BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Outsourcing to countries such as China has decreased the quality of goods.

Outsourcing is a good way to produce more products for less of the price. Also how well the product is made is dependent on who makes it. It doesn't matter where the product is made. A product made in China can work and last just as long as if it is made in the United States. Back then in the 1700's the 13 colonies use things made from other countries that function just as well as the British's. This proves that outsourcing isn't a bad thing.
Outsourcing to countries such as China has decreased the quality of goods.

The definition of "outsourcing" (under headword -out-) in the Oxford English Dictionary is "Contracting outside work, directing work to an outside source [usually a foreign country]." Neither of these fits under the critereon you established with your "Ferraris and Porsches" example. Those are cars made in their respective countries of design, and have been since their existence. Nobody would buy a chinese made Ferrari but a lot of Chinese DO buy Italian made Ferraris. I would also like to examine your argument that we have been relying on it for many years. This is argumentum ad antiquitem, argument from tradition, one of the most common red herring fallacies in existence. Just because something has been true or existed for many years does not make it correct or true. On another note, take a look at the argument that major shoe and/or clothing brands rely upon outsourcing for revenue and cheap goods. How does this in any way relate to the QUALITY of outsourced goods, the topic of our discussion? I can assure you that a well made American or European product will last significantly longer than one made under sweatshop conditions in southeast Asia. It will cost more, true, but it will also provide openings for unskilled and even some skilled labour here in the United States. I invite you, hereinafter, to discuss the QUALITY of outsourced goods and not our dependence upon it: for that is the question I have posed.
Outsourcing to countries such as China has decreased the quality of goods.

Outsourcing is an important part of our economy. The United States have been using other countries to make products for years. Take cars for instance, many people like cars like Ferraris, Porsches, etc. Where do all those cars come from? Certainly not from the United States. Also all those big brands of shoes that people buy? They also come from outsourcing. Face it, this countries relies on outsourcing.
Outsourcing to countries such as China has decreased the quality of goods.

Pick up a swiss army knife and then one of those multi-tools made in China and I can assure you the former will be the desirable one. Of the things you purchase made in China how many actually will last you generations like the American and European made goods of the pre-"made in China" epoch. There are a few arguments that you can make for outsourcing goods to China: most notably that costs can be decreased and that we can reduce pollution by producing everything there. Sounds decent, right? Well... this is in reality a very flawed pair of arguments in that the country that is outsourcing its goods in reality becomes dependent on China and pollution is occurring nonetheless, just elsewhere. But this is not the topic of our debate today. Today I am here to discuss the flat out drop in quality that Chinese made goods entering the marketplace has caused. Do you want to drink apple-juice with deadly bacteriï¿½ in it? How about buying a Barbie-doll for a child which contains lead paint? Even something as simple as buying a panini-grill which is made of flismy plastic that will break in a single use? We have grown accustomed to inferior quality goods simply because they are cheaper. This, fellow debater, is a poor trend. Would you like an Omega if it is the only watch you buy for twenty years or ten chinese-made watch that will break every two years? Case in point.
Mircosoft suck

Rebuttals"a"I have nothing to counter this argument with except "bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz." Further ArgumentIt is perfectly normal for new debaters to create random debates, that meet the criteria for a debate, and then not take them seriously in an effort to meet the three debate criteria needed for voting on other debates. However, it is not necessary to start your debating profile in this manner. The opinion and polls section are completely open for new users to share their views, and they provide an adequate level of character space to entice users to move their arguments to a full 8000 character, one-on-one debate. Starting a DDO profile with frivolous debates will draw attention from the moderators and cause a profile to be restricted from future debates. Please read the FAQ's [1] and the DDO Tutorial forum [2] before continuing in this manner.[1] http://www.debate.org...[2]http://www.debate.org...
moon-landing hoax

I'm just going to assume that you believe it's fake because of the way you worded the title. Just to get it out of the way, here are the common arguments for the moon landing hoax, and my arguments against them. The footprints are intact: The moon hasn't eroded like rock on the earth. They also hold their shape stays the same because of the vacuum of space. If you want a full explanation, you can watch the myth busters episode "NASA moon landing." The flag is moving: The only reason why it's moving is because the astronauts are moving the flag into place. The flag looked rippled because it was folded. The second stage had no flame: The rocket used Arizona 50 and an oxidizer. As they were in a vacuum, the flame was hard to see. Why aren't we going to the moon now?: This isn't very popular, but I used to believe it was a hoax (and then I looked up evidence for both sides), but I asked this a lot. The reason why is because NASA has such a small budget and we have no reason to go there.
Authoritarianism is better than corrupted democracy

