BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You choose the topic. I choose my position.

Thanks to the Pro for letting me choose the resolution and letting me know beforehand about the side they were picking.In addition to the previously provided definition of culture I would like to add the following definition:Culture: a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization (such as a business)http://www.merriam-webster.com...Globalization increases the Competition of the Free MarketCurrently different cultures have different focuses of technology and services. As culture, and thereby the desires and goals of the people change to be similar the amount of organizations who work on a particular service will increase. This will allow the global market to become more efficient as competitiveness increases. As services and businesses become more competitve the market will grow, thus allowing for less developed regions to develop faster. For example in the highly Westernized country of India gdp grew 5% in 2013. However in the less Westernized, but previously economically similar (They grew out of the same region and were colonized by the same nation), Pakistan's gdp only grew 4.4%.http://data.worldbank.org...;Globalization allows for more Global HarmonyGroups which share common cultural elements are more prone to be able to ally. Let's look at a major example. In the Cold War Era Two major alliances formed. The Warsaw Pact/COMECON and NATO. They were formed based off of one major cultural element, the way that the country's economy operated. My opponent may try to say that this is not an element of culture, but it fits under the definition provided. As you can see cultural elements like these ally countries and groups and thus will promote harmony.http://www.history.com...Globalization Helps Disadvantaged GroupsGlobalization will allow countries and groups which had previously been left behind economically to catch up. By defintion, globalization increases interaction between groups and people internationally, through trade and investment especially. By increasing the amount of investment in poorer countries the internal economy and standard of living. http://www.globalissues.org...This artical primarily discusses the deficeit between what rich countries countries could give and do give. It also shows some of the benefits of development. Globalization would increase the amount of investment in countries which are less developed, and therefore assist them.I provided links to my sources directly below where I referenced them.Good Luck to the Pro.
You choose the topic. I choose my position.

The position I choose is pro.One of my classes that I am taking is "Cultural Anthropology" which deals directly with this topic.All Cultures are EqualThe very first point that my professor made was that all cultures are just as good or "normal" as another. This is stated many times in our textbook. Cultures make us unique as well. We can't judge other cultures without experiencing it ourselves. We can study different tribes in Africa and have our opinions on them, but we can't publish any work we do unless it is first-hand experience with it. People have the tendency to look through what we call "Western glasses" where if something is different from here in the US, you are weird. This is completely wrong.Culture is Required for Human DevelopmentThe way we behave in a social atmosphere, how we dress, how we talk, what we eat, the pace in which we walk, and much more are determined by culture. We are taught culture from the moment we are born through experience. If we ever made a universal culture, it wouldn't be a culture. It we be a biological trait that we inherit. Without having differences from others, we would have no idea what makes us unique. This is a difficult concept to grasp without an example. Here is the example our professor gave. "We all love football here in the United States. Many people in this room probably cheer for the Packers and absolutely hate the Vikings. What if I told you that without the Vikings, you would lose interest in football? Imagine this hypothetical situation. We only have Packers vs. Packers. Which side would you cheer for? Would it matter? How long before you stop watching? This is why we need diversity. We can relate to each other through other people's differences."Clash of CivilizationsBelieve it or not, similarity causes tension. Take Muslims and Christians for example. Both believe in the Old Testament of the Bible, but they have one major difference. Christians believe that Jesus was god, but Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet. Everything after that stems off that key difference. There is a lot of hostility between these two groups. When asked why, we get responses such as this: "It's not because they are different, it's because they are similar." Now imagine how horrible it would be to try to unify everybody into a global culture. Just mixing 2 religions is bad enough.3rd World CountriesUnifying culture would be especially bad for 3rd world countries. Without social media and televised events the only thing that keeps them connected is culture. The only reason why they can function in their civilizations is because they have differences around them that keep them unique. With a unified culture, they would be severely impacted and possibly cease to exist.SourcesIt was rather difficult to find sources for this subject because how do you make experiments to test all of this...1. Cultural Anthropology- 14th Edition (Carol R. Ember and Melvin Ember)2. Professor Hayder Al-Mohammad
You choose the topic. I choose my position.

