BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved:The Federal Reserve Should Not Be Abolished

Now without further ado, let's begin. What The Federal Reserve Is: The central bank of the United States of America. The Mandate of the Federal Reserve: According to Investipedia, the duties of the Federal Reserve are: "1)To promote sustainable growth, 2) To maintain high levels of employment, 3) To stabilitze prices to help preserve the purchasing power of the dollar 4) moderate long-term interest rates. To Promote Sustainable Growth: The United States economy is currently the largest national economy (. http://www.imf.org...=) (. http://www.imf.org...) ( . http://money.cnn.com...) These reports show that the Federal Reserve is doing a good job as a Central Bank at mainting the United States as the largest national economy in the World. To Maintain High Levels of Employment: According to the BLS, the unemployment rate is currently at 5.5% (. http://data.bls.gov...) This decrease in unemployment shows that the Fed is doing a good job in combatting unemployment Decline of Banking Failures: There have been less banking failures with the insitution of the Federal Reserve in 1913 than before. Necessary for Monterary policy Monterary policy, the setting of interest rates, has to be set by a Central Bank. If rates are lower, than an economy expands, if rates are higher, then inflation is curbed. This is good economic policy, as evident by above. Lack of Sound Alternatives. While the Fed may have its problems, what is the alternatives? So far, the Fed is doing its job relatively well, if does need change, it needs reform, not abolishment
Resolved:The Federal Reserve Should Not Be Abolished

Intro I am rechallenging Georaphia for Round 1 of bsh1's March Beginners' Tournament. The resolution holds clear: Pro shall argue that The Federal Reserve indeed should not be abolished, and Con shall argue that it should. The burden of proof is equally shared between both debaters. Definitions Federal Reserve: The Central Bank of the United States of America. Should: Ought to Abolished: To officially come to an end. Stucture Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Cases Round 3: Rebuttal of Cases Round 4: Rebuttal of Rebuttals Rules 1. No forfeits 2. No trolling or semantics 3. Second round is arguments only 4. Maintain a civil atmosphere 5. Breaking any of these rules results in a loss Thanks to Geographia and good luck!
Resolved: cyberbullying should be a criminal offence

1. I concede that cyberbullying does harm the victim. However, how would criminalizing cyberbullying reduce the harm in any way? As I've stated, laws don't prevent cyberbullying at all. 2. You say that cyberbullying is a tool of choice for pedophiles. What do you mean by that? 3. You say getting away with cyberbullying gives people the idea that they can exploit people freely. That is no grounds for criminalizing something. Presently, bosses get away with verbally abusing their employees, politicians get away with being rude, and drivers get away with breaking all kinds of traffic rules. Getting away with those actions also gives people the idea that they can exploit people freely, don't you agree, but is it right to criminalize them? 4. It is better to learn from a small crime than a big crime, but would cyberbullying really be a small crime? The prosecution would try to prove that the cyberbully intentionally tried to get a victim to commit suicide. That is the equivalent of 1st degree murder. 5. You say that a victim's family, friends and community also feel unsafe when the victim is victimized. Really? I've never heard of a old-fashioned bully being a menace to anyone other than the victim. It's unreasonable that cyberbullying would be completely different from old-fashioned bullying. Where's your source for this? 6. You say that 'When people know the consequences and learn to respect others, cyberbullying incidents go down.' How would federal law be more effective than educational programs in teaching consequences and respect for others, I ask you? 7. How many teens are aware of laws that affect them? For example, no possession of child pornography? 8. For the purposes of this debate, cyberbullying will be restricted to incidents of teens hurting teens. Your 'international ban...would tell adult cyberbullies that they cannot simply hire somebody in another country' point is therefore void. (This is speech and debate's ruling) 9. How is rape in any way similar to cyberbullying?
Resolved: cyberbullying should be a criminal offence

