BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Poverty Revenue Policy

My Poverty Revenue Policy would impose a annual tax on foreign citizens that work abroad in foreign countries not of origin to finance charitable expenditures in third world underdeveloped populations. The Poverty Revenue Policy would finance charitable expenditures such as medical charities, food distribution, public housing, social services, infrastructure, and much more. The Poverty Revenue Policy would not target any specific racial groups but is aimed at Foreign Residents that live and work in foreign countries not of birth. In addition, the Poverty Revenue Police would not burden any racial groups with the financial responsibility of providing resources to foreign populations. In stead, the Poverty Revenue Policy would target immigrants that migrate to foreign countries to study and work. This annual tax would be an obligation for foreign migrant workers to finance charity in targeted third world populations. The Poverty Revenue Policy would not impose any racial barriers. For example; President George W. Bush Jr. has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion. ( Bush Has Quietly Tripled Aid to Africa: Para. 2: http://www.washingtonpost.com...) In my opinion the funding donated to finance Former President Bush Jr's. presidential expenditures in Africa came from tax payers annual returns and this is part of the reason the IRS Scandal with Lois Learner is taking a toll on U.S. Economy in President Barack Obama's administration. During his speech to Ghana's parliament on Saturday,07/15/2009 President Obama sounded a familiar refrain: Africa must be made and remade by Africans, and the United States will continue to support nations on the path to progress. To critics, that meant he had nothing new to say -- it was the same message about good governance they'd heard from presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. No new programs or initiatives for Africa. But just because the message is old doesn't mean it's not worth repeating. Obama is building on a solid aid network that Bush created on the African continent. Most foreign-aid advocacy groups give the U.S. high marks on its expansion of programs that fight poverty and disease overseas. (American Aid to Africa (C) 2009: http://articles.latimes.com...)
Poverty Revenue Policy

So my opponent has forfeited the round .I will just continue with my constructive points. First, WHY? 1. Specifically choosing a group of people is discrimination. No matter what the end results are you can not justify the means of reaching to it by saying that the money will be used for charitable purpose. And also not all foreign citizens are rich. So you are just burdening them with a new task which will decrease their income,which in chain will effect their lifestyle . Secondly,we would be at loss. 1.See when an highly educated person migrates to US we are the ones who gain from his services, but now when a person is making the choice to migrate he would prefer a country which does not have this tax . So we loss the benefits of their services.
schools shouldn't cut art from the budget

I. Art Isn't Important "School is supposed to be an academic environment. But the arts have somehow infested the hallways and taken thousands of students hostage with pretty colors and soothing sounds. Students go to school to learn the derivative of 48 x 2 and the Kreb's Cycle, not to paint abstract nothingness or to sing bad choral music. "[1] II. Art Can Distract Students "The arts, which are a required credit in many schools, distract students and create wannabe starving artists, who skip class because they don't want to put their precious guitar away, or who never leave the art room because they have to finish their masterpiece painting of a soda can. "[1] III. They Would Have to Cut more Important Subjects if Art was Kept "The survey, by the Center on Education Policy, found that since the passage of the federal law, 71 percent of the nation's 15,000 school districts had reduced the hours of instructional time spent on history, music and other subjects to open up more time for reading and math. " Cutting art means more important subjects. IV. Artists, phooey! Artists make little money, waste college funds, feed off the government, raise the debt, paint horrible pictures (today), are "artsy", are weird, eat their paintings when they are hungry, and so forth. Why should we promote them? V. My Opponent's Argument My opponent said, "it encourages children to go to school every day. " I hated art. I got a C in it the last time I took it. If I had to take Art again, I would be MORE inclined to skip school. And so would a lot of other kids. Thank you. Sources: [1]: . http://articles.sun-sentinel.com... [2]: . http://www.nytimes.com...
Is murder a crime

