BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There will be a nuclear war inside two generations.

Man I wish this debate was five rounds! And yes, the fact that the two of us see these sociopaths for what they are (gangsters) rather than ‘leaders’ will ensure our communication remains effective on this subject. We’ve obviously both already swallowed the red pill on that one. Here’s where I think your train of thought derails though. These narcissists are utterly consumed with three things (and I think simply by observing their actions one cannot help but agree). They are: Self-preservation The aggrandizement of their own wealth and power Legitimacy Initiating a nuclear holocaust threatens all three. Even retaliating to such an initiation stands to be scrutinized before reacting blindly (see point 1). The sociopath who will happily send his subjects to die in conventional warfare to advance his agenda (see point 2) finds his very agenda threatened if he engages in nuclear warfare – and this he cannot have, as he is too myopic and self-centered to think about anything or anyone besides himself. You have to ask yourself, if the gangsters in Israel want to incinerate Tehran in a ‘preemptive act of self-defense’, what exactly are they waiting on? Obviously it would be completely illogical for Israel to wait until Iran has a nuclear stockpile, which it eventually will (see point 1). If these crazy people (not just the gangsters in Israel, but governments everywhere) are so dead set on using mass destruction and mass murder to advance their agendas, why does nobody do it? Why hasn’t it happened since WW2? Why is every example of ‘we got really close this one time’ you offered in Round 1 an unintentional blunder rather than a premeditated act of aggression that was somehow thwarted by rational discourse and civility? The answer is because nuclear warfare doesn’t advance anybody’s agenda. Even the gangsters know that nuclear warfare threatens their personal life, their personal property, and their legitimacy – all at one fell swoop no less. It only worked one time (and whether it actually ‘worked’ or was even necessary is of course the subject of another debate entirely), and that’s only because one single gangster on the global stage had the bomb. Now indeed the situation in the Middle East (and especially Syria as you have pointed out) is volatile right now. But more volatile than what exactly? The Cold War? The Cuban missile crisis? The Middle East at any other time within the past forty years? Not particularly! Al Capone’s media might be making the situation appear overly detrimental at the moment so that he can sway the public at large (see point 3) to agree to conventional warfare to further his personal agenda – but do not be fooled. He is just as scared of the bomb as everybody else is. Good times and look forward to Round 3.
There will be a nuclear war inside two generations.

I hope to accomplish two goals by participating in this debate and winning it. I will affirm your suspicion that governments are not to be trusted. I will give ample reason for you to be confident that nuclear war amongst nations will not happen within two generations precisely because we are correct about the previous affirmation Sound crazy? Keep reading. First the facts as you have already presented. There is only one government on the planet that has ever dropped a nuclear bomb on anyone. We all know which government that is, and anyone with a brain knows why that government got away with it. (for those of you without a brain, the reason that government got away with it is because it was the only legal mafia in possession of a nuclear bomb the moment it was detonated). Other governments responded quickly to defend themselves, hence the proliferation of nuclear might amongst multiple nation states. The trend continues today as less wealthy governments find any way (scruples be damned) to get on a level playing field with their rival gangsters. What we are witnessing is simple: the gangsters are competing for the best firepower to keep other gangsters off their turf. Once the playing field is equal, these weapons of mass destruction will continue to collect more dust as they have since more than one mafia acquired them.
Paul McCartney gave a better musical contribution to the Beatles than John Lennon did.

