BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Fortune" Allows Certain Teams, as well as Certain Athletes, to Take Unfair Advantages

Doping tests are not 100% accurate. Even if the inaccuracy is relatively low, it means that those low percentages of athletes are getting away without their dope-cheating penalised. For example, Michael Phelps passed the drug test during the Olympics but was caught after the Olympics when a photo of him doping spread via the Internet. This shows that some athletes do get past through the drug tests of the Olympics and have a chance of not getting caught. Also, passing this resolution will be problematic on a greater scale simply because it is the teams of the caught that are getting their medals taken away, while the undetected minority will celebrate their fortuitous violation, along with their team members. However, if this resolution passes, just because of a single individual, the entire team has to get their medals taken away. It is unfair for the TEAMS that do not get caught. It will be fair if all the individuals that broke the rules gets their medals taken away, but that is not possible because drug tests are not infallible and thus there will always be a lucky minority who will get away with their own violations. This is extremely unreasonable, since “TEAMS,” not just individuals, should not have unfair advantage over others contingent on mere luck. Passing this motion would only complicate the existing problem, as now this wouldn’t simply be individuals against individuals, but it’d also involve team vs. team “race to the bottom.” Furthermore, most of the times, the entire team wouldn’t be aware of any surreptitious intake of chemicals by athletes prior to Olympics. Thus, the entire team must not be held responsible, as other teammates have little or no direct control over one’s dope-cheating. The Proposition never provided any justifications on penalising the violating athletes and their teammates alike, where the teammates may have had no idea about one individual’s secretive wrongdoing.
Punishing the entire team is unjustifiable especially when an athlete who doesn't even participate can ruin the whole team's career.

This debate is about whether the teammates hold the responsibility for one teammate’s wrongdoings. The whole team doesn’t win when one person does a good job; for the same reason, we believe the WHOLE team cannot lose because one person did something bad. Why should we punish people who have earned medals when one team member makes a bad decision that others didn’t or might’ve not known about? It was the athlete’s decision and s/he should be held responsible for his/her actions, not the teammates. Like we’ve mentioned in previous arguments, proposition had a fallacy in their argument that this motion would create social pressure as it was based on a heavy assumption that these teammates knew what was happening at all times. This assumption fails to apply to all of cases and also does not explain why the teammates deserve to be stripped of their medals if they were to deserve the medals as any other athletes who played accordingly to the regulations. Even if teammates knew, this wouldn’t necessarily cut down motivation for the athlete to stop dope usage because their motivation solely depends on winning, and they will instead try to hide the fact they are doping from their teammates which can actually increase negative health risks as prop is concerned about. Also, we have to consider the alternate athletes of the team. The motion does not deal with Olympic participants, but team members. We should be aware that a team is often made up of the number of people they require plus an alternate. An alternate athlete is given the opportunity to participate in a competition when the main athlete gets injured or sick; they may not play in the game but are still considered as a member of a team. Alternate athletes may not even participate in the game, but for the fact that they used dope, they have the potential to ruin their whole team’s career. With this in mind, it is evident that punishing the entire team is unjustifiable.
Not being harsh on doping causes a race to the bottom

Sports are one of the most universal cultural expressions, they have been so at least since the times of ancient Greece and they bring together people from all over the world to show off the results of their efforts in an environment of healthy competition. Like all other cultural expressions, mankind has steadily civilized sports: banning tactics that deliberately cause injury or harm to other athletes, using more referees so they can monitor competitions better, among many others. The institutions behind these measures are regulatory bodies, who must ensure that any given sport does not decrease its safety levels over time. The best way to do this is by setting minimum standards everybody must comply with, especially those athletes or teams willing to resort to tactics that sacrifice their own long-term health so they can have an edge over the rest of the competitors. If regulatory bodies did not do this, sports could degenerate as athletes engage in a "race to the bottom". Those who are desperate to win, would voluntarily start putting themselves in harms way by using performance-enhancing, yet health-endangering drugs in order to beat their competition. If they are allowed to succeed by choosing medals over health, then any competitor athlete wanting to win as well would be forced to choose between losing the competition or losing his own health. Thus, the consumption of these substances would go from voluntary to necessary. This would serve as a deterrent for healthy people to practice sports competitively so they can stay healthy, thus disenfranchising the people willing to keep sports clean and setting an horrible example for generations to follow. In the end everybody loses: all athletes would end up using drugs -and suffering the health drawbacks- without gaining any real edge over their competitors.
This policy creates the social pressure needed to stop someone from cheating

