BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Would only give development aid to countries that share British values of democracy and equality

As you say, our aim in assisting the other countries is to help improve the lives of the common people in that country. One of the most effective ways is to ensure that they are treated fairly by the own government, and to help protect rights that they should have. As some countries refuse to accept this policy, withholding monetary aid can be the best way to develop the country into a democracy, which is much more beneficial for the people than a dictatorship. As to whether withholding aid is more damaging to the people we are trying to help, many of the governments of these poorer countries are rife with corruption. In many occasions, any aid sent into the country are swallowed up by officials and richer people, not affecting the lives of the people we set out to protect. By ensuring the government acts in the best interests of the people, we can be sure that a bigger proportion of the money sent will actually make a difference in the long run. Finally, simply throwing money at other countries doesn't help with their long-term development. The best way of helping the people is to allow them to support themselves, and the best way of doing that is to improve the infrastructure of the country. For example, if a dictator-led country prohibits women from working, using our aid as the "Stick", we can make the country recognise rights for women. This leads to an immediate life improvement for women, and the influx of new workers speeds along the development of the country itself. "Catch a man a fish, and he doesn't go hungry for the day, teach a man to fish for himself and he doesn't go hungry for life"
Would only give development aid to countries that share British values of democracy and equality

Since the year 2000, UK aid has been spent with the explicit aim in improving the lives of the world's poorest people. By cutting aid to countries who do not share our values, the only people who stand to lose out are the poorest. If the health budget of a country like Burma suddenly loses "40 million , it will be the poorest people receiving, for example HIV services, who will suffer, not the military dictators. It is much more effective to use a 'carrot' rather than a stick and practice good diplomacy than to threaten other governments.
Gummy worms are better than gummy bears

I disagree, and believe than gummy bears are better than their work counterparts. What can you do with gummy worms other than eat them? Not much, and that's pretty boring. With gummy bears one could put on a little show. For an example just take a look at my friend's images of a gummy bear reenactment. That's seems like more fun than slurping on a gummy worm. http://flickr.com... You can arrange them in such a way that you it seems like they're having a little gummy meeting. (http://flickr.com...) They could be set up to look like they're watching the demise of a fellow gummy bear. (http://flickr.com...) Or even storming your keyboard in a gummy rebellion. Viva la gummy! (http://flickr.com...) You can't do these things with gummy worms, no one has ever made a popular story about worms, but cute bears can be the main characters in many stories. Gummy bears were also the original gummy creatures. If you try to go to the wikipedia page about gummy worms, you'll get redirected to the page for gummy bears. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) That's right, gummy bears even have their own Wikipedia page, if the variations were equal you'd think they'd just have a page about gummy creatures. Instead gummy worms are just mentioned as a "variation", that doesn't sound very important to me. I'm not sure what you mean about taste, if we look at ingredients, they're virtually the same. Gummy Worms: (http://www.amazon.com...) Corn Syrup, Sugar, Gelatin, Citric Acid, Lactic Acid, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Artificial Colors Gummy Bears: (http://www.amazon.com...) Corn Syrup, Sugar, Gelatin, Citric Acid, Lactic Acid, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Artificial Colors Different brands may be slightly different, but not enough to drastically affect taste. I await my opponent's response, and will do my best to negate her new claims.
Israel is a Rogue State.

