BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

My Opponent claims that 80% of the U.S. aid that goes to Pakistan is being funneled into the military while his own source contradicts that very claim - "Professors Flores and Smith of Political Science at NYU estimate of the $6.6 billion in military aid the United States gave Pakistan between 2002 and 2008, only $500 million ever made it to the military." My Opponent also fails to understand an important reality about the United States Government; it does not care about justice abroad. If the U.S. is giving aid to Pakistan it is because it is strategic to do so. America concerns itself with its own special interests, even if that means overlooking the mismanagement of funds given to a foreign State; Iraq being a classic example. Pakistan is quickly becoming the 4th leading processor of nuclear arms in the world and hence it would be unwise for the USA to worsen relations with them by cutting all aid. America is already dealing with enough conflicts in the region and will soon find itself in further conflict with Iran. India is no threat to the USA and India has no intentions of distancing itself from having good relations with America over the Pakistani issue. We must also bear in mind that India equally continues to buy weaponry with U.S. funds targeted at Pakistan. http://www.washingtontimes.com... It is not in the United States' interest to cut all aid to Pakistan.
Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

I contest the resolution and affirm that suspending all government assistance to Pakistan would only create more problems, not only for the region, but also for the United States, who is deeply entrenched in the area. Cutting all assistance would also be a great offence to the citizens of Pakistan, as they have done nothing to merit such an unjustified punishment. My Opponent has stated that "all" assistance should be suspended and perhaps is under the impression that the only aid that the USA gives to Pakistan is military aid. My Opponent will need to argue his reasons for why the US Government should cut aid to such Pakistani sectors as energy, economic growth, stabilization, education, agriculture, health and humanitarian assistance, along with military aid. The United States should not cut all assistance to Pakistan!
Resolved: Animation is morally wrong for the minds of young adults.

1) My opponent only cites evidence of the effects of GENERAL TELEVISION. The quote, everything before the quote, and a couple of sentences after the quote do not apply to this debate at all, simply because they discuss general television viewing, NOT ANIMATION. However, my opponent brings up two little "pieces of evidence." If a kid watches Dragon Ball Anime, it cannot be proven that the kid will try to jump off a cliff because of flying ability. Kids view cartoons mainly for entertainment purposes - just because I watch the cartoon "Avatar" does not mean I will try to bend the elements of earth and fly on a huge beast. That's just stupid. Once again, kids don't necessarily believe that they have abilities of super-strength or super-speed from watching cartoons. Sure, kids get excited over Power Rangers and Scooby-Doo and consequently learn a couple of fighting moves and tactics. However, the children most likely will not have an obsession with Power Ranger outfits, superpowers, etc. It's common sense. You haven't proven anything. 2) "Anime gives false hope to the children. As stated above, susceptible children will believe anything they see, or hear on their television. " You have never proven that children will believe anything they see or hear on television. Most kids logically watch TV animation for entertainment and fun. Kids realize that they do not necessarily have the abilities that some cartoon people have. This is why stores sell action figures - kids can get the feel of imitating powers with a doll while understanding that they themselves do not have that ability. You can't come out and say that anime gives false hopes; anime is simply a method of entertaining an audience. Since when is it immoral to give kids pleasant cartoon shows for viewing purposes? Parents give kids false hopes all the time: Santa Claus doesn't exist, the Tooth Fairy is false, etc. This is only to keep kids in the mood - it's not like kids will be really affected by it. Kids understand that they do not have the abilities that anime characters do; naturally, children keep to watching cartoons SOLELY for entertainment or a means of having some viewing pleasure. You haven't proven anything yet. Your argument is based on false premises. 3) My opponent cannot simply state that anime is wrong because, in our standards, it is not right to fight demons or evil spirits. Once again, my opponent needs to make the perception of morality clearer for this debate. Morality is relative, so it depends on the viewer's outlook of ethics. My opponent hasn't proven that anime removes all morality; the argument that anime is immature and unlikeable is both erroneous and lacking in substance. Adults usually prefer talk shows or sitcoms - children usually prefer cartoons. This does not make anime wrong. How is anime breaking a limit? I have completely dominated my opponent's arguments. I urge a Con vote. Thank you. Btw, my opponent's source focuses on general television, not just anime. It should be disregarded.
Resolved: Animation is morally wrong for the minds of young adults.

