BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
africa can no longer open its full potential without european aid

This is how china is taking advantage of africa: it is paying less for its imports and the exports of africa are natural resources which are more valuable than china's few recycled material manufactured goods. I would know for certain that the EU offers fair trading rights because of its trading declarations that say so. Yes america is china's largest trading partner but america does not have natural resources as they are in africa thus china uses africa as its base.I am not against china trading with africa no but looking at africa right now it has not opened its full potential whilst trading with asia and america.My point is it can open its full potential especially in the economic sector if it allows the EU. Africa has over 50 states and those that are growing are less than 20.Taking a look at what is on the ground there is no employment in africa and the currencies os african countries are going down on the market and even if a bank and some 34% and 6% statistics says otherwise you agree with me that full potential in the economic sector is over 70%. We also have other aspects of life like the social and political.This are to be considered as well.There is xenophobia in africa and the opposition parties in africa do not win elections except for two countries.The EU offers equipment that can be used during election and the sevices of the world court which can really help africa in these aspects of life. africa is currently down and even if the media says otherwise there is only two better nations in africa SA and maybe egypt.It is not allowing the aid of europe i think if it is given a shot things will go better.many african states are not part of the common wealth nut that is the biggest and most advanced in the world belonging to europe.Europe is a big power and the continent can be of help if given the chance.
africa can no longer open its full potential without european aid

How do you know whether or not the EU offers "fair and equal" trading rights? Do you have any sources to back up your claim? This is the second time you have made a short rebuttal and stated claims without the use of sources to prove your point.How is China taking advantage of Africa? Just from looking at their import/export statistics, it appears the amount of goods they give each other are almost equal. It's not like China is giving half as much exports as Africa is giving it; THAT would be taking advantage. Africa is just exporting 15%-20% more. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... There were even times when China exported more to Africa as you can plainly see. And no, China is NOT using Africa as its "base". Just because because China is Africa's largest trading partner, it doesn't mean Africa is China's largest trading partner. America is. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn... "Poverty levels of Africa are increasing daily and they are not decreasing instead they are decreasing because we are failing to recognise that our current trade partners are taking advantage of us."-Pro. Once again my opponent has failed to name his sources.but I will continue my arguement. Africa is indeed decreasing its poverty levels. In fact, it's now the fastest growing continent in the world. According to the African Development Bank (AfDB), one-third of Africa's countries now have GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth rates of more than 6%. Because of this percentage growth, at least 370 million Africans, or 34% of the continent's 1.1 billion people, are now middle class, according to a survey by the AfDB; by 2060 they should represent nearly half of the population. Best of all, seven out of ten of the fastest growing economies as of 2015 are in Africa.http://www.debate.org... http://www.bbc.com... http://www.forbes.com... http://news.yahoo.com... http://www.afdb.org...
africa can no longer open its full potential without european aid

china is the greatest world importer and has the world's largest population. look at it this way it is poor resource wise and it is using africa as its base ti support its economy.From the time china stepped into africa it has been pumping out resources and taking advantage of the desperate africa. The european union is independent and most african states dont trade with it because of trading sanctions but when it comes to trade it offers fair and equal trading rights to any states. Poverty levels of africa are increasing daily and they are not decreasing instead they are decreasing because we are failing to recognise that our current trade partners are taking advantage of us.I am convinced that trade with the EU is the only solution to africa's problems.
africa can no longer open its full potential without european aid

This is my first debate and I accept your challenge. "real development can only come to africa if they trade and join and connect with european world"-Pro. Are you implying that Africa can't thrive without the help of European influence? If you are, you're greatly mistaken. I agree that Africa has a plentiful amount of resources and holds many (but not all) of the poorest countries in the world at the moment, but the other statements you make about it are not only inaccurate, but incredibly insulting. You say that trading with African nations "is of no use and benefits no other nation". Well, Africa's key trading partners (mostly China, India, and Brazil) would say otherwise. In 2013, the China-Africa trade surpassed over $200 billion in exports, making China Africa's largest trading partner. China's industries are getting raw materials such as coal from South Africa, iron ore from Gabon, timber from Equatorial Guinea and copper from Zambina. Chinese products have flooded markets in Johannesburg, Luanda, Lagos, Cairo, Dakar and other cities, towns and villages in Africa. Those goods include clothing, jewellery, electronics, building materials, and much more. As for India, Commerce and industry minister Anand Sharma is expressing hope that the India-Africa trade will reach the targeted level of $100 billion by this year. India exports to Africa include petroleum products, automobiles, pharmaceuticals and telecom equipment. Imports are crude oil, gold, raw cotton, precious stones, and textile yarn; India's largest trade partners in Africa are Nigeria, Angola, South Africa, and Egypt. Brazil primarily exports food to Africa such as cereals, meat, sea food, and sugar while Africa exports chiefly crude oil, petroleum products, fertilizer, and gas. Exports from Brazil to countries in Africa have increased five percent year-on-year, totaling US$5.53 billion in the first half of 2012.Businesses, investors and government officials in Brazil have been collaborating to bring about greater interest in Brazilian goods in Africa, which currently accounts for 4.7 percent of demand for Brazilian exports. For all the three emerging economies, Africa is a major supplier of natural resources, making Africa undeniably beneficiary to these nations. In other words, Africa is doing just fine without the help of the "European world" and is decreasing its poverty levels by the year. http://www.economist.com... http://www.newvision.co.ug... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com... http://www.ecobank.com...
Biology Education is Useless

