BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Corporations need more government regulation.

There was no challenge to my second-round submission and therefore I suggest that nothing contained within it is challenged. I will now move to the well documented fact that mining and other companies that are based in Western Democracies behave in ways that plainly demonstrates that they require more government regulation. It is a fact that a company based in Britain, Australia, the United Sates, or Canada etc, will behave one way in their native country (because of government regulation) and an entirely different way in, say, Africa or the Philippines (because of a lack of regulation). The fact that these companies will follow labour and environmental laws in their own countries and then involve themselves in disgusting practices abroad proves that the only thing stopping corporations from descending into slavery, land theft, child labour, and other profitable enterprises is government regulation. In fact, they have been credibly accused of some of these very things in developing countries. I think it can be accurately asserted that any corporation"s behavior will only be as elevated as the government regulations that they operate under. Corporations do not even behave as well as they should in modern democracies and their behavior can be appalling and ruthless in countries where there are no enforced regulations. For the above reasons, I submit that government regulations are the only thing that can protect people, property, human rights, the environment, animals and their habitat, quality of life, and corporations, from corporations. Finally, I believe that I have established that corporations do require government regulations. And from the track record (recent and past) of many large corporations, it is doubtful there would be a credible argument stating that more regulation is not required. I don"t think anyone can say that we have just the right amount now, and I really don"t think anyone could produce a credible argument demonstrating that less regulation is required now. In order for my opponent to defeat my argument, he will have to show that all corporations currently conduct themselves in a manner that is for the greater good and are so endowed with an innate sense of conscience that further government regulation is not required. I assume he will not attempt to defend the likes of BP - a corporation that was found guilty of lying to congress and plead guilty to 14 criminal charges related to the deaths of 11 workers and one of the worst environmental disasters in history. Do corporations need more government regulation? The answer is yes. Please vote to support to support the PRO side of "Corporations Need More Government Regulation".
Corporations need more government regulation.

My position is a simple and logical one it is based on the following: 1.Many businesses actually list in their mission statement that their primary objective is shareholder returns or building shareholder value. There is no reason to doubt that they are being honest when they say this and I hope that all are in agreement on this point. Example: Lantic Inc, a Canadian Sugar producer, lists as its mission statement, "Our mission is to maximize shareholder value by being a high performance organization, supported by proud employees and focused on operational excellence and customer loyalty." It has to be noted that absent from the business"s mission statement is something like: Our mission is to get to the bottom of the thousands of mysterious early deaths and appalling working conditions that are occurring in sugar-cane farms in developing countries as well as researching the link between sugar and poor youth health outcomes in developed countries. 2.Further to this, many shareholders are foreign in relation to where business activities take place and therefore do not have a stake in the long term health of the communities where business takes place. Example: Many people with shares in apple are not aware of the fact that in one of the factories in Asia, nets had to be installed on the building in order to stop workers escaping poor working conditions by jumping to their death. 3.Businesses do not employ moral philosophers to make decisions but instead employ accountants, actuaries, engineers, and business administrators to make decisions. The decisions made are made for the benefit of shareholder returns. If you consider that psychopathy in CEOs runs at about 4 times what it does in the general population, and that CEOs are rewarded financially when shareholder returns go up, and that CEOs make important business decisions, it isn"t hard to see the need for tight government regulations. Example: The BP disaster has now been found to be the result of a company self-regulating and a lack of government regulation. 4.If shareholder returns are the primary objective, then it follows that it is necessary for a business to exploit any possible loophole in, or absence of, regulations in order to maximize profit. Example: Joe Fresh clothing line and the Bangladesh factory disaster. I have yet to hear a fund manager stand up and say "I"m sorry about the low returns this quarter, but our factory workers in XYZ Banana Republic are reporting much more satisfying lives with our new work/life balance program and new dental and pension programs. Or, "Sorry about the low returns this quarter, but we managed to cut our mine site in half and save a rare turtle species." Where else can the really important regulations come from other than government?
Men have easier life than women

