BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bertering is the best form of trade

No problem! Before I begin, I really must have to apologize for misspelling "Bartering," that was kind of embarrassing. Anyway, glad you've accepted, thanks! Bartering is the idea that you can trade material possessions or your own services for someone else's material possessions. Ex; I will give you my Lexus if you can type up a 700-page essay on Bartering. Instead of working for $15/hr for 8 hours a day, for 42 days, in order to pay someone cash for their car, which they in turn spend on whatever they want - don't forget all the taxes - you can do something that benefits them, and they can give you what benefits you. You both get something done. You can create or build things and trade them to people for their possessions - you both get something you want, and you don't have to "save up" or earn a lot of money that you end up giving away (or spending) by the time you've saved up enough for what you want. If you're smart, you can get a lot from nothing [1]. If you can't get a job (can't afford school, didn't do well enough in High School to get to post secondary, no experience, nobody is hiring, parents don't want you working, etc) but you need something, like a car, computer, house, whatever - you can get it. All you have to do is give the person selling what you want, what they want. If money wasn't necessary, it would be fair to give somebody something they want, which they would most likely buy with the money you gave them for their thing, and receive something you want. There would be no taxes, the government wouldn't print money out and determine the value of your country's dollar, and the prices of things wouldn't fluctuate - it would simply be what the seller wants in return. Corrupt governments and politicians would be scarce, and there would not be banks controlling the economy, or the dreaded 1% that people constantly complain about. The reason people have things would be because they traded their things for other things. Not because they took advantage of a capitalist nation. Sorry I didn't indulge on more of this, I'm short on time. Looking forward to hearing your side of this! [1] http://oneredpaperclip.blogspot.ca...
Bertering is the best form of trade

I will be arguing the idea that bartering is a better way to exchange or make "purchases" than using a monetary system.It's 2 rounds because I want to get this over with quickly and I have a couple other ideas I'm debating for university. Barter - Exchange of goods and services for other goods and services; no legal tender involved.Monetary - Legal tender; dollar, euro, etc.Thanks in advance for accepting! Feel free to go over any terms or anything you wish in R1.
Gun Control

Over the past months, the debate over gun control has taken bounds through media; after the sandy hook shooting this trend is more easily observable. The Obama administration is now slowly moving closer and closer to gun restriction and confiscation, but is it a rational move? Today, out of every 100 Americans, an estimated 88 people own guns; which takes the figures well into the millions of people; yet arguably the vast majority of whom are law-abiding citizens. More Freedom Means Less Crime: Much like any other matter in our social life, Freedom to bear arms leads to more peace and security and it does not necessarily mean that every single person has to have an AR-15 for this to happen but precisely this freedom to bear arms alone guarantees less crime. Statistically speaking, in nearly every city more gun freedom means and has meant less crime. This is an undeniable, irrefutable and an unquestionable fact that the "anti-gun" media never stops to address. The example of this is very easily observed in the southern states like Texas, where some of the least restricting gun control laws are prevalent and not so surprisingly they have very low violent crime rate. For example after the city of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years. Also see point 5 for the case for Switzerland"s gun control. The issue of guns and gun control could not any simpler if people only understood the above fact. When we reflect on facts and statistics many of our arguments actually settle by themselves. In this case we can easily refute the notion that views guns as an "evil" piece of machinery, which is thought to be evil in the hands of regular citizenry and good when used and monopolized by the government, the military, and criminals. On the other hand where there is more restrictive gun control laws there is much more crime. States like New York and Illinois have some of the worst crime rates not only in the US, but in comparison around the world. The city of Chicago has the most strictest gun control laws in the United States yet it has become one the centers of overall crime in the US and deadliest Global cities! The harder gun control laws get, the higher crime rate soars. So the question must be asked: has the imposed gun restriction reduced crime? The answer is absolutely not. The murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011. For any wise reader, who is able of some rational thinking, the above mentioned facts and examples should be enough of an argument to the end this debate, but let"s not cease here as I have nine more points to cover.
Should Dad's be allowed paternity leave from work.