Thank you for accepting.I would like to start out by slightly modifying the definitions my opponent has proposed. I contend that a rogue state, in being dangerous to other nations, specifically violates international laws and conventions.Definitions of a Rogue StateOxford Dictionary: "A nation or state regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations." [1]The Free Dictionary: "A state that conducts its policy in a dangerously unpredictable way, disregarding international law or diplomacy." [2]Foreign Policy Centre: "the hallmarks of the classic rogue state:...it ignores international law..." [3]Thus, an important characteristic of a rogue state is that it violates international law. I contend, as I will later this round, that violating international law causes damage and is "not normal," or at least "not expected." I believe international law is self-explanatory, especially the law I will be citing, so I feel there is no need for definition in this case.--------------It is evident that Israel violates a whole host of international laws. Below is a list of just some of the violations the Israeli state has committed by occupying and settling the West Bank and Gaza.• As per Fourth Geneva Conventions, Article 49(6), the Israeli government has no right to transfer portions of its civilian portions in the occupied Palestinian territories.• As per UN Security Council Resolution 446, these settlements have no legal validity.• As per UN Security Council Resolution 478, the annexation of East Jerusalem was a violation of international law.• As per UN Security Council Resolution 497, the annexation of the Golan Heights was illegal.• As per the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Israeli detention and interrogation of juveniles without due process is illegal.• As per UN Resolution 194, Israel's barring of the return of Palestinians to their land is a violation of their rights.• As per UN Resolution 242, Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights is wholly illegal.[4][5][6][7]And that's not all. As one can see, Israel blatantly ignores international law to advance its own territorial and political interests, at the expense of Palestinians which call these lands home.That's where the Cambridge definition of a rogue state comes into play: Israel's occupation of these lands cause severe damage. Not only do they impose a system which grossly discriminates against Palestinians, but they damage peace in the region by playing such a large role in the violent conduct which continues today.--------------To conclude, Israel's violations of international law and their aggressive curbing of the rights of Palestinians make Israel the very definition of a rogue state.Sources [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...;[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://fpc.org.uk...[4] https://www.loc.gov...[5] http://occupationfreepdx.org...[6] http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...[7] http://www.ipsc.ie...
Israel is a Rogue State.

Before we get started, I would like to define some terms to make things clear. I will be using the Cambridge English Dictionary definitions of "rogue" and "rogue state" rogue - behaving in ways that are not expected or not normal, often in a way that causes damage: rogue state - a nation that is considered very dangerous to other nations My opponent is free to change up any definitions if they do not feel comfortable with the definitions I have provided. Good luck! Sources: . http://dictionary.cambridge.org... . http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
Israel is a Rogue State.

Good to be back.This debate will center on the conduct of Israel, and whether this conduct allows for the labeling of the Israeli state as rogue. I will argue that yes, Israel's conduct justifies this label. My opponent will argue the exact opposite.FormatR1: Acceptance ONLYR2: All ArgumentsR3: RebuttalR4: Rebuttal/ConclusionI hope for a swift acceptance so we can get started!
"Social media is making people less social."

I sincerely hope all is well for the author of this debate - Otherwise, I'm going to assume that 1) She has lost interest or 2) Has forgotten about the debate altogether. Either way: As social media enables us to express our thoughts, ideas and feelings in a complete new way, it has become an important way of communicating in the 21st century. It has become a vital part of our everyday life. The total number of people using social media continues to increase globally. - I agree with this. Social media is a different form of communication. However, the nature of the problem is that there is no consensus whether social media is making people more or less social. I'm looking to find out what the majority thinks. - I think the defining factor lies in describing what context of "less social" we are referring to. As social media expands, social networking runs rampant, and people are very social on the internet. I think personal social interaction between people (i.e., face to face) suffers. I see this on a daily basis around me. At lunch, people are surfing Facebook, text messaging, surfing the internet, etc., . They have their head buried in some type of smart device, oblivious to the world around them for the most part. It's not limited to lunch time, however. I see it at bus stops, while people are walking, waiting in line at the checkout counter... it's everywhere. In the meantime, personal social interaction is being replaced by a little hand-held device. Communication is limited to describing what we need at the store or to give instructions. Pleasantries, random conversation, etc.,. is becoming a dying art. On the internet, while social bonding is abundant, social behaviors are also being affected. With anonymity, people are social, but demonstrate social rudeness - i.e., becoming "trolls". They express whatever they feel, because there is no accountability. Ergo, common respect is fading away - Notice, however, in a personal setting, people are more conservative with their remarks, because while Freedom of Speech is a Constitutional Right, it does not alleviate the reprecussions of that speech- like getting punched in the face for speaking in the same rude manner you did with anonymity on the internet.
"Social media is making people less social."

