BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Child education and communication

even though people are taking their own lives because of bullying. but many police officers are trying their best in keeping the community happy such as calling other officers to see how their town is going and they can also give them more advice. Before Cyber bullying was bullying, before hand held games there were consoles and before that just regular tv. Before i pod was the CD player and before the boom box ect. ect. The point is, these forms of entertainment are nothing new and should not be used as an excuse. It's people like you that poison our world because you take the greatest inventions and turn them into a device thats bad for humanity when in reality, the helpfulness of the tool is far beyond its evils that would probably still occur without said device.
Medical Technology

Look at medical advancements. Chemotherapy can help cure cancer! Then look at how much technology is saving babies all over the world. Premature babies ever since technology advancements have been surviving more and more. If that isnt enough then look at more of surgical teams, they are more precise and much safer than before when it was just slice and dice. Its easy to debate that technology is bad when your life hasnt been dependant on it. Giving a child or a grown man a new chance at life makes it all worth it. And as far as obesity that isnt the medicals fault or even remotely close to it, its peoples choices to choose to eat all that fatty foods. New diseases appeared before medical technology, and they evolve just as quick as we do to stop them, the truth is yes there are super bugs from over use of the same medicine but stopping using the medical technology wont help us againest them. Without the medicines people would die from many of the illnesses we take for granted, medicine itself is only a stop gap until technology is invented that can directly intervene at the cellular level. >>> You do not need to be right to reap the rewards of technology, maybe some, but not all. And just remember, todays technology is tomorrows cheap
No to modern technology

i believe that modern technology can help us such as the modern technology we are inventing are creating more cures for dangerous dieseases, and they are great for communicating such as for job assignment and even for school education. even though it can hurt people, it can also save people and help people in their lives >>> might not be now, but we could find a way to heal radiation or even use radiation to our benefit in some way, whether it cures us or makes us more able to do something.
Increase in destruction from equipment in wars or fights

Trolling or? We have the bombs that can clear multiple cities with one bomb. We have rocket launchers capable of blowing up buildings from the inside out. We have grenade launchers holding several grenades. We could take down multiple cities within a few seconds and use about 6 bombs to destroy a small country right now. Thats the scary truth. However, technology may be able to bring upon some kind of defense to bombs and explosions to protect cities. How? Personally i'm not sure, but thats what technology is for, to create things that we don't know and thats what make it so amazing
Camera

When we use cameras we can look back at them and remember the day or what happen on that day. Like weddings birthday and more. And camera is one. >>> Next time you're out sight seeing, bring an easel, 3 gallons of paint, 5 paint brushes and 200 sheets of canvas so you can make sure to capture all the moments a camera lets you. Oh wait, you aren't that good of a painter? You don't have time to paint every picture you want? You can't carry 200 sheets of canvas? Oh! Then its a good thing technology brought us cameras to capture moments in the blink of an eye and carry thousands of them in our pockets! :D
Cell phones

Cell phone is the most important thing in our life. we use it to see how people are when something happens. We communicate with people. Now days there are gps on our kids phone which can track them down. Also people use as a daily need. So i know cell phone is one! <3 all who like this >>> People get more brain damage from listening to people who claim cell phones create brain damage than they ever would from a cell phone. People are spending more and more time on them because they are a tool that aids and eases our society. We have music, movies, games, gps, communication and the internet at our fingertips wherever we are. That is beyond incredible
Free Trade is not Free Trade: Industry specialization is the price that outweighs the benefit of FTA

The proposition just questioned our example regarding the durian in Thailand, but again they failed to prove anything or at least establish a coherent nexus between their “Absence of free trade” argument and the mentioned example. Nowadays Thailand is a newly-industrialized country with certain prosperity on its exportations but also with a consolidated tourism identity which provides substantial benefits, the durian case was just referenced to for identifying the boost. [1] It is also important to acknowledge that in the last years (more specifically since 1998) Africa’s real GDP has been reflecting an upward trend. As a matter of fact during 2004 the GDP grew 4.6 percent, a record for a decade [2] Is our turn to question. Doesn't this facts contrast with the “so dramatically” panorama in Ghana described by the proposition? And also if FTA have such a negative effects in developing countries, why would Southern Africa be interested in completing the FTA launched last year? [3] Maybe the proposition would like to think twice before making doubtful statements. And once again, we recall the GDP is a measure of 4 macroeconomical values, with just one of them being trade balanc, a factor you can only activate by opening your country to free trade. Regarding the football comment, it is true that we may be talking about number of football players, but in that case, we can also think that in the end you will just win one game, so sport can't be compared in that way...Or then are we weighing the Olympic medal versus a friendly match victory? The only truth is that when establishing a free trade agreement, the real competition is not the partner you are making a treaty with yourself and your capability to offer the best and be world-class competitive. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/country-profile/thailand [2] http://www.uneca.org/conferenceofministers/2005/documents.htm [3] http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-08-18-southern-african-free-trade-zone-launched
Free Trade equals to Fine Fate