I'm going to prove that authoritarianism is better than corrupted democracy.CON: Is going to prove that corrupted democracy is better than authoritarianism.RULES:I further specified for each round whether it's possible to make rebuttals and/or arguments, since it seemed like there was a misunderstanding in the rules during the original debate.1) First round: Acceptance.2) Second round: Argument presentation. NO REBUTTALS. This means Con can only introduce arguments - without responses to Pro's arguments.3) Third round: Rebuttals of round 2 + Arguments.4) Fourth round: Rebuttals of round 3. NO ARGUMENTS.5) Fifth round: Conclusions. NO REBUTTALS OR ARGUMENTS.The first round, I'm going to re-post the same arguments from the original debate without adding any or editing.- Both Pro and Con can use logical and/or historical arguments to prove their point.- BoP on Pro.
The Idea of an omniscient God contradicts the idea of human free will

Thanks for your response, Pro. Disappointingly, though, pretty much everything you said in this round was irrelevant to the debate at hand. "My opponent seems to have put himself in a bind here, if God is acting with the constraint of necessity (an omniscient God must necessarily know X) then by definition God would not have free will. "So maybe this God doesn't have free will. This is unrelated to the proposition: "The idea of an omniscient God contradicts the idea of human free will. ""Since it's not logical to claim that a being without free will could chose to create beings with free will, then [. .. ]"No one is claiming this God created human beings and never was it a condition of the debate. Again, this is unrelated to the topic. "How can an all knowing being, gain knowledge? "You misrepresent what I said. Once He is all-knowing, He (of course) cannot gain anymore knowledge. What I was saying was that He could have spent a very, very long time gaining knowledge until it got to the point when He knew everything. I'm not even going to entertain my opponent's allusion to Hubert's Hotel, because he didn't bother explaining what it is or how it relates to his arguments at all, and I really don't feel like making my opponent's arguments for him and then debating myself. To conclude, I have refuted my opponent's unrelated arguments and his objection to my second conceivable scenario. Please note that he chose to ignore my first and third scenarios. Thanks for the debate.
The Idea of an omniscient God contradicts the idea of human free will

"To say that Because X will happen, an omniscient God must necessarily know X will happen is in no way incorrect"Definition of free will re-hashed Noun: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." My opponent seems to have put himself in a bind here, if God is acting with the constraint of necessity (an omniscient God must necessarily know X) then by definition God would not have free will. Since it's not logical to claim that a being without free will could chose to create beings with free will, then the very claim that God must know out of necessity due to being omniscient contradicts the very idea of free will if God is omniscient."He could have relived every day in history countless times over from every perspective in the cosmos possible (He could even still be in the process of doing so), thus inevitably gaining a comprehensive knowledge of everything in existence."How can an all knowing being, gain knowledge? Hubert's Hotel is a good example of why this line of thinking isn't 100% sound.
The Idea of an omniscient God contradicts the idea of human free will

My argument is very simple so I don't think it's necessary for me to go into a lengthy explanation, however if need be I will use up all my space when it times for rebut my opponent's refutations of my argument.My argument:Can an all powerful being exist if free will exists?P1: In order for free will to exist then there must be the possibility of at least two options to freely chose from.P2: If there is an all knowing being, then he knew I (along with every other human being) was going to do one specific set of actions and not another before I existed and had a chance to chose for myself.P3: If God knew I was going to do action A before I was born, this means it's not possible for me to do action B after I begin to exist without the all knowing God being wrong.P4: If God knew something was going to happen before hand that didn't actually occur in reality, then God's establishment of knowledge was false, therefore it's not true that God is all knowing.P5. If it was only possible for me to do one action and not another, this means I never actually had free will because free will requires the possibilties to chose more than one path. This means free will doesn't exist, if action B is not possible then that means I had to do action A because only it is possible if God's forknowledge is 100% accurate. P6: Since doing action A would be an act with the constraint of necessity (because it was necessary for me to do in order for God not to be wrong), then this means that free will would be impossible if an all knowing God exists."free will Noun: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." http://oxforddictionaries.com...P6: Either an all knowing God exists but free will doesn't, or free will exists but an all knowing God doesn't.Conclusion: The Idea of an omniscient God contradicts the idea of human free will Source(s) http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Creationists must necessarily be solipsists - a paradoxical and therefore irrational position

