BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialism

I believe socialism, social collective ownership of the political in particular, is the best system of government we know of to maximize political equality and happiness.This is purely a theoretical discussion and we will assume that sufficient number of people are politically aware, active, and informed.I believe Switzerland to be socialist, so I hope we can work off of that.Social collective ownership of the political gives us the ability to choose what policies as a whole we can have. We can have periodic referendum with everyone on issues along with ideas for a system of command. We can collectively establish a system of command (including having a president and a congress).Social collective ownership of the political part of a government means that there would be a lot of versatility, and the majority gets to directly think on and address issues and propose ideas.You might think it impractical, but it's very reasonable. Right now the United States has periodic votes on congress on city council, congress and presidents. We also have the internet to make things work instantaneously across long distances. It's very reasonable, and the U.S. is proof that it works.Why not our current system if it's so much the same?Only in logistics and nothing else. The system with collective political ownership makes it so that people actually have a say on issues. Our current system has it so that most of us only have a say with our measly vote that must be put between two political parties. If neither party has what we want, then too bad. The best we can do is vote and pray that the politician we vote in does what we actually want them to do. I think that's really sad.With socialism, that problem isn't there. People will have their hands deep in political participation, and the nation will literally be run to benefit the majority.
Economic Equity should be valued over Free Trade

To re-cap why Free Trade should be valued over Economic Equity: - It levels the playing field - It allows developing countries to exploit their comparative advantage - Policies that promote economic equity reward inefficient industries, and socialising the cost - Policies that promote economic equity hurt developing countries - Policies that promote economic equity raise costs for all other produces in an economy, making them less competitive. Vote Con as Free Trade is the best way for nations to build their wealth! I thank you.
Economic Equity should be valued over Free Trade

I shall write my my rebuttals this round. However forgive as it is fairly short: " Alternatively, every man and woman in the street is forced to pay higher prices for their day to day living or as inputs into their own businesses. International equity policies thus can have a detrimental effect on problems of equity within a country." "Food that is more expensive than it needs be affects those on the lowest income the most as they spend a greater proportion of their income on the bare essentials" However through subsidies of domestic industries and trade barriers from foreign competitors it allows the local economy and industry to grow. While prices may rise it would be mostly temporary. Take for example when I explained Jamaica's debt crisis. The other reason other then debt that Jamaica's economy fails to develop or grow stems from the destruction of trade restrictions allowing far wealthier TNC's to settle in Jamaica and causing the country to become dependent on foreign exports. Even resources that the country has in great abundance such as banana's are not sold and are instead favoured over cheaper foreign banana's causing not only a dependence on foreign exports but a completely stunted banana industry. "Rather than FREE TRADE being a negative force for third world countries, it is actually the restrictive trade practices of first world countries in relation to primary production that causes much of the harm. Developing countries are urged to lower tariffs and the like on manufactured goods, but the favour is often not reciprocated when it comes to the agricultural goods they have a comparative advantage in producing. (4)" "Tariffs and subsidies REWARD the inefficient and distort markets by creating price signals that are not there. This can be seen with first world agricultural producers bringing to market goods that have been grown based on incentives from their governments rather than from a pressing global need. (2)" However this actually connects to my argument on Economic Equity. By allowing developing countries and LDC's to use tariffs and other trade restrictions it prevents outcompetition from foreign industries and allows domestic industries to grow. "Providing certain industries with favoured treatment, whilst committing the populous to pay higher prices is the truly undemocratic feature of protectionist policies." What is similarly undemocratic would be the WTO's allowing countries to veto any bills their trade partner makes if it inhibits free trade . So in fact a country voting for it's own protectionist laws is more democratic as it is the peoples choice to do so. Sources: 1. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...... 2. Documentary "Life and Debt" (Link unavailable) 3. http://hdr.undp.org......
Economic Equity should be valued over Free Trade

Terms: Economic Equity: the idea of fairness in the economy, this could be expressed through economic forms of Affirmative action of redistribution of wealth. For this debate this term will be in regards to Economic Equity between countries and the use of affirmative action towards trade. Free Trade: International trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions. Concept currently valued by the WTO and countries within the organization.
Which is a better disney movie Cinderella or Litlle Mermaid

Okay , lets consider you right for a moment , but Cinderella's bad aspects don't outweigh her good aspects. So cinderella teaches kids to : 1 Work hard and the fruit earned will be in your favor 2 Don't let others dominate you 3 Standup for yourself 4 Don't live your life with the hopes of finding a true love to rescue you Let's see Ariel love a total stranger and left her friends and family for some one who she didn't know was going to love her back or not.
Which is a better disney movie Cinderella or Litlle Mermaid

