BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
pokemon are more cute than carebears

First I shall start with the definition of cute Cute - Possessing physical features, behaviors, personality traits or other properties that are mainly attributed to infants and small or cuddly animals en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cute So, I stand in negation that pokemon are more cute than carebears. Exhibit A) charizard http://students.ou.edu... Chairzard is a fire breathing dragon with snarling teeth. He does not hold any of the qualities of being cute. Exhibit B) Cloyster http://www.pokemondb.co.uk... Cloyster has spikes and if you cuddled with it it would most definitely hurt. One more pokemon that isn't cute. Exhibit C) Gyrados http://media.photobucket.com... Gyrados is a dragon pokemon that is very violent and resembles a giant nasty sea monster. How can you consider that cute? Carebears! Exhibit a) http://www.stampaffair.com... Every single Carebear fits the definition of the word cute. Therefore carebears are more cute than pokemon. 1) you can cuddle with a carebear 2)they are small cuddly animals 3) They possess personality traits that make them innocent like infants Resolution Negated I look forward to my opponents argument
America should begin a campaign of total war against the Taliban

1. We're fighting a war part of the country will be damaged not to mention the place is crappy anyway we won't be making it much worse. 2. The Taliban deserve no human rights they deserve to be murdered like rabid dogs. 3. The Taliban still are allied with Al Qaeda Osama led Al Qaeda the Taliban defended him. 4. You said "The Taliban pose no threat to the west. " The Romans thought the Goths posed no threat to Rome. Look what happened. 5. We should not kill innocent civilians just those who resist also I have no problem with a just war crime like in Sherman's March he found land mines in the roads so he had Confederate prisoners lead the way. When one spoke up in protest saying it was unfair he simply replied "I don't care if you get blown up. " In humane yes but I still see nothing wrong with it. 6. You don't just go through a Total War campaign anywhere you go through it somewhere valuable like in Sherman's March they went through Georgia a large supplier of Confederate food and gunpowder supplies, than ended it in Savannah a major port for the South without it they began to run out of money. If the Taliban run out of food and/or money they surrender. 7. Name one time either of them have done any military action successfully without US support. 8. I'm referring to the civilians. They don't resist they don't get hurt, and if they get mad but can't make war who cares? also you should never start a sentence with and. 9. CHEAP IS NECESSARY! Incase you haven't noticed we are in a failing economy we need to hurry up and pound the Taliban so we can stop paying for this war! Also you mentioned in the previously we're paying millions for this war it needs to be over!
America should begin a campaign of total war against the Taliban

To rebut your points: 1. The US don't have to destroy parts of Afghanistan's infrastructure etc. to stop the Taliban. You're basically saying that you need to destroy infrastructure to quell an attempt of a revolt. 2. Perhaps you should show to the world that you aren't the terrorists that they all believe you to be. War crimes would have bad effects both diplomatically and for the people living there. The fact is that war crimes breach human rights which these people deserve. 3. The Taliban USED TO BE allied with Al Qaeda when they were the Mujahideen. They both may be religious fundamentalist but that doesn't mean that they agree with each other. 4. I don't quite know what you're responding to. But if you're saying that the US should launch a total war campaign because the Romans did that in the Gothic War then I should remind you that it didn't end too well for the Romans. 5. Why would they need to surrender if they are doing nothing to you in the first place. I hate to bring up the past but remember when the US invaded Vietnam and killed the civilians who didn't resist them. Earlier you said "If we are already guilty of war crimes why should we care about another" which implies that you aren't afraid of committing war crimes like that. 6. Once again, it's a war crime which breaches human rights and kills civilians. It impractical as it will kill more civilians than Taliban militants. Moreover, it's incredibly unlikely that this would make the Taliban surrender. 7. NATO and the UN are not under the US so I'm just going to ignore that. 8. I don't know whether you're referring to the Taliban or the civilians. And I'm certain that a lot of people will care despite which one you're talking about. 9. A total war campaign may be cheap but it is unnecessary as I mentioned in my previous round.
America should begin a campaign of total war against the Taliban

