BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
after xi jinping assumes presidentship in china will the chinese-american relations become stronger

Let me set this straight. Since my opponent has not clearly defined debate parameters, I will do so here. My opponent has the burden of proving that Xi Jin Ping will, without a doubt, improve Chinese-American relations. I am contending against this. I will first establish my argument: Whether Xi Jin Ping will improve chinese-american relations or not is unclear. My opponent says: [Xi] has lots of restraints..power is far less than the power of the U.S. President." His lack of power, as described by my opponent, has little bearings in supporting my opponent's case. Let's look at it this way: Most of the 1 billion people in China have less power than the President of the USA. So? What does this have to do with international relationships? Furthermore, if Xi Jin Ping has little or no power, then my opponent's statement works against him: China will remain exactly the same. Xi, if he has no power, how can you expect him to effect any change? Here, my opponent does not establish Xi's positive influence towards Chinese-American relations in ANY way (conversely, he has harmed himself with this contention). The following statement revolving around the process of selection is also completely irrelevant to whether or not Xi will improve relations between China and the US. I will refer back to my original statement: If those already in power are in control of the presidency position, then there is, in reality, no change in policy, enactment, whatsoever. Even if relations DO improve, it would be accredited to the string-pullers behind Xi and has little to do with Xi himself. Again, no clear case/evidence is being provided. "The process of succession remains very opaque," says Jean-Pierre Cabestan, head of the department of government and international studies at Hong Kong Baptist University. "So that of course opens the gate to all kinds of speculation"we are all in the dark." This quote, by my opponent, clearly negates his topic: "after xi jinping assumes presidentship in china will the chinese-american relations become stronger" I think my opponent is guilty of misinterpreting the quote. I read it as something along the lines of: The process of succession into presidency remains unclear... we are in the dark, as in, we are confused or have no knowledge/premonitory intuition as to the future under Xi. Prove me wrong with a more logical interpretation. All that final mumbo jumbo about the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution is also irrelevant. Instead of negating it from the start, I'd like to allow my opponent to explain how this relates to the improving of chinese-american relations. In fact, I'd like my opponent to try to establish any of the things he has said as being related to this. So far there is nothing at all. I'm also open to giving my opponent leeway to establish more solid cases/evidence. Good Luck
after xi jinping assumes presidentship in china will the chinese-american relations become stronger

en he assumes the presidency in March, Xi will not rule alone. He"s a member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo, the country"s top leadership body. "The No. 1 leader has some initiative and power. But he is a first among equals and has a lot of restraints," says Cheng Li, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and an expert on the politics of China"s elite. "Their power is far less than the power of the U.S. president."The seven- to nine-member Standing Committee of the Politburo came into being in 1956, seven years after the founding of the People"s Republic of China. Officially, Standing Committee members are selected by a vote of the Central Committee. In reality they are picked in backroom negotiations among outgoing members and a few select party elders, former President Jiang Zemin being paramount among them this time, says Robert Kuhn, author of a biography of Jiang and more recently, How China"s Leaders Think.The late Deng Xiaoping exerted tight control over who was selected. It was Deng who chose Hu Jintao, the current party secretary and president, who has disappointed reform-minded Chinese by slowing economic change. Xi is Jiang"s choice, and Li Keqiang, the next likely premier, is Hu"s. "The process of succession remains very opaque," says Jean-Pierre Cabestan, head of the department of government and international studies at Hong Kong Baptist University. "So that of course opens the gate to all kinds of speculation"we are all in the dark."Until Mao and Deng, the committee took its cues from one leader. Jiang, too, exerted an outsize influence on the body from 1987 to 2002, serving as general secretary and then later adding the presidency. Still, his power never matched Deng"s, says Orville Schell, director of the Asia Society"s Center on U.S.-China Relations in New York. The top leaders moved toward their present model"what Schell calls leadership by committee"partly in reaction to the excesses of the Mao era. Nobody wanted another Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward. The committee also evolved because there weren"t leaders with the vision or ego to take charge, says Schell.
" That Russia has become a threat to U.S. Interests"