Yes but at the same time little mermaid being revengeful and her consequences are a lesson learned. i guess it depends on how you look at it. Cinderella was letting people take advantage of her and didn't stand her ground. kids should be like her???? or should they do what they believe in (not necessary in the way she did it but at least she got what she wanted). Cinderella had to wait she didn't even know she had a fairy god mother...... what if she didn't , she would still be stuck being her step mothers maid.
Which is a better disney movie Cinderella or Litlle Mermaid

At first , Cinderella is the story we listened while growing up. Unlike Ariel, her life was hard and lonely (with the exception of her animal friends)throughout her childhood. She was not provided with the childhood she deserved and learnt to make the best out of the difficult situations.Ariel was a rebellious teen who would not listen to her parents in order to fulfill her wishes . She forsake her voice for a stranger she thought was handsome and did not know anything else about him.However , Cinderella 's true wishes were not to find her true love but get out and liver her life without her step mother and stepsisters.
Religion is Harmful to Modern Society (Late 20th Century to Present)

First off, you left out the fact that I said religion causes harm with DEATH.I never said all religions were the same, but the are all harmful to a varying degree.The debate says religion is harmful...not how harmful 1. Believing something without evidence is irrational. Religion promotes faith, which is believing something without evidence.So, religion promotes irrational thought. There's your link.2. Should every theory be taught in school? Every SCIENTIFIC theory should be taught in school. Yes.3. You seriously believe sexually active adults can control their urges to have sex? Talk about gullible. Teens who try abstinence have a higher pregnancy rate.http://thinkprogress.org... Condoms aren't the only form of birth control.4. George W. Bush stopped stem cell research on religious grounds. No atheist would be against stem cell research on religious grounds and what other reason is there to be against it?5. How does religion hold back science? The denial of evolution. The denial of the Big Bang. The attempt to teach children that the Earth is 6000 years old. The jailing, torture and killing of past scientists for going against what the Bible teaches.Just because "it varies" doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Anything can be used for bad or good. Religion is one of them. Just because charities are mostly religious based and some good comes from religion doesn't mean they are not a harm to society.
Religion is Harmful to Modern Society (Late 20th Century to Present)

Religion is Harmful to SocietyIt promotes irrational thought. Things like Catastrophizing, Minimization, Grandiosity, Personalization, Magical thinking, Leaps in logic, “All or nothing” thinking, Paranoia and Delusional thinking are all promoted by religion.http://psychcentral.com...These irrational thoughts can often lead to deathA 12 year old Polish girl hung herself believing she could see her dead father againhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk...A 13 year old atheist was kicked out of her home by her Christian parents.http://www.addictinginfo.org...Two children died at the hands of their own parents because they decided to pray for them, rather than seek modern medical care.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...An Arizona man killed his own son with an ax because he thought he was a demon.http://www.rawstory.com...The recent documentary, "The Cruelty of Creationism" shows how biblical fundalmentalism imprisons the mind.http://www.slate.com...The Iraq war was pushed by scripture in memos George Bush got from Rumsfeldhttp://www.nydailynews.com...Religion holds back science, by denying evolution, holding back stem cell research and discourages vaccinations and the use of condoms to prevent aids.The Bible condones, rape, slavery and scientific errorshttp://spot.colorado.edu...The evidence is overwhelming that religion is harmful to society.
Justifying a Flat Earth scientifically as proposed in Islamic cosmology

I can assure you that the ship observation that I pointed out is indeed correct and the same applies when it is travelling away from you, it starts to sink below the horizon as if sinking into the water. I believe your argument in summary is basically that the round Earth is a result of sensory deception, a kind of trick of the mind so to speak. I think that you are confused when you talk about dimensional space being an illusion. Perhaps you saw the theory of a holographic universe and misunderstood what it was conveying? Your argument against gravity and spacesuits seems too absurd to even respond but I will oblige for your own education. The reason you "float" in space is because you are outside the gravitational attraction of other bodies, such as the Earth and therefore are not drawn towards them so to speak. As for the spacesuit, in case it escaped your attention, space is a vacuum and can be a very inhospitable place. First of all, humans need oxygen to survive which I'm sure you are aware of. Secondly, particles of dust and debris travel through space at great velocity, the many layers a spacesuit is comprised of protect from that. Thirdly, it provides protection from harmful radiation which our atmosphere usually protects against. Fourthly, temperatures near the Earth can range from +200 to - 200, a space suit provides protection from these extremes. If the Earth was flat then how would satellites work? How could re have satellites with circular orbits around a flat Earth? You seem to reject empirical evidence, common sense and sensory perception. This is replaced with conjecture, guess work and false science. May I ask what your level of qualification in physics or any other science is? I believe you are just misguided and misinformed with desperate need for education in this subject.
Justifying a Flat Earth scientifically as proposed in Islamic cosmology

