BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
illegal immigration and outsourcing: practically similar

something tells me neither of us is qualified to prove the theory. you state. less paying to workers means more wealth saved by us, and thus more money for rich paying jobs. i state. less paying to the working class like the middle class, means only the wealthy would recognize the savings. that's why it's a fact the middle class is shrinking, and the gap betwqeen teh rich and poor continues to increase. the only jobs outsourcing might create, is administrative jobs to service the outsourcing, like secretaries, and service jobs like a movie usher to cater to the richest of society that really cashed in on outsourcing. both make sense from a reasoning through sort of way. empirical data needs presented. so far though, it's a fact the rich poor gap is increasing. it's rhetoric, but i suppose it's true, that the the middle class is shrinking.
illegal immigration and outsourcing: practically similar

I didn't reiterate that some use welfare. I addressed government services such as education and subsidized healthcare, which are used by those with and without jobs. Other than the employer's portion of the payroll tax, illegal immigrants with jobs don't contribute to the government's tax income, meaning that they are draining our funds when they use these services without doing their part to replenish them. If we want to keep up these services at the same level then citizens are forced to pick up the slack which takes money out of their pockets and decreasing aggragate demand. The new service jobs created through outsourcing manufacturing are not "beans paying". They range from car salesmen to stock brokers, many new services are demanded when prices go down because then people have more money to spend, as a result employers who provide those services need to take on extra employees. That's just simple economics. This is benefit is unique to outsourcing in that if we kept manufacturing jobs in the U.S. but gave them to illegal immigrants, the benefits would be cancelled by the negative tax-related impacts that I spoke of earlier.
illegal immigration and outsourcing: practically similar

I acknowledged that welfare for some of them etc is not a good thing. But, surely it's a minor problem compared to all that have jobs, wouldn't you agree? You didn't address this but simply reiterated that some use welfare. It almost seems like a cop out so you can avoid the issue, given that it's a minor problem relatively speaking. All your arguments for outsourcing could be applied to immigrants. Instead of having manufacturers over there, we can have them here with immigrants. Instead of creating more jobs with that non-US strictly maufacturing, we could create that here with immigrants. (actually i highly doubt it creates more jobs, and if it does, i'd be almost certain it's beans paying service jobs. see, manufacturing jobs actually pays something substantial, which as an american in this rich country, deserves to make. evidence for this being the fact that the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen) You did not address why they couldn't do the jobs here, the immigrants.
illegal immigration and outsourcing: practically similar

The argument here is very simple. Outsourcing is almost entirely representative of the shift in our economy from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. Many services require a person to be in this country to meet with customers, whereas manufacturers can be overseas and ship their products over to the U.S. Thus we need the labor that was formerly dedicated to manufacturing to sustain the growing demand for services. Also, outsourcing abides by the principles of free trade, which means as a general rule more jobs are created than are taken away. (The reason we don't see this, is that often the jobs taken come from a single manufacturing plant in one city and the new jobs are spread out over the country.) Illegal immigration on the other hand does nothing to help the economy. I will grant the argument that the jobs they take are ones that no American, even an unemployed one, would take. Thus they are not "stealing" jobs from Americans. But, what they are doing is using government provided services such as healthcare and education, without paying taxes. This increases the tax burden on the average American, thus decreasing their purchasing power and decreasing demand throughout the economy. Not to mention all of the safety concerns involved in the government not even knowing thousands of potential criminals are in our country.
Libertarianism is a Flawed Philosophy