Once again I'm sorry to my opponent that I had to post that round so early. I didn't really have much of choice, however. I too was busy on the weekend. Out of respect to my opponent, I suggest we skip the conclusion rounds. My opponent may answer my questions in the comments - voters please check there too. One last thing. Please vote pro. Honestly, a vote for con is not a vote for effective help. It's a vote for the denial of legal recognition of a serious problem. Whatever model you think is best, only a pro vote will make a difference.
Resolved: cyberbullying should be a criminal offence

1. My opponent compares cyberbullying education to church, but how many of us actually go to church these days? How many of us actually listen to the preacher instead of zoning out and worrying about other stuff? 2. If legal threats were needed for education to work, why are there still teenage smokers? Isn't tobacco illegal for those under 21? Don't teenagers from affluent schools attend lots of lectures on the consequences of smoking? 3. My opponent argues that a hard time finding a job is what cyberbullies deserve. What happened to your point that cyberbullying would be a minor crime? 'It is good for employers'? How many potential good employees would they have to reject because of the bureaucratic system? 'It is good for the victims'? In what way? Wouldn't the cyberbully seek revenge, causing the victim to be in more fear? 'It is good for the bullies'? Have you ever been unemployed and starving in the streets? That is the fate of many criminals. If this was your unchangeable fate, would it matter if you cyberbullied again? My opponent forgot society. How would criminalizing cyberbullying benefit society? 4. When have I said the chair banned all reference to adults? I said the chair banned reference to adult cyberbullying. 5. 'Any effort to eradicate this nuisance must surely be better than none'? What about an effort that does not reduce the old problem, but creates new ones? Criminalizing cyberbullying would be exactly that, don't you agree? 6. Agreed with your principles? When? 7. 'I'd like my opponent, as one of his questions, to name and ask me to read a statute, case or declaration that proclaims the legality of cyberbullying and is in force today'. Now that you ask, I'd like you to read a statute, case, or declaration that proclaims the illegality of cyberbullying and is in force today. This is one of your points, and I challenge you to provide some evidence to support it. I will await my opponent's reply.
Big Australia is a good idea

So, Big Australia, as defined by the amazing Wikipedia, is "Big Australia is a term used by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to describe an increase in the population of Australia from 22 million in 2010 to 36 million in 2050 along with the policies needed to react to it. " I know this is Wikipedia, but for a basic definition this is pretty accurate. Anyways, I don't really see how more people in a continent is a bad thing. More people can often mean more workers, and from what I know Australia isn't going through a job crisis. .. so in theory more people will just help the Economy. Also, more people over the course of the next 40 years is normal. More people are born every day than dying, so of course population is going to increase. There is an annual pop. growth of about 5% (. http://data.worldbank.org...). So as I said, growth is normal. And as my opponent suggests, this is a bad thing. .. So is there a solution to this "problem"? And how is it wrong? I'm just setting out a couple points and I will put forth better arguments after I have something to debate on.
Global Warming (caused by man) is a Complete and Utter Hoax

Umm... I don't think al gore jetting around GIVES HIM MOREY. Last time I checked, you have to PAY aka LOSE MONEY to fly in an airplane. And any money (if their is any) that comes with Nobel prizes must be used to further the cause that they specialize in. OK so maybe An Inconvienient Truth has a few mistakes. Their are about 400 statistics in an Inconvienient Truth, and if only 9 are false, that would imply that the 391 others are correct. So that would mean that, for the most part, what An Inconvienient Truth says is true, and that Global Warming Is Real. I hate to say it, but your statistic hurts your argument. If you belivve that what the British Gov't says is true, that would imply that you agree with their belief that the other statistics in AIT are real.
Global Warming (caused by man) is a Complete and Utter Hoax

I strongly disagree with the pro's argument. Al Gore has absolutely no reason to lie about this. The pro states that he does this to curtail fossil fuel usage. YES. That is the entire point. But is this evil??? Not at all. And it doesn't benefit him personally at all. He and other Global Warming Believers are doing this simply to save mankind, not to benefit themselves. Also, their is OVERWHELMINGLY HIGH SUPPORT AMONG THE WORLD THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. The majority of the U.S. gov't, The Pope, Canada, Austrailia, and almost all of Europe agree that global warming is set to drastically hurt and even destroy the earth. The argument that global warming exists goes much farther than just Al Gore. Also, the argument that it is false is only held by a few American politicians and large oil companies that have been known to mislead the government. In conclusion, the GLOBAL WARMING IS TRUE THEORY is believed by the most of the world, and far more people than Al Gore support reform to stop Global Warming.
Global Warming (caused by man) is a Complete and Utter Hoax