Well no because dimensional space is an illusion of the idealistic comprehension so your sensory capabilities filter the nexus of linked dimensions through seeing the ship on the horizon smaller. You do not see the top of the ship first. The horizon itself is your comprehension filtering the far view and limiting it to a horizon. It's not dimensional space anyway it's a different dimensional place that doesn't include space, where idealism is a part of the reasoning and rationalising of the place. Idealism is the argument to seeing the round earth when going into space. Why do you think you need a space suit. The brain does not work in the Earthly situation any longer, the idealistic mind takes over and sets up an illusional example of the nexus as a round earth. You would argue the space suit provides an Earthly way of functioning but why do you think you float. Without gravity? Really? It's because it's always an idealistic illusion that's processes within the illusional space around you and performs from there into your mind.
Justifying a Flat Earth scientifically as proposed in Islamic cosmology

Is this really a subject that is up for a debate in 2016? I realise that this argument doesn't have any substance and I only reply out of fascination to what a possible counter argument could be. Your explanation of how traveling East and arriving back where you left off is a manifestation of two linked dimensions may have been a theory worth considering in 600 BC when the supporters of a flat Earth where running out of ideas on how to support their claims in the face of overwhelming evidence. I'm afraid it has no place here today though. If I ignore the fact that you can now simply watch a live stream of the Earth from space and see its magnificent roundness in all of it's glory and just continue with common sense arguments, that will still be sufficient. Have you ever been sat on a beach or near the sea at any time and watched a very large ship traveling from the horizon? If you haven't then I suggest you find time to do so as you may find it enlightening. You will notice that when the ship comes over the horizon it appears to rise up, first you will see the top of the ship and gradually the rest will be revealed. Exactly what you would expect in the case of a spherical body. There is a fun experiment you can try with a friend on the other side of the world also! Phone him up when the sun is setting and ask him if he sees the same thing. If the Earth is indeed flat then you will both see the same thing at the same time. I hope you are right! Another fun experiment if you are looking for something to do and have some spare cash: Take a ride in an airplane on a long haul flight and you can actually see the curvature of the Earth! Incredible.... Why not grab a telescope or go to an observatory and check out our neighbourly planets? You may find that they are part of the round club too! Finally, if you find all this unconvincing, then strap yourself to a Saturn 5 rocket, blast yourself into the abyss of space and witness the curvature of the Earth for yourself!
Justifying a Flat Earth scientifically as proposed in Islamic cosmology

Flat Earth: Going West past America there's is China Dimensional space is a point of view Really it's linked dimensions where America is a dimension linked to each time you go West and reach it again The fixed shape of the locality between lands is a nexus of linked dimensions that manifest the eastern land when going further west The nexus is not actually dimensional space it's an idealistic comprehension of a nexus of linked dimensions
Justifying a Flat Earth scientifically as proposed in Islamic cosmology

What you have done is put forward an incredibly incoherent proposal. You have not provided any justifiable facts or empirical proof to support your proposal as I have done with mine. I asked you in the final round to provide such evidence and you seemed to have ducked out of that by repeating the same nonsense which has been the context of this entire debate. As someone in the comments rightly pointed out, I cannot disprove the idea of a flat Earth that we cannot recognise because of an illusion that has gripped us in the same way that no one can disprove anything of the sort with 100% confidence. The aim for this debate I thought was to provide evidence for both proposals and determine which one was more likely representative of reality. I"m afraid to say that basing your "scientific" ideas on a book written 1400 years ago, by people who had an excuse not to know any better, will not get you far in your pursuit of a true explanation of real world physics. I feel you have highlighted common problem, which is the use of technical and scientific wording in places that do not suit it in the hope that it makes your argument appear more informed. You have thrown around the word idealism like that is some kind of argument. You have shown disrespect to great minds dedicated to their fields by saying they are following some kind of conspiratorial works which aren"t representative of the truth. My advice to you, and I hope you take this seriously; Educate yourself about the universe we live in, don"t so readily buy into cheap and flimsy theories driven only by imagination. Don"t reject logic for illogic. Don"t use a religious text as a source of knowledge in science. Don"t represent fiction as fact. Don"t attempt to cast a shadow on the brilliant and dedicated minds on this planet who work tirelessly to gain an understanding of this world. Don"t preach ignorance.
Justifying a Flat Earth scientifically as proposed in Islamic cosmology