Dreadfully sorry old chap. I haven't the foggiest what you are trying to say. "But forsay" Thats not a word but do continue. "that someone is killed beacsue the killer is that that his mother died of old age." Oh jolly good you have continued. But I say! Whats the killers mother got to do with it? Or old age? I am frightfully confused old bean. "Should this be called a rime." My good fellow, rime is frozen water droplets on the surface of objects. It would be most irregular to call a killers mother dying of old age a rime. "I belive that this is a crime and forso that the killer should be accused of crime." I say, it sounds jolly careless to lose one's mother to old age, but calling it a crime sounds a bit unsporting. Just not cricket really. You see the individual in question did have dash all to do with it. "For so tyhat the killer has made a huge mistake and shall pay the price." He has? Is something I'm missing here? Did he lock her in cellar and then wait for her to die of old age? Seems mildly odd to say the least. "I am for death peantly" I thought murder was a crime according to you? "Thus shall state why muder is a crime" Oh, jolly good. I await your arguments eagerly "..." Take your time. "..." Have you got the right notes there? "..." Hello? "..." Blast and confound it. He appears to have done a runner. This is the last time I debate some one sitting on a toilet which has a window to escape from.
Is murder a crime

thank you for the good exzample of not murder. But forsay that someone is killed beacsue the killer is that that his mother died of old age. Should this be called a rime. I belive that this is a crime and forso that the killer should be accused of crime. For so tyhat the killer has made a huge mistake and shall pay the price. I am for death peantly,Thus shall state why muder is a crime
No country has achieved full gender equality

Hello thank you for offering this topic to debate. As you have not created a format I will assume I can make my arguments this round. As you said "In no country are men and women completely equal" that is a true statement, but the example you gave is not a good one. No, the wage gap does not exist. The way they get this statistic is by taking the median annual salary of men and dividing it by the median salary of women. This statistic does not take into account the hours that were worked, the type of job it is, vacation time, and maternity leave. Women work less than men that is true. They take time off work when the have a kid for weeks, months, maybe even a year whereas an average man may take off 2 or 3 days. So I will be looking forward to your next argument and I hope it is a good one.
developing economies should not halt development to mitigate green house emission

Greenhouse emissions have not been shown to harm anyone. Data such as that put forward by various climatological organizations such as IPCC to the contrary relies on the false assumption that ice cores are a static system (i.e. that the CO2 readings in them will be the same as when the ice was formed). http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:IBOId0mAu6QJ:www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf+Zbigniew+Jaworowski+ice+core+data&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a They also rely on the assumption-again false- that correlation equals causation. Do I need a source for that? By the way, if indeed correlation did equal causation, the Tunguska event (look it up on wikipedia) and the increase of greenhouse emissions would BOTH have to cause global warming. So also, of course, would the decrease of pirate populations. I await the evidence that greenhouse gases cause significant problems. When such evidence is provided, then we can discuss the severity of measures to be taken about it (One easy method of mitigation would be developing countries making sure their emissions are full of traditional pollutants, such as sulfates, as these happen to have a cooling effect on the earth. It's a question of whether that or a temperature increase or other possibilities are worse. But it is only such a question when the evidence, not yet provided, is shown.
BP should be forced to pay all reparations

Clearly my opponent has no respect for this debate. the fact that the spill has been capped means nothing to the thousands that have already been put out of work and the hundreds of animals that have been killed by this oil spill. As my opponent pointed out, this spill lasted 87 days longer than it should have. Also, regardless of whether or not there is more oil spilling into the gulf, the oil that is already there is still dissipating throughout the ocean, and could have devastating effects on the worlds oceans. I carry forward my opening case, as it has still not been responded to.
BP should be forced to pay all reparations

my opponent brought up several interesting points, I will combat these one by one. 1) My opponent suggested that the disaster should be blamed on the secretaries of interior and energy. This is untrue, because their job is to enforce current regulations. Because the current laws don't require the 3rd remote shut off valve, this allowed BP to get away with not installing it. Also, I will admit that their was some oversight by these departments, but the oversight was paid for by BP! If nothing else your argument helps mine, by showing that BP had obvious malicious intent as they were bribing government officials! 2) I have many responses to my opponents second argument. First, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever of the existence of this worker. Who does he work for? What is his job? And, secondly, is it the fault of the person who notices negligence in a case like this? No, it is still the fault of the negligent! Simply because a worker failed to notice the problems with BP's well does not mean that it is that workers fault for the whole disaster. It remains the fault of the negligent entity, in this case BP. I would like to point out that my opponent has not specifically responded to any of my case points, so those points still stand. thank you.
BP should be forced to pay all reparations

