BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Unions are not an economically efficient institution in the US anymore

Alright, just for the heck of it, I'll get my case out there before this ends in forfeit for all. Coming at it from the "Unions ARE efficient" angle, I suppose the big question has to be how we define 'efficient'. A company that fires scores of employees, reduces the quality of their goods, and sells a bunch of their factories to make a gigantic profit in the very short term certainly COULD be thought of as "efficient". They've enhanced shareholder value in the short term, and if you just look at the graph of their profitability in that six month period, it's going to look on paper like they are kicking butt. But the reality is that a company which does these things is going to have crushing blow back in the long term. People will stop buying their lower quality goods, they won't be able to meet what little demand there is without equipment or workers, so in the long term, they suffer. Unions role in the US economy are very similar. It's true, that with collective labor in some industries, those industry's lose more in the short term to higher salaries, benefits, and sick time... but in the long term, they have healthier more productive workers who can keep them in business longer and keep them going as a business in the long term. Look at six months of data, and Unions are a horrible thing. Look at 6 years and it's very different. For instance, with higher wages, union workers themselves are able to be more powerful consumers, and as such help to drive the overall productivity of the economy, which, in turn, is generally good for the businesses they work for. And what's the alternative? We dump unions and minimum wage, right? Then the businesses have to start selling their products for less, because with wage stagnation comes less ability to purchase their goods and services. Then they have even less money to pay workers, who in turn have to live cheaper and cheaper. It's a giant race to the bottom, a vicious cycle, the end result of which, is to take the world's most robust economy and drive it down to the standard of Malaysia or China. But it would be efficient in the short term. Point conceded there. So...."yay", I guess?
Legislation of Morality

The distinction between right and wrong drives our values on every level. Every person and organization have some form of morality, some good, some bad, some in the middle. But there is no question that everyone has some form of moral compass. That being the case, the question of this debate is not whether or not morality is in the Constitution specifically as my opponent has tried to argue. The question is whether or not morality should ever be the basis of a law or its implementation. Today I am going to look at one law and one law only. Only one law is needed to defeat the Con position. We will look at murder laws. Murder, the killing of an innocent human with intent. It is wrong, on every moral, ethical, logical, and any other human levels. There is no question about the moral implications of it, there is no question that it is wrong. Yet, based on the arguments put forth by my opponent, we should not have this law. It is a moral law ranging back to the beginnings of Human History. A moral law that we can all agree is necessary and just.
Legislation of Morality

Concerning Pro's definition of morality: It is a working definition only if the definitions of 'right' and 'wrong' do not come from government (or similar social structure) ("What is legal is right and what is illegal is wrong") as that would create a meaningless circular loop in Pro's favor. Yes, morality is the set of principles that distinguish right and wrong, but in order for that to have any meaning those principles must have their origin from a "3rd party" or outside source. That source is often (though certainly not always) something akin to religion, personal conscience, family, tradition, etc. The reason that the above clarification is necessary (and the crux of my argument) is the practical distinction between right and better. As law is merely the implementation of government, the question simplifies itself into whether the purpose of government is to execute righteousness (the morality argument) or to better its citizens (my argument). The United States, while being far from an ideal government by any means, illustrates my point nicely. The Preamble to its Constitution runs like this:"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. " [1]The American founding fathers laid out a nice bullet list that basically serves as the thesis of their entire constitution. Notice the appalling lack of mention of morality. The US government is built on the principles of perfecting the Union, establishing justice, insuring tranquility, defending the populace, promoting the general welfare, and preserving liberty. All of those points are empirical standards that are exempt from petty moral disputes, highlighting their practical advantage over the subjective ideas of 'right' and 'wrong. 'In summary: 'betterment of society' is a better core value of a government than 'execution of morals,' both because of the former's historical success and credible endorsements (e. g. Thomas Jefferson and co. ) and because of the latter's inefficient subjectivity ('whose morals shall we execute? '). Sources:1. . http://www.archives.gov...
Legislation of Morality

"The example of the Constitution was not conclusive proof of my point, but rather a case study of a successful implementation of the system I propose is better than its competitor."Apparently, my opponent didn't read my previous argument in which I addressed this same point, which my opponent had previously brought up.My opponent stated that it was obvious that murder was wrong for moral reasons only. I demonstrated the opposite using the example of the United States. My opponent has yet to refute that.
Legislation of Morality

