BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
French Should Be An Official Language in the Province of Ontario

My defense of the motion will begin with a partial list of failings of the French Language Services Act.[1] I will then turn my attention to demonstrating the economic benefits of making Ontario officially bilingual. The French Language Services Act designates areas in which Ontarians may receive services in French.[1] 81% live in these areas though forcing some to travel long distances to receive services in French.[1] The Office of the French Language Services Commission, established in 2007, publishes an annual report on the status of French language services in Ontario.[1] The 2014-2015 report found that French speakers have experienced complications in judicial matters ranging from long wait times to ignorance of litigants' rights under the act.[2] Healthcare issues include sub-par services and problems diagnosing and treating problems such as dyslexia in Francophone children.[2] The report also cites issues in education.[2] Having demonstrated the failings of the French Language Services Act I now hope to show the economic viability of implementing the motion of this debate. I will start by looking at the benefits experienced by New Brunswick, Canada's only officially bilingual province since 1969. Pierre-Marcel Desjardins and David Campbell of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages for New Brunswick conducted a study regarding the economic implications of official bilingualism in New Brunswick. They found that bilingualism was "good for business".[3] The study found that New Brunswick had "attracted big corporate players including ExxonMobil, Xerox, ...".[3] The study also found that insurance carriers "expanded their employment in the province by 55% between 2006 and 2013 " citing bilingual workforce as their main motivation.[3] In short, official bilingualism creates jobs. The study also notes benefits in educational achievement and tourism.[3] A study by the Conference Board of Canada done 2013 examines the effect of bilingualism on Canada's economy. 220 million people speak French worldwide in 31 countries.[3] They account for 5.9% of the world's GDP and trade volume with Canada is growing rapidly.[4] Finally, Quebec and New Brunswick's trade volume with these countries was around US$3.5 billion higher due to common language.[4] Clearly, the benefits of being bilingual outweigh the cost. In designating French as an official language, Ontario would profit. Implementation would be easier since Ontario has more key bilingual institutions in place than New Brunswick in 1969. Laws should benefit and serve a meaningful purpose which is why French should be an official language in Ontario. References: [1]http://www.ofa.gov.on.ca... [2]http://csfontario.ca... [3]http://www.officiallanguages.nb.ca... [4]http://cedec.ca...
French Should Be An Official Language in the Province of Ontario

The French language has a long and important history in the province of Ontario. This history should be celebrated and preserved. However, designating a second official language in Ontario would be an almost entirely symbolic gesture, as the French Language Services Act already caters to the needs of specific communities in which French is a dominant language. While there are some concentrated pockets of French-speaking citizens in Ontario, in a broader context, a mere 0.3% of the population speaks French only; 11% speak both languages. [1] Additional legislation should serve a meaningful purpose and benefit. Generally speaking, designating a second official language carries requirements of bilingualism in government offices, services and communications (road signs etc.) across the province. Any of these implementations would result in considerable costs. Are these costs necessary to service the 0.3% of the population who speak French exclusively? [1]https://www12.statcan.gc.ca...
French Should Be An Official Language in the Province of Ontario

According to the Ontario government's Office of Francophone Affairs there are 611 500 members of the Ontario Francophone community. [1] This makes Ontario home to the largest Francophone community outside of Quebec in our home and native land. Yet Ontario is officially an monolingual province. I believe that this should change to include French as an official language. I look forward to hearing from someone who thinks differently. Please note that the debate will be organized in the following way: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Initial Argument Round 3: First Rebuttal Round 4: Second Rebuttal Round 5: Concluding Remarks and Acknowledgements References: [1] http://www.ofa.gov.on.ca...
Abortion should not be funded through tax payer money

