BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Invasion of Iraq Was an Illegal Act of War

My opponent appears to have a fixation on the notion of if a certain resolution can not be enforced, it may as well not have existed. Rebuttal! Con does not refute nor deny the fact that the invasion was indeed in direct violation of the U.N. charter as explicitly declared by former Secretary-General of the U.N., Kofi Annan, back in 2004. What my opponent does try to establish is " The US is a sovereign nation, which for the purposes of this debate means that we answer only to ourselves. As such I will only debate in terms of what actually has consequence -and that is the United States Constitution." Which would be a solid argument had this been an internal affair of the United States. Unfortunately for my opponent, he seems to be oblivious to the fact that the war in Iraq was an INTERNATIONAL affair. Meaning that sense the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land noted by the supremacy clause in article VI clause 2, we cannot infer that any external forces that come into play fall under our jurisdiction or our constitution's jurisdiction. The constitution is the supreme law of OUR nation's land i.e. the United States and nobody else. Because the invasion of Iraq was an international affair (as determined by the "coalition of the willing" below) we can easily assume that the military actions on Iraq were simply no longer under our nations supreme law but under international law. The coalition of the willing entailed 30 countries of whom where to be publicly associated with the effort to invade and "disarm" Saddam's regime in Iraq. Within this coalition support seemed to be rather lacking however aid from said nations come in such forms as quote "Many of the countries on the list are from Eastern Europe, where countries like Romania are providing basing rights, while Poland has offered 200 troops and the Czech Republic is sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit." While other countries such as Japan prepared to pay for the "post-conflict" reconstruction costs of Iraq. With this in consideration it's indeed clear that the invasion of Iraq was in fact an international affair. As such we must in order to determine the legality of such actions look to the international law as defined by the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which as I've stated in R1, preemptive war as in the justification of the invasion with the absent element of self-defense against an armed ATTACK shows in hindsight the invasion was internationally illegal. Sources: http://www.guardian.co.uk... (Kofi Annan's declaration) http://news.bbc.co.uk... (Coalition of the Willing Info) http://www.worldpress.org... (Invasion of Iraq and International Law) http://www.un.org... (U.N. Charter)
The Invasion of Iraq Was an Illegal Act of War

Let us first stipulate that legality or illegality of anything is contingent upon enforcement power. If I rob someone then the government can incarcerate me. If the government couldn't incarcerate me then laws preventing robbery are meaningless. The UN cannot compel the US to act in according to its will. The power of the UN begins and ends with the imposition of sanctions that are of no consequence to US foreign policy because the US has veto power. The US is a sovereign nation, which for the purposes of this debate means that we answer only to ourselves. As such I will only debate in terms of what actually has consequence -and that is the United States Constitution. Constitutionally speaking, the Supreme Court has identified the president as the "sole organ" of foreign policy. The effect then is to reserve the area of foreign policy decisions exclusively to the legislature, with a few noteworthy exceptions mentioned in Art. I. If the US were at "war" (in the legal sense) with Iraq then the "war" would be legal, because congress authorized funding for the troops. The War Powers Act gives the president the authority to invade a country for a set period, but the caveat to that authority is that after that set proscribed amount of time (something to the effect of 60 days or so) congress must approve funding to continue occupation. In the case of Iraq, congress has not only approved funding, but it has steadily increased since the "invasion" began. Yet, this isn't really a "war" per se, as we consider "war" in the traditional legal sense. Iraq is, technically speaking, a police action -no more. While the effect of the two is virtually indistinguishable, the legal ramifications for one or the other couldn't be farther apart. There has been no sustained constitutional challenge to the War Powers Act that would undermine its authority. Bush had the authority to invade Iraq. Wether you agree with his ends or not, his means are perfectly legal. As for my opponents arguments: The UN has no enforcement authority on the United States. Additionally, the US (as a permanent member of the UN Security Council) has veto power over any act of the UN. The UN has no compelling authority over the United States, and it is much the other way around -the UN is little more than a clever collection of non-superpower nations who merely enjoy the privilege of sitting at our table. As such, Article 51 is of no consequence and therefore any argument which would stem from it holds no water in this debate. My opponent's next argument deals with "preemptive war." I have already discussed the UN at length and the legal differences between a war and a police action, and thusly I see no reason to occasion the reader to endure it again. My opponent also briefly touches on the morality of "preemptive war" which is a debate I am happy to engage in, even though it is grotesquely beyond the scope of the framework he laid out for this debate (only the legality of US activity in Iraq).
The Invasion of Iraq Was an Illegal Act of War

