BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Local production of goods is the best way to stimulate economic growth of developing countries

It appears the fact that needs to be understood is which scenario would be the most economically fruitful to a developing country: focus solely on exporting their raw materials or focusing on improving their ability to process their own raw materials locally into goods they can need. Con has shown that capital-intensive goods are difficult for developing countries to produce because they lack the resources or money to produce them. Con also points out that citizens of developing countries would not need these capital-intensive goods because these goods typically satisfy needs that extend out once more basic needs like food and shelter are taken care of. Since it is mutually assumed that citizens of developing countries are more concerned with this basic needs it can also be safe to omit the topic of capital-intensive goods in this debate as they are not relevant to the current economic health of developing countries. Economic health of a developing country can therefore be defined as the basic needs of food and shelter being taken care for the highest amount of people. To this regard, Con puts forth that it would be the most efficient for a government of said developing country to export its raw resources and invest the money gained in this manner to improve human capital development and other industrial growth programs. To this I can only agree as that is what I imply in the topic of my argument by keeping the production of goods local. It would make more sense to invest in training one's own people to produce the products that one's own people uses instead of importing these products. It appears the Pro and Con have come to an agreement. From this experience I have better understood what topic I would like to debate and will open up a new debate for it. If the Con would like to challenge me, he/she is more than welcome. Since the Con convinced me to agree with him, I concede this debate to him/her.
Local production of goods is the best way to stimulate economic growth of developing countries

A developing nation may not have the capital, human capital development, or the ability to produce "processed" goods at a lower cost than foreign competitors. I will henceforth refer to "processed" goods as capital-intensive goods as they appear to be goods that require machinery or other forms of capital to produce more intensively than the labor involved in their production. In a country that is abundant in labor and has relatively scarce capital resources, the law of supply and demand will set the cost for labor low and the cost for the rents on capital to be high. In an international economy, a nation may most competitively export that item with which they have a comparative advantage in producing. Developed nations will not buy expensive manufactured goods from these nations when they can purchase them from a nation that is capital abundant and is therefore able to produce them cheaper. It would then be in the best interests of the less developed nation to export most heavily those products for which the inputs, labor or capital, are relatively cheap, thus representing the most efficient allocation of their scarce resources. [1] A developing country may then generate economic growth by specializing in this manner and the government would then be well advised to use the resources generated from this trade in human capital development and other such programs designed to spur industrial growth. I might also add that assuming that the consumers in a less developed nation will have a strong demand for capital-intensive consumer goods, such as consumer electronics, is far from a certain assumption. When individual incomes are low, a greater percentage of their incomes will be dedicated to subsistence goods, agricultural products, etc. As incomes rise, one can only eat so much food and therefore demand for manufactured goods will outpace demand for these subsistence goods. It is not until a sizable middle class develops that such nations will have a significant demand for manufactured goods. [2] 1. http://internationalecon.com... 2. http://www.jstor.org...
Local production of goods is the best way to stimulate economic growth of developing countries

Unprocessed goods (ex. lumber) used for the production of products are cheaper to import, meaning less money earned by the exporter, than importing processed goods (like furniture). This means that during the entire export/import process of the production of a particular good, the countries that export more processed goods (furniture) than unprocessed goods (lumber) end up making most of the money available in that process. The reason is simple - the steps it takes to gather a raw material require less money and therefore the amount of money to be gained in its export is much less, while the steps it takes to process raw materials into a final good costs more with the subsequent export of the product rendering more money. If a developing and/or economically suffering country would want to breath new health into it's economy, it would make more sense to focus on importing skilled laborers, people who can take the raw materials the country already has, and process them into finished goods the country needs; instead of exporting these materials, at a cheap price, to be processed elsewhere only to import their finished product, at a expensive price, at a later date. Keeping the entire process as local as possible would keep the money circulating at a local level and the closer the money is to the people, the easier access they have to it, resulting in a better off economy.
Gays should be allowed to have children

In my opinion, I am against that gays should be in favour of having children. For one and one reason only. It is not fair on the child. I currently go to a school where popularity is everything, and to not be bullied you have to, 'fit in'. Now ask yourself this, if you are a child from a gay couple, do you really think your going to, 'fit in'? No, the boy gets bullied and called 'gay boy' continuously every day. Because of that his self-esteem is exceedingly low, and he is getting devastatingly low grades, which is going to give him a bad start in life. As more and more gay couples are having children, what is going to happen then?
should parents of bulleis pay a fine

