BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The time has come for a world government

The contender has presented a number of counter-arguments, which I like to disentangle and refute: (1) World government (WG) is currently impossible because of conflicting national ideologies. So the time has not come (yet) for a WG. My answer: No democratic nation has one ideology. Ideologies (such as left/right) crosscut nations and cultures. A true WG can only reflect the ideological and political diversity, with the same checks and balances as in national governments. Thanks to Internet, education and globalization, citizens discover allied minds across national borders. Now the time has come for a government adapted to this historically new situation. So that global debate has global consequences, and democratic decisions can be made about the planet's future. (2) The national level best captures people's interests and differences. My answer: The national government can capture some interests well, but as I argued, many of today's problems, which concern us all, cannot be settled at national level. The power of national governments should be limited to certain appropriate tasks, just as municipal and regional authorities are today. National governments should be subdivisions of the WG. A WG does not abolish lower levels of government; it is an essential addition ensuring that the global level problems are tackled decisively too. (3) a WG would be counterproductive because it turns national conflicts into international conflicts: "those in power can't and/or won't take care of these problems. The same thing will apply if you put this logic on a World Scale. Only it'll make the situation even worse." My answer: The reason why national governments do not solve the world's problems is that they are only designed to defend national interests. The bigger nations such as US, China and USSR veto each other out on important issues that concern the global population and decide on the future of humanity. But would their citizens actually agree with those vetoes (that may kill thousands) if they were able to debate the issues with individuals across borders? All wars of massive proportion have come from this inequality proper to nation-states. If life can be compared to a game, there are today a few very big teams that ruin the competition. The owners of those teams fool us - captains, forwards, midfielders and defenders of the team or nation - into thinking that we have more in common with them than with the captains, forwards, midfielders and defenders of the other teams. That is the hoax on world-scale ended by a WG. Of course, captains may at some time want to form a group together, as will defenders etc. But secession is not a logical consequence of that. There exist sufficient other links through which members can ally with others outside their group and form crosscutting allegiances. The problem of national governments being the highest level of power is their purpose of undermining the decision power of these allegiances once they become cross-national. That's why a WG is inevitable. And the time is now.
The time has come for a world government

To start with, I bring the notion that at this time a World Government isn't possible. When you think about it, every nation in the world has political ideologies that differ from one another. These Political Ideologies are meant to place each Government in check, preventing one from obtaining too much power(The balance between Left-wing Governments, and Right-wing Governments.) Subjects to these Ideologies will have major disputes, and conflicts over which type of Government, and it's ideologies shall be used in this "World Government." As such, this'll create even more wars, and further strain relations between Nations. To sum it all up, nations have too much in difference regarding ideas on how Government should work. Creating a World Government would not find a solution for these differences, and that can lead to War. Secondly, I present the belief that weaker nations would not have as much of a powerful voice in terms of ruling compared to more stronger nations. These stronger nations exert their force against the ideas of weaker nations, creating a Tyrannical Gov. which only appeals to the Powerful. You say that it requires a World Government in order to take care of climate change, civil war, social inequality, cultural conflict, religious oppression, Internet (de)regulation, epidemic, or other problems, but what purpose does a World Government serve, if Governments have the ability to do this on a National scale? Surely enough, there has been criticism of National Governments not being able/not willing to take care of these problems, but that's because those in power can't and/or won't take care of these problems. The same thing will apply if you put this logic on a World Scale. Only it'll make the situation even worse. The ability of this "Earth Government"(I'll just call it the Unified Earth States to make it sound more badass) depends on it's ability to mediate differences with Nations regarding Culture, Power, Language, Religion(Beliefs), Political Ideologies/beliefs, and so on and so forth. if the Unified Earth States is unable to take care of this, this leads to a high rick of secession, and war. Which plays ironic to the planned desires of the Unified Earth States
The time has come for a world government

The world's problems today are global problems. Whether the problem is climate change, civil war, social inequality, cultural conflict, religious oppression, Internet (de)regulation, or epidemic, the problem will be tackled best by a world government. It has not only become counterproductive to leave policy-decisions to nations, which attempt to exploit global problems to their national advantage and in this way have undermined solutions of peace and climate control. It has become immoral. To speak with Nobel prize winner Stiglitz, the economic globalisation that makes us all consumers on the one market should go hand in hand with a political globalisation that gives us all equal rights. Only a world government can guarantee that, implementing our rights through proactive policy. The international organisations that exist now such as UN are a mere sum of nations. They have to a large extent been lame ducks, primarily serving the interests of the governments and elites of powerful nations and not the wishes of their populations, let alone the interests of the global population. To know these wishes a global forum such as this one would be ideal. An incredibly high number of votes pro this statement may actually be the beginning of a world government. Voting can start right here.
How did it Happen,why didn't Hillary Clinton win

