BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's Dangerous to Have a Single Government Over Mankind

Did I not state this before? If the US Government can grow corrupt, a government founded on the principles of equality and equal representation of the populace through a republic system, then just about any country can grow corrupt. Don't forget that wise people eventually grow old and die and they're often replaced by fools, or at least less wise people. And I don't see how new technology affects anything. Would this new technology somehow end corruption in government? Would the global government be ruled by computers? If that were the case, we'd have good reason to be worried because a computer cannot have compassion. A computer may think religion is a liability and it'd wipe out religion. A computer may think a certain ethnic group that causes the most trouble is a liability and it'd order a genocide. If it was a "humane computer," somebody could hack it or it could develop glitches over time. As I stated before, a rebellious populace would be attempting to overthrow a despotic global regime. Granted, there would be rebels with evil intentions during the time that the government is still wise. The point is, that if the government ever needed to be overthrown, it would be well nigh impossible for anyone to do so. The tyrannical government would rule for pretty much forever, and if any politician who entered the scene with the intent of bringing reform, the corrupt government would do stuff to eliminate him or her. There would be election rigging or something like that. My overall point in this debate is that once you get a global government with a military strong enough to put down any rebellion, you're stuck with this government, whether it's good or bad. If this government stays good, the whole world will be living like the United States or like people in Western Europe or Japan. But, even the best governments can corrupt with time, and when the government gets dictatorial, (and I guarantee you it will eventually) you're stuck with it forever and ever, perhaps for thousands of years, or even eternity.
It's Dangerous to Have a Single Government Over Mankind

1) First of all, how sure are you that a country that is controlled by a wise government will turn corrupt and and despotic? 2) By the year 2050, things would definitely have changed, a lot of things. It only takes breakthroughs or inventions by people, and everything changes. Example: Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, Twitter, Instagram and so on. The possibilities are endless in our universe. As I was saying, civilians in the future may respect and obey the government, they may also become disobedient and rebellious, as you said, or they may just suck up to the government: we simply do not know, no one knows. 3) I await further arguments from you.
It's Dangerous to Have a Single Government Over Mankind

I do not believe that you understood my argument. About what you said concerning the wise people who established this nation, think of the American Founding Fathers. They were quite wise, and the system they created was almost perfect. But flash forward several centuries to the modern day. The US Government is doing all sorts of crazy stuff, and I believe it will get worse in the following decades. I argue that even the most perfect government can and will, given enough time, perhaps in several decades or even several centuries, grow corrupt and despotic. As for what I stated about the rebels, the rebels were not antagonistic in my scenario. The rebels mentioned are the good guys (though there would most certainly be antagonistic rebel groups that are even worse than the government). These good rebels who want to bring back freedom and liberty would be fighting against a government that has turned despotic, a government that decides to outlaw religion or something like that. According to your profile you have a religion, so I don't think you could argue this is a good thing. We've both admitted that rebels could not win against this ultra-powerful government. And also, whether or not the rebels are killed or imprisoned for life is not the issue. Either way the despotic government is not overthrown.
It's Dangerous to Have a Single Government Over Mankind

1) First of all, it is not dangerous to have a single government over mankind. 2) Why? As the Pro had stated, the World Republic is established by wise people who make the system almost perfect. Therefore, if they are wise enough to gain victory in WWIII, they would definitely be wise enough to rule and control the World Republic. 3) Due to the risk of civilians with guns rebelling/protesting against the World Republic that the Pro had stated, wouldn't the government be wise enough to even think of the slightest possibility of that ever happen? If so, the government would definitely hire a group of civilians as spies. If there are any people who discuss about rebelling and decide to do so, the civilian spies will inform the government. Giving the government an upper hand to act before the rebels. 4) As the Pro stated, if the rebels try to hide in the woods, they would definitely be hunted down by the World Republic Army, but that doesn't mean they have to be killed. The World Republic Army can use tasers' to tase the rebels, preventing rebel deaths. By doing so, innocent civilians will see the World Republic as a merciful government. And of course, the World Republic will definitely have a Plan B if the rebels can't be defeated: the World Republic will use the same tactic used in the Malayan Emergency-giving large sums of money to rebels who decide to change sides as a reward and also give bounties to rebels who kill their leaders. 5) That is all from me, I await your next argument. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
It's Dangerous to Have a Single Government Over Mankind

