BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity

My case will be found here: https://docs.google.com... Now, onto my opponent's case: Value/Criterion: a. No link. By healing one nation's economy, we cannot help others. If the case is that water should be valued as a commodity, which is indeed Con's case, it must be paid for by the people using it, not the distributors. We cannot say that fixing one nations economy will heal all wounds in the world. If we fix the American economy, we will not solve for water shortages or the lack of access to water in other countries. Also, to prove that the criterion and value link, the Con side of this debate must prove that we are able to improve the economy, and what economy will be growing to provide for social welfare. b. Social welfare, defined by Con as: providing society "with certain minimum standards and opportunities." Con offers no definition to minimum, so I will offer my own. minimum - the least quantity or amount possible, assignable, allowable, or the like. (Dictionary.com) My point here is, that providing society with the least amount possible of opportunities, and the worst standards without having any is not good. My value will be valued higher because if we use Con's to provide society with just above nothing, we do not value justice. By valuing Justice we give people what they need, and apply to the resolution. Contention 1: Scarcity is gaining, huh? According to the World Water Counsel, Con's "fact" is false, and there are only 1.1 billion people without access to clean drinking water in the world, this is about 16%. You can cross apply my observation here in that we are discussing what is moral, not what is possible. We are debating what should be done, and not how much it will cost anyone. Con claims that we need to keep access possible, but according to the resolution itself, it is. Con strays from the initial objective of this debate by talking about keeping the access possible, as opposed to whether or not access should be free or not. Attacking the point that access is possible does not help Con's case. Contention 2: Cleaning is not the no. 1 priority. a. Con claims that drinking water is used for more than just drinking water. What Con doesn't realize is that "Drinking Water" defines this water as to be used for drinking. I do not use drinking water, which can also be defined as water meant for only the purpose of drinking, to wash my dishes, or my body. I use it to drink, and nothing else. b. Most third world countries would much rather gain drinking water for the purposes of drinking before they feel they need to wash themselves, or their plates. Con completely excludes these countries in his case, and assumes that, even if he did include them, their priorities are not to drinking the water they would be given in my side of the resolution.
Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity

First let it be known that the con side of the resolution is not stating that water is not a human right but rather we must value it as a commodity also in order to keep the access of water. The con will explain thoroughly to the extent of every detail in this case. In order to win this case the con will value social welfare. with social welfare, society is provided with certain minumum standards and opportunities. It supports life in the factor that it looks to the needs of the people. To support the con's value, the con' criterion is to maximize economic growth. by healing the economy water can become easily accessible in other countries that may need it more than others. Contention 1: THE SCARCITY TO THE ACCESS OF WATER IS GAINING SO MUCH THAT WATER WILL BECOME MORE VALUABLE THAN OIL. According to the General assembly of the UN resolved on July 28 of this year, clean drinking water and sanitation provisions are human rights. Unfornately 2.6 billion people all over the world do not have access to clean drinking water. that is over one third of the world's population! WARRANT: the data supporting my contention shows the very factor that even though water will always be in the human existence, clean drinking water will not be if we do not pay for this very water to be cleaned. In other words to get access to clean water we must clean it and labor is not free. we have to pay for filtering systems and reverse osmosis plants to keep access possible. CONTENTION 2: DRINKING WATER IS NOT USED FOR JUST DRINKING. people use drinking water to clean dishes, their bodies, and appliances around the house. This is an obvious fact that I do not need data on but I will say that according to Larry Macdonnell, Ph.D., former director of natural resources law centerat the university of colorado. "13 gallons of water per day is essential but we use more than 100 times as much, why dont we trust markets to provide the 99 percent that is 'nonessential' water?
A basic religion is crucial for any civilization.

Agreed. I ask that you take a look at a few point I have to make. First off, what keeps a healthy person from murdering another out of cold blood? The answer should be guilt, because the individual should be aware of right and wrong. I might not say guilt, but whatever.Religion is man's own philosophical code of conduct, creating morality and ethics, which are the foundations of civilization, laws, and government.And here is the bulk. You've said enough, but you haven't shown. I am something akin to an agnostic, and I used to be an atheist. Not once I have I considered to rape, pillage or steal. It seems that Pro is making the fallowing argument.P1: A 'set' number of moral/code of behavior is benefit to a nation or whateverP2: Religion is a source of theseC: A Religious nation is better than a irreligious one.Depending on the wording, I agree with P1. You might say that in America, not killing and acting for the good of all is in our culture, and I would agree this is to America's benefit.P2, however, assumes everyone thinks the same of the source, and it translate well 'out of paper'. In the Salem Witchcraft trials, the church certainly did not do anything to benefit anyone, and I will say they hurt more then they mended. Religion did not give them well being and it caused issues.Now take America today. The framework for the nation is in our Constitution and the Declaration. None of them are Religious, even if the Founding Fathers are religious themselves.I am sure, that if Religion is important to a nation, Pro will be able to show the Religoius aspects of the above framework.
Members of the United Nations Security Council should strictly enforce the Nuclear NPT