CON Posted," on Debate.org 3-28-2017 CON Posted, " Look up your history . From 1933-1951 we had two Democratic Presidents, FDR and Truman .Since then neither party has had a third term in office." lookingattheissues2 reply, " Franklin D. Roosevelt 32nd President of the United States " "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, commonly known as FDR, was an American statesman and political leader who served as the 32nd President of the United States from 1933 until his death in 1945. A Democrat, he won a record four presidential elections and emerged as a central figure in world events during the mid-20th century. " "The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, limiting a president to two terms in office, was ratified on February 27th, 1951. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, limiting a president to two terms in office, was ratified on February 27th, 1951." "When did the law change that a president can only serve 2 ..." www.answers.com/Q/When_did_the_law_change_that_a_president_can_only_serve_2_terms Con replied," If your asking on a moral level you would have to ask everyone in society." lookingattheissues2 reply to Con.... In posting the topic above, I, in effect, was asking the question of anyone in society who wished to respond. I wanted to find out what their thoughts might be why Hillary Clinton didn't win and Donald Trump did. Look up your history. From 1933-1951 we had two Democratic Presidents, FDR and Truman. Since then neither party has had a third term in office .If your asking on a moral level you would have to ask everyone in society.
How did it Happen,why didn't Hillary Clinton win

I understand the mechanics of how Donald Trump was elected president but there was more than the regular mechanics at work in this last election that took place. In a political race like this last presidential race where the democrats were using all the resources available, such as funding from Labor Union's, the teachers Union, the SEIU, Hollywood, The media, leftist Foundations like the Ford Foundation, many George Soros financed Foundations and others all backing Hillary Clinton in her run for the presidency. On top of all this financial backing Hillary Clinton also has the former democrat president, President Obama with all of the political powers of a former president working to get Hillary Clinton elected to office. The office should have been hers but something out of the ordinary happened that upset the leftist democrats plans and Donald Trump won over Hillary Clinton, What happened, this wasn't supposed to happen. To paraphrase ,"Michael Louis Pfleger,"... a .... Roman Catholic priest and a social activist in Chicago, Illinois," said.... when Hillary Clinton was running against Barack Obama for the presidency, " Hey, I'm....Hillary Clinton,..... and she said, 'Oh, damn! Where did you come from?..." .....Donald Trump. Michael Pfleger quote From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How did it Happen,why didn't Hillary Clinton win

I am arguing that all indications were that Hillary was assured of winning the presidency and that Donald Trump was fighting against impossible odds since she had been backed by all of the democrat party machine, George Soros, including the Chicago political machine. Donald Trump was an outsider as far as the political elite were concerned and didn't have the political experience that Hillary, The Clintons, had, working for him. Was Donald Trump's election the result of Hillary having discounted the "deplorables ," level of discontent in Fly over country with the democrat parties attitudes towards them. Donald Trumps election was a total surprise to the democrat elite, how did it happen.
The USFG should ensure the welfare of families living in poverty

Like beem0r, I apologize for missing last round. I've been sick and lost a bit track of the things I kept myself occupied with. :x Now back into the debate: H1: moonlighting is working without ever giving noticing government of the obtained income that way. (not declaring income. it's an official term, was part of the courses economic English I had last year ;)) I do note that my opponent simply states that a smaller wealth gap will reduce crime, but doesn't provide a basis for this assumption. Moonlighting, as said in round 1, will get a greater incentive if you reward people for not earning much. But aside from that, I'm still waiting to see a reasoning established why the wealth gap stimulates crime. H2: It makes sense to note that there are people that don't feel a need to eat healthy. People are less concerned with such things than is often by fiat assumed. I'd like to point to smoking, which is objectively a bad very thing for ones health, but still something that quite some people do. The proposed plan gives the impression that people have to follow the budget advice in order to get the support. (so they'd had to eat healthy) So they'd be (as I said earlier) forced to do things they don't want to. Not quite a positive incentive. Now the wording used in round 4 seems to suggest that people can opt-out, if that'd be the case, there is no real so called stick behind the door, coming along with the benefits. Which would make this end up in being normal welfare support. H3: The point I made was that there is social mobility. (something pointed out by economists like T. Sowell) This was made in the context that if there is decent social mobility, it prevents uprises, not that it was a goal on itself. It's true that this is based on personal assertion, but the claim that the gap induces crime, made by the Pro camp is just as much based on his own assertions. I regret that my opponent skipped the S points, especially S1 needed to be addressed in my opinion, since it clearly points out weaknesses in the practical execution which may lead to this plan ending in abuse. Also the second route that was elaborated, remained untouched by Pro, although it contained criticism on the indicators used to measure advance and made clear that it is near impossible to make better decisions for people than they do for themselves. It's regrettable we both missed a round, this discussion feels like it needs another round to elaborate further. But well, things aren't always our way in life. Thanks for the discussion. Kind regards, Shorack
The USFG should ensure the welfare of families living in poverty

