BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
One Earth Republic

I intend to debate this topic in sections. I intend to debate this topic in sections, Reason being I cannot cover everything from geopolitics to economy in one round. 1. How should we achieve OER? In reality, It does not matter. You could achieve it via compulsory world domination or through peaceful means. I don’t want to debate the morality here, But whoever says that war is bad is just wrong. The technological achievements are fruits of 10, 000 years old wars. And the first hammer was not crafted to do work, Rather it was crafted by the first psychopath to hit and smash some heads. 2. How should the borders be drawn? After conquering the whole planet, The most rational thing to do is divide Earth into regions based on national and cultural identity. This means dividing some big countries or combining some small countries. I would suggest that the smaller the regions are, The better it is to rule over them. And some lands can be procured by the federal government of OER, Such as Sahara, Amazon, And Antarctic. Each region should have its parliament and governor. The division should be done in such a manner that the area and population of each region are nearly equal. 3. Parliament Lower House – consisting of elected officials, One or two per region. Lower House has the right to access budget, Of inquiry, Question the members of the government, And to introduce the motions, To amend bills and of the initiative. Upper House – members are selected based on their experience in a certain field. It is non-democratic and technocratic organization. It has the same rights as Lower House, In addition, It can oversee the Lower House and can dismiss the government. 4. GovernmentGovernment members are selected from technocrats. Head of government is Prime Minister. Its structure is similar to the German and UK government. 5. Office of PresidentPresident is elected by Lower House. Presidents role is similar to German President or Japanese Emperor. 6. CurrencyThe very first job of OER is get rid of the fiat money for better economic stability. Having dual or triple currency models is more reasonable. Such as gold standard, E-currency and etc. 7. OppositionMost of the opposition to the new system will come from conservatives and ultra-right wings. The easiest way to deal with such oppositions is to get rid of them with any means possible and as soon as possible. It is the most rational choice for newborn states and systems. By doing so, OER will drastically lower the risk of civil uprise and civil war. 8. Population reductionEach state should reduce its population. Candidates should be chosen randomly. The candidates must be older than 36 months and pregnant women are exempt from the population reduction program. Given the population of State A is x% of the total population of Earth, Then State A should reduce its population by x%. It is only a one-time program. And the unemployment rate will drop drastically. 9. ConclusionI dived into structural and organizational matters in this round, And also solutions for certain problems. I will discuss politics and economics in more details in the next round.
One Earth Republic

One Earth RepublicNations of the Earth under the One RepublicWhat I will argue for:Technocratic, Confederation, Representative One Earth Republic. Definitions:1. Technocracy is a proposed system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of their expertise in their areas of responsibility, Particularly scientific knowledge. 2. A confederation (also known as a confederacy or league) is a union of sovereign states, United for purposes of common action often in relation to other states. 3. Representative - the principle of elected officials representing a group of people. 4. A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, Not the private concern or property of the rulers.
The United States should invest in to helping the European Union

Rebuttal"Contention 1: No one else is willing to help the European Union"Why are they unwilling to help? You answered this yourself when you wrote, "The more advanced countries in the European Union have tried and poured money in to the cause and are fed up with all of this mess and threaten to leave the Euro." There is way too much risk involved. Once again, it is immoral to forcibly take money and then gamble it overseas."Contention 2: If the United States did invest it would be better off"Adding to the U.S. debt is not the best way to solve the U.S. debt crisis. The international economy could survive if the European economy collapsed but the collapse of the U.S. economy would be devastating to the world economy. The U.S. has to solve its own debt crises before it can risk money it doesn't have on an economy that will fail.
The United States should invest in to helping the European Union

Pro, do your sources like I did mine.United States- U.S. governmentWrong- Immoral [1]I will offer two basic contentions:1. The U.S. cannot afford to bailout the European Union2. It is wrong to force U.S. tax payers to gamble their money on the European Union.1. The U.S. cannot afford to bailout the European UnionThe U.S. government is currently 15 trillion dollars in debt [2] and it is absurd to encourage more deficit spending. The absurdity rises to an even higher level when you look at the extreme risk of investing in the EU. As pro points out, "The more advanced countries in the European Union have tried and poured money in to the cause and are fed up with all of this mess and threaten to leave the Euro." Pouring spending into the cause has failed so many other times, why would it work now?2. It is wrong to force U.S. tax payers to gamble their money on the European Union.To get the funding to invest in the EU, the government has to receive tax revenue from U.S. citizens. Millions of people are struggling in the U.S who could desperately use that money. It is unfair and wrong to forcibly take people's money and then gamble it over seas rather than keeping it in the U.S. to ensure the U.S. can make it through the coming economic hardships especially with the massive risk involved. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]http://www.usdebtclock.org...
The United States should invest in to helping the European Union