1. Taliban fighters are Afghani there for we will have to destroy parts of Afghanistan 2. If we are already guilty of war crimes why should we care about another 3. The Taliban are allied with Al Qaeda 4. That's what the Romans said about the Goths 5. If the Afghan civilians surrender and don't resist our march nothing would be done to them 6. The idea of a Total war campaign is a quick campaign that crushes the enemy the best example of this was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. I'm not saying nuke Afghanistan but do like what Sherman did in Georgia. 7. NATO and the UN are under the US. NATO is a US faction and the only time the UN has ever been successful is with America leading them as for the other countries what are they going to do 8. If they don't stop us they won't be hurt plus who cares how mad they get if they don't have the materials to make war why do we care 9. A Total War campaign is very cheap because its quick and you can raid and take enemy supplies this includes food, ammunition, weapons, and whatever else may be useful. If we had done this in the first year of the war the Afghanistan War would have hardly been heard of. http://www.history.com... http://www.history.com...
America should begin a campaign of total war against the Taliban

The Problem with your idea of "Total war" in Afghanistan:I think that it is necessary to remind you Taliban territory is inside Afghanistan (who are against the Taliban) and civilians live there. Burning down buildings and destroying roads etc. would be to destroy Afghan infrastructure - the USA would be, in effect, attacking Afghanistan. To kill anyone who attempts to stop you and to show no mercy may constitute to war crimes (which the US military have committed extensively). This total war would involve destroying the lives of Afghan civilians.Taliban won't become a major threat to the West:The Taliban do not pose much of a threat to global security. The Taliban do not have good enough military potency, strategy etc. to take over the country. In the incredibly unlikely event that they did take control, the Taliban would not join forces with Al Qaeda (like they did as the Mujahadeen when they were in power). They wouldn't do this because they learnt from last time what a mistake it was. Without Al Qaeda, the Taliban would have no interest in the West. Unnecessary loss of lives:I've already mentioned Afghan Civilians who have nothing to do with the Taliban but I perhaps should mention a large number of American soldiers who will die in vain. This war will be fought in vain (as I have explained). Lives are more important than a nation claiming military potency. A total war campaign would sacrifice so much for little in return. Yes, a few Afghan people might prosper from the defeat of the Taliban but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Moreover, these people may not prosper if the US launch an attack which would harm them.USA become an aggressor who commit war crimes: NATO, the UN and many countries would condemn this attack of "Total war" because of uncooperative actions with other NATO countries and possible crimes against humanity. Furthermore, it would increase Afghan hostility to the United States as what you propose would clearly harm some innocent people in Afghanistan.Devastating economic effects: The USA have spent over $600,000,000,000 on their war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. A "Total war" would dramatically increase that already too high number. Can the US in their financial state really afford all of this? The amount that the US spends in Afghanistan and Iraq each month could run the entire State Department for four months. Medicare's 2003 expanded drug benefits for seniors that will cost $385 billion over 10 years could be paid for with 40 months of Pentagon spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. My point from those two statistics is that the money could be spent on things which are so much better than "Total war." http://www.ted.com...http://costofwar.com... http://articles.businessinsider.com...
America should begin a campaign of total war against the Taliban

I believe that the United States of America should begin a total war campaign against the Afghan Taliban fighters. What I mean by Total War: A campaign where Americans go and march through Taliban territory and show no mercy, burn any building, tear up any road or path, and kill anyone who attempts to stop you. Also it is quick a matter of months a the most I believe this would be successful because 1. They almost never fail Total War campaigns are almost always successful in a moral defeat if the mission is a success an enemy doesn't know how to reply. 2. It destroys their supplies. 3. It makes the enemy soldiers think they must go home to defend their property and family.
America should begin a campaign of total war against the Taliban