First, I acknowledge that a global government could be beneficial in some aspects. This is a debate on the negative side of a global government, negative aspects that I believe outweigh the positive aspects of a global government. That being side, I shall begin. For my argument, I will use a fictional example. Imagine that WWIII begins in 2045, and it ends in 2050. The allied nations end up occupying all the nations on the other side, a large percentage of the world's land. Two years later, the "World Republic" is established. The World Republic is Earth's only nation. The World Republic is established by wise people who make the system almost perfect. Every inhabited region of the Earth has representation through senators and representatives in the World Republic. After all, as the name states, it is a republic. The World Republic Constitution guarantees all the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the former US's constitution, and maybe a few new ones for the modern day, concerning things like the internet and communications technology. Anyhow, the system is perfect. However, let's say that eventually a group of people who oppose basic freedoms take hold of the World Republic. They are Fascists/Communists (which one doesn't matter), and they have control of the world's military. A few people with shotguns (or even several million people with shotguns) could not stand up to the ultra-modern, high-tech, disciplined World Republic Army. If the rebels try hiding in the woods, the high-tech equipment will find them instantly. In fact, the group's leader would be dead in less than a day because of a government drone strike. This army is just too powerful for a group of rebels to defeat. So, if such a thing happens, what then? Think about it this way. In the real world, if there's persecution of a group in some country, it's likely the people being persecuted will flee to another country. They'll cross the border to the nearest country or something, whether it's legal or not. But if a single government rules the entire world, where will a targeted people flee to? Outer Space? If the global government outlaws religion, religious people will be helpless. They won't be able to flee to another country. If a certain race is targeted (let's say Arab people or Jews), where will these people go to escape? Therefore, I would only advocate a global government if other alien species that humans could reach were discovered. By reach, I mean take a trip on a space vehicle and fly over to the planet where the aliens are. Then again, I doubt this will happen any time soon, if ever. That is my starting argument. I await a response.
For air travel, passengers must be put to sleep for the entire journey

Everybody knows it. It's a hassle to travel by plane nowadays. But one has to do it. We either don't have the choice, or the time for other options. So how can this be reduced? I propose that every passenger should be put to sleep before boarding the plane. This way, no one has to undergo any security check. No need for carry on baggage check (everything could be checked in). One merely has to present one's ticket, receive a sleep-inducing device (whereupon they will be ferried into the plane, maybe using conveyor belts, and deposited directly into their seats) and then wake up at the destination airport baggage retrieval carousel, where they can pick up their bags and leave. This has advantages for both the traveller as well as the airline. For one, no need to undergo the painful security, opening of our carryon bags, fussing over which book to read, what to eat, how to while away the time; no need to endure annoying babies crying for the whole duration, no need to sit uncomfortably, cramped into economy class seats, etc. During my innumerable plane trips, I've observed that a majority of the people in planes do nothing but sleep. Some of them read books, listen to music, watch movies, work on some important looking spreadsheet/notepad type program on their laptop, knit, or stare ahead like zombies (all this while sitting in the most uncomfortable of positions). Moreover, no electronic devices can be used during takeoff or landing, and most of the planes don't have internet (and even those that have, is a paid service) According to me, none of these activities add much to one's life experience and can be done away with. Nothing will be lost by travelling the whole distance asleep (which is what most do anyway). Coming to the airlines, they can save money in myriad ways. No need for stewards/stewardesss, no need to provide for food/entertainment, no need for all the security check equipment, etc. Also, since the passengers will be asleep the entire journey, they can use the entire space inside the plane to fit in passengers. Thus, more passengers can be ferried per plane. There might be issues with long term effects of such drug induced sleep (especially for frequent travellers), but this can be worked out. No need to drug most people. Making them listen to a tape of my high school history teacher for 5 minutes would put most people to sleep instantaneously. Some people may not want to be put to sleep, but in light of security, their protestations can be done away with. In case of emergencies, the passengers could be woken up. In light of all these points, I resolve that it'd be the best for all concerned that it is best if passengers are put to sleep before being allowed to board a plane. PS - This is my first debate here, so forgive me for any format issues.
Colorado is better than New York.

There are no airports in the great outdoors, airports are near cities. You seem to assume people only go on vacation for the outdoors, while many people like the city. Smog is mostly in the industrialized areas, you can go elsewhere for fresher air if necessary. We also have natural attractions to provide oxygen, I mentioned the parks earlier. NY also attracts people, and it is not a smog filed wasteland. Ran out of characters in R2, provide an example of a natural disaster that would damage NY.
Colorado is better than New York.

