BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Moderate inflation is necessary for a healthy economic growth

Thanks for joining, Loubna. I hope this debate is interesting and constructive for you. Economists believe that a small amount of inflation is necessary for economic growth. It is explained that inflation is linked to economic growth through the process of inter-temporal substitution i.e substitution of money across time or simply savings now and spending later and vice versa. If there is an inflation, consumers who know that prices will rise and their money will worth less in the future would tend to spend now instead of later. This spending keeps the economy running and it is necessary to target a moderate inflation for a country's economy. Although I do agree that spending is necessary for economic growth, I disagree that inflation is necessary to motivate spending. Therefore, inflation should not be an indispensable component for economic growth. Consumers spend for their basic needs such as food and shelter and for what they desires such as entertainments. Inflation, especially a moderate one, can be one of the many factors that consumers consider when purchasing goods and services; however, it has never been an essential factor. If an economy's inflation were to stay flat at zero, consumers would still spend money for their needs and wants. Honestly speaking, when was the last time inflation went into the top 5 reasons you made a purchase? Chances are it might not even had made to the top 10. Many propositions think that it is necessary for a central bank or government to keep the target inflation rate to 2-3% in order to prevent deflation, which is often seen as an economic disaster. To that argument, I want to first state that there is no proof of a causation relationship between zero inflation and deflation. Even if a central bank doesn't want to economy to fall into the deflation, it doesn't mean that it needs to keep the inflation target at a positive level. It is the same as telling a person to stay full as the lack of food will cause death. One doesn't need to be full to survival but keep himself/herself NOT HUNGRY to stay alive. Second, even if one can prove that there is a causation relationship between zero inflation and deflation, deflation does not represent an economic crisis by itself. In fact, there are countries which stay close to zero inflation or even minor deflation but can still healthily grow their economies i.e. Switzerland. Lots of people attribute Japan's 20 years lost decades as the absolute outcome of a country with deflation. However, I think the Japan case is unique as it suffers many social problems, e.g. demographic distribution, which likely have a even worse influence than deflation on its economy.
Moderate inflation is necessary for a healthy economic growth

Hi there, I just want to take this opportunity to have an intellectual discussion about inflation. Most economic schools teach their students that moderate inflation is good for the economy but do not explain why it is necessary. I hope by this end of this debate all participants and readers can have a deeper understanding of the nature of inflation. I'm on the side of "Con" which means that i Do Not agree that a moderate inflation is necessary for a healthy economic growth. Following are the steps: Round 1: Say hi and accept the challenge. Round 2: Present your own view points. Round 3: Counter the opposite side's arguments and strengthen yours. Round 4: Give a short conclusion. PS: Please try to present your arguments "eyeball friendly" by breaking down your arguments into several paragraphs. I'm new here but have seen too many unreadable debates. I want our readers to be able to read through our view points and to give constructive comments accordingly. Thanks!
Video Games Cause Violence

While it might interest some in harming others, it's highly unlikely. People with stable minds know that what is shown on screen is not actually happening in real life. You must be utterly sick-minded to think off attaching a chain saw to a gun, and actually killing people that way. To even imagine that, you need to be confined to a mental institute. I stil also don't see why people keep singling out video games as a source of violence, when most R rated movies explicitly depict violence in MUCH MUCH worse ways. The amount of blood in Halo is minor, even the amount of blood in Black Ops is. Also, most games have gore filters.
Video Games Cause Violence

To say that video games cause violence is an outrage. If this was simply but an ounce of truth, then every person who bought a video game that contained violence would become a "killer". However, since they haven't, that leaves one option left, and that's to say that it's simply the persons unstable mind. There have been only a handful of tragic events that have been blamed on video games. Each of those times, the person seemed to be mentally unstable. (Take the Newtown Conneticuit shooting for example). The same thing can be said for many other things such as movies, books, TV shows, etc... They contain violent content, but they aren't the cause of any violence.
An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States

