BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Work Unions are good

Moving on, from my first round argument I would like to proceed to state that unions are also unfair to workers that are not in one especially young workers. For example Union laws give protection to all its' labourers . What if ladies and gentlemen this labourer is lazy and unproductive and doesn't offer anything to the community or to his work area? According to these laws respective Pro, as long as this labourer shows up to work there is no way he can get fired. As you said " Unions were created by workers standing up together for fair wages, safe workplaces and decent work hours," this is exactly what I will use as my argument, this statement enables labourers to be as lazy or as unproductive as they want without being punished for it. Now I ask a question do we want a society where workers are lazy and unproductive or a society where labourers improve everyday in work by following their orders from their bosses? Also, other workers not included in a union are not allowed to go even as far as provide assistance or touch another labourer's (in a union) tools because it trespasses the union laws "taking away from a union employee." An example of this is that technicians and operators get $28 per hour-more than hardworking engineers- this being an enormous amount for a labourer that has the freedom to leave his working space whenever he desires. Do you consider this fair? Furthermore, my second argument because of unions an employee has "the right to leave," even with no complete clauses, contracts-rebutting to your point above; it is proved that very few union employees are forced to work even in simple jobs that do not require any "dangerous work" , therefore companies have numerous restrictions because of this. Labor unions are bad for business, , unions are found to be in a study , functioning as labor cartel, and with higher wages, they " bring less investment, fewer jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else." This shows how bad labor unions are. In addition the top-skilled people will be excluded because labor unions try to have equality, but end up putting a cap on the wage, so the skilled workers won't work any more, as proved to be true. Finally I would like to move on to further rebuttal on Pros argument that It shows that," on average, unionized workers across the USA earned $5.28/hour more than non-union workers. Women with unions earned more too, $7.10/hour and got paid more fairly. " Imagine a labourer as I said before who does nothing or very little compared to a non-union worker and is still paid this amount of money whatsoever . Would you want this to happen to you? Again, to stress this, when comparing the Private Construction Employment, the union largely fails to increase and stays static, while the non-union vastly increase, opening new jobs. To end my second round argument I would like to state that some trade unions, such as the Teamsters, have been criticized for involvement with organized crime and that trade unions take strike actions that result in the disruption of public services. Thank you.
Work Unions are good

Unions were created by workers standing up together for fair wages, safe workplaces and decent work hours. Without these things, the employers would have workers working for them like slaves. Workers would have no rights and would just be fired if they refused to do an illegal job function, dangerous work or potentially fatal work environments, paint exhausts, gases. If an employee refused he would just be fired without any protection. Having a union on your side makes your job and your workplace safer and fairer. You get paid better and are more likely to have benefits that help you balance work with life at home. Your health and ability to do your job become important and your right to fair treatment gets enforced. It shows that, on average, unionized workers across the USA earned $5.28/hour more than non-union workers. Women with unions earned more too, $7.10/hour and got paid more fairly. Workers under age 25 earned an extra 27% from jobs covered by a collective agreement. Workers in unions are an important part of the local community and economy because that"s where they spend their pay checks . Their incomes support local businesses who create local jobs and bolster the local tax base, which supports public works and community services that add to everyone"s quality of life. The benefits enjoyed by unionized workers dental insurance, extended health care coverage and legal insurance, to name a few attract and support dentists, opticians, chiropractors, therapists, health specialists, and family lawyers whose services are available to everyone in the community. When they retire, the incomes earned from years of contributions into pension plans also provide money to spend in the community. More importantly, they provide income security, which means fewer seniors having to rely on their families or social programs to get by. Same goes for the health, drug and survivor benefits that many retirees enjoy because they had a union when they worked. When unions stand up for fairness, they raise the bar for everyone. Many of the things first won by unions are enjoyed by all workers today " minimum wages, overtime pay, workplace safety standards, maternity and parental leave, vacation pay, and protection from discrimination and harassment. Unions are for employees, all employers would not understand this because all they care about is maximum profit and they do not care about their employees and they believe employees are expendable and if you don't do the job someone else will. Employers treat their employees as numbers to get the job done. You have no rights and if you don't do what you are told then you are fired. Without unions we would still be working 16 hour days, 7 days a week like slaves. It would be no different then ancient Egypt when a Pharaoh would rake in the riches and sit lavishly in his kingdom, while the slaves built his pyramids and lavish gardens while being whipped and fed bread and water only. Unions protect against that.
Work Unions are good