BP Should not because of the fact that it is the fault of the Interior and Energy secretary for not doing their job as per the oath of office. These secretarys should have notified Congress and then congress should have supenoa BP. Secondly it is the fault of the Worker who survied and said that he told the president that their were safety failure. The worker should have resigned and then submitted a letter to congress. I am sure if these 2 steps were taken President obama would have never been in this situtation.
Should women have rights? [ATTEMPT 2}

You are one of the most ignorant, uneducated swines I have ever come across. Not only do you advocate Jihadis from degenerate sandslimes such as yourself, but you mock white people, who, by the way, has in fact invented the device you are using to transmit that message. Most of everything is in fact developed by whites, if not all things worth mentioning. Asians, sure, invented gunpowder, but we made use of it. We invented mathematics, algebra, and practically anything you can think of. You are a disgrace to your people, and to this site.
Should women have rights? [ATTEMPT 2}

i actually think no white ppl should have rights. they all need to die in the explosion of a glorious jihadi fighter. white ppl ruined austria. that b*tch who got voted was white. if an arab woman got voted then it woyuld be much better. tho no arab woman should be out of the house. also burkas should be a national requrnment. f*ck white ppl. ima go explode myself.
kids should use technology

I still think technology is not good for children. As I have already said before, it is really hard for parents to control what their kids do on the Internet nowadays because their manipulations are fast so they can enter some websites that are not suitable for their ages without their parents knowing. It is also hard for adults to distinguish reliable websites to unreliable ones: Wikipedia can also be wrong! I believe children should not use technology, but not adults. If kids need the Internet for acceptable purposes, they can ask their parents to do it for them, otherwise, they are free. Also, children can be cyber-bullied and this leads to depression, which makes them become afraid of everything and decrease their confidence. What's more, scientists found that using the Internet too much can put kids at risk of high blood pressure, and persistent high blood pressure can trigger serious health problems, from kidney disease and memory loss to eye damage and heart disease or stroke. I will tell you a real story. Two days ago, one of my friends (her name is Chau) rummaged a boy called Minh's - Chau's enemy desk drawer and saw his diary. I tried to stop her from reading it because the diary is Minh's and he has the right to keep it secret. But Chau was too curious. She ignored me and read Minh's diary from A to Z. When she finished reading it, she roared with laughter and said: "Read it. There are so many surprising secrets inside." I did not read it but yesterday, when my best friend (she is not Chau) came into the classroom, everybody, except me, laughed loudly. I asked them the reason why they made such loud noise, and they answered: "Chau read Minh's diary and knew that Minh likes your best friend. After that, Chau took a picture of the diary's every page and posted it on Facebook. We all know it now!". Posting enemy's diary on Facebook? I cannot believe Chau anymore. Once again, I believe that kids have to be older to use technology.
kids should use technology

If you say children should not use technology, it means that they should not use technology totally. You can control what websites that your child can visit, and also can control apps that the child uses, so I don't think, they can visit false websites that contain false information, and be addicted to games. So I still think using technology is good. Children should use technology like a computer, mobile phone, and television because they can use it for researching information, doing projects, using e-books instead of old and heavy textbooks, it also makes the world closer and smaller by talking in social media programs, also the social media programs can make your child speak up and be confident to talk, it also, improves your communicating skills, last, this is another way to teach children, and the children are interested in.
kids should use technology

I do not think that children should use technology. Firstly, children can use technology for researching information, doing projects, using e-books but nowadays, there are so many websites that provide us with false information and even adults may not be able to realize it. A child - a young human being below the legal age of majority - is innocent and those websites can make his views become deviated. Children are just like blank papers when they were born and things around them will decide how those papers will look like. That's why they must be oriented to the good, especially when they are still young. Secondly, social medias are not as safe as you think. It is true that this is a good way to help children to develop communicating skills and to make the world closer, but do you want children to be closer to the bad guys? Once again, I want to assert that children are immature and the many of them do not know how to avoid being attacked. Their personal information can easily be stolen by hackers. Moreover, children are too young to know how to behave nicely, especially on the Internet as many kids nowadays do not obey their parents anymore. The next point is that many children do not know how to self-control when they are on the Internet. Many kids can use the Internet even more professionally than their parents. Their manipulations are so fast that their parents cannot recognize them doing things they are not allowed to do. Also, the Internet is interesting to kids and it will certainly give them temptation. So how can they control themselves now? How can their eyesight stay good? How can they be focus on studying? Finally, you said that parents could install apps to spy their kids using the medias. Children are allowed to use the medias means they have the right to keep their messages and actions on the medias private. With parents controlling what they do, children cannot do things they want and this can make children's social skills unimproved.
kids should use technology