Its upsetting to see that you are going through such a hard time, and I'm sure you'll make it through the other side. Regarding the fine, there isn't any backing to substantiate the claim that it would get parents more involved, nor would it make them more sensitive. If anything, fining parents would be detrimental to the attitude of the parent's towards the kids, causing them to respond negatively in a way which may further irrationalise the actions of the bully. I simply cant see the correlation between fining parents and them becoming more sensitive or engaging with their children. If they did not care enough before receiving a fine that their child was a bully, I doubt they would care after that or would simply lash out at them instead. This is simply the result of a bad parent. Thanks for the discussion!
should parents of bulleis pay a fine

Any parent that does not intervene when the school informs them that their child is bullying another is simply a bad parent. Attaching a financial risk onto the situation is not going to change that, and may only cause them to respond in a destructive manner. Bullies are more often than not troubled themselves. Using their actions to burden their families with further financial risk is only going to cause a most hostile environment for them at home. This will only cause further extremes to the bully's actions by way of negative association with the school and their parents. You appear to be using your own anecdote as someone on the receiving end to justify your reasoning. Though it is terrible that you were bullied, there is nothing in your argument that suggests anything positive would come of this.
should parents of bulleis pay a fine

I do not believe in any way, shape or form that fining parents for the actions of their children will provide any sort of result in curbing bullying. Fundamentally, it comes down to the teaching of the parent's morals to their children to respect others. However, in situations where the family is under a lot of tension or stress, which can be caused by a multitude of reasoning, fining the parents may only be detrimental to low income families or encourage antisocial/negative behaviour towards punishing the bully. It comes down to the school disciplining the bully in a way that is effective but fair, and teaching children how to respond to bullying. Fining parents for the actions of their children, which they ultimately have no control over, can only be detrimental.
poetry

Love me for i am the awaited rain of the summer.O' Love me for i am the striving leafs of the autmn. As your eyes read me i flow through your mind and long to dissemble in its shadow. Leave me not but a memory in your head let the beauty of my image be stuck in you until you are dead. Read my letters like you never did. O' fall in love with the scent of bloom and grace but never let those tears ruin your happy face. Let the snow of Jerusalem's street extinguish the fire of those who took my words indeed. O' let the reader express his greed as he fall in love with writer who satisfies his need.
poetry

Enjoy in full the disannulledBeneficiaries of the variousCancerous vicarious Slavery perpetual.For tranquil is the visceral Travail of a people filledWith bills of unstableLusts of captor's fables,Knowing well the coming daywhen a people mightier than theywill take their captors awayper a note with this to say:Enjoy in full the disannulledBeneficiaries of the variousCancerous vicarious Slaves perpetual.
To be against the right to possess a fire arm is to be, unwittingly, against self defense.

The right to keep and bear arms originated in the Assize of Arms of 1181 which formed part of the English Bill of Rights before being enshrined in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. http://www.constitution.org... However, the right to bear arms for the purpose of defence was drafted in very different times when it was envisaged that a militia made up of civilians should be allowed to defend themselves and their country against attack from enemy forces. These days, however, the United States has the most powerful armed forces in the world and it is unlikely, in the extreme, that any country would be able to overwhelm them to such an extent that ordinary American citizens would have to use small arms to fight an invading army street to street. Therefore, in the modern context, outside the domains of sport and hunting, the only reason any private citizen would keep or carry a firearm would be to use it to kill or maim another civilian, whether it be maliciously or in self-defence. Now, let's examine how that might work in practice. Say, at a party, you meet a girl you have always fancied and, after a few drinks, you end up making love upstairs on top of a big pile of coats. Then, a week later, there's a knock on the door and when you open it, the girl's father is standing there red in the face, huffing and puffing because, as it turns out, you have got his daughter pregnant. Now being a gentleman, you naturally offer to do the decent thing and pay for the abortion. However, the girl's father is a devout Catholic and does not appreciate your offer and proceeds to grab you by the throat. As it happens, though, you keep a loaded Uzi submachine gun on the table by the door. So what happens next? 1 – You pick it up and blow your new girlfriend's dad's head into the front yard of the house opposite. 2 – You pick it up but the enraged parent wrestles it off you and uses it to redecorate the hallway with your brains. 3 – You reason with the man and eventually placate him by promising to marry his daughter. (When he's gone you can always leave your house in the hands of a real estate agent and board the next flight to Ulan Bator - that's up to you). Of the three options, only the third would be open to a British citizen, where nobody (except some farmers) is allowed to have a gun. That is why, whereas one in every 9,750 Americans is shot dead every year, in Britain only one in every 154,000 people are killed by a gun. http://www.gun-control-network.org... My opponent describes the right to the right to bear arms as being of fundamental importance but this right makes an American 16 times more likely to be shot dead than a British citizen. I therefore affirm that the right to live in a country relatively free from gun-related deaths outranks the right of a citizen to carry a firearm.
To be against the right to possess a fire arm is to be, unwittingly, against self defense.

