BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Child labour in the developing countries should be banned

Hi! I looked into the definition of child labour and you are right, the Oxford Dictionaries does list child labour as "the employment of children in an industry or business, especially when considered illegal or exploitative." However, I have also came across several different definitions as to what is considered a child labour. UNICEF defines it as the "percentage of children aged 5 to 14 years of age involved in child labour activities at the moment of the survey" [1]. As the opposition has stated in the definition, some forms of child labour is illegal and exploitative, but banning all means of work for children is absurd. Even if child labour is some how successfully banned, the children will continue to seek for sources of income because they have no other choice. What most of these children turn to would be criminal activities. Since child labour is hypothetically illegal, anything that the children do in order to raise money for their impoverished families, often without a stable, supportive adult, would be illicit. The prohibition of child labour will most likely worsen the already terrible working conditions. Instead of banning child labour, which turns hundreds of thousands of children into criminals, the world should focus more on improving the environment and the nature of the work the children are taking parts in. I apologize for the confusion between the terms I have used. I will stick to developing countries. I am looking forward to hear the arguments of the con! [1] http://www.unicef.org...
Child labour in the developing countries should be banned

The resolution of this debate is that ‘Child labour in the developing countries should be banned. ’ As Con, my opponent is arguing that child labour in developing countries should not be banned. As Pro, I am arguing that child labour in developing countries should be banned. I note that my opponent has not provided a definition of ‘child labour,’ so I will provide one here. Child labour, according to Oxford Dictionaries, is “the employment of children in an industry or business, especially when considered illegal or exploitative. " [1] I also note that my opponent also switches between ‘developing countries’ and ‘Third World countries. ’ However, those two terms are not necessarily the same thing. For instance, China is considered a developing country [2], but is not a Third World country; instead it is a Second World Country! [3] I now pass this debate over to my opponent, who may continue his case against the banning of child labour in developing (Third World? ) countries. I will present my case for the banning of child labour in developing (Third World? ) countries in the next round. I hope for an intriguing debate! [1]. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2]. . http://www.worldbank.org... [3]. . http://www.nationsonline.org...
Child labour in the developing countries should be banned

Child labour in the third world nations is beneficial to the children. First of all, it provides the children with an option of earning a form of income through legal means. In many developing countries, hundreds of thousands of children are suffering from poverty. This lack of monetary resource forces children to support themselves and their family through illegal means. As most criminals commit their first illicit act during their childhood, legalizing child labour will decrease the overall crime rates in those countries. Secondly, children have right to work if they choose to. Whatever their race or their age are, they still possess the right any humans should have. By disallowing children to work, you are inadvertently taking away their right to live. If they cannot earn through legal work, they will either die or find other means of earning which involves horrific criminal activities that will kill either or both the physical existence of children and the soul and the innocence children possess innately. More arguments will follow soon!
Child labour in the developing countries should be banned

Thank you for your intelligent arguments. I believe that through three rounds of debate, both sides have covered the majority of issues surrounding the topic at hand. Therefore, I will use this round mainly to try to undermine some of the pro's arguments. Proposition mentioned a 'superior' method of trading union. Pro draws certain advantages of trade union for adults. However, pro fails to recognize the fact that the majority of children involved in labour are orphans. Therefore, 'families,' often consisting only of young children, would not benefit much, if at all, from the establishment of trade unions. In addition, unions attempting to change work place conditions will inevitably cause stoppage of work (strike) which means no income for these impoverished families. Also, protecting the rights of children by refusing to recognize the right to work the children has is contradictory. Opposition would like to question if there are suitable evidence of many occurrences that child labour required children to move in an isolated work place. I thank the side proposition for bring up the differences between child labour and child work. However, I do not quite understand the differences between the two. What is the 'minimum age' to work? What pay is considered 'fair' for children and relative to whose pay? The adults? Also, are there such work for children that are mentally, socially, physically beneficial to children in the developing countries? The definition of "child work" seems like jobs that are practically impossible to find as a child in the developing country. The pro suggests education as the solution for child labour. Although I agree that education is beneficial in the long run, it may worsen the present condition greatly. Contrary to what pro has stated, the fact that education is a long-term solution is of great significance. When people are starving and suffering as much as they are in developing countries, the advantages for future are the least of their concerns. What matters to them is the present. Future can only exist if present does and for many of the children and their families in the developing countries, there will be no future if one were to focus on the long-term solutions. I thank the proposition for accepting my debate and providing arguments that resulted in this interesting debate. By the way, how do you italicize phrases? This will be useful in my future debates.
The US Federal Government should mine asteriod.