Ladies and gentlemen - have you ever wondered whether your gender brings you more benefits than the other one? In this debate, I will show you that to be born as a man means easier life than to be born as a woman. Are you interested? Go on - I am proving you this in three main arguments: Definitions: "easier life" = "life with less troubles" Arguments: 1. Men have easier life than women because they don't have to stand as much pain as women do Firstly, we have to realize that men don't give birth, which is painful and sometimes even endangers life of a woman (or her baby). Secondly, men don't have a period. Pangs, repeating every month. Therefore, men don't have to stand as much pain in their lives as women do, which means that their lives are easier. 2. Men have easier life than women because they aren't supposed to be looking after the household As we know, in most families it is the woman who has to deal with everyday problems - from broken light bulb to looking after a naughty child. Men usually come home from work, sit in front of TV and expect warm dinner. Why would they help? It's like: "I won't wash the dishes. Buy a dishwasher," they say. In our society it is considered "normal" and "acceptable" when men go out to pubs and enjoy themselves and women are on the contrary "supposed" to wait for them at home and help kids with the homework in the meantime. That is not fair. The society doesn't expect men do do housework, therefore most of them don't do it. Therefore, women have to. Therefore, men have easier life than women. 3. Men have easier life than women because they don't have to look after themselves as much as women do Firstly, men don't have to shave their legs (or any other part of their body if they don't really WANT to). Shaving takes up a little bit too much time and isn't gratis either. Secondly, men don't have to tear their eyebrows, which also takes up time and is quite painful. Thirdly, they don't have to wear make-up, use lipsticks etc., that are expensive. What is more - a long-haired unwashed man looks usually better than a long-haired unwashed woman (at least that's how we - the society - perceive it because we all "expect" women to look good all the time, which is clearly unfair). Therefore, men clearly have easier life than women.
Veganism shouldn't be that big of a deal

How do animals contribute to things like global warming and water/air pollution? Meat doesn't cause human obesity, junk food, sodas, and eating too much in general are some of the things that cause human obesity, meat is not one of the reasons. In fact, meat has protein in it. Erosion is something that happens naturally, and what does erosion have to do with veganism. The other examples you've brought up are caused by humans. Now, if you were referring to humans, then I would understand. As it is, animals are going to kill each other anyways. Also, from how you worded you statement on animals being in a slaughterhouse, you make it sound like its a good thing these animals are in a slaughterhouse. If that's the case, then whats the problem. You don't want animals in nature because they contribute to so many things, and you don't want them in a slaughterhouse because they'll be killed. Do you know how to be consistent, or do I have to slap consistency into you. The last point I want to bring up is the fact that humans live in a society and are on top of the food chain. Until cows start building my house or a rooster becomes my co-op partner, I'm not changing how I eat. As for the food chain, humans are omnivores, meaning we naturally eat both plants and meat. Not eating meat isn't going to help the animals because they'll still kill each other because it's the wild, there will still be factories which aren't going to stop because someone yells "But, my veganism," and people will still kill animals for hunting purposes.
Veganism shouldn't be that big of a deal

(I would like to start by saying I'm not vegan, but I do approve of the choice/lifestyle.) Being a vegan does not make you superior to others, and vegans should not lambaste those who choose to use and consume animal products. However, it is a fact that veganism is better for the environment and animal rights. 4.6 billion animals are slaughtered each year in the US alone, and those animals contribute to deforestation, water and air pollution, greenhouse gases, global warming, desertification, erosion, and human obesity. Not to mention that 2 out of 3 animals are raised in slaughterhouses, which is a disgusting practice in and of itself. These animals, if not put in slaughterhouses, would contribute even more to environmental damage as they would need more land to be happy. Veganism is also proven to be sustainable for the human body, so if you want to be environmentally cautious, it is probably one of the best things you can do. http://www.humanesociety.org... http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
Veganism shouldn't be that big of a deal

I like to eat meat, and I don't care. Veganism is when someone doesn't eat or use animal products. I normally wouldn't have a problem with people being vegan, but when it comes to a point where people won't shut up about, then I have a problem about it. Some of the arguments I've heard are just dumb. So say its the right way of life, some make it sound like a f*cking religion, and some will wish upon you cancer if they discover you eat meat. Call it distaste, but I think being a vegan doesn't mean anything. If you are a vegan and you agree with me, okay. If you're a vegan who's debating me because you fit what I just said, okay. My main point here is that I don't care if you're vegan, just be quiet about it.
Veganism shouldn't be that big of a deal

I just like to point out that you don't talk about humans being are the reason we're using fossil fuels and exhale carbon dioxide. Yes, animals contribute to to carbon dioxide, but you make it sound like you're putting a blame on animals. Second, animals that live in water will poop in the water, you make it sound like every animal goes to the nearest water source and takes a dump, as if its a toilet. Third, human obesity is caused by humans and what they eat. Don't blame the meat for human obesity. Fourth, erosion is usually caused naturally. What if the animal lives in a desert or any area with with no water sources (rivers, pounds, lakes, etc.)? Animals killing themselves, IN THE WILD, is basically a natural thing. Herbivores can't really defend themselves against a carnivore or an omnivore. Humans are omnivores, so ergo, we eat both plants and meat. Finally, you can't get EVERYONE to be vegan. Have you ever thought about the fact that people will kill animals for fun (hunting) or for pouching, or killing animals to take something they have. For example, killing elephants for their tusks. Also, when I said "slapping consistency into you" was referring to the fact that you worded you first argument in a way where it may be efficient to get rid of all animals because they're a negative either way. Either way in the fact that you said that its bad for animals to be in slaughterhouses and its bad for animals, and its bad for animals to live because they can hurt their environment. Is it good for animals to live, or is it not. I think the reason that some people won't be vegan is how vegans on the internet take veganism either so seriously or try to force other people to be vegan. Let people do what they want.
I have a mole on the tip of my penis

