BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the United States Outsource jobs to other countries

Overall I don't disagree that outsourcing has some definite benefits but the negatives outweigh the positives. In some cases or some countries this may work but America is structured different than said countries and were as that might work for one it has been shown to not work in ours. Outsourcing has been proven to cause unemployment and at the moment we already have high unemployment rates and are definitely looking at losing more. If we continue to outsource and allow it over time more and more companies will switch and cause more unemployment which we can't afford to have right now especially when we are looking at the future unemployment its obvious jobs are going to be cut and soon. http://www.investopedia.com... Thank you for this debate.
Should the United States Outsource jobs to other countries

You are correct regarding short term impacts when it comes to Outsourcing, however there are more long term positive impacts when it comes to outsourcing jobs to other countries. Not only does outsourcing help the consumer which would pump money into the economy, it also helps large businesses. By cutting costs in one area of the department, it can allow the company to staff up in other areas of the company. A paper written in in "American Economic Review" looked at over 57 businesses which outsourced some areas of the company to developed nations. The study showed that a small percentage lost their jobs in the short term, but the efficiencies that the business gained allowed them to hire more people than they first lost. It is definitely a two way street that not only benefits consumers but also companies. As I said before, we aren't the only country to outsource, countries outsource to us as well. If we stop outsourcing, we hurt the consumers by raising the prices which will slow production due to less of a demand, companies will stop being efficient and will not hire workers, and other countries will stop outsourcing to us as well. Therefore, outsourcing has more benefits that many people think. http://money.cnn.com...
Should the United States Outsource jobs to other countries

1. I don't deny that outsourcing jobs may have temporary benefits but what are we going to do as a nation when all companies leave because they can triple there profit, we will have so many of our people out of work right now we need to hold to as many jobs as possible its speculated that by 2025 we may lose up to half of our jobs to technology that can do it faster and more efficiently. If we continue to outsource we will put many Americans in the position of inheritance where as it is hard to get out of a low economic status now this could make it nearly impossible https://www.technologyreview.com...
Music Should be Banned

Some music is loud and noisy, some is soft and pleasant. It does not cause any vibrations in the world, just small sound vibrations in the air, which reach the interior of the ear and are interpreted as music. We are not going to ban music, that's insane. Below is an article about the anatomy of the ear and an article about how music works from a scientific viewpoint. http://www.stanfordchildrens.org... https://www.livescience.com... Music does not have the ability to alter the direction of the Earth. Also, the lyrics of music all depend on what the creator of the music puts into it. The lyrics can be obscene and unpleasant, or they can be poignant and touching. if you don't like music with lyrics, you might enjoy instrumental music, or old music from the 50s. Not all music is bad. That's like saying all books or movies are bad. Some are better than others. We are not going to ban music. It's simply impossible to do. Music is simply a vibration in the air, and we need music to remain creative and productive.
Music Should be Banned

I told you; music is loud, noisy, and it shakes the world, so at least half the world will lean towards the Sun, and most polar bears and supreme, powerful, superior Russians will die, which is a HUGE tragedy. Also, today's music is filled with evil and inappropriate content. All they glorify is cussing and sex and alcohol and violence; now is that good, my friend? Of course not. That is going to destroy us, mentally and emotionally, as well as physically, at times. That is why all forms of music, including singing, humming, rapping, whistling, or playing music on an instrment should be banned. I hate music, so we should ban music. No good music these days. Now what do you have to say? Also, this is our 12th debate! We're going well this year! And what do you mean by "the finks are in the cornbread?", or are you just one of those retarded trolls? Finally, are you a male or a female, frankfurter50? I await your next argument
Music Should be Banned

Music must be banned. Vote pro. This is debate no. 11 out of 100! We're cruisin' through life! Okay. Here, as usual, is how we will debate: Round 1: Acceptance Rounds 2-3: Debating/Rebuttals I think music must be banned because it is just loud and noisy. The extra noise causes the world to shake; then at least half of the Earth will learn towards the Sun, and most polar bears and supreme Russians will die. I hate music, and we have to ban all music within the next year. Let's go!
The enemy mentality

I'm surprised that this wasn't about molestation You've written more of them than the works of the Slovak nation But it isn't true that I secured my own damnation In the end, It is me the show has taken Now let's talk about your poem, How we fight the wrong enemy This mentality that leads to devastation and calamity It's almost as if your brain has just reached it's capacity You start attacking the wrong person and slaughtering the family You forget the profession and start spitting profanity You feel like you're floating and experience less gravity You start to giggle like a psychopath, Giving in to insanity First you rape and kill to a degree like it's an intervarsity When I'm hurt I fight back, But not the physical works I bend your mind and blow it up with my lyrical perks Y'all who want to fight another are just typical jerks It ain't your religion to rape, They're just biblical irks These poems are really painful for an eyeful Some are sympathetic, Most are simply queer just like you I shouldn't have accepted but rhyme schemes are what I do You need to cut that depression and lusting right through
The enemy mentality