Hello. I'd like to argue that the US federal governement shouldn't mine asteroid. Round one is for acceptance only.Mine:"an excavation made in the earth for the purpose of extracting ores, coal, precious stones, etc." from http://dictionary.reference.com.... Asteroid: any of the thousands of small bodies of from 480 miles (775km) to less than one mile (1.6 km) in diameter that revolve about the sun in orbits lying mostly between those of Mars and Jupiter.http://dictionary.reference.com...Good luck!
The US Federal Government should mine asteriod.

Contention 1: FundingThis money, as stated in my last round, will be reallocated from another already existing fund. With the philosophy my opponent is using the US should have to focus all of it's tax income on the US debt for years. As I brought up in my last round we will use the money from the resources to payoff the US debt and the money will be reallocated meaning that there will be no new budget increases. Contention 2: REMsMy opponent here again also fails to see my argument last round. We will simply hoard the REMs like South Africa does diamonds. The price will increase and the US will receive a huge profit. So please extend across my argument here. Contention 3: Resource Wars They could do that, but you have to realise that only a few nations out there can actually afford this technology and that very few nations would be competing over these resources. My nuclear war argument still outweighs your space debris argument, because we will see the impacts sooner. Contention 4: DangerMy opponent is completely ignoring the UN co-operation argument so that this will be fair and that nations will not fall apart. This argument also negates my opponent's in Contention 3 showing that my point stands in every contention that I have made.
The US Federal Government should mine asteriod.

REBUTTALS FUNDING How will we get this money while still ignoring the debt upon our shoulders? REM STUFF Similar to platinum, as REM sources become more available, it will decrease in value. RESOURCE WARS The need for resources will only increase, when all the countries compete in a frenzied manner over the asteroids. Although weapons may not be available, the space ships can still crash into each other, creating more space debris and chaos. DANGER This really hasn't worked out well before. One example is the feudal war period. Another example is how Columbus battled with the Indians for the land of America, then claimed that he was the first to discover USA even though he really was not. What guarantees that this type of thing won't happen?
The US Federal Government should mine asteriod.

Contention 1: FundingMy opponent is incorrect. The US will not receive more debt as reallocation of money is moving funds from one area to another from what we already have. We are not using any new source of money. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Contention 2: Why we need it.The reason that I did not bring up any sources stating that they had REMs is, because Con did so in Round 2. I will bring one source up just to please Con though. (http://www.astronomysource.com...)Contention 3: Economic pay backMy opponent fails to realise that the US will just do with the REMs that South Africa does with diamonds. We will keep most of them stored away, like the gold in Fort Knox. The prices will continue to increase while the US will make a profit. My opponent also fails to see that the world will run out of resources by the year 2050 and then nuclear holocaust will occur. (http://www.theguardian.com...) As I brought up last round the nuclear holocaust will destroy the world according to Dr. Chalko. We also do not have the weaponry to put into space for space wars to be remotely possible. The US has tried to put weapons into space before and failed epically in the Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as Star Wars. (http://www.coldwar.org...) My argument stands as we will eventually get to the point that the Earth runs out of resources and will lead to resource wars. While my opponent only speculates that war will occur, because the world cannot co-operate. My impact outweighs my opponent's.Contention 4: Danger As I stated in my last contention the world has failed in 'Star Wars' and that the world will work together via the UN to negotiate peaceful purposes while the US continues to mine asteroids and betters their economy and the world economy. (http://www.howstuffworks.com...)
The US Federal Government should mine asteriod.

REBUTTALS1.FundingYour plan only burdens the US with more debt.2. Why we need it You have yet to give any sources that even suggest that asteroids have REMs.3. Economic pay back As I have already stated, the value of these minerals will plummet as the governments around the world compete to mine it before one another. If there were merely one diamond left in the world right now, that diamond would be at least 100 times more valuable than one diamond in a world with, say, 1,000 diamonds left. It is because of the rarity of platinum, gold, and silver that they are expensive. If we know each asteroid has 7,500 tons of platinum, soon enough, we'd have too much platinum to use, and the unusable platinum would be useless. And plus, World War III could start, with all the country leaders wanting the minerals for themselves, and the war would ensure chaos around the globe and ultimately leave no country able to shoot a rocket up to an asteroid, because each country would be afraid another country might shoot their rocket down for the reason of jealousy. It is because of the fierce competition for property of the asteroids, the US shouldn't mine asteroid, as this may destroy already thread-bare alliances between other countries. My opponent has even agreed that China hoards the REM to themselves and the US can't force China to give the resources up. What is preventing China from hoarding the asteroid property all the same?Your war is nothing compared to mine. My WW3 happens in land, air, water, AND space! Yours doesn't have space, because asteroids don't matter in this case. 4. Danger Well the opposing countries could still send opposing robots to destruct the competition, and the spaceships, if advanced enough, could fire and target on their own, still resulting in the consequence I posed in my "troll argument".Onto you, pro.
The US Federal Government should mine asteriod.

