BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United Stares of America is an empire.

"The USA has given rights to the Native Americans. We've even given land to many of the nations." What you seem to not understand is that the US doesn't have to be evil to be an empire. It is a benevolent empire that gives rights and land, for the most part, to all the minorities it conquered, as long as, of course, they remain in the empire and follow their rules. "Proof that the USA wanted to annex Israel?" I will be honest, there is no proof of this. This was something that I had heard, and I thought I might as well mention it. But as to the Rest of the Middle East, yes, some politicians have said that we should just annex it, make them/it a state(s), and then move on. The reason for this is so the US can get the oil in the Middle East. "No It was voluntary." It may have been the will of the people of those countries, but the government of Austria did not want to be annexed, for obvious reasons. There was not a sense of democracy back then in Europe, so most peoples fully depended on their governments to make decisions, so it was not a union, it was an empire. But back to the civil war: when the south seceded, it formed a true union, also known as a confederation. This form of government was very similar to the European. Union. The US, however, has gained land by conquest, automatically making it an empire. We can give all the rights in the world to the peoples of these lands, but they still must obey the laws set by the federal government instead of being independent. If the US were to give full independence to these nations, and those nations asked ( asked, not forced,) to rejoin the US, that would be a true union. In the beginning of these territories, they had no option to join or not join the US. They were owned by the US, but with less rights, similar to Puerto Rico and Guam today. (Although most people believe that Puerto Rico is another country, it is still a territory.)
The United Stares of America is an empire.

I will give some examples of this, some in fairly recent history: Northwest Territory (aka the Midwest,), gained after the revolution, The Louisiana Purchase, 1803, The Annexation of the Republic of West Florida, 1810, The Cession of what was called East Florida (regular Florida today), 1819, The Annexation of the Republic of Texas, 1845, Mexican Cession, more commonly known as the Annexation of The Republic of California, 1846-1848, Gadsden Purchase, 1853, Alaska Purchase, 1867, The Annexation of the Republic of Hawaii, 1893, after the Spanish-American war in 1898, Spain ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico, The Philippines, and Guam, the American Samoa was ceded from the Samoa natives due to a civil war in 1899, and the Purchase of the Virgin Islands in 1917. So as you see, most of these are annexations or cessions, with few of them being purchases. So, while it's true that the US has not annexed territory for over 100 years, I believe that the US is still an empire.The USA has given rights to the Native Americans. We've even given land to many of the Nations.There have actually been calls in the US for the annexation of basically the entire Middle East, including Israel.Proof that the USA wanted to annex Israel? Last time I checked that never happened. There might be a case about the Arab countries, but even then the USA didn't. Blame Britain and Denmark for invading Iraq.First of all, in WW2, Germany annexed Austria, making Germany an empire, not a union. Secondly, the US can no longer be classified as a union, because a union has to be voluntary, and when the South seceded in 1861 to form the CSA, the US took it back by force, immediately ending the union between the north and the south. The only original territory that was voluntarily united that can still be considered part of that union is the Northeast.No it was voluntary. Hitler was actually an Austrian. The majority of people in Germany and Austria, with good reason, supported Nazism, and it was a union they craved.The USA is not an empire anymore. If anything the only countries with empires are Denmark and Britain. Denmark still mistreats the Inuits like it's nothing, and their attitude is one of "I don't care."As for the Civil War, it's hard to say exactly, what the war was really about.
The United Stares of America is an empire.

"An empire is when a country conquers multiple lands by force and coercion." I will give some examples of this, some in fairly recent history: Northwest Territory (aka the Midwest,), gained after the revolution, The Louisiana Purchase, 1803, The Annexation of the Republic of West Florida, 1810, The Cession of what was called East Florida (regular Florida today), 1819, The Annexation of the Republic of Texas, 1845, Mexican Cession, more commonly known as the Annexation of The Republic of California, 1846-1848, Gadsden Purchase, 1853, Alaska Purchase, 1867, The Annexation of the Republic of Hawaii, 1893, after the Spanish-American war in 1898, Spain ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico, The Philippines, and Guam, the American Samoa was ceded from the Samoa natives due to a civil war in 1899, and the Purchase of the Virgin Islands in 1917. So as you see, most of these are annexations or cessions, with few of them being purchases. So, while it's true that the US has not annexed territory for over 100 years, I believe that the US is still an empire. "The invasion of Iraq can be debatable, but..... In the USA's case it was an occupation to give relief to people in Iraq." There have actually been calls in the US for the annexation of basically the entire Middle East, including Israel. "The USA is a union, much like the union between Austria and Germany during World War ll." First of all, in WW2, Germany annexed Austria, making Germany an empire, not a union. Secondly, the US can no longer be classified as a union, because a union has to be voluntary, and when the South seceded in 1861 to form the CSA, the US took it back by force, immediately ending the union between the north and the south. The only original territory that was voluntarily united that can still be considered part of that union is the Northeast.
The United Stares of America is an empire.

