BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
hindi shall be made the official language of india.

neither the constitution nor any Indian law defines any national language of India.this was affirmed by the Gujarat high court in 2010. article 343 of the constitution of India specifies that the official language of India is Hindi with English as an additional language for any official work or international affairs. about business , do you know that china , a country whose economy is growing rapidly, most of the people there speak Chinese. instead of they themselves learning English, they hire a translator to take care of the international affairs. Japan. the number one in technology carried out all its government jobs on paper even after the advent of the computers.they adopted computers for government routine only after a programme was developed to identify Japanese script in the computers. as far as the international medium of communication and exchange is concerned, people worldwide started learning languages like Spanish, French , German etc. this is due to the fact that these countries didn't give up their local language but instead developed themselves and made the whole world accept the values of their language. but here in india there are many lot of people that think adoption of foreign language would accelerate the progress. instead we could focus on creating values for our own national language and let the whole world adopt ours... as you said that several languages should be introduced like there in united nations, i would like you to remind that india is still not a 100% literate country.when the common language that is , hindi is not accessible to many parts of the country then how can you ensure to say that along with hindi several other languages must be introduced. even till now in indiaa after 66 years of independence there are many parts in the country where education is almost nil maybe due to the difference in girls and boys and even due to poverty.the government schemes are there but to them literacy means only that if a person can read and write his name and nothing else.. the educated masses are bluffing with these people.. according to me till the beggars and the labourers will not start conversing in english , till then hindi should be taken as well as considered the official language of india.
hindi shall be made the official language of india.

I never said that that English should be the official language. Also Hindi cannot be "removed" as Hindi IS NOT the national language as yet. I would like to thank the proposition for making my point by saying that the United Nations doesn't have English as the official language alone. Similarly it would be unwise to have Hindi alone as an official Language of India. If India needs an official language it shall have to include all significant languages. Or, in my opinion India doesn't need an "official language". Also by saying that Tamil and Marathi speaking people are in the minority and we don't need to take them into consideration we are undermining the very basic diversity of India. For the same reason that United Nations has Arabic and Chinese and Spanish as official languages as apart from English these are the largely prevalent languages in the world. The same model applies to India. While Hindi undoubtedly is the language spoken the most, Tamil and Marathi and various other languages are significantly prevalent in India too. Say, tomorrow, Marathi speaking population becomes the "majority" and they decide to make Marathi as the official language of India. Now as a Hindi speaking Indian is it not unfair to have another language imposed upon us? At the same time if you neglect us completely it would again be unfair as we are a voting tax paying significant population of India. Being the majority can never mean being superior and while I,myself am a hindi speaking citizen of India making one particular language the "official language" of the country makes absolutely no sense.
hindi shall be made the official language of india.

Everybody will agree that if we want our country to prosper, the common man should get the chance to prosper and for this we have to ensure his education. people had realized that english is not the language of the common man and it would never be. some people use english in our country on the pretext of equality and globalization...i want to ask them a question..would you like to appoint a foreigner as prime minister because he would be equally foriegn to all of us...??? further if english had been a global language there would have been only english in the united nations instead of 6 languages(arabic,chinese,french,russian and spanish). in our country we have to create an environment where everyone gets the opportunity of getting education in his/her native language, which brings self respect as well. while talking about the cultural alignment, you must first consider a few statistics. hindi is spoken by over 337 million people or by about one third of india's population and learned as a second language by many more... just because few people cannot speak hindi(in context to the tamils and marathis) you want english to be the official language, but the fact is there are more number of people in india who even cant speak english. by removing hindi as the official language of india we would be destroying our culture, our sanskriti..which probably the whole world respects.........
hindi shall be made the official language of india.

India has NO OFFICIAL LANGUAGE. We as Indians take pride in our unity in diversity and the biggest diversity in our nation is language. So by declaring Hindi to be an official language we undermine what distinctly makes us stand out. Secondly by declaring Hindi as the official language we are undermining languages like Tamil and Marathi which are extremely widespread too. Now if we declare hindi as official a person who speaks tamil would be forced to learn hindi. Now if he lives in southern india he,within his family obviously speaks tamil since it is his native language, then this is the language he is primarily taught in school along with english so adding hindi makes hindi irrelevant since he would never need to use it. If he goes on to work in a national or multi national company, English would become the primary language then again making his knowledge of hindi irrelevant. India doesnt need an official language. English and hindi along with the other regional languages work perfectly. Whichever region one enters, the language of that region takes centrestage and at the centre Hindi and english remain the most used languages as we,for one, teach english in schools from a young age and hindi is the majority language.
Barack Obama will win more delegates than Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday (tomorrow).

