BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
North American Union

This seems like an extension of NAFTA. I *like* how we only include 13% of North American countries, but it seems OK. https://en.wikipedia.org... says the common currency could be the Amero, like the Euro. According to http://www.informationliberation.com..., 82% of American oppose such a union. This means that if this was somehow signed (unlikely), there would probably be an independence referendum such as Brexit. This would take away 88% of the GDP of the NAU. I agree with RR-MKIV, who said, "Perhaps with Canada, certainly not with mexico [sic]. You have to take it on terms of poverty and crime as well [Mexico]." Another proposal is the NAFTA superhighway. Although NAFTA in itself is bad: https://www.thebalance.com... says NAFTA led to a loss of up to 750000 jobs in the US. NAFTA also put Mexican farmers out of business as local farmers could not compete with the US. The environment was degraded. Here are the facts behind the highway. According to http://www.artba.org..., it would cost about 9 million per mile to build a highway. Assuming a diameter/ length of about 2300 miles, this would cost 20.7 billion. Speaking of cost, how would just that be decided? A political union sort of already exists, but if you are talking about mutual defense to an extent, then the results would be bad. Mutual defense (extensive political/ military union) is how World War III could start. Let me explain. Say China provokes Japan, or invades them. Since the US has a mutual defense treaty with them, they would have to help. All NATO members would jump in, and so on until the world is destroyed. The extreme (in comparison) crime and poverty levels of Mexico might bring such a union down. And if it"s just between 2 countries (Canada and America), what"s the point? Thus, a sort of burden of thought (proof) is imposed on you. What makes you think this would be economically or politically beneficial?
North American Union

In a globalized world, our country has become an interconnected society in which one part of the world will produce, and the other will provide service. With a rising China, the United States face the possibility of losing its superpower role and possibly its economic might. A good option in maintaining a safety net and also a large market while increasing in might would be to united with our neighbors, Mexico, and Canada. As defined, "The North American Union (NAU) is a theoretical economic and political union of Canada, Mexico, and the United States" Wouldnt such a union serve to be beneficial to our power, safety and economy?
God doesn't exist.

Second round is for opening statements. Third round for first rebuttals. Fourth round for second rebuttals and concluding remarks. Pro will argue that God doesn't exist and Con will argue that God does exist. God will be defined as the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal creator and sustainer of the universe. Omnipotent means all powerful. Omniscient means all knowing. Omnibenevolent means all loving. Good luck! (:
Socialism is better then Capitalism

My opponent does not actually bring any arguments for why state incorporated socialism would make things better. He begins by describing capitalism as coercive and immoral and ends by simply asserting without proof that state socialism would lead to an egalitarian society. I will wait until the next round for my opponent to bring reason for this statement. My opponent did not provide specific points, however he laid out a very sprawled case for egalitarianism and a critique of capitalism. I will address his specific points below. //"There are people in this country hungering for an alternative to Capitalism. Who want to do something meaningful for humanity with their lives. "// First, I would like to apologize to readers if my response does not seem to be very organized but my opponent did not provide a very structured argument, but more of a call to action for people who are already socialists. Second, even if we admit that there are people who want a different system than capitalism, why should we believe that A. -They want socialism and B. -Socialism would work better? Also, a capitalistic society does not prohibit people from doing meaningful things with their lives. By meaningful though I assume my opponent means something like altruistic charity work. Where in a capitalistic society is this prohibited? My opponent then brings a perceived problem to the system of capitalism later on in his case. He writes: //"So it is more humanitarian that 1% of our countries population owns 96% of its wealth"// I would like my opponent to bring some warrant for this assertion before I touch it. If it is actually true then I will deal with it but I'm not up for wasting time and energy arguing over a point that may not even be true. Next my opponent argues that even if selfishness if a more common force in the world, that charity is better. First, I will ask my opponent what specifically makes it better? And second, regardless of the specific motivations for one's actions(selfishness in a capitalistic society, charity in a socialist society), one can see from the evidence that capitalistic societies(United States) typically have higher standards of living then socialist societies(China). If socialism is more humanitarian than capitalism, where is the evidence? My opponent does not really argue for the system of state socialism, but argues against the system of capitalism specifically. I however have shown that at least compared to socialism, capitalism is a more humanitarian system. I say that it is more humanitarian on account that that is what my opponent seems to equate with the term 'better'. My opponent has not upheld his BOP, nor has he affirmed the resolution.
Socialism is better then Capitalism