Same here.There is a fundamental problem with how you describe "empire," my friend. An empire is when a country conquers multiple lands by force and coersion. Now this title might have applied to the USA a long time ago, but it's not the case anymore. Most of the Native Americans have rights now that were unimaginable centuries ago. Now the Brits and Danes that can be considered an empire. To this day the Danish still have Greenland in their possession, treating them like garbage as a result. The Brits are doing slightly better as they've let go of their colonies, with the exception of Northern Ireland. But today, though it's not perfect, the USA is a democratic country that for the most part, though with its flaws, does not believe in empire building. The invasion of Iraq can be debatable, but... in the USA's case it was an occupation to give relief to people in Iraq some relief. I will argue that Brits and Danes did it out of conquest, though.The USA is a union, much like the union between Austria and Germany during World War II. Meaning the two wanted it to happen. In a similar fashion the USA is that.
Tabula Rasa (Blank Slate) a.k.a People are born with no bulit in Mental Content

My opponent is basing his argument over a translation taken too literally. Yes Tabula Rosa does translate into blank slate, but that doesn't mean the theory believes that we have absolutely no mental capacity when we are born. Unlike what my opponent said Tabula rasacan coexist with the theory of evolution.Tabula rasa is mainly a theory explaining peoples varying intelligence levels, personality, and social/emotional behaviors. Based on this understanding of Tabula Rasa the Human and Dog argument is irrelevant. Evolution has made it possible for the human mind to comprehend spoken language, unlike a dog, but based on the newborn's experience it may take in a greater vocabulary, and learn more than another newborn. By saying that Tabula rasa is false you are saying that every human offspring should have the mental capacity, and social behaviors of their parents. During the Civil Rights movement in the United States many whites, were racist toward other colored people. If Tabula rasa was false that would mean that if both parents were racist then their offspring should also be racist because the racist gene was passed down. The only problem with that statement is that many white children grew up and marched along sides Dr. King. The reason they marched was because the experiences in their life formed the notion in that racism is wrong. This also applies to sexism too. "humans, and a dog that was raised in the exact same environment as a human would have the exact same personality as the human" This quote is an extreme stretch. One's environment includes, the people, and weather, and interpretation of the actions around them. Therefore dogs and humans, and even humans and humans can't have the same environment. To our knowledge dogs don't understand human language which means that a dog can't interpret spoken actions the same way a human can. Let's go out on a limb and say dogs can understand facial expressions. If there was a kid being bullied. The bully would likely have a smile on his face as he insulted, emotionally tortured, and possibly physically harmed the victim. The dog would see a smile on the bullies face as he shoved him to the ground. Because he can't understand the language he might think it's all fun and games, but the human will understand the harm in this situation. One's experiences are what decide a person's intelligence, social, emotional actions.
Tabula Rasa (Blank Slate) a.k.a People are born with no bulit in Mental Content

Humans are not born with a preset personality, or intellect. If one was born with a given intellect, one should be able to understand language, and reading, and writing skills better or worse than any other newborn. I believe that is false. Your knowledge, and emotions are based on our observations of our parents. When we are in our early stages of our life we are observing the world. We see our parents doing things and we want to be like them. Our parents teach us, and raise us with their values. Someone born to two parents who greedy and put money and success above everything, but are adopted by two other parents who care more about friendship, and caring for others is going to be more like the adopted parents because those values are what that child observed and was raised by.
Tabula Rasa (Blank Slate) a.k.a People are born with no bulit in Mental Content

I argue against the notion of Tabula Rasa. This is the idea that people are born without innate mental content and all personality traits, intellect, etc. are all from the environment they grow up in.I argue that this is wrong and that genetics play a heavy role in personality traits, intelligence, etc.Here is what the Pro must do in each round:Round 1: I set terms for debate and Pro presents Case for Tabula Rasa (or Noble Savage)Round 2: I will rebut and make opposite case in Round 2 and Pro will rebut and/or add new arguments for their caseRound 3: I will add more rebuttals and Pro can make final rebuttals in this roundRound 4: I will make last post. Pro cannot make any rebuttals or new arguments in this round, only RV4The reason that Pro cannot make any further arguments in round 4 is that I am not making any arguments for my case in this round. This gives each debater 3 rounds to make their case.
Vampires are better than Werewolves