==Nuclear Peace== Con misses the point here. I don't think leaders such as Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad are foolish enough to use nukes, I think that they're crazy/evil/whatever. Iran threatens to "wipe Isreal off the map", then wants nukes. Maybe that isn't a serious threat, maybe they won't actually do it. But that isn't something we can just take chances with. ==Terrorists== It doesn't matter that the US also aided terrorists. The US is a stable, 1st-world democracy. Pakistan is aiding terrorists, and is nearly a failed state. The US government is not in danger of collapsing any time soon; the Pakistani government is. ==Other WMDs== "I would assume, that based on this debate, you would also be for the restriction of other WMDs." Correct. But, the resolution is only about nukes, so this is outside the scope of the resolution. ==National Sovereignty== The governments mentioned do not have the "consent of the people." The individuals in those countries never gave up their rights to their governments. In Iran, when given the choice, they threw out Ahmadenijad--but the government rigged the election and violently cracked down on anyone that protested. That is not consent. ==Supports Nuclear Weapons== "Thus, the treaty states it is not bad for these nations to own them" No, it does not. As I said, the treaty says nothing about those nations--it is nuetral on the issue. Maybe they should have nukes, maybe they shouldn't. But it doesn't matter--this issue is out of the scope of the treaty and this debate. ==Enforcement== If the treaty is enforced, countries could not hide their nukes--that's the point of the treaty. The idea is to get UN inspectors in to make sure they can't hide weapons as nuclear energy research programs, as Iran is doing now. Trade sanctions do not necessarily devastate civilians--poorly executed ones just have in the past. They can be targetted to not ban essentials. In addition, I offered alternatives--using carrots instead of sticks, diplomatically. Instead of punishing those that don't go along with the treaty, we can reward those that do, or a combination of the two.
Members of the United Nations Security Council should strictly enforce the Nuclear NPT

==re: Nuclear Peace== Con is correct in saying that no rational leader would ever actually use a nuclear weapon. But, as I mentioned before, the countries this treaty would be enforced against aren't led by rational people. The problem this treaty tries to address isn't Western countries with nukes, it's religious fundamentalists in Iran getting nukes, or terrorists getting access to Pakistani nukes, or Kim Jong Il using his nukes in his ever-growing conflict with South Korea. ==re: Supports Nuclear Weapons== This point is completely irrelevant. The Non-Proliferation treaty doesn't say that it's a good thing that those 5 countries have nuclear weapons. It is limited in scope, because it would be politically impossible for the UN to abolish nukes in those countries. It doesn't condone things that are outside of its scope—it just has nothing to do with those things, one way or the other. ==re: Other WMDs== Again, this is outside of the scope of the treaty, and is irrelevant. Yes, other WMDs can be made. But that's a separate problem for a separate debate. ==re: Terrorist access to missiles== Con underestimates the corruption and incompetence of the Pakistani government. It would be nearly impossible for a terrorist to access an American nuclear weapon, but a Pakistani one? Many in the current Pakistani government are currently aiding terrorists. [1] As American bombings in Pakistan continue, support for Americans decreases and support for the insurgents increases. ==re: National Sovereignty== Countries don't have rights, only individuals can have rights. Even if it were possible for governments to have rights in places such as the U.S. and other democracies, this surely cannot apply to brutal dictatorships such as Iran and North Korea. These governments are clearly nothing more than bands of violent criminals, have have no rights to "sovereignty" over the land they're currently occupying. ==re: Issues of enforcement== Trade sanctions aren't necessarily as devastating as they were in Iraq. The Iraqi trade sanctions included restrictions of food, vital supplies for transporting clean water, and other unnecessary restrictions. [2] New sanctions could be more focused, and wouldn't need to be as indiscriminately devastating. In addition, trade sanctions are one option among many. Carrots could be used instead of sticks—bribing leaders into not having nukes. Peaceful diplomatic channels have failed in the past, but mostly because China and Russia refused to cooperate. Rogue countries don't have much of an incentive to cooperate if it's only the U.S. that cares, and the rest of the world is fine with letting them do whatever they want. [1] http://www.wired.com... [2] http://host.madison.com...
GOD has a body of flesh and bones!!!(using scriptures) ****please no debate on if GOD exists****