This is a no brainer Al Gore and many others are pushing this latest scare tactic to force and agenda - this agenda is to curtail fossil fuel use and encourage renewables Now, I am in the solar business, so these fools who buy this garbage are good for business, no doubt However, the "science" behind the theory that CO2 is a main player in global climate is LAUGHABLE And I am going to make some unusual points that you havent heard the earth is getting a little bit warmer (like 1 deg in 100 years) , and we have no control over it, but: I argue that this is GOOD! Why? What is the greater threat to humans - Cold or Warm? Duh! Where do people live- North Dakota or Florida ? Saskatchewan or Southern Cal? Hey all you folks in the midwest right now under a sheet of ice with no power- are you worried about global warming now? Sorry you cant be here in Sunny Cal right now! Now, we have an ice age every 11000 years or so- this is UNDENIABLE We have had dozens of them over the history of the earth So what caused these to recede in the past? Duh! Global Warming- and guess what Al Gore ? it was before SUVs! Furthermore, the temp on Mars is increasing - is that from CO2 ars well. So what is the REAL AGENDA of the Bali Commission? Well, listen to what they are asking for- MONEY from the RICH NATIONS! and CONTROL over their economies! and to think that intelligent people are buying into this HA HA HA HA HA ! I am laughing all the way to the bank (again I am in the solar business) And guess who is the largest emitter of pollution - China! Guess who isnt required to do any reducing of emissions - China! The only reason why I would opppose this blatant scare tactic is two fold: (1) I am generally opposed to ALL the scare tactics of the left and liberals (2) I am opposed to the attempts to screw up our economy (3) Al Gore is a moron and makes me want to puke (4) I see the pro-GW crowd as alarmingly stalinist- calling those of us who can inteelgently debunk them "deniers" which is a little bit too much like "Holocaust Denier" for me But I am torn, becuase I DO WANT my SOLAR HYDROGEN economy- I have been working on bringing it about for 20+ years and we NEED TO DO IT> Just for some references, here is a link to a great book debunking the schmuck Gore http://www.amazon.com... any takers?
Global Warming (caused by man) is a Complete and Utter Hoax

Honestly I think you are just trying to support solar power. The final line in your previous post offends me. There are things we can do to stop global warming. And their IS something to worry about. At the rate we are going we will all be dead in 150 years or so. You claim to continue, living your life. That may work for our generation, but our children and grnadchildren simple may not be able to keepin "living their life" because we neglected to take action. Global Warming IS CAUSED BY MAN, that is a scientific fact that cannot be disputed. It may have been played up, but it IS CAUSED BY MAN. As I mentioned earlier, if 9 of the 400 or so facts in AIT are wrong, that woudl mean that 391 are true. 391 in favor of global warming being caused by humans v. 9 against. Look at the statistics.
Global Warming (caused by man) is a Complete and Utter Hoax