The definition of a union is "an organized association of workers in a trade, group of trades, or profession, formed to protect and further their rights and interests." But is it really? Is it formed to further the rights and interests? Unions are actually a push for a state income tax hike, meaning that governments get more money thanks to the union laws specifically 14.9% higher in total compensation nationally. Unions work like an machine, a political perpetual motion machine and the only way to stop it is to break the chain of automatic money transfers for tax payers, to the government, to the unions and then finally back to the politician. Basically, stop the fuel of this machine which is OUR money. Money is taken away from workers who are not directly controlled or/and affected by the government. Unions are used and exist to protect workers, but it is proven that in the 21st century most people are living under secure and anxious work- rebutting against your point that without unions we would not be in the position we are now in the work force. Furthermore I would like to add that work/labor unions increase unemployment. Supporting workers is the goal of unions? I say that it is for a fact that work unions hurt workers, minimum wage laws hurt young workers from the age of 16-24 by making it harder for them to find and enter jobs. It is statistically proven that when the federal minimum wage first became law in 1938, it was 25 cents. Adjusted for inflation, that would be worth $4.19 today this caused a severe increase of unemployment rate with over 50,000 people losing their jobs. Since then economic researchers have demonstrated that 10% increase in minimum wage jobs lead to a 3% overall reduction of jobs for younger workers. I tell you fellow debaters haven't we long passed the times when 14 year old children worked 18 hours a day? Yes we have, then why have work unions to "support" the young workers? I will proceed to rebuttal against your clearly not researched points of your opening statement of unions being useful for protecting employees being taken advantage of.
Work Unions are good

I personally believe work unions are good, as they protect employees from being taken advantage of, by companies, managers and bosses. Unions do conflict with capitalistic views but I believe without unions we would not be in the position we are now in the work force. Without unions, we would end up with rich owners and slave workers who would have no rights and would be forced to work for meager wages just to survive while being exploited by their employers. I am all for unions, although I realize that unions can also have bad traits, I still believe in them. Tell me why unions are bad, because I'm all for them
We do not need to go to school as much as we are forced to.

Well, now that the challenge round is out of the way, I do believe it is my place to defend my particular assertion as to reason we force students to go to school, and therefore defend the nature of the education we force them to receive.The authorization for educationFirst, I have previously argued that from an understanding that from first principles, the responsibilities of government are particularly to enforce and codify the responsibilities of all individuals to all other individuals. These responsibilities consist of "that which you are free to do, so is another" "that which another is not free to do, so too are you not allowed" "that which you would defend yoursef from, you are obligated to defend others from" "defense exclusively against that which is not freedom is itself within the bounds of freedom".Further, it is part of the government's charter, the constitution article 1 section 8 that the government is authorized to seek the general welfare. This is in accordance with the above, as that each individual in society, and thus ALL of society, has a responsibility to defend that society against what can be understood as "natural evil".Ignorance is one of those things which does harm to the freedom of people, either through the inability to make suitibly informed decisions, or through the actions of the ignorant, who are unaware that their actions do violence to the freedoms of others to be. In this manner, it is clear that an educated popualation is within the interest of socety, not just so that the people do their jobs more efficiently, but also so that they are less likely to harm one another in their ignorance.Having forwarded these understandings, I would present the logic and premises to PRO to refute.
My 100th Debate: God Exists

Pro should present their arguments in Round 1 and waive the final round by posting simply "no round as agreed," to ensure an even # of rounds [as I'm not arguing in this round].== Resolution ==Resolved: God most likely exists.(1) To exist is to "have objective reality or being." (2) "Likely," as used in the adverb form here, is defined as "probably."(3) The God referenced here is defined as "the intelligence behind reality," or "a mind that grounds reality."== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. All arguments must be within the debate, but citations and end/footnotes can be in external links3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. For undefined terms, debaters should adhere to commonplace understandings that fit within the debate's logical context8. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives their right to add resolutional definitions9. The burden of proof is on Pro10. Violation of any rules or any of the R1 set-up is an automatic loss
The Lion Is Not The King Of Beasts Or The Jungle . . .