The bible doesn't conclusively prove that God has flesh and bone simply because a few segments of scripture make reference to his face or his image, or his being seated on a throne. The bible is generally supposed to be full of literary symbols. Undoubtedly, these references to God's image is purely anthropomorphism to make the bible messages easier for people to understand. Besides, if God were really made of flesh and bone, that would mean he is made up of cells, calcium deposits, etc. All of which degrade.
GOD has a body of flesh and bones!!!(using scriptures) ****please no debate on if GOD exists****

Genesis 1:27, 5:1, 9:6, 18:33, 32:30, Exodos 24:10 31:18 33:11 33:23 Duet. 9:10 num. 12:8 matt. 3:17 4:4 17:5 luke 24:39 john 14:9 acts 7:56 romans 8:29 2 cor. 4:4 philp. 2:6 3:21 col 1:15 heb. 1:3 james 3:9 1 john 3:2 rev. 22:4
Casteism

The leaders of independent India decided that India will be democratic, socialist and secular country. According to this policy there is a separation between religion and state. Practicing untouchability or discriminating a person based on his caste is legally forbidden. Along with this law the government allows positive discrimination of the depressed classes of India. The Indians have also become more flexible in their caste system customs. In general the urban people in India are less strict about the caste system than the rural. In cities one can see different caste people mingling with each other, while in some rural areas there is still discrimination based on castes and sometimes also on untouchability. Sometimes in villages or in the cities there are violent clashes which, are connected to caste tensions. Sometimes the high castes strike the lower castes who dare to uplift their status. Sometimes the lower caste get back on the higher castes.
the most important cause of the downfall of tsardom in Russia was due to entering ww1

When Russia entered WWI, there were many existing problems that had begun to contribute to the end of the czarist age. There was great oppression of the people because Russia prior to WWI was a very autocratic government where the religion was part of the government, and priests actually worked as government agents to find any criminals or enemies of the state. Prior to WWI much of the Russian peoples were living in grinding poverty, excruciating tax rates (people with beards had to pay a tax for having a beard), and any form of protest, no matter how minor in nature, was dealt with quickly and with overwhelming force by the government. Trade Unions were also strictly prohibited and freedom of the press and freedom of the speech were only fantasies. Czarist Russia collapsed because of the long oppression of its working class peoples. People were not allowed to speak in their native language, practice foreign religions, and could not marry above their class. 85% of the people were poor peasant farmers who were farmers who tried to grow anything in the harshness of Russia. Those who werent farmers were factory workers who worked 11 hour a day shifts in horrible conditions day after day, even on saturdays. Russian serf were technically slaves until 1860. In 1905 it was the failure of the Russo-Japanese War that triggered the creation of many revolutionary political parties that began as an underground movement that began to attract the beaten peasants to their ranks. These parties were unable to gain significant control since they were illegal, but when Russia entered WWI, its limited resources were quickly diminished and it army was soon immobilized, it was then that Russia underwent a communist revolution as the underground movements began to overthrow the government when even the soldiers joined their side. WWI wasnt the most important cause to the downfall of imperialist Russia, it was the long oppression of its own people that caused the downfall of tsardom.
the most important cause of the downfall of tsardom in Russia was due to entering ww1

Resolution States "Most important CAUSE of downfall of Imperial Russia. .. .. " The Pro is saying how before the War the Tzar was loved, but I have offered much evidence against that belief. The Pro has not offered a counter argument to why decades and decades of the government's oppression against their own people played LESS of a role then Russia's entry into WWI. Instead he has only provided us about facts about the Russian army. What is being debated is the most important CAUSE. The impoverished people of Russia were dis-satisfied with their government. Before WWI there was still resentment, and plenty of it. When Russia began to get whipped during WWI, that only added more resentment to that of which already was there. The Pro's entire argument so far is that the biggest influence on the downfall of Russia was the loyalty/disloyalty of their troops around WWI. The troops though did not start the revolution, they only switched sides. If there were already sides to choose then that would mean that civilians had already taken measures to overthrow their own government. Which of the two factors seems to have had a greater impact on the Russian Revolution? A) Troops switching sides during WWI B) The actions of oppressed civilians that created an anti-government movement that was strong in numbers that had already existed well before Russia even entered WWI. The most important cause of the downfall of Russia were the millions of people who resented the government, actively tried to limit their power, created anti-government political movements well before WWI broke out, and viewed their own government as corrupt and incompetent, who then after recruiting the governments own soldiers succeeded in overthrowing the oppressive regime in the midst of WWI.
the most important cause of the downfall of tsardom in Russia was due to entering ww1