As my opponent stated: "Sacrifices will be made", which we both agree upon on this debate. Whether the father gives up the time with his family to work, or give up the time to work for money to spend time with the family. However, this debate revolves around a debate of "Desired Fiction" and "Unfortunate Fact". To begin, my opponent states that a father should be allowed paternity leave from work to care for the child. Paternity where it is defined as "Being a father" for the child. Being there when the child is needed, and supporting the mother along the way. And if the father is not there, the mother will then feel "abandoned". In my opponents final argument, it was basically a statement that the mother will feel abandoned. Showing a "Desired Fiction" in my opponents given argument. While in my argument, I brought up the fact of needing the money in order to support the family. Allowing the father to give food and shelter to his child, which the child will need to understand this fact. Survival in any part of our current world lies under money. In the beginning of "Round 3" in the debate, my opponent admits that a baby will not suffer tremendous trauma if the father is not there. And like I stated earlier, when a child grows older; he or she will need to understand that the father will need to make sacrifices in order to help his family. For the mother on the other hand, it is admitted that she will feel isolated; however, we must look at reality, and not a "Wishful Environment". We all do not get what we want! We must understand that in reality, most fathers need to leave at times. Examples being military, which many newly wed couples join, and are required to go oversees. Will the mother break up with the guy for doing his job? If so, why did they get married in the first place? Or, why did they decide to have a child, when the environment wasn't the greatest? In my last argument, I stated the vows of marriage; which my opponent believed was unnecessary; when in fact it does matter. Marriage is defined, by Webster's Dictionary, as: "The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship". If the couple is going to get married, both sides must understand that sacrifices must be made, and if both sides cannot understand that; then don't get married, or have a kid. To conclude my argument, and debate, my opponents argument is about an environment where we all wish was true. And i admit, I wish it was true also; however, we must look at the facts. In my argument, I stated that a father needs to work in order to gain money for the family, and both sides must understand that sacrifices will need to be made. especially when getting married or deciding to get married, and the child will need to understand this, which is the parents job to notify him or her. So voters, which side do you stand upon? A "Wishful Fiction Argument", or an argument with reality facts? :)
Should Dad's be allowed paternity leave from work.

My debate does not mean fathers need to be with their child 24/7 so please stay on the topic at hand. Yes, a babies first steps for example is a milestone that only happens once in a child's life. It may not cause tremendous trauma for the baby but for the mother she will be disappointed that the father is not present for such important things. You just admitted the mother will feel abandoned, that is exactly my point, this is why Dad's need paternity leave from work. The father may be in a paid working order but if given the option I'm sure they would love to have paternity leave with their new baby. Even though the baby may not have a view of the world it is important to the surrounding mother and family to all be there for the baby. The promise made at marriage does not specifically mean fathers not getting time off, that is irrelevant to this topic. Sacrifices will be made but if fathers were given the option, sacrifices would be made outside of the workforce.
Should Dad's be allowed paternity leave from work.

I will agree in some aspects about the father being there for certain moments of their child's like; however, a father does not necessarily need to be with his child "24/7". The example you brought up with missing his baby's first step could technically happen to anyone, and probably has to multiple fathers. Also, I must ask the following question; "Would one small moment of his baby's life matter per say? Would it truly 'impact' the baby's life for good"? In reality, probably not because a baby, at a young age, is just learning about his or her own environment, and a father not being there all the time would not cause tremendous trauma for the baby. The second question you brought up is how the mother would feel. Admittedly, the mother might feel abandoned at first, but she must understand that the father is working in order to help his family survive in society. To live in a sheltered home, instead of living the rain; which would actually be a worsened condition for the child, than not seeing the father for a short period of time. Especially to a baby, who does not have knowledge of the world, but still learning about his or her surroundings. Also, we must take the fact of when both the husband and wife got married, they had to say their vows. Also making a promise to each other when married, which is: "Do you ________ take this man _________ to be your lawfully wedded husband, to have and to hold, in sickness and health, to love, honor and obey, in good times and woe, for richer or poorer, keeping yourself solely unto him for as long as you both shall live"? And when that promise is made, both sides will need to understand that both will need to make sacrifices; in this case, the husband needing to bring in the money for his family.
Should Dad's be allowed paternity leave from work.

It is not necessarily abandoning the money, there are other options out there if money is a concern. The father role is just as important as a mother role and by not having the father close to the baby at the first part of their life is like depriving the poor baby of their father. Paid vacation's are not the target of this debate so I would like to stay focused on the topic at hand. Although the mother does the hard work to grow the child (breastfeeding, changing) the father needs experience and needs to be there. For example, what if because of this the father misses the baby's first steps? How would the mother feel? The father needs to be there for his child.
Should Dad's be allowed paternity leave from work.

