BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald trump threatening to impose 35% tariff

Thus far, we have seen what happens when jobs are expatriated under Trump’s threat. “While this announcement is good news for many, we recognize it is not good news for everyone,” says a letter sent by Carrier to its employees in the wake of the deal set up by Donald Trump that will prevent them from outsourcing some 800 jobs to Mexico. About 1300 Indiana-based jobs are still heading south of the border, which is a detail that has been lost in the commotion.” (1)I am not sure how much more clear it can be as to what Trumps plans are: self-aggrandizement, no tariff. Trump drew a line in the sand with his tweet(s) and it has been walked past. Blatantly. From the same source, on the matter of Pro’s “jobs will be retained” suggestion, others disagree: “The Wall Street Journal has now joined in, calling what Trump did in Indiana a “shakedown”…. Here’s what they said: Mr. Trump’s Carrier squeeze might even cost more U.S. jobs if it makes CEOs more reluctant to build plants in the U.S. because it would be politically difficult to close them. So, in short, there are still people losing their jobs and more job loss could be on the horizon.” Con does not find that beneficial, but apparently, Con doesn’t understand a lot of things.To sum up: 1) We have seen Trump’s threat ring hollow. 2) We have seen the President Elect shoot from the hip on things he simply is not allowed to do solo, and won’t have much help on from the legislature, if any. 3) We have seen in a matter of weeks a company walk over his line. 4) We have seen Pro clearly recognize what their resolution is about and attempt to change the scope of the debate to a product-rather-than-company tariff, prompting the question: Is Pro simply unaware of The Donald’s tweets? Does Pro know what they are defending? Just to emphasize the absurdity to which Pro maintains their defense: “Con claims that "no tariff has been mentioned" to carrier, except carrier is clearly smart enough to realize that a tariff will be imposed on their products if they leave.”… They have already left! Con has cited this twice now! Con still eagerly awaits the imposing of the tariff on Carrier. The world has seen Trump’s proverbial “Red Line” with Carrier. The world has seen his child like “Cancel it!” mentality with projects he seems unfamiliar with. These types of flailings are not the hallmarks of good leader, and that is incredibly detrimental to the US. In light of the fumblings from Pro, and the ineptitude that the President Elect is showing of the office, and the clear disregard Trump has shown of his own threat and the precedent that sets, Con urges our audience to vote in a direction demonstrating what Pro doesn’t understand: such a threat is not beneficial.(1) http://www.mediaite.com... s://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...; alt="Image result for donald trump political cartoon tariff tweet" width="564" height="400" />
Donald trump threatening to impose 35% tariff

As was stated many times which con failed to rebuttal, threatening to impose a tariff has many positives and only a couple of slight negatives. Moreover, since it is a threat, it also gains the additional benefit of not having to go into effect, leaving the cost of goods the same and reducing the negatives to practically nothing. Instead of arguing this, which would be almost impossible to do, con has decided to nitpick the wording of the argument claiming that tariffs are only done on products, when it is clear that con knew the actual debate. Instead of focusing on rebutting comments, con has sunk to nitpicking a minor inconsistency. Furthermore, con claims that "they should just go get another job." What con fails to understand is that when jobs leave the US, there are only a finite number of jobs. If they "go get another job," that would just put someone else out of work, causing the exact same problems which con of course fails to address. Moreover, when con brings up carrier, he claims the threat was "hollow." Regardless of whether or not it was, the threat still worked; in other words, this threat was clearly beneficial for the united states. Con claims it is "hollow" because he doesn't understand when it's obvious Donald trump is lying, e.g. "drain the swamp, impose term limits" (which is obviously a lie since congress of course would never pass that bill), vs things which obviously aren't lies, e.g. the threat of a tariff. Con then goes and claims that a threat of a tariff will "only save a couple of hundred jobs," because con's faulty logic simply looks at the carrier situation and not the other jobs that would be saved through a threat of a tariff. In other words, con doesn't understand that EVERY company who moves their company over seas will have this tariff impose on its products, not just carrier. In other words, this threat of a tariff is applied to EVERY company, not just to carrier. Therefore, the benefits would clearly be jobs in large numbers, not just "a couple hundred jobs." Con claims that "no tariff has been mentioned" to carrier, except carrier is clearly smart enough to realize that a tariff will be imposed on their products if they leave. In other words, the message was crystal clear to everyone but con. If the threat were hollow like con claims, then why didn't carrier move? Con again nitpicks wording. Clearly it was a negotiation of a contract since the planes haven't yet to be built. Rather than go after the argument, con continues to nitpick semantics. Rather than focus on editing, I've focused on the actual argument, which is clear.
Donald trump threatening to impose 35% tariff