My question is identifying the "MOST IMPORTANT CAUSE" I am not saying the others did not have an impact on the downfall however the tsar would never have abdicated if the army had of stayed loyal; but they did not. After bloody Sunday the tsar made certain reforms that actually got Russia back on track and actually he was loved by many as he was greeted many times an went around st.petersburg for the celebration of the 300 year Romano's were in power and people trew flowers and sung songs as he paraided also the public wanted him to go to war. Due to the black hundread political partie that was set up by the tsar to repress opestion and hunt them down- many opposition leaders fled the country 2 main opposition leaders: lenin and trotsky flead. so at the build up before ww1 there were less than 100 strikes in the whole year as opposed to after ww1 over 13,000 strikes. The army had always stayed loyal to the tsar as the army in russia was most diciplined and would not mutiny agaisnt him, however they finnally did as nicholas the second was not organised enough to support the army's need of food and equipment and with so many dead DUE to the war there morale was at an all time low. Therefore your arrgument is void as none of what you have said would have contributed singally as the biggest cause of the downfall of the tsar. And if Russia had not went into war then the army would have stayed strong and loyal as they had always been but as they were mistreated and reduced and located at the front line this allowed the revoulution to happen and succed VOTE PRO. Great debate many thanks. Voters read the question before voteing i am asking for the most important cause! Sorry for punctuation again really not my strong point
the most important cause of the downfall of tsardom in Russia was due to entering ww1

What is being debated is whether or not WWI caused the collapse of imperial Russia, I am arguing that WWI was merely the straw that broke the Camels back. Russia's army was terribly under funded and under supplied, but because the troops were always within the borders any attempt to actually overthrow the Czar could be dealt with because only part of the army would be needed and not the entire army. WWI sucked all Russian troops outside of the countries borders and away from the main part of Russia and that allowed the revolution to occur. WWI simply allowed people the chance to overthrow the government, it did not single-handedly create the movement and the revolution all at once. Before the war the Czar was hated, Russians were so poor and the government so incompetent that people forced the czar to create a Russian Parliament 10 years before Russia even entered WWI. Such hated him first aroused for his actions on "Bloody Sunday" and it was from that day on that people resented the Czar.Bloody Sunday was a day when striking workers personally appealed to the Czar for reforms by going to is palace, but upon their arrival they were attacked and by the end of the attack 100 lay dead and 300 lay wounded, many of them mortally. This event alone was the equivalent of "The Alamo" for Russian workers and this event alone sparked the failed revolution of 1905. The resentment against the Czar lingered for many years until finally people had their chance during WWI to finally depose the Czar.To summarize, people hated the Czar, openly protested his regime, and when WWI came about the opportunity was given and seized by the working men of Russia to depose the Czar once and for all. WWI did not CAUSE Imperial Russia to collapse, it only ALLOWED it to happen because as I have stated, people had resented the Tzar long before WWI and people were only waiting for the opportune moment to overthrow him.http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...
the most important cause of the downfall of tsardom in Russia was due to entering ww1

It is clear to say that the failed attempt of a revolution in 1904 due to the main fact of the army staying loyal to the Tsar! it is proved by many historians that without the army's support the tsar would be powerless. The main factor of going into world war 1 for Russian soldiers were poor conditions at the front: 1 Some soldiers fought bare foot as the government could not fund all the equipment needed. 2 Many soldiers fought in pairs as there were not enough ammo to go around 3 The hospitals set up on the front lines were over populated all these factors caused many soldier to die when many could have fought on and perhaps have done better at war. many peasants were parents to lost sons at war. this upset them as the war was thought to be a quick success to Russia due to the size of the army. Mid war the tsar himself took the position of general himself and every lost battle was blamed on him personally. Mean while due to his absence the tsarina's and Rasputin took over government and made many foul decisions which also destroyed the tsars reputation. Before the war the tsar was popular as many cheered him as he declared war. Due to all theses issues I have raised sparked the fuse to the revolution of February 1917. And it is clear to say that when the army refused to support the tsar that is when he resigned in February 1917. Sorry for my punctuation its not that great.
Evil is a lack of good

No, it is a lack of good because good can exist without evil, but not vice versa. Just like laws can exist without felons. No, it varies. Is a felon who murdered multiple times, raped his victims, killed officers of the law, and stole multiple times on equal footing with a grandmother working at a soup kitchen and giving cookies to her neighbors? Of course not. The laws of countries that are sane recognize this.
Evil is a lack of good

No, the human mind is much too complex to be Black-and-White morality. As you stated, it's constantly evolving. That means that it will explore both sides. One path may be deemed beneficent, the other maleficent. And such will be explored in many directions, with contradictions coming often. Tendencies will occur, but certainly one shall make decisions in both directions. It's human nature. One has mixed intentions and actions. Always. One act may be good, the other evil.