I wish to debate the legality of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003. It is in my opinion, that this action was an illegal act of aggression in the eyes of the international law as manifested by the UN charter which clearly states in article 51: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security." To summarize, states have the right to defend themselves against ARMED ATTACKS. Knowing that there isn't a shred of evidence that links the state of Iraq with the attacks on September the 11th, we couldn't possibly say that the invasion of iraq was a justified act of retaliation against an armed attack simply because we weren't attacked by Iraq! Which brings us to preemptive war... Preemptive: Taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent. Everyone knows it's the center piece of the bush doctrine. However is preemptive war legal? Once again according to the U.N. charter article 2, section 4 clearly stipulates against "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state" Importantly justifying that is in no longer considered an act of defense if your state is not being attacked. In other words, preemptive war is illegal! One of the biggest advocates of preemptive war, neo con Richard Perle even admits that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. The quote was ""I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." Conceding that yes the invasion was illegal, however he felt it was "morally right". In closing, with the clear violation of the UN Charter and the clear admission from Richard Perle. I believe regardless of whether you personally feel it was justified or not, its fair to say the the invasion of Iraq was indeed an illegal act of aggression. Sources: http://www.wagingpeace.org... (Article 51 of UN Charter) http://www.guardian.co.uk... (Richard Perle) http://en.wikipedia.org... (Article 2 of UN Charter)
Stateless society.

I don't know if this debate was meant for me but this should be fun regardless. A stateless society cannot exist because if there is no higher power in a nation the nation collapses due to chaos. In fact Anarchy (No government) is actually more oppressive. Without any government there are no rules. This means I can own a slave or kill someone for no reason. There is no penalty or any wrong in threatning someone to work for you without pay. A government creates laws which allows everyone to succeed in life however anarchy just favors the brutes of society. So this negates Pro's claim that a Stateless society can thrive because many of the population will be under constant threat and not have freedom to do what they want. http://www.seesharppress.com... Not only this but without a state there can be no given services. No mail, healthcare, education. Many companies as well will leave the US as well because there wouldn't be a profit. Many of their items will be stolen so what would be the point. Any laws made by a group of people would create a government and this would of course be against what my opponent is talking about. The death toll would be tremendous because people will simply kill others to get what they want or they will die because companies will not use the country as a business partner so many people will not get their bare necessities and only the brutes of society will get ahead. In a anarchist society there is no need for intelligence. If you are not physically strong it doesn't matter that you have a 1000000000 IQ level, your going to get your belongings stolen and probably get killed in the process. If your society does not value intelligence then it will fail. Now maybe my opponent will say "No! What if everyone didn't do these things." My opponent would be talking about a Utopia. In that case any idea in the world would work. People want things and they will do anything sometimes to get them. A State is always needed to enact laws and provide services to help those without whereas no State will equal Survival of the Fittest (Not intelligence wise however) Vote CON
Stateless society.

I am an Anarcho capitalist, and I will be arguing that a state does not need to exist in order for there to be a thriving society. My opponent will be arguing that the state is necessary. My conditions are: My opponent states his opening argument in round one, I start round two and we continue the debate until around five where I make my last argument and my opponent can only make us closing statement, with no additional arguments. This is fair because I gave up around one to state the rules of the debate.
Stateless society.

