BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States ought not to intervene in the political processes of other sovereign nations

I. To Review:A. The United States ought not to intervene in the political processes of other sovereign nations because:a. It creates for these nations a dependency on the United States that the United States does not have the means to sustain.b. The creation of dependent nations, made weak through foreign political interference ultimately weakens stability of the entire world.c. This interference harms the United States, itself through both expenses and foreign relations.B. The policy of foreign interventionism does not maximize overall happiness.a. Sovereign nations, having claimed their sovereignty and its rights granted through the UN charter, do not appreciate foreign intervention.b. The United States, in distributing this political intervention, actually worsens its relations overseas.II. Reasons for an Affirmative win:A. Value Clasha. As debate is in the Lincoln Douglas format, the point therefore being to uphold throughout the debate a single value, I will proceed to the value clash.b. My opponent has not provided a value, nor has he clashed with mine, thus the value I have proved, being justice, stands.B. Clash and Concessiona. My opponent has failed to clash with any points in my case; therefore they stand and flow through the round. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------One correction: In the last paragraph of my last round speech I said "The state of affairs is obviously one which has maximized overall happiness." This, of course is a discrepancy and should be replaced with "...has not maximized overall happiness."
The United States ought not to intervene in the political processes of other sovereign nations

Because my opponent was unable to refute my case, all contentions established in my affirmative constructive flow through to subsequent rounds. I will use this round to: 1. Clarify my sources from round one.2. Refute the initial comments my opponent made in the beginning of round one.Round One Sources1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs http://psychology.about.com... 2. Right of Nations to Self-Determination http://www.marx2mao.com... 3. UN Charter http://www.un.org... As my opponent offered no new arguments, I will proceed to counter his initial arguments given in the first round. In order to do this with clarity I offer the following definitions: 1. Utilitarianism: The ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall happiness. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 2. Moral Agent: A being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy “The United States is an able moral agent; therefore [it] has an obligation to carry out global security (utilitarianism).” My opponent assumes that when the United States intervenes in the political processes of other sovereign nations, it, by definition by utilitarianism, “maximizes the overall happiness” of the globe. It is because the United States is an able moral agent, that they must not supply this political interference. Utilitarianism is the last value that could be achieved in this resolution’s scenario. My opponent stated that the United States has an “obligation to carry out global security,” however, the nation hardly has the means to accomplish such and feat, nor would it be beneficial to them if they did. The U.S. spends billions of dollars each year on foreign intervention, and when, through political intervention, there is created a world of nations who cannot boast their own sovereignty and will rely on others for aid. The U.S., however, does not have the strength to maintain itself along with the other sovereign nations of the world; therefore it also jeopardizes its own sovereignty. Another set of costs associated with interventions are political. The United States’ policy of intervention won the country few new friends and worsened its relations with several powerful nations. [1] The state of affairs is obviously one which has maximized overall happiness. Again, on this topic readers may cross apply specifically contention one and three in my affirmative constructive case, all of which, including contention two and my value and value criterion have gone uncontended by my opponent. [1] A treatise on foreign affairs http://people.umass.edu...
Technology should replace human labor

I'd like to apologize to somewhat breaking the debate's structure, but I'd like to point out that my arguments (points) from the last round still stands because it did rebut some of my opponent's points in round 2 and a lot of my opponent's points from round 2 can easily be found in that last round. Since I have already defended my points though, I'll use this final round for my conclusion. Conclusion: In the past rounds me and my opponent have gone back and forth about whether or it'll be a good idea to replace human labour with technology. My point was that it wasn't. I brought up how no matter, how many people you replace, or how few, the country will go into an extreme economic crisis either way. Things are already bad here since we already owe China trillions of dollars. Also, any body can turn technology against us to get anything. The interenet is already a weapon, as it is used to steal people's personal information. Technology will also ruin relationships and families, more so than it already does. Technology also ruins our education and minds. It prevents us from remembering anything or learning anything. So we'll never obtain any skills at all, let alone new ones. Plus, by all techicalities, technology is a drug as we can get addicted to it. In otherwords. Technology has ruined our lives and will continue to do so. There's nothing we can do that will make it any better. Now the only question that remains is this. Do we want to have purpose in our lives? Or do we want a bunch of robots doing everything for us? In other sense. Do we want to have a chance at evolution or plunge into a de-evolution. Again I'd like to thank my opponent for this opportunity to debate this topic and I hope to debate them again sometime. Also, because of what day I'm typing this up. .. . Happy Thanksgiving.
Technology should replace human labor