I will make my contentions short, and sweet. 1.) It is commonly known that children are adversely affected by what they see in early life, and developing stages, thereafter. They are even susceptible to be led into the trend of imitating violence, that is true. Wendy L. Josephson, a Ph.D warrants: "The small percentage of those who continue to believe in the reality of television and to identify with its violent heroes are the ones likely to be more aggressive, especially if they continue to fantasize about aggressive-heroic themes." So it is confirmed that they are susceptible to such nature. Is this truly moral to let it happen? For example, is it good to let a child jump off a cliff just because they believe they can fly, as in the Dragon Ball Anime? Or even punch through walls, nearly breaking their arms, just b/c they believe their super-strong? I'd find that hard to be an acceptable answer. 2.) Anime gives false hope to the children. As stated above, susceptible children will believe anything they see, or hear on their television. They should be watching a normal television show, so they can understand what they can, or cannot do. They need to know that they can't run as "Fast as a speeding bullet" or "fly." Anime gives false ideas, and is most commonly based on false ideas that mean nothing in the real world. In the real world, I don't Kenny the Space Duck ruling Russia, or Spotnick the Talking Polar Bear ruling Canada. They need real morals, thus directly correlating to the topic at hand. 3.) Anime is just wrong. Is it right to fight demons, or evil spirits? In a theoretical sense, yes, but in our standards, no. Anime is the largest thing on Television that removes all morality due to immature, and unlikeable nature. Would we, humans, rather listen to actual people on screen, or a little, talking rabbit doing nonsense. This is my point. Things need to have a limit, and Anime is dangerously breaking that limit, hence forth I urge an Affirmative vote. I kindly look open to my opponent's constructive, and rebuttal. Source: http://www.media-awareness.ca...
Michael the Archangel is a punk

My opponent has failed to meet the burden of proof. No evidence was offered to indicate why we should believe Michael the Archangel is without worth or a human being. These definitions were accepted by both parties (see round two). Not only that, but none of the Bible passages offered even mentioned Michael the Archangel. The same goes for the word "punk". With this in mind, I have won. Asking me to prove a negative is unfair.
Michael the Archangel is a punk

It is important to understand the point of an attack against the archangel. The archangel's position is justified by 'works'. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20) "And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." (1 Samuel 15:22) First of all, is there a way to pin 'the flesh' on the angels? (Con is not that far off track.) Secondly, is obedience better than the Sacrifice of Christ? (Sorry but I am not going to press these issues with this particular Con.) But I am willing to go over one more verse- "Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into." (1 Peter 1:12) Proof enough for a Christian to understand that Michael and all the angels are worthless is that these angels did not bring us the Gospel. The angels don't even understand what the Gospel is. Proof that Christians don't have any need or use for angels is that the Holy Ghost has come down from heaven and indwells us. The Holy Ghost is our power. Not some second rate power like a bunch of ignorant angels. But we must focus on the last part of the verse- "which things the angels desire to look into." Sorry for your luck all those who think that the Church is a gazing stock. The Church as the Bride of Christ is going to spend eternity in Heaven with Her Husband. We are not going to be spending eternity being stared at. What we do is none of their business. Besides the right of privacy between Christ and His Bride- Do you really think that a jealous Husband is going to put up with a group of bores sitting around talking trash about His Bride's shortcomings, and how the bores, (read angels) never sinned and how the angels are owed by God? Anyone who thinks that is just as ignorant as those angels at the end of 1 Peter 1:12
Michael the Archangel is a punk

My opponent didn't challenge the definitions I offered, so the issue has been dropped, and the definitions are deemed to be accepted by both parties for the remainder of the debate. With that in mind, in order to meet his/her burden of proof, my opponent STILL needs to show that Michael the Archangel is not only "without worth", but also a "human being". He/she now has one round to do so. I wish my opponent luck. As for my opponent's second round claims, nowhere in the passages He/she quoted was Michael the Archangel mentioned. Therefore, all of my opponent's claims are self-refuting.
Michael the Archangel is a punk

What is the prob there Con? God is a person. Is the archangel now better than God? Maybe Con does not understand hierarchy? A general is not a captain. A captain is not a sergeant. And so forth- The archangel is being challenged. A court marshal is in order. The archangel is falling from the top on down the ranks to an 'it'. Because that is what hell makes out of a person, an 'it'. We will start with the 'Prodigal Son': Identifying the characters- 1 Father 2 Older son 3 Younger son "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:6) We can identify who the father is- God We can identify who the youngest son is- each one of us according to Isaiah In the parable the oldest son complains saying that he never turned away from the father. So according to Isaiah the oldest son cannot be human, (excepting for Christ, but He is the one telling the parable and Christ never complained about us Prodigals). God created the angels first. And the Bible calls them sons of God in the OT. Approximately one-third of the angels did turn away from God. That would leave us with the archangel and his angels. They are the older brother in this parable because there is no one else left. In the Book of Genesis the Cherubim prohibit mankind from the Tree of Life. In other parts of the Books of Moses the Cherubim are depicted as covering the Mercy Seat in a cunning manner. In other words the Cherubim are between mankind and the Mercy of God. Jude said that the archangel would not bring a railing accusation against the devil. How very pious. Or is there another reason? In the Book of Daniel the messenger was sent with the answer to Daniel's prayer but just couldn't seem to overcome the bad guy. But this is all just small stuff. So what if mankind is denied access to the Tree of Life by the angels. So what if the archangel won't stand up against mankind's greatest foe even though the archangel has two to one odds. So what if the Cherubim over shadow God's Mercy to us. Mankind deserves such treatment and more. So what if man goes to hell because he couldn't make contact with God Almighty. It is as Isaiah has said- Mankind has turned his back on God.
Michael the Archangel is a punk