Before getting into the argument, I would like to address that I am "challenging" myself with a harder debate subject. So, please respect my arguments as they may or may not be what I truly believe in. To begin, I believe a dad should not be allowed paternity leave for work. The reason why I say so is because the daily pay, the father earns, should be a fulls day worth, instead of a half day. Where the money is distributed to the family, which is far greater than abandoning the chance of earning that money. Unless the father is taking vacation time, whats the point in coming into work for only a little bit just to leave later on? If its to go to his son's baseball game, or daughter's play; a responsible father would plan ahead, and take the vacation.
Should Dad's be allowed paternity leave from work.

Hello. I believe Dad's should get paternity leave from work not only because it will form a stronger bond with the child but because Dad's are ordinary people turned into hero's by love. Although the Mother's do the child birth and bearing I believe both parents should get an amount of time off to bond with the child, but maybe the Mother should get about 1 month more due to the pain and hard work of childbirth.
government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels

"Popular Mechanics says that sources such as switch grass are competitive when oil is at or above 90 dollars per barrel." The same source my opponent used also says "The method is both faster and, in theory, much cheaper than previous methods of turning switchgrass into biofuel"" [1] "There are still plenty of arguments to be had about whether crop-based biofuels are actually any better for the environment than crude oil, but at the very least, they might offer some cost savings." [1] It is not certain that this is cheaper. And as for "and algae fuel is competive around the same cost per barrel of oil", being around the same cost as oil is not the same as being cheaper. There is no reason for government to support an alternative that does not have a clear advantage [1] http://motherboard.vice.com... (my opponent"s source)
government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels

Who are these various companies? I ask my opponent to give sources to support this. This source says that renewable energy is more expensive despite government subsidizing it: http://www.economist.com... I don"t believe this is a catch 22 scenario. There is no demand for alternative energies because it is more expensive. Government should not subsidize a more expensive alternative. I have no idea how it can be said alternative energies have an uphill battle. Alternative energies have had a downhill battle because they have had government subsidies supporting them.
government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels

For it to be the case that the government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels, if must first be the case that transitioning to alternative fuels is a good thing, which my opponent implied is true, but without giving any logical argument or sources to support the case. My opponent must first prove that alternative energies gives an economic advantage and/or environmental advantage, and if it has one at the cost of the other, my opponent must prove that the advantage of one outweighs the disadvantage of the other. Once my opponent makes that case, then we can discuss whether or not it is worth government intervention to help reach the goal of transitioning to alternative fuels. But until then, it doesn't make sense that government should intervene in something that is not proven to be a beneficial cause in the first place.
Guns should be more difficult to obtain

Let's get to it. Suicide First, I would like to point out Pro's statistic are skewed. Even by his own admission, suicides utilizing firearms occur at twice the rate of homicides utilizing homocides. The true number of firearms used for violence is less than 4 in 100,000 deaths, not the 10 of 100,000 pro cites. Viewing suicide by gun is abhorent to us because of the gruesome nature or the aftermath, but it no more violent than death by rope or poison. The choice of despondent people to be effecient in their death is reflective of the cowardice to which we approach death, not the evil inherent in the tool itself. This is an example of how suicide rates are fairly consistent. Making firearms more difficult to possess will not change the suicide rate. Pro -“This is needed not only to prevent criminals but suicide: the ratio of people who were shot by someone else to people who shot themselves is 1:2 (Meaning twice as many people shot themselves than were shot)” As I stated before, suicide is a given. Guns are banned in England, so rope is the preferred method. No matter if guns are available or not, suicides will happen regardless. By Pro’s logic, rope should be banned or limited in England due to the rope suicide rate. Limiting firearms based on suicides is simply ridiculous. Guns are more efficient than rope for suicide, and therefore they are preferred. However, the problem really has nothing to do with guns, but rather despondent persons. Some changesI may be misunderstanding Pro, but it seems he has some sort of prejudice against non-citizens. He suggests only citizens should be allowed to possess a gun in this country. I feel the need to point out we let non-citizens drive, receive welfare (in some cases), and Due Process. Why would we disallow them the privilege of possessing a gun? Plus, the FBI closely controls sale of firearms to/from non-residents already. [1] A more thorough background check is a rather vague description. What does Pro hope to eliminate with this new and improved back ground check that is not already dealt with in the current methods? Also, “a full and legitimate reason for owning a gun” can be answered with the 2nd amendment every time – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, so that seems rather pointless. Pro has pointed out a “loophole” in which private citizens can purchase guns from each other and no background check is needed. Other than being another law that is not enforced or enforced intermittently, it won’t make much of a difference to law abiding citizens or criminals. Law abiding citizens will have another hoop to jump through, while the criminals will simply continue with the standard operating procedure – ignoring the law. Overall, these plans are simply an inconvenience, and stand to make no impact on the issues Pro is concerned about. These are not changes that will have any significance.
Guns should be more difficult to obtain