http://en.wikipedia.org... Today, in the US, there are about 700,000 abortions a year. This number is in decline. Clearly, someone is doing something right. There is a strong link between abortion rate, and wealth. I can't imagine people who go in for abortions can always afford to pay for it. I'm sure you suggest that these people just don't abort, but this doesn't take care of any underlying problems. God forbid they just do it themselves, or live off welfare, with the inability to care for themselves and the unborn child. I agree with you that sex-ed is a must. I hope this is why abortion is in a decline. I hope women are aware of the abortion process before going into an abortion. However, a woman who needs to take the abortion doesn't have the choice to go back upon understanding, and may need help with the charges afterward. Anyway, there are many abortion opportunities that don't include surgery. I'm not saying you're conservative, but I'm saying that there's tons of things in the government that I don't agree with, but I pay for. "pro choice people will be happy to donate to her if she can't." I think you're a little confused on the goals of pro-choice people. See the start of my first argument. "If you don't want to deal with me you shouldn't be taking my money...The day they stop taking half a billion dollars a year from American tax payers is the day they can create buffer zones" It's like you think that taxes is stealing. It's not your money, it's the government's. You have the right to change what they use it for, the government is based around this ideology. What about all the taxpayers who think people shouldn't attack abortion clinics? You seem to think just because you pay a few taxes means that your country should bend to your will, and yours alone. "It's my money that welfare queens and planned parenthood stole. I can decide what to do with my money" No it's not, it's the governments. This whole thing seems to be based on a sense of entitlement. Yes, you pay your taxes. However, people who disagree with you pays their taxes too. Taxes are just a product of living in a country, and are not yours to decide. Nobody is stealing your money. "Own up to what your doing. Don't hide from it. Many women who get abortions become pro life." Any stats on this? I've heard the opposite.
Abortion should not be funded through tax payer money

Let me begin by defining what a pro-choice position should be (or at least the one I hold). I DO NOT want abortions to happen. I would be happy if nobody had an abortion ever. However, I understand that we don't live in a perfect world, and bad things happen. If abortion were not available, we would instead see self-induced abortions, a higher rate of infant mortality, broken families, ect. Having a clinically monitored, safe abortion system is the lesser evil. I support it, because I understand the horrors of it not being present. 1. I accuse pro-lifers of pushing views because these views usually have a religious basis, and not a basis grounded in reality. I am not saying you fit into this category, but most do. Anyway, a lot of the money you pay taxes to goes into the government. This money is used to fund the political parties. If you vote against abortion, then your money will go to good use. I can promise you that much more of your money goes to conservative political parties than abortion clinics. Besides, I am not conservative. I do not agree with gun laws, ect. Why is my tax money going to them? Because that's the point of living in a government, supporting all views and needs is the point of society. 2. Great! When do I stop paying the conservative parties to lobby putting guns in schools? I will ignore 3, it's not a logical point. 4. And you do have that right! You can vote conservative parties any time you want. Furthermore, you can run into an electorate yourself. 5. I disagree. Mothers who cannot support a child, or cannot afford to take time off work for a pregnancy do not deserve to feel like murderers. Guilt tripping people into your ideology is not correct. Once again, you can go into an electorate and solve the problem with more force, and not have to resolve to barbaric methods of protest. People should understand that standing outside an abortion clinic and hurting the people there is not OK, especially when more correct alternatives exist.
Abortion should not be funded through tax payer money

Abortion should not be funded through tax payer money. 1. Pro choices often accuse pro lifers of pushing our views on them when we speak out about abortion. If they are forcing us to pay for their abortions aren't they pushing their views on us?. Why the double standard. How come it's ok to give tax money to pro choice causes but not pro life causes. I don't work 9 hours a day at a job I don't like so I can pay for something I consider cruel and immoral. 2. No one should be forced to pay for something they don't want to. 3. If abortion is between a woman and her doctor why am I paying for it? 4. As long as my money funds abortion I am a part of it. I have rights to speak out of what I am a part if by force. 5. As long as I'm paying for your abortion I have every right to say whatever I want about it and protest wherever I want. If you don't like my protesting and want to create buffer zones around your abortion clinic than don't use my money. If women feel depressed about seeing pro lifers signs as they walk into the abortion clinic remember whose paying for your abortion--ME. If you don't like our pro life signs than don't make us pay for your abortion. If you can force me to pay for your abortion I can force you to look at pro life images. Thank you!.
Abortion should not be funded through tax payer money

I agree people shouldn't sleep around with people twice their age, and I think this is a very poor example of an abortion. On the flip side, many abortions are a product of irresponsible fathers who ditch as soon as a pregnancy occurs; and in this case if the mother feels abortion is necessary, then I would support it. Margaret Sanger was not racist "http://en.wikipedia.org...; Even if she was, this would not mean you get out of taxes. The debate about fetal pain is complicated. I will not go out and say they don't feel any pain. This is why abortion is a complicated topic, but I stay with my answer that abortion is necessary. I'm sure a fetus will go through much more pain if the mother kills it by force or by poison. Anyway, I also encourage doing it as early as possible, in this case, you know the fetus will not feel pain, and in the best scenario, you don't need surgery to do it. "the baby squirms and tries to get away from it." That's grossly unrealistic. Fetuses respond to stimuli, but are far from squirming away from something that they will perceive to hurt them. Even newborn babies are incapable of this. You do have the right to protest, nobody is taking that away from you. I'm just telling you that you're not solving any problems by doing so. "I don't want to pay for a eugenics group to dismember babies." Well, if you see it as black and white as that, then you're above the rest of us. To me, abortion is a complicated topic where people get hurt no matter what side you're on. I find that paying for a group who will professionally handle abortions, rather than leaving it to the rest of us, is a progressive idea.
Abortion should not be funded through tax payer money