I believe that self defense is the most fundamental and essential right. If an individual is restrained from defending himself, his family, his community, or his country, he is left with absolutely no rights whatsoever. Without life, there are no rights! If a compendium of rights are agreed to and protected by law, but the right to self defense is absent, then the list of rights however long and valuable in themselves are voided by the first creep that chooses to relieve you of those rights.
Separating Illegal Immigrant Children From Their Families Is Okay

It's not about dissuading immigrants to cross the border illegally. It's about enforcing our laws to keep our actual LEGAL immigrants and citizens safe. While some may be good, some may be bad and we don't know who's who? Honestly, I believe crossing the border illegally should be a felony, and we should shoot them right at the border like in the 1840's. The safety of our immigrants and citizen can't be priced. Honestly, I don't believe they should be held at all. They should be deported back straight away. (without due process as there is no reason you have the right to cross illegally). I meant okay as fin/justified/acceptable. AS for the humanitarian aspect, if you would like us to give them "suitable" living conditions don't be alarmed when your taxes go up. You, people, choose a little below-the-bar standard for these kids who are probably going to get deported with their families anyway. or higher taxes.
Separating Illegal Immigrant Children From Their Families Is Okay

"Okay": used to express assent, agreement, or acceptance. "OK, I'll pass on your message" synonyms:all right, right, very well, very good, fine, fair enough. The policy of seperating migrant families has done nothing to disuade immigrants from crossing the border. Obviously, the process of separation costs taxpayers more money as well. So, based on the fact that it's ineffective and costly, makes it painfully obvious that it is not in any way, shape, or form, "okay". Also there's a humanitarian aspect to this argument too (if you're into that kinda thing).
Separating Illegal Immigrant Children From Their Families Is Okay

Illegal immigrant children can, and do work. I suspect my argument didn't quite land with my opponent. We want minimum wages to go down, that makes prices go down. That's a good thing. I'm not sure why my opponent thinks that illegal immigrants cause market supply to increase, and I also don't know why that would be a bad thing, even if it were true, or made sense. If supply goes up, but demand stays the same, that would mean prices go down. That's also a good thing. What jobs are these immagrant hoards taking from us, are they good paying desk jobs, or ones that get you lucrative sponser deals? Probably not. They're cleaning toilets and picking goards. I'm not sure about my opponent, but I don't know to many Americans who are looking to become life long crop pickers. I guess all blue collar jobs are going to disappear soon too. When, who knows? I guess that's one where we'll just have to take my opponents word for. Lower taxes makes my standard of living go up! I believe there's a direct link between more money and happiness. I know it sounds outlandish, but I truly believe it. Lets recap. Seperating immigrant families: * is ineffective *cost taxpayers money *does nothing to deter others from crossing the border *is needlessly inhumane *makes Bono angry, and when Bono gets angry, we all suffer because we gotta here him bitch and moan in that annoying irish accent oh his. (shudder) So no, seperating immigrant families is not okay.
Separating Illegal Immigrant Children From Their Families Is Okay

Exactly it will cost YOU, the taxpayer. So I ask you do you prefer higher taxes or lower standard living conditions. Exactly that is the problem. Illegal immigrants displace American Workers. Nationwide illegal immigrants take 8.5 million jobs American workers could have. When illegal immigrants come, they lower the minimum wage for everyone. This makes jobs in a sector dominated by illegal immigrants less attractive to American workers. Another example is supply and demand. Illegal immigrants are willing to work for less. This adds a ton of supply to the labor market, except the demand stays the same. Soon all blue collar American jobs will be taken. But enough with this trash. What does this have anything at all to do with illegal immigrant children being detained? They can't work so your labor force argument makes no sense.
Separating Illegal Immigrant Children From Their Families Is Okay