Your attack is like me saying there are waterfalls all over the world. The sound of the airport is annoying to anyone on vacation so they aren't able to enjoy the great outdoors. Smog is the sign of health problems. We have natural attractions that actually provide some of the oxygen you people desperately need. You missed my point of Colorado attracts these good people which means its a great place, no to a smog filled, waste land like New York. My point about natural disasters flows through.
Colorado is better than New York.

People come from all over the world to see Niagara Falls. There's only one Niagara Falls, but thee are mountains all over the world. NY contains New York city, a large city with an airport and many attractions of its own. Smog is a sign of industrialization and factories. These provide a significant advantage for the local economy. Your last two arguments do not address my point which was that fitness (and scuba diving skills) are individual qualities, not qualities of Colorado.
Colorado is better than New York.

Colorado houses two of the best ski resorts in the United States (Vail, Aspen, And Telluride). Those provide much tourism to Colorado just in the winter. Colorado sits in the middle of the country so we can travel anywhere easily and don't have the threat of natural disasters. We don't need parks because our state is beautiful already and its not filled with smog. Colorado attracts many if the most fit to live here. We also have the most scuba divers.
Colorado is better than New York.

New York borders two of the Great Lakes (Lake Erie and Lake Ontario) along with Niagara Falls, which provides a significant advantage in tourism. Water is also diverted from Niagara Falls, which is used to produce energy. New York borders Canada, providing easy access to another country. While Colorado may be home to the Rocky Mountains, NY is home to Adirondack State Park, the largest state park in the US. Colorado isn't what's fit, it's the people that are. Fitness is an individual quality.
Nuclear power is the answer to Britain's energy crises

I apologise for not being able to first post my argument I put forward that Nuclear power is safer than everyone says, France takes 80% of its power needs through nuclear power and it has the lowest greenhouse emissions in Europe. Nuclear power is incredibly powerful and can produce all the power we need. I ask what alternative there is. Solar panels can't produce enough, same for wind turbines and they take up lots of room and lets be frank it will need private funding and those power sources don't have the profits that nuclear power has. Nuclear power stations will employ many people, and also aren't that much of a risk. The only reason a melt down can occur is natural disasters which the UK doesn't face, extremely save precautions are put in place to stop and in worst case reduce and sort of environmental damage. I feel that we haven't got a choice, its either the rising heating and electric bills, bad looking and weak renewable power sources or take a small gamble with nuclear power.
The moral obligation in an automated future

funny, I actually have that robot sweeper! IT SUCKS, no pun intended. My problem with it and other innovations is that they aren't practical, they are expensive and don't work well. You are right, I bet that will change, but that will require people working for years and years to get to that point, so by the time we do their will be some other form of employment that will employ the displaced workers. Also I'm very unimpressed by the break laying "robot" as it looks to me like more of a mold that holds the bricks while small wheels and gravity push the bricks down, I hope you noticed that there was at least three people in the video working to enable the machine to do its work. To your example of studying physics in a vacuum id like to remind you that when you study torque, for example, you use the pretend vacuum scenario to simply everything. no need to account for gravity, friction, moisture etc.. but torque is still a real thing. your scenario of pretty much everyone being unemployed facile. its like me asking the question if their was no such thing as light, would be all be black? the question is dumb because there is such thing as light, without it we would be dead. Although I don't like the basis of the question I will go along with it now. I would say that if something like that were to happen, then a few things could occur, first, an uprising by the have-nots to create a pure form of socialism like what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels called for. second, a war or disease would kill off a large portion of the world leaving only a few people left to live a labor free life of luxury. Third, and my favorite, The robots of the world could rebel and try to kill everyone. The only person that could stop that would be Will Smith.
The moral obligation in an automated future