I have settled with idealism as a support to my theory. Any emperical evidence works within the idealists senses and can sometimes be contrary to it just being the idealists senses such as photos of other places. By proposing idealism I'm countering the spherical earth view of mainstream science. When that's disproved one would be more open to further ideas on top of Idealism.
Justifying a Flat Earth scientifically as proposed in Islamic cosmology

I'll show you where I can also use calculations and methods along with the bluntness of Idealism. What are the things which are possible to exist. Surely not contradictory things, including shapes. I square with the same area at its base cannot fit within a square pyramid. Whatever was possible to be did become to be. Now whatever is more simple to get conjured is going to be over what's more complicated, leaving impossible contradictory things aside. This is because it can either be simple or complicated but it's more natural that the simpler requires less of a span of time to manifest it's properties. This is how there can be an idealistic "dream" that is the entirety of cosmology. The logical shapes are still apparent within the dream (idealism, solipsism). Now that there is one sensory being is there any "room" for any other being or even any object or physical form away from the idealistic. No. Another thing would need a space and space ends up to where the idealist can sense. The flat earth has dimensions beyond physical space while the humans have an illusional simplified space filtered into their senses.
Justifying a Flat Earth scientifically as proposed in Islamic cosmology

I"m confused about your first point but I"ll try to address it as best I can. Please correct me if I"m wrong when I translate your question to a more answerable one: There is a lot which is not understood about the Universe as it cannot be perceived by our sensory organs and is not intuitive to us as a species? This is of course true; quantum mechanics is a wonderful example of this and the scales which are discussed are so inconceivably small (e.g. a quark is about a billion times smaller than an atom) that they are impossible to imagine. Of course these are things which are not naturally intuitive to us, but we have the advantage of understanding these problems via the wonderful tool of mathematics. Physicists don"t just depend on sensory perception to form theories. They have ideas, they make observations, they make predictions, they create models, they use mathematics to make further predictions and if all these things are in coherence the results are peer reviewed and if there is a consensus, it becomes an accepted theory. You seem to be disgruntled by "main stream science", and I would like to hear your reasons why when you reply to this. It may help to remember that main stream science is the reason you can sit at your computer and have this debate at all, or indeed do most of the things in your daily life. The clothes you wear are a result of discoveries in science such as the creation of polymers and synthetic materials. Any kind of transportation is the result of a multitude of mainstream sciences including aerodynamics, chemistry and physics. Any health care you have ever received is the result of advancements in mainstream medical science, chemistry or biology, even physics when it comes to x-rays and other scanning devices. I feel as though I could write for hours about the importance of "mainstream science" but I"m sure it will make no difference here. It's interesting when you say you can dream of working satellites around a flat Earth. I find that to be an incredible statement and you must truly have a wonderful mind, to be able to see the required physics and mathematics to make that possible. It"s certainly not something I can imagine in my inferior mind and I take my hat off to you. I have a question which I would also like answered. Your original statement was this "Justifying a Flat Earth scientifically as proposed in Islamic cosmology". I wonder why you find the concept of Islamic cosmology more compelling than cosmological techniques installed today? Remember that the ideas of Islamic cosmology were introduced in the Quran which was said to be written around 1400 years ago. A time when planets weren't even thought of as physical bodies. I would finally like to point out that everybody is free to create wonderful assumptions about the universe in their mind based on simple observations, in fact, I do it all the time! What I don"t do is take these dreamed up ideas and present them as fact.
Justifying a Flat Earth scientifically as proposed in Islamic cosmology

What's wrong with dimensional space being an illusion. Maybe it doesn't work like nerves sense exactly what's there. What about idealism. No I did not get the idea from somewhere else it's my idea. I know about the holographic universe idea that it's a 1d plane projected as 3d across strings of the quantum form. When we're on the surface of Earth we can only sense what's around us anyway. That's more evidence for idealism. Now that's clear what's hard about illusions. Illusions are a well studied concept within mainstream science such as in Solipsism. You really think I'd conform to studying the academia of mainstream science? Just following a collection of information instead of creating new ideas myself? Go have your PhD your just working within others far-fetched concepts that look inward and overly scrutinised compared to the obvious truth of Idealism. Imperial evidence! (scoffs) I can dream up a working satellite with my "eyes closed". Literally! How's that for idealism?