I affirm resolved: The United States should invest in to helping the European Union First off i just want to tell my opponent that I am gonna keep this one brief and simple and without sources. Can you tell me what i need to do for sources because i am a new member to this website Ok now to the case Contention 1: No one else is willing to help the European Union -The European Union has been in this mess for years and no other power has tries to help -The problem will not fix itself because the problem countries (PIIGS- portugal, ireland, italy, greece, and spain) have very high imports but low exports and banking there has collapsed -The more advanced countries in the European Union have tried and poured money in to the cause and are fed up with all of this mess and threaten to leave the Euro Contention 2: If the United States did invest it would be better off -United States would prevent an international economic crisis that would have affected America and other countries -the United States would increase it hegemony worldwide because it would be seen as a hero -United States business will increase because countries like Greece import a lot and would not be importing from America helping the American economic crisis creating more business therefore more jobs So because finance is risk and return you have to risk for profits and if we do not invest we could actually hurt ourselves even more Therefore you should affirm
Why justin bieber should be prosecuted and sent to prison.

Justin Bieber is a menace to society. Claim: Justin bieber a world known so called pop star has been famous for almost a full 10 years and when he first began his career he was ok and "Innocent" but as soon as he matured to his older self he invision the world to be his "play thing" and began abusing his social stature and invisioning himself as a "god". Justin bieber was recently arrested for DUI and reckless behavior also resisting arrest. He is under the legal age for alcohol and he does it anyway, why? because societies "Little girls" let him, due to his popularity. If he truly cares about his fans he would've made a better example of himself and stop all the illegal stuff he is doing. Justin cares about himself only, if he cared about his fans he wouldn't charge them high price tickets to see a song or two and he wouldnt go out and buy cars he should help the the world with donations and volunteering. The world gave him everything and he's just gonna take it for granted?
World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) isn't just fake fighting.

Lithobolos,... I probably should of titled this debate bettr...but clearly b/c of ur first statement you understood what i was getting at...This debate is about the unfair bias the media gives the WWE and other pro wrestling Companies. Now my first statement "Yes, it is fake and worked but it takes a lot out of the wrestlers to go out there and throw there bodies around." The media makes it sound like the superstars are just prissy little actors that go out and pretend to fight. I gave you resons that it is a lot harder to be a WWE superstar than the media says it is. Now i beg to differ that "these people are not even good"...the WWe superstars are some of the best there are...just b/c they don't go out and try to break each others necks is no reason to down grade there accomplishments... Now to compare a wwe wrestler w/ a movie star isn't a fair fight. The WWE siperstars have to: Travel ____ amount of miles to get to the next show. set up the arena Work out Attend autograph sessions and meet and greets Then put on the show The movie stars first of all stay on the same set the whole movie...The movie star doesn't help set the arena up...The movie star has all the time in the worlds to work out but the wrestlers still need to do all this and work out...movie stars don't do meet and greets in between shoots...the movie stars have countless takes...the WWE superstarshave one take to do it...even if they know whats going to happen...and the superstars do all there own stunts...the movie stars have "stunt doubles" Now i'll admit...I HATED the Marine...but there were people who LOVED it...WWE fan and not... And how the hell can you call the Tribute to the Troops trip a "publicity stunt" did you even look at my photos? What do the actors and celebrities do when they do to the Mid east...sign there pictures and say to hell with you?...The WWE puts on a emotional show in the time of the year when the troops can't be with the ones they lov...and they do it EVERY YEAR...do the "other" actors and celebrities do that????? Now there may be a "few...few...few...few" negative aspects but do you remember this one..."train, eat your vitamins, say your prayer" by one ofthe biggest names in our life times Hulk Hogan, who preached that to the thousands of kids that watched him... The WWE has always
World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) isn't just fake fighting.