The enemy mentality When the body is hurt Mind seeks the cause People tell you where the enemies are And you pick up your rifle to fight them Every pain you felt in your childhood Is converted into anger towards the enemy Even if the enemy never actually hurt you Even when it is the people who hurt you Human brain can easily make mistakes This is one of those mistakes When you attack people who never attacked you Because of the pain you felt in childhood All the repression boils up And you charge towards the target But that is the wrong target And I feel sorry for you Because you are fighting the wrong enemies Instead of fighting the people who hurt you When child experiences pain He then tolerates pain more Towards himself and towards others The pain you experienced in childhood Converts to violence you express towards others Most peaceful societies will always be those Who have the happiest children With least pain in their childhood
Minimum Wage Laws In The USA Should Be Abolished

You're right, I'll be arguing for the abolishment of both federal & state minimum wage laws. Here is a summary of my arguments: 1. A law should be abolished if it either fails to accomplish its primary objectives, or works against its primary objectives. 2. The primary objectives of Minimum Wage laws are to reduce net poverty and net unemployment. 3. At best, Minimum Wage laws have no net effect on poverty or unemployment. At worst, they cause a net increase in poverty and unemployment. 4. Therefore, Minimum Wage laws should be abolished. To clarify, I need only prove that Minimum Wage laws do not cause a net reduction in poverty and employment to win. Let's begin! Minimum Wage Laws Don't Reduce Unemployment 10% raises in the Federal Minimum Wage generally correspond to a 4.5% increase in unemployment rates.3 The Congressional Joint Economic Committee published a paper based on 50 years of research on the Federal Minimum Wage. They summarised it this way: “The minimum wage reduces employment. ”1 In states that have a minimum wage higher than the federal one, unemployment is 2% higher than in those states with a minimum wage equal to the Federal Minimum Wage.5 When employers are forced to pay wages higher than they can afford, they cut costs by laying off entry-level workers. Their positions are then either automated (replaced by machinery), or outsourced to a country without minimum wage laws. Minimum Wage Laws Don't Reduce Poverty The Employment Policies Insitute, a non-profit organization, also published a paper on this subject. After analyzing poverty rates and increases in state & federal minimum wage laws from 2003 to 2007, they determined that raises in the minimum wage requirement have no effect on poverty.4 Even when the analysis was repeated using a 50% broader definition of “poverty”, the results were the same. An explanation for this is the lack of ability these laws have in reaching their target population. Minimum wage laws disproportionately effect those who are already well-off. Of those who benefited from the increases in the Federal Minimum Wage between 2007 and 2009, 90% weren't in poverty!2 Your turn, Con. Goodluck! 1. http://www.jec.senate.gov... 2. http://www.academia.edu... 3Richard Burkhauser, Kenneth Couch et David Wittenberg, “Who Minimum Wage Increases Bite: An Analysis Using Monthly Data from the SIPP and CPS”, Southern Economic Journal, 2000 4. http://www.epionline.org... 5. http://blog.lib.umn.edu...
No contradictions in the holy book of Muslim, Al Qur'an.

I will end with this quote. "Nature is what we know. We do not know the gods of religions. And nature is not kind, or merciful, or loving. If God made me the fabled God of the three qualities of which I spoke: mercy, kindness, love He also made the fish I catch and eat. And where do His mercy, kindness, and love for that fish come in? No; nature made us nature did it all not the gods of the religions."
No contradictions in the holy book of Muslim, Al Qur'an.

Since there is only 3 rounds I will bring up more contradictions and let him disprove them and I will let the audience decide which is correct. Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. But in 41:9-12 the detailed description of the creation procedure adds up to eight days. How is 8 and 6 equal? Another contradiction is where evil comes from. Is the evil in our life from Satan [38:41], Ourselves [4:79], or Allah [4:78]? You could say it comes from all of them but it never says that. Next, the Quran has contradictions with angles are angels protectors? "NO protector besides Allah" [2:107, 29:22]. But in Sura 41:31 the angels themselves say: "We are your protectors in this life and the Hereafter." And also in other suras is their role described as guarding [13:11, 50:17-18] and protecting [82:10]. How are angels not protectors and also protectors? Also, angels have another contradiction. No angel is arrogant, they all obey Allah [16:49-50], but: "And behold, we said to the ANGELS: 'Bow down to Adam'. And THEY bowed down, EXCEPT Iblis. He refused and was haughty." [2:34]. Does this mean Ibis is not an angel even though the context states he his? Next, us the Noah contradiction. According to Sura 21:76, Noah and his family is saved from the flood, and Sura 37:77 confirms that his seed survived. But Sura 11:42-43 reports that Noah's son drowns. You could say that he didn't mean all of them and that he didn't specifically say all of them. This is disproven because he didn't say not everyone and why w p up Allah leave it as is knowing that people like me would prove that it doesn't work out. Finally, will Christians go to heaven in your religion if it is true? Sura 2:62 and 5:69 say "Yes", Sura 5:72 (just 3 verses later) and 3:85 say "No".
No contradictions in the holy book of Muslim, Al Qur'an.