Pro claims that his inductive arguments in favor of the resolution were never meant to succeed as deductions, and proceeds to use that as an excuse to dismiss my deduction-based rebuttals. This is a completely inadequate response... let's keep in mind two important observations: 1. Deductive reasoning is still a perfectly reliable method of truth-seeking, regardless of the debate's subject 2. The resolution is an *absolute* claim that "Creationists *must* *necessarily* be Solipsists" My use of deductions/syllogisms was simply to show that Pro's inductive arguments fail to affirm that absolutist resolution; in other words, I used deductive logic to show that inductive logic is incapable of proving absolute claims like the one Pro has made. Thus, my rebuttal does, indeed, refute his argument. For Pro to win, he must either actually address the substance of my rebuttals (i.e. show that inductive logic can be used to affirm absolute claims) or somehow "debunk" deductive reasoning as a whole. Pro has done neither of these, and therefore, the resolution is negated.
Creationists must necessarily be solipsists - a paradoxical and therefore irrational position

Nice try Con, but you'll have to do better than that. You have confused inductive reasoning with syllogistic logic. Your formulations of my arguments are syllogisms, which codify the realm of deductive, not inductive knowledge. As such your refutations are invalid and you have not succeeded in explaining how E2 can be rejected without rejecting all inductive knowledge. All you have done is shown that my arguments fail as deductions, which they indeed do and were never intended to do otherwise. Please take particular note at this point, that evolution is not mentioned in E2 - it is an inductive argument against creationism, not an argument for evolution. Disproving creationism does not prove, or even lend support to evolution, and it is neither my intention nor burden to prove evolution in this debate. I need not have mentioned evolution at all during this debate, and it may have been unwise of me to do so as I see it has caused a misunderstanding that could have been avoided. I introduced a weak argument for evolution merely as an example of a weak inductive argument. Let me try again and this time I will leave evolution out of it. Example of a weak inductive argument: All the Tibetan people I have met are small All Tibetan people are small As I have only ever met one Tibetan person, this is a weak argument based on inadequate data. Example of a strong argument: No dogs have ever been observed speaking English No dogs speak English (Let's call this argument D1) In logical terms, D1 is exactly as valid as E2 (repeated here for your convenience): No species have ever been observed being created by an intelligent and / or supernatural agent No species have ever been created by an intelligent and / or supernatural agent. How is it possible to reject E2 without rejecting D1? Your turn Con! (PS - I am avoiding the argument "no gods have ever been observed....etc..." because of the problems with definitions and the impossibility of proving an ontological negative)
Creationists must necessarily be solipsists - a paradoxical and therefore irrational position

An interesting argument by Pro! I will be showing why neither of Pro's arguments affirm the resolution at hand, which is that belief in creationism mandates the rejection of ALL inductive knowledge regarding the material world. R.e1) Pro's argument can be formulated as follows... P1: The theory of evolution is justified by inductive reasoning P2: Creationism rejects the theory of evolution C1: Therefore, Creationism rejects all inductive knowledge. Obviously, this is not a logically valid argument... there is no connection at all between the premises and the conclusion! It would make just as much sense to argue the following: P1: Bob is a lawyer P2: I hate Bob C1: I hate all lawyers Even assuming the truth of the premises, the conclusion is not necessitated at all. If I specifically hate Bob as a person, that does not mean that I hate everyone who shares a common attribute with him-- I do not necessarily hate all lawyers. Similarly, by accepting creationism and irrationally rejecting one product of inductive logic (i.e. evolution), I do not necessarily reject ALL inductive knowledge. A creationist can still accept other knowledge derived from inductive reasoning, such as the results of surveys and forsenics investigation. This argument is refuted. R.e2) Again, we can formulate Pro's argument in a syllogistic format: P1: Divine Creation is not supported by inductive reasoning P2: Creationism supports Divine Creation C1: Therefore, Creationism rejects all inductive reasoning This argument has even less connection between its conclusion and its premises than the last one! It would be like arguing the following: P1: Joe is not a lawyer P2: I love Joe C1: I hate all lawyers Again, this is nonsensical. The fact that I love one person who is not a lawyer does not even come close to implying that I hate everyone who IS a lawyer... In the same way, a Creationist who irrationally accepts non-inductive knowledge does not necessarily reject all inductive knowledge. There is no logical connection whatsoever between the two. This argument is refuted. " And let's not forget that thus far, I have only attacked the logical validity of Pro's arguments, totally disregarding whether or not its controversial premises are actually true. Nevertheless, I will leave itat that for now. Both of Pro's arguments are logically invalid, and since he has the burden of proof, the resolution is negated. Back over to Pro!
Creationists must necessarily be solipsists - a paradoxical and therefore irrational position