Since I've got epic latency issues at the moment and can't play a single online game *twitch* I suppose I have a bit more time to do some debates. Like this one, which interests me. There is a common point made amongst Beatle fans. That despite the sweeping Lennon/McCartney writiing credits on all their songs, that certain songs are "Paul" songs and others are distinctly "John" songs. An example of songs I consider to be "Paul" songs are Blackbird, Hey Jude and Yesterday. Some examples of "John" songs are Helter Skelter, Revolution and Everybodies Got Something To Hide (Except for Me and My Monkey). John didn't necessarily sing John songs and vice versa, but around the Rubber Soul/Revolver period, the songwriting duo definitely began writing different types of songs. I am a massive fan of Lennon and will be flying his freak flag high, god bless him. There are other aspects outside this, but I will save my ample Beatle related knowledge until after my opponent has made an argument.
Selfies should not affect your self-esteem.

ok, i get it how you're trying to say that girls shouldn't have their self esteem determined by simple pictures, but you obviously don't understand women. Women have their self esteem affected by everything. Also, because of today's society, women are even more prone to have their beauty affect their self esteem (1). Therefore, taking simple pictures of themselves should affect their self esteem. I'm not saying that this is a good thing. I'm not saying that bullying doesn't happen. I'm just saying that if you use logical sense and analyze how woman think, it's obvious that stuff like this should happen. Especially girls with low self esteem can have their self esteem even more effected by slefies. Girls with low self esteem are natural perfectionists, and this creates an urge to have every person like their photos (2). Therefore, like I've said time and time again, the way women think should make them naturally prone to being addicted to posting selfies, being sad when people don't like their selfies, and ultimately letting their self esteem being determined by it. (1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;(2) http://www.getesteem.com...;
Selfies should not affect your self-esteem.

First off, we need to clarify what we are debating. We are not arguing whether girl's self esteem is affected by selfies, because that's not the title of the debate. We are arguing whether they should. You say selfies should not affect a person's self esteem, I'm saying they should. Now using the definition of the word "should" (1) we would see that self esteem should effect a person's self esteem quite early:shouldUsed to express probability or expectationBecause of how girls are wired, especially they would be affected by selfies. Reasons for this is because of how addicting it is to feel loved. If a girl gets 300 likes on a selfie, they will feel a burst of pride and self worthiness. That leads to satisfaction (2) and makes them feel good. They feel wanted, loved, and liked. They want to to do it again, and they eventually do it all the time. They want that satisfaction a lot, and it defines who they are. It affects them a lot, and don't you think that this should affect their self esteem? It just seems logical to me.Because it is proven that girls (and sometimes guys too) are affected by selfies, con is the correct point of view to how the statement is worded.(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;(2) http://socialtimes.com...;
Selfies should not affect your self-esteem.

Selfies started as just posting a picture of yourself with another person for the purpose of posting a picture with your friend. When it started transitioning to posting a picture of yourself alone is when it got dangerous. Teenage girls, specifically, are so overcome with how many likes they get that they compare it to how they actually look in person. If they don't have enough likes ~ they aren't pretty enough. Who thinks that selfies do not affect teenage girls self esteem and why?
Salazzle should be in OU (2)

As something to dish out poison, Salazzle is, once again, hopelessly outclassed; Chansey is way bulkier and has recovery and a good defensive typing. Salazzle, however, has no recovery other than in rest and passive recovery in leftovers, and has a horrible type defensively (weak to ground, water, psychic, and rock). Other mons which outclass Salazzle for setting poison: Blissey, Ferrothorn, Toxapex, Amoongus, Crobat, Gliscor, Klefki, and Tentacruel, just to name a few. Venoshock is hilariously unviable on any team which doesn't have toxic spikes, and having toxic spikes makes Salazzle setting poison redundant. Corrosion is bad, and anyone who understands the current metagame recognises this. If you think otherwise, you'd have to justify why it's good, but you have failed to do so.
Salazzle should be in OU (2)

Salazzle's still good for support. A poisoned pokemon would slowly lose HP, and if they're badly poisoned (the specific status Toxic does), the opponent will lose more HP per turn. And having a pokemon with Venoshock makes for great sweeping capabilities, as Venoshock deals lots of damage to poisoned pokemon. And how is Corrosion not a good ability? It's perfect for weakening the opponent!
Salazzle should be in OU (2)

