BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald Trump's 35% tariff against US companies

Mr. Executive officer Elect Number # 45 wants to run a Republic as if a Religious Monarchy, like both England and parliament once had. OK. But we should understand that tariff is not a new strategy, a strategy of negotiation with any number of new possible, with new outcomes that may emerge. Basically Mr. E.O. #45 is going into the retail business, and not Presidential responsibilities of defending the U.S. Constitution, not work on behalf of the American people in regulations dealing with the issues of the United States Court system. If the products turn out to be of a comparative quality, at a better price, it is illegally to singled out for retail mark-up by a Federal government, with a written responsibility to provide basic non-biased separation as its primary responsibility as an agent of taxation. The people may losing out or be hurt in other ways than just jobs, the losses will far exceed any measurement of 35% as there are things lost that simply are not weight by scales of that type economic calibration. 1.Taxation in the form of tariff is simply admitting as a negotiator the United States will never be competitive in free trade. And, does not know the obligation of its own contract with the taxpayer. 2.The cost in manufacturing does not simply rotate around labor wages. A 35% mark as a negotiation tool may simple just demonstrate how out of touch the negotiation is, or has become. 3.How does anyone seriously plan for a future for themselves or for other, which requires an extensive plan and commitment that limits a person"s mobility, to design industry. When faced with a threat from some-one who is supposed to have represented a non-biased representation and opportunity in the largest economy in the world. 4.35% of from the # 1 mathematically is still easier to take with the 50% of the other 9. It"s not just about the direct cost of labor any-more. The selling point doesn"t matter if the product the negotiator was try to sell has been lost by abuse.
Donald Trump's 35% tariff against US companies

Donald Trump may not be the smartest, but he is a good negotiator. Threatening to impose a 35% tariff is a better negotiating tactic than simply doing nothing. Here are the 2 main benefits: 1) Increases the likelihood that companies don't move overseas since the cost to move has become higher than it was previously. -This means that US jobs are more likely to stay in the USA, which clearly benefits Americans. -This means that companies will be paying more taxes to the government rather than stashing their profits overseas. https://www.washingtonpost.com...... 2) Increases his negotiating power with other countries and with the USA as well. -This threat shows strength, an essential asset for negotiating. Keeping negotiating skill level constant, the person with the greatest leverage (strength) will come out with the better deal. Now, like anything, a tariff isn't purely beneficial; there is a cost as well. Tariffs increase the price of goods to the consumer. However, 1) This is merely a threat of a tariff. In other words, if the threat works, then the cost to the consumer remains the same, and the country reaps all of the benefits stated above. 2) Even if the company does move overseas, the country would have moved anyway. In other words, if the company moves overseas when the cost of moving is raised, they certainly would have moved if the cost was lower. 3) Although goods are now more expensive, the price of goods might not actually be as high as the tariff. In other words, since the company saved money by moving overseas (they would move overseas otherwise), they are able to make their products cheaper, although certainly, the price will have increased. In other words, the price won't go up to the full 35%. 4) The government gets extra revenue. This 35% tariff goes directly to the government's pocket. Although consumers might have to pay more for the product (and this consumption may go down), the overall revenue to the USA might actually increase.
Donald Trump's 35% tariff against US companies

This is irrelevant. We are comparing wages in the USA to wages in other places." Thank you for proving my argument in this debate and totally ignoring a major part of the issue. The United States has some of the highest wages in the world. The obligation to the voter in this debate is for Con to show how higher wages can hurt. This is just simply said by describing more money creates more extra income counting, only it can insure the value of what you are being paid for the work provided. The U.S.A. has some of the highest paid poor workers in the world. That"s a special skill that really needs a Governed form of Executive direction to ignore to really make improvements. "Although the last part is true, the tariff is a good negotiation tactic." The basic way to describe a tariff is a Government going into the retail business. Though unlike a retailer in this Country a government does not need to stock inventory that can be tax. Tariff is a governing agent using a political position to enter into the retail market. Making them a direct competitor with retailer in their own Nation. In essence they are purchasing all the comparative goods for themselves. The effort of negotiation is focused on people and not industry. It is not extra income which is gain by a tariff. It is a hijack of income that is devaluing the paycheck of every working person in the U.S. All winners in games do not win only by getting anywhere fast, there is a finish line. All winners of a game are not the only team with the highest score, the game being played matters. Every game is not the same, the government needs to get in the game and due its part, and not the consumers part. I would like to close by saying that elect EO # 45 is not the only person working on this issue. It is not the intention of this debate to alienate him as the problem solver. Our tools, are heritage is basic principle and precedent are legal guardians where kind enough to place it in writing.
Donald Trump's 35% tariff against US companies