Round 1 Con: Acceptance and Choose Topic Round 2 Pro: Choose Position and Opening Argument (Definitions if Needed) Round 2: Con: Opening Arguments Round 3: Rebuttal and Arguments Round 4: Rebuttal and Arguments Round 5: Closing Statement You choose the topic. It may be anything you wish. I get to choose my position though. Note: Since I am pro without actually knowing what the topic is, you should disregard this unless I am actually pro.
Money wasted on art works is absurd

Invisible art- HAHAHA Just stare at a blank wall lol. http://www.cbc.ca... Time on 1 painting = money I have painted on one canvas for 3 years. It is trash since I am no artist, but the auction starts at 2 million. Pay me now. History Not often so. What does a blank blue canvas, Mona Lisa or a goat gotta do with culture? Furthermore, you could easily photocopy the paintings, mass produce them and sell them. The portrait of Jesus Christ is one example. If you want to immortalize culture, give it to everyone so that everyone remembers, not just to a few filthy rich who would forget about it in a few days and the world wouldn't get that info through art as you claim. Arguments Gap between manufacturing and sale value Let's admit it, paint, canvas, paper and artistic tools barely cost 500-9000 dollar at top-notch quality. Yet the same artworks are sold for millions, or sometimes billions of dollars. This is a far too wide profit margin. Any middle class will find this highly unreasonable, yet the filthy rich waste their money over this trash. Undeserving artists Half the artworks are absurd and not really great, but sold because the artist has good fame. Look at my sources for more info. A ridiculous blue canvas with a line sold for millions! And that certainly didn't take time nor represent cultures. I would sell graffiti at a better price than it is now, but too bad its not counted as art by most. Graffiti may be called vandalism, but it is the best art form according to me. It even has a blending of text and pictures. http://cavemancircus.com... http://www.bloomberg.com... https://www.bloomberg.com...
Money wasted on art works is absurd

"In my own philanthropy and business endeavors, I have seen the critical role that the arts play in stimulating creativity and in developing vital communities.The arts have a crucial impact on our economy and are an important catalyst for learning, discovery, and achievement in our country ""Paul G. Allen, Co-Founder, Microsoft I will be arguing against the resolution that money wasted on art works is absurd. Value: Importance of value. Value, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means relative worth, utility, or importance. Everything has value. So in order to obtain anything, you have to realize the importance of value in anything, especially art. If you want to obtain art, it is going to take something of equal value. I will now give two contentions that support my case. Contention 1: Importance. Importance, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means value or significance. Art is a very valuable thing because many artists have suffered for their art. It took Michelangelo 26 years just to make the statue of David. Do you think he would want to sell David for just a couple of bucks because it's "absurd art"? Of course not. So when we are paying for something like art, we exchange it for equal value. If the artist spent as much or more time on their art as Michelangelo, then I believe they should get a very high price for their art. Contention 2: History. Art is literally a definition of a culture. Our art will be a time traveling device for people of future times. It will show our history, culture, and families. Because of this, art is very valuable. If it is destroyed, our cultures and histories are destroyed. So that's why it is sold for so much money. You can't just give art to anyone off the street. But if someone is willing to respect it's value by giving up equal value then you know that person can be trusted to protect our histories and cultures. Thank you.
Performance enhancing supplements are not necessary and absolutely harmful for teens

Unfortunately I received no rebuttals from last argument so I have re-submitted and hope that Con will be able to finish the debate. I am arguing that I am not against the use of supplements geared towards athletic performance. I do believe that the recreational use of supplements for teens/young adults between the ages of 16 and 22 are not necessary and more harmful than beneficial to the individual. To keep the debate interesting, I am open to all supplements both legal/illegal which are considered "performance enhancers" or "dietary" with the exception of multivitamins. To avoid confusion I will provide definitions of the focal point of the argument. I look forward to an engaging debate as this is growing more controversial as the supplement industry continues to rapidly grow. rec•re•a•tion•al (of a drug or medication) used for recreation and enjoyment rather than to treat a medical condition. sup•ple•ment Something added to complete a thing, supply a deficiency, or reinforce or extend a whole.
Resolved: Agenda 21is a good decision

1. Agenda 21 takes away private property, inculcates the youth, and strengthens the resolve of our enemies. 2. In my objective analysis, Agenda 21 is bad.3. Therefore, Agenda 21 is a bad decision.~~~Please refer to my YouTube link of the most sane man in television history describing the horrifying realities of Agenda 21. Viewer discretion is advised.http://www.youtube.com...PEACE,-WSA
Abortions

There is nothing wrong with adoption. What I am saying, is that its is the mothers decision. It is just a fetus, its not a baby yet, and if the woman was raped, she should have every reason to get rid of the baby. She may not want anything related to the rapist growing inside of her. Or if a woman got pregnant but doesn't know who the father is. Why go through 9 months of suffering just to put the child up for adoption? The child would only grow up not even knowing who their real mother is and have a sad life. Not all kids even get adopted. The only option is abortion. Besides, it's her decision. Her baby. So who are we to judge?
Abortions