"Yes, it is fake and worked but it takes a lot out of the wrestlers to go out there and throw there bodies around." I'm not saying that professional wrestling is not hard. I'm saying that the male soap opera that is WWE is a perversion of what professional wrestling can be. Sexist, racist and one dimensional bad guys. I know they work hard to put on a show, but the fact is these people are not even good at fake wrestling. For example, from what I have seen, Japanese professional wrestlers use more realistic techniques then WWE. There is also a difference between looking up to an athlete who truly competes with other athletes and a fake character with less worth then most action movie stars. "Mow the overture the WWe does to Iraq has nothing to do with "making up" to anyone." Have you seen "The Marine" with John Cena??? the WWE has a lot of making up to do for that terrible movie. I bet there are also people who are more likely to watch the WWE because they went to Iraq. This means that the WWE as a company really has not lost or sacrificed anything with this publicity stunt. They are also not the only actors or athletes to spend time with troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq. There are negative cultural impacts caused by WWE; In portrayals of women(WWE Divas) and minorities (Muhammad Hassan, Kamala) and steroids. "It takes alot out of these people to do this...there is no offseason in the WWE they don't have 3-6 months off in the year to get healthy." Thats because there is no union and the wrestlers are getting taken advantage of. Just anther example of why WWE is a bad thing.
World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) isn't just fake fighting.

WWE is more than just: "selling cheap story lines, shallow machismo and stereotyping" Every week the WWE wrestlers travel to different parts of the country and the world and put on a show...Yes, it is fake and worked but it takes a lot out of the wrestlers to go out there and throw there bodies around. Heres what they do in a week: Travel ____ amount of miles to get to the next show. set up the arena Work out Attend autograph sessions and meet and greets Then put on the show It takes alot out of these people to do this...there is no offseason in the WWE they don't have 3-6 months off in the year to get healthy. They have to do all that every week, keep up with there health and still put on the show...These people have to be specially trained to do this...throw 200-400 pound bodies over themselves...take a fall (physically), and to just do that for 30 miutes at a time...I'd like to see you or anyone else just go out and wrestle for a week and survive. Now in wreslting...its not about being "about the serious issues" the wrestlers job description is to entertain week in and out. These superstars keep there bodies in top condition...is it bad to look up to someone who is that built. If it isk, is it wrong to look up to the competitior on "worlds stronget men' or American Gladator. I think its great people can work up to being as physically built as some of the people they watch on the WWE. Better than looking up to Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. Am i right? Mow the overture the WWe does to Iraq has nothing to do with "making up" to anyone. Its about giving back to the ones who keep us safe. Every christmas the WWE literally goes to Iraq and puts on a show for the soldiers who can't be home with there family. And the soldiers really appriciate it just look at some of the pictures: http://www.wwe.com... http://www.wwe.com... http://www.wwe.com... http://www.wwe.com... It is the only cable show to actually go and broadcast in Iraq. Its the only one that sreaches out with its whole company to thank the Soldiers...never mind with the Magnitude that the WWE does it with...
World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) isn't just fake fighting.

While looking at what pro wrestling is by definition one must come to the conclusion that it is wrestling that is "worked" or fake. But based on the debate starters post, it seems this debate is not really about that. The assertion is not "World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) isn't just fake fighting." but that "WWE is a better company than the media puts it up for...the WWE makes a difference in the world..." Now with this I have issue with. WWE is a company that does not just sell worked wrestling, it sells cheap story lines, shallow machismo and stereotyping that hurts both young men and women by giving them weird caricatures to idolize. Young people are taught being some giant big mouth punk is the coolest thing in the world. Their heroes don't agonize of any serious issues, their women are shaky and fake and any overture to people in the military in Iraq does little to make up for the negative impact on popular culture that is WWE. WWE makes the world worse not better.
World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) isn't just fake fighting.

.. thats not the point of this debate. I first wanted to do this debate ealry Christmas Eve at after watching the WWE RAw Tribute to the Troops show where the WWE brings its Superstars literally to Iraq and puts on a show for them for Christmas. That is when i realized WWE is a better company than the media puts it up for. .. the WWE makes a differance in the world. .. and its more than just a fake fighting show
World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) isn't just fake fighting.

"This debate is about the unfair bias the media gives the WWE and other pro wrestling Companies." I have yet to see an example of how the media does this. Is there a specific story or group of stories that could be shown to say "this is what they said wrestling is and it is untrue'? I do not believe I or the media have said "wrestlers don't work hard" or "professional wrestling is easy" The debate to me was if WWE alone is worthwhile and positive. I think I have given plenty of examples of how WWE is negative and the fact that I am not condemning worked wrestling in general is also in my favor. I did look at those pictures and I could not help but notice the payed advertisement for the Nation Guard on the side of the page. I also saw part of the special on TV. As I said before, for the WWE to send its people to Iraq to do a show is not a sacrifice considering the good publicity and the advertising money. WWE does not have a union to protect its wrestlers, steroids continue to be a problem, it has sexist and racist characters, it is a terrible excuse for a male soap opera and is not the greatest exhibition of wrestling techniques. It seems to me that WWE is only interested in making money with complete disregard to its harmful cultural impact.
Christianity(pro) vs Islam(con).