In the last years technology has improved quickly. These technologies change the way we live a lot. To give an example, the smart phone enabled us to find all the information we want to know no matter where we are. Some other technologies automated tasks, which means people are no longer required to do those tasks. Like how the self-driving cars can replace drivers and how self-help checkouts replace cashiers.Not everybody supports this trend but as pro, I do support this.The burden of proof in this debate is shared. The participants have 72 hours to write their posts and the character limit is 10.000. Only people with at least 2 completed debates can accept this debate. If you have any questions/remarks, please post them in the comments.Terms:Technology: the use of science in industry, engineering, etc., to invent useful things or to solve problems (1)Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling6. Both debaters accept the definitions of the defined terms7. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 8. Violation of any of these rules means the conduct point should be given to the opponent Structure: Round 1: acceptance (no arguments) Round 2: presenting arguments (no rebuttals) Round 3: rebuttals Round 4: defenses (no new arguments) Sources: 1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
buang ka.................(in english)THBT bush IS a good leader

The only argument is that bush has "helped thousands of people". However, simply because a person helps others, this is not suffcient to make them a GOOD leader. As an example, a leader may commit a mass genocide, while simultaneously sending foreign aide and thus helping thousands of people. This action would certainly not make him a good leader. Further, Princeton WordNet defines a leader as: 1. a person who rules or guides or inspires others. By this definition, Bush can not be a "good" leader, because not only has he lost political influence both inside and outside of the the United States, rendering him unable to fulfill the "rules or guides" part of the definition; he is now so strongly opposed by so much of his own country, that his actions fail to inspire the people, again rendering him unable to meet the definition of a leader. If Bush can not even meet the baseline definition of what it means to be a leader, he is also certainly unable to be a "good" leader, so only the CON side ought to be looked to.
It is easier to prove the soul exists then the physical body

My case: I. Phyical bodies can be dected by human senses, and infared signituresPhycial bodies have some form of decetrion, where as in souls cannot be dected by anything. Yes, the argument that reality is a dream is valid, but that does not prove that souls are real. Based on the definition of real (to have actual being), we can safley conclude based on our senses, and others with no mental health problems agreeing that a phyical body existing. Thus, making it easier to prove physical objestcs existing. Physical bodies can also be dected by heat singitures, making it easier to assume that the physical body exists. II. Souls cannot be deceted through senses, or infared signituress. (Or any other valid method of dectection)Souls, unlike physical bodies CAN NOT be dected through senses, or any other valid method of detection. Thus, making the idea that souls exist, less likley. Throwing out assumptions without any evidence such as "Reality can be a dream", although is possible, it has no evidence to support. Now, you can say it does not need any evidence, but we have MORE evidence that phycical bodies exist rather than souls exist. Rebuttals: "If you think, you have a soul." If you think, you have a brain. "Thoughts are immaterial in nature, so if you experience thinking it follows that you do have immaterial parts (a soul). This does also ring true with other immaterial parts such as beliefs or feelings. So coming to knowledge" Thoughts can be dected through electrical impulses through activity in brain, souls cannot. The idea of souls holds no backup evidence, making it MUCH harder to prove souls than physical bodies. Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...
It is easier to prove the soul exists then the physical body

How does one know that they have a soul? If you think, you have a soul. Thoughts are immaterial in nature, so if you experience thinking it follows that you do have immaterial parts (a soul). This does also ring true with other immaterial parts such as beliefs or feelings. So coming to knowledge of the soul is very easy because you experience immaterial things all the days of your life. But we come to an interesting problem when it comes to the physical world, how does one know that this isn’t all an illusion, say you’re just dreaming? While I don’t want to take the position that it’s impossible to prove that the physical world exists, that I don’t know… But I think surely it must be more daunting to prove material objects over the immaterial ones.
It is easier to prove the soul exists then the physical body

