BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Government Should Be More Responsible For Recycling Protection.

I believe that the current recycling system and laws provided by the government is enough to help protect the environment if most people except some people who are lazy or do not want recycle garbage follow it. For example, there are thousands of signs on garbage cans and on the roads warning people about fines and penalties if people do now follow the rules. Also, government send people and businesses a brochure stating how to recycle regularly. However, we still see a lot of garbage on the street littered by people. Also, we see a lot of recyclable garbage such as papers, plastics, bottles and cans dumped with unrecyclabe garbage into a garbage bag and thrown. Even before the government steps in to force people for recycling, individuals can protect our environment for now if most people do recycling as government has required. People those who refuse to recycle have been fined by the local towns if they were found. The government can not track each individual or business to find if they do recycle or not. There are towns that use companies that provide containers to home for recycling. Towns have provided information to home owners and apartment dwellers on recycling codes and requirements and any fines for non-compliance. If the government gets involved more than now, it just causes more taxes to be imposed on the individuals and businesses. This only contributes to more waste and debt to the already record debt that this country is experiencing at this time. As individuals, if we all pitch in and do our own little parts, we can accomplish many things without the government's getting involved. As to your point that businesses will not re-locate to areas with large littering problem, I believe this should be addressed by a local grass roots movement not by the government. Towns and cities have made an initiative to inform residents that these areas are lacking businesses because of this problem. People have to realize that government will not come to their rescue. People have to know that they take pride and help get the areas clean, that will be better chances for businesses to re-locate there that would mean a cleaner area and more jobs. Individuals should not rely on government to do everything for themselves. People must accept that they can not always rely on the government to solve their problems. As we all know that usually when the government gets involved too much, most of times it ends up making a mess of things. Many of government's programs get bogged down with red tapes and almost nothing gets done. Many government programs are miss-managed and losing money which are all from tax payers, individuals and businesses. Therefore, I strongly believe that people and businesses have to realize how serious this problem is and take responsibility for recycling their garbage themselves instead of relying on the government.
The Government Should Be More Responsible For Recycling Protection.

As you said in your debate above, there are government programs that the government supports. Although the government may support these programs that doesn't mean that the government has made a strict law for Recycling or that the government has started to enforce recycling. As long as the government allows recycling to go on the way that it has been going on nothing will change. As I stated before there are individuals all over the world that recycle but there still is those other individuals who wouldn't dare to recycle due to laziness and just not wanting to recycle. The notion of gathering those individuals and getting them to recycle is beyond a government group or individuals spreading the word for people. The government groups don't enforce recycling, the government laws enforce recycling !! I believe that even if we were to make more individuals aware of the economic impact, the impact on tourism and the criminal element associated with litter individuals would still not recycle. Generally, businesses will not locate in an area that has a large littering problem this shows that the community or area has no concern for the quality of their environment. I believe that this is where the government should step in and take complete control and responsibility. The government should allow businesses to locate in areas that have a large littering problem, in my opinion this would make more sense for the sake of recycling. Continuous research, and developments of facilities and methods must be implemented to ensure that our government will secure recycling and recycling will begin to improve once the government takes responsibility and gets involved. Recycling is very important, for the simple fact that recycling reduces garbage dumped into landfills, these landfills hold a sometimes unbelievable volume of garbage, and it takes tons and tons everyday!! Through recycling this problem could be decreased. After placing the facilities, proper education and information must be given to the people. Recycling, segregation and other ways to help the environment must be enforced throughout schools so that younger children aren't as careless as older individuals. I don't believe older individuals would take recycling as serious as younger individuals because they weren't taught to recycle in school. The government should implement a way that young individuals can learn about recycling early, because that is the only group of individuals besides the government that might be able to save our planet by recycling. Recycling is a term that is in common use these days. However, it has taken many years for recycling to make it into the main stream of modern day life and culture. Far from being a novel idea, recycling has been around for quite some time. This is why i believe if the government allowed recycling to be implemented throughout schools around the world younger individuals would be able to teach other generations to value recycling and to use recycling.
The Government Should Be More Responsible For Recycling Protection.