Hello. First off I would like to commend your claim in the first round. It was really philosophical and that was a really good opener. I am going to make my arguments and i am going to respond to. My main source is:http://www.byui.edu... Another source:https://www.prospects.ac.uk... BIOLOGY FOR A STUDENT 1) Biology degree as a whole does not lead to any needed jobs, only helps in needed jobs Biology degrees are useless in a way that studying animals does not affect us humans. Humans do not need information on animals unless you want to pursue a biology career 2) Medicine degrees to cure diseases majors in Chemistry, Biology minor. We can only cure diseases using chemical compounds. If anything, biology is a college course that helps with chemistry, it should not be a full on course BIOLOGY EDUCATION 3) Education of Biology should only be used career path education, not required education We don't need to know about animals to live. That is a study that is neat, not neccessary 4) Biology Educators in High Schools Are Useless High school students are too young to know a lot about human body. Why teach is when no one understands it? 5) Biology teachers are inexpierenced Students don't like Biology because the teacher is not experienced in Biology or even teaching. 6)Labs having to do with Biology have nothing to do with learning Most of the time in class, you do labs. The labs don't help yet the teachers expect us to know stuff on the lab. How is that fair RESPONSE "Biology education is very useful, because biology is the logical classification of living things, and you must understand it in order to comprehend the many types of wonderful beasts that live on our planet. Anatomy, a subdivision of biology, is also incredibly fascinating." Taking Biology before Anatomy is not required but it won't hurt. These words are stated from allnurses.com. There is reasonability that you do not need biology to study anatomy CONCLUDING STATEMENT Biology is something that people either find useless or fun. Either way, the teaching of it for a general topic is useless.
Gods existence Proved in Creation of Atom and DNA

Does it NOT strike all who read these debates as peculiar that scientist after scientist are in full agreement of the sheer complexity, intelligent appearance in design of both the DNA and the Atoms compositions. Have even successfully determined that they ARE of a mathematical construct that can be calculated, but thus far are too sophisticated for the science of today to manipulate much less master? Yet, simply REFUSE to acknowledge the intelligence behind this mastery of mathematical genius? Does it NOT strike you as particularly stranger that the vast majority of Human kind is SO desperate to believe that they are not going to BE PUNISHED that they will grasp at even the most absurd of explanations for life"s existence, in the hopes that science will be able to somehow absolve them of the debt they MUST pay? God is the one who says, He has made Himself known to human kind and SHOWN His invisible qualities IN HIS CREATION! That is WHY you can not only see the DNA strands and the Atoms, but understand, their purpose AND their meaning. It is BECAUSE you can see these things and suppress the knowledge of Him for a lie ". You are being held accountable. Is it NOT absolute madness, to disavow a Creator, so gracious that He provided you WITH the means with which to BE FORGIVEN! Christ died so YOU do not have too. God even ALLOWS YOU to call upon Him that He can show you His existence FOR yourself. I met God in 1980, He provided me with all the proof I will ever need, He demonstrated His sovereignty to me in that while I was yet a sinner, Christ died for me! This was not a matter of a person"s opinion, it was not even a matter of my opinion, He manifested Himself in ways I can never explain away, place to chance, set to dream states. Oh yes potential brothers and sisters ". God is VERY REAL! Don"t take my word, seek Him for yourself! But under NO CIRCUMSTANCE should you IGNORE Him ". The consequence of which ".. is horrifying and eternal!
Gods existence Proved in Creation of Atom and DNA