I would now like to take this time to refute some of the arguments brought forth by my opponent. Yeah but see, that's not a common occurrence of modern fiction. Incorrect. The Vampire Diaries, True Blood, and Twilight (all three of these IMMENSLY POPULAR) all portray vampires to have a certain resistance over the sun. In The Vampire Diaries, vampires wearing jewellery that a witch has cast a spell on are invulnerable to the sun and in True Blood if you stand on the other side of a special window the sun can't harm you. Also, I would not consider Marvel's Blade to be as popular as both The Vampire Diaries and Twilight combined, thus those "UV grenades" won't work as they aren't portrayed in enough popular modern fiction. Actually Vampires being able to defeat a werewolf one-on-one is very common in modern fiction but my wolves would only attack in packs and only after we've let you starve to death. So us vampires are so stupid we wouldn't band together just like in Twilight and hunt you down? Also, the entire Cullen family in Twilight survives off of animal blood. Also, why can't we just drink the blood in hospitals? You know, the gallons of the stuff in blood donation banks? This raises another question, what will werewolves eat? Traditional folklore's have werewolves having an insatiable desire to devour human flesh, however we need to use modern fiction. I feel that this debate has turned into a joke with the majority of the rounds bickering on whether we should use modern fiction or the traditional folklore's that created the myths of these characters. Thus, I feel that this debate should remain a tie, yet the decision ultimately lies with the vote.
Vampires are better than Werewolves

It wouldn't make sense to just pick and choose which qualities I want from over hundreds of werewolf stories. I have explicitly chosen details and traits that show up in a majority of modern folklore. For instance in the popular HBO drama Tru Blood, the werewolves are not weakened by silver at all, but it burns vampires and makes them weak. However I did not include this because it is not something that pops up often. It's only something the writers of Tru Blood created. However other features, such as werewolves being able to transform at will show up often in other media. So I used those traits.The definition came from traditional folklore and common beliefs regarding vampires. I am not trying to “retcon” my “weakness”, merely using sources from the same era as my opponent. If we were using modern fiction, then vampires aren’t weak to sunlight as shown in Twilight, so his point regarding the UV flashlights is null and void.Yeah but see, that's not a common occurance of Modern ficition. In fact that wasn't even in the books. That was specifically created for the movie and mocked endlessly because it was so ridiculous. This wouldn’t occur if we used folklore, they would have no choice. In Twilight, the vampires can still defeat the werewolves, even in wolf form.Actually Vampires being able to defeat a werewold one-on-one is very common in modern fiction but my wolves would only attack in packs and only after we've let you starve to death.Here's proof that UV would work on vampires http://trueblood.wikia.com...;http://marvel.wikia.com...'s_UV_Grenade_001.jpg
Vampires are better than Werewolves

I would now like to take this time to refute some of the arguments brought forth by my opponent. Our different ideas regarding era needs to be addressed if this debate is to remain a debate. He just says “Able to transform at the full moon” Well they can. So the argument sticks. I feel this is semantics, but I will let it pass. I’d like to point out that vampires being weak to sunlight was something HE pointed out in His definition. The definition came from traditional folklore and common beliefs regarding vampires. I am not trying to “retcon” my “weakness”, merely using sources from the same era as my opponent. If we were using modern fiction, then vampires aren’t weak to sunlight as shown in Twilight, so his point regarding the UV flashlights is null and void. I’ll give it to you that you can feed on them as humans but my wolves would be under order to NEVER be human around vamps. This wouldn’t occur if we used folklore, they would have no choice. In Twilight, the vampires can still defeat the werewolves, even in wolf form. If they can only be a wolf once a month, then we hunt during the day and at night we stay in forts rigged up with giant UV lights. You get close and you’ll fry. We’ll also have holy symbols and garlic everywhere. My opponent has provided almost no sources for his assertion that UV lights affect vampires, as in folklore it is the natural sun that causes vampires to burst into flames. As I have shown already regarding symbols and garlic, Dracula still managed to slip through. I feel that this debate has devolved into an era battle, I would like my opponent to clear up whether he meant modern folklore and ancient, classic folklore and we will use what my opponent decides as the basis for the rest of the debate.
Vampires are better than Werewolves

First and foremost my opponent NEVER specified whether to use folklore or not. He gave a definition in the comments which I agreed with. Werewolves being able to transform when they want fits into his definition. He just says "Able to transform at the full moon" Well they can. So my argument still sticks. But lets say they could only do it once a month. The sunlight is still their best friend. My opponent says "Traditionally in vampire folklore, vampires aren't destroyed by sunlight. In fact, in Dracula Count Dracula goes out into the sun. Vampires aren't destroyed by the sun, instead they are weakened. However, they are not severely weakened to the point where humans can overcome them. Dracula in the sunlight managed to beat off and escape from human males pursuing him. Even in the sun, vampires maintain enhanced strength and speed. Even in folklore, vampires aren't weak to the sun. The idea that vampires are weak to the sun came from the film Nosferatu." I'd like to point out that vampires being weak to sunlight, was something HE pointed out in HIS defintion. He's trying to retcon his weakness because I'm expertly exploiting them. Vampires are weak to sunlight and UV rays. Countless vampire media shows them bursting into flames as soon as sunlight touches their skin. SO THIS POINT STANDS. As for the point of you starving to death. If it was my way and vampires can transform when they want, as per standard nowadays and you didn't specify what media to take it from, then you're fighting werewolves. You can't feed on werewolves. I'll give it to you that you can feed on them as humans but my wolves would be under order to NEVER be human around vamps. We'll outlast you If they can only be a wolf once a month, then we hunt during the day and at night we stay in forts rigged up with giant UV lights. You get close and you'll fry. We'll also have holy symbols and garlic everywhere. WHICH YOU SAID VAMPIRES WERE WEAK TO. We'll outlast you. You can't turn werewolves in to vampires. Even if you could you'd only make my forces stronger. Your move.
Vampires are better than Werewolves