Children should use technology like a computer, mobile phone, and television because they can use it for researching information, doing projects, using e-books instead of old and heavy textbooks, it also makes the world closer and smaller by talking in social media programs, also the social media programs can make your child speak up and be confident to talk, it also, improves your communicating skills, last, this is another way to teach children, and the children are interested in. Although, people might say that these children will be cyber-bullied, but as long as they are taught to prevent it and stay away from it, this will not make a problem. Some may say:"They will get attracted to it and they will not be concentrating in school" But I think, if your child can self-control it, let most of the kids do, that will be not a problem. If your kid cannot control themselves from playing games, you can tell them the negative ways of getting addicted to playing games, and they will probably stop playing and control themselves from playing games. Some people may say "It makes your child's eyesight bad" but, if you use the media in an appropriate way of using it in a certain amount of time, and you can decide it and write on something, called Media Schedule, you can write the time that your child can use media and let them decide when to use the time. So, your child can still have a good eyesight. And, your child will be happy that you give them time to do whatever they want on technology items. Also, if you are still not unsure to let your kid use technology, there is some kind of apps that you can install to the media and you can always spy on your kid using the media.
The contents of the Bible are as accurate as they were originally

Thank you for accepting this challenge, Sandra888. Now, I don't really have a counter argument for that, and it looks like you nulled my arguments. I can't think of anything else so I'm backing down here. In other words, you win. If there's anyone reading this that has something to add, perhaps something I missed, then feel free to say so in the comments. Otherwise, this debate is concluded. Also, this is out of topic but somewhat related but, may I ask a new question? (since I don't want to start a new debate just for this when I can just add it here) Ok, so here's my question. It is now concluded(?) that the contents of the Bible are as accurate as they were originally, but how do we know that it's contents are real and not made up? Cheers!
The contents of the Bible are as accurate as they were originally

Good luck. Much of the bible has, in fact, been passed by word of mouth throughout the centuries and millennia. I agree with you that, under most circumstances, word of mouth is prone to innacuracies. However, there are reasons that the Bible is still as accurate as it was originally. Firstly, word of mouth is prone only to minor changes. While you may not remember word for word what the story says, you are likely to keep the details the same. Minor details may change, but people can remember most of what they were told. Secondly, this is not any campfire story. According to the storytellers, this is the word of God, and the basis of a whole religion. This is not something that people embellish, and change details of to make more exciting. People are likely to remember a lot more of something that important. That means the gist and stories of the bible were passed on through the generations very accurately, because you would hardly make up the words and story of God.
The contents of the Bible are as accurate as they were originally

Round 1 - First argument Round 2 - Rebuttal Round 3 - Conclusion The Bible has been around for thousands of years. Over those times, couldn't it be possible that its contents have been changed? For example, take the first 5 books of the Bible, the Pentateuch. These were passed on by word of mouth until it was written, presumably by Moses. Now I believe everyone of us knows of the fallibility of the tongue. There are bound to be minor changes that, over time, will accumulate to the point that the majority of the Bible's contents would be so distant from the original version. As such, I argue that the Bible's contents, especially those in the Old Testament, aren't 100% accurate.
THBT Nana is fat

Dear Amalia, ehem. You may not have gotten the fact that we have actually had a mutual understanding of the definition of this debate. Beofre we started posting stuff, I told you that it was about someone in this room. So technically, we are debating about nana hazni you stupid girl. Now getting back to the motion, some people may say that looks are not everything. But when talking about modern times, that is all people look at. And once more i would like to say that is, in fact, fat.
THBT Nana is fat

Dear Inani, seems like the description for Nana is really vague, Here is what I'm going to say. There million, gazillions nana in the whole wide world. So, somewhere out there, there is a Nana that is thin. So you can't say that Nana is fat. You are going to discriminate all the Nanas in the world. Now you don't want to do that don't you?