It's very easy to answer. No contradiction at all : 1. Human being never exist (nothing) untill they created. The first man Adam was created from clay. Or you can put it in your mind that clay is not nothing for you. In my opinion, yes, is nothing. We never exist before. Then we created using a clay, our father. 2. In surah 9:29, it was not a compulsion to other, we were at war. Why? Because we have been fight by them. And we must defend our existence by killing them anywhere at that war time, in a field war. You see we muslim never do that in a piece time. 3. Muslim is a person who submit to the will of God. Coincidently, they are prophets choosen by God. They are a prophet at their time. That's why they are called a first muslim.
No contradictions in the holy book of Muslim, Al Qur'an.

In Surah 19:67, it states that man was created from nothing, but this can't be possible becuase in 15:26, the Quran says that man is created from clay. I would like you to state how nothing and clay is the same. From my knowledge clay is made from fine grained natural rock. Next, the Quran says that Let there be no compulsion in religion in 2:256, yet says you should fight those who believe no in Allah in 9:29. How can Allah say not to force a religion yet also say kill those that dont believe. Third, 39:12 says Muhmammad is the first Muslim. Then in 7:143 tells the people that Moses is. He then follows that Abraham is. How can three people be the first if they lived 2500+ years apart.
Liberal ideals are much better for the American nation that conservative ideals

I agree with the resolution that liberal ideals are much better for the nation than conservative ideals. First off, conservative ideals in America are predominantly Christian. The stances on abortion, gay mariage, and other hot button issues are not the ideas of people who have studied politics, but Christian leaders. Having religion in politics is not a good thing. Next, liberal ideas are generally more peaceful than conservative ideals. The conservative(cst) stance on war is so much more aggresive. Liberal ideals are actually more leaned to saving lives. Third, cst's are inclined towards playing on fear. Post 9/11 drama is letting them do what they want. They play on irrational fear, and end up killing people. Fourth, they are causing many problems. Bush put another 4.9 trillion dollars to America's debt. That is a lot of money. Finally, conservatives and tea party members are creating opposition for democrats. Normal republicans can at least get along a little bit, but conservatives just stop all progress. They won't let anyone get anything done, even if it is a republican against their idea. This is why I support the resolution. Please vote for Pro because you are making the country ACTUALLY safer, not just playing on fear. You are helping the economy, and saving lives. - Phoenix
THB That All Forms Of Organized Religion are an attack to freedom and should be over.

Sorry, I should have known the rules before I attended to this debate. "All forms of organized religion are an attack on freedom and (therefore) should be over" Speed limits are an attack on freedom. Minimum drinking ages are an attack on freedom. Prohibiting the use of drugs is an attack on freedom. All forms of law and regulations are an attack on freedom. So yes indeed religious rules and laws are an attack on freedom. But the people that are "attacked" and do believe that those rules have been created for their own greater good. Just as speed limits have been created for our safety. Just as prohibiting drugs and alcohol for people below a certain age to protect our health. Just as every law and rule has been created so that we do not form a danger to others or ourselves. You have also stated that religion is fake. This is something that can"t easily be stated and should be a topic for a whole other debate. But religion is about the worshiping of a God or Gods. There have been thousands of debates about the existence of God, but it is something that simply can"t be proved. So if we don"t know whether God exists or not, we also don"t know if religion is fake or not. "The well-known principle of utilitarianism reads "The best decision is the one that brings the better consequences to the most of the involved people" and I'm doing this by taking them the religious freedom and giving them"" Most of the involved people believe that following the rules of their religion brings them the better consequences. And because we can"t know if God exists or not, we also don"t know if living a religious life gives you better chances in the 'afterlife'. "Third, freedom is important and this is pretty basic. We need to be free to be ourselves and act by our own will. If we are not free we cannot be responsibilized and therefore we would have anarchy but no one would be guilty because they are not acting upon themselves." Do you know what anarchy means? Here is a definition I found: "Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal." In other words: Anarchy equals Total freedom. I do agree with you that all forms of organized religion are an attack on freedom, but I don't think that is a good enough reason to ban all forms of organized religion.
THB That All Forms Of Organized Religion are an attack to freedom and should be over.