How does anything in your first paragraph indicate that Russia is a threat to US security interests? A. You say that between 2002 and 2005 over 1.7 billion in arms transfers was made between Russia and Iran, and then say 1 billion of that was in anti-aircraft missile systems.. certainly not offensive weapons? B. You don't ever show that Iran will, or is planning to attack the United States. C. You don't show that Russia is *using* Iran as a means to harm the United States. Even if you win that Iran is trying to harm the United States, it doesn't matter where their weapons come from, so long as Russia doesn't intend the weapons to be used to harm the US. For example, gun sales in the United States. A person who owns a gun store sells a gun to another person. The person then takes that gun and uses it to harm someone else. Do we hold the person who sold the gun accountable? No, the person who sold the gun is maintaining a legitimate business, and as long as they abide by the proper standards, you can't hold him/her accountable. Now, its a different story if the gun store owner sold say, an illegal automatic weapon, or sold a handgun without doing a background check. Similarly, if Russia sold Iran nuclear weapons, they would be at fault. But last time I checked theres nothing wrong with international arms sales- The US sells weapons technology to many countries around the world. We sold weapons to Afghanistan in the 80's that were used against us when we went to war with them after 9/11. It is just as legitimate for Russia to sell weapons to Iran in this sense. You say 'I'm just showing they have the means to hurt us, therefore they are a threat' What kind of logic is that? So now any country with nuclear capacity is a threat to us? You fail to answer my point that for a country to be a threat they must have the A. Means and B. the INTENT to cause harm to the United States. You don't ever establish that Russia INTENDS to harm the United States, and therefore, they can't possibly be a threat to us. Also, why are you wasting my time by saying "Oh I have evidence but I'm not going to use it here." If you have evidence, use it, otherwise don't bother. Its not a legitimate position to say "Oh well there's evidence out there, and you're wrong, but I'm not going to provide that evidence. And therefore I win." Either show the evidence for us to read and evaluate or don't bother.
" That Russia has become a threat to U.S. Interests"

Russia has arms transfer agreements between the Russian Federation and Iran from 2002 through 2005 have been valued in total at $1,700,000,000 and arms transfer agreements between the Russian Federation and Syria over the same period have been estimated at over $800,000,000. Russian state-owned arms selling agency, Rosoboronexport, has sold and delivered to Iran 30 anti-aircraft missile systems (known as the `Tor M1' missile), worth over $1,000,000,000 and Russia has agreed to upgrade Iran's MiG-29 fighter aircraft and Su-24 jets, the latter aircraft having the capability to carry nuclear weapons. All of this is indicating that Russia has increasingly given arms deals with Iran a terrorist sponsoring country. In fact Whereas reports indicate that, during the conflict between Israel and Lebanon in the summer of 2006, Iran and Syria provided Hezbollah with weapons that included Russian-built anti-tank rocket-propelled grenades and Russian-made missiles such as the Kornet AT-14 that were used by Hezbollah to attack Israel. Transfers of arms to Iran and Syria by the Russian Federation and Russian entities therefore pose a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. Russia according to the Carnegie Endowment has viewed the U.S. as a threat and the Number 1 enemy. Also to attack your Iran arguement, Russia has not put sanctions on Iran, Iran has had sanctions on its economy and business since 1996 according to Congress. Russia also is giving these weapons to a terrorist sponsoring state, thus the nuclear fuel which they are to deliver may lead to nuclear Terrorism or a terrorist using a nuclear bomb on Us. Your arguement about the U.S. being to big to invade, is valid, but I merely am pointing the fact that it is a threat because it has the means, Nukes, and has intentions of harming our interests. I have evidence on everything, I have posted and can prove everything, but I don't want to post it all, for free of someone stealing my arguement evidence. I have mainy other cards on how they can attack us and get away with it. Very logical statement, but misguided.
" That Russia has become a threat to U.S. Interests"