I first will go on to my own reasoning. Guns are too apparent in modern society. There are about 88 guns for every 100 people in the US, [1] and about 40% of American homes have guns. [2] This leads to the next statistic: 10 people out of 10,000 die from firearm-related deaths every year [1] (which reaches about 300,000 people [3]). This is the highest in any developed country. Obviously, some sort of change needs to be made. Although the BoP does not require me to make a suggestion as to what this should be, which my opponent has acknowledged since he wrote it, I will for the sake of debate. This also brings me to the refutation of my opponent's point that "we have sufficient laws. " Upon first glance these restrictions seem to be legitimate. But, upon further questioning, they are not really sufficient. First, there is no law saying that you must actually be a citizen of the US. #7 appears to address this, but actually addresses those who have renounced their citizenship. Most of these are only bare requirements that restrict someone who definitely should not be able to purchase a gun. But so that we don't just let 300,000 people a year die, we need to prove that someone with a gun will not, beyond a reasonable doubt, use it in the wrong way. I propose adding a more thorough background check, and the applicant must have full and legitimate reasoning for owning a gun. This is needed not only to prevent criminals but suicide: the ratio of people who were shot by someone else to people who shot themselves is 1:2 (Meaning twice as many people shot themselves than were shot). [4] The next thing to address is the loophole that a background check is not needed in a private transaction. [3] This is a major problem which means that someone may even fit the criteria mentioned above by my opponent and still be able to purchase a gun. This can easily be changed by passing a law saying something along the lines of: One must have a license to sell guns, and one must have a gun license to hold a gun. " Have I addressed the BoP in these plans? Yes. By tightening the restrictions, we eliminate many firearm-related deaths and we prevent guns from showing up as frequently as they do in modern society. This is both large enough to be noticed and to have an effect, and fully meets the requirements of the definition. Sources: 1: . http://abcnews.go.com... 2:. http://www.ontheissues.org... 3: . http://data.worldbank.org... 4: . http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...
Guns should be more difficult to obtain

I look forward to a lively discussion. Burden of Proof The burden will lie with Pro. I will concede some changes may be helpful, but Pro must go beyond some changes, and show how significant changes are necessary in current restrictions related to obtaining firearms. Definitions Significant: large enough to be noticed or have an effect We have sufficient laws It is difficult for me to make an argument against Pro’s position when he has not stated exactly what major changes he believes are necessary, but for the sake of bulding my case I will submit some of the laws currently on the books which limit possession or purchase of firearms. Let us discuss some of the current laws according to the ATF. Any individual meeting these criteria cannot legally possess a firearm: 1. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year; 2. Is a fugitive from justice; 3. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; 4. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution; 5. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa; 6. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; 7. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship; 8. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or 9. Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence 10. Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm. [1] And we must also consider the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which requires a background check through the FBI before a purchase of a firearm can proceed from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer. I am interested to see what major changes Pro would like to see made. Good luck, Pro, and back to you. [1] . https://www.atf.gov...
Guns should be more difficult to obtain

This is a debate on the resolution that guns should be more difficult to obtain, and made so by the federal government. Here is the full resolution: It should be significantly more difficult to obtain firearms in the United States. Rules: 1. No trolling. 2. No ad hominem attacks. 3. All information must be used in the debate. Don't extend on a separate webpage. (Sources are allowed. ) 4. No new evidence or ideas in the final round. (Refutations are allowed. ) My opponent will start in the end of this round. I would prefer that he/she puts something in the end of the final round instead of forfeiture, but only something like "end of debate. " No extra information is to be added.