My opponent has still failed to provide evidence for his claims; mere text is not sufficient proof to show that there is indeed a mole on my opponent's [insert kiddie term for penis here]. Also, my opponent seems to have dropped the latter part of his refined resolution, thus neither of the contentions required for BoP fulfilment were met here. Therefore, there is no reason to accept Pro's arguments, which means the resolution remains unfulfilled.
I have a mole on the tip of my penis

My opponent's whole affirmative argument is a logical fallacy in the form of a bare assertion [1]. In other words, my opponent has made claims without providing evidence as to support those claims. For example, my opponent's claim of "i have a mole on my penor" is not backed with evidence or arguments of any kind that would prove the resolution. This renders the resolution yet to be affirmed. Reference[1] . http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...
Abortion Should Be Illegal

I would first like to point out that my opponent has made this more of a debate of morals rather than evidence when she repeatedly keeps hitting on the point of the slim cases where pregnancies go awry. The thing that has to be considered here is the factor of grief that comes when a mother genuinely wants to keep her baby but has to go through with an abortion or experiences a miscarriage. This debate thus should be judged on what's more moral: the termination of innocent life or the protection of it? Furthermore, my opponent states that the unborn baby is not innocent if it is inflicting harm upon the mother. Frankly, I find this point quite ridiculous. The baby itself is not purposely trying to cause harm to the mother. Really what it is is that there's a complication with the mother herself or the fetus. At no point is this baby floating inside the womb with a devilish grin, scheming new ways to harm it's mother as my opponent seems to be projecting. Additionally, none of my points I conceded to my opponent as she proclaimed otherwise. When I said that fetuses and mothers can die in the process of childbirth, I was stating the obvious. This has happened for thousands of years without the practice of abortion and look at the progress our world has made because of it. Next, my opponent stated that abortions will happen regardless of whether or not it's illegal, and this argument doesn't really apply to the topic and is also quite obvious. In the United States drugs like marijuana and crack are illegal in many states but they're still distributed. Furthermore, these individuals that diffuse these drugs are considered criminals just like those who steal and kill. My opponent states how abortion can be morally acceptable, yet abortion should never be considered morally acceptable since it is literally the act of ending another human's life when they have not directly harmed the mother and are simply trying to survive. My opponent is basically advocating that it is morally acceptable to kill people 'useless' to society and just trying to survive. In that sense, my opponent might as well be advocating the killing of the homeless and mentally handicapped. This is not moral, therefore abortion can't be considered moral and should be considered illegal in the United States of America. Thank you
Abortion Should Be Illegal

I'd like to start my rebuttal by thanking my opponent for keeping things relatively simple. It's a little hard to concentrate for a long period of time being as late as it is. I'm having a good time though so, whatever... To begin, my opponent never clarified how abortion is an act of self-defense. Her superficial acknowledgment of it though stated that abortion being illegal would deny the mother the right to kill the fetus in extreme cases. If my opponent could I'd appreciate it if she could list some 'extreme cases.' Furthermore, I agree that all Americans have the right to self-defense, but if my opponent is stating that having a child is an act of aggression, then I can't agree with her at all. Reproduction is the only way we as humans can currently populate the earth and if we as a society deem reproduction as an act of aggression then we have all destroyed ourselves. Next, my opponent goes on to talk pretty lengthily about cases where the fetus and mother could die or the fetus could kill the mother. After that she provides me with some statistics and equations that are appreciated, but unnecessary. Yes, fetuses and mothers can die in the process of childbirth. However, this has occurred ever since babies have been being born. Mothers and children can die during childbirth. As sad as it is, I don't see how this correlates to abortion needing to be deemed illegal. People die every day. People die in numerous ways every day. If my opponent thinks that abortion will solve the deaths of a minority of people then she might as well be advocating the discouragement of childbirth as a whole. So what needs to be understood here is that abortion is the termination of a life and I don't see how that can be a legal institution if people who commit homicide on an older human can be thrown in prison. Abortion should be illegal in the United States because of this.
Abortion Should Be Illegal