Sorry for the forfeit last round, I was away for the weekend and thought I had more time than I did. A few hours later I posted the following comment. I'll leave it unaltered and we'll call it even as far as forfeiting goes. Hopefully my opponent makes it to next round. I'll just defend H's, since they are the real points. For H1, how my plan reduces crime, I do not completely follow my opponent's argument. Lowering the wealth gap in any respect will reduce crimes committed by the lower class. I am lost when my opponent brings up 'moonlighting.' What is this, and how does it negate the reduction of crime? For H2, I'll first point out that my opponent is correct in saying that unproductive people are poor because they are unproductive. However, with no welfare system, they become even less productive due to being generally unhealthy. My opponent says that not everyone wants to eat healthy. This may very well be true, however little sense it makes. However, for my plan to be superior economically and socially to no welfare, it simply has to have an _overall_ positive effect on productivity [the best real indicator for the health of an economy] and on society, with no negative effects in these areas that outweigh the positive effects. Even if only 10% of poor people my plan assists eat healthier and are therefore more likely to be more productive, that is an overall positive effect. And like I said, only people with jobs are helped by my plan, therefore the VALUE of a poor person's job = SALARY WELFARE benefits, whereas VALUE = SALARY with no welfare. For H3, my opponent's only point seems to be that social mobility exists, and therefore people won't uprise no matter how big the wealth gap gets between rich and poor. However, without welfare, many poor people really don't have the possibility of upward mobility. This is because poverty leads to being unhealthy, not getting enough energy, sleeping a lot, and therefore not having the time or will necessary to achieve that upward mobility. Not only that, but the claim that uprisings cannot occur as long as there is upward mobility is on very shaky ground, and only has the weight of my opponent's assertion behind it.
The USFG should ensure the welfare of families living in poverty

D1: accepted, nothing but a mere technicality it seems to be D2: accepted that this isn't a moral issue. accepted that it is on basis of economics. but I do have a problem with the social aspect, since that usually involves morality. it's fine by me to leave it in the definition, but if morality is involved when being called upon, the fact that this isn't a moral issue should prevail D3: I interpret this as the government giving the things mentioned, but nothing more (so it isn't about increasing the targeted group's welfare, but assuring certain needs are fulfilled). if this should have been interpreted in a different matter, please elaborate. D4: to prevent any mistakes, I'd like to ask to post the definition. although I believe it isn't an essential part of the discussion, since morality isn't involved and there is no objective definition of poverty (any official definition being artificial). with this in mind, a general 'definition' of poverty should work (I won't try to deny any existence of poverty) Furthermore: When you make your case, I'd like to see clearly what you see as parameters to measure the effect of USFG action. (or the lack of it) Also, I'm fine with definitions being used to make sure we know what we're talking about, but I want to point out that I'm strongly opposed to combating with definitions themselves, the debate itself should be about the ideas, the positions, not about nitpicking dictionary definitions. I also hope this won't be a "find the loophole"-debate, since those are a waste of time. debating should be about clashing ideas, not about putting sophist techniques into practice. This being said, I'm looking forward to the case of the Pro side. I also want to point out that it can take long before I post an argument, I'll try to reply swiftly, if possible.
The USFG should ensure the welfare of families living in poverty

I am PRO in this debate; I will be arguing that the topic above is true. This round will be for definitions, I will begin my argument in round 2. :: DEFINITIONS :: D1: USFG -The USFG is the United States Federal Government D2: Should -Ought. This simply means that it is the correct course of action. This is not a moral issue, it is an economic and social issue. D3: Ensure the welfare -To ensure someone's welfare will mean to make sure that person can afford basic necessities - a healthy diet and a place to live. If the person is having trouble affording these things, the government should make sure that person can get by. D4: Families living in poverty -I am talking about people living at or below the official US Census Bureau's poverty line, which is different depending on where you live and how many people are in a family. An obvious note - this refers specifically to families in America. ::ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:: If my opponent has a problem with these definitions, he or she can feel free to offer new ones in R1, which I will either accept or show to be inferior to my definitions. I ask that my opponent does not make arguments in R1, either. It would be very difficult to, anyway, since I have not yet made my case. Thank you.
Should people should not be able to call themselves asexual if they have sex