"When the cost of living rises with wages, a higher paycheck never makes it to the pocket. The problem is a majority of people know how to ask for more money. The minority know how to improve the spending potential of the money we earn. This creates a stability and foundation industry builds on" This is irrelevant. We are comparing wages in the USA to wages in other places. "A Tariff is simply a Governing body moving into the retail business, adding a mark-up on things to be sold in the U.S. It is simply foolish to believe it is a negotiation tactic. In most cases tariffs have loop-holes and any income lost by an additional 35% surcharge is made up in other access gained in other markets." Although the last part is certainly true, the tariff is a good negotiating tactic. In this case, trump is clearly using it as leverage in order to keep US based companies from moving abroad. If that isn't "negotiating" with US companies, then you don't know what the word "negotiating" means. The president is supposed to BE biased FOR America. We are discussing America's interests, not the interests of other countries. The president is supposed to SUPPORT america's interests over those of other countries. Threatening a tariff is not an empty promise; it's a reality. Not only is it a reality, it's a great negotiating tactic with MANY benefits and very few cons. If the tariff threat succeed, America clearly benefits. Even if it fails, America benefits more than it would have otherwise. The only "downsides" are that corporations can't go abroad as easily and pocket all their monies. I have argued my point extremely clearly, and very little of it if any has been refuted. A threat of a tariff is extremely beneficial to the USA: employees win, the government wins, and any losses from consumers can be made up in the form of government revenue which the government can give back to consumers if necessary
Donald Trump's 35% tariff against US companies

"If anything wages in the USA are too low; only people who are out of touch would argue otherwise." When the cost of living rises with wages, a higher paycheck never makes it to the pocket. The problem is a majority of people know how to ask for more money. The minority know how to improve the spending potential of the money we earn. This creates a stability and foundation industry builds on. "The rest of the argument is just nonsense." A Tariff is simply a Governing body moving into the retail business, adding a mark-up on things to be sold in the U.S. It is simply foolish to believe it is a negotiation tactic. In most cases tariffs have loop-holes and any income lost by an additional 35% surcharge is made up in other access gained in other markets. "The U. S President isn"t supposed to be non-biased." The President takes an Oath to defend the United States Constitution. It is the judicial Separation which is to be held as Non-biased. The Officer who holds the seat in the Executive Office oversees and governing over the Court system in general. Its efficacy rests greatly on the on its Executive to give a State of This Union, so it can remain or be held impartial. If you cannot represent the Nation"s best interests at home. Representing them elsewhere can be a pointless effort. The United States manufactured product is a well-regulated Judicial Separation. Pro is simply not capable of seeing that the salesman she supports has nothing to sell but empty promises. The digression is to a threat that the United States is going to go in the retail business and save jobs by doing nothing more than marking up a manufactured Good.
The economy was mans worst invention

I said no such thing. Some people are faster than me. Some people are smarter than me. Some people work harder than me. But no one, not one single person, is "better" than me. And I am not "better" than anyone else. I am not putting a value on human life. I am putting a value on human work. Again, I agree with you that we all should be able to make a livable wage, a salary that allows us to take care of our needs. You seem to be confusing "needs" with "wants." Our needs are all the same. Our "wants" are not. I would like everyone to have what they need to have a happy, healthy life. I am not saying everyone should get a gold Rolex or a trip to Monaco two times a year. And you know what, not everyone deserves to have their "wants" fulfilled. Also, it would be impossible, so what then, shut down Rolex because not everyone can get a $10,000 watch? Tell the workers in Monaco, sorry, you can't accommodate 6 billion people a year, so no one gets to go? Also, just because someone wants a new car doesn't mean I want it. I'm happy with the car I have. What would I do with my old car? We do need to separate what people want with what they don't have. Our wants are not equal, and we all want different things, and the whole "supply and demand" thing.
The economy was mans worst invention