We live in a broken world. It's as simple as that. Yet we go through our daily lives most of the time oblivious to this fact because we don't want to be condemned and ridiculed. One of the things that degrades our world and brings shame to the human race is the process of abortion. Abortion is defined as "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy." Abortion is essentially the ending of a human life. Technically, this means abortion can be considered manslaughter, and as far as I'm concerned manslaughter is both a federal crime and a sin. People can be given prison for life for the killing of another, so why then is abortion considered acceptable? Regardless of if the child has any rational thought or consciousness it's still considered murder for the individual is terminating a person's life. It's unacceptable in any circumstance to accept abortion willingly. Do Americans willingly kill people with physical or mental disabilities? No. So why then should abortion be considered different? It shouldn't. If murder is considered a crime then abortion is no different. All life is precious and through the process of abortion we're degrading ourselves as a population.
The United States should return to the gold standard

For this reason I'll just post a simple argument to get "most convincing arguments", unless Pro decides to debate for the goal standard in the next round. C1-Not Enough Gold: The United States has approximately $380B worth of gold (1), but there are about $1.2T in circulation. (2) 1-. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2-. http://www.newyorkfed.org...
Minimum Wage

Hey man thanks and I'll try. Time and time again the minimum wage has been increased. Here are my main arguments Job loss When people want to increase the minimum wage, they tend to forget about the little guy. Its isn't just the enormous chains that are affected, its the small business owner. Granted the huge corporations can definitely pay their employes more, there are some that cannot pay more than they do now. While there are some who can, there are defiantly those who cannot. In fact a study that interviewed professional economists , found that 79% agreed that the job loss is real. Price Increase (Beware of simple math) In order for companies to pay for paying these employes more, they have to increase prices. If they have 100 employes, and now pay them 1 dollar more per hour, they now pay their work force 100 more an hour. If they work 8 hours a day, its now 800 per day. Now lets say that they work 5 days a week now that one dollar turns into and additional 40,000 a week. Thy also work about 3 weeks per month so 40,000 is now 120,000. Multiply that by 12 for yearly pay and you get.....1,440,000 that just for 100 employes and a one dollar raise. Granted that it is more or less, you must include bonuses, time off, overtime, more employes or if they raise payment by 2 dollars! Obviously it would be less due to current pay now/ variables that i haven't included etc. The only way that they could raise enough money to pay is for them to fire people, or raise prices! With raised prices some goods will become the same value in relation to how they were before! Price of work This is mainly opinion but does make a good point. If I pay a employee 10.00 to do a job that is really 5 dollars worth of work, is that fair? Response In a recent study 60 percent of people living in poverty are not working. These new minimum wage laws would make finding a job much harder and only help about 40 percent of those in poverty, not a solution that would help the majority. What would help is more jobs, even at a lower price. If I could pay 5.00 and hour, it would be overall more beneficial because i could pay 3 people that wage instead of one man 15 for a job that merits 5 dollars. Sources http://www.forbes.com... http://www.latimes.com... http://web.archive.org...
Tom Brady has been the best quarterback for the past decade of the NFL

Tom Brady is the New England Patriots starting quarterback. This Debate will be judged from the past decade of the NFL so from 2000-2009 only Tom Brady has been the best quarterback for the past decade of the NFL because of all that he has been able to accomplish in the NFL since his first start as a NFL quarterback. ____________________________________________________________________ Regular season achievements: Tom Brady has led the New England Patriots to a 16-0 record the first Quarterback to ever do so in the NFL He broke Peyton Manning's past record of 49 touchdowns in a season with 50 touchdowns His Record in the regular season is 97w-30l He has won the league MVP award in 2007 ____________________________________________________________________ Post Season Success Tom Brady post season success has exceeded any quarterback that has played in the past decade of the NFL. Tom Brady has led his team to 4 out of the last 10 Superbowls and won 3 of them. He has won the Superbowl MVP award twice He set the record for most consecutive postseason wins with 10 beating the previous holder Bart Starr. Most Career Superbowl Completions with 100 Most completions in a Superbowl with 32 ____________________________________________________________________ My opponent might name a quarterback who has had better regular season statistics than Tom Brady but they won't be able to name a quarterback who has beaten his 50 touchdowns in a single season record or another player who has led a team to a 16-0 record. Tom Brady's post season accomplishments have not even come close to being matched by any other quarterback in the NFL. The quarterback is majority of the time the leader of the team and Tom Brady's leadership skills have been the best for the past decade and he has the 3 championship rings to prove it. http://en.wikipedia.org...