1. It is still their home. People live in it and it is worth a lot to them - value is not only based on size and money.2. Every human deserves human rights, that's why they're called human rights. No one is born evil and everyone can change.3. The real reason for the war in Afghanistan is because the USA wanted to show off their military potency and Bush was obsessed with war.4. The Taliban do not plan to convert the world to Islam.5. But one must keep a certain level of morality. To quote Nietzsche "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." Besides, this war does not need to be won by the Americans - empathy would pull them out of the country and save even more lives (both American and Afghan).6. True, they won't be able to fight but my point was that they would rather die than surrender.7. The UN have also failed alongside America. I would put it to you but this is the last round so you won't be able to respond: how many wars have the US won in the past 50 years?8. Talk can be far better than action; negotiation rather than violence. To quote Martin Luther King Jr on violence rather than just talking "It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys a community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers." I think that tells you quite a bit about why violence should not be used.9. The Taliban never attacked the United States - I don't know what you're on about.Conclusion: As you can see, a Total War in Afghanistan launched by the US would waste lives and money. People will die unnecessarily and a third-world country will be made worse-off for little real reason.
America should begin a campaign of total war against the Taliban

1.These people live in Shacks no bigger and better than the one I built last summer in a few hours its not a big loss and they can now rebuild bigger and better ones. 2. These people don't learn nor do they deserve human rights the Taliban are evil and awful people best just to kill them and their idea of the world like a rabid dog. 3. They still are the reason for the war in Afghanistan is because of that the Taliban did not attack us Al Qaeda did we wanted to kill Bin Laden the leader of Al Qaeda but the Taliban his allies defended him. 4. They want to convert the world to Islam that's a threat 5. Wars aren't won with empathizing with the enemy they are won by killing them your tactic gets good Americans killed 6. They can't fight if they can't buy weapons and ammo and they wont fight if they are starving. 7. The US is the spearhead of NATO. Also the Congo isn't getting much better look at the track record every time something goes wrong and the UN tries to go in without America they fail Bosnia, Rwanda, even Korea before the US gave support 8. But what will they do all the talk in the world won't stop us. 9. The war is necessary incase you forgot we were attacked now we are showing people what happens when you do that the Taliban will be a bloody example of why you don't screw with America. As you can see a Total War campaign though harsh would end the war possibly saving more lives than it took vote Pro. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ppu.org.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org...
America should begin a campaign of total war against the Taliban

1. What you call "crapy" is some body's home which they have strained to build. This place may mean little to you but they mean a lot to the real people with real lives who live there. 2. Everyone deserves human rights. Simply because they've been brought up to be indoctrinated, it doesn't make them any less human than someone else. The best way to treat them is to set an example of good-will to them so they can learn. 3. The Taliban are simply not allies with Al Qaeda. They were over 20 years ago but times change. 4. In the modern day where there is better military understanding and with an enemy who are blunt about what they want, it is safe to assume that they pose no threat to the West. 5. I don't see how you see nothing wrong with Sherman's March. Please try to empathize with these people. 6. Afghanistan isn't that valuable to the US. The Taliban won't surrender if they run out of food or money - fundamentalists don't do that. 7. I didn't say that the US don't join in. With NATO the US do but so do Britain, France, Germany etc. The UN, in case you haven't noticed, are a peace keeping organisation and they don't tend to do military action. But, of course, they have done and right now they're in the Congo without the US. 8. Under UK English (i.e. original English) I am allowed to start a sentence with "and." Also, you probably shouldn't insult me with your grammar and punctuation. Nevertheless, they, the civilians, will care, humanitarians will care, the UN will care, many other countries will care etc. 9. In case you haven't noticed, pulling troops out would be a far cheaper option. You simply don't need to pay for this war when it is unnecessary. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com...
falcons

I accept. Resolved: Are falcons good enough?Falcons - a type of hawk that can fly very fast and is sometimes trained to hunt [1].Note that Pro provides no direction as to where this resolution is going: good enough to do what? Because he hasn't done that, it is only fair for us to default to a categorcial statement to the effect of gauging whether falcons are objectively good. As such, Pro is defending a positive statement and thus has the total BOP. [1] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Will UN ever keep peace

The final point I'm going to inform you is the UN is useless in other states where those states have not sworn power to the UN. there for They have to do nothing while thousands are being slaughtered because it takes weeks to decide if it is a civil war or genocide this make's the problem way more then it was suppose to be. Further more why didn't the UN do anything about the Genocide's in the past that has claimed past 2 million live's since the UN as been created and been in force.
Will UN ever keep peace

I think you are not clear about Cold War.I will tell you the meaning of cold war.Cold War :this term is used to describe the relationship between America and the Soviet Union 1945 to 1980. Neither side ever fought the other - the consequences would be too appalling - but they did ""fight"" for their beliefs usingclient stateswho fought for their beliefs on their behalf e.g. South Vietnamwas anticommunist and was supplied by America during the war while North Vietnamwas pro-Communist and fought the south (and the Americans) using weapons from communist Russia or communist China. In Afghanistan, the Americans supplied the rebel Afghans after the Soviet Union invaded in 1979 while they never physically involved themselves thus avoiding a direct clash with the Soviet Union.Now, there is no fighting among these two countries they are just competing with one another in subject matters like technologies,arms etc.. http://www.dadalos.org...
Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.