Since my opponent is the instigator, and has made the positive claim, the burden of proof is on him/her. My opponent must show that Michael the.Archangel is a "punk". My opponent has defined a "punk" as "a worthless person". With that in mind, I have provided the definition of "worthless", and "person". Keep in mind, in order for my opponent to win, not only does he have to show Michael the Archangel to be "worthless", but he must also be able to show him to be a PERSON (and not an ANGEL). I wish my opponent luck! And now for the definitions: worthless: without worth; of no use, importance, or value; good-for-nothing [1] person: a human being, whether an adult or child [2] Sources 1. :http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Michael the Archangel is a punk

punk: definition- a worthless person punk: adjective- in poor or bad conditions The Pro position, (mine) is that all the Angels, (both fallen and those not yet fallen) are the enemies of the Church. As always my main source for this debate will be the Bible. Con is welcome to use any source and good luck Con. Opening argument: Michael, Gabriel and the Cherubim are not the good guys that they have been represented as. They have a fatal flaw. The flaw is contained in hierarchy- 1 God 1 God 2 Angels 1 God 2 Angels 3 Fallen Angels 1 God 2 Angels 3 Mankind 4 Fallen Angels 1 God 2 Angels 3 Fallen Angels 4 Mankind 1 God 2 Angels 3 Regenerated Mankind 4 Fallen Angels 5 Un-regenerated Mankind 1 God 2 Regenerated Mankind 3 Angels 4 Fallen Angels 5 Un-regenerated Mankind
Benevolent Communism is Untried

I must ask if my opponent is high. The only good strategies he can make from this situation is to delay it long enough that people will get bored upon the passing of time, making absolutely no votes or to reappear at the last moment and make the Chewbacca Defense. I condemn his actions if he is to appear at the last moment pleading that he gives me chance to respond in a fair fight, not a backstabbing assasination that makes up 95% of Call of Duty kills. To prevent his i will add another benevolent communist nation to my list. Laos: This country is extremely harmless. It is a country developed fully with the internet available and poverty nowhere below average. I also do not think it has been corrupted as has the USSR, especially when you consider that the highest ranking official the president (Choummal Sayasone) has a stub for a wikipedia article ensuring that power is not concentrated in anyones hands. I finally implore my opponent to respond quickly or else this will be turned from a debate to a lecture. And fight fairly, please.
Benevolent Communism is Untried

I am surprised by how people are taking this. I do not support communism yet want to say that the flower child peaceful government created imagined by weed-nicks is nothing new, to counter the "this is a new government" plea pulled by both the Greeks and Romans. My opponent also seems to know absolutely nothing on communism as the original ideas in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto and Plato's Republic are not evil and are in fact impossibly Utopian. All the malevolent communist governments were so due to corruption. But now I burst my first choice. Nepal: Although not fully Communist much of it's government is part of the communist party and it's president (considered right wing) is a democratic socialist. At one point it met the Marxist definition of communist and at no point in recent history has been accused of any civil rights problems and has a surprisingly well Human Development Index for a country with most of it's population in mountain cities too small to have wikipedia pages. It overall fits the flower child dream with monasteries and drugs abundant. Jonestown (first few years): If you get past the late crimes commited due Jone's drug abuse and mass suicide the early Jonestown was functional and I admit it barely makes it on my list. In it's early years The People's Temple worked socially to give free services such as legal advice and religious duty, and was very racially progressive, only being ruined by a mass murder and some human rights violations only around the level of Scientology. Venezuala: Much of this country's controversy is unwarranted. With the exception of freedom of the press and a few human rights violations you would find in the most progressive Arab country, there are no major problems with the country honestly trying it's best. And these are a few of the national communes, that execute the hippie ideal of a benign communist state.
Benevolent Communism is Untried

benevolent Communism doesn't exist because communism started with Karl Marx, Also that communism is not socialism but socialism leads to communism. A variety of different forms of communism have developed, each based upon the ideas of different political theorists, usually as additions or interpretations of various forms of Marxism, the collective philosophies of Karl Marx. Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky are credited with the basic concepts, with a lot of formative input from Vladimir Illyich Lenin, near the beginning of the 20th century. Without Karl Marx's you cannot have this so called benevolent Communism.
Benevolent Communism is Untried