Your economy would never result in equality. Someone might be happy and content with two pairs of jeans, someone else isn't happy unless they have five, or ten. I'm perfectly happy with my $10 phone. Someone else wants the latest gadget today. I like shopping in second-hand bookstores, other people want an iPad. You might be happy with a trip to the lake, others want to jet set four times a year. Our wants and desires aren't equal. Also you're not accounting for celebrity or popularity. Which occupation would you rather talk to, the astronaut who went to the moon, or the guy who pumps your gas? Some people are just more interesting and fun to be around. Time is a resource, and people would give celebrities more resources to spend time with them. Should a doctor be paid the same as a carpenter? Yes, both jobs are important. However one requires a year of training, the other ten. Why would anyone work so hard to be a doctor, when they can get the same benefits by studying for only a year? If people aren't given incentive for hard work, then they won't work hard. If they are given incentives and rewards for hard work, then people work harder. There is great disparity in pay. I read a study that said a kindergarten teacher's value to the economy works out to be about $350,000 a year. Are kindergarten teachers paid that much? No. Should they be? Yes. Some jobs should have higher salaries, others less. But it is a supply and demand economy. Prices rise and fall based on demand. If everyone was paid the same, there would still not be equality. You also have to consider what people do with their money. Say we start over, and everyone makes $60,000 a year. Some people like to party, some like to shop, some like to travel, some like to own property, some like to invest, some like to save. Within a few years after starting over, disparity would quickly return. I do agree with you that there should be jobs for all, and that people should be able to make a livable wage. But we as a race will never be able to truly create an "equal" society. The reason why is because we are all different, complex creatures. We will never get rid of wants or desires.
The economy was mans worst invention

Every living creature doesn't have to use up all of the resources they have access to. I agree that somethings have to die to support us. But it doesn't have to sentient animals. The economy creates divides. We can get everybody to live by getting them to work, and in turn, they get food, health care, and social services. Once the economy is taken out, everybody can be equal, and nobody would have the advantage over other people. Like you said, compassion and empathy are part of are evolution. Therefore we should have it in a hearts to let people have a nice life free from being divided. Once we take the economy, people can stop getting distracted from the wanting of items, and everybody can work together to find cures, and overall help mankind.
The economy was mans worst invention

What my opponent believes "the economy" to be is perfectly natural. Every living creature uses up resources. Some creatures for various reasons do this better than others. When a tree gets tall, plants underneath are starved of sunlight and water, wither, and then die. A litter of puppies fights over food, resulting in some puppies getting bigger and stronger than the rest. Humans are animals. To survive, something else needs to die. It is perfectly natural for us to hoard resources first for ourselves and next for our family. I agree with my opponent that it does create divides. I agree that everyone who works should be able to support themselves. In Australia a guy pumping gas can afford rent and groceries. They won't get rich, but they can survive. In America some people have two or three jobs just to live. In developing countries average wage is not enough to provide housing or nutritious food. This of course is just wrong. But I do not agree that what he thinks "the economy" is, was invented. It's perfectly natural. What is unnatural, or what occurs very rarely in nature, is for us to share resources with those not in our own family or pack or group. Helping strangers and giving to charity is the exception in nature, not the norm. Our compassion and empathy were not inventions either but a part of our evolution. Being compassionate is one of the things that makes us "human." So I agree with my opponent that the current economic system is not morally or ethically "good." We could debate that those who work "harder" deserve more rewards, but this would then turn into a debate about the "value" of a profession. I just disagree with the title of this debate, that it is an "invention." Also destroying this "economy" and replacing it with a Star Trek/Miracle Man economy would just result in a different kind of economy, not no more economy. In this "no more economy" should I be allowed to pass my possessions to my children? Would they deserve to inherit something without having worked for it? What would happen to the house where they grew up, a business I started, or even my car? Would it be the government's responsibility to take my stuff and then reallocate it to those who "worked" for it?
The economy was mans worst invention

The economy allows for people to be discriminated because of their position in the economy. It also allows certain people to have more stuff then other people because of their position in the economy. It creates divides between the poor and the rich. Some people aren't able to get what they need to live because they don't have money. The best thing that could ever happen to this earth is this. We destroy the economy, everybody works and everybody gets what they need once they work. Discrimination would be extinct. That is why the economy is man's worst invention.
My Group of Hypothetical Dead Musicians is Better Than Yours.

<"FORMAT/RULES: 1. In round 1 both debaters shall present their hypothetical band line-up. 2. All band members must be referenced by at least a Wikipedia source. 3. All band members will be generally recognised as dead. Conspiracy speculation will not be given credit, Tupac and Elvis are dead, Paul McCartney is not. 4. Bands must contain exactly four members and no more. 5. The band must include a drummer, a bass player, a vocalist and one other instrument. Musicians can also be singers and multi instrumentalists are allowed as long as these roles are permanently filled. 6. We will debate drummer vs. drummer, singer vs. singer etc. as well as discussing the group as a whole. 7. Con may choose to start debating in round 1 or wait for me to begin in round 2. 8. We will be considering the general talents, technical abilities, creativity, charisma, popularity, body of work, attractiveness and just about any other factor my opponent wishes (rights reserved) in discussing the merits of our bands and the individuals that comprise them. 9. Obviously in a debate like this, a lot of our points will be based on opinion but we should attempt to back up our opinions with reliable sources that reaffirm them."> Copy and pasted from: http://www.debate.org... -- it was obviously the idea of feverish, so yeah.. Mine: Drums: Keith Moon -- http://en.wikipedia.org... Bass: John Entwistle -- http://en.wikipedia.org... Guitar: Frank Zappa -- http://en.wikipedia.org... Vocals: Jim Morrison -- http://en.wikipedia.org... So, uh, yeah....
Anime is not childish.