Let's examine Pro's reasoning."The distinction between right and wrong drives our values on every level. Every person and organization have some form of morality, some good, some bad, some in the middle. But there is no question that everyone has some form of moral compass."I couldn't agree more. Everyone has a form of morals and makes decisions based on them. However, this fact has little relevance to morality's place in government."That being the case, the question of this debate is not whether or not morality is in the Constitution specifically as my opponent has tried to argue. The question is whether or not morality should ever be the basis of a law or its implementation."The example of the Constitution was not conclusive proof of my point, but rather a case study of a successful implementation of the system I propose is better than its competitors. Yes, the basic question is which system would have a more advantageous implementation."Today I am going to look at one law and one law only. Only one law is needed to defeat the Con position. We will look at murder laws.Murder, the killing of an innocent human with intent. It is wrong, on every moral, ethical, logical, and any other human levels. There is no question about the moral implications of it, there is no question that it is wrong. Yet, based on the arguments put forth by my opponent, we should not have this law. It is a moral law ranging back to the beginnings of Human History. A moral law that we can all agree is necessary and just."I am thrilled that you bought up the example of murder as it is exactly this kind of reasoning that is most clearly exposed.Firstly, I would like to point out that Pro has contradicted himself. While he earlier (implicitly) conceded that the U.S. Constitution is indeed based on the system I recommend, he states here that under that system murder would be made legal (which it is obviously not).The reason murder is illegal in the United States is not because it is immoral, even though most legislators would agree with that fact. It is illegal because it doesn't establish a more perfect union, it doesn't establish justice, it doesn't ensure domestic tranquility, and so on. Murder causes a net loss in society, therefore it is made illegal.Secondly, there are several grey areas regarding murder, some of which are legal, and some of which are not. Some people consider self-defense murder and therefore morally wrong. Others take issue with war. Perhaps the best example in this instance is revenge. In many cultures, the avenging of a murdered relative through murder is not only moral but an obligation. Here, your system would support murder in a revenge scenario if it was morally supported by the people living under the rule of that particular government, while my system would forbid it regardless of its morality, based on the net loss it incurs on society (two men dead over one). Therefore my system is advantageous because it does what is in the best interest of society as a whole, not the specific moral values of the people.
god is only true to a believer, therfore god is false

Pro says that subjectivity exists but reality is objective. If we assume that God DOES objectively exist, then a non-believer's disbelief does not discredit God. And if we assume that God does not exist objectively (which we shouldn't, because Pro has failed to argue said case) then God is still objectively true to a believer's subjectivity. Right? All in all, this debate is not what I expected. I thought this was going to be a philosophical debate on the nature of reality, or a witty exchange regarding epistemological claims lol. Unfortunately Pro does not appear to be a serious opponent, and either way he has failed to prove his burden (or even try arguing my points).
god is only true to a believer, therfore god is false

While God might be true to believers, Pro suggests that God does not exist to non-believers, and therefore God's existence is false (made up; not real). First, just because people don't believe in something or accept a (potentially) objective reality doesn't mean the objective reality doesn't exist. For example, most people acknowledge that 2+2 = 4. But if someone refuses to accept that 4 is the correct answer, it doesn't make the answer any less true regardless of that person's belief. Pro already accepts that God is true (exists) to believers. Therefore the resolution is false even if subjective reality is true. For if Pro's position is that God is false (non-existent) because God does not exist in the mind of non-believers, this fails to account for the fact that God STILL DOES exist in the mind of believers.
Death Penalty

CostIn terms of the cost of a prisoner for life without parole, versus a death penalty prisoner you have to look at multiple factors. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, it takes 10.60 years for a death penalty inmate to be executed. It also costs on average $90,000 more, per year to maintain a death row inmate. Adding together all the costs of lawyers, and other legal issues, a death row inmate can easily cost more than a lifelong inmate. By stopping the death penalty in the United States, it is estimated to save the government from $1-2 billion per year. With the massive debt we are in, it makes even more sense to stop the deth penalty.MoralsObviously it is wrong to kill someone elses life for no reason at all. The government has a moral obligation to protect human life. In your point "an eye for an eye," does it make sense to need to make everything absolutely equal? In the Iraqi war, it is estimated for over 100,000 Iraqi civilians to have been killed. Using your philosophy doesn't that mean that we should kill 100,000 U.S. civilians or soldiers? Why do you need to kill another when someone has already been killed. "Two wrongs do not make a right."
Death Penalty