How is the pride the most feared for I fear more from a female Grizzly Bear with its cubs than any pride of lions and many have fought and killed lions without the aid of modern weapons look at some of the tribe in Africa such as the Maasai peoples who used to hunt lions for generations (now not so much due to the Lion getting on the endangered species list and new laws prohibiting the killing of this animal). These bigger heavier animals you have mentioned are all herbivores hence they would not hunt Tigers, Leopards, and sometimes even Hyenas will take on bigger prey than themselves plus most of the time lions act like scavengers taking other animals prey. Your argument about very few men taking out Lions was taken out in an earlier argument and needless to say as long as there has been humans there have been powerful beasts which humanity has taken out with spears, guns, roads, and fire no animal (of the large carnivore stock) has yet to survive the human scourge take for instance the remnants of an organism found in Australia it is related to the Komodo Dragon except several times larger went extinct beacuse a simple people who traveled there on rafts destroyed it with sticks, stones, and fire this beast was stronger than any Lion yet it was destroyed by people without any forms of metal or ballistics technology. The only reason people did that beacuse a Lions mane was a prized object to have and it was a rarity nothing more it is also due to the overestimation on what a Lions power was the same thing that happens periodically in history when a force overestimates its own power in comparison to that of the enemy. As for your last argument who needs a king it is not necessary but if you truly need one think of species that are dang near impossible to eradicate, highly adaptive, and could survive most situations such as the roach, rat, amoeba, ant, flea, archaebacteria, and one of the most recent humans. My opponent must prove to me that these organisms I have listed are indeed inferior to the Lion for these organisms are superior to that of the Lion in most areas. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.maasai-association.org... http://thestrangerest.blogspot.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com... http://www.encyclopedia.com... http://listverse.com... http://www.lingolex.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ratbehavior.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Lion Is Not The King Of Beasts Or The Jungle . . .

Greetings Pro, good luck and have fun. Thanks for perusing the debate, all. I will begin by stating that my opponent has not offered a single alternative, "King of Beasts" or even of the Jungle or Savannah. Thence, the contention that I support stands. Since Pro has the burden of the proof, I won't spend very long, but I might as well make a few points. 1. The male lion gathers its family about in a pride - the pride is the most feared group of animals existent - other mammals, even the hyenas and elephants, clear the watering hole when the lions attend. A lone tiger would steer clear of a pride of lions. 2. Unlike the bigger and heavier mammals (such as rhinoceros, hippopotamus and elephant), the lion is carnivorous and equipped with natural weapons, making it a killing machine. The lions will prey upon larger mammals, also: http://johnhawks.net... 3. Very few men have killed a lion with anything but a high powered hunting rifle. Bengal Tigers were destroyed frequently by spear wielding or musket toting Indians. 4. In mythology and heraldry, it the lion that depicts the toughest or most royal - not the tiger. Many human kings utilized various depictions of the lion for their Coat of Arms, effectively adding to the respect and the status of the lion as "King". That's all for now, as I'll let my opponent have the floor. As a note, before attempting to rebut my arguments, Pro must first prove that another animal could assume the phenomonal status of a male Lion, king of the pride, the savannah and the jungle - as well as acclaimed predator. Cheers
The Lion Is Not The King Of Beasts Or The Jungle . . .