"1. All the latest national polls reveal strong trends towards Obama. The same is true of polling done in states that will be voting tomorrow. ", First national polls, don't always predict the winner. Example the New Hampshire Primary, polls going in showed Barack winning by as much as 10%. Hillary won that contest. "2. Obama has spent more money than Hillary on advertising and has a much stronger ground game in many of these states. Turnout, turnout, turnout....", So what Romney spent almost 45 million in Iowa and Huckabee won spending 500,000 dollars. Ground campaign, Hillary has the Clinton Machine, it is so feared, that Russian media is afraid of it lol. "3. Strong African-American support will help him carry some states in the South.", carry him, in southern states, all other races are tight, and others are no contest like the north eastern states, like New York and Hillary is winning California as well. "poll of polls" -- puts Clinton at 45 percent and Obama at 43 percent. Those five surveys were done by CNN/Opinion Research Corp., Gallup, Pew, ABC and CBS. Clinton is winning in the all.
Barack Obama will win more delegates than Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday (tomorrow).

I predict that Barack Obama will gain more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton in tomorrow's big nationwide vote. I believe this for several good reasons: 1. All the latest national polls reveal strong trends towards Obama. The same is true of polling done in states that will be voting tomorrow. 2. Obama has spent more money than Hillary on advertising and has a much stronger ground game in many of these states. Turnout, turnout, turnout.... 3. Strong African-American support will help him carry some states in the South.
Barack Obama will win more delegates than Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday (tomorrow).

She did win more delegates, she won about a 100 more on Tuesday. He is catcing up, but it is about Hillary Clinton. She won New York, California, New Jersey, 741(Obama)-768(Clinton). As you can see it was a close. Very close and I am rooting for Obama, but I knew Hillary would get more by a little margin, but a little more. She got 27 more, but he is closing the gap. vote for me please.
Should the goverment illegalise unions

As a reminder, it is not my job to prove unions to be wonderful.Rebuttals:1) "suck it up and keep a job"Actually educated people would rather someone lose a job, than everyone get a pay cut.I shall paraphrase from Professor James Seal Ph.D., of the University of Portland (one of my economics teachers): When a budget shortfall at the university affects teachers, they would rather someone lose their job than everyone take a pay cut. First of all that person has unemployment benefits from the government. Second they're not going to draw straws, rather it will probably be one of the least useful people being cut, or trimming the fat to use an analogy.More important is their best people retaining competitive pay. If their pay falls to less than their worth, doubly so if something has made them dissatisfied (such as a reduction in pay), a smarter institution will acquire them. This harms the first institution since now they are less prestigious, having a lower quality pool of workers. Thus less people spend money there, and the cycle repeats itself in a downward spiral. A spirit easily prevented by trimming the fat, instead of hurting everyone. I should not have to specify, that the above applies outside mere schoolhouses. The sentiment is in fact mirrored in the business community, as research done at Yale on the 1990's recession indicates [5].2) "people fleeing union states like California and Detroit for the right to work states like Texas and north Dakota"Economies shift up and down for a number of reasons, attempting to assign all blame to a single factor is weak. It is in fact as weak as if I were to claim people leaving "right to work" states like Michigan are due to the shortage of unions there ruining everything.I suppose I would care more for this argument, if I was not an Oregon resident. Here we are currently having an influx of people from places like California. Seeing how Oregon in a union state, this pretty directly contradicts the one cause theory for why people migrate.3) "Unions thrive in the same conditions as armed military assault,"I've been in armed military assaults (82nd Airborne, combat medic), I fail to see any comparison to unions in such situations. Please cite an actual case of it.Unions form as a part of the free market system, usually forming when workers feel they are mistreated. If companies don't want unions to form, they can simply not give their workers reason to form them... (continued below)4) "Using redundancy dose not disprove my point."From my R1 argument: "Under our system of democracy, we have both Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Protest; to take away these rights from workers, would be a strike against their rights as free citizens, and a move by government to directly interfere with the free market system." The government banning Unions, would be a step both away from free markets, but also a step firmly towards communism.Sources:[5] http://wolfweb.unr.edu...[6] http://www.forbes.com...
Should the goverment illegalise unions