Our point deals of course with some of the benefits of free trade not only for wealthy nations, but for all of them. More exactly we would like to center our attention in one particular matter: The economic growth. We all know that economic growth is a beneficial phenomenon for a nation, but what we want to highlight is the fact of economical growth coming as a result of an increase of exportations between countries. Taking into account that no country is self-sufficient we might say that reducing the commerce restrictions is a wonderful way of stimulating national enterprises to introduce their products into new markets. International commerce is based upon the principle of exchanging national exceeding product for the national needed product, which of course is produced in another place[1]; if consumers (including countries) tend to choose the cheaper between the convenient, then we might have probed that by letting freedom act on the economical map, developing countries begin to expirience the process known as accelerated economical growth. In other words, the money machine begins to work. But that is not all, free trade also strengthens the State Law of the country by supporting multilateral relations between nations and thus making the government susceptible to international recognition[2], which is the basis of any solid administration and a leading mean of being introduced into the developed world. As you can probably notice, free trade treaties come along with many positive aspects that are shown here. For illustrating this last argument I would like to mention the Mexican case; when the NAFTA came into force in 1994 Mexico was suffering one of the greatest economical crisis in all of its history (Tequila effect), it was the rapid growth of exportations which softened the crisis and by 1996 the economy had stabilized. The elections following the signing of the NAFTA were also the very first democratic elections in Mexico...Coincidence? It seems nt. The opening of Mexican politics towards the world made it impossible for the current party to maintain corruption in the voting process. [3] Let’s analyze an opposite case now: Burma was at most an isolated nation, obviously it is not affiliated to any free trade treaty and it is also ruled by an authoritarian military junta, which is famous for being involved in multiple uncomfortable situations concerning the violation of human rights. When being under British rule, Burma had been one of the wealthiest countries in South Asia, nowadays however it suffers in economical struggles and it is one of the poorest nations in the world[4], this suits perfectly for introducing our next argument which will deal with the disadvantages of being left aside in international free trade treaties, this is mainly because if we were to continue in this line we might just get into the conclusion that coincidence does not exist. 1 http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/EconomicGrowth.html 2 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=74337106 3 http://www.letraslibres.com/index.php?art=6603 4 http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/related/62/
Free Trade is not Fair Trade

Free trade creates an equal business environment. By signing the agreement, countries will put their private sectors to compete with other countries’ private sectors in equal terms. For poorer countries, it means their private sectors – whom are relatively weaker – will compete against much stronger companies. The regulation may be equal, but the players capabilities are certainly not. It would be like a football match between Manchester United and Malaysia National Football Team - there might be a level playing fields, but Manchester United will still win every time. [[http://www.the90thminute.com/index.php/soccer/2009/07/manchester-united-defeats-malaysia-xi-national-team-3-2-2-0-recap-and-video-highlights/]] Without the government intervention, the private sectors, commonly farmers or small companies, will fail to protect their production. It happened in Senegal, when it open its market, and should lower the tariff of tomatoes during 1994 to 2001. The country was producing about 73,000 tonnes of tomato concentrate by 1990. In 1996/7, hitted by the imports from EU, the production decreased to 20,000. The EU’s exports of tomato concentrate to Senegal increased from 62 tonnes in 1994 to 5,348 tonnes in 1996 due to the increased access to Senegal’s market (an 8625,81% increase). Since then, there has been stagnation in Senegal’s tomato processing industry with declining prices of tomato concentrate and a lack of credit and investment resources available to processors. The EU farmers, on the ther hand, have easy access to credit and qualified labour compared to the Senegalese counterparts, and they are able to produce tomatoes more cheaply for the European processing industry. Moreover, in 1997 alone, the EU paid out US$300 million in export subsidies to tomato processors. [[ http://www.ivcs.org.uk/ijrs/April2007/Effects%20of%20market%20liberalisation%20on%20rural%20producers.pdf%5D%5D This example of Free Trade comes to show how countries that does not have an equal competitive advantage are expected to play against a more stronger player and, in the process, failled miserably. However promising the benefit of Free Trade the richer country claims, the reality shows that inherently Free Trade is never a fair ground to compete and therefore should be abandoned.
Free Trade is not Fair Trade (opposition example)