I am not espousing communism or socialism. I am supporting high taxes on the rich, who can afford it. Of course some people are going to be richer than others, and some people are going to be left behind. But if government looks the other way, more and more people are going to be eaten up by survival of the fittest. The economy should not be regulated by social darwinism. Survival of the fittest only works when you're talking about animals. People need to eat. And a basic human right is the right to live comfortably. Sure it would be nice if there weren't poor people. Sure it would be nice if everyone was skilled, talented, or educated. But they're not. And they're not going to become skilled, talented, or educated if their biggest problem is day-to-day paying the bills on a minimum wage salary that has left them behind while corporations make record profits. Can you honestly tell me that most fortunes were made on merit? And even if they were, that doesn't mean that we should leave people in the cold. That doesn't mean that a kid who got lucky because his parents could send him to college is any better than the smart kid in the inner city who doesn't have the money to go to school. Libertarians would have the free market decide whether or not the poor kid goes to school. I don't think we need to argue about the free market's answer. You mentioned that merit also includes inheritance. That's garbage. There's no reason that a rich boy should get $50 million for something his father did while service employees trapped in their economic strata should suffer so that rich boy can get his money. The fact is, social mobility is very difficult in this country. It's not your fault that you're born to a poor family. Were it possible for poor kids under libertarian government to get enough money to go to school, and they refused the opportunity, then it would be justified to throw them into the meat grinder with the rest of the hodge-podge. But the problem is, they can't go to school, and they can't get ahead, because they're trapped in a box. Though libertarianism was not a political philosophy it has its roots in laissez-faire economics. And that is what created the Great Depression. Unregulated markets. Or, free markets.
Libertarianism is a Flawed Philosophy

I suppose this is what it comes down to: We are not a nation of individuals. We are a community whether you like it or not. It is far more of an injustice to not give the needy a helping hand, than to take six million dollars from a billionaire who can afford it anyway. Taxes suck. But being poor sucks more. And it's not like if poor people just put in a little more effort, they would become successful. The world doesn't work like that. You said that a good manufacturing job nets you 10 dollars an hour. But here's the catch. Not everyone has a manufacturing job in their town. Sometimes you have to work at McDonalds. I admit, I made an error in saying $7.25 a week. I meant $7.25 an hour. But that still comes out to $10,080 a week. That's barely livable in today's society. That is an injustice. Libertarianism is flawed because the free market is flawed. I am not espousing communism as you seem to suggest. I am advocating rational, moderate government regulation of the economy. I am not suggesting price controls. I am suggesting taking the cream off of the top of the upper class's salary and giving a little bit of it to the poor, to give them a stepstool to success. I am not suggesting a welfare state. I am suggesting a temporary helping hand. Libertarianism does not provide for that. Libertarianism stands by and watches disaster happen. That's why it's flawed. Oh, and by the way, I'm not a communist. I'm a liberal. Big difference there.
God's Existence (Christian)

In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist. Definitions: God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe. Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods. Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods. Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future. Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything. Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Rules: First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals. A forfeit is an automatic loss. My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round. Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist. Merriam Webster
The Copyright infringement law suits

It is said that the US is a Christian country and that our Constitution is based on Christian culture and traditions. It is with that in mind that our leaders make reference to the Bible whether the Old Testament or New they tend to inform their audience of their faith in this Scripture or that one. Yet, I can't find one that has quoted the The Scriptures in the right context. I do not profess to be an expert but I have read and studied it for a very long time, enough to know that God is not from a particular political opinion. Ms. Michele Bachman said a while back that God has called her to run for the Congress. I wonder if she by any chance, got to read the Bible at all. Now, she is complaining that Health Reform is socialism. Is it socialism to hope for all Americans to have access to what already all members of congress and the senate have? A choice of medical insurance already paid for by our own taxes. If Jesus was on earth right now, which views would He have on this matter. If we think of the US as an employer, and we are those whom they service and we are already paying for it then why would it be socialism? I understand by reading the Bible's account of the Good Samaritan that we are to think of all as if they were our neighbor including those who do not have or agree with our political views. As a matter of fact Jesus kept clear from all politics but He did say to "Love God over all things and our neighbor as ourselves". In what way can we show for our neighbor better than to let them have what they (the members of the congress and the senate) are already enjoying? I try not to have a negative view of our political processes but right now, with the Supreme court giving the corporations the right to legally manipulate our policy making, it is necessary for all of us to know what that means. Corporations have a lot of money at their disposal and all humans are prone to be bribed and when the policies of this country make it legal and call it lobbying, well is not that something that those politicians who quote the Word of God, doing so as blaspheming? Is anybody in this community asking those very same questions? I have tried to communicate with those politicians but they are not under obligation to even answer our questions unless we are part of their constituency. Most people do not realize that just one vote in the House or Senate can and will affect millions of people not just the residents of their respective districts.
Solar roads

