge a group of states as one, when there is so much difference between them. It is like comparing Germany in the eighteenth century to France in the eighteenth century. One was a fully unified country, the other a motley collection of states that would obviously constitute an inferior nation.I assumed that you were unaware of what the Early Modern Period is, so the title of the debate should have been 'The Italian States were a group of inferior nations in the Early Modern Era'.Also, for most of the Early Modern Era, Italy was not even a concept. There was no real Pan-Italian Nationalism until after the Congress of Vienna, and even then, it was another thirty years before it entered mainstream thought.I'll have to concede, since the Italian States, with the possible exception of Venice and the Papal States in the first half of the Early Modern Period, were a group of petty fiefdoms for the most part.
Italy was an inferior nation in the early modern era

Apparently, you were unaware that the Early Modern Era is usually referred to as the 14th-early 19th centuries. Therefore your argument up to this point has been invalid, now we will truly begin. ArgumentsItalian Wars (1494-1559)Italian Wars caused Italy's gradual upheaval through constant foreign occupation, badly damagingItaly's scattered city-states. First came the Spanish, reeking havoc upon the Italian mainland from 1559 to 1713[1]. Soon Italy became a battleground for its neighbors France and Spain, constantly competing for domination of the Peninsula. Italy's military was in shambles, unable to defend its own borders from the oncoming hoards of foreign invaders during Spain's occupation, the Plague terrorized the already weak Italy. When Spain's Empire declined, so did Italy. Austria seized control of Italy in 1713 and held it until 1796 [1]. At this point Italy was in turmoil, badly shaken from many invasions. Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815)With no hope of unification in sight, it was easily taken by Napoleon's massive French Army raging through western Europe. Italy once again lost its independence and became a client state of the French Empire[3]. Southern Italy especially was impoverished and cut off from the rest of Europe. 1814While Italy's neighbors France and Austria grew rich and prosperous from their conquests and trade, Italy remained at the bottom as a poor and unorganised. after many foreign occupations, Italy was sapped of its strength. After the Congress of Vienna in 1814, Italy suffered Austria's oppression a second time[2]. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://www.infoplease.com...(3) http://www.britannica.com...
Italy was an inferior nation in the early modern era

Before we properly start, I need you to confirm what you mean by 'Inferior' and what you mean by 'The Early Modern Era'.I'll just outline it on the assumption that 'Inferior' means that Italy was below other western nations, and that 'The Early Modern Era' refers to the period between the foundation of the Kingdom of Italy (1861) and the outbreak of WWII (1939).Military PowerItaly was by no means a weak military power during the period. In 1914, Italy had the world's fifth largest standing army, at around 1,250,000 men; when mobilised, Italy managed to field an army of around 5,600,000 men (1). While its army was smaller and less-effective than those of Britain, France, Germany and Russia, it was still impressive for a country Italy's size.The Italian Navy also maintained six Dreadnought Battleships, more than France, Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. When Italy entered WWII, it had the fourth largest navy in the world, with nineteen cruisers, fifty-nine destroyers, sixty-seven torpedo boats and 116 submarines (2)Economic PowerItaly's GDP in 1913 was about $96bn in today's money. While this is not as much as France's $129bn or Austria-Hungary's $122bn, it was more than double that of Spain, $40bn, and more than quadruple that of the Ottoman Empire ($18bn) (3). For a country of Italy's size and development level, it was doing fairly well economically compared to its neighbours.In terms of industry, Northern Italy was primarily industrialised, with manufacturing centred around cities such as Turin, Brescia, Milan and Rome, while Southern Italy was primarily agrarian, brought on largely by mismanagement by the feudal Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.Many Italian luxury car brands such as Ferrari, Maserati, Alfa Romeo and the gigantic FIAT conglomerate were established during the period of the Kingdom of Italy, laying the foundations for the Italian automotive industry's rapid growth in the postwar period.Science and CultureItaly produced more Nobel Laureates (Seven) in the Early Modern Period than Russia (four), Poland (five), Spain (three) and Belgium (six), to name but a few. The Kingdom of Italy is well-known for Guglielmo Marconi's invention of the long-range radio, Camillo Golgi's advancements in neuroscience and Enrico Fermi's work in the field of nuclear physics; he later went on to be one of the instrumental scientists behind the Manhatten Project.Italy's universities were also considered to be the among the best and most-established institutions in the world, training up a generation of professionals and artists from across the world.Culturally, the Kingdom of Italy is known for the writings of authors such as Alessandro Manzoni and Giuseppe Mazzini; the music of composers such as Verdi, Puccini and Rossini; and the various achievements of its sportsmen. Italy won numerous medals in the Olympic Games, as well as two FIFA World Cups and had a very successful cycling team during the Early Modern Period.(1) http://spartacus-educational.com...(2) https://books.google.co.uk...(3) http://www.lse.ac.uk...
Dressing up cat as pumpkin is morally justified