Rebuttals:I. Paragraph 1: Yes, it is true you cannot always trust your senses, but I fail to see how this proves my opponent's point. There is no evidence-not even from senses or other ways of detection that can prove the existence of souls. At least we have evidence from our senses, as well as technology that can prove that there is a tree in a backyard. (As an example, some don't have trees in backyards). Where there is no evidence from souls, but just assumptions. Paragraph 2: Again, my opponent's logic is that if you think you have a soul, there IS a soul. Thinking there is a soul does NOT mean there IS a soul. It means you have thoughts through impulses in brain, not a spirit of any kind. II. Paragraph 1: My opponent has stated he cannot prove other's souls exist, because he does not know what they believe. This means, that souls are a BELIEF through thoughts in the brain. But, I can prove that a tree exists byA. My sensesB. Other sensesC. Camara imagingD. Heat signiture But, my opponent can "prove" souls by A. He thinks there is oneEven that method is false, because my opponent's logic seems to be thoughts or self awarness means it is true. When really, it means they are just electrical impulses, NOT actual things in existence. "If you think, you have a brain" RebuttalAgain, from a logical prepectice thoughts are electrical impulses not spirits or entites. "Thoughts can be dected through electrical impulses through activity in brain, souls cannot. The idea of souls holds no backup evidence, making it MUCH harder to prove souls than physical bodies." RebuttalOk, when did thoughts or ideas have to be a determination of existence? Thoughts are not spirtual. They are simply electrical impulses, and it doesn't mean the IDEA of a soul means the soul exists. But, there is far more evidence for physical objects than something like souls.
Donald Trump for President

Hello all, I would just like to run a list of things off that show that Hillary Clinton is unfit for office and I would like to hear someone's thoughts on how to debunk these points. Hopefully my opponent can offer Trump points that show he is unfit for office and then we can have a debate over why they are correct points (same for me). Ok lets get started: 1) Hillary Clinton's email scandal -How can we trust a candidate who has used a private server with thousands of e-mails jeopardizing national security? Also, how do you feel about the 33,000 e-mails she deleted and her congress members pleading the 5th in order to not testify in the case? 2) She is sick and lies about it -She is seen in videos with seizure like tendencies with loud noises, can't stop coughing in interviews, and has tremors while standing still. All of these can be found easily on youtube. Now had she been transparent it might not be so bad, but it took weeks for us Americans to find out she "had pneumonia" which only explains coughing and not much else. 3) Her special interests outweigh her own interests -She has received over 25% of Super Pac donations to her campaign in order to protect the upper class corporation's special interests and pushing legislation in their favor while Trump has received only a small 1% and the rest comes from us Americans or his own pocket. 4) Benghazi -Hillary had no control over the compound and had 0 security installed in order to prevent attacks on it. This controversy also started the e-mail investigations. How can we trust a person who can not even control a compound to control an entire nation? I feel worried at the possibility of an attack with Hillary overseeing our safety. I hope my opponent can give articulate examples as to why these things Hillary has been accused of are not bad and how they do not affect her or put her in a worse light than Trump in the election. Also, providing a list of things Trump has done that would allow me to respond to if they want. We can stick to just defending and attacking Hillary if my opponent desires. Thank you.
developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.

I stand in the strongest negation to the resolution," Developing countries should prioritze environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict. 1. The developing countries have too unstable of an economy to be able to prioritize environmental protection. And doing so, would create more detriments than benefits. 2. The most pressing issue that developing countries must adress is poverty and only when they have fulfilled the socioeconomic needs of their citizens can they thinking about prioritizing the environment.
Religion/Christianity

It is interesting that you argue against people who believe in religion for their irrationalities and their hostility towards different beliefs. You seem to imply that religion makes the world shallow (correct me if I'm wrong). The problem is not religion; its people who refuse to critically engage their world. This goes far beyond religion. For example, you maintain individualism: "Don't give god credit for things that YOU accomplish. When you sit down to eat don't thank god for putting food on the table. He did not put it there. You put it there because you got your own job on your own terms and went to the store bought your food and made it." Before I go further, I would recommend that you create an explicit straightforward argument. What is your conclusion? Religion is not worth following? Religion makes the world shallow?
Religion/Christianity