As the pro I believe in the Death Penalty. As the old saying goes "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". capï¿½iï¿½tal punï¿½ishï¿½ment- The legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime Is it right to go out and kill someone because you have a bad day? Or just because you don't like that person? The answer should be no. In no way should it be morally right to kill another human being for no reason at all. But if that human takes an others life, then Capital Punishment should be the moral thing to do. Tax payers are paying for the MURDER to stay in prison, paying for his food, his showers, and his time there. A well educated person would most certainly realize that his money isn't going to the right place. Maybe it should go more to the schools, or to the Army? Not keeping some murder in a prison giving him a place to stay for his wrongful actions. It sounds a lot better than staying on the street like some people are. If you murder someone then you shouldn't be living off tax payers money in a prison with 3 square meals, and a roof over your head. You should also face death like you put upon the person that you killed. Referring to the quote from earlier: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Vote Tyler42240!
black lives

THE black lives matter movement is a result of the race issue in America. The African American population has been oppressed and segregated by the white man for decades. The white man has segregated and used other races for their own benefit. for example they enslaved the African Americans, they annihilated the Jewish population in world war two, and they took the land the natives lived on and forced them onto reservations. The white man argues that the black rights movement is unfair to all races, but the white man has never been subject to racism. When a police officer pulls a man over, the possibility that a white man will be arrested is less likely than if it was a black man. the black lives matter movement wasn't intended to end racism, because realistically that will never happen, the movement is to raise awareness to the horror and evil being done to the African American community.
black lives

I feel that the black lives matter movement is gonna make the race issue in America worse. Racism is the act of judging people based on skin color. If we want to end racism we need to stop always viewing the situation based on race. Every one in America has equal rights no matter there skin color. White privilege is just a myth used to make blacks seem oppressed. They are against racism but yet they still say f#@k all white people and generalize all whites as racist pigs. Blacks are able to get away with threatening whites and hate crimes because the media portrays them as the victim. If we want the race issue in America to stop we need to all love and accept eachother and look at the world not based on color.
New Lyrical Challenge

RAP TOPIC: Internet When I jack in, I’m back in the wonderful World Wide Web. Video game faqs, ways to alter your shed. Make your own boozes, how to shave your head. Swear words of every language in the letters A to Z. Information overload, facts and lies are spoon fed. Father Ted, Judge Dread and Drop Dead Fred. Machines that make Gold out of Lead. Everything your favourite philosopher said. Build a baby’s bed and paint it cherry red. Buy a throughbred, calculate your overhead. The things you can do are many and so few. Bored out of your mind, with a million things to do. See through the muddle, like lightning striking a mud puddle. New things are brought into existence every second. Connections, freedom of expression and anonymous confessions. Women dressed in hessian, aggression and concession. I’ll mention not a fraction all while I fill this rap session. Research the rulers of the Spain and the war of their succession. Google is your friend, I recommend you learn to comprehend; Ascend from the back end of enlightenment and learn some things. Or pretend it’s not there, with your fingers in your ears la la la See how far, you go when your mind lingers on your fears.
New Lyrical Challenge

I only have 20 minute on the clock. How am I supposed to write an auto-biography when I'm getting writer's block? tick tock.. tick tock.. I still don't have a story to tell, Should I just make some ish up? maybe act my life's been hell? I should I write about how I'm supposedly in and out of my jail cell.. Or maybe even pretend like my real name is Kal-El, With super powers and was sent here when my home planet, Krypton fell. But then that wouldn't be right, I don't wanna rhyme about fiction. Even if I can get away with it, it would be against my convictions. What should I talk about then? I only got 8 minutes left... Maybe I'll talk bout this girl who committed cardiac theft. She stole my heart, but that's my secrete, best kept. 1 minute to go, I guess I'll just give you this round. Ive been too busy with school, church and this new hobby I found.
New Lyrical Challenge