The def. for morality in this case is "conformity to the rules of right conduct". What constitutes "right conduct" always presupposes an over-arching context. The proposition is in the context of these contexts. 1. The Con is easily refuted here when we refer to the Hebrew words "kabash" and "radah": http://www.blueletterbible.org... http://www.blueletterbible.org... As Hebrews killed animals routinely, the idea that Biblical values would be oppose the proposition is unfounded. 2. As to the Dharmic traditions, the compassion of Hinduism and Buddhism does not extend to not dressing the animal up for ornamental purposes. Cows are decorated in India as part of religious festivals / used in farming: http://www.religionfacts.com... Buddhists also use them for farming. It is true that the Dharmic traditions are more pro-animal, but Con's argument insufficient to rebut the proposition. 3. That a tradition is "contentious" in some circles in no way impugnes its veracity. The question of atheistic morality deserves its own debate, but there is at least one form of purely atheistic morality in which my proposition is sound. 4. This is false equivalency. 6. Statement 6 is based upon the ethical conclusions as found in 1-3. 7. This sounds like an argument from authority and is insufficient.
Dressing up cat as pumpkin is morally justified

The preliminary challenge I wish to issue against the proposition is a concise definition of what constitutes 'morally justified'. It seems the opposition has given a litany of examples of possible appeals to proximate religico-philosophical domains, but no coherent argument has been presented. In the case that the opposition believes mere listing of examples that purportedly share the same conclusion as s/he, I will respond briefly to each with brevity. 1. Genesis also talks of the stewardship obligations of human animals towards non-human animals. 'Stewardship' is understood as a form of management and care extended towards a living being. 'Dominion' is not to be understood as an unbounded right to exert power over, but a dutifully-bounded position. 2. The Indian traditions of thought you make reference to emphasize reciprocity and the fundamental shared condition between all sentient creatures. Unless you believe you would like to be coerced into an outfit and paraded about for a camera, not understanding why, I think it would be considered unconscionable in these traditions. 3. 'Survival of the fittest' is not a principle within evolutionary theory. Indeed, it remains a principle advanced by social Darwinism which also supported proto-eugenic movements. It seems questionable to invoke such a contentious tradition as morally exemplary. 4. George Costanza also had prominent gynecomastia, i. e. male breast tissue. Is it, therefore, morally justified to state the new expectation of men is to have breasts? 6. Just because you insist it is so, does not make it is so. 7. Theorist Singer does not define moral worthiness in relation to 'rationality', but the ability to suffer pain. A cat can suffer pain and it holds this interest. 8. Your future feline sartorial choices (or exploits) are irrelevant. Thanks, V.
Dressing up cat as pumpkin is morally justified

Dressing up cat as pumpkin is morally justified by religion and philosophy Proposition - I believe that dressing up a cat as a pumpkin is morally justified on the following grounds: http://www.youtube.com... 1. God gave us dominion over cats, according to Genesis 1:28 "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." 2. Or, if you are a Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist, the cat probably deserves it because a sin it did in a past life. 3. If you are an atheist, the cat would probably dress you up as a pumpkin, too, if given the chance. Therefore, the law of "Survival of the Fittest" necessitates that we either dress up an animal as a pumpkin, or be dressed up by an animal as a pumpkin ourselves (or some equivalent action). 4. It was done on Seinfeld, if I remember right. 5. The cat will be let out of the pumpkin costume every two hours for a 30 minute interval to stretch, use the restroom and eat no more than four but no less than two cans of Fancy Feast (tm), depending upon the size of said cat. 6. It is also justified to take photos of the cat in pumpkin uniform and take them to work as a conversation piece. 7. The cat doesn't know any different because it is a stupid beast and only thinks of selfish motives. 8. The cat only wears the pumpkin for a day or two. Then it is placed in leotard.
Rose Tyler is the Best Companion of The Doctor in the New Doctor Who

You can't deny that Billie Piper is an outstanding actress throughout her time in Doctor Who, but her character is questionable at best. First of all, companions get tied up and ask questions that further the plot, although they generally end up saying stupid things they are still brilliant, yet Rose manages to slow the plot and mess up the timing. Her main redeeming quality is the fact that she is strong-minded and can defend herself to a certain extent, although all the companions share this trait, so she really doesn't hold a candle to Martha or Donna
Rose Tyler is the Best Companion of The Doctor in the New Doctor Who