Thanks for trying to be slick while asking what opther is. It is clearly other, anyone who is reading it will realize this but will probably give your attempt a little chuckle if that.You believe that they should not call themselves asexual, but there is still no physical or mental harm done to anyone they encounter. People lie every day about minute things whether it be what they got on the test or what they spent money on at the mall. Yes, people can and do lie about who they actually are.Let me label myself: BlackWhiteAsianStraightGayBisexualSkinnyTallFatShortAsexualUglyHandsomeSmartStupidAre you physically harmed that I called myself something that I am not? Did the meanings of the labels change because over half of them are not true? Some people don't label themselves as anything yet find groups similar to them without calling themselves what they are. Are labels a necessary part of life or society? Labels are virtually meaningless to some and extremely meaningful to others. This does not mean that people should not lie about themselves. No one will care whether or not someone is asexual or gay or straight, so there is no valid reason why it should be prohibited.
Should people should not be able to call themselves asexual if they have sex

First I am wondering what opther means. Now I will answer a flaw you have said: NOT everyone has sexual desires. People that don't are called asexuals. You know no sexual attraction? I'm just saying you think everyone has sexual desires when the reality is some don't. This is the prime point of this debate. Now the definition of should is: used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary Which should mean that people who have sexual attraction should not call themselves asexual I will answer your two questions now 1. Yes they should not carry that label since they are actually not 2. YES So in conclusion you say people can lie about who they actually are? That means the labels will mean nothing at all if people lie about it. We have these groups to basically be different and have a group of similar interests. If people just basically lied about who they actually are, then these words will never mean anything. These words are meant to categorize society into who their real self actually is. People who lie are not actually true to themselves, which is just bad. Conclusion: Asexual have no sexual attraction. Which means people who have no sexual attraction should not call themselves asexual, since they do have sexual attraction. I am in fact asexual and I do not have sexual attraction. This disproves my opponents statement of everyone has sexual attraction.
Should people should not be able to call themselves asexual if they have sex

The wording in the resolution is important because of the word should. Should is just a suggestion, something that is more preferrable (i.e you should do this, you should study, you should...). Asexuals should, by the definition, have no sexual desires. However, sexual desires are natural, something everyone has.Because someone labels themselvs and doesn't follow the label requirements, does that mean they should no longer carry that label? Some people call themselves bisexual when they are really gay. Some people call themselves Christian even though they do not believe in God. Does this mean they shouldn't identify as these things? No. Their identifications don't physically or mentally harm any opther being, so there is no reason why they shouldn't identify themselves as they want.
Power Corrupts

First of all, I find it disrespectful that my opponent refers to my arguments as "excuses" as the PRO has not put forth any legitimate arguments against my argument that power merely clarifies the mindset of an individual, it does not change it (so it cannot "corrupt" by my opponent's definition). PRO then concedes that the mindsets of people typically change before coming into power, therefore power is not what is corrupting them. "is not the thought of power still power? " No. If I think of you as I'm committing a crime, does that make it your fault? So if I'm corrupted by the thought of power, is that the fault of power? No. Therefore, power is not what corrupts. I would also like to point out the fact that as I have said repeatedly, my opponent has the burden of proof, and my opponent has not proved that power corrupts. The PRO has only given one example, that of Hitler, and attempts to discredit my source by using rampant assumptions that "it was not until his adulthood did his feelings of hate develop. " If you're going to contest my source, I would appreciate if you provided one that opposes it. My opponent then tries to save his case by saying that power gave Hitler "confidence" to carry through his actions, however, he makes no argument that power in any way changed Hitler's overall perspective on society, and thus we can see that in no way was Hitler corrupted by power. "Con has shown not an iota of proof that Hitler had a preset mind to kill Jews" See above source. PRO then refers back to his introduction on the topic and asks "How long does it take for that overwhelming sense of confidence to turn against them? " PRO has not given us a single legitimate example of this happening. Again, PRO refers back to his introduction and refers to his "fundamental question" which frankly is not relevant in this debate. In conclusion, my opponent had to prove that power corrupts, and he has not done so according to his definition, as he only provided one example of "power corrupting" which I disproved with a completely legitimate source.