Total opinion? All of your arguments are just bible quotes and bible beliefs. A little hypocritical, don't you think? I've been Catholic and Christian, I'm not biased. I have knowledge of DNA and atoms (vast amounts). I do not see why you want my to give you a religious life story or something, but if you want one- I'll give it to you. I was raised Catholic and then received the sacrament of confirmation. I was then a Christian who tried to connect with a God through prayer. I became an atheist in 8th grade. I've done a lot of soul searching to come to that conclusion. I didn't "disconnect" because I was against Him or anything of the sort. I left it, because the idea of a god sounds completely improbable. Scientists have tried to find where atoms have come from, but making major scientific discoveries take time. And, you need to have the patience. If you want a Catholic or Christian to debate you, you could've specified. Sorry for the short and late response.
Gods existence Proved in Creation of Atom and DNA

My apologies for my wording. The premise is not on the scientist Themselves, Intelligence or otherwise, the sole premise was and is that the complexity of the DNA strand undeniably suggest a power at work, far exceeding the intelligence of the scientific community as a whole. Expressly because our greatest minds cannot replicate nor create a DNA strand even with the use of our most sophisticated supercomputers. The debate specifically stated that the existence of God is evidenced in the super intelligent complexity of DNA and the Atoms. If you've NOT researched the existence of God through personal study and reflection, how can you submit a lucid argument. Please, tell me if you have researched YOURSELF whether God exists and have personal knowledge of the subject otherwise I will have to terminate this debate and resubmit in order to obtain an opponent who speaks from experienced study and reflection of the subject matter rather than total opinion?
Gods existence Proved in Creation of Atom and DNA

P2: I am more than aware of how DNA works. "Unless of course your suggesting that scientist need to prove their intelligent too? I do not mean that as a poke, just a statement I believe is indeed factual". Yes?" First off, your wording is odd. It's hard to make out sometimes, but I am assuming that you're saying that I don't believe the scientists' work on DNA..? 2. Science is constantly improving all of the time, you cannot assume the answer is God whenever we do not know the answer to something. If Dickens in the late 1800s thought like that, the theory of evolution would've never been founded. Get what I am saying? 3. It is not an opinion if it is based on fact. It is a theory that one will come up with to find the source of atoms and DNA come from. You state "hope comes from God by the way, atheist HAVE no hope", does this mean we have no hope for anything? Because, as an atheist and knowing many other atheists, I know for certain that we have hope for many things... *I have skipped a few, because many repeat the same ideals* I do not respect the way you're writing this. It comes off pretty rude, by the way. Especially considering, the only "evidence" you have is bible quotes and how DNA and atoms work. P5. You know nothing about me. I'm not going to give you my life story, but let's just say that I have gone through a lot of soul searching. I wasn't always an atheist. For the last part, I do not make my own interpretations. I know by fact that a human and ape crossbreeding experiment has happened. It did not work the first time, but it was stopped by the government. http://dangerousminds.net... I do not have many words, but it is difficult to fight science and religion.
Gods existence Proved in Creation of Atom and DNA

I will begin this debate by addressing all of your premises. P1. That is simply a religious belief. P2. That is called evolution and is scientifically proven. P3. We have not learned exactly where they come from, however making discoveries in science does not come fast. We did not even learn about evolution or light until a few centuries ago. We can not leave reason, until it is proven there is no explanation for them existing. P4. This is also a religious belief. I would get into detail if you prefer, however I will not until I am given evidence. P5. Once again, there is no proof there is a god. This is another religious view. If you are referring to creationism when you say "Inteligent design", you should know that it is proven with various examples (due to first argument, I will give examples in later debates. Atoms and galaxies are not the same. Atoms are in everything though. We are made of atoms. Not galaxies. I am skipping some premises, because they look repeated. Your last paragraph is completely wrong. Apes and humans have not been mated in all possible ways, by the way so it may be possible (and possible will, considering we are 98-99% alike to them). I'll give you some examples of species made from different species: zonkeys, mules, etc. Sorry for the short length of this paragraph. My next arguments will be more detailed and supported by more evidence.
Should some states who are self reliant or can trade, secede.

The civil war began because President Lincoln entered office, at that point the first confederate states seceded. The reason they couldn't trade was because the navy encircled their entire coast so ships couldn't leave. Due to current standards if those states seceded the Civil war would be a loss to the US, the entire population of the states that I chose would add up to more than 115 MILION people, not every one would fight in the war, but if they had a cause to fight, Many would stand to fight. The reason for secesion and their cause would be Terrorism or other Problems like national debt. But if they left the US would fall dramatically they would lose their most reliable states, america wouldn't die it would just fall in a worse crisis. A civil war reclaiming the other states would be pointless and would end up a failure for the US, if the other states would pay taxes then they would follow the steps of the seceded states, then america would fall. then a battleground would win ending up in the first seceded states gaining their own territory and satellites. The fall of america would shock the world, but the seceded states would probably ally them selves with NATO, or the Communist Allies, Farm states would mostly ally themselves with the Communists.
Should some states who are self reliant or can trade, secede.