We believe individual sanctions are not working. Sanctioning the whole team will substantially improve the status quo. Today, tests are done randomly or in cases of suspicion (i.e. when records are broken), so for athletes that choose to use prohibited substances the worst-case scenario is to get caught and bear the responsibility of their actions themselves. But if we increase the cost of getting caught by punishing their olympic team, the individual athletes who used to use these substances would have to face harsher consequences both for themselves and their team if he/she is caught. They will have to face condemmnation by the team, probably have fights with their teammates, and the fact that they ruined the team's performance will give them a huge burden to carry throughout their entire life and will negatively effect their reputation with the fans. For instance, if a soccer player during a match is tempted to commit a gross foul during the game, and he knows he could be expelled for such an action, maybe he would not mind doing so, if for him it is not a big deal to stop playing. But since expulsion means the team will play with 10 players instead of 11, he knows such an action would bring a negative effect for the whole team, so this pressures him into being more careful not to break the rules, because his actions could punish the whole team. Therefore, teammates will be angry at the individual who committed the gross foul and would blame him for the problems he created for the entire team. So, this policy creates peer pressure. Athletes working within a team, will want their teammates to behave properly and not to consume prohibited substances. If those who do not use drugs did not care in the past about whether or not their teammates used drugs or not because that was "their own business", will now be forced to care since they could be affected. So now everyone is pressing drug-users to stop consuming them, because now it is everyone's business.
Workers, living & transportation

A second problem derived from the policy concerns the labor force of the CBDs. While it is true that a “car free zone” may actually help to reduce traffic within the area, it wouldn't ease the transportation requirements of its population. As noted by the affirmative team residents of CBDs could take advantage of this policy, but Business Districts are not intended to serve as residential zones. In his book Commercial Structure and Commercial Blight, Brian Berry explains why land value is higher in CBDs than in any other place[1] , and given the high cost of the land the population of this areas is reduced and living there is affordable exclusively for executives and top directors. But we most keep an eye in the rest of the labor force of the big companies, the majority, as all of these other employees come from other zones in the cities or even from different cities just for the labor journey. Forcing all of these persons to travel by public transportation from their far away residences to the Financial Districts would take a really efficient system -fast, cheap, secure, clean, and always accessible- for making the measure successful. Truth is that there are not too many countries that can claim to have one of those. In the everyday experiences people face with crowded buses, dirty installations and a lot of irregularities that make it much more easier for them to travel by car, this with the normal amount of passengers, now if we add all of the people that are going to change their means of transportation then those anemic systems would collapse. In order for the policy to succeed then we need to restructure not only the CBDs transport, but the whole city’s transportation system! It is of course a titanic effort that takes lots of investment and resources which would make the situation difficult to come true, the initiative would just turn into a daily headache for workers.
Why banning cars isn’t a smart decision

I dare you dear proposition to take a look into one of the streets of Raffles Place or of any other ironical CBD around the world. Places conceived for maximizing efficiency. How? By using cars! That is the reason why you’ll find yourselves surrounded by traffic lights, parking lots, big avenues and gas stations that were all built for supporting the smart and efficient drivers. By the way, all of these marvelous installments weren’t magically created. Governments had to make use of taxes to give maintenance to streets. Entrepreneurs spent millions in building the parking slots in all of the skyscrapers. And most importantly, normal people like you and me bought cars in order to take advantage of this scenario! Because doing it would lead them to easier and more comfortable lives. The prohibition of cars will take away the soul-purpose of the investments of all of these groups. It’ll turn what was once a very rentable active into an obsolete and depressing passive. Appealing to the recycling of this resources, like the transformation of big avenues into quicker effective transportation and better investment is false and wrong. Government may have the resources for doing it but it doesn’t justify the frittering of billions of dollars that those roads cost to all of the citizens [[ftp://ftp.dot.state.fl.us/LTS/CO/Estimates/CPM/summary.pdf]]. Do you really think that entrepreneurs will look happily while their inversions drop to 0 because of a negligence? Like constructing the parking slots and gas stations, remodeling them for making them again usable costs money, and a lot of it. What about the civilians who will be forced to watch how their cars powder in their garages because they can only use them when they don’t have to work? That is certainly not what they bought them for, hours of effort going to waste. It is actually an abuse! To protect the investments of the many people who rely on the effectiveness of the usage of car, we beg you to oppose th
On avoiding the inefficiency of commerce as the basic function of City Centre