Salazzle's speed and special attack are respectable, but nothing particularly special. Salazzle's movepool really brings it down- flamethrower, sludge bomb/wave, and hidden power are effectively its only usable moves, and they are a very weak combination, offering little to deal with many types of pokemon, such as rock. Salazzle is masively outclassed by M-Charizard Y who has 48 higher base SpA, drought boosts to fire STABs, an a movepool that doesn't suck with access to Solarbeam, Air slash, Focus Blast and many other moves which give it much better coverage. Heatran, Volcarona, Victini, Chandelure, Infernape, Volcaneon, Arcanine, Infernape, Entei and countless other fire-types outclass salazzle in similar ways. Likewise, Slazzle is outclassed as a poison type by many mons like Gengar, Crobat, Venusaur, Scolipede, Nihilego, and Nidoking, just to name a few. Corrosion is a bad gimmick, and serves no competitive use, although it is entertaining to play with. Salazzle is nowhere near good enough to be used viably in the OU tier. There's a reason it's C-rank in UU, and it will most likely end up seeing its only niche emerging in RU when the RU tier has finished being build.
Salazzle should be in OU (2)

Alright. Here's why Salazzle is a good candidate for OU. Salazzle has very good Special Attack and Speed, making her a good sweeper. Salazzle effectively fights Fairy, Bug, Grass, Ice, and Steel types. This type coverage allows for many resistances, such as Fighting, Grass, Fairy, and Bug type attacks. If you don't want Salazzle as offense, there's a set for support as well. Her ability is Corrosion, which allows her to poison Steel and Poison types, whereas other pokemon can not. If you include the moves Substitute, Disable, and Toxic in the move set, then Salazzle becomes a dangerous poisoner. You'd first place a substitute, which makes a barrier out of 25% of the user's HP. Chances are, the opponent uses a Super Effective attack like Earthquake. Since Salazzle has good Speed, she uses Substitute first. Then, after the Substitute breaks, you use Disable so the opponent can't use that move. Place another Sub, and Toxic. And this debate isn't going to change any tiering on Pokemon Showdown, I know. But we're debating if Salazzle should be in OU, based on how good she is competitively. Current usage is irrelevant to this debate.
Salazzle should be in OU (2)

That's not how the Smogon tiering system works; OU stands for "Over used", not "Over powered", and any pokemon which sees a usage of 3.41% or larger is considered "OU", and anything with less usage is, by definition, not "OU". Salazzle objectively has not reached the requirements needed to be considered OU. The closest you can get is arguing that it should be banned to BL, as this would mean OU is the lowest tier it is allowed in, but it's simply not good enough at the moment to do that. It ranks at C in the UU VRs, which makes it mediocre in the tier below OU- it's nowhere near good enough in UU to warrant a ban to BL. (Source: http://www.smogon.com... ) My opponent has also yet to provide any reason as to why Salazzle should be used in OU.
Salazzle should be in OU (2)

I feel like Salazzle is underused in Pokemon Showdown. This debate is to figure out if Salazzle should be in the OU tier on Pokemon Showdown.Definitions:Salazzle; A Poison/Fire type Pokemon introduced in Sun/Moon. Here's the bulbapedia page: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...It's highly recommended you give it a read.Pokemon Showdown; An online Pokemon Battle Simulator run by Smogon. All of the Pokemon are there, so no catching, training, or rank ups are needed to get the perfect team.OU; OverUsed: A tier on Pokemon Showdown that has really good Pokemon. But there are more powerful Pokemon in a tier known as Ubers. (Note that usage is only 1 factor in a tier) It's recommended if you do research on Pokemon used in OU, as well as Salazzle herself. I await my challenger.
The husband betrays the wife