Religion is not a physical thing that I can take away from someone, but I can shut down churches and other cult places, just to refute your point. But that doesn't really matter because the motion is "THB" which I thought everyone knew the meaning, sorry, it means This House Believes. I believe that All Forms Of Organized Religion are an attack on freedom and should be over and I don't need to show you how you have to show me why we should keep religion in our lives and societies and not question how I would do it. Also, you should present a counter model because there is in the fact this problem: people aren't free and in many cases, people are dying because of religion, you can't ignore it. Debates are about people and if you don't care about people you may just leave. So, bringing some extension to the Gov side, I'd like to pick some main arguments that will be: 1. Religion is bad 2. Religion is fake 3. Freedom is important And then I will whip it all together and repackage my first speech to show you that Religion takes our freedom. Religion is bad because it divides us. We can see this everywhere, in our TV, our smartphone, all over the news: Religion causes murders, injuries, danger, fear because some people can't respect the others and their religion. I'm not saying that everybody is like that, but we will never get the number of this dangerous people down the 0 by any method than approving this motion and let me show you why: we already have airport security, border control, police in the big cities(...) and yet Europe has been target of countless attacks in the last few years. By approving this motion, we will be taking away this cause of division. It's one less reason for people to hate each other and it's something we can take from people with a lot of benefits over the religious freedom. Second, Religion is a fake. We have Science now and we can refute a lot of miracles that the Holy Bible (Christianism) tells us, turning the Religion main guide into something we cannot trust. (Not negating a God, that's not the debate) If God had actually written the Bible himself through people, as we are told he did, he wouldn't make such mistakes and contradictions, he is supposed to be perfect after all. I don't have much knowledge on other religions and their failures on their holy scripts but they surely support happenings that aren't possible as we know now, in the XXI century. Third, freedom is important and this is pretty basic. We need to be free to be ourselves and act by our own will. If we are not free we cannot be responsibilized and therefore we would have anarchy but no one would be guilty because they are not acting upon themselves. Also, as humans, we seek to be the best version of ourselves, or we should, and we can't be it without freedom because that means someone is doing the job for us and therefore we don't have the credit. Whipping my second speech, Government is still winning because you failed to refute my main points.
THB That All Forms Of Organized Religion are an attack to freedom and should be over.

You state that all forms of organized religion are an attack to freedom and should banned so people get their freedom back. Religion is not a physical thing you can take away from somebody. It are his or her beliefs about our origin and society. The only way to change their beliefs is to teach them different. Not to force them to think different. If you want to completely ban religions in a county, then that country must be ruled by an an incredibly powerful, totalitarian centralized government. But in such a country a lot of other freedoms are ate stake as well. So you have to take a lot of freedoms from the followers of that religion, because they do not voluntarily want to give up their religion.
THB That All Forms Of Organized Religion are an attack to freedom and should be over.

Religion itself is a way of thinking and living our life and almost always has a spiritual base and worships a God, more than one God or other entities. The main religions in the modern world are Christianism(all of its forms), Islamism(all of its forms too) and Judaism(all kinds too). Each culture or country has a religion that outnumbers the others and so it's the official religion, for example, Saudi Arabia rules itself by the Sharia Laws. In my country, Portugal, the religion with more believers and is the Catholicism (a form of Christianism) and people who are born in a Christian family are taught about their God, they read the Holy Bible, some of them go to the Church on Sundays and so on. What I bring here today is that this forms of religion are an attack on freedom, individual and collective, because they conditionate our lives in almost all subjects. Women in countries that adopted the Islamism and Sharia Laws are obligated to use the hijab or burka, taking of them their right to have a public image. Sharia Laws also defend that non-believers should be killed and this is not only affecting the freedom of the believers but also putting in risk people that have nothing to do with the religion. About the hijab, most of the women forced to used it will tell you it's their choice. But is it really their choice? They are born in that country, that family, that environment and because of that, they are taught that that is the right thing to do. In Islam, women are effectively inferior to men and that is not acceptable, nor morally nor socially. What I'm proposing as a solution is. in fact, also an attack on freedom: the freedom of having a religion. Now I'm going to explain to you why I consider this justifiable. The well-known principle of utilitarianism reads "The best decision is the one that brings the better consequences to the most of the involved people" and I'm doing this by taking them the religious freedom and giving them the equality freedom, the speech freedom, the freedom of making up their (people) own minds and not being indoctrinated with lies about miracles and things already proven to be wrong...the liberty of wearing whatever they want to wear, to have as many husbands/wives they want without being judged, the liberty of being transexual or gay(...) I'm giving all of this to people and all I need in return is the religious freedom so I think this is a great, great point for the Government ("yes", and Opposition will be the "no"). For all of this, I think the Government wins and I'm waiting for other good arguments I didn't write due lack of time/space/patience or I didn't just think of to support my case. Also, Opposition, do your best.