Benefits of Solar Power Solar power is a renewable (as opposed to fossil fuels) resource which is becoming increasingly popular amongst modern renewable energy sources. On the current path, photovoltaic power (which is what’s used in solar roads) will power 1 – 2 million homes. In 2007, the solar power industry expanded 57%. Not even accounting solar roads, proper investment in these technologies would lead to America’s power source being 80% of the countries power usage at 2020 [1]. An analysis in solar power in Arizona finds “input/output analysis demonstrates that every $1.00 spent within a community produces about $1.67 of local economic activity. A direct savings of $2.8 - 4.5 million of economic activity for Arizona communities.”[2] New “research continues into ways to make the actual solar collecting cells less expensive and more efficient.”[3] Solar power does not emit pollutants. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) notes, “Solar energy systems do not produce air pollutants”, but one problem they note is the fact solar needs “a large surface area … to collect the energy at a useful rate.”[4] Solar roads do just this. Benefits of solar roads Solar roads are a great way to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. Solar roadways have a much longer lifespan: 30-40 years as opposed to 7 years of conventional asphalt roads. These roads would also lower the usage of power lines and they would be simply placed along the roadway offering efficient and reliable power when most needed during disasters or simply daytime use [5]. Using solar panels with 18% efficiency (though solar panels with 40% efficiency are being created) calculations show solar roads, at only 18% efficiency and an average of 4 hours of daylight, the US could create 20,233 billion Kilowatt hours per year [6]. This amounts to over three times the US energy consumption at the moment (note that three times number was created after subtracting 30% of the total numbers because it would be difficult to angle the solar powers on parking lots and such) [7]. Conclusion I didn’t feel the need to write a long case because it is actually, now that I have thought about it, very hard to oppose solar roads—even if they are only built regionally (i.e. NM, AZ, CA, TX, CO, etc.) because of their countless benefits and the lack of opposing arguments. Let’s see if my opponent will change that. 1. http://www.statesadvancingsolar.org... 2. http://www.azsolarcenter.org... 3. http://www.world-nuclear.org... 4. http://www.eia.gov... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://solarroadways.com... 7. Ibid and: http://www.eia.gov...
Solipsism is fundamental to any rational belief system

I understand your arguments that solipsism can lead to open-mindedness, but it can just as easily do the opposite. I was trying to get at this when I said it makes certain beliefs unfalsifiable. What I meant here was not that solipsism itself is unfalsifiable, but solipsism can lead to unfalsifiable claims, because if nothing can be proven or disproven, any belief cannot be disproven and thus is unfalsifiable. This is why many very illogical claims still have people who believe them even when they are clearly false. Take conspiracy theories for example. Even though there is no evidence for most of the claims that conspiracy theorists make, you can't disprove them because anything is possible. Even when you find something that actually does absolutely disprove their theory, they will claim it is all part of the conspiracy. Since nothing can be known, they are able to claim that even cold hard evidence does not disprove their theories. Solipsism also allows one to make ad hoc hypotheses that have no evidence but allow people to keep believing false claims. This is a staple of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. Solipsism is also the main reason denialism works. Even when something someone doesn't want to accept is proven, they can deny it because there's always a possibility, no matter how small, that it is wrong. Things like pseudoscience and denialism are the epitome of closed-mindedness, and they are allowed by solipsism. This is why I think solipsism is interesting to think about and still technically true, but not useful in reality.
Solipsism is fundamental to any rational belief system