I would love to see less unwanted pregnancies. People shouldn't sleep around with men twice their age and than expect me to pay for their abortion. I didn't force you to sleep around. If people had more access to birth control and didn't sleep around with any guy that smiles at them at the bar there would be less unwanted pregnancies. People also should be aware of the eugenics, population control and money making goals behind the abortion industry. I doubt a black women would get an abortion knowing that planned parenthood began as a racist eugenics group that wanted to exterminate them or knowing that 52% of black babies are aborted thanks to planned parenthood clinics being mostly in minority neighborhoods (80%) I don't think anyone would get an abortion knowing that the baby can recognize their voice at 3 months along or that they feel pain while they are being dismembered. Late term abortion is done by the doctor sticking a tool up the women's vagina and pulling the baby out and that breaking it's neck or cutting it. These babies are viable outside the womb and sometimes come out alive even during legal abortions. In silent scream an abortion of a 3 month old is shown. Once the canula is inside the uterus the baby squirms and tries to get away from it. I don't want to pay for the dismemberment of a defenseless baby. Plenty of people support planned parenthood. They would donate. As long as planned Parenthood takes tax payer dollars that means other people are funding their organization and as long as that's the case those people have an obligation and a right to protest against them. There's no entitlement. I don't want to pay for a eugenics group to dismember babies. An example of a woman who worked at planned parenthood and had two abortions is Abby Johnson. Now she's a pro life activist. Many abortion doctors turn pro life.
Abortion Should be Legal

Because my opponent has not been able to respond, I'll keep my conclusion simple. The issue, if you believe in the immorality of murder, is weather or not humans are always people. If they are not, then we must ask "when?", which would make it very common to accidentally (or intentionally), cross the fine line between humanity and personhood, in which case, the killer has become a murder. So if you draw the line at physical and mental ability, If I wanted to kill someone, I could mame them, then kill them, in which case, I would be accused of assault and battery at the worst. If humans are always persons, then abortion is clearly murder, and there is no more to be discussed. Thank you for the debate, and I am sorry that you couldn't complete it.
Abortion Should be Legal

First, I think that it needs to be recognized, that the main question is weather or not "humans" are always "people", meaning that fetuses and mentally/physically disabled humans have the right to be treated as a person by law. This assumes that we agree that murder is wrong, and defined as "a person killing an innocent person". So first of all, why is a fetus not considered a person? The differences are: time alive, location, physical development/ability, and mental development/ability. I think that the last two are probably what you consider to be the determining factors. Correct me if I'm wrong. So if a fetus were to be born, but ceased to develop, wouldn't it always be ok to kill it under your point of view? What about if I were to cut off all of your limbs, eyes, tongue, and puncture your eardrums (pardon the gore), would that make you a non-person? The line for acceptable abortion is frequently drawn when the baby can survive without the mother. This line makes no sense because technology advancements are consistently making babies able to survive without their mother at a consistently earlier age. Abortion is harmful to the mother in many ways; many women regret aborting their children, abortion is dangerous, sometimes resulting in death or serious illness, and it greatly increases the risk of ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and pelvic inflammatory disease. (1) Adoption is a great option for those who can't or won't take care of their own children. The only reason against adoption is purely selfish: the mother not wanting to know that the person exists because of her actions, and that she wasn't willing to raise it. I would like to point out, that extramarital sex is still wrong from an atheistic perspective because of the damage to society. It spreads AIDS rampantly, raises the issue of abortion, causes divorce, and causes much emotional turmoil. At the least, killing a fetus is still killing a creature, even giving this option to a woman because of her own foolishness is somewhat absurd. In the case of rape, which would you rather kill, the rapist, or the innocent fetus? The rapist deserves punishment, not the fetus. To make abortion legal only for rape is completely illogical, because it would be almost impossible to prove rape, and the court trial would draw unwanted attention. Medical attention soon after rape can prevent pregnancy. 1: http://womensissues.about.com...
Abortion Should be Legal