My argument is that the lion is not the king of beasts or the jungle due to the fact many other organisms outperform it and they do not live in the jungle technically it is the savanna. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://hubpages.com... http://www.world-science.net... http://earthsky.org... http://www.google.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.google.com... http://www.google.com... http://www.answers.com...
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1.Love is a complex emotion that is difficult to understand. While Science is able to explain what love is, it cannot accurately predict how love is going to form, or how in love a particular person is. 2.The complexity of love makes it tough for people to know whether what they are feeling is truly romantic love or not. A person may be able to love more than one person, but he or she cannot love them both romantically. 3.There are many reasons that people have affairs, besides falling out of love and "accidents". There are also many reasons a person might stay with their original partner outside of love. For example fear that they might be looked down upon if someone else finds out. 4.a person can love their original partner and affair partner at the same time, but that person can only romantically love one of his or her partners. 5.While sex is a big part of love, the emotional connection is just as strong. The amount of time people spend together can greatly increase the amount of love that they feel towards each other. 6.Many religious couples abstain from sex, but most of them love each other as much as couples that do regularly have sex. 7.Therefore, due to the questionability and complexity of love, and the time a person would have to be with one of their partners to truly romantically love them. It does not seem possible to romantically love more than on person. I see now that a person can love more than one other person, but that person can only romantically love one of the people he is with. I also agree that science can probably explain more about love than I had originally thought. Though I still believe that in order for a person to truly love another, that person has got to spend a long amount of time with their partner, and love at first sight is just a person"s mind deceiving them. I still feel that Romantic love can only be shared between two people.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1. Both parties agree that love can defined as intense feelings of affection for another person. 2. For a person to be romantically in love with someone, there must be both an emotional and physical connections within the relationship. 3. Love also produces a strong attachment and bond to another person. 4. Love creates feelings of need; which are similar to feelings people experience while being addicted or attached to something. 5. Feelings of addiction or attachment are produced strictly from chemicals that the body releases under certain circumstances. 6. During many types of bonding experiences, such as talking about your past, spending time together, sex, etc., chemicals are released that cause the brain to make an attachment. 7. In regards to this premise, the more times people participate in these bonding experiences together, the more these chemicals will be released, which would make the attachment between these people stronger. 8. Furthermore, if a person is in a monogamous relationship but cheats on their partner and has bonding experiences with someone outside of their relationship, the chemicals released would create a bond between these people as well. 9. This attachment made through bonding is essentially love. 10. In addition, when a person cheats on their partner in a monogamous relationship, this does not necessarily mean that they love their original partner any less. 11. Therefore, due to the fact that love is based on chemicals that they body releases in a numerous amount of circumstances, a person is capable of romantically loving more than one person. Now that we have discussed it, I can now agree that sex is not proof of love. For this reason, I have changed the wording in a few of the premises so that they now fit my new opinion on the topic. I still believe that in situations where a partner cheats, their feelings for their original partner have not been altered and they have simply just developed more feelings for someone new. Many bonding experiences do create feelings of love and, if you have these experiences with more than one person, it would only be natural to be romantically in love with multiple people.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1.I agree that science can explain love, but emotions tend to be very random, and I would think it would be very hard for science to predict how much love a person may be in. 2.I agree, but I think that this particular case would not just be hard to prove, it would nearly be impossible. 3.alright 4.A person might not have to transfer all of their love to a new partner, but they do have to transfer the part of it that makes it romantic love, there still may be feelings of love leftover, but they are just residual. Any amount of romantic love that a person has, has already come over to the new partner. 5.While someone might feel like they have been with another person for a longtime, the truth is they have not. There is no way those people could connect on the same level as two people who have known each other for a longer amount of time. This sudden feeling of love may just be their mind tricking them into thinking something that is not true. 6.I agree but when you give those feelings to someone else, the romantic part of love definitely transfers over. While there still might be a small sense of attraction to an old partner, this can not be considered romantic love.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1: Love is basically an intense attraction to another person and science does explain attraction and attachment. Science is capable of explaining love. 2: I agree that people it would be extremely difficult to determine whether someone is in love with multiple people but this does not make it impossible that you can have multiple romantic partners. This just means it is hard to prove. 3: I agree with premise 3. 4: I cannot agree with claims for premise 4 because love cannot be considered as a single package where only one person can receive it. If a person begins to fall in love with another person outside of their relationship, this does not mean that all of the love inside the person must transfer over to their new partner. 5: Regarding premise 5, the duration that someone has been in love with their partner does not make their love stronger. There are situations where people have been in a relationship with someone for a brief time but feel like they have been together for a long time and experience a deeper level of love than is expected regarding the time that they have spent with their partner. 7: Similarly to what I have stated for premise 4, for premise 7, when you begin to fall in love with a new partner, all of your love does not just transfer to someone new. You are capable of developing more love inside of you for someone else.