I accept my opponents definitions on both Capitalism and Socialism. To start things off I would like to answer my opponents question "what form of socialism is he defending" I will offer a definition for my answer. STATE SOCIALISM:An economic system with limited socialist characteristics that is effected by gradual state action and typically includes public ownership of major industries and remedial measures to benefit the working class. "Growth and improvement within the capitalist system only leads to greater disparity and destruction. " (Ellen Meiksins Wood, The Origin of Capitalism 1999 p.118):My Argument:The title of this debate is "Socialism is better than Capitalism" I say; Communism would be A far better world. The way the world is, is not the way it has to be. There are people in this country hungering for an alternative to Capitalism. Who want to do something meaningful for humanity with their lives. Humanity can move beyond exploitation and social division. It can move towards a classless society and a world of freely associating human beings. Yes, what I am saying is controversial. We live in a time when the permanence of capitalism is ear marked as the only way. My opponent would have you believe that the verdict on the 20th century has been delivered and the socialist experiment has failed and can only fail. He will bombard you with the idea that there is no alternative, that capitalism is the natural order of things. He will argue that as much as capitalism has problems, any attempts to get rid of it will make things far worse. My opponent argues "Capitalism is at the base, built on egoistic principles, but it's consequences are generally much more humanitarian than that of socialism's. " So it is more humanitarian that 1% of our countries population owns 96% of its wealth, while the rest of us survive off of buying their products and services handing them over even more wealth, while children go hungry, people die because they cant afford healthcare, hard working blue collar Americans loose their homes, Jobs get sold off to the lowest bidder over seas, unemployment percentages skyrocket. Friends, these are the facts, and this is NOT humanitarian. My opponent asks. . "what force is strongest in the world currently? Charity or selfishness" We all know the answer to this question. Capitalism creates selfishness. I ask you which is BETTER (something superior in condition or effect) My answer is charity. Readers do not let my opponent scare you into thinking anything that fundamentally challenges capitalism is at best a pipe dream and at worst an unworkable utopia, or the project of making revolution and building an economy and society that promote and serve the common good violates human nature, economic logic, and the very flow of history. Capitalism today is not working, we need a change.
Socialism is better then Capitalism

I would expect there would be many to challenge this argument. The reason for that is because of the carrot on the stick dangling in front of your faces. A Capitalist Society gives off the belief that we can "get a piece of the pie" This keeps us blinded on what is right for our people and our country.The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none. Under capitalism, property is concentrated into the hands of relatively few well-off people, leaving the many with nothing and at the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. This leads to gross inequality, exploitation and misery. Nor is it economically efficient, as the rich have so much already they have no incentive to use their land productively. Socialism seeks to redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without.Many could be motivated to work by a wish to aid their fellow man. Over time, as the benefits of this better way of life become obvious, all will. The impulse to share wealth and material amongst the community, to support all, leaving none behind, is one of the purest mankind can experience. It is not merely possible – it is a demonstration of the progress of our species to a finer, more humane state of being.I will leave much out to give anyone a chance to respond...
Mining is relatively safe.

That's not as bad as occupations in the fecal matter industry. Toilet paper testers are people who actually need to test how effective toilet paper is before it's put on the market. Toilet paper testers need to wipe volunteers (participants in the study's) butts with their toilet paper to test levels of breakage, sanitation, dryness, viscosity, and absorbancy. Not only is it horrendously disgusting for the person who needs to wipe them, but test subjects are often ridden with diseases because empirical studies show that test subjects that volunteer usually don't have very good hygiene and diseases that are contacted oral-anally are often found in these volunteers. Studies indicate that: ". . . Of all occupations, toilet paper testers tends to be the most underpaid and have, on average, are one of the most dangerous lines of work because of the diseases they regularly contract. . ." [1]Diseases such as, Poliomyelitis, Norovirus acute gastroenteritis, Giardiasis, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis E, Rotavirus, Shigellosis (bacillary dysentery), Typhoid fever, Vibrio parahaemolyticus infections, Enteroviruses, Cholera, Clostridium difficile, Cryptosporidiosis and Ascariasis have all been reported. These diseases aren't typically found in the average volunteer but it's not an uncommon occurrence. The lining of the anal wall is very thin, so wiping too hard by these testers causes some of them with diseases to bleed and if the tester is not careful, it can seep through their gloves. This profession is much more dangerous than mining simply because the diseases that can be contracted are life-threatening and more numerous than the ailments that come from mining (although mining is also dangerous).[1] http://www.rrnews.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mining is relatively safe.