Thanks for accepting. I am unfortunately going to have to make this an uncharacteristically brief opening argument as I have got a lot of work on at the moment, but hopefully I can give you enough to sink your teeth in to, and do better in the next round. First it seems that I would need to formulate one or more formal inductive arguments that support biological evolution: Species have been observed to evolve from another species All species evolved from another species (This argument will be referred to as e1) To deny biological evolution is necessarily to deny the truth of e1. Admittedly, e1 is a weak variant of the inductive method, and a stronger argument would be: ALL SPECIES OBSERVED SO FAR, have been observed to evolve from another species All species evolved from another species (This argument will be referred to as E1) I am not able to truthfully make the stronger argument, but I can combine e1 with the following: No species have ever been observed being created by an intelligent and / or supernatural agent No species have ever been created by an intelligent and / or supernatural agent. (This argument will be referred to as E2) E2 is as strong an argument against Creationism as E1 is for biological evolution. And so, Con, it falls to you to answer the following: If the conclusion of e1 may be rejected on the grounds of being a weak form of inductive reasoning based on an inadequate number of observations (and it can), on what grounds can E2 be rejected? Can E2 be rejected without rejecting all inductive reasoning? (See http://www.talkorigins.org...- speciation.html for a list of observed speciations. Reference included to support the assertion made in the first line of e1) I strongly suspect I will have my philosophical butt handed to me at the end of this round, I will try to schedule better for the next round. All the best.
Creationists must necessarily be solipsists - a paradoxical and therefore irrational position

2nd to 4th rounds are for argument and rebuttal 5th round is for rebuttal only. No new arguments are to be introduced in the 5th round. No inappropriate language, insults or slurs permitted. Precise references must be provided for anything stated as fact. Factual assertions that are not referenced do not need to be addressed in rebuttals. As Pro for the argument I need only to demonstrate that Creationism necessarily results in solipsism, and that solipsism in turn must result in the rejection of Creationism, creating a paradox which is by definition irrational. Con must show that Creationism does not necessarily result in solipsism. Definitions: Biological evolution = the assertion that all life on Earth has arisen from a common ancestor. Solipsism = the rejection of all inductive knowledge regarding the material world. Creationism = the assertion that all the 'kinds' of organisms were created separately by an intelligent and/or supernatural agent (NB - Con may use whichever definitions of 'kind', 'intelligent' and 'supernatural'they choose, as long as they are used consistently throughout the debate). Good luck!
Objectivism is valid.

You have admitted to arguing semantics, which is to twist words into your falsifiable favor - this is rationalization - rationalization is the result of knowing what you did was immoral, wrong, erroneous... therefore everything I have said stands! Your twisted definition for life isn't going to change the fact that you are the lowest form of humanity (red frequency wave (survival); you contradict yourself; your entire position defeats itself, hence you want happiness by cheating other people and this planet's environment for your gain because "it's just business", but when another objectivist beats you at your own game, it's now "please give me back my business!" - all that pain, all that loss, all that destruction for your blatant psychopathy will not be tolerated at all!
Objectivism is valid.

Objectivism is when humanity takes their life from the inside and spits it outside via projections (the ability to transfer information from inside to outside). This is to say that objectivism is a mental poison created by the inability to self-reflect, hence why "selfishness" becomes the result of it. The poison may not self-reflect, but it certainly self-contradicts itself by treating people as machines to achieve their heartless needs, while demonstrating they are a hypocritical machine that has no respect for human emotion or the sole purpose of living. The objectivist cannot survive without treating people like objects and toys - this is to say that the objectivist is not a human being, but a machine. What causes the brain to think on a machine level? The inability to balance out the two sides of their psyche: realism and idealism. The objectivist projects their life's survival point from an unlimited canvas (their mind) to limited structures (money and materials), which in turn creates a rift that leads the rift-maker to their own undoing. When we have anger, we can deal with it safely inside our head - or, we can take that anger so we can project it unto this consequential world by taking everything for granted. The objectivist is the result of hunger - not humanity. They live like a destructive black hole, rather than the transcendent forms that managed to make it out of the black hole, such as the Sun, the Planets, the Stars or other objects that took form after billions of years in trial and error. The objectivist can be described as dark matter, which is to say that the objectivist is nothing - they feed, and feed thinking the next time they'll be satisfied when in reality the hunger becomes wider and wider, like a black hole becomes wider and wider. The objectivist shares many characteristics with the behavioral traits of a black hole. The objectivist rationalizes, instead of reasons. This is to say that they are wrong; their mind knows they are wrong, but they will not consciously admit they are wrong, so they live their life making excuses for their actions. The objectivist abandons the essence of humanity for hunger (that can never be satisfied) - there's nothing else that needs to be said on the matter. The objectivist is the the non-living; it cannot live, it cannot become anything more than a hole that causes everything else problems. Objectivists are psychopaths; vampire-like creatures that suck the life out of everyone and everything because in the end, they are projecting their need for life from the inside without consciously realizing it.