I guess I will begin 1. Protection is better for everyone- We need to protect our environment. By protecting our environment we improve air quality, water quality, and depending on whether one believes in global warming, control climate change. Other countries are affected by the damage done to ecosystems. People are affected by pollution and health problems such as coughing, chest pains, and even death. http://www.aqmd.gov... 2. Destruction of environment is bad for developing countries- Developing countries need to conserve their resources. Destroying resources is only a short term solution. Long term problems may include damage of the ecosystem, smog, or polluted water supplies. Natural disasters may also occur such as earthquakes or floods. Using resources is ok, but without certain restraints a valuable resource can be destroyed. Please respond... I have lost much of my motivation
Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.

This debate will be done in the LD format. I am taking the neg position, so I will post my argument after my opponent posts their argument. 1. Round 1: affirmative posts their argument2. Round 2: I post my argument and attack my opponent's argument, my opponent then does their first rebuttal 3. Round 3: I post my rebuttal, and go over voting issues, my opponent posts their rebuttal and goes over their voting issues
God Is Omnipotent

I don't have to prove God exists. This debate focuses on the Stone Paradox: "Can God create a stone so heavy, he can't even lift it?" This question is often posed to try to show that the concept of an omnipotent God is illogical. 1. Can't defy logic Let's assume that God posseses omnipotence where he can do anything that doesn't defy logic. The answer is “no,” because creating a stone so heavy that an all-powerful being cannot lift is a logical absurdity. This doesn't concede that God isn't omnipotent, as the defintion of omnipotence excludes the ability to defy logic. 2. Can defy logic God can do anything, even defy logic. Making a rock so heavy he can't lift it is a logical absurdity... but God can defy logic! God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, yet remain omnipotent because he can defy logic! Even under this definition, the Paradox of the Stone fails to prove that omnipotence is illogical. Remember, because God can defy logic doesn't mean that his ability itself is illogical.
Corporate personhood should be repealed

". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established. " ~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010 During early 1886, with the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the United States Supreme Court had officially recognized corporations as having the same rights as human being as protected under the 14th amendment. I stand here in front of you to urge an affirmative vote on the piece of resolution to repeal corporate personhood as it is an inherent misconstrued definition of what is human and what is not, it undermines the rights that are given to actual human beings, and also by giving corporations human rights, it allows for political monopolies by them. C1: Mirriam Webster dictionary defines "human" as a bipedal primate mammal, not a corporation. In fact, the English lexicon has from its inception defined a person as a human, an individual of specified character, the personality of a human self. To say that a corporation, which is a political contrivance of humans with an agenda is in anyway a person is a fly in the face of an essential linguistic and semantic distinction that is deeply rooted in the language. (Newquist, 2010) C2: Corporate personhood diminishes the rights of citizens with its inherent advantages given to corporations. It undermines our freedom and authority as citizens because while corporations are setting the agenda on issues in Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money. Not only that, corporations can outlives a normal human lifetime, and so have a temporal advantage over actual humans if they were ever to go head to head against each other. (Garcia, 2010) C3: Due to the case of Citizens United v. FEC, there are no limits on campaign funds that can be given to a particular candidate. With corporate personhood granting that same rights to corporations, it is nothing less than granting full rights to corporations that have much more funds than any individual persons does to use that funds to back up any candidate of their choice. That will lead to nothing but a huge political monopoly of these corporations, which is once again another instance when the people's rights are undermined by corporate personhood. A quote from Chief Justice John Marshall, "corporations are an artificial being, invisible, intangible. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. " They are not people and should not receive the same rights that actual humans get.