I am arguing against abortion. The decision should not be the choice of the mother since the baby is another being. Abortion would be taking the life of another. If the death penalty is inhumane where death is given to criminals, how is it right to end the life of baby who neither has done anything wrong nor has the ability to even say no. If a woman cannot support her baby there are alternatives such as permanent adoption or putting the child up for temporary adoption if the reason for abortion is financial struggle or being too young. If you want a permant choice, putting the child for adoption may be the solution.
Affirmative action is necessary for equal oppurtunity

Affirmative action is problematic. It is flat out discrimination against white and Asian men. Denying someone a job or spot because they are white, Asian or male, and giving that spot to another person who didn't work as hard as them and doesn't deserve it as much, because they are black, female ect, is mean and racist/sexist. People should be judged based on their work ethic and achievements, not things that they can't help like race, sex ect. Universities, companies, ect need the best people possible. Affirmative action causes schools, companies ect to bring in people who are not qualified and end up doing poorly or drooping out. If you were going to have surgery would you want your doctor to be someone who was pretty good but got in on affirmative action and was not the very best, or would you want the person who was excellent and got in because of their skills? Who do you want teaching your kids? The person who got the job because they were qualified or the under qualified person who got the job because of their sex? Another thing I should point out is that affirmative action, in no way "levels the playing field." The group most likely to benefit form affirmative action is MIDDLE CLASS white women. Should a middle class woman who went to good schools and had access to lots of educational resources be given the advantage over the poor male who went to lousy schools and had less resources? In that scenario, giving the woman the advantage over the man would create a bigger disparity and make the playing field even more uneven. Just because someone is female, black, hispanic ect does not mean that they had a hard life and need extra help. Just because someone is male, white or Asian does not mean that they had privileged life. In some cases affirmative action will advantage a privileged woman/minority over a poor under privileged male/white/Asian--is that fair? Affirmative action should be banned in public institutions.
Affirmative action is necessary for equal oppurtunity

Not all whites have good schooling and not all blacks have poor schooling. What happens when a school has to choose between a white person who grew up in a white trash ghetto and a middle or upper class black person, both of whom have the same grades? Are they going to choose the black person even though they are advantaged over the white person? In that case the school would be creating an even bigger disparity between the middle or upper class black person and the poor white person, not leveling the playing field. Inner city poor schools most of which are black are usually easy to excel in. Better schools are harder to excel in. If you take someone of any race who attended an inner city ghetto school and got a 3.8 gpa and you take a person who attended a good school in an upper class area and also got a 3.8 gpa, chances are the person from the good school had to work harder to achieve that gpa--good schools make you work hard. It is harder to get good grades in good schools than it is to get good grades in bad schools. Some colleges take in people with low gpas who aren't ready to attend them, because those people are female, nonwhite or nonAsian. The results in these colleges is that whites and Asians do better than other groups--because the whites and Asians are less likely to have gotten in on affirmative action and therefor are more likely to have been ready for those schools. The drop out rate among black people in colleges that use affirmative action is very high. The black people who drop out in those affirmative action schools often do so because they were not ready in the first place. In essence-- whites and Asians do better in colleges than other groups because it is harder for whites and Asians to get in. Because it is hard for whites and Asians to get in, the whites and Asians who do get in will be highly qualified and ready for those colleges. Members of other racial groups who got in on affirmative action are less qualified and therefor are more likely to do poorly or drop out. There are advantages that come with being white. But not all white people will benefit form these advantages. There are also disadvantages that come with being white. Even if a white person does benefit fro the advantages that come with being white those white-advantages might be overridden by disadvantages he faced relating to health, income ect . Who do you think is more privileged? The rich black person or the poor white person? The advantages that come with being white can easily be outweighed and overridden by disadvantages relating to poor health, low income, abuse ect When someone is applying for college, the college should not assume that because they are white that they benefited from the advantages that come with being white or that they did not face other disadvantages. Colleges should also not assume that all blacks who apply had hard lives, because some black people have privileged lives--they are wealthy, middle class, healthy, able bodied ect.
Affirmative action is necessary for equal oppurtunity