Realistic- interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or practical (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) < > Yes, we do need accountability but not the way it is set presently. That's there are some flaws in the law. The main one is that, by 2014, 100 PERCENT of students need to be proficient in reading. I will get more into this with my own contentions later on. < > That's all true but you fail to recognize all the problems with NCLB. You simply mention the good points of the law, but fail to mention its flaws. <<1C: NCLB is effective This source shows that NCLB has raised student standards. >> Just because something is effective temporarily doesn't mean it will be effective in the long-run. As more and more schools fail to reach the ever raising proficiency rate they will lose funding, the top people will lose thier jobs, and the students will suffer. This means that gradually students across the country will suffer in the education department. COUNTER-ARGUMENT: 1A: Realistic The problem is that everybody, even immigrant students who have lived in the country for barely a year, are required to past these tests. It is impossible for 100% of students to become reading proficient. Schools who fail to meet the requirements have money diverted away from tutors, and a restructuring of leadership at the schools. People will lose their jobs because of this law and have to find somewhere else to work. The states will realize this and, not wanting to lose funding for their schools, will make a change with what they consider "proficiency". That's because the law lets the States decide what is acceptable proficiency. This means that the states will simply lower the standard of proficiency so low that they can get 100%. This will hurt the students and deny them the education they truly deserve. 1B: Resources School time is precious and teachers often don't have enough of it. These tests take a very significant portion of the school year away from teachers. These teachers then can't always teach everything their students need to know. That means that even though students are getting ahead in one area they are still falling behind in the other 2 or 3. Since only Math and Reading tests are required in Texas (using my state as an example) and the Science and Social Studies tests don't come until 8th grade, many students aren't prepared for the latter tests. They do fine and pass the Math and Reading, but the Science and Social Studies catches them completely unawares because they've been catching up since 4th grade. Often teachers will have to skip sections to save time and thus steal a good part of education from all the students in his/her class. 1C: The Future In the future we need this law to keep working. By setting impossibly high goals with too sever of punishments, the law will hurt the education system in the long run. This means that overall students WILL get worse educations and the very thing the law was suppose to help will be severely damaged.
An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States

http://dictionary.reference.com...) Beneficial - conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) ARGUMENT: 1A: Accountability "The NCLB Act will strengthen Title I accountability by requiring States to implement state wide accountability systems covering all public schools and students. These systems must be based on challenging State standards in reading and mathematics, annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and annual state wide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. Assessment results and State progress objectives must be broken out by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no group is left behind. School districts and schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward state wide proficiency goals will, over time, be subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures aimed at getting them back on course to meet State standards. Schools that meet or exceed AYP objectives or close achievement gaps will be eligible for State Academic Achievement Awards. " (. http://www.ed.gov...) We need accountability in our schools. We can't assume that schools are doing everything they should. We cannot possibly fix the academic problem in the United States if we don't hold schools that don't do well accountable. We need to give funding to schools that do well, so that other schools will try to do better. 1B: Tests can help pinpoint the problem With nothing to measure academic standard with, it is impossible to see what a schools problem may be. With tests in various subjects, it can be easy to see where a school needs to improve. The same applies for regular students. Rather than using just one standard (grades) to measure performance on, with tests you have a more precise and balanced standard to use. 1C: NCLB is effective This source shows that NCLB has raised student standards. (. http://www.ed.gov...) Thank you.
US and allied forces should retreat from Afghanistan immediately.

"People deserve freedom, our freedom isn't an export but the ability to craft one's own should be." "Freedom" is a difficult-to-define concept that the west loves to say. They seem to justify any action by claiming that they're bringing freedom. Working for the Afghan government is a pretty bad example of freedom. I think they're seeking western luxury not western freedom. "If that aid was sent without the soldiers to dispense it, sent to the Warlords it would stay there; with the Warlords. The same goes for any beneficiary item or utility. You cannot rely on the goodness of these people's hearts when their hearts have shown to be black." America has been cooperating with village elders and warlords since the beginning. Read this article. http://www.independent.co.uk... And a quotation from it "Other warlords, who were once his comrades in arms, are now part of the political elite in Kabul, prominent members of the government or multimillionaire owners of palatial houses in the capital." These violent warlords with hearts of black are now unelected government workers. "he is corrupt beyond belief but he is an elected ruler" What's interesting is he is the ONLY elected ruler. Afghanistan has federal democracy, but not provincial or municipal democracy. All provincial and municipal controllers are government workers appointed by Karzai, not elected officials. "It is not a battle of ideas for diplomats for the enemy have no request; just a wish to see the complete end to us and our way of life. To fight these ideas those with them must answer to rifles not the telegram." That does seem to be the opinion of the industrial-military complex, that ideas must be transmitted with bullets. Stephen Cohen, senior fellow for Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institute said "We need to give war a chance". I seems very illogical and I cannot think of any time in history where this has worked. If you wanted the peasants to follow a more western, modern way of life, convincing them of that requires communication. In addition to the soldiers not speaking the native language, they kill them. I think if we wanted to bring real freedom to Afghanistan, we should enforce true democracy, starting at the smallest regions. Mayors, regional leaders, should all be elected, not appointed. The west has no interest in doing such a thing and instead kills anyone who opposes the government and builds roads. Lots of roads. Roads are necessary for moving military equipment. But, in the end, Afghanistan was not a humanitarian mission, and it should not be. If we wanted to end inhumane behavior in Afghanistan, then why not do the same in Nigeria, Bangladesh, Somalia, and many other places? We lack the resources to do so. Just as Nigeria is not our problem, Afghanistan is not our problem.
US and allied forces should retreat from Afghanistan immediately.