I agree, it's not about dissuading illegal immigration. It is about enforcing the law, but first and foremost, it's about how much it's gonna cost ME, the taxpayer. Read the constitution, and try and convince me that it doesn't protect our individualistic rights, then and only then will we understand the difference between an indivualistic society, (which is what we are)and a collectivist society(welfare state)! I'm not willing to let the feds have a blank check to do what they want with my money, for whatever reason . They seem to only know how to make a problem worse and then turn around and demand more money to "fix" the problem. It doesn't take a college degree to realize that when the minimum wage goes up, so do prices! If immigrants are willing to work for less, they'll get hired so businesses can sell for less because they don't have to pay an immigrant worker nearly as much as a domestic worker. If we lower the minimum wage, we lower prices. If we lower prices, the legal taxpayers on the bottom earning rung can afford to buy more, if they can afford more, then more people will need to be hired, which creates more jobs. Come on, this is basic economics! If we continue to demand higher wages, we hurt our chances of being a competitive labor force, and businesses will hire immagrants, or move to other countries altogether. I bet there's some of you who would say "well we can just force businesses to only hire legal citizens". Sure, lets forget about runaway price gouging. Lets make it impossible to make a profit when doing business in this country. Lets make the same mistakes European countries make! Lets pay 12$ for a loaf of bread, as long as the minimum wagers are happy, right!?! Or we can actually fix the problem. Whether my opponent wants to seperate immigrant families, or shoot them, or gas them, or whatever, I don't want to pay for it! My opponents argument only works if he/she was correct in assuming most crimes are committed by immigrants. I'm sure we all know that it doesn't take a college degree to realize that most crimes are not committed by immigrants, right!?! As a taxpayer and a citizen of this individualist country, I don't want to have to pay for my opponents, or anybody's paranoid clarion calls. http://criminology.oxfordre.com.... The safety of our citizens does have a price, and we're the ones who have to pay for it. Actually fix the problem, don't keep gouging me for money!
Attending church creates makes a person more relgious and in effect brings you closer to God.

As you said, church is widely known as the house of God. If you are in his house, praising him, then you will definitely become closer to God. You also said that church is not the only place where you can feel close to God. I believe this also. You can feel close to God any place you want, but that does not change the fact that going to church does make a person feel closer to God. Here is why: 1. By going to church and listening to sermons and scripture readings, you may learn more about your religion. Therefore, making you closer to God. 2. Being surrounded by people who all believe in the same thing can help you believe more. Attending bible studies at the church can also help you learn more, and be surrounded by people who care about you. This will make you feel closer to God. 3. Being in the church, the house of God, can make you feel closer to him because being surrounded by his presence is a wonderful thing. That feeling is enough to make you and me feel more religious and closer to God. Thanks for listening! :-D
Attending church creates makes a person more relgious and in effect brings you closer to God.

Although, it is widely known that a church is a house of God, I do not believe that it is the only place where you can be connected to God. In fact, I believe that you can be close to God in any location. I think that the rules of the church are often created by the church "officials" and not from the bible. It is also common that interpretations of the bible can alter your understanding of God's word. Isn't it better to read it on your own and understand what it means to you? Many people feel that they are religious because they attend church every Sunday, through illness and different weather conditions. But isn't it possible that some of these people are just going through the motions? Some people who do not attend church on a regular basis might be seen as betraying the church or simply lazy. But these people who stay at home on sunday mornings might be more religious than those sitting in the pues trying to keep their eyes open. In the bible it clearly states that praying can take place anywhere. It does not have to happen in a group, sitting on an uncomfortable pue, in a church. Moses is seen in the bible praying to God in the middle of field. Then, so too can any one of use be religous and pray to God outside of the setting of the church.
The U.S was the most powerful country after World War II

I want everybody to take notice to the topic: "The U.S was the most powerful country after World War II". The United States was one of the most powerful countries after World War II, not the most powerful but one of the most powerful. Pro is trying to argue that it was the most powerful, but that is simply not possible as there are so many factors that the USSR has over the United States. - American armed forces shrank from about twelve million in June 1945 to one-and-a-half million in June 1947- Soviet Union failed to demobilize its massive army- Soviet Union did maintain the largest stockpile of nuclear bombs during the Cold War- Soviet Union sent the first man into spaceSources:https://www.mtholyoke.edu......http://government.arts.cornell.edu......In conclusion the USSR was one of the most powerful countries after World War Two along with the United States of America. The United States was strong in some areas and so was the USSR in other areas. I want to thank pro for the interesting and courtesy debate, it is unfortunate that pro forfeited two rounds, but asides that it was fun. Vote well my fellow debaters!