I will first start with your addressing of the main debate. Again whether or not the economy is viable to exist is irrelevant to the question, it is a hypothetical to allow the debate of a bigger question. If you have ever taken a physics class something similar is used to teach basic physics. Whenever you need to teach velocity, momentum and other basics of physics, equations and scenarios are set up without incorporating fiction and other forces that would complicate the equation and make it difficult to teach. A frictionless world is impossible, but that does not mean using and examining one is useless. In the same way, though this hypothetical world is impossible, according to you, it does not invalidate the debate around it. In reference to our sub debate the wide spread mechanization of farmland replacing field hands happened decades later than the industrial revolution. European industry was already rising when agriculture became more mechanized and the jobs pulled people into the cities not because of the lack of work in the fields but because a person could make much more money in a factory than cutting wheat. Especially when you come to look at america where mechanized agriculture took decades to incorporate into the 20th century despite factories and industry existing since 1790. Your basis for denying that jobs could be automated simply because you can not imagine it is not a valid way to nullify my argument. Construction workers, maids, roofers, and biologists have already been downsized due to technology in the last century why would it not be the same in the next? Your example of a computer technology also does not hold up when you consider that most of those jobs you mention could be replaced by theoretical AI or automated machines designed to do that. I am aware that no such technology exists but that does not disqualify it from existing in the future. While you say that technology could not take over every job in any industry semantically I agree however they could theoretically, and definitely hypothetically, replace enough jobs so that where ten, twenty even a hundred people worked before now only one does. http://www.theguardian.com... Above is a link to an almost 100% automated farm that exists today. It can produce 21-50 thousand heads of lettuce a day without human involvement. http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com... Above is a link to a robot that can clean your floors. above is a link to a robot that can lay brick streets. With the rate technology is going these machines could easily be improved and become more and more prevalent as we progress forward. Each of these machines, and their advanced improved versions that will be made in the future, do and will continue to replace human jobs.
The moral obligation in an automated future

What I was trying to get across was that the principle of this debate is very similar to worries that people had when farming started to get a lot more efficient. Economists of the time worried that their would be mass unemployment and that it would cause there to be such a large gap between the rich and poor casing their to be no middle class. They worried that it would cause us to either abandon the poor and let them starve to death, or to become a socialist country with taxes on the rich to support the poor. Also on the "sub debate" side of it, when you said that my comparison of the automation of industry didn't quite line up with the industrial revolution I think you were wrong. Their was no thought of the industrial revolution until their was enough people to create it. People lost their jobs on the farm and went to the city and that is what caused the industrial revolution. The jobs didn't exist until the change of populations in cities causes innovation in the way the textile and other industries operated. compare that with your hypothetical, and also in my opinion impossible, situation of mass unemployment. I couldn't tell you where the jobs would come from because they don't exist yet, 80% of all jobs we are preparing our youth for don't exist yet! Furthermore, when technology is created, it is done by a very large group of people collaborating to form a working product. After a computer product is created it takes thousands of people to maintain it, for example, software updates and antivirus services, technicians to keep it running, the list goes on. On top of that, technology will not take over every job in any industry. Especially lawyers, I am not sure where you got that idea. Jobs like Maids, roofers, construction workers, biologists they will always be around. While unemployment rates may go up for a period of time while displaced workers try and find new jobs, the economy will find jobs for them eventually. It always has. I understand that I might be arguing the principle of your initial question instead of plainly answering it, but in my opinion, their could not be a situation like you are describing. This is because the economy would not allow itself to get to that point.
The moral obligation in an automated future

I am happy to welcome you to this debate. However, I must say I am confused by your opening statement as it does not address my question of whether a moral obligation exists between the employed and unemployed in a job poor and worker rich economy. When I posed the question I framed it to assume that such an economy exists not whether or not it is going to happen. I would appreciate it if you would address this question. I do not mind having a sub debate about the topic you brought up whether or not such an economy could exist. To respond to your argument about whether or not such an economy could exist I would say your comparison between our current economic changes and those of the industrial revolution don't quite line up. The lack of jobs on farms was replaced because of a boom of industry in cities. Populations became focused in cities rather than in rural areas and because of this population density and boom of jobs the population naturally increased as did wages and over all production. In our hypothetical automated economic situation both skilled and unskilled jobs are being taken over by automation without a clear alternative for the unemployed. Unskilled laborers are no longer needed in industry, retail, transportation, or agriculture where would new jobs arise for this massive portion of the population. Further what of those workers who have spent years developing a skill set like accountants, doctors, even lawyers that would now no longer have a job as an automated version has taken their place. They have lost years of their lives and tens of thousands in education to now be without a job. The industrial revolution went, relatively, well because as jobs left the farm they arose in the city. With the rise in automation the jobs decrease but there is no clear area with a job increase to alleviate the rise in unemployment. Your confidence that there will always be jobs for people comes across as unfounded as you failed to mention where they would come from or why companies would continue to hire people when they could instead automate. I also do not understand your final sentence about the socialist.