As social media enables us to express our thoughts, ideas and feelings in a complete new way, it has become an important way of communicating in the 21st century. It has become a vital part of our everyday life. The total number of people using social media continues to increase globally. However, the nature of the problem is that there is no consensus whether social media is making people more or less social. I'm looking to find out what the majority thinks. The debate statement that I would like to discuss is therefore: "social media makes people less social". With the help of your answers, I will develop a report on this topic. An observation of the opinions given (anonymously) will hopefully provide a valid conclusion. Your feedback is therefore very much appreciated.
Obamacare

My opponent has chosen to repeat (and summarize) his previous arguments. All of which, I believe that I have already refuted. If my opponent is unclear as to what my arguments may entitle, I would suggest him to reread the last round. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to address and/or dismiss my counterarguments.For the sake of the resolution, through which this debate was instated, I extend and uphold all refutations and counterarguments. And thusly, I would encourage the audience to vote PRO. I give my thanks to CON for an eye-opening debate.
Obamacare

Here are my arguments: 1. Obamacare is forced to the American people, which I think it shouldn't be. 2. Obama clearly stated that "If you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep it" but then came ou and said you cant, do you really want a liar running your healthcare? 3. I really like my doctor, he's nice, and he helps me stay physically fit by telling me exercises i can do such as swimming and or running. 4. I have to get a new doctor approved by the government, and our government is so evil I dont want them approving of my doctor. 5. I think Obamacare should be an option for American citizens, not put on them by force. This ends my 2nd argument.
Obamacare

I believe that if obama is going to force us to have health care if we like it or not, he should be impeached for forcing the American people to go against their will by paying for obamacare instead of keeping their health insurance plan, he even said it himself "If you like your current health insurance plan, you can keep it" but he lied, and repented to lying to the American people on live television, do you think our country should be controlled by a liar and a person who want to force healthcare upon the American people?
Static Tax Rate

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion of proposing a static tax system as fair for the following reasons. 1) In order for a static taxation to be fair we have to make a number of presumptions. Firstly we have to define what is fair? Do we equate fairness to egalitarianism? meritocracy? Equity? et al. Our moral perceptions of fairness are dependent on which one of these measures of fairness we choose to adhere to. However, I presume that based on your arguments neoliberal undertones that you associate meritocracy with fairness. However, if we apply this standard your argument fails as although we would almost all agree that we would like live in a society based on this type of fairness, the reality is that many people do not always get what they deserve. 2) Secondly your argument fails as there is a lack of evidence to justify why we a right to decide now that the current distribution of wealth in society is fair. 3) The benefit from the economic incentive that you describe is unnecessary and would actually cause more harm than good.. In modern capitalist societies there is a vast disparity in income distribution in countries which have a progressive taxation system, which means that there is still a significant incentive to become a high earner. In addition, your proposal would actually cause substantial harm to the economy due to the economic principle of diminishing marginal utility. 4) I fail to see how a static tax system would address the problem of tax avoidance. Companies make decision based on cost not on the type of tax system used in a country. Therefore, they would choose to declare in the country were they would have to pay the least amount of tax regardless of whether that country used a progressive or static taxation system.
rap battle

Are you so bad you gotta steal Biggie's lines? This kid is so dumb he can't even make rhymes And everybody knows that the British are weak I'm the king of the battle and this kid's just a geek He got a picture of a warrior up on his profile But plagiarizing lyrics cause he has got no style I'll take this battle straight to the basket with no fouls Gonna beat this fool either in text or if it's out loud He better actually try to post something in these rounds Or I'll grab the win and slam it like an offensive rebound
Abortion is not okay in the case of rape