Well, you dont seem to adress my other points here, like the pope , who you cited and being a firm believer in this theory, who I just showed you quoted on Dec 11 as coming out firmly against it, saying The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering. I am going to give you a little more insight into why this "movement" which is being taken very seriously by many, is quite simply scare mongering Here is a link which lists over 600 , yes 600 "disaters" that are being casued by global warming, according to the silly people pushing the notion http://www.heartland.org... Do you really believe that CO2 emissions are going to cause all of that? Can you maybe understand that sometimes people use SCARE tactics in order to get you to do things, like spend money, or vote for them. This is important to understand in life, and when you get to vote. Now, I am going to change the subject a little bit Why am I so opposed to this theory, when I am a huge fan of renewable energy, solar, and hydrogen, which is the future of energy? Becuase it is the wrong argument- and easily disproven What are the REAL problems with fossil fuels? (1) REAL POLLUTION - air pollution (SOx. NOx, Unburned hydrocarbons, ozone)and water pollution (just 1 drop of oil makes a gallon of water undrinkable) If you look at cities like Mexico City and in China- its HORRIBLE (2) WAR OVER OIL - why are we in Iraq? (3) NATIONAL SECURITY - We cant keep depending on the likes of the OPEC and Chavez for our economic lifeblood What are the REAL SOULTIONS? (1) Solar energy, other renewables, and nuclear energy (2) Higher efficiency in our usage of energy (3) Hydrogen powered hybrid vehicles, planes and transportation As much as the "global warming" crowd supports these things, rather that just saying we need to "stop" what we are doing or be "taxed" by someone, then I wont argue with them- they are good for my business, after all. But the bottom line is that the SCIENCE of Global Warming is Wrong, dead wrong, and is a HOAX and SCARE TACTIC of Al Gore, the IPCC, and others who want to chastise the United States, and gain power and money for themselves Mankind emitted CO2 is NOT responsible in any measurable way for changes in our earth's climate. period. What is responsible ? the SUN! can we do anything about it ? NO! so DONT WORRY! DONT BE AFRAID! live your life
Gay is O.K.

Moving on, it is common knowledge that we (the people writing this debate) are part of the species Homo Sapiens. We have four limbs, a brain and complex social dynamics. We grow hair from our heads and we have many different languages to communicate with. If you were walking down the streets, these are common things that you would see. Everyone in the world sees these attributes and accepts them for what they are. Nobody shouts out the fact that someone has dyed hair in the middle of the street, and if they do, they are viewed as being crude or impolite. I am sure that you would think the same of anyone who did that in your presence. You can't tell that someone is gay or lesbian just by looking at them. They look just the same as you do. The only way that you would know if they weren't straight would be if they told you. Otherwise you would probably treat them the same way you do everybody else. This proves that gay people are people too, as they can only be recognized if THEY out themselves to you. They are just other people and are fully acceptable in society. You might try and say that you can tell if someone is gay by their looks or way of talking... However that is just stereotypical, and it is wrong to judge people by the way they conduct themselves. Thank You.
Gay is O.K.

Good day, Ladies and Gentlemen, Honorable Adjudicators, Worthy Opponents and Members of the Floor. The motion that stands before us today, is that 'this house believes Gay is O.K.' and I, as a member of Team Proposition firmly agree with this motion. Today, I will be telling you that; 1.) Gay people are people too 2.) Everyone deserves respect in society 3.) and Gay people are NOT dangers to society or otherwise I define; Gay - An individual liking that of the same gender O.K. - as socially acceptable and deserving of respect. Next round arguments begin.
Ark Survival Evolved is better than conan exiles

Hey there shimishima! as i can see, your argument is that the setting of the story isn't satisfying to you? because you are only basing it on that, you say that Ark: Survival Evolved is situated on an island with dinosaurs and that Conan Exiles is located on "a bland old desert" with no challenges, you couldn't have been more wrong. i must declare that i own the game, Ark Survival Evolved has a LOT of time on the market compared to Conan Exiles, and by this i mean Ark's early access was released in June,2015, and Conan was barely released 2 months ago, i bought Ark 3 months after the release for Xbox one and i can say it was one of the hardest games I've ever played, with insane amounts of hostile dinosaurs and a stupid crafting system that required me to chop down 5 trees with only bare hands to be able to make a flimsy axe, i do not own Conan Exiles, i didn't even know about it, and i do think Ark is superior in this moment, but it is because of the difference in time of release, not to mention Conan Exiles shows tiddies, i think all it needs to potentially outgrow Ark is time, anyhow none of that matters because RUST is the best game if you wanna play that type of games, 100/100 would recommend you to play rust and stop bullying small early access games. (. )( .) <--- tiddies in Conan Exiles [file missing] <------ tiddies in ARK
Pros & Cons: Communism as a Government