Although it is true that Rose may not be as smart as the soon-to-be doctor Martha Jones or as funny as Donna, that is part of her charm. It just goes to show how you don't need to be completely brilliant or tough in order to be a companion of the Doctor. Rose is just a completely normal, sweet and sassy young girl, and it was with this normalcy that she saved the Doctor. The Doctor was in a very dark place when she came along; he said so himself. Then, he happened across Rose and she showed him how to love life again. This is what makes Rose such a fantastic companion. Martha and Donna are entertaining and were a great help to the Doctor, but Rose meant the most to him. Rose did have something that the other companions of the Doctor didn't. She had a genuine appreciation for life and love. The Doctor appreciated her, even if she wasn't the smartest of his companions, and I believe that this makes her even more impressive than the other companions. Not to mention, the seperation of Rose and the Doctor was the saddest ever, and just further proves how much they meant to eachother. I think that Rose did just as well as Martha and Donna, plus she was there for more seasons, and she still managed. And do I even need to talk about how totally awesome she was when she ripped open the door of the TARDIS and looked into it's heart and then gained superhuman powers just to get back to the Doctor? The Doctor and Rose had a relationship like no other, and thus I believe that she deserves more appreciation. However, I would like to hear what makes you think that she "manages to slow the plot and mess up the timing." Please explain in your next argument. :)
To be religious is to also have a mental disorder.

All religions have one common characteristic that is doing and being good. Now of course good is a term that can mean many things but to say religion is the cause of all evil would contradict all of human development. You say nature isn't random, I disagree nature is a response to the world around you to insure survival. It is no coincidence that all cultures of the world have created a religion with out any contact with each other. Religion has provided mankind with a higher moral standard. A blessing of the human consciousness. Now the problem occurs when people assume they are 100% correct regarding a topic such as religion that has no definitive proof one way or the other. This closed minded view is what creates the opposition you speak off. Religion does not create the conflict people do, this may make people ignorant but not the victim of a mental disorder.
To be religious is to also have a mental disorder.

nature is random, morality is the opposite of religion.. knowledge is morality, like a shield, where as religion is more like a shield of fire rain all religions are in opposition to knowledge, and each other.. so its is suicide by insanity, a curse on humanity, like racism or terrorism i determine right and wrong with my sense.. not create senses.. human intelligence had to start somewhere, to me religious people are proof that we didnt get that far after all.. even the mechanical world which is knowledge based, is ruled by religion, in the form of money.. as money is an imbalance in human nature and destroys it soda isnt money, holes in my teeth is money.... religion is war by disbelief.. this is the flaw you are missing with religion.. all evil is religion
To be religious is to also have a mental disorder.

Religion is something that can be found throughout all of human history as humans search for a way to describe how the world around them works. As human kind developed a sense of morale right and wrong was also created so with these new found religions people established rules to keep themselves within the law of the world. Religion is a creation of the human nature to have a order to their lives and rather than being a mental disorder religion is a genius creation of the human mind.
To be religious is to also have a mental disorder.

I created this debate in response to your comment on a other debate of similar talking points.I will be arguing that to be a follower of any religion does not mean that person also has a mental disorder. For round one please state your position and any definitions you wish to establish.Definitions:Mental disorder: "A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning." https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Was TV better in the 70's and 80's than today

When I said technology have advance our idea of entertainment I was not just referring to graphic, and Hd quality movie. I actually meant the over all idea of TV. You remember these saying from your favourite tv shows because back in the 80s and 70s kids did not have the kind of entertainment as this new generation. Today's kids have more thing to entertain them. Like Pokemon, and Pokemon cards, Yu-Ghi-Oh, and many Other games, all of these things are actually competing with the world of entertainment. Today if you have a tv show it has to capture your audience interest. The questions you have keep in mind is, how are you able to stop a child from spending his Saturdays mirroring playing his x-box360 just to watch your show? Things like that have to be consider. Not just that, your show actually need to grab their attention, that's why tv show like "Degrassi" "Icarly" "90210" and many others aremore focus on specific type of teen, it is targeting specific type of teenagers. Not just for entertainment , but for popularity as well. The writing and acting standers have change, and as you might notice sooner, movies makers will probably not need any actors at all. "These shows are memorable in their limitations and simplicity...good writing and good acting were a must." Once again, remember that not every watched what you did, even in the 80sand 70s, and I'm sure not everyone remember what your remember, same thing can be said for today teens. They can probably argue with this part. Simplicity was a must back then, why because the writing didn't needed to compete with other type of entertainments, because in order to compete with the video world you need a little bit of knowledge from there. And the actors for that had their own genre, today actors, I belive have to works a lot harder now. Because our advance idea of entertainment, they are expected to do little stuns more frequently, or act with invincible characters, custom wearing have evolved, and their are just to many things today's actors have to do then back then, people think today actors have it easy but that's not true at all. "Now there are some shows I enjoy..Mad Men for one but for the most part I feel the newer shows are extremely dumbed down ,rarely clever and well written and mostly a lot of drivel." You are going around one point. Some times when you are used to one thing, and then that thing changes nobody likes it, and it's so easy to find the flaws with the new change, things change for a reason. "Again change is always good sometimes it's change for the sake of change" I agree, and for sake of new age advancement and exploration, we must not consider all change negative or dumbed down, these producers need to make money as well, and they can't do it, if what they are putting on tv is only in the interest of the older generations, for sure they will not be around much longer.
Was TV better in the 70's and 80's than today