'You don't see the difference between stopping something which is no more living than a placenta and a viable child?' My opponent claims it's okay to kill a fetus just because it's young , It is in a state of development just like an older fetus. 'I really hope you are a troll. For you to not see the potential damage a rape does you must be so unbelievably emotionally detached. Rape has profound physiological damage as I think I have already showed [1]. And for you to say that they didn't die therefore it's fine is unbelievably cold and inhuman.' My opponent has claimed that he has shown why rape is so psychologically damaging , Than he claims that my argument is inhuman which is a moral claim that shouldn't be used when making laws, I'm not saying rape is okay i'm saying that even if rape did have some sort of a psychological impact on the victim It doesnt interfere in the physical process of giving birth . My opponent didn't give any more arguments for me to adress .
Abortion is not okay in the case of rape

"i don't neccesary see a big difference between killing a young fetus or an older fetus since both stop the development of a human." You don't see the difference between stopping something which is no more living than a placenta and a viable child? "I remember having a debate with a feminist once on omegle.com in the end without any good argument's she shaid 'but it would ruin my vagina' I really do think that this kind of behaviour is very disturbing um scratch marks and a possibility of a worse looking vagina vs the murder of a developing human um so how does the fetus have the right to life if you support people terminating such a fetus?" This again is if not a straw man argument it is certainly not an argument I endorse. "That is my opponents personal opinion and not a fact when i see someone online a chat room called 'rape survivors ' am i supposed to be impressed? you got a dick when you didn't want to but you are not a survivor unless he raped you with a sharp fuckinh knife. Majority of the rape victims get over it i don't even see how the psychological impact of rape effects the process of physical birth 9 months later." I really hope you are a troll. For you to not see the potential damage a rape does you must be so unbelievably emotionally detached. Rape has profound physiological damage as I think I have already showed [1]. And for you to say that they didn't die therefore it's fine is unbelievably cold and inhuman. [1] https://www.rainn.org...
Abortion is not okay in the case of rape

'This is totally irrelevant, to the woman who has been rapped and is pregnant it doesn't matter whether or not it is 1% or 100%.' It does matter if it's 1% or 100% , i do agree that it is irrelevant to the scenario i was just making sure you konw that abortion because of rape is pretty rare 'his is a straw man argument, it is not used by anyone except yourself.' Ive had many debates about abortion and many have claimed that because the fetus is unconcious people should have the right to kill it.'"92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester" [1] as you can see most abortions occur in the first few weeks of pregnancy when the fetus can do very little reminiscent of a human, true it does have human DNA but so does a placenta, it doesn't even have a well developed nervous system, that will develop (to a relative standard) at the age of 18 weeks [2]. During the first trimester the baby can do little that makes it human, it still is because of genetics but so is a placenta or a detached fingernail.' a fingernail is not a life , i don't neccesary see a big difference between killing a young fetus or an older fetus since both stop the development of a human.'This is to do with bodily rights, while the fetus does have the right to live it doesn't have the right to live at another's expense.' I remember having a debate with a feminist once on omegle.com in the end without any good argument's she shaid 'but it would ruin my vagina' I really do think that this kind of behaviour is very disturbing um scratch marks and a possibility of a worse looking vagina vs the murder of a developing human um so how does the fetus have the right to life if you support people terminating such a fetus? . 'Specifically in the case of rape the victim is likely to be physiology traumatized [3] and they are in no state to give birth (regardless of what happens to those children). Eventually the chances are they will recover [4] and may in future have children when they are able to raze them.' That is my opponents personal opinion and not a fact when i see someone online a chat room called 'rape survivors ' am i supposed to be impressed? you got a dick when you didn't want to but you are not a survivor unless he raped you with a sharp fuckinh knife. Majority of the rape victims get over it i don't even see how the psychological impact of rape effects the process of physical birth 9 months later.
Abortion is not okay in the case of rape

"Abortion Is taking Away a life and this is why it's wrong why is abortion justified when its caused by rape is it the baby's fault that it's father is a rapist? is the child any less love deserving? even if the mother has a problem with keeping it she can always give it to adoption and in fact in most states in the USA she can