May I point out that my opponent's ‘self-hype' rap was almost entirely disses. Yes, I can. AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL: Regrets Sometimes I regret every single day of my whole life, Thinking I want to slash myself with a sharp knife. Teach those fvckers who take advantage of me a lesson "Why did he do it?" I'll have them all guessing. Messing with my own head, because I don't really want to be dead, Just the things that I said and did, I find it hard to self-forgive. Like when I left my girlfriend to live on a river. The worst thing was I wasn't even angry with her. Angry at myself and sick of my fvcking family, Sh!t drove me away like a reaction to an allergy. Apparently, I rapidly caused her agony, Now I'm missing a piece like I'm an amputee. No direction to aim my gallantry, just unhappy Like a gull with no sea. She used to complete me. Moving on, now I'm filling up my hole with b!tches Always wear a condom, so my d!ck never itches. Bridges, I crossed and burnt all the ones along the way. Riches, I might get them, but I have to save my pay. And get out of debt, that's another regret. Ten thousand in the red and not a thing to show for it. Dead set when I say I think about self-terminating. My life is somethings like being constantly caught masturbating. I'm alright though.
New Lyrical Challenge

Its so hard to be humble when you're this great. The name is NewCreature and I'm here to frustrate any wannabe emcees, across the seven seas. I'ma shred you lyrically, because I'm greater (grater) and you're just cheese. FREEZE! anything you say can and will be used against you. My purpose is to entertain while I simultaneously offend you. To send you.. back down to earth where you belong, cuz your delusions got you thinking that you're God, that's where you wrong, it won't be long, 'til you inevitably confess that I'm the best. You're about to be checked "mate", like a game of chess. But I digress. I'm supposed to talk about how great I am. The only one greater than me is Christ, the great "I am" My genius stems, from a higher power that is beyond all imagination. My flow is so out of this world, you might need a translation. Btw, I heard you mention, how dudes at Aussie bars give you attention? Well it's probably cuz you look like a girl, like Taylor Hanson. Only a fraction, of my skills is required to rip you up. My flow is sick, nay, its gross, like that clip with 2 girls and 1 cup. Ill one you up, every time, simply 'cuz I got better rhymes. My wit steals the show, its like I'm literally committing crime. At a drop of dime, I can drop a verse just in time, I really have no reason to rhyme, but your lyrics have no rhyme, or reason, Im not just teasin' You're flow Falls like Autumn, while my flow stays hot like the Summer season, I'm leavin. You can keep hyping your self up with your Aussie accent, Ill just stay silent. cuz my greatness needs no explanation, it's self evident.
New Lyrical Challenge

RAP ONE: SELF HYPE The biggest mother fvcker on DDO here, rocking the text Muffling one and all like a face in between breasts. Making a mess of the English language my raps are savage. Chopping you to pieces like your whole bodies made of cabbage. Don’t worry yo, I know even though you can’t flow. That at least people will respond with a “hey, cool story bro!” When I walk into a bar, I am suddenly surrounded-. And passed more beers then when the first Aussie bar was founded. Now I’m holding six beers in each hand and break dancing. And the boyfriends are giving me looks, like I’m acapella singing to Hanson. “Who’s this dick, taking up all of the attention?” Mmm bop bitch, go and withdraw your old age pension And line up the bar with drinks, 9 shots please. I take em like Fifty before I slap you like Eazy-E. Throw game in your ladies ear, like I’m Neil Strauss. You say she’s not interested, I know you’re lying like I’m House. Pull out a coin and perform some prestidigitation. Make your girl disappear so you start losing your patience. Turn your smile upside down like a dead baby joke. Still I see you looking like you want your hands around my throat. Don’t be hurt friend, we should all be mates. But my games so strong it could turn theLwerd straight.
New Lyrical Challenge

Ok, it’s time for another lyrical battle. This debate will consist of three raps, one per round starting with round two. One self-hype rap: Boast about how good you are. One personal story rap: Write some auto-biographical raps. One topical rap: Here you will chose a topic which you feel strongly about (religion, politics, whatever) and write a rap about it. You can do them in any order you like. PLEASE DON’T ACCEPT THIS IF YOU DON’T INTEND TO FINISH