BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We (The US Government) should not give monetary aid to Africa

We don't need to raise taxes by much. We are spending money on more things, and we are ok. What I mean bu OK is that we all are still here, no depression has happened, and etc. Also, I stated how the EU would be able to help, if we ask. Also, there are plans set up(Water for the Poor Act) and we just need to put out the cash. 2. Yes, African Governments are corrupt, but thats why the EU will help. They have been in a similar situation, and can help them along with us. ALSO, NOT ALL African Governments are corrupt. 3. Yes, it does go with money. Giving these people money is part of my initial plan! ALSO, Water, food, and etc is neded by MONEY spent.The plan isn't specifically NGO's, its NGO's, and governments(African Union included) 4. Foreign Aid Solves. It solves for Soft Power. also, here is proof. Foreign Aid helps the recipient countries economies. Kargbo 06 Sierra Leone's economy is beginning to gain its lost glory with the effort of government, supported by international doner agencies one of which is the International Monetary Fund(IMF) which recently approved a 3 year arrangement under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility scheme for a total sum of US$46.3m to support the governments 2006-2008 economic program. There is more included, but I felt this was all that was necessary. This is an example of foreign aid solving. The EU alone will not send aid, both the EU and US together will. The EU is the world leader in aid to Africa, and is best positioned to solve. The US is a leader in technology. Both sending technology AND money will solve. 5. Giving money isn't immoral. I already stated the EU will stop the African Unions from using the money wrongly. 6. Money solves. water and food costs MONEY, which these people need. Money can also help these people get improved homes, and help school children. What I am saying is give money AND Water/food aid. Same to you, Interesting debate! Are you on any debate teams?
We (The US Government) should not give monetary aid to Africa

1. We are not fine rght now. Funding for Iraq has put us in debt. How long will Americans allow for taxes to be raised? For all we know, spending money on Africa will send us into economic recession that we cannot escape from, and lead to another depression similar to the 30s. Will the economy recover? I doubt it. We cannot logically think that we can spend money in Iraq, which is draining our funds AND spend MORE money in Africa. Spending more money and putting america into more debt is bad. It is illogical and irresponsible. 2. You concede my point that African Governments are corrupt. 3. actually I like andthis counter plan- HOWEVER, this does not technically argue against my point because my only argument was that we should not give "monetary aid" to africa.Therefore this should not be considered part of our debate because it doesn't involve money. If your plan consists of sending monetary aid instead of strictly NGO's etc. then we should not do it because of my first point. If your plan consists of strictly people or something of the like then it can be considered part of the debate. 3. Foreign aid does not solve. If, you do not concede the point that we should not send monetary aid, then your entire counter plan fails. We can not responsibly send money to Africa in our current debt status If the European union alone sends the aid, then this will fail since the European Union aid is tied and bad. Empirically, the European union does not solve and has not solved any major world problems. monetary Foreign aid has not solved in the past and will not solve in the future! sending pointless money to African governments will not work. 4. giving money to these people is completely immoral!! sending money to governments that will spend it unwisely/ not spend it on the people at all is failure as foreign aid. Monetary aid will not solve any problems in Africa because it will not go to the right cause. Therefore, giving money to African governments with a knowledge of this is IMMORAL. This debate is about "monetary aid" Giving money will not save any lives. Therefore, the lives lost by throwing away money to countries that will not prophet from it is bad. Lives do outweigh. I completely agree. The lives lost in my case will outweigh lives saved if we give monetary aid. Fostering tyrrany/authoritarianism causes war, poverty, etc. This impact should be the deciding factor Thank you. Good debate so far. good debate so far. Thank you for your time.
We (The US Government) should not give monetary aid to Africa

1. Although the US is trillions in debt, funding for Iraq continues. We are fine rite now, and funding for Iraq! Its not being irresponsible. 2. African Governments are corrupt, but however, I would like to bring up a new plan. The United States and The EU together work to give AID to Africa. European countries have sanctions with Africa, and would pressure them to spend the money in a good way. Also, depending on the cause or plan, some money does go to specific people(NGO's or other organizations) 3. Foreign Aid solves. Countries are at work with those issues, and certain countries have more technology than others. If more than one country helps, the probability of solving is high. 4. How is giving money to these people immoral? Letting people loose their LIVES IS IMMORAL! Lives outweigh all disadvantages, and is the ultimate thing we must solve for.
We (The US Government) should not give monetary aid to Africa

1. America is in financial debt and we are already trillions of dollars in debt. Promoting monetary spending in any country is absolute fiscal irresponsibility! 2. African governments are corrupt and giving money to them only fosters authoritarianism/tyranny. The money does not go to the cause. 3. Empirically, foreign aid does not solve problems. The world is still combating avian flu, AIDS and HIV, west nile, etc. We have not solved these issues and monetary aid will not solve these issues still. 4. Because we are in debt, at war, and the money will not go to the selected cause, we should not give monetary aid to Africa. If we do give money to Africa, this is irresponsible and immoral!!!
Jimmy Crack Corn and I don't care