1) I contest your finding of executive bonuses but Any way I can't restate enough that the world is in the worst economy since the crash of 29, would the unions rather suck it up and keep a job until the economy goes back in the black or would they rather join the most Vicous competitive unemployment line since the industrial revolution. 2) I never question the rights of women or children to work I merely challenged the usefulness of the union itself seeing how now the goverment has passed laws that protect the rights of workers. Also if the unions are so beneficial to the worker why are people fleeing union states like California and Detroit for the right to work states like Texas and north Dakota. 3) You can't be serious that unions thrive when everything is swell and grand. Unions thrive in the same conditions as armed military assault, they thrive in tension. 4) Using redundancy dose not disprove my point. You did not provide a abundance of situations in wich the unions brought workers up to executive power
Should the goverment illegalise unions

Argument:America is a free market society, under which businesses can thrive. Communism has been proven time and again to not work, at least not for the millions who die of starvation [1]. Under our system of democracy, we have both Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Protest; to take away these rights from workers, would be a strike against their rights as free citizens, and a move by government to directly interfere with the free market system. Thus the government should not interfere as pro suggests.Rebuttals:1) A Hasty Generalization from a single Reduction Fallacy.That Hostess had unions and failed, tells very little. I know they wanted to cut pay to the lower workers to pay for massive pay raises for their top people, but when one failed they probably should not have gone ahead with the other. "BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256" [2]. Granted when they were in bankruptcy under that leadership, they did cut his pay to only a 200% increase. Even the highly respected Forbes magazine blamed a mix of management, and the simple business reality of the product cycle (IE, junk food becoming less popular for a time) [3]. 2) A Fault Comparison fallacy.Equal pay for equal jobs, are one of the main points to unions. Peoples livelihoods are nothing like an "old antiquated appliance."Should women and minorities really be paid far less for performing the same job? No, and unions give at least some protection from that. 3) Argument By Emotive Language fallacy [4].Irrelevant. Spelling errors aside, there really isn't an argument in that section; merely a hollow and unsupported assertion.4) see above.I feel this point is already countered to the point of redundancy.Sources:[1] http://defeatcommunism.com...[2] http://thinkprogress.org...[3] http://www.forbes.com...[4] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Should the goverment illegalise unions

I believe unions were once beneficial to the worker but now are a greater hinderince not only to themselves but to American buisness. 1) Hostess, the American based food company was brought to bankruptcy by the workers union wich refused to compromise with hostess, wich lead to the eventual dissolution of hostess and loss of jobs for the employees. Isn't it hypocritical that the unions want jobs in the Amerian companies with American made products but they destroy a corporate American giant that gave such things. Furthermore isn't the union detrimental to its own goals considering that they want to create and insure jobs however they would rather destroy the company they gives forth work than keep their jobs. This alone proves that unions are hindering American buisness 2) I don't discredit the Unions for their achievements in the past but they as of late seem to be achieving little. They unions are like a old antiquated appliance, they served nobely and were extremely usefull in the industrial revolution, however like a appliance when unions become a disadvantage instead of a advantage we must rid our household of such things to make progress. 3) Unions keep workers in the antiquated strugle of worker against executive, wich keeps the workers tense and when their is tension the unions thrive. 4) Unions are neary socialistic in the idea that unions would prefer workers stay workers their entire life in contrast to the capitalist idea of workers turning into owners. For these contentions I support the resolve that unions should be Made illegal.
China is still socialist and a good model

Chinese speculation on African companies isn't a guarantee of a successful business venture. China investing in more volatile markets is a Higher risk investment not a stable well thought out plan. It's actually speculated that this involvement in African countries is debt trap diplomacy. Once African Nations default on their loans Chinese companies will take them over. I'm sure you can see the neo-colonialism inherent in owning a nations means of production from afar. I'm pretty sure colonialism isn't a socialist idea. My point being that if they have a long term plan it isn't a good one. I also find it interesting that you think China supporting more investment in more markets a socialist model. Wouldn't a socialist model stray from using funds to support unregulated and open markets? In a socialist model wouldn't the state want to control and regulate all markets? I'm still of the belief that since China has broken, Pretty much, Every rule laid out in the WTO trade agreement they should be cut off. Hey, If dreams were horses then beggars would ride.
China is still socialist and a good model