You make some excellent points and I realize I completely forgot to address the "solipsism is obviously true but, totally meaningless and not related to any practical worldview in any way whatsoever" objection. You mention that certain assumptions are necessary and I agree. However, the explicit or implicit nature of those assumptions and the number of and rational criteria for those assumptions is of utmost importance if one is to conduct a serious rational self examination. Let's not assume that all assumptions are created equally. For example, the assumption that someone might believe that they are free of assumptions is a particularly dangerous assumption because it means they are not cognizant of the critical weak points in their own belief structure. Facing solipsism as a cold hard fact is important because it serves as an excellent lens with which to reveal a person's unacknowledged and/or not rigorously examined assumptions. You mention something to the effect of "You can never reach any conclusion without assuming the world around you really exists." This would only seem to be a true statement if you subscribe to a philosophy of naive realism. Transcendental idealism and constructivism are some examples of alternative philosophical viewpoints that promote more of a "working theory" view of reality that does not require an unquestioning faith in one's perceptions. Belief systems are not "the opposite of solipsism". Belief systems are constructed from axioms and assumptions strapped together with an often flimsy web of logical extrapolations. Solipsism is probably the most unassailable of those axioms. The fact that solipsism is unfalsifiable does not automatically exclude it from being integrated into a rational worldview. The hilarious thing about the unfalsifiable objection is that the reason most claims that are unfalsifiable are considered logically unsound is because they are almost inevitably faith based. Solipsism is the only thing that is 100% verifiable. It is probably the only position one can hold that requires zero faith and is therefore impervious to the unfalsifiability objection. I agree that when conflicting assumptions are inevitable you should choose the one that has more evidence and is more logically sound than the available alternatives. However I disagree with you about your assumption that you must necessarily assume your assumption approaches something approximating 100% certainty. I generally operate with an assumption of anywhere from 50 to 80 percent certainty that my perception roughly correlates with people I interact with.
Solipsism is fundamental to any rational belief system

It is true that it is impossible to know anything other than the fact of your own existence for sure, but this doesn't mean this fact is fundamental to any belief system. What solipsism shows us is that if is always necessary to make certain assumptions, such as the assumption that the world around you really exist, because you can never reach any conclusion without making these basic assumptions. We are justified in making assumptions when if is much more likely that they are true than false. No belief system can even exist without making certain assumptions, so belief systems are the opposite of solipsism. Any rational belief system assumes the most likely option when an assumption is necessary, and making this assumption is a rejection of solipsism in favor of a more useful belief that is highly likely to be true. A rational belief system cannot be founded on solipsism because solipsism makes it unfalsifiable. For example, if I believe there is nothing outside of the United States except an infinite void, you could disprove me by taking me out of the US. However, since nothing can be known for sure, I can claim that I could have been just hallucinating about the world outside the US. This is extremely unlikely to be true, but because of solipsism, it can't be proven false, so my claim could never be disproven. This is why to gain any knowledge, we must abandon solipsism and make the most logical conclusion from the evidence we have. If the chances of being wrong are nearly infinitesimal, we can assume that we are right. Basically what I'm trying to say is that, while all your arguments there are correct and solipsism is technically true, having a rational belief system requires taking the slight risk of making some basic assumptions that are almost 100% certain. Although this means there is a chance that we could be wrong about anything, it is an extremely miniscule chance, and if is better than knowing nothing at all and having no belief system.
The Death Penalty

Closing StatementsMy closing statements will be short, as I feel I have covered almost everything, as well as Con forfeiting the last round. I hope to have been able to have shown why the death penalty should not be abolished, as well as provide reasons of why it should be allowed (to take away someone else's human rights is to forfeit your own). Con's entire case relied on one reason, and that reason was the death penalty being immoral. Con used that argument, but barely used any reasoning to show how it is immoral. Con also didn't rebut many of my arguments, as is apparent in the previous rounds. Again, I hope to have shown that the death penalty should not be abolished.
The Death Penalty

Con's Round 3 Rebuttal1.) We are not holding the government to different laws. They wouldn't be committing murder, but would be serving justice in the form of a final punishment.2.) The death penalty is fair, but should be used for the most horrendous of people, people who have taken away the human rights of others. 3.) In your final paragraph, where you speak of killing another's son and raping another daughter, this is far from the point I was trying to make. You see, if someone kills your son, they forfeit their right to life, not their son. So, it would be fair to kill them, and not their son. You see, this is justice, as it is fair. If one takes another's life, their life must also be taken, as it is equal punishment for the crime.