Rebuttal:Round 2:"The husband has broken the promise to jump on the count of three." Then again, weren't they supposed to suicide?"Everything else is irrelevant." So you're not questioning why the wife had a parachute? I think that's a crucial part of the story."If their agreement was to not bring parachutes, then the wife would have betrayed the husband." The agreement was to commit suicide. It also said "jump off a building", yes. But if the goal was suicide, then why did the wife bring a parachute?Round 3:"if they decided to jump off a building together, one did, and one didn't, that was the only promise they made, making the person who didn't jump a betrayal." Objection! You're still forgetting the very first sentence you made, "A couple decided to commit suicide after a horrible life.""While the wife allowed the husband to believe for the rest of his life that she was going to die with him, the husband gave no respect for the wife, and didn't comfort the thought that they would die together." Or the fact that the husband would die had he jumped."The husband initially betrayed his wife directly, by not thinking about her." What evidence do you have? I guess I'm saying something similar as well, though."The wife tried to allow the husband to believe that they were both going to die together, as a team." But the husband was suspicious of the wife's plans."The thing is, we don't know if they were ready to divorce, and the wife had made this as some sort of test. Looking at all the available information, one can only conclude that it is the husband who betrayed the wife." But then why did the wife bring a parachute?"I believe the wife brought the parachute to comfort her husband, as he's falling to his death." So the wife is like 'Hey sweetie! Don't worry, I'll live and you'll die!'? Haha, no.I believe the wife was planning to have the husband die, and herself alive.But the question is: Who is the true betrayer? The husband wanted the wife to die, yet the wife brought a parachute. The goal was death, but it was never achieved. In the end, it's all up to interpretation. I believe the wife wanted the husband to die, Pro believes the man wanted the wife to die. The existence of the wife's parachute makes me think this was planned by the wife in advance.So who do you think is correct?
The husband betrays the wife

In my opinion, if they decided to jump off a building together, one did, and one didn't, that was the only promise they made, making the person who didn't jump a betrayal.I believe the wife brought the parachute to comfort her husband, as he's falling to his death.While the wife allowed the husband to believe for the rest of his life that she was going to die with him, the husband gave no respect for the wife, and didn't comfort the thought that they would die together. The wife would have those last few seconds experiencing, agony, hatred, frustration, and confusion. She would feel betrayed.The husband initially betrayed his wife directly, by not thinking about her. The wife tried to allow the husband to believe that they were both going to die together, as a team.Therefore, the husband betrayed his wife worse. The thing is, we don't know if they were ready to divorce, and the wife had made this as some sort of test. Looking at all the available information, one can only conclude that it is the husband who betrayed the wife.
The husband betrays the wife

Here's my take on the scenario.Argument:Let's examine every statement in the story, and see which character's actions conradict."A couple decided to commit suicide after a horrible life." But, in reality, the wife brought a parachute. The husband didn't jump at all. They might've had a bad time, but not so bad as to warrant suicide."They decided to jump off a building." Only the wife actually jumped. The husband didn't jump. However, the wife brought a parachute."When they got to the top, they both counted to three." And at three, the time will come for their fate to be sealed. Nothing conradicts this statement."The wife jumped, but the husband stayed." Contrary to the wife's expectations, the husband didn't jump with her."The husband watched the wife drop for about 8 seconds and then saw a parachute open." Contrary to the husband's expectations, the wife had a parachute.Both survived. We don't know whose idea it was to jump. Let's assume the man made the plan to jump. Why'd the wife bring a parachute, then? Assuming the wife had the idea to jump, it makes a little more sense.Let's imagine the married couple weren't so happy. They were ready to divorce. The wife wondered if her husband would go so far as to jump off a skyscraper with her, possibly even to death. Because it's the wife's idea, she's able to prepare in advance, bringing a parachute. When at the building, they do a countdown. If the man did jump, the wife would watch him plummet to his death, so she could live a happy life. The man doesn't jump, so the wife can confirm that the husband doesn't love her, so she's able to get a divorce.This is what I believed happened.
The husband betrays the wife