"Is it desirable to once again have the civilians living in a state of terror from their own government? To have women back at the lowest rung of society having being elevated from it by the intervention? I would say not." In many parts of the world civilians live in terror of their own government. It's not our job to liberate everyone from government tyranny. The current position of women in Afghanistan is still at the lowest rung. And Karazi's government is fairly terrifying. "Yet it is very difficult for a rag-tag organisation such as Al-Quad to mount an offensive when it's bases are under constant pressure" Yes, which is what we're doing in Pakistan! Yet in Pakistan we're not building a nation, just killing Al-Queda. "What we have in the West is not perfect but it is far better than that in the Middle East and Afghanistan; should we let gay people marry? Vs should we use the blowtorch or just stone them to death... Defeating an idea is possible it is a fallacy of anti-war campaigner and activists to claim otherwise." This conflict in Afghanistan seems a little post-modern if we're now battling ideas rather than enemies of America. The reality is we're battling real-life people, not having philosophical disagreements. If we wanted to get into a battle of ideas, I don't understand why we're killing them. To battle ideas you'd need diplomats, discussions and so on. Daisy Cutters have no place in such a conflict. "It is unwise to rely on Warlords for they have no laws nor code to follow, if they behave immorally then there is no-one to hold them to account without the presence of a peace-keeping force." Even with a peace-keeping force they'd be very capable of immoral acts. Peace-keepers aren't priests or police. A less insulting term for warlord is "village elder". Not really much difference, as far as I can tell. "President Karzai may be corrupt, or alleged to be, but has promised to do away with this and even if it is an empty promise one should surely feel it is preferable for a leader of Afghanistan to promise to deal with problems rather than telling people to either shut up or be beaten and killed." Afghanistan has been ranked the second-most corrupt nation on Earth. It's far more than allegations. A promise is talk, and talk is easy. He's been in charge for about 8 years and corruption has only gotten worse. Him and his silly hat no longer impresses anyone.
US and allied forces should retreat from Afghanistan immediately.

It is not to duty of America or its allies to bring western civilization to every corner of the globe. In addition to being unjustified, it is also impossible. The occupation of Afghanistan has lasted for 8 years and the current government is a corrupt kleptocracy taking advantage of generous foreign aid. The Afghan government and NATO military occupation is not sustainable and requires billions of dollars of tax money per year. Justifications for the occupation of Afghanistan: 1. Fight The War On Terrorism Surgical strikes against Al-Qaeda and police actions against small bands of terrorists does not require the occupation of an entire nation. 2. Fight Radial Islam The Taliban followed an extreme form of Islam called Wahhabism. It is not the duty of America, or NATO, to determine which religious orders are acceptable and which are not. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia follows the same form of Islam yet they are American allies. 3. Control of natural resources and pipelines. Vast riches have been recently discovered by geologists. These resources, however, do not belong to the American people. Military control over these regions does not benefit the American people in any significant way. The extraction of these resources is of interest to the international mining markets, not the American people. There is also interest in building an oil pipeline which would pass through Afghanistan. Such a pipeline is interesting, but irrelevant to American interests. My proposal would be an orderly withdrawal starting immediately, and supporting local warlords in keeping law and order. Support for warlords has happened since the start of the conflict, and is the best force to keep the territory out of the hands of Al-Qaeda. Cost of Afghan War http://costofwar.com... Corruption of the Afghan government increasing http://www.commondreams.org...
Nuclear Energy Is Beneficial to Society

I apologize for taking a long time to challenge you to this. Now that the resolution issues have been resolved, this debate can move forward. Please read everything below, and if you have any questions or concerns, please tell me so before you accept the debate. Full Resolution Nuclear energy is beneficial in and of itself to society. BoP is on pro. Definitions Nuclear energy: "The energy released by a nuclear reaction, especially by fission or fusion."[1] Beneficial: "Producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous." We will not be comparing nuclear energy to another form of energy or the propitiousness of energy itself.[2] Society: "The totality of social relationships among humans."[3] Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources [1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Resolved: The sky over planet Earth is blue.