A white person's opportunity compared to a black person's oppurtunity. We are all well aware that there are many more ghettos and hoods with blacks than whites, that means that the schooling in black communities will be more often worse than schooling in white communities. Now, with that in mind, who is more qualified to get into Harvard or Yale, your average Black person who graduated with a 3.8 GPA, or your average white person who graduated with a 4.0 GPA. The answer is that the Black person most likely had to work harder through a less funded school system to earn a 3.8, than the white person who always was in the great school district. That means not only that the black person is more qualified, but also that when he gets to the specified university that he will be a harder worker. My main point is that the white person has white privilege and has never had to deal with not having that privilege. If you do not understand what white privilege is I will be happy to explain it to you. Affirmative action is necessary to achieve equal equality.
Affirmative action is necessary for equal oppurtunity

Tgis study of top law schools found that 50% of African Americans at these schools, many of whom had gotten in affirmative action, were at the bottom 10% of their class. It also found that the drop out rate of blacks in these law schools was almost 20%. http://www2.law.ucla.edu... University of San Diego law professor and U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Gail Heriot explained in a special report that there is a similar dropout rate among students who got in because of affirmative action and white students admitted as legacies with entering credentials similar to those of students admitted because of a race preference. Heriot describes one study conducted by UCLA law professor Richard Sander and UCLA statistician Roger Bolus, which indicated: Professor Heriot describes one study by UCLA law professor Richard Sander and UCLA statistician Roger Bolus, that students with credentials more than one standard deviation below their science peers at college are "half as likely to end up with science bachelor degrees, compared with similar students attending schools where their credentials are much closer to, or above, the mean credentials of their peers." What will happen if affirmative action is banned in public colleges? Lets look at California. In 1996 affirmative action was made illegal. Before this amendment affirmative action induced grades were very common. Now that affirmative action is banned, California minority students have lower drop out rates and higher grades--because thees students actually earned their positions. Simply put, college students who were admitted due to affirmative action are more likely to drop out and be at the bottoms of their classes than students who got in on their own merits. This should not surprise anyone. Students who get in on affirmative action often are not ready for the colleges they are attending--if they were they wouldn't have to have the admission bar lowered for them. When a student gets in to a college, not because f their achievements, but because of their race )or sex), it makes complete sense that this individual is more likely to be at the bottom of their class or fail out. Why do you want to put people in positions they are not ready for and will likely fail out of? Do you actually want to help minorities?
There is no God

Okay, what I am goint to do is to show you why I don't think there is a God. Evolution has meant that our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder. Our Universe is full of emptiness, randomness, chaos, death and destruction . You are free to believe in a God who has allowed 99.9% of all species to have ever existed on Earth to live and go extinct. All this death, randomness, cruelty, incompetence, and extinction are part of the plan of an intelligent being? It would suggest that God is cruel, capricious, incompetent, or simply does not care. Will is merely the drive to reduce dissonance between each of our active neural circuits. Evolution can be see as the same process, where nature tries to adapt or 'resonate' with its environment. By doing so, it evolved to a point, where it became self-aware and began to ponder its own existance. When a person faces the paradox of wanting purpose while thinking that human existence is meaningless, cognitive dissonance occurs. Throughout history, this has led many to reach for spiritual and religious guidance, chanllenging science, as it failed to give answers to existential questions, such as: "Why or what am I?" It is a horrible idea that there is somebody who owns us, who makes us, who supervises us waking and sleeping, who knows our thoughts, who can convict us of thought crime, who can create us sick (as apparently we are) and then order us on pain of eternal torture to be well again. To wish this to be true, is to wish to live as an abject slave.
Should the US leave the TTP The Trans-Pacific Partnership

There are several arguments poining at the potential risks linked to the implementation of TPP: There are fears over the impact TPP may have on certain products and services in member countries and some campaign groups have raised concerns about the impact such a wide-ranging agreement may have on intellectual property laws and patent enforcement. The fear the deal may extend the scope of patents in sectors such a medicine and prevent the distribution of generic drugs. Leaked documents from TPP negotiations reveals that the deal would even empower foreign corporations to skirt domestic courts and directly challenge our health, environmental and other public interest policies before extrajudicial foreign tribunals. Consequently our national democracies would be undermined. The Canadian social activist Naomi Klein goes further and claims: R03;"The Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP"has been called 'NAFTA on steroids.' It"s the latest and largest in a series of international agreements that have attacked working women and men, fuelled mindless and carbon-intensive consumption, and prevented governments from enforcing their own laws to cut greenhouse gas emissions." Finally, a major criticism is that it is currently being negotiated behind closed doors by officials from the United States and 11 the other countries. The lack of transparency and accountability in these highly important negotiations makes very difficult for some stakeholders and experts to provide any input in the process.