A couple decided to commit suicide after a horrible life. They decided to jump off a building. When they got to the top, they both counted to three. The wife jumped, but the husband stayed. The husband watched the wife drop for about 8 seconds and then saw a parachute open. Who betrayed who?I believe that the husband betrayed his wife more than his wife betrayed him.Basically, the husband has betrayed the wife.I will argue my case, after this acceptance round;Second round is your defense;Third is your rebuttal/closing statement.
Euthanaia should be legal in all states

If you had an animal who was suffering, won't you help it, and let it die? Its totally cruelty to animals to keep it alive. It's the same with humans. To keep a sick human alive, who really wants to die, make no sense. Humans DON'T even want to be kept alive with drugs. Yes, I can understand if it's a young boy or girl, who has for example cancer. Young people are fighters, and old humans aren't. Young humans believes in miracles, but old humans has experienced their live, and they biggest wish is just to have a peacefully dead. To keep old humans alive cost a lot of money. Why don't we use this money to keep other humans alive who really want to be kept alive? Why do we use money to people who wants to die? I know doctors are very talented and can cure a lot of ailments, but you have to open your eyes, there are also a lot of ailments that not can be cured, also if they used a lot of time. If the doctor says, "We can't cure the patient", I think it would be very stupid to keep the patient alive, who is so scared of a painfully dead, and maybe commit suicide just because of fear. Think about it. Putting a patient, who doesn"t see a light in the end of the tunnel, throw pain is not fair. It's not just the patient who goes throw pain; it's also the family. Yes, doctors have the right to end a life, if the patient wants to. Doctors will always help their patients in the best way. If the best way were to die, doctors would help. I think it is really selfish to say that no one have the right to end a life. I know it can be tough to help a patient to die, but I think it's much harder to see the patient suffering. I have these statistics: More than a quarter of oncology patients had seriously thought about euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide and nearly 12 percent seriously discussed these interventions with physicians and others. I hope i opened up your eyes for the good side of euthanasia!
Euthanaia should be legal in all states

Given enough time, doctors can cure most ailments. In that time, if the patient feels pain, there are drugs like morphine to reduce it. Human beings dont have the right to end their life, whatever the situation. Whoever or whatever force put them on this planet is the sole entity that can choose. Old age is a deceptive thing. A person who feels like he going to die at 75 might live to be 90. If they opt for euthenasia they would have lost so many experiences, so many happy moments. Doctors are preservers. Not executioners. They help heal and aid their patients through pain. They have no right to end a life. No one does.
Euthanaia should be legal in all states

Of course people cannot just says, "I want to die now". I know drugs can take a lot of the pain, but a lot of sick people stop with taking their drugs because they want to die! Why let them die in pain?? Why not make a deal with the sick persons family? If the family say "Ok let my dad or mom die in peacefully". No one will ever see someone from his or her families die in pain. The patient can take drugs themselves, while the family holding the patients hand, so the patient fell save. Today patients can die, while the family not is there with the patient. The family doesn"t have a chance to say goodbye. I think all human being have rights to decide how and when to die, without commit suicide. Instead of all these people who commit suicide, they can talk with a doctor about active euthanasia, and get an executing.
Euthanaia should be legal in all states

Everyone deserves to die in peace. But the truth is, there are people out there, who, if euthenasia were a legal method, would use it to rid of their relatives, parents friends etc. Be it old or young. Ailing people are pain to take care of. It would be much easier to end ones responsibilities towards a fellow human, masked by a veil of compassion and pity. If euthenasia is made legal, who is to stop scheming children from acquiring their inheritance by "putting to rest" their parent? It seems dramatic, but it does happen. Even the elders, if ill would only want to lessen their and their childrens burdain by opting for assisted suicide. They feel like it is the right thing to do, but, dont they have the right to live and die naturally? Dont they deserve to smile even if just once, remembering their past, or shedding a tear for an old memory, or spend a few more hours with their child, or grandchild? Dont they deserve the right to live and die on their own terms?