Since ive made my overall points I will refute Pro's claims in round 2 I will be starting with Paragraph 4 since 1-3 was just background. The State/Government INCREASES competition. If the State did not meddle in the economy then a monopoly could rise and dominate the competition leading to LESS competition. If there was no government then all the gas companies would have a meeting and raise prices for gas. The government stops them by having things called price ceilings where a company cant rise the price over that specific number. Wall Street and Rockefellers Oil Industry and PERFECT examples of what happens when the government stops regulation. That's why companies need to be broken up to increase competition. But no government. .. .no power to do that. Taxes are used for government services. Not only that but they help fund the military and other government agencies. Without taxes sure youll keep some of your money but your not going to get any aid or anything. Not only that but there isn't a police force because of no funding! No laws so no need for police. Unless of course you make laws. But then you just created a government which, again, is against your thought process of anarchy. Now on to the point of the of you "forcing" me to debate you. You cant come to my house and hold a gun to my head and force me to debate you because we have LAWS. In a anarchist society you could do this with no penalty. I think this hurts your case even more because using a gun to coerce people and even kill people with no penalty is the norm in an anarchist society. Your comparison of armed robbery to paying taxes is ridiculous. If you want to live in the USA you need to pay your fair share of the pie to help keep the country going. Comparing that to somebody "breaking your legs" is an example of ignorance. Not only this but liberal ideas (my ideals) would have a progressive tax that would help ease the burden of somebody that would be struggling to make ends meet. Again your analogy about the government outlawing competition is null and void because I explained that a government/State actually increases competition. Your explanation of how free services aren't good quality falls on deaf ears because in an anarchist society you get NO services at all. You say that state officials could be violent. .. .Yes that's why the people have the ability to get them out of office. You might say "well what if he doesn't want to get out of office and becomes a dictator". Then let me ask you this. Out of the almost the 280 years of the US HOW have we NOT have a power greedy official. Ill tell you why! They don't get elected. And if they do their power is short lived Your argument about service provision is also absurd. Because the US hasn't nationalized the fashion industry your willing to give up the military, healthcare and the legal system. That makes sense! (not). There is a reason that anarchy is portrayed as chaos and bad.
Outsourcing is beneficial for the US.

My opponent never showed how in sourcing and outsourcing directly correlate, simply why not just insource the and jobs and don't outsource jobs? Also my opponent claims we would only gain better like computer 'programming'. Hate to break it to you, but the top 1% of Americans in programming are equal to the top 50% of programmers coming out of India (talk to Google, the company). Basically, even if the people are paid out of the US (but really, jobs like programming can be done anywhere in the world they have Internet access) that doesn't mean Americans are getting jobs. When they 'insource' these jobs they bring the laborers with them. Jobs insourced to America aren't even with American companies, "includ[ing] plants that assemble German and Japanese automobiles" (NCPA). When Americans start doing grunt jobs for other countries that's 'cause we're no longer a top tier country, and we have lost that edge because of outsourcing.
Outsourcing is beneficial for the US.

Actually, outsourcing still facilitates this switch from a manufacturing to service economy. I admit service outsourcing exists in the US, yet this debate forces us to look at it on a holistic scale.The amount of jobs insourced increased by 82% while those outsourced increased by 23% (NCPA). Furthermore, 6.4 million jobs (NCPA) were insourced from other countries. Outsourcing facilitates this insourcing as it frees up jobs that are incompatible (efficiency wise) to replace them with better higher paying high end service jobs. Therefore we gain more better jobs (programming jobs etc.) and lose the lower end service jobs (Tele operator) and manufacturing jobs. We have insourced 6.4 million jobs due to the opened job opportunities created by outsourcing, higher than the 2.5 million jobs lost. We only have lost jobs at the moment due to the recession and increased output- not due to outsourcing. In fact, if it weren't for outsourcing we would not have insourced and we would be worser off.
Outsourcing is beneficial for the US.

My opponents main arguments involves changing the US economy from Manufacturing (which we're now outsourcing) to Service (which he says pays better). That may have been what was happening a couple of decades ago, but now the "IT service industry takes up 28% the total outsourcing market" (http://www.logicaster.com...) with "58%" from the service market. Example: When you call customer service, who do you get? A guy with a nice, clear American accent? No, you get an Indian guy with an accent so think you can barely understand it. The US international trade commission reported the "14 million" (http://hotdocs.usitc.gov...) more American jobs are at risk of being lost due to outsourcing by 2015. Outsourcing is not 'beneficial' (Advantageous, helpful [dictionary.com]) if millions of Americans are losing their jobs when they could be employed. Look @ the current US unemployment rate: 9.2%, beat America wished it had those jobs back now, huh?
Outsourcing is beneficial for the US.

Rbtl to C1} Outsourcing has actually led to a holistic increase in wages. My opponent's source remarks that wages in the manufacturing sector in the US have decreased. According to Holger Gï¿½org and Ingo Geishecker (University of Nottingham), outsourcing has increased service jobs wages by 3.3% and decreased manufacturing job wages by 1.8%. On a holistic scale, we see a net increase in wages (3.3% vs 1.8%). What is more important is that service jobs also inherently have higher wages (30% higher), and outsourcing facilitates this shift from a manufacturing to service economy. Rbtl to Rbtl} My opponent claims that we have lost 2.5 million jobs, yet you must realize that this is not a loss rather a transfer and a shift. For example, from 2001-2006, the unemployment rate hovered around 4-5%, if, as my opponent claims, outsourcing is so detrimental, we would have seen a change in the unemployment rate. The truth is that the jobs lost were regained in the service sector of the economy.
Outsourcing is beneficial for the US.