I believe that individuals and or businesses are more responsible than government for recycling in these days. The government has already provided the laws and programs for individuals and or businesses to recycle garbage enough. If individuals and or businesses do not recycle garbage, the recycling system can not be started and can not be completed because it is based on the individuals' and or businesses' recycling now. So to speak, if the individuals and businesses do not recycling garbage, the government can not control it. If we rely on the government to do everything for the invididuals and or businesses, the government must need to increase taxes on individuals and businesses to take care of this. That could hurt the economy because people would have less disposable income. The individuals would be spending less money that could stimulate the economy. This could lead to job loss, too. Businesses could lay people off due to lack of income. We are already seeing companies cutting jobs and workers' hours due to the oncoming new health care programs starting this year from the government. Many small businesses will have problems surviving with taxes and fees. We have to get people to understand that they have to take care of things themselves instead of relying on the government all the time. This has to start by the parents teaching their kids this. People should be responsible for taking care of their own recycling instead of relying on the government. There are many government programs such as social security, medi care, and post office, etc. The government is running a record debt as we speak. They do not need another program to be responsible for wasting more money. Also, the taxes are high on the individuals and businesses as it is now. The states and towns have provided recycling bins and pick ups enough. Also, the government has enforced the laws and regulations for recycling. However, if people still do not recycle, there is almost nothing for the government to do with it. As you mentioned as following; individuals should recycle because recycling saves energy most manufacturers wouldn't have to produce something new from raw natural resources if most individuals would recycle. By using recycled materials we save energy consumption, which keeps production cost down. By recycling, we reduce the need to destroy habitats for animals. Paper recycling alone saves millions of trees, by recycling we reduce the need to destroy habitats for animals. Recycling and purchasing recycled products create a greater demand for some more recycled goods, People must realize how recycling helps environment that can create jobs, save energy and money. Although companies build more recycling plants with strict environmental codes, it can not help environment protection if people and businesses do not follow it.
The Government Should Be More Responsible For Recycling Protection.

I believe that the government should be very responsible for Recycling Protection. I believe the Government should be responsible because not every individual will follow laws that are for Recycling. The government should have better laws that regulate how individuals dispose of their waste because most other individuals are not as concerned with the environment as some other individuals are. A lot of individuals seem to be the reason why people don't recycle. Most individuals don't want to put in the extra effort. Some cities don't have a recycling pick up. And i believe that is the Governments fault as to why there aren't any pick ups. To hinder this situation the government should provide pick ups for every city and for every town. Most individuals say that the lack of space is an issue. Most people don't want to provide for recycling bins, because the look of it is an eyesore. To hinder this situation the government should provide, and invent recycling bins that are presentable, not only should they be more presentable but they should have a scent inside of the recycling bin that covers the poor smell that things that are being recycled might have. Some countries fine individuals for not recycling and some regions pay for just bottle recycling. Some areas don't even have any penalties or incentives that enforce recycling. I believe recycling should be enforced everywhere and if you don't follow the law of recycling you will penalized !!!! Individuals should recycle because recycling saves energy most manufacturers wouldn't have to produce something new from raw natural resources if most individuals would recycle. By using recycled materials we save energy consumption, which keeps production cost down. By recycling, we reduce the need to destroy habitats for animals. Paper recycling alone saves millions of trees, by recycling we reduce the need to destroy habitats for animals. Recycling and purchasing recycled products create a greater demand for some more recycled goods. Goods made from recycled materials use less water, creates less pollution and uses less energy. Recycling produces considerably less carbon, which reduces the amount of unhealthy greenhouse gas omissions. Individuals should remember that manufacturing requires hundreds if not thousands of people for an example like loggers that live in the woods, logging companies and small owner operators to get the to the pulp mills, to production, to distribution, these all require individuals to make the system work yet still there has not been a change in recycling protection. If the individual wont do it, i believe that is where the government should step in. Anyone that believes that they can personally or individually change recycling protection on their own should definitely read into it because if managements, logers and companies cannot do it than its only left up to the government to take care of it. Recycling programs are there to enforce recycling but this still isn't enough...
Get rid of government censorship of TV and Radio

So what you are doing is taking parts out of my debate and leaving others out. If you noticed the "It's the PARENT'S responsibility" thing, and beyond you'd know what I was talking about. Anyway, All this is something that falls under personal and parental responsibility. If a parent worries their child will be hurt by what they see on TV or whatever, turn that V-chip on and pick their poison. It's not the government's job to regulate what people see on TV that they pay for. Same goes for video games, If you don't want your child playing violent video games, Don't buy it, Don't give him/her money, and don't get them a gaming system. Some parent's want to rely on the government to do the jobs the parent is to lazy or too stupid to do. And these "studies" don't stand up in court(http://www.supremecourt.gov...), and they won't stand up here, and even if violent video games caused violent kids, SO WHAT?! Who's fault is it? It's the parent's fault for not controlling what their child is exposed too, which they can easily do with the Parental Control's on TV, the Internet(via free and paid software), and on Video Game systems. The US Supreme court and lower courts have ruled recently that violent video games were protected speech under the First Amendment as other forms of media(check that last link) AND the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York already struck down the FCC's Indecency Policy which basically censored what is aired on TV and radio. Currently the USSC are considering ruling on this sometime this year or next(http://online.wsj.com...) So to recap, it's all free speech. If parent's don't want their kid to see something, there are ways to prevent that from happening without having the government decide what's good for us and what's bad. The last thing this crappy country needs is more government control over stuff. If you can not realize that, then I guess a Chinese and North Korean-like government is what you are looking for. Have fun. *Dead air*
Get rid of government censorship of TV and Radio

Ok, I'm going to keep this short, because you obviously didn't get what I was talking about: 1) Yes the V-chip government mandated, I know that. But it's not government censorship. The chip's activation is voluntary. So it's not government censorship(which is the issue), unless the government mandates it be activated or such. 2) Obviously the kind of censorship I'm talking about is stuff like obscenity, profanity, and Indecency(since THAT is what is censored on TV and Radio). I guess I should be far more clear next time. So how about you try addressing that in the next round.
Get rid of government censorship of TV and Radio

I believe that government censorship should be done away with in the United States. The US claims to be a nation known for it's freedoms and what not, but that is total bull. It's NOT the governments job to censor TV and Radio. It should be up to the TV network NOT the government what content is shown or what is heard on TV or radio. I don't care what the parent's want. It's the PARENT'S responsibility to regulate what their child see's or hears, not the government. Parent's can't say they are unable to control what their kids hear or see, because we do have the V-Chip now, and we can make it so radio also get's one. Besides, no child has EVER died or been hurt from hearing cussing words or seeing a tit. I DO however support the MPAA rating system, so the V-chip can be put in place. So, in closing, No more government censorship.
Should Americans promote the use of nuclear weapons

Now you finally made your first argument, so I will begin rebuttals. You said: "Well first off I don't like the idea of just going off half cock and sending out a nuke to just any country but what I do believe is that we should promote the use of nuclear weapons for respect." I don't see why the world's greatest superpower who already has vast respect should from most countries should demand more respect from other countries by using nuclear annihilation, care to explain further? You said: 1. "If we promote the use of nuclear weapons then all countries WILL know that if they choose to start a war with or without the use of nuclear weapons, then we WILL use our nuclear weapons." This debate is whether we should promote the use of nuclear weapons, meaning regardless of whether or not it's in a war. Anyways these countries already know the U.S. has the world's strongest armed forces. You also listed Duncan Hunter (who received a military discharge) essentially saying the U.S. should detonate nuclear warheads in Iran to set them back technologically, so I took the liberty listed some reasons why the U.S. shouldn't and doesn't need to use nuclear warheads against Iran. Some statistics from globalfirepower show that the U.S. clearly doesn't need to use nuclear warheads against Iran. [2] (the U.S. Ranks first in military strength among every nation in the world): MANPOWER - Total Population: 316,668,567 - Available Manpower: 145,212,012 - Fit for Service: 120,022,084 - Reaching Military Age Annually: 4,217,412 - Active Frontline Personnel: 1,430,000 - Active Reserve Personnel: 850,880 LAND SYSTEMS - Tanks: 8,325 - Armored Fighting Vehicles: 25,782 - Self-Propelled Guns: 1,934 - Towed Artillery Pieces: 1,791 - Rocket Projectors (MLRS): 1,330 AIR POWER - Total Aircraft: 13,683 - Helicopters: 6,012 NAVAL POWER - Aircraft Carriers: 10 - Frigates: 15 - Destroyers: 62 - Submarines: 72 RESOURCES - Oil Production: 8,500,000 bbl/day - Oil Consumption: 19,000,000 bbl/day - Proven Oil Reserves: 20,680,000,000 bbl/day FINANCIAL (in USD) Defense Budget: $612,500,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $150,200,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity: $15,940,000,000,000 GEOGRAPHY (in km) Square Land Area: 9,826,675 km Coastline: 19,924 km Waterways: 41,009 km Now here are some reasons why the U.S. shouldn't use nuclear warheads against Iran: 1. It would have devastating environmental effects. (This argument I made went unrefuted earlier.) 2. It would have devastating human health effects.(This argument I made went unrefuted earlier.) 3. Their are other solutions that would prevent reason 1+2 from occuring (or atleast lower the effects of 1+2) such as strong sanctioning from the international community, search and seize Iran technology that relates to nuclear warheads/devices, or using the U.S. military force which is vastly superior to Iran. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.globalfirepower.com...
Should Americans promote the use of nuclear weapons

Well first off I don't like the idea of just going off half cock and sending out a nuke to just any country but what I do believe is that we should promote the use of nuclear weapons for respect. 1. If we promote the use of nuclear weapons then all countries WILL know that if they choose to start a war with or without the use of nuclear weapons, then we WILL use our nuclear weapons. In other words, "If the United States ends up using military force against Iran's nuclear program, it should do so with nuclear weapons." "I think a ground war in Iran with American boots on the ground would be a horrible thing and I think people like to toss around the fact that we have to stop them in some way from gaining this nuclear capability. I don't think it's inevitable but I think if you have to hit Iran, you don't put boots on he ground, YOU DO IT WITH TACTICAL NUCLEAR DEVICES AND YOU SET THEM BACK A DECADE OR TWO OR THREE. I think that's the way to do it with a massive aerial bombardment campaign." -Congressman Duncan Hunter I agree with that because if a country wants other countries to THINK that they have nuclear devices then, "Good, good for them if they want to threaten countries that they DO have nuclear weapons then fine, but the second you say that you have found the key to making working nuclear devices, then we will bomb you WITH the nuclear weapons that we DO have." -Me http://www.google.com... academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu
Should Americans promote the use of nuclear weapons

My opponent now says: "If americans dont promote the use of nuclear weapons then will it even change what other countries think that want to promote it?" However this is an incorrect statement made with no credibility, and countries that have western culture are very influental to each other. This is without even saying the U.S. is the world's strongest superpower, a rather peaceful one, and has no need for nuclear in fact the U.S. hasn't been at war sine June 4th, 1942. I'm hoping next round you will make your first argument (finally) and not just list your ever-changing viewpoint with no credibility or logic. [1] [2] Sources: [1] https://www.khanacademy.org... [2] http://www.senate.gov...
Should Americans promote the use of nuclear weapons

Can you clarify your argument, while we still have 3 rounds left? I've got private messages from you asking to state your side along with mine, now I see that you've made no argument/rebuttal/source. So are you conceding since you no longer say the U.S. Should promote the use of nuclear warheads, but rare usage in desperation times of war? Are you just conceding and asking me for advice on your project? Do you wish to debate? (If you want advice you should go to the forums, however i'm still willing to aid you.)
(ELO tournament) Debate is, on balance, a worthwhile talent

Listen to yourself. You actually care who's going to win. You are proving me right: You don't care about being open-minded and noticing flaws, or thinking you might be wrong for a change. You're just trying to win this debate, seeking points from other viewers/voters. You also make it seem like the world to you, trying to find others mistakes (in which are obvious) and mention/make notice of them. Congratulations, you now have skills and "talent" towards condemning people, and salvaging your dignity among childish arguments. Thank You for this lesson. This will be the last time I debate.
(ELO tournament) Debate is, on balance, a worthwhile talent

It seems as if my opponent has not made an actual argument "No one wins and argument. Both the Con and Pro refuse to take their "enemy"s side. There are though, a few people who swallow their pride. There is no point in debating, only to take opposition to a further level." First saying no one wins an argument on a debating site With records of wins and loses is never a good idea and it isn't about convincing the person you're debating that you're ideas are superior it's convincing everyone who's watching that your ideas are better. Second my opponent has dropped all of my arguments and has continually failed to refute my arguments and defend his all seven points to me
(ELO tournament) Debate is, on balance, a worthwhile talent

No one wins and argument. Both the Con and Pro refuse to take their "enemy"s side. There are though, a few people who swallow their pride. There is no point in debating, only to take opposition to a further level. Dale Carnegie, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" (Part 3, Sections 1-3) http://erudition.mohit.tripod.com...
(ELO tournament) Debate is, on balance, a worthwhile talent

So my opponent has made an assertion several actuallly "Debating is not a talent because anyone can do it. If you are very good at it, it wouldn't be worthwhile because it's so unnessessary. It shouldn't matter how you can prove your opinion to be better or correct over another's, but how you can win they themselves. When two people are done debating, they still think they're right." First my opponent says debating is not a talent because anyone can do it however debating requires critical thinking and the ability to make coherent arguments and in most cases the ability to speak in public and you must be able to speak in public clearly and coherently thenumber 1 fear of all people is to speak in public drowning coming in at a close second. So it is a talent to debate. Second if you are good at something why wouldn't you want to continue doing that activity to be better at to be great at it. Furthermore It is necessary many people watch debates and vote in some way or come up with new ideas or reinforce their own ideals. Debating isn't for the benefit of the debaters it's for this that are watching . Third you have not presented a case merely an objection if it can so be called that