Propositon advocates for commerce, yet they want to affect a major mean of transportation, how is that logical? We will prove it is counter-productive. The main objective for the PROP side is just to avoid traffic jams, with the reason for that being that, somehow (we still didn't understand the logic behind that how, though), the fact that people lose time while in traffic makes them inefficient. Even if that was logical, the truth is that people that work in those commercial and financial districts obviously take the fact that there is certain traffic into consideration when working in those centers however the important fact is that in order to continue to be employed they have to work all of their hours and do their job effectively, otherwise they would be fired from the company, for as simplistic this is, it is logical and real unlike an assumption of inefficiency. Secondly, the fact that there is traffic in those centers actually doesn't affect commerce or transportation significantly because the objective of those CBDs are built that way is so that major financial institutions and corporations are all close together to facilitate commerce and so in that way it takes minutes to go from any place of that CBD to another one walking or even by car with traffic. For example, Frankfurt's Innenstadt is just .6 square miles while the World's largest CBD (in New York) is 7.82 and Chicago's is the only other CBD in USA that passes the 3 square miles[[demographia.com/db-cbd2000.pdf]]. What does that mean? That traffic is not a real obstacle at CBDs. Prop says that they believe on not giving people full liberty to use their property in order to maintain a CBD functioning yet as we have said, its function is not affected at all and we will explain in one of our arguments below how it is wrong to deny someone to use their well-earned car as a means of transport. We will also talk about how we don't oppose public transportation however cars are needed in this system.
The policy will help the transformation of CBD

Really? Meeting people is the problem? Prop is basing this argument in 2 assumptions: 1st, that all people are extremely socially active as to have the necessity of talking to strangers in the streets. 2nd, that workers do not interact with others at all. Into the first one: A clarification of prop’s priorities is needed, if they pretend to defend efficiency then why should workers be meeting new friends in the streets of Polanco instead of heading straight to work (remember that now they take longer, as they have to travel by public transport), I thought that was what Fridays and parties were for. The other thing is that fortunately most of them have it clear that they’ve got a responsibility with their jobs and thanks to this and to the typical behavior of people they don’t tend to be searching conversations anywhere, it could also be dangerous. Second assumption. Actually CBD workers do not have their job stations at bunkers, they have colleagues and partners to whom they can talk to and relax during lunch or other moments. Also companies are conscious about the rhythm of life in cities and this is why they implement activities like picnics and balls for they employees, meaning that they don’t really have a necessity nor an incentive for increasing their friends in Facebook. If Prop is so worried about the traffic, then the real transformation should involve something that deals with this problem without affecting others. And as evidence supports public transportation is losing devotes [[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/02/public-transit-a-bad-product-at-a-bad-price]], the real change comes along with the improvement of the existing vehicle infrastructure, taking the best out of what we have. Ideas like the development of superstreets by the NCSU [[http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/wmshummersuperstreets/]] may prove to be the answer to what this debate is looking for. Obviously, the first step towards transformation is opposing to this motio
Increased traffic as a result of the prohibition of cars