Thank you for accepting my challenge.Mining ventilation is a significant safety concern for many miners. Without clean air, the miners might suffocate, and harmful gases, dust and heat may cause injury or death. Ignited methane gas explosions are very dangerous and common, which causes lethal coal dust explosions which can also bring along problems such as silicosos, asbestosis and pneumoconiosis. Also, the gases might displace air, causing asphyxaction. All these breathing and lung problems have a huge safety impact on the miners.Thank you.
Mining is relatively safe.

Thanks con. " I define relatively as 'compared to other occupations' and safe as 'compared to other occupations'" The resolution didn't hinge on MOST occupations relative to mining but COMPATATIVELY. If you look back at the beginning of this debate in the first round you'll see that I've shown toilet paper testers are more relatively dangerous (by a huge margin) than miners. My opponent has not linked any data in the previous round comparing miners to toilet paper testers because toilet paper testers are statistically more dangerous than miners. This should win me the debate.
Mining is relatively safe.

I would also like to point out that the topic is "mining is relatively safe compared to other occupations" which by no means is "mining is the safest occupation". With this in mind, we can say that it is more dangerous than office workers, bus drivers etc. My opponent has failed to object that MOST occupations are more dangerous than mining. Mining has many dangers, including asphyxiation, collapses and heat related illnesses. These illnesses can easily overwhelm anyone, and would almost NEVER appear in normal jobs. Again, I would like to thank my opponent for his arguments and time. Vote Con! Thank you.
Mining is relatively safe.

Your assertion of the debate is that mining is a relatively safe occupation, but relative to what? It's not safe relative to toilet paper testers. In fact, I can actually bring statistics to show that it is actually far more dangerous. How many miners die per year? What percentage of miners get asbestos or other mining related illnesses? This is from an independent Indonesian website: Pada tahun pertama saja kita melihat bahwa 19% dari semua penguji kertas toilet akan kontrak penyakit mematikan. Selama rentang 10 tahun kita telah melihat bahwa hanya di bawah setengah (48,2%) dari semua penguji kertas toilet mati [1.] Translation: "In the first year alone we see that 19% of all toilet paper testers will contract a lethal disease. Over a 10 year span we have seen that just under half (48.2%) of all toilet paper testers are dead from job-related illnesses." [1.] This was from an independent Chinese website where many toilet paper testers are employed. Upon doing the research of how many miners die over a 10 year span from job related illnesses you will that 48.2% figure is far larger than the amount of miners that die from job related illnesses over a 10 year period. www.npr.org " News " Health Apr 16, 2010 - "Mindful of the grief and anger surrounding the death of the 29 miners at the Upper Big ... in 2006, Attfield found that 4 percent of 1,000 miners tested had advanced pneumoconiosis." This is just one example in one particular case, but it gives you perspective of the 4% of miners battling job-related illnesses vs. the 19% of job-related illnesses that toilet paper testers suffer. [1.] http://m.inilah.com...
Mining is relatively safe.

I apologize that my list was only for Australia, but neither is it mentioned in this world list -http://list25.com...Also, the topic for today's debate is that mining is relatively safe compared to other occupations NOT mining is the safest occupation.So, I shall continue my argument. Mining collapses are also very threatening. "Thousands of miners die from mining accidents each year, especially in the processes of coal mining and hard rock mining. Most of the deaths nowadays occur in developing countries, especially China and rural parts of developed countries." Mining collapses have happened quite a few times. One such example is _Copiapó_mining_accident in Australia.http://en.wikipedia.org...; It took a total of 14 days for the miners to escape, and this is just one of the weakest mining collapses.Thank you.
Mining is relatively safe.

The list of most dangerous jobs you've cited is only applicable in Australia. Toilet paper testers are commonly found in western China, Indonesia, Zambia, and Mogidishu. These are 4 countries that list toilet paper testers as being one of the most dangerous job in the industry. The sanitation standards in those countries listed are probably not as good as sanitation standards in the U.S. That doesn't mean it isn't dangerous though, it's extremely dangerous because of the diseases their test subjects usually have and we weren't debating the most dangerous job just in the U.S but worldwide. Also, you mentioned that people with these diseases would be in the hospital but that's not necessarily true. Test subjects probably believe that they are healthy at first and are unaware that they have the disease and only find out later as time goes on. Here's just one example of one common disease of oral-anal contact, Hepatitus a: "Hepatitis A (formerly known as infectious hepatitis) is an acute infectious disease of the liver caused by the hepatitis A virus (HAV).[1] Many cases have little or no symptoms especially in the young." [1] This shows that toilet paper testers are dealing with an insidious array of test subjects because many of the test subjects themselves don't know they have these diseases. This is much more dangerous than mining because miners can expect the dangers that they face. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Mining is relatively safe.