As globalization has connected the world, cultural advancements in underdeveloped countries have allowed for massive amounts of cheap labor that have caught the eye of many American businesses. The Brookings Report shows, "Together, [these countries are] adding 1.2 billion lower-wage workers to the global economy. With lagged adjustment of ‘capital,' this puts downward pressure on the wages of similarly skilled workers elsewhere." These countries all have a strong IT service industry that has incited many U.S. companies to outsource American jobs to these foreign countries. Even if American ‘Businesses' out-sourcing jobs to other countries, and thus American ‘workers' losing jobs, where not the problem, as the evidence states, putting downward pressure on wages is a problem. On your contention: America's lost "2.5 million [] manufacturing jobs" since 2001 (http://www.debate.org...). That's 2.5 million Americans without jobs, anyway you slice it.
Outsourcing is beneficial for the US.

This is going to be a short debate. There is a limit of one contention per side. {Contention 1} Outsourcing increases efficiency and productivity. For example, jobs that Americans are inefficient at, such as manufacturing jobs, are being shipped to other countries such as China or India. This is beneficial as the US is inherently moving away from a manufacturing to a service economy. Jobs are reorganized so that they are most compatible with the worker. Daniel W. Drezner, Council on Foreign relations, remarks that "The resulting increase in productivity[from outsourcing] ... added some $230 billion in cumulative additional GDP between 1995 and 2002." http://www.foreignaffairs.org...
Hijab is Sexist

Say your name and your stance with any type of possible information that helps in the debate. Please cite all information you say, unless you write them yourself. Do not use circular proof or try to justify religious actions by saying religion says so, so this proof is inacceptable. My name is Jace, I'm an ex-Muslim from Lebanon, used to belong to the Shiatte sect. I'll be glad to discuss this subject with you in an open mind. Do not start the debate. Just say "I accept" and identify yourself. Thank you.
Welfare is Modern-day Slavery

I have found from personal experience that many people that receive benefits have zero motivation to separate themselves from them. Moreover, they are motivated to continue receiving them. If a 25 year old single mother living in "the hood" receives $600 per month in food stamps and is able to sell them for $300 in cash to whatever they pleased....then why would they take any necessary steps to lose that? If the same mother is living in a $150,000 home in a very nice neighborhood with good schools and low crime and is paying only $500 per month on a $1,500 note, what might I ask, is their motivation to lose that? This is just 2 of many examples of what I've seen first-hand. These are funds coming from us, the taxpayer and for some asinine reason their aren't any real restrictions on these benefits. If indeed, there were programs attached to the benefits and the 25 year old mother was given 6 months to receive benefits and was required to take classes on Money Management and Professionalism and was required to get Career Training all while seriously job searching, then this would be a viable formula. Finally, the democratic government, in my opinion benefits from this crisis because it buys them votes. If I'm your councilman, state rep or congressman and I run on a platform promising to continue to "HELP" you by providing you with benefits, then of course you are going to vote for me. As a matter of fact, you're going to vote a straight democratic ticket, because they've been conditioned to think that the "white man republican" wants to keep them poor. When in actuality, their current reps are indeed keeping them poor by offering a life-long crutch. The shame in this is that people don't know any better and these communities never get better even though they keep their "fave politician" in officer for years.
Welfare is Modern-day Slavery

It's very simple and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Welfare is and has been a crutch for a long time particularly in the black community. When you have people proud of getting food stamp so that they can "sell" them to others for profit, then we have a problem. When we have graduates of a medical program turn down jobs because the money they make will affect their govt. benefits....we have a problem. When we have people that lie to take advantage of government housing and drive luxury cars and carry gucci and prada bags....there's a problem and when you have teenage boys with $300 belts and sneakers....we should realize that we are in a mess and theirs a systemic problem. People have become career welfare receivers and are not ashamed of it.
Death Penalty

The federal study of the costs of the death penalty throughout the past 25 years, have all concluded that the cost of the death penalty is amounts to a net expense to the state and the taxpayers. The Death penalty is so much more expensive than a system of handling similar cases with a lesser punishment. These factors combine a list of the cost of the death penalty. The list consists of pre-trial time, there are more experts needed, there is much more attorneys that must be included, there should be two trials instead of one. The death penalty should be abolished.