This argument is to be made without god. Abortion has been around long before conventional medicine, by restricting women the right to have an abortion, they will revert back to these dangerous methods that will either disfigure the fetus, kill it, or kill the mother. By allowing women access to contraceptives and abortions, the number of abortions would both decrease, and the ones that exist will be much safer. Having an abortion will lead to a greater quality in life for both the mother and the child she may have later on. Saying that the fetus should be carried to term and given up for adoption, is not the best option. It puts more pressure on the foster care system and it is a hard decision to make.
Is PS4 better than xbox one

It is time once again for the Console Wars. I will only repeat what other have said many times before me: At this time, so early after release, it is impossible to say. One could argue that the PS4 has the upper hand technology-wise, but that will not matter for squat if it isn't fully exercised in the games made for it. The PS3 had superior performance yet many of the early PS3 ports were graphically horrible. As for Xbone going out of style, I doubt Microsoft's marketing team will allow that.
"To disarm the people that is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason

Yes, I am aware that there are checks and balances, but Congress has not been standing up to President Obama, and if they are not standing up to him, why would they stand up to Hillary (who would be 4 more years of Obama) or to Trump (when there is a Republican majority)? I have already stated why guns are superior to these options, but I feel like it would not be unwise to reiterate my reasons. Guns are quicker to use than bows and arrows. Against guns, knives and swords just don't work. While effective against the target, flamethrowers also risk the safety of the user, the user's family and the user's home. Guns are just overall superior.
"To disarm the people that is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason

We do have Congress in place to try and limit the power of the President and their appointments so that should help stop oppressive actions they take against the people. So without Guns we do have other defensive options from Archery, Knives, Swords or Flamethrowers and possibly other options for preventing intruders, domestic or foreign oppressive forces. I think we have lots of options to not use guns.
"To disarm the people that is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason

I do not believe that it is wise to trust politicians. I do not trust Trump and I especially do not trust Hillary. I prefer Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death." Based on how more than 80% (or maybe 90%, depending on the poll) wants to vote for Trump or Hillary so that the candidate they distrust less to faithfully execute the office of the presidency alarms me. You say that we can elect good people, but we aren't. We are going to either elect, to quote Ross Cohen, "a cross between a sketchy used car salesman and a kooky grandpa who randomly blurts racist statements" or a known liar, cheat and crook. Neither is a good person. Yes, archery could be used as an alternate force, but guns are so superior. It takes time to reload a bow and arrow, when by the time you are ready with the second arrow, you could have already fired a whole round of bullets. First, why would anyone use flamethrowers. It would probably burn down your whole house, while it may take out the intruder, it also might kill you and your family and it will certainly start a fire in your house. Is it worth burning your house down to take out an intruder?
"To disarm the people that is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason

I'm going to trust the Politicians and Government and give them my faith that they will do right versus wrong. If I give up my freedoms they will do good. We are the USA, we can elect good people. Archery could also be used against possible force so I will include that as an option as well. I did also see that flamethrowers are legal too. Not sure how effective they would be but it is an option against multiple invaders. So you have a knife, sword, flamethrower or archery to protect yourself and family.
"To disarm the people that is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason

Guns are necessary to defend ourselves from home intruders and an oppressive government. As you have stated the former, I will elaborate in that one first. If someone breaks into my house, I would want to defend myself the best way possible, and that way would be a gun. You stated that a knife or a sword could be just as effective, but what if they have a gun? Never bring a knife to a gunfight. The 2nd Amendment was made so we could revolt if the government were to become oppressive. And based off of the presidential election, perhaps the government will become oppressive. If the government becomes oppressive, we can forcefully take it back. The Founding Fathers put this in because we revolted against British oppression, and we may need to do that again.
"To disarm the people that is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason

I'm going to argue that Guns are not necessary to use and the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. You can use a knife or sword to defend yourself if your Home is attacked or if the U.S. is attacked by force from another Country. The use of a Knife or Sword can be more effective in close combat and close quarters to defend your Home, Property and Sovereignty. You can also use Pepper Spray to shoot at the perpetrators.
Abortion

my First point is The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution. The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, Remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, " and that "This right of privacy. . . Is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. " therefore if the supreme court finds it okay to terminate pregnancy through abortion I will be okay with it going on in the world or at least the United States of America