Christianity or any religion for that matter that requires you to dedicate your life to it is not worth it. Saying for sure that any one religion is correct is almost pointless because depending on how you were raised, your beliefs that you are even exposed to changes. People brought up to believe that Christianity is correct has the same sted fast beliefs in their religion as a Muslim brought up to believe that Christians should all die. Just as Christians believe it is ok to make people's eternal souls burn in hell forever, a Muslim believe it is ok to kill Christians because the world must be rid of "infidels." I ask why would anyone dedicate their life to worshiping something that is really just about a 1 in 200 chance that it is correct. No one can prove where religion began but people will blindly vow to follow them. It is very possible to live a good life with good morals and good intent without saying you are doing it for a deity. Don't give god credit for things that YOU accomplish. When you sit down to eat don't thank god for putting food on the table. He did not put it there. You put it there because you got your own job on your own terms and went to the store bought your food and made it. I find it funny that people have to say they are who they are because of god or their religion because really they are who they are because of their morals and the values they hold to be important in life. Many people from many backgrounds have many of the same core values and beliefs but they will never be able to enjoy each others company because people aren't willing to talk to people of different religions openly. This world has gotten very shallow.
Russia would defeat the USA in a war.

There are many reasons that the USA would beat Russia in a war. One of these contributing factors is that the American population is a lot larger than the Russian population. Russian population is about 143.5 million and American population is about 313.9 million. Also, America spends a lot more money on the military than Russia does. America has spent about 700 billion dollars contributed to the military in the year of 2011, while Russia spent only about 100 billion dollars. So Americas' military is obviously a lot stronger. America also has better weapons (this is a debatable opinion). Now I will get into battle formations. Since a large portion of Russian landscape is the Siberian mountains, America could easily take many jets through the Arctic Ocean, (probably without being spotted by the Russians). They would fly over the Siberian Mountains, Far Eastern Russia, and most of the Urals where they tend to have very little to no population of mostly nomadic herders. They would probably have no possible way of contacting the Russian millitary about the invasion and would land in the Urals as close to civilization as possible. Those troups would break into six teams. One team would go into each-- Oblast, Republic, (and a Krai) to start spreaking their way across Russia with allies flying in ASAP. Then, they would take over the territories of Korma, Perm, Sverdiovsk, Tyumer, Omsk, and Tomsk. They would be driving heavy- terrain vehicles and jets would be keeping a close eye on them while in the air. Then the teams and the back up would poor into the country and start spreading further into the territories. The largest team would be targeting Moscow. and St. Peterburg. Then, the navy would be taking the islands and start surrounding Russia. America would spread in all directions (targeting Russian Millitary bases as first priority). They would soon have taken over Russia before Russia could do very much about it. Also, hate to bring it up. Don't read this section if you don't want to because it goes against the rules. Also please don't count this section as anything relevant to the voting. America has more allies and so the allies will either help America invade or not do anything about it. America would gain a lot of power by invading Russia, and probably gain a lot of money off of the many recources, so the allies of America would have a great trading oppurtunity with eachother. Russia wouldn't be able to do much about any of this, so America would surely win. The odds are in our favor. The Urals, Siberia, and Far Eastern Russia really are great areas to start an invasian. They are Russias' greatest weakness. I doubt the war would last very long. That sums up the largest part of my argument. Thank you for your time.
Russia would defeat the USA in a war.

I will be arguing that Russia would defeat the USA in a war. These will be the conditions for our debate. 1. No nuclear weaponry. Just "traditional" warfare. 2. No allies, just 1 v 1, Russia vs. USA. 3. US is the aggressor (realistic considering America's aggressive war history.) 4. My opponent has the choice of arguing how/from where the US would strike. 5. Total war. No outside help, just the two countries brawling it out. 6. We will not consider future military projects, only what resources/weaponry the countries have today. If you have any questions or want me to specify something, ask in the comment section. Please begin your argument.
Abortion should be illegal

Final Speech: Argument 1: reproductive coercion My opponent has admitted that there are cases warranting abortion! This means that my opponent is agreeing that abortion should be restricted, though not made illegal. By saying this, my opponent has conceded the round. Argument 2: Racism My opponent has misunderstood my racism argument. I am not saying that abortion is racist, I am saying that making abortion illegal is in essence institutionalized racism because it is denying a choice made primarily by blacks. Extend this argument as it has gone unrefuted. Argument 3: Human being What is important in this argument is that my opponent doesn't use sources whereas I do. This means that my claims have more backing and you should vote neg for this point. I have a definition, my opponent does not. Argument 4: Women feeling bad This point has been dropped and should thus be voted Con. Argument 5: tax dollars This point has been dropped and should thus be voted Con. Voting points: Spelling/grammar: "My opponent were saying" -Aff Vote con for better grammar. Conduct: No clear winner Sources: The Neg had better and more sources. Arguments: See above for the five main points in this round. Accordingly, I negate.