My opponent states, "Cornbread and taco shells can not really be considered staple foods. Yes, they are common in some households depending upon the region a person lives in." That is really only arguing semantics. Whether cracked corn products are "staples" or not, doesn't really matter since my opponent already concedes that they common to many people. It is not as if they are some rare exotic food that the vast majority of americans do not eat. Second, my opponent states, "nobody cares about Jack. We live in America. No one cares about the people who make our products." There is a vast movement of Made in America companies here in the USA, you can hear a plug for them in almost every single Ed Schultz radio programs (Ed Schultz is one of the largest liberal/progressive talk radio heads). However, it is worth pointing out that this doesn't matter, as that is not related to this debate. This debate is about "why should you care," not "does America care." So even though many people don't care (appeal to majority), you should still care who is making your food. Just like people should care to know who their doctor is, who their dentist is, who their mechanic is, and pretty much who everyone is that does work that is related to our daily lives.
Jimmy Crack Corn and I don't care

First of all, to address the point about cracked corn being a staple food. Cornbread and taco shells can not really be considered staple foods. Yes, they are common in some households depending upon the region a person lives in. However, staple foods are defined as any food "eaten regularly and in such quantities as to constitute the dominant part of the diet and supply a major proportion of energy and nutrient needs." (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: Agriculture and Consumer Protection.) Unless someone is eating taco shells everyday to survive it can't be considered a staple food. Don't get me wrong a taco shell is good every once and a while but it just does not constitute itself as major supplier of nutrients. In fact the only real nutritions in a taco shell are some fiber, calcium, and iron. (http://www.nutrientfacts.com...) Secondly, to address the point about cracked corn being important as cattle feed. Cattle feed is only partially made of corn products. The other part is soybean and nutrients. Corn only serves at the filler to make it so there is enough for a cow to eat. Ultimately, cracked corn only serves as a nutrition-less fill that now person or animal would eat unless they wanted a mass quantity to tasteless ruff-age. Finally, nobody cares about Jack. We live in America. No one cares about the people who make our products. Otherwise we would not outsource all of our jobs. In all we care about is the price we get products for. Food safety laws are federally enforced. It does not matter who is making the product, it must meet federal standards directly. Therefore, the idea that an individual person is vital to production is a crock. I will still contend that: Jimmy Crack Corn and I Don't care.
Jimmy Crack Corn and I don't care

Cracked corn is an important staple in food. Ranging from making corn bread, to taco shells, to animal feed (which then relates to our meat industry). Therefore, it is vital for these multi-billion dollar industries, that someone is cracking corn. it is also vital that we know who is cracking this corn, because of how much money is riding in it. As a consumer, how would you feel if you store that you got your food from didn't care who made it, or what safety measures were put in place for it? (I understand that is an appeal to emotion, but it is also an appeal to survival, which is a legit concern). http://www.ehow.com...
A government's most important priority is to protect the rights of its people.

Um... I don't really have much to say to that, except that I'm going to talk about how the people are more important than government itself. Let's say that a terrorist group managed to hold a bomb over an entire nation, and the government was given two options: disband, or the bomb would be dropped. The government has no opportunity to diffuse the bomb. They cannot get word out to the people to protect them fast enough; they would only be able to escape with the government body, and not the people. So, either there is no government, or there are no people. The government would disband. I am sorry that I did not make my debate clear enough. I apologize.
A government's most important priority is to protect the rights of its people.

If, "Not so. If the priority has nothing to do with rights, you can use it. But if the priority can be translated to be a protection of the people's rights, I can use it." is a true statement this debate is entirely unfair (it's like trying to prove the most important role of a fish factory worker is to make a steel mill across the road more efficient.) The PRO's stance allows no CON rebuttal as everything can be traced back to "rights". There is no purpose to this debate. I forfeit, but if you want to debate a philosophical social-contract resolution in the future, as long as it's not one sided I'll be glad to participate.
A government's most important priority is to protect the rights of its people.

1) The Government is the entity ruling the people, not the people itself. (as direct democracy is entirely unfeasibly in any society of over a few thousand members, if you want to agree on a representative democracy as the framework for the government that's fine." The government is always made up of select people that would otherwise be under the government. "2) 'Most important' means that it comes before all else." Yes. "3) 'The rights of its people' does not mean that the other 'most important' priority and individual rights conflict. They don't necessarily need to, and in some cases the CON's alternative may even be in line with protecting rights - the point is, the CON's alternative must be more important than rights protection, even if the alternative INCLUDES protection of rights. (Otherwise the debate would be largely unfair, as you're asking the CON to deprive citizens of rights. Under definition 3, the CON and PRO have a fairly even playing field in the debate.)" Not so. If the priority has nothing to do with rights, you can use it. But if the priority can be translated to be a protection of the people's rights, I can use it. "1) The government, acting as an autonomous being must first substantiate its own existence before it can fulfill it's obligations. If a government ceases to exist it cannot fulfill any of the obligations it has to its people, and subsequently there can be no benefits of government at all if it dissolves." If the people cease to exist, the government lacks purpose. The government needs the people to be a government in the first place; the government would rather divert to being ordinary people than lose the people. A government without people to govern is no longer a government, so the government needs to protect the people for the sake of self-preservation. The government is protecting the people's rights to a protection of their rights. "2) Rights protection can only be ensured if the government exists, as a result - even when rights / government existence conflict - it is necessarily better for the government to exist than the rights of citizens be upheld. This is the logic used in the Supreme Court Case Korematsu v. United States." The most important priority is still to defend the rights of the people. If the preservation of government protects the people, then self-preservation leads to the protection of rights. The people are still the most important. Why did the Supreme Court rule against Korematsu? http://en.wikipedia.org... In an attempt to prevent espionage, which is also known as spying. Why prevent enemy countries from spying on the United States? To protect the American people. It all comes back to it in the end; the government exists to protect the rights of the people. The government is limiting the rights to some of its people in an attempt to protect the rights to privacy, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the rest of its people. Not that I agree with the relocation, but it was all for the people of the United States. Thank you.
A government's most important priority is to protect the rights of its people.