Look in the past of what the affect was when states seceded from the United States, Civil war. The states that seceded back then were self reliant and they could trade and its the fact of how the remaining states react we would have large arguments over what belonged to the remaining states and the states that seceded taxes in the remaining U.S. would have to pay much higher taxes due to the loss of people, more than likely another civil war would begin.
Should some states who are self reliant or can trade, secede.

Some states like California and Texas have had a vote to secede they had hundreds of thousands of supporters, the states with 20 delagates or more would be all right if they seceded, California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pensilvania, Illinois, but the delagates in congress would drop and the elections would be more random for the US, the secession would last at most 30 years because of economy and a presidential candidate for the white house would easily win if he told that he'll unite the US so then the states would have to survive the ambitions from the president. Secession would be a good idea, but if the states would want to remain they would have to think which road to take.
Singularity will eventually destroy the human race.

You say that, "Slavery and ownership is a human thought, computers will never have this." But the thing is that as you said slavery and ownership is a human thought, but realize that computers are made by humans meaning that these AIs will inevitably have some thoughts like humans since humans created these AIs. There are various outcomes when singularity happens all of these outcomes will destroy the human race as I defined it. Here are the possible outcomes that come out from singularity (also my arguments): 1.In order for singularity to happen of course it would require us to create AIs that can become autonomous. In the best case scenario, supported by Ray Kurzweil, all humans will share the benefits of the intelligence explosion by being connected to the ASI through neural implants. There won't be an ASI and us, but a single harmonious entity. The intelligence explosion will continue indefinitely, and eventually spread to all the universe with human-machines. Like I said in the definitions destroy can also mean to change the human race completely into something else. Also what would happen if a virus comes and spreads through these AIs? Wouldn't that mean that the human race is screwed because we are linked to them and we have the possibility to be taken And even the best case scenario supports this what can the worse case scenario possibly be? 2. One of the worse case scenario is that we create AIs that are autonomous with positive feelings. Obviously, we would want an AI with positive feelings only such as being compassionate. Well the thing is that the risk is that creating one positive feeling necessarily implies creating its opposite too. The laws of the universe want that things exist in duality. Heat cannot exist without cold. Light cannot exist without darkness. Also there is the possibility that a bug can happen and it will allow these AIs to perform the opposite of what they were created for. http://www.vitamodularis.org...
Singularity will eventually destroy the human race.

I would first like to define the topic. Singularity is a scientific theory that sooner or later computer will eventually become exponentially smarter than the human race. For the sake of this debate, humans aren't apart of anything like a computer program a virtual world, etc. Humans are mammals that live on the planet, Earth. Destroy is to completely obliterate or make the human race into something that we don't know today such as slaves to AIs. Pro has to prove why singularity will eventually destroy the human race and Con has to prove that it would be saved instead. Rebutting isn't needed since it's only two rounds.
America is a Christian nation, and should be ruled by the Bible.

My opponent has argued that "Majority Rules" has never been set into action in the history of our nation.However, this is untrue. He has stated that minority parties can overrule the majority parties' legislations, but the only way to override a bill or legislation is with a majority 2/3 vote[1]. [1] also shows a list of House actions that requires a majority vote to be put into action, including overriding a presidential veto. There are also mentions of rulings based on majority rules in the Constitution [2] (I suggest CtrlF: majority for proof). In his argument, he only negated that majority rule should not be used, although that is what we use modern day. Common knowledge would show that we do not directly elect the President, but we elect someone who has promised to elect our candidate in the Electoral College [3]. If you still do not believe that the Electoral College allows a majority rule, please refer to [4] which shows that the Electoral College is very compliant with the popluar votes recieved by the people (with very few exceptions).He also mentioned the House and Senate, in which case [5]&[6] show that we elect the members of Congress (House and Senate).My opponent also argued separation between the Church and State.While this may be true, in order to have the Bible be the basis of our country, we would have to change our government to a theocratic one. If we are successful in doing do, then there would be no separation of the church and state. This is a separation because there are people of other cultures here, but as I have shown earlier, America is a Christian nation. I have also shown that majority does indeed rule.My General Argument: I have proven that America is a Christian nation. The Bible is the ruling of Christianity. Therefore, because America is a Christian nation, the Bible should be the basis of the country.Sources:[1]http://usgovinfo.about.com...;[2]http://www.senate.gov...;[3]http://www.howstuffworks.com...;[4]http://www.infoplease.com...;[5]http://www.dummies.com...[6]http://www.ehow.com...;