Before we continue this debate, firstly we would like to acknowledge the effort from the opposition when they cite ASEAN on its "commitment" supporting a fair FTA. It just comes to show the "distance" the opposition has to go into arguing a" fair" FTA, as oppose of using any examples from the NAFTA agreement or the recent EU – Mexico “Global Agreement”. However we would like to argue that although the ASEAN document showed their “commitment” in conducting a "fair" FTA it shouldn’t be used as proof for an argument. Why? Simply because citing ASEAN, an FTA advocate, would be a biased source. We from the proposition wouldn't even be surprised if there is an ASEAN document that goes to claim that FTA would feed the poor, heal the blind, or even cure cancer. This proof of bias was evident in the claim from an ASEAN document, cited by the opp as proof for their argument – The Thailand Phenomena. The document claims regarding Thailand’s economic success due to the FTA with China contain misleading numbers. While the documents highlights high percentage number of growth it did not showed inside the document the economic indicator of Thailand after the FTA, here is what the document is missing [[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/01/data/dbcselm.cfm?G=2001]]: 1. Inflation rate in Thailand rose every year from 2003 - 2007 2. Growth rate of the GDP decreased every year 3. Thailand's account balance decreased from 8 trillions USD to deficit 4 trillion USD in four years (a 150% decrease of their account prior to the FTA) When in contrary China enjoyed a steady increase in their account balance of 400% in those same four years. While Thailand, sadly to say did not increase their GDP (despite the percentage of increase of all the durian, mangosteen, and mango they enjoyed). Thailand did not come as a valid example from the opposition; on contrast it only further proves that Free Trade is not Fair Trade. Having cleared the opposition’s “Thailand example”, we would like to take in the Thailand example as a supporting evidence for our argument that Free Trade is not Fair Trade. We would like to extend the invitation to the opposition to provide a more sustainable argument with proof how FTA would bring more benefit than harm.
Free Trade is

The opposition side wants to clarify some of the characteristics for free trade that the proposition has set. If our object of debating are the free trade agreements and their benefits, then we have to make clear that transnational labor movement, free movement of capital and free access of markets are not necessary characteristics of free trade agreements (our debating subject) and they can just be measures taken by parallel documents and so, even though they could help us prove beneficial effects of free trade agreements, are not a characteristic of FTAs as such and we have to debate under the real meaning of the concept we are discussing. However, we also want to note the remark that the proposition has made, by recalling “Free trade ensures the same playing rules for a competition, although does not necessarily ensures a fair competition for all the parties involved.” This key point will help us prove how free trade agreements provide a fair competition and how an apparent disadvantage to certain sectors is only a misconception since the most important aims of free trade are to be achieved through both, the theory and practice, of the law of comparative advantage, leading to an equilibrium point with a win-win negotiation perspective. The appliance of the stated law and division of labor are two characteristics that define free trade agreements and help explain why its final aims are the income increase and well-being of the involved countries and their citizens.
Limited trading capacity as a result of not being part of a free trade agreement.

Three points can be derived from the opposition’s argument: 1. Free trade is the only way to sell surplus. 2. Without free trade, the importer country will put unreasonable tariff barrier. 3. 1973 oil crisis is caused by the absence of free trade The first two points can be dismissed as false, while the third point is just absurd. Allow us to elaborate. Free trade doesn't moves international trading; instead it is the two things called the demand and supply. So, any country that has a product surplus should not be worry, because as long as there is a demand in international market, the commodity can be sold. If the demand is low, irrespective of free trade, the sale will not be high. This leads to the second point, where the opposition placed tariff into a wrong logic. It is important to see, that it is not the cost that counts in trade, but the profit, in exchange to the value. Tariff is not the burden of supplier, instead the customers bears it. It is true that customer can get a cheaper price from free trade, but it is not true that the supplier could get a higher profit margin. It is also not true, that because there is tariff the exporter will get lower margin. The profit margin is relatively the same, irrespective of tariffs. The tariff barrier from the importer country will only take the import product at a same or slightly more expensive price from the local product. A slightly more expensive price will not cease sales, because of one reason, the demand is there. The importer country will not put unreasonable tariff, also for another reason, demand. The country should make sure that it is affordable enough for the customer, so the national demand can be fulfilled. At last, regarding the point of the 1973 oil crisis, we do not found the idea on how free trade will make Arab still sold oil to Israel's ally during the war. If the opposition could prove this, we, willingly, will promote free trade as a path to world peace (poorer countries excluded).
Free Trade is not Free Trade

"Freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself ... Economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom." Milton Friedman It seems that the proposition is focused on repeating that free trade as an agent of globalization is going to end marginalizing poor countries, but what they have not mentioned is that free trade has far much more benefits than problems. First of all, the proposition says that free trade is more expensive for the benefits it brings. Well, I would like to ask: What is the price of bringing a “third world” (now that we are using the word "poor") country into the developed world? Free trade would not only support development in poor countries, it would also spread technology and knowledge from the so called “rich country” so that it is available in the new nation and thus it is useful for the natives of those countries[1]. In a period of time that may make the difference between being the target of the “oligarchy” and being part of it. Completely different to what the proposition side mentioned, Free trade would warrantee the success of all involved countries, first of all because there is no self-sufficient country, and second because of the great diversity of the world, every nation has something to that makes it unique and special. It is for this reason that producers and consumers get satisfied, but also it is the reason for us being proud of selling Tacos all around the world. 1 http://ec.europa.eu/trade/icentre/publications/ww_730en.pdf
All the countries in the world cannot be equally powerful, but they may be equally free.

"All the countries in the world cannot be equally powerful, but they may be equally free." It rhymes well, but gives us no reason not to abandon free trade agreements. We wouldn't even considering giving a rebuttal, but then again we do have some tile left. Even though it's not perfect, but hey so does bilateral agreement between states. Ok, sovereignty. We should clarify the opposition's misunderstanding on sovereignty concept. From their argument, they stated, "By establishing a judgement in which one country is forced to trade within a default trading limit, not just we are violating its sovereignty, but also denying its right to be equal." Sovereignty concept is affiliated to territorial. For example if country A put limitation on commodity X trading in Country B, it violates sovereignty, but if country A put limitation on commodity X imports in its country that comes from country B, it solely the sovereignty of country A, because the government has a right to regulate things under its territory. Country A do not violate Country B sovereignty and country B should respect it as Country A sovereignty. Now, back to the case, we should see first the aim that a country should serve. A country is formed by a social contract by its citizen, where individual person give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order. When we talk about country and its policy, this social order should be put as first among others. We believe that any country should maintain social order to achieve the highest objective of the country, the welfare of its citizen. Justice and equality is just an attribute to maintain social order, so the welfare can be achieved. From this bigger picture, we can see that equality is not the purpose on itself, but it serve higher objective, that is the welfare. The model of equality that is given by the opposition is was proven by our arguments as harming the social welfare. That is why, being equally free is not as cool as it rhymes. We believe that by not joining a free trade agreement does not cause inequality between the countries. In fact, by not joining FTA, countries has more freedom in deciding what is best to its country. FTA makes the country loss its flexibility to adjust their trading policy to current domestic situation. The oppositions urges us to be equally free, but what is the purpose of being equally free? Just to have a noble ideals? Our reasons for their arguments is always the same, there are expensive cost that should be paid, and it outweigh the benefit. We are not interesting in explaining it again, it is already well explained. In short, it is not about whether our proposal are noble ideals or not, it is about whether it would bring better welfare or not to the citizens, the value we profess is far more worthy.
Free trade is not Free Trade : Labor welfare for the price of macroeconomic indicators growth

Once more it would be wise to question the proposition's information: Nowadays Chile is not just recognized for its economic achievements, it is also sighted as one of the countries with highest quality of life, lowest perception of corruption and lowest poverty rate in Latin America [1]. If the alleged alarming numbers about exploited women were true, how would all of this qualifications for Chile be truth?? The example (assuming it is veridical of course) falls again to illustrate the relation between the intensive and autodestructive competition and the completely different and hypothetical situation of Chilean workers, in this case competition is useful for ensuring the high quality of the products. More in important than this is that non of the following examples provides a link between the boost of the economy and the decrease in the labor welfare, there is not even a logical reason for this to happen, incomplete information, and confusing data. Can this argument be taken seriously? [1] http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=37&pr.y=17&sy=2007&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=213%2C263%2C268%2C273%2C218%2C278%2C223%2C283%2C228%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C238%2C243%2C248%2C253%2C298%2C258%2C299&s=NGDPDPC&grp=0&a=