Thank you for your response. Not all change is a good thing and I believe the fact that technology has advanced makes for poorer TV in some ways. The Honeymooners was shot for the most part in just the Kramdens kitchen..... Seinfeld had a limited set and zero special effects.... I could list more but my point is the Honeymooners HAD TO have good writing there was nothing else available to distract you. Same with Seinfeld.....today 16 years since its last episode,,,,,we all know the iconic quotes. "not that there's anything wrong with it"......yada yada yada"...."no soup for you"....there was shrinkage" These shows are memorable in their limitations and simplicity...good writing and good acting were a must. ================================================================================================ Now there are some shows I enjoy..Mad Men for one but for the most part I feel the newer shows are extremely dumbed down ,rarely clever and well written and mostly a lot of drivel. Again change is always good sometimes it's change for the sake of change
Was TV better in the 70's and 80's than today

i can see your point very clearly. tv have change a lot from the time it was created. and indeed it will continue to change. but we cannot say it have change in a way that is no longer good, and that its worsen over the pass years. why? we have to keep in mind that people change with each generations, and those that experience television in the pass are very unhappy with the new age. but because the new change is not in what used to be your favourite, back then, that does not mean its bad, or useless. the simple fact is the new generation is not interested in what used to be very intestine back in 80s and 70s. if that was the case we will all be stuck in the pass, doing one thing over and over, this is a natural part of life, later this new generation will be saying the same thing you are saying. and as technology gets better, we can only advance our idea of entertainment. i know parents dont want their kids expose to violence, but slowly you can see they have no control of this, video games, have more that, and tv have many form of violence entertainment for kids. we can be certain that it will not stop their, soon you will be a part of global war right from your living room.
Was TV better in the 70's and 80's than today

I believe TV has taken a turn for the worse. 1) The seasons are far shorter 2) TV should be an escape not a medium for social messages ( see glee) 3) The nights show air change frequently 4) Less iconic characters Archie Bunker Al Bundy William Tiberius Kirk Seinfeld cast With the possible exception of Don Draper are there any iconic characters. Married with Children was a comedy we could all identify with. We all knew someone like Archie Bunker Star Trek is more popular now than ever 16 years after leaving TV , we all still remember quotes and episodes from Seinfeld. I enjoyed TV far more when after an episode I didn't have to call a friend to talk about what it meant , I didn't have to deal with massive PC on the shows and each week I looked forward to a fresh new story. Enough with multitude of cable series each sillier than the next .
Santa Claus is REAL!

However, I do not particularly indulge in the insults thrown by the opposition. First off, just to make this clear, we are talking about Santa Claus, which refers to the overweight man in a red suit, who delivers presents to good children on Christmas Eve. This does not mean Saint Nicholas, the legendary saint of the children. Secondly-the mere prospect of Santa Claus delivering Christmas presents is impossible on Christmas Eve. If we take one good child in every family that celebrates Christmas, gave them a 2 pound toy, and delivered all the presents in 31 hours (due to time zones and time shifts), that would mean that he would have to make 822 visits per second. The sleigh? Accounting for the fact that each present is two pounds, the total weight of the sleigh will be 321 300 tons, excluding Santa himself and the reindeer. Eight reindeer cannot pull this amount! It is obvious! To pull such a load, 214 200 reindeer are required! This will make an average weight of 353 430 tons, excluding Santa and his Sleigh. Such a load also accounts for enormous air resistance. Assuming that they fly through the merry air at 650 miles a second, they will almost vaporise into flame due to 14.3 QUADRILLION JOULES OF ENERGY. THE WHOLE TEAM OF 214 200 REINDEER WOULD BE WIPED OUT IN NO MORE THAN ONE SECOND. If Santa did exist, he would be dead now. Sources: . http://www.engr.mun.ca...