"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." Because we interpret this quote as a threatening message by Ayn Rand, a Russian born Novelist, we have come to the conclusion, Resolved: Russia has become a threat to United States interests. To clarify the round, we offer the following definitions: Russia: The Federation of Russia Become: Come into existence Threat: A source of danger United States: United States of America Contention 1: National Security The US must value National security for the protection of its people and the nation. If there was no national security, then anyone could take over the United States and they could be a superpower. This contention will go into the depths in how Russia impedes on national security. Sub-point A: Nuclear Russia has done its part in aiding nuclear treats in the world. This poses a major threat to our national security. Moreover, they are a nuclear threat themselves. After all, they are world's largest owners of WMDs. Little a: Russia The Federation of Russia has a stock of approximately 8,400 nuclear weapons. This is the largest in the world. The world can be destroyed if only 15 nuclear bombs detonate. Obviously, this is a threat to national security because if the world is destroyed, then what nation would be left? The United States would be destroyed and thus, its interest to uphold national security will ultimately be obsolete. Little b: Iran The Russian Government has delivered nuclear fuel to Iran, a developing nuclear power. This can cause Iran to develop quicker and then they can start on their planning on technology for longer range capabilities. If and when they develop this technology, then they can destroy the East Coast of the US or the United States Embassies all across the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Contention 2: Economics The United States, although the largest economic power in the world, is hurting economically. One of the problems, internationally speaking, is Russia. Sub-point A: Stability While the United States faces a recession, depression, and total economic collapse, Russia is stable to the point that they can sell their dollar for profit. They sold $4 billion in August '07 to stop the fall of the dollar by .5%. "[Russia] has enormous foreign-currency reserves and a huge current-account surplus, as well as a fast-growing economy, while public debt is very low." (Global Agenda 07). This means that they are very rich and are only going to get richer. Since the public debt (people owned debt) is low, the overall debt of the nation is relatively low as well. Also, their GDP is 7th in the world. However, they can easily catch up to the United States and pass us in terms of economics.
Change is necessary to maintain a happy lifestyle

In response to point 1A, no knowledge of the outside world is required to be happy, I know several people who are completely clueless to what is going on until someone tells them, it is completely possible, though unlikely, that someone have no knowledge of the world outside their life. The fact that it isn't viable argument though because the debate isn't about what is likely too happen, the scenarios only need to be possible. In response to point 1B, I agree that someone with amnesia probably doesn't have the best of luck, but they don't have to meet ALL definitions of the word happy, only one, which I have shown to be possible. In response to point 1C again the same logic used for 1A works for 1C, the person could have planned a full days events which never required them to leave the house, ie. cleaning, doing laundry, etc., it is easy to fill a day with things like this, and they can be repeated every day, there are also other things you could fill your day with which wouldn't require change, many people plan their days in such detail that if they have the same thing written down twice, they do it twice, and someone with amnesia could be completely oblivious to this.
Change is necessary to maintain a happy lifestyle

Thanks, repete21, for accepting this challenge. I hope this will be as interesting as i expect it to be. Now let me analyze each part of your argument. 1:"A person...rut." >>>1A: This is a very good point, although there are some flaws. This person who believes that they are living the same day, every day, cannot read the newspapers, watch the news, or any form of television for that matter, for not only will these things introduce a daily change, but if the person were to eventually notice these things, saying that they participated in these activities every day, they would become very upset, realizing how so much time has been lost in their eyes, thus making them unhappy. >>>1B: Another thing, using the link you provided for the definitions of the word "happy", I will assume that you agree all of these definitions are true, and will provide another reason why this argument is flawed. The first definition in the link provided by you in the past argument is "favored by luck or fortune". I also took the liberty of location the definition of "amnesia" from http://dictionary.reference.com..., which reads "complete or partial loss of memory caused by brain injury, shock, etc.". One who has been a victim of traumas such as brain injury and shock are most certainly not favored by luck or fortune, and by the definition that you have provided me with, this person is most certainly not happy. >>>1C: Also, this is flawed in that these people are being introduced to change of some sort. In their mind it's the same day, yes, which means that yesterday was a completely different day to them, so they could do many activities that are a change to what they did "yesterday", being the day before the amnesia began. Altogether this was a good scenario, with a couple fundamental flaws. 2: "Someone whose lifestyle...without changing your lifestyle." >>>2A: This is again a good scenario, but also with fundamental flaws. True enough, this scenario would not introduce a lifestyle change, but the argument is that a person cannot live happily if all sorts of change are removed from their lives. Meeting new people and seeing new places is not a lifestyle change, but it is change, therefore their happiness is irrelevant to the argument at hand. 3: Based on these conclusions I have made about your arguments, I believe that my opening statement still stands firm. Good luck in the following rounds, repete21.
Change is necessary to maintain a happy lifestyle