1. It's nobody's propertyNobody really owns space. If the US decides to mine asteroid, as a consequence, other countries will be competing against the space asteroid, and things will only become super complicated as everyone tries to decide who really owns the property, possibly even starting Star Wars! *Ahem* No pun intended. See: . http://www.livescience.com.... This site shows that we are still very confused, uncertain about who really owns the asteroids in the sky. 2. It's super duper dangerousAs stated by . http://www.ask.com..., ". .. an asteroid can travel at the speed of 1,000 miles per hour. As it gets closer to the Earth, the pull of gravity will effect how fast asteroids. .. increase its speed from 2,500 miles per hour up to 50,000 miles per hour. " This shows the danger of sending astronauts onto asteroids. Plus, we'd have to predict the path so the spaceship can drop them off in time to mine the asteroid. This would only require more money, in addition to the building of the rocket and the training of the astronaut miners.3. It's extremely costly, and makes other minerals worth less "To build a space shuttle costs $1.7 billion. On top of that it costs $450 million or so per mission to launch the shuttle into space using 900,000 gallons of fuel. " says . http://www.ask.com.... Plus, even building the asteroid mine would take billions of dollars. Combined together, the project is a complete crazy rip-off price, and it would take lots and lots of mining to reobtain that huge amount of money. And plus, now that new minerals are found, they become more worthless. " One of these asteroids, according to Lewis, would contain 30 million tons of nickel, 1.5 million tons of metal cobalt and 7,500 tons of platinum. " a scientist from . http://science.howstuffworks.com.... Well, it would have been worth a ton of money that would be able to buy hundereds of space shuttles, but we must be reminded that it is because of the rarity of the certain object, that it is worth a lot. Had platinum been as availible as water, obviously it would not be even in the 1000s in a list of "world's most expensive things". And finally. .. .I will post a troll reason to why the US government shouldn't mine minerals. I couldn't reasist. 4. Too much competition, people will die. Simple. Examine the pictures below and make your connections. In conclusion mining costs way too much, will cause too many financial problems, and will cause chaos, war, and death.
The US Federal Government should mine asteriod.

Thanks for the challenge. I accept.For the definition of mine we are going to have to have a different definition since the asteroids will be mined in space and not on Earth, so I will use the second definition of mine from Dictionary.com.Mine- place where such minerals (gold, silver, Rare Earth Metals, etc...) may be obtained, either by excavation or by the washing of soil. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)I look forward to a great debate!
This is Impossible (Troll Debate)

Thank you, TN05 for accepting my challenge. First I'm gonna lay down some ground rules. 1. Profanity is allowed 2. Telling the truth not requiredVOTING This is for you audience. Voting is to be based on who's arguments were the most entertaining, and creative. Not who's arguments were right or wrong. I'm pretty sure most people would agree that a triangle of this shape is impossible to create.Now, let the debate begin! Here are my contentions as to why this triangle is impossibly impossible. 1. Seriously? I can't even distinguish where one side of the triangle ends, and where one begins. So how are we even gonna make one?!? Well, I took a survey and asked people about this triangle. If the picture doesn't work, click this link. http://i.imgflip.com... You see audience, the odds ARE ever in my favor. 2. Space can't even! That's right people, the UNIVERSE can't even handle this triangle. In fact, if this triangle were to ever impossibly come into existence, it would tear a big hole in space and time, and everything would get sucked up. 3. Math can't even I'm gonna call the triangle TR-X. Don't even ask why. 1. So, TR-X is equal to or greater than the square root of unicorns. 2. Unicorns do not exist, therefore by definition, TR-X cannot exist. 3. If TR-X were to come into an IMPOSSIBLE existence, it would cause unicorns to exist as well. 4. If unicorns existed, then they would be able to farm. (http://www.debate.org...) (Unicorns CAN'T EVER BE ALLOWED TO FARM!) 5. Unicorns would kill all our crops with their horns, and poopoooo butter-flies. 6. Everyone would starve and die.. Let me remind you, that while TR-X does not exist in this dimension, it does in our neighboring one, where physics have no meaning. TR-X could come into our dimension if it wanted to, however he does not.(YES, TR-X is alive...and is a He) He doesn't however, because no one believes him to be possible. If you vote for Con, then TR-X will see how people believe in him, and he will cross over into our dimension. Thus, we will get sucked into a hole in space, and then we will be trapped for eternity with FARMING UNICORNS! If image does not work, visit this link>>> http://cdn.memegenerator.net...Vote PRO
This is Impossible (Troll Debate)