The more and more I read about Trump, the more I wonder how much is rhetoric, and how much is politician vs empty suit. “Build a wall”.“Drain the swamp”.“Lock her up”. Arguably, these were campaign slogans, sort of. I think we all know building a wall is a definitive centerpiece for Trump’s platform, as empty as it is, and ‘draining the swamp’ is a phrase that plays well, though not much else (according to Trump himself, on that one). He flatly told Hillary, and America during the debate he was going to seek criminal prosecution, so Trump is clearly no stranger when it comes to threats. He talks a great game. It should seem no surprise that in order to be elected on a jobs platform, just as bombastic claims should be made, such as a 35% punitive tariff on companies based in the US, but setting up manufacturing overseas, then selling goods back to the US, or imposing a 45% tariff on Chinese goods should they not “play fair”, though the exact conditions of such a game are nebulous for the threat. So, what exactly happens from threats? After Trump threatened to cancel the Air Force One Project, Boeing stock dropped about 1% in premarket trading (1). I am not confident how that was beneficial. A threat, typically, is an off the cuff remark to rattle a cage, and admittedly, such a tactic might work on some people or groups. However the analytical will realize a threat as hollow, especially when the sources is considered for this topic of debate, and it is hollow indeed. Its almost like Trump’s go to strategy is make a threat, which by this time in his political career is no longer the trump card (PUN!) that he thinks it is. The draw back to a threat? Lets examine: Carrier, despite being in direct negotiations with Trump, still outsourced a significant number of its Indiana manufacturing, and rather than castigate the company and demonstrate his conviction to the matter, Trump instead nearly broke his arm patting himself on the back for keeping a handful of jobs that arguably weren’t going anywhere anyways. In short, the threat was casually dropped when inconvenient to the narrative. That shows weakness, not strength. Secondly, even jobs that “stayed” were going to evaporate anyways due to automation (2). If the goal is to save jobs, what is Trump’s next threat on automating a work-force? Clearly, the other prong of a threat being ineffective is the ambiguity in which such is issued. To what end will Trump go to “save jobs”? We eagerly await the next bombastic remarks to find out. For the next round, we will delve into the supposed benefits of a threat/imposition of a tariff to see whom might really benefit in this instance.(1) http://www.marketwatch.com...(2) https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Donald trump threatening to impose 35% tariff

Donald Trump may not be the smartest person, but one thing is he is a good negotiator. Threatening to impose a 35% tariff is a better negotiating tactic than simply doing nothing. Here are the 2 main benefits: 1) Increases the likelihood that companies don't move overseas since the cost to move has become higher than it was previously. -This means that US jobs are more likely to stay in the USA, which clearly benefits Americans. -This means that companies will be paying more taxes to the government rather than stashing their profits overseas. https://www.washingtonpost.com... 2) Increases his negotiating power with other countries and with the USA as well. -This threat shows strength, an essential asset for negotiating. Keeping negotiating skill level constant, the person with the greatest leverage (strength) will come out with the better deal. Now, like anything, a tariff isn't purely beneficial; there is a cost as well. Tariffs increase the price of goods to the consumer. However, 1) This is merely a threat of a tariff. In other words, if the threat works, then the cost to the consumer remains the same, and the country reaps all of the benefits stated above. 2) Even if the company does move overseas, the country would have moved anyway. In other words, if the company moves overseas when the cost of moving is raised, they certainly would have moved if the cost was lower. 3) Although goods are now more expensive, the price of goods might not actually be as high as the tariff. In other words, since the company saved money by moving overseas (they woe moved overseas otherwise), they are able to make their products cheaper, although certainly the price will have increased. In other words, the price won't go up to the full 35%. 4) The government gets extra revenue. This 35% tariff goes directly to the government's pocket. Although consumers might have to pay more for the product (and this consumption may go down), the overall revenue to the USA might actually increase. (Hard to say whether or not it will, but it is certainly close.) This revenue can be given back to USA consumers in the form of tax breaks, etc. Threatening to impose a 35% tariff has many benefits and very little costs. It is an extremely beneficial tactic to prevent US companies from moving overseas. The alternative, doing nothing, is much more costly.
Resolved: The United States ought to abolish the Electoral College