If you were to make the claim that "Anime is childish" and based on that allow a child of 4 years old watch a random anime. If that anime were to be Death-note, Zombie high school or attack on titan. You would quickly see how inappropriate these programmes are for children. Let's look into that claim. In death-note you have a God of death, who loses a note book capable of killing whoever has their name written in it. A young male picks up this book and begins a mass genocide, where 100s of people die people from various deaths, ranging from heart attacks to suicidal hangings. A dark anime indeed. In Zombie high school. A zombie virus breaks out, turning students into zombies. These students begin to eat each other in mindless cannibalistic acts and begin bashing each others heads in with blunt instruments. In Attack on Titan. A young male watches his mother get devoured by a 20ft monstrous humanoid. He swears revenge and promises himself that he would kill every last titan. During this quest he sees many of his friend get eaten alive, in very disturbing death scenes. It's clear that anime has a dark side, I didn't even in mention how sexual Zombie high school is. based on how dark anime can be, you certainly couldn't say to a child "go watch some anime" as there is a large possibility that they could accidentally watch something horrifying. From this, we can safely say, it's not a safe bet to let a child watch anime. Unless the anime is specified. The important question that should be asked is, where does the burden of proof lie? For me to say anime is not childish, means someone would have made a claim that it is. Based on the fact the claim first made would be, anime is childish, means the burden of proof lies with my opponent. For my opponent to win this debate, he would have to argue, Death-note, Zombie high school or Attack on titan is childish. I do not believe that's possible.
Anime is not childish.

I believe anime is childish however that does not necessarily mean that the person watching the Anime is childish/ too old to be watching it. My argument is that many popular animes such as the Dragon Ball series, Death Note, Bleach, One Piece, Yu Gi series and Naruto are targeted at young people, specifically males. These are very popular anime series, which whilst do not reflect all anime, are considered "mainstream" and so that is what most people judge anime on. It also should be noted that Shonen anime is the most popular type of anime which is aimed at young males, which I have previously mentioned, and typically have a lot of action fuelled plot in them which, again, can make it seem childish.
There is no such thing as a virus

Watched the video, fairly interesting stuff! However, I did notice that the person who put up the video had other propaganda-related pieces. It doesn't mean I think it isn't an interesting source, it's just that I find it interesting that the person who put up this video in the first place is a flat-earther who doesn't believe in evolution. Again, you bring up interesting points, but the government system isn't purely monetary. Sure, money is always on their minds when they make decisions, but if you want to get a job with the elite you need to be smart. And anyone with any logic can see that a society that's only built on money would never fly. Health is also important as well, in order to preserve their civilization. As such, why would they make up the concept of viruses? They make so much money in so many other ways- and science has proven time and time again the existence of viruses. Also, viruses have been seen under microscopes before. Check it: https://img.purch.com...=
There is no such thing as a virus

C. - In regards to small pox vaccine - 'Where is the clinical evidence Cow Pox as an organism was even used? Where are the cohort studies? Where are the Controls? Where is the generational followup? The freaks with licenses to kill who viciously attack those who say that vaccination is insane would REQUIRE such precision in any other realm from any other researcher, but when it comes to spreading the LIE of vaccines these requirements all of a sudden vanish like smoke'. Note - Vaccines are never researched to see if they are safe or effective. The medical system has double standards when it comes to vaccination. This is because they know that vaccines don't work. This is the reason that vaccines are never tested. The reason that vaccines don't work is because germs don't cause disease. Disease is just a secondary phase of the body toxicity problem caused initially by a bad diet. Regardless, viruses don't exist. Bacteria are the only germs that infect the human body via leaky gut syndrome. Things that are not living can't suddenly spring back to life when they come into contact with fluid. This is ridiculous nonsense science spread by the medical system to trick people into buying medication and drugs. Viruses are just a money making scam. Finally the coupe de grace. I video with Stefan Lanka who recently won a court case concerning the existence of viruses. Note - He won!