THIS IS NOT A TROLL DEBATE.I have made this debate impossible to accept. If you wish to accept please say so in the comments section. I will then challenge you to a debate. This debate is about weather or not the sky itself is blue. This does not include clouds, pollution, or a rainy day.RulesNo trollingFirst round is accpetanceRound 2 is Contentions, no rebuttlesRound 3 is rebuttles and conclusionNo semantics.Sky-he space over the Earth where the sun, moon, stars, and clouds appear (http://www.learnersdictionary.com...)Is-present 3d singular of be (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Blue- color on the visable color spectrum that has a wavelength of 475 nanometers.
US should focus its resources on Africa.

Investments~ Why would the United States of America spend money on another continent? Our national debt is over $17 trillion, and growing with every passing second. What exactly would we be investing in? What is so worth spending our government money on in Africa? There is so much that is awry in this nation on its own, that we can't seem to fix, yet the government is so fixated on aiding other countries all over the world, when the bulk of them act as though they don't want our help. I'm sure that the $37 billion our country spends on foreign aid is put to good use; I know that for a fact. We are helping. But why not help ourselves? Yes, I realize we spend much more on in-nation poverty than we do foreign aid. My issue is that, with the money we're using on other nation's problems, we could spend that much more on education, or poverty, or environmental protection, or anything else for ourselves. That sounds extremely selfish, I know, but let's solve our own problems before we go fixing everybody else.
US should focus its resources on Africa.

Case 1: Markets in Africa are boomingRemember the late 1800's, with the dissolution of the Qing dynasty? A massive scramble to deal within the growing Asian markets turned into a full scale trade war. China is still one of the largest sources for raw materials and cheap labor, but the government has been having trouble with fierce competition with Africa. [1]A new scramble has begun. British firms have capitalized industries in Somalia and old British Africa[2]. China has been sending investments African nations for a while now[3]. France, Italy, and the Netherlands have already participated in the scramble. France is investing in Algeria and Mali [4], while the Dutch are showing huge intrest in CAR. The European Union has even decided to send a small army to CAR to protect their trade intrests[5]. Africa has the fastest growing economies in the world. Some countries like Ethiopia, have growth rates above 6% [6]!!!!! Almost every country has major investments in Africa besides the US. Besides a few companies along the gold coast, mainly Liberia[7], America is behind in the race.So here's what we need to do....1. Invest in growing markets, and refocus from China. Many people are finding labor in China more expensive then within our own country. This will yield much income, and send a few favors our way.2. Stop sending so much money to Syria, Israel, and Korea, in the event of some hypothetical war[8], and start focusesing on the areas which really stand to benefit. Unrest in Africa hurts the globalized economy, and redirecting our humanitarian aid to Africa benefits the world.3. We need to work our military through organizations like the EU and UN. By sending tactical, medical, and intelligence support we can gain more influence and ensure stability throughout Africa, which I already proved, is very profitable. I'm not advocating direct warfare though, but tactical aid.Africa has become so profitable. By focusing our resources on them, we help their markets and ours grow stronger. The worlds already noticed the potential, and its time we do as well.[1] http://www.cnn.com...[2] http://www.britishafrican.org...[3] http://www.chinaafricarealstory.com...[4] http://www.npr.org...[5] http://www.theguardian.com...[6]http://www.economist.com...[7] http://www.firestonenaturalrubber.com...[8] http://www.usaid.gov...
Urbanization

Reasons why Urbanization is beneficial to society 1) It allows millions of people to live comfortably in a small area which conserves space 2) It allows for people to easily improve their lifestyle 3) It allows people to seek economic opportunity better 4) It allows for the centralization of business, wealth, and services 5) It is a tool for measuring how prosperous a country is 6) It allows for people to become specialized at different skills in an economy 7) It allows for people to pollute less per person than they would living suburban lifestyles 8) It allows for exchange between countries overseas and internationally better than if they were rural 9) It allows for modernization to solve any problems caused by early urbanization I hope this is enough to prove why urbanization is at least not the second worst mistake humanity has ever made :)