While I agree withe Nye about soft power I don't think it is china that other first world countries want to model. The soft power of the U. S and E. U is far more influential. China is developing media propaganda even some directed by Hollywood. This gives it more soft power but at a time when most of the population is moving to alternative forms of media such as video games. Consul video games were outright banned in China from 2000 to 2018. While all computer games must be approved by China's propaganda board known as SART. Such mainstream titles as pubg, Fortnight, And monster hunter world have all been banned in China. Most Chinese gamers have to download video games illegally from offshore servers. Not to mention the rampant pirating done in China. Just like the pirating of media Most of China's technical growth has come from ripping off other people's intellectual property. There is a reason Chinese goods are known as knock offs. While China certainly has a strong economy because of this it doesn't say much for their soft power. These knock offs are a clear sign of who's imitating who. You referenced a cultural model. Which cultural model are you impressed with? Is it the limitations to one child per parents? Perhaps you want to live in a world with social credit points. Better still we could live in a one party system where the central government creates and controls all political parties. In conclusion I would say that China's production power is strong but exaggerated. I would say it has limited resources to produce these knock offs on its own. China is dependent on imports to sustain it's economy and if it wants to continue to grow it will have to become a more open market.
China is still socialist and a good model

Soft power, According to Joseph Nye, Who coined the term in his book in 1990: “ is the ability to get others to want the outcomes that you want, And the ability to achieve goals through attraction rather than coercion”(Nye, 1990). Indeed, Soft power enables a change of behavior in others, Without competition or conflict, By using persuasion and attraction. In this modern day, Soft power becomes vital for a country. Media industry plays an essential role among all the industries, And it's the most influential power. As china presents a succesfulll cultural and economic model for the developing world opposing western captaiism it has a lot of soft power in the worldit may not need to conquer with an army it may just persuade by example.
China is still socialist and a good model

I would argue that China is still a communist nation with "free market zones. " While this is a step in the right direction I would say that that China doesn't have the military to "take over the world. " The Chinese fleet doesn't have the ability to launch long range missions and is limited at one test carrier with two more in production. This deficit is compounded by the fact that a large portion of it's oil is imported from the middle east. Compare this to the united states 11 nuclear carriers. China is also a practitioner of multiple frankly chilling social programs. The odds of continued trade are good but people aren't about to jump ship to their social standards. It is more likely that China will continue to embrace trade and slowly become more capitalistic.
Aspartame be removed from gum and replaced with sugar

Good mourning/Afternoon I believe that gum should have sugar added to it instead of aspartame. Firstly, what really is aspartame? Aspartame is a no-calorie sweetener, that in scientific experiments has shown high risks of the developing of brain tumors in large or daily consumptions. When aspartame breaks down it produces a substance called DKP. As your stomach digests DKP, it produces a chemical that induces the growth of brain tumors. Aspartame consumption is extremely harmful to people with diabetes. It makes it more difficult to control sugar levels and aggravate diabetes-related conditions such as retinopathy, cataracts, neuropathy and gastroparesis. The sweetener also has been known to cause convulsions often mistaken for insulin reactions. Emotional and mood disorders have been linked to aspartame. Studies suggest that people with certain emotional problems are more sensitive to aspartame. High levels of aspartame cause changes in the serotonin levels which can lead to behavioral problems, depression and other emotional disorders. In some cases, the side effects were so dangerous that doctors were forced to put an end to the studies. Second of all, aspartame is 200 more times sweeter than sugar and is artificial. Sugar on the other hand is natural and in my opinion tastes better and keeps it's taste longer than aspartame does. Aspartame is also used in diet soda and did you know that people who drink diet sodas to lose weight, actually tend to gain weight!? here's a list of medical conditions linked to aspartame consumption: "anxiety "depression "short term memory loss "multiple sclerosis "fibromyalgia "hearing loss "weight gain "fatigue "brain tumors So if causes all that Why put it in gum or anything in that case! I rest my case.
Single sex education system is better than a co-ed system.

Hello,I am glad I can bring this topic here. Presumably, it has already been debated - the better. We can at least use prior debates as source.Rules:1. Semantic allowed2. Pro supports the idea that Single sex education system is better - so he takes burden of proof3. Con refute4. Winner is determined by quality, development of arguments and forming of arguments, semantic etc.I am looking forward to have a nice and entertaining debateBublifuk
Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk.

Resolution: Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk. This seems to be a giant debate over the value of Soy in the bodybuilding community as well as in the average population. I have come to bring us from the chains of our Soy overlords :) 1. No direct plagiarism 2. No intentional fallacious arguments 3. General Debate etiquette 4. Have fun! No exceptions :) Violation of the rules will result in a 7 point forfeit.