Some definitions: 1) The Government is the entity ruling the people, not the people itself. (as direct democracy is entirely unfeasibly in any society of over a few thousand members, if you want to agree on a representative democracy as the framework for the government that's fine. 2) "Most important" means that it comes before all else. 3) "The rights of its people" does not mean that the other "most important" priority and individual rights conflict. They don't necessarily need to, and in some cases the CON's alternative may even be in line with protecting rights - the point is, the CON's alternative must be more important than rights protection, even if the alternative INCLUDES protection of rights. (Otherwise the debate would be largely unfair, as you're asking the CON to deprive citizens of rights. Under definition 3, the CON and PRO have a fairly even playing field in the debate.) So the burden for me is not to prove individual rights are not important, but that sit backstage to something else. Very Simply put: - The government's most important priority is that of self-preservation, not rights preservation. There are two reasons: 1) The government, acting as an autonomous being must first substantiate its own existence before it can fulfill it's obligations. If a government ceases to exist it cannot fulfill any of the obligations it has to its people, and subsequently there can be no benefits of government at all if it dissolves. 2) Rights protection can only be ensured if the government exists, as a result - even when rights / government existence conflict - it is necessarily better for the government to exist than the rights of citizens be upheld. This is the logic used in the Supreme Court Case Korematsu v. United States.
A government's most important priority is to protect the rights of its people.

According to the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." http://en.wikisource.org... I argue that a government's most important and foremost priority is to protect the rights of the people that are government. The government must never do anything against their people's rights. When faced with a situation, the government must choose a solution that does not infringe on their people's rights. A government is for its own people before any other people, as well. Good luck, should anyone choose to take this debate.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be His Noodly Appendage) is not a real God.

Some people might object that The Flying Spaghetti Monster (may His meatballs never get cold) is not truly a God for He is not actually worshiped by people and is meant as a satiric representation of other Gods and churches." Bingo. Boy this debate is easy. "if he or she can, he/she should scientifically prove that this is true for every single Pastafarian who professes his/her believe." False premise. One person's belief doesn't make a god or religion real, just like me declaring that I have a right to a million dollars isn't as real as your right to a fair trial. We know that the great religions were not meant in a satirical way for at least two reasons. One, we know generally how religions emerged -- they wrote books on what they believed. Two, they produced things worthy of reverence -- whereas Pastafarianism doesn't have its own architectural style, musical style, etc. There aren't any devotional texts with gold leaf that took hundreds of man-hours to create dedicated to spaghetti. In conclusion, the whole Pastafarian metaphor is a straw man and tautology because you're substituting something obviously random and stupid for religion to show that religion is random and stupid.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be His Noodly Appendage) is not a real God.

Thank you for participating in the debate. For clarification of what I mean by God and religion I will provide definitions from Oxford Dictionary: God: 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being 2.(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. 3.An image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god religion: 1.The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods 2.A particular system of faith and worship 3.A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion From these definitions it is clear that Pastafarianism fits the definition of religion perfectly. Pastafarians believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be his Noodliness) who created The Universe as we know it (see the definition of 'God'). Their central believes are all written down in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster holy book of Pastafarians (simillary to the way Bible is the holy book for Christians) where it is clearly written that he is in fact a God despite the fact that he is unobservable. Among other similarities with other 'mainstream' religions is our celebration of every Friday, that is a holy day for us the same way Sunday is such a day for Christians. While religion in particular was not a part of the original debate topic I felt the need to mention it as it is very closely related to the the 'potential' Godness of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (blesses be He for He boiled for our sins). I think at this point we have established that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of all that is, thus He logically also has powers that from our point of view are supernatural and He is worshiped by many people across the world (100 000 holy books have been sold to believers all over the world)[1]. This fits the definition of the term God perfectly therefore is a sufficient proof. Some people might object that The Flying Spaghetti Monster (may His meatballs never get cold) is not truly a God for He is not actually worshiped by people and is meant as a satiric representation of other Gods and churches. To those people I would like tell two things. First one is that you will most likely end up in hell where the beer is always stale. And second is that if he or she can, he/she should scientifically prove that this is true for every single Pastafarian who professes his/her believe. If he or she can't do that than I or anyone else for that matter could claim that Gods such as Allah are also merely satirical representations of older Gods and religions and so on. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...