I would now like to take this time to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent. In modern fiction the werewolf is able to transform whenever he wants. My opponent’s entire case hinges on this point. Though in modern fiction the werewolf can transform whenever he want, in folklore (which is what I used to base my powers) the werewolf cannot. If we were to use modern fiction, vampires are not weak to sunlight, garlic, the stake, or decapitation (Twilight). With Van Helsing, stake, sunlight, and garlic all don’t effect Dracula. Since the lore of vampires and werewolves come from folklore, I believe that we should use folklore and not modern fiction as the basis for the abilities of vampires and werewolves, thus werewolves only transform at the full moon. [1] Van Helsing has the titular character turning into a werewolf and defeating Dracula himself. As I have shown regarding the lore of werewolves (R2), an entire race of werewolves were obliterated by a single group of vampires. Well we’ve established that wolves are too. If we go on folklore, this is clearly incorrect. The sun is a werewolves best friend. Clearly incorrect, werewolves only transform at the full moon, which is at night. Vampires can only feed on humans. Which werewolves are for the majority of the month. Also we can harness the power of the sun in the form of UV flashlights. This is a flawed statement. Traditionally in vampire folklore, vampires aren’t destroyed by sunlight. In fact, in Dracula Count Dracula goes out into the sun. Vampires aren’t destroyed by the sun, instead they are weakened. However, they are not severely weakened to the point where humans can overcome them. Dracula in the sunlight managed to beat off and escape from human males pursuing him. Even in the sun, vampires maintain enhanced strength and speed. Even in folklore, vampires aren’t weak to the sun. The idea that vampires are weak to the sun came from the film Nosferatu. [2] Your people are starving to death. As I have shown already, this is incorrect. You can never gain more troops. As I have shown already, this is incorrect. Clearly, vampires would crush werewolves. SOURCES 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.draculas.info...
Vampires are better than Werewolves

So for this war the population of earth is split in two, between the vampires and the werewolves. That leaves about 3.5 billion a side. Remember that. CONTENTION 1. "WEREWOLVES ARE ONLY IN WOLF FORM ONCE A MONTH" Once upon a time, I would have been forced to concede this point, but in modern fiction the werewolf is able to transform whenever he wants. He is also able to keep his intelligence intact. Examples include the very popular young adult books Blood and Chocolate(. http://en.wikipedia.org...(novel)), Twilight(. http://en.wikipedia.org...(series)), but also The Dresden Files,Wolf Breed, Mortal Instruments, Big Fish ,Teen Wolf, The Howling(1981), True Blood, Okami ,and my personal favorite, The Elder Scrolls V Skyrim. Contention 2:EVEN IN WEREWOLF FORM, THE VAMPIRES WOULD DEFEAT THEM I'm not so sure about that. Van Helsing. http://en.wikipedia.org...(film)has the titular character turning into a werewolf and defeating Dracula himself. Even if this were the case, It's a moot point anyway. I'll show you why. Where are these numbers coming from anyway? With so many variations on these two classic mythologies, it's impossible to just declare a degree of strength. Contention 3. VAMPIRES ARE INTELLIGENT Well we've established that wolves are too. Moot point. Argument 1. The sun is a werewolves best friend. My opponent made a point about humans not being able to find vampires during the day. Well those humans didn't have the smelling power of a wolf. If I'm head of the werewolf army, we're going hunting in the day. We find werewolves, we burn them or stake them while they sleep. Also we can harness the power of the sun in the form of UV flashlights. Amazon has a bunch of them. . http://www.amazon.com.... We can use those at night to burn vampires. Can't say it won't work, we all seen Blade do it. Argument 2. Your people are starving to death. Vampires can only feed on the blood of humans. They're are none left. Guess who's getting weaker everyday Argument 3. You can never gain more troops. A war this powerful can last decades. However vampires can not breed and since all humans are dead, you will only continue to loose numbers. The werewolf side can continue having and raising children to fight. So in closing all I have to do is hunt you and your people down during the day and at night have our houses surrounded but UV lights . All the while you people are starving to death.