Ok great I get it. Communist regimes do usually improve economy's and thus a country's overall GDP. But that may make a country look good externally but internally especially within China there are major issues that are not properly exploited. The country is industrialized thus meaning people are employed. However the CCP could not care any less about the fact that employees are made to work in extremely dangerous surroundings. Many people lose limbs and thus they take this to court. Surely justice prevails right? Wrong. Courts are rigged as the judges are chosen by the CCP themselves and rule in favour of the CCP meaning they don't have to pay out compensation. I know I mentioned this before hand but i'm just reiterating my point. And about the religion thing I said it 'may be banned'. I did not mean China in general. Your internet freedom is significantly controlled. Everything is filtered. The CCP pays people to post pro party comments on the few social media websites allowed. China even rewrites its history. The young children are educated about this from a young age and made to believe that there has been no problems in the past with China's communist regime. Children can even join a Communist Youth League further strengthening the CCP's grip on the children of the future. Freedom of speech is not supported meaning the public cant speak out on social and economical problems.
Pros & Cons: Communism as a Government

First I would like to address China and their party(s). The Peoples Republic of China or the P.R.C has multiple party's however they do not compete at a national level and are do not participate in the government all to often. These party's are: -Political parties in the People's Republic of China -Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang. -Democratic League. -Democratic National Construction Association. -Association for Promoting Democracy. -Peasants' and Workers' Democratic Party. -Zhi Gong Party. -Jiusan Society. -Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League. Of course the party that is most popular and is currently in power as the national government is the Comunist Party of China, which has effectively made it a single-party state, this renders most of the opposition useless. Now this brings me to the economy. The Chinese economy is growing at a constant rate as you can see in this graph at this link. http://www.economist.com... The communist party has greatly affected the economy, it is soon to surpass the United States and the United Kingdom combined and has a GDP per capita of 6,807.43 USD as of 2013 with a GDP of 9.24 trillion USD as of 2013. The United States with a GDP per capita of 53,041.98 USD as of 2013 with a GDP of 16.77 trillion USD as of 2013. The United Kingdom with a GDP per capita of 41,787.47 USD as of 2013 and a GDP of 2.678 trillion USD as of 2013. Now Growth Domestic Product per person is quite high in the United States and in the United Kingdom however in China the GDP is larger than the UK's and slightly smaller than that of the United States however if you went to my link it is most likely going to surpass the United States by the year 2020. Communism can certainly help a economy but can it help the people? Well it does prevent at times, if run improperly, opposition from other party's. But religion is not illegal in China and is not suppresed. Though China's Communist party is by Atheist and party members are prohibited to be dedicated to any religion, recently other leaders have allowed multiple religions to be accepted though they were not banned nor prohibited to begin with. The following religions are: - Buddhism -Taoism -Islam -Protestantism -Catholicism (For political reasons, the Chinese Catholic Church has been separated from the Roman Catholic Church). So with this evidence sir. Religion is not banned in the Communist regime of China or the Peoples Republic of China. With this evidence I look forward to your answers. (Note, I am not insulting you in any way. Should you feel I am, I formally apologize.)
Pros & Cons: Communism as a Government

First off I am going to mention how unpopular it is (Communism). Only five countries still employ this political regime: China, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba and North Korea. Its not favoured by many countries or governments what so ever because in the long run it never works out. You say that communism is usually applied during times of 'recession' and 'depression' which I can agree with however like you the party almost always remains in charge . For the people this is horrific. China is in a huge mess in my opinion because of its communist regime. The CCP (Chines Communist Party) have ruined Chinas society. Factories they employ people in are dangerous and quite often people will suffer injuries that change there already not so good lives. They can go to court to try and claim compensation however the judges are employed by the CCP and the jurisdiction of the court is also left to the CCP as well as the final ruling. Freedom of speech is not supported. You cant have your own opinion within society. There is only one party: The CCP. Religion may be banned. There are many more negatives also that I will explain in future arguments if required.