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed debating website, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca: Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this debate? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this debate! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm an internet user trying to prove this triangle exists, and I'm talking about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're deliberating and conjugating your vote, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed debating website, it does not make sense!
This is Impossible (Troll Debate)

My opponent's points can be summed up as follows:1. Triangles shouldn't destroy everything2. Unicorns should not be allowed to farm3. I want to kill everyoneTo the first, isn't that a tad bit racist? We allow ourselves to have the technology to destroy everything, so why can't a riangle be allowed to destroy everything? All the poor triangles in the Shape Dimension are living in poverty, and my opponent refuses to let them threaten to kill us. This is preposterous! Triangles are people too!As to the second, my opponent cedes unicorns exist. Why should they not be allowed to farm? The alternative is goring us to death! So while my opponent accuses me of wanting to destroy everything, he is fine with letting unicorns kill us all! Once again: This is preposterous!I reject the idea I want to kill everyone, I'm just giving some idea as to why TR-X may not be evil. Remember: I'm not the one suggesting kids in Africa should die! Call me what you will, but I'm not the heartless b*stard here!Finally, notice my opponent never mentions the proof that the triangle exists in Australia! This is significant proof that a triangle as such exists in this dimension, which means we may all die soon. Vote Con and TR-X will save you and your close family. Trust TR-X and you will live!
This is Impossible (Troll Debate)

Audience I daresay that my opponent thinks destroying the universe will help everyone. But I'm the heartless b*stard." destroying the universe shouldn't be a big deal, and it might actually help"You see people, the evidence is overwhelming. I'm not going to lay down, and let a damned triangle wipe out all of human civilization, and whatever else is in our universe. ALSO....unicorns................... *C_A_N_T B_E A_L_L_O_W_E_D T_O F_A_R_M!!* IN SHORT, TR-X IS FREAKING IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE, NO MATTER WHAT!My opponent also says that I want to kill kids in Africa. He VERY clearly says " MY OPPONENT WANTS KIDS IN AFRICA TO DIE!"(he the calls me a b*astard as well)However, he also says he wants to destroy the f**king universe......Sir, I just I just......really don't understand, I mean............*sigh*My opponent negated his own arguments, and made no sense at all, therefore.....ProWINS
This is Impossible (Troll Debate)

http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... I accept all rules. It is quite obvious it is possible, and possible to make.1. It existsHow can you deny it is possible? It has been made! There are many videos of people making it. In fact, a town in Australia made it! Unless my opponent asserts that Australia is not real, he loses! But as a matter of fact, my opponent claims the universe does not exist. That's right, my opponent asserts nothing is real! If nothing is real, than the true real is nothing - that is, all that is real is nothingness, which would include this triangle. Logic cannot be beaten! 2. The universe is overratedWho cares if the universe explodes? Nobody! In fact, hardly anyone would mind if the universe was destroyed. Everyone knows the universe is very big, and I'm sure our neighbor universes are a bit mad at us taking up all this space. Heck, we don't even use most of it! The universe is at least 150 billion light years in diameter, meaning that for every light year there is about 0.05 people. We've destroyed entire villages with a population density higher than that, so destroying the universe shouldn't be a big deal, and it might actually help our neighbors! Everyone knows if you don't like helping people, you are a heartless b*stard, and I hope you would not choose not to make this triangle because it might help people.3. UNICORNS EXISTHOW DARE YOU say unicorns don't exist! Every day hundreds of invisible pink unicorns fly around my house! More importantly, HOW DARE YOU say unicorns shouldn't be able to farm. How else will unicorns eat aside from goring people with their horns? Further, my opponent asserts if unicorns could farm they would kill our crops and sh*t butterflies, and we would all starve and die. With all due respect, wouldn't unicorn farming increase the amount of food available, becuase there would be more farmers? My opponent once again proves he is a heartless b*stard because more farmers equals more food, and more food equals less hungry people. MY OPPONENT WANTS KIDS IN AFRICA TO DIE! Also, I believe in this triangle existing, so by my opponent's admission TR-X would come visit us, meaning he exists! HA!