It appears that there is a major flaw with the logic of my opponents previous arguments. My opponent claimed that the is a "Quranist" and prefers to focus on the holy text of Islam and reject the crimes perpetrated by the caliphate and his fellow Muslims. Unfortunately, the personal values and behaviors of my opponent do not come into question here. We are debating about the real life implications of both Christianity and Islam to determine which is more peaceful. In doing this, we must not look at the actions of individuals alone, but the religion as a whole. In order to understand this topic, it is not only important but critical that we analyze the caliphate and questionable aspects of Sharia whether my opponent agrees with their actions or not. After all, The ISIS member in Iraq and my opponent took the exact same shahada (declaration of faith), pray the same 5 prayers a day, and most importantly, read from the same book. And yet one can peacefully debate his religion and the other kills anyone who speaks out against it. The simple fact is that my opponent's religion is filled with more extremism than liberalism. more bigotry than acceptance and more oppression than freedom. I commend him for rebuking these actions but unfortunately, they still happened and were still carried out by people who subscribe to the same belief system. Regardless of this I will make a few short rebuttals followed by my closing statements. My opponent stated that the Jizya was a war reparation payed by specific Christians jews and Pagans who terrorized the Islamic State. The simple fact is that the Jizya is a tax for ALL non Muslims regardless of age, income or previous crimes. Warping facts does little to construct an argument My opponent also stated that the invasion of Mecca was not a conquest. This is a false and laughable concept as Muhammed surrounded the city with a massive army to force them into surrendering. Before I close I want to thank con for a very interesting and entertaining debate Throughout this debate I have provided substantial evidence that: 1. Islamic teaching is more violent teaching 2. Islamic history is far bloodier than christian history 3. and that the Muslim world generally sees more religious violence than the christian world please vote on who presented a better argument and not only your personal opinion thanls :)
Christianity(pro) vs Islam(con).

Regarding peacefulness the Quran states that Islam is Peace when it says "O Men enter all in Peace" In Arabic the word used to describe Islam in thies verse was Al Silm meaning peace and also theres a verse in the quran which says "allah doesnt forbid you to be friends with those disbelievers who never fought you in cause iof religion and never driven you out of your houses so you have to be good with them and deal justly withvthem" this is in Surat Al Mumtahina in the Quran and a Hadith in Bukhari says " A Muslim is a person who doesnt harm Muslims with his hands or toungue" however we find in the Bible stories in Deutrononmy where people are ordered to fight a city and kill all living things there and the book of joshua and especially Deutronomy 20 is against Islamic beliefs simce it says if you fought a city seek peace woth it and if it iopens its doors then all the people in it are yours and under slavery while we see in Quran "If they Incline to peace then incline for it" in Chapter of Al Anfal(spoils of War) and in Islam wars are only deffensive as in al Baqarah " Fight in the path of God those who fight you and dont transgess limits God doesnt love those who transgess limits" however in Bible we see Moses and other prophets attacking the Cannanites and Midians. Tolerance in the Quran ioutwighs that in Bible since the Quran says "Who wishes believes and who wishes disbelieve" and "no compulsion in religion" and in Chapter Al Maidah it says "Dont argye with the People of Book except with whats better except those who fight you and say Our God and Your God is One and we believe in what was revealed to us amd what was revealed to you and we submitt to Him" and we find a Hadith in Abu Dawood saying "I came to guide and not to curse, O Allah May you guide People of Daws for they left Islam" this is for tolerance and peacefullness however in Bible in Deutronomy Chapter 13 a death oenalty for apostasy thank you
Christianity(pro) vs Islam(con).

I hope someone will join me for what will hopefully be an interesting and thought provoking debate. This debate will not focus so much on theology rather than the real life implications and practices of each religion and their compatibility with modern and progressive society. I believe that the real world implications of Christianity have had a far better impact in modern society than Islam in the areas of: Peacefulness Missionary work Tolerance/liberalism Living opportunities Women's Rights Basic human interaction There is a significant BOP on both sides as we must both provide evidence for our claims. Sources are not necessary and no penalty will be given for omitting them. However, should you decide to use a source, that is perfectly fine. Rules: Please be polite and respectful. I feel that debates are much more enjoyable when there is a mutual respect between the two parties If you do include a source, please cite it and most importantly, have an open mind! :)