I am here to counter the beleif that Communism not led by people with malevolent intentions has never been attempted in the same way democracy and monarchy were once new ideas. This beleif has been suggested by many beatnicks, peacenicks, weednicks (word made by me) and no-good-nicks to support them getting their own government (resulting Pot-land imagined by the Nostalgia Critic). I do not mean fully benevolent (such a thing doesn't exist) I don't mean sovereign nations (unnoficial soceities count also such as gangs, cults and so on count too) and I don't mean true Communism as envisioned by Karl Marx (degrees of socialism could easily count.)
Atheism is a lie

truth is logical belief=being convinced of something that is not true disbelief=belief to the contrary all believers are disbeliever by denial in the lights of all other possibilities to the contrary, like i am wearing a green blue red hat.. if you believe i am wearing a yellow hat you are a disbeliever on green blue and red.. know=non belief=true=something=these words on the screen=sense=life if your position is that god can not be known then your position is that god can not be true.. is it true if you dont know it? how do you know know=physical experience god is information, information is the opposite of matter, matter is true only the time of now is true disbelief is by belief, all other religions are to the contrary of your particular religion, you are an atheist to all these possibilities atheism is theism.. theism is belief.. belief=be lie agnostic=let the content of the ufo in the night sky remain an unsolved mystery=i accept i dont know=maybe=true
Atheism is a lie

I am Pro. I have yet to recieve a satisfactory rebuttle to this argument. Hopefully, this time around , my opponent will not use critical fallacies one after another in place of his argument. If you do not know what a "fallacy" is, please do not accept this debate.There are no rules in logical debates. The only rule is that you be logical. If you are illogical , or only want to discuss things based on a matter of your own opinion, please do not accept this debate.I present 3 constructs, in which i argue each is a logical truth on its own.. As well as my final conclusion being deduced from the combination of all three constructs. You can attempt to refute any part of my construct, definitions or logic. Just please do so logically.My resolution is "Atheism is a lie."Below is my logical argument supporting my resolution.Belief...assumption of truth with or without evidenceDisbelief assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence.Faith. An assertive Belief without valid evidence.Knowing. An assertive belief with valid evidence.Construct 1Premise1 : no one can know if God exists of not.Premise2: to claim to know is to have valid evidenceConclusion: whoever claims to know if God exists or not, is a liar.Construct 2Premise 1: Believers claim they have faith God exists.Premise 2: to have faith is a belief without valid evidence (see defintions)Conclusion: Believers do not claim to "know" if God exists.Construct 3Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists.Premise 2: disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions)Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists.Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.Report this ArgumentReport this Argument
Atheism is a lie

poison=unhealthy(logic) logical=dont eat poisonous things to stay healthy illogical=eat poisonous things to stay healthy logic is real, there is no logic in fantasy a=1=1=stone=stone life is true, no belief involved i have no doubt, so i have no good reason to trust or distrust know=certain=true=logic you are confusing logic with reasoning, logic is the opposite of reason.. there is no cause and effect in fantasy, no necessety of motion
Atheism is a lie

Sigh.,,i appreciate Con for providing an attempt to use logic. I'd ask Con if he knows anything about programming, as it seems he does not. Logic is not an A=B proposition. Nor is an A=B=C a logical construct, nor is it even an equation that contains an ounce of truth at all. Saying A=B=C=D because a=b=c=d, does not provide any links betwen A or a. To say A=a is an assumption that has yet to be defined. What assumption is the arguer using? That a is a lower case A. The only reason such is such, is through human convention. Words and letters are agreed upon conventions. And i simply do not agree with Con's unconventional definitions. Does Con not believe his parents love him? Does con not believe he is real? Does Con not believe that tomorrow will come?Anything uncertain requires a degree of belief. So IF u say that you disbelief anything uncertain = then u cannot know anything uncertain. That is how logic works. Con needs to go back to the drawing board on his logic. Logic is an "if A then B proposition."
A Resolution to Increase Natural Gas Production

Thanks, Pro, for instigating this debate challenge. As is customary in National Forensic League topics (congressional format included), I'll allow Pro to write his constructive speech first.[1] This is necessary as the burden of proof is on the maker of the proposition.[2] Con's sole duty is to refute Pro's claims. Obviously, it is impossible to do this when the affirmative has yet to lay out his case! With that, I defer to my opponent. Regards, J.Kenyon -- References -- 1. http://www.bedford.k12.va.us... 2. http://www.nizkor.org...