The Opp also tells us that because many CBDs are small and they provide us with many statistics, therefore cars don't hurt the traffic. Again, their evidence just further undercut their case. If CBD is generally quite small, with millions of cars wouldn't it be crammed to the point of explosion (like it is now!) and that helps facilitate traffic? The answer is NO. More importantly If they are small, then businesses are just within walking distance, several subway or bus stops away, would that be easier for people to run between meeting than get stuck in the car. Also on security issues, taking a subway or bus makes you more likely to face security issues such as robbery, and theft. In order to make this point at least stand, the Opp should tell us how driving a car makes you less likely to be robbed and stole from. And the evidence can point to the other direction: you can have your car stolen while you are at work; you can have the robber hiding in your car and attack you or just smashing your window which is more likely to make you hurt.....And in the subway or bus, at least you can get help from other passengers! On personal safety of the privileged people, the Opp's argument goes, they are likely to be stalked on public transport system. Well please heed the definition, if these people are privileged to hire body guards, then the vehicle they are using is not a private car because there are organizations who have vested interested in sending their car for the "privileged ones" to use in order to make them better protected.
What commerce in CBDs is really like

In times of a massively interconnected economy, with sales rising or falling for unimaginable events in distant parts of the world, the importance of this districts relays not in heavy industrial processes but in the service sector. The similarity among the firms located in CBDs reside in that almost all of the establishments there are dedicated to administrative and financial labors, not mattering if the enterprise sells cars or if it is an important telecommunication firm. We will find executives, managing directors, officers and employees which jobs are far from being the sedentary tasks of staying in an office 8 hours a day. No, this class of workers requires jumping from meeting to meeting, they may need to travel themselves to supervise the correct fulfillment of a project in one of the enterprise’s facilities, or they’ll need to take care from an international client who has come to close a deal. Given the conditions of their jobs they may also require to carry themselves valuable and ostentatious objects as cell phones or laptops, a change of clothes, documents and things which are difficult to be controlled by just two hands in one same moment. Viewed from any of the perspectives it is clear that having a car is not a luxury for them, it is a requirement for their jobs and it is the reason why many companies take the initiative to provide their employees with a vehicle so that they can always be in time for their appointments, with the necessary equipment and without incidents. As simple as it sounds. Substituting their transportation means may mean a decrease in efficiency, because no matter how good a public transport is, it will always take more time than traveling by your own in your car. Even if the delay is minimum, let’s say 20 minutes more than a car journey per trip, a person who needs to attend to 4 different meetings in a single day will require more than an hour more than if he had travelled by car. Quite an elevated price to pay.
México Summary

There are three key questions: 1,-Will this measure prevent traffic? This was the most discussed issue since Prop defined that as the problem they tried to solve and we have clearly made the point that it won't be the case. Prop started off the debate by saying that, obviously, traffic jams are caused by cars, however there was not major analysis on that whilst we said that actually blocking the main artery of a city will give it a heart attack, since cars need to go through the centers in order to get to other places (or through) the city and here they would need to go around, something answered, whilst we also said a better investment is to improve roads. 2.-Will it affect commerce? Yes because traffic isn't much of a problem within the CBDs since, as we said, they're purposely built small so everything is close together and by walking distance so the people actually walk there, however the nature of the people working there requires them to use their cars a lot (such as for supervising projects or transporting clients) since they are active and need to be moving from place to place carrying laptops, without necessarily the public transport system being able to carry them everywhere, so in the end their policy will be the one that affects commerce. Prop's main reason on commercial harm is that somehow for being in the traffic, people stop being efficient however Opp said that those workers take their cautions and are obliged to work their hours, regardless of the hours they lose outside work. We also said that with slower routes, the industries will suffer losses, as will the government and its road investments . Their point of meeting friends in the subway was just pointless; we said relationships are done at the office and parties. 3.-Should the right of using cars be denied? No, because Prop says that using cars is irrational, first by saying that people only use cars to show wealth and when we made our rebuttal saying that actually in some cities the majority of cars have darkened shields/windows they changed their minds saying that the reason was stupidity in the people thinking cars are quicker than the public transportation, and we said sometimes they are , and even in those cases where they aren't, the truth is that they prefer to use their well-earned investment of car where they can be more comfortable even if they are willing to take more time, this is a matter of being their own choice, which Prop tried to cut on the basis that people are irrational. Most people clearly prefer traffic than public transportation. Moreover there could be other reasons such as security, and Prop answered that cars can still be targets for crime, but we said that they could be a less vulnerable target. Then our point of high profile people fully stands on our side since Prop only answered saying they could still use security companies since they are public, something that is obviously not true. They do a direct harm here. Opp made its point clear.