"Toilet paper testers are people who actually need to test how effective toilet paper is before it's put on the market. Toilet paper testers need to wipe volunteers (participants in the study's) butts with their toilet paper to test levels of breakage, sanitation, dryness, viscosity, and absorbancy. "By no means are toilet paper testers' occupations are dangerous as a miner's as stated in . http://www.news.com.au...;(toilet-paper testers aren't even mentioned). It is very rare for a participant to have a disease, as they would be in hospital. Thus their job is not nearly as dangerous as mining, where people are CONSTANTLY exposed to toxic particles. So "Diseases such as, Poliomyelitis, Norovirus acute gastroenteritis, Giardiasis, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis E, Rotavirus, Shigellosis (bacillary dysentery), Typhoid fever, Vibrio parahaemolyticus infections, Enteroviruses, Cholera, Clostridium difficile, Cryptosporidiosis and Ascariasis" would not appear that often at all. Many people in mines are exposed to high temperatures, which may cause strokes, which can be lethal. The heat originates from the core of the Earth. Heavy machinary may also collapse or fail, causing inevitable death through gases and toxins. I will explain about one of the most dangerous things about mining in the next argumentThank you.
Christopher Columbus should not be honored with a holiday in his name.

Christopher Columbus was a terrible person who killed and enslaved many for self-gain. It is disgusting that to this day we celebrate him annually with a national holiday in his very name: Columbus Day. We as a society should not honor this man. We need to acknowledge that he was not a hero but a greedy mass-murderer. The atrocity that I hint at is his genocide against the Arawak Indians. After encountering these Indians, he wrote thus in his log of them: "They would make fine servants…With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want." He also said this: "As soon as I arrived in the Indies, in the first island which I found, I took by force some of the natives, in order that they might learn and might give me information of that which there is in these parts." From the very start he treated the peaceful Indians forcefully. He later sent many as slaves to Spain. In 1495, he sent 500 Arawak slaves back to Spain, 200 of which died on the voyage. He wrote: "Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold" Christopher Columbus also forced all Arawaks 14 years or older to pay a certain amount of gold to them per month. If they failed to do this, they were killed. Many fled, and were hunted down and killed by Columbus and his men. Indians were worked endlessly in mines. With these terrors, mass suicides started being committed amongst the dwindling Indians. And point in case, in 2 years, half of the Indians on Haiti were dead. And so when we go back and look at history, we see that Christopher Columbus was a terrible human-being who should not be honored with his own national holiday. -Harlan
can we use uniform at +2level

I do believe that uniforms are a good idea up until eighth grade. Because kids change so much during that period of time, and it helps them emotionally if they don't have to deal with mockery and teasing if they dress differently. However during High school and College people are starting to figure out who they are and by putting them in uniforms you are suppressing any creativity as far as clothing. In some peoples lives their clothing is one of their only ways to let out their inner feelings and so if you force them to wear matching uniforms it takes away freedom of expression. One reason you say uniforms are good because then you dont have to worry about buying costly clothing. Well one solution to that is shop at local second hand stores. If you go to second hand stores regularly and search around there are often adorable clothes that have barely been worn, and even top designer brands for $5.oo instead of hundreds of dollars.
African aid is wrong and the money is better spent on popcorn and movies

Hello Khalif! Had you been a student of Logic, you would agree that proving my statement only requires a single supporting example. I will explain if you need me to. My grandfather is named Calle - he fought in Africa during WW2. The guys often used racism to achieve military objectives in the war against Montgomery. As an example senior officers would shout racial slurs to "locals" to herd them away from the Battlefield. This would hurt the locals pride, but they would indeed run away which saved a lot of lives. Saving lives, all life, must be considered a good deed, even if it means having Nazis shouting the N-word and spitting in Your face. Another example would be a hillbilly shouting racial slurs to African-Americans that for some reason did not hear what was shouted. The Hillbilly feels satisfied and no one got hurt. I think we can agree that I have provided you with two valid examples. You might not agree With the morals of my main characters, but the argument holds.
Water Is Not Wet

This debate is mostly for fun, looking for anyone who is willing to participate and disagrees with me. I believe that water is not wet for the folowing reasons: 1). If water is wet there has to be a dry form. There is no dry form of water that you can make wet by adding more water. 2). Water does not become "more wet" when you add water to it. 3). Water makes things wet, it, itself is not wet. Good luck to anyone who accepts this debate.