Since you did not clarify what happy was I will take the honor in stating that happy includes any/all of these definitions http://www.merriam-webster.com... I will use a series of scenarios which will prove that one can be happy without change. 1- A person with a form of amnesia in which they think they do not remember anything before a certain traumatic event, and believe that they are living the date of the event every day could be "impulsively or obsessively quick to use or do something", which is one of the exact definitions of happy. They could also be "enjoying or characterized by well-being and contentment" another exact definition simply by enjoying the same things every day, completely oblivious to the fact they have been doing them over and over for a long period of time, and since you said they would do the same things every day there is no way that they could figure out that they were doing the same things over and over once they got into their rut. 2- Someone whose lifestyle consists of meeting new people and traveling isn't "changing" their lifestyle, just changing minor details in their life, and could easily be happy with this lifestyle, therefore being happy with your lifestyle without changing your lifestyle.
Change is necessary to maintain a happy lifestyle

This is another simple argument which clearly states one thing: -->Any one person cannot live a happy life without change of any sort. ex. Doing all the same things at the same time every day, talking to the same people(having the same conversations), thinking the same things, eating the same things, thus taking out any essence of unpredictability in their lives. This completely remove surprise of any kind, and any kind of stimulus that would excite them, utterly leaving them in a depressive rut. Good luck to whoever accepts this, should be fun.
The use of Torture can be Morally Permissible

.. " thing, I actually do thank Mr. Phantom quite a lot for quite a few things. First, thanks for being so gracious and open to topic choices. Second, thanks for setting this debate up for us. Third, thanks for putting forth a relatively coherent set of rules for the debate. It's not necessarily the norm around here. Obviously, I accept. As Mills Lane (boxing referee version. .. I keep forgetting he has one of those judge shows on TV now) would say, "Let's get it on. "
The use of Torture can be Morally Permissible

Resolution: The use of Torture can be Morally PermissibleVotingVoters, please do not vote on the source points. This is a philosophy debate meaning evidence and sources are not as needed for arguing. The whole debate could be done without any sources being used. Source points are very often abused and misused on this site. Taking these facts, I think it best they are neglected for this debate. That does not mean you shouldn't take sourcing into account. If a claim is made that should be sourced but is not, take that into consideration and treat the claim as weak and/or unsubstantiated. Please also, try to put all bias's aside when judging the debate and judge fairly. The resolution often has a strong repulsive moral reaction to people, but I hope viewers do not base their vote off of such and consider the rational side of my case. I hope they also fully take into consideratin the case my opponent puts forward as well. DefinitionsFor the definition of torture, I will adopt "TheFreeDictionarie's" definition[1] but change it slightly as I think it needs further clarification. Torture: Infliction of severe physical and/or mental pain as a means of punishment, coercion, gathering information, pleasure or benefitMorally permissible: Allowed, permitted in relation to moralityMorality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior[2]Note: I do not have to defend all purposes of torture. For example, I do not have to show that torture for means of extracting pleasure can be permissible. I just have to demonstrate that certain uses of it can be. Burden of ProofThe burden of proof rests namely on me, in that I have to show that torture, in one or more of its uses, can, in certain circumstances, be conceived of as morally permissible. My opponents main burden is to negate. Guidelines and RulesIf, in the unfortunate circumstance, someone forfeits the round, the conduct point will be deducted but nothing further. If he forfeits twice, he forfeits the entire debate and all seven points should be given to his opponent. Sources may be put in an external link or the comments section to save space for arguing if needed. Standard polite conduct should be used in the debate. No abusive semantics arguments. No plagiarism. First round is acceptance. For the last round, no new arguments should be made. The round should be used mainly for rehashing and concluding the debate. If my opponent has any objections to anything, or wants clarification, please post in the comments section prior to accepting the debate. [1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...