. .. Oh well. My case: 1) Equality: The Electoral College prevents "one person, one voice" and is detrimental to equality. Larger states have more people per Elector than smaller states, so each individual vote counts less. That means the votes of some people count over others based on the entirely arbitrary factor of where they live. That is very discriminatory against those who live in big states and does not allow all people to be created equal. Abolishing the Electoral College is the only way to promote effective equality which are crucial to a democratic republic such as the US. 2) Democracy: The leaders of our country are supposed to reflect the will of the American people--not the states, the people. The Electoral vote has differed from the popular vote a total of five times, including a very recent one. This shows that the Electoral College is ineffective in communicating the will of the people, which destroys democracy. 3) Outdated: When the Electoral College was created, the Vice President was the person with the second-most Electoral votes. Now, the Vice President is the President's running mate and likely from the same party. The Electoral College maybe used to be effective while multiple parties and points of view were represented in government from a single election, but now that doesn't occur and to promote the will of the American people we must abolish the Electoral College. Also, states' rights is a less crucial issue now than in the 1700's so we should prefer will of people over that of states. 4) Confusing: The Electoral College system, to put it frankly, doesn't make a lot of sense to the average American. According to Washington Post, only 36% of Americans can even name all three branches of government. Expecting these same Americans to comprehend a complicated system of election only confuses them and makes them less likely to be politically active because they can't understand why. Rebuttals to my opponent's case: "Adopted since our founding:" Yeah, it's outdated and time to change it. Also, is-ought fallacy: just because it does exist doesn't mean it should exist. Harder to count individual votes than Electoral votes: That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it anyway. Also, if the race is that close individual votes may need to be recounted anyway such as in the election of 2000. Protects small states: In a democratic country, we need to prioritize the people over the states. In a close election, small states don't matter but the people in them matter. In a landslide election, the people within them still matter. This is just another reason why we should abolish the Electoral College: Small states matter disproportionately with the Electoral College which destroys equality and democracy. For these reasons, I strongly urge a pro vote. Thank you.
Resolved: The United States ought to abolish the Electoral College

First of all, the Electoral College is a system which we adopted since our founding. Also, if there is a close race, isn't it easier to recount all the votes. There are many cases where there was a close election and every vote mattered. If the votes are counted in the country, the margin of error is higher and that could potentially swing the election. Also it protects the small states because in a close election, all the small states matter. Thank you
Resolved: The United States ought to abolish the Electoral College

Resolved: The United States ought to abolish the Electoral College. Round One: Acceptance Round Two: Constructive Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals Round Four: Final Rebuttals (no new arguments) Please be civil. Remember that this is about the debate, and the debate space should be safe for everyone. This means no personal attacks, only attacks on the arguments. Please don't forfeit. I'm fed up with the glitch. BOP is equally shared. Kritiks, semantics, whatever are fine--just be ready to defend them. Definitions: The United States--United States of America Ought--Implies moral obligation Abolish--To completely eliminate Electoral College--A body of people representing the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president By accepting you accept these definitions. Good luck to my opponent, and thanks for a good round.
god is not great

If god is omnipresent, then that means he watched Elisabeth Fritzl get tortured and raped for 24 years without doing a thing about it. So, yes, he did just "let it happen". And who are you to say that he wasn't "enjoying the show"? Do you claim to know the mind of this being? What grounds have you to say that god doesn't enjoy watching people suffer? I'm going to clarify something: I never said that I wanted "divine intervention" from "all the evils of man" and to stop natural disasters. But, if god is really this perfect being, why doesn't he ever help out just some of the time? When parents pray for their child not to be killed off by natural disasters, why doesn't god ever answer their prayers? If I saw someone suffering, and I knew I had the means to help them, I would. I fail to see how you proved me wrong when it comes to god's impotence and malevolence...it's pretty straightforward: god watches people suffer and does absolutely nothing to stop it. So, either he can't, or he doesn't want to. Those are the only two options. Take your pick. Con, I didn't include all of those other civilizations, tribes, societies, etc. because I am not concerning myself with those in this debate. I'm choosing to focus on the god of Abraham because this is the god that a vast majority of people worship today. Please, stop trying to redirect the topic at hand. You say that this god is great for creating the universe and you. It sounds more than just a bit narcissistic to say that god created this entire universe just for you, if that is what you are saying. It's the perfection of narcissism, actually. Why do you keep speaking of the universe and the laws of nature as if they're absolutely perfect designs? Over the course of our planet's existence, 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. Most of the cosmos is not habitable for humans, and around every corner, there's something that has the ability to kill us. The Andromeda Galaxy is going to collide with our Milky Way in about 3.75 billion years. Sure, this will be far beyond us, but the question must be asked: who designed that? Who was the maker of that? These don't seem like the works of a great god, but an incompetent one. Yes, we do know that humans committing evil acts to other humans is immoral, but what I'm trying to point out is that your great and loving god never does anything to help. Here's a question for you, and it goes back to the statement I made earlier in this argument: if you knew that Elisabeth Fritzl was being raped and tortured in a basement dungeon by her father, and you had the means to help her, would you? Of course you would. It's your god who wouldn't, it seems.
god is not great

Yet you assume God just let it happen, as if God is enjoying the show. You want "Divine intervention" from all the evils of man and "Divine intervention" to stop those "natural disasters" that are in the path of "innocent people. " You must think it's about time for God to step in and create utopia so God's children will be forever happy. Pro, I could see your point, if that is the way you believe in God. You fell in the belief trap like those who write scripture about God, the handwriting of man. You went on to say, "If he really couldn't do anything, then he would be impotent. If he really didn't care to do anything, he would be malevolent. " Now he [God] is a man. What insight you have about God, I'm overwhelmed. In Round 1 you stated, "(I am referring to the Abrahamic deity, the god of the Muslims, Christians, and Jews). " Why have you not include all the civilizations, tribes, and societies throughout recorded history and today, where they all had some belief in some Divine that transcends their reality, yet not one culture was found to be atheist. I like to study the empirical. Since humanity throughout the ages believe in some Divine, what they had in common, was this entity created the universe, the rest appears to be inconsistencies in mythical noise. I'll treat this common belief throughout the flux of humanity as some entity, call it God, for lack of a better term. Again, I find this God Great for creating the universe and my existence, while life evolved to the ability of deciphering God's handwriting via the scientific method giving humanity a roadmap to utopia. God's handwriting is in our hands and how we use that knowledge can put humanity on the highway to utopia. As for humans doing evil to others, we know that is immoral. Perhaps, if educational institutions present a subject for the study of morality being a physical force in nature, this world will be a better place to live, for the love and greatness of God is found in that physical force.
god is not great

Thank you for the opportunity of trying to convince my opponent (Pro) why I think God is great. I look forward in a constructive debate, where we will both learn from each other. Pro claims to be an "atheist," but for the sake of this debate, Pro is going to pretend that God is real. Yet he is going to argue about something he does not believe in, is "not great." This is going to be interesting. Those who believe Divinity created our universe should realize that the Laws of Nature are also part of God's creation. Therefore, these Laws are simply the handwriting of God. Through those Laws, God created life. Isn't it "great" to be alive? Oh the Greatness of God! On the other hand, when man goes against, misinterprets, or does not understand the handwriting of God, he approaches the negative side of life's spectrum, which includes death, tyranny, and/or the pursuit of negative-feedback. However, when man uses the scientific method in deciphering the greatness of God by studying God's handwritings, attracts him to the positive side of life's spectrum, that is, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback (Happiness for us humans), known as life's Unalienable Rights. One's faith should conclude these Laws of Nature are the handwriting of God and our Unalienable Rights are part of that handwriting, as we come to realize the force of morality, which is an outgrowth of our Unalienable Rights (the desire for positive-feedback between living-systems), is a representation of God's fingerprint. Those of faith, including preachers, prophets and my Friend Pro, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember that man is fallible, and those who study such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets--and, in some cases, God help us all. It would appear Pro is going to base his argument on scripture, aka the handwriting of man about God. I am going to base my argument on the Laws of Nature, aka the handwriting of God. Before Pro goes into Round 2, I would recommend the following background: http://www.debate.org... With that said, good luck Pro, and let the debate begin.
god is not great

I will be arguing against the idea of a good god (I am referring to the Abrahamic deity, the god of the Muslims, Christians, and Jews). As an atheist, I do not believe in the existence of this god, but if such a being really did exist, it seems I would have no choice but to deem him evil. Here's how the debate will be formatted, once my challenge is accepted: In the first round, the contender will make an opening statement explaining why god is great. In the second round, I will provide my opening remarks and explain why I think god is not great, and the contender will attempt to rebut my opening statement. In the third round, I will attempt to rebut the contender's opening statement, and the contender will argue against my rebuttal (in other words, the contender will attempt to rebut my rebuttal). In the fourth round, closing statements will be made. The current round is open for whoever accepts my challenge to make their first argument.
Parent Accountability Enforcement

Someone over 18 is responsible for their own legal troubles. Sure, when it comes to the home itself (Mortgage, taxes, etc.), the parents are accountable, because they own the house. The owner of a house isn't responsible for crimes committed by the people living in the house. You say over 21 in your first argument. Yes, if someone under 18 possesses drugs, the parent should be fined, but when the drugs are held by the child willingly (Ex. A 16 year old willingly without parental consent possessing large amounts of illegal substance), the child deserves the majority of the punishment, giving the parent a small fine or something similar.
John Bonham was the greatest rock drummer of all time.

I will be debating against Pro's opinion that John Bonham was the greatest rock drummer of all time. I have two main points for my case: 1) How do you measure how good someone is at playing the drums? There is no way. Thus, there is no way to state that someone (John Bonham) is the greatest rock drummer of all time without and way to prove it. 2) Pro couldn't know enough drummers to make the conclusion that John Bonham, out of every drummer that has ever lived, is the best. It is simply not possible to listen to that much music. Making Pro's strong conclusion without hearing other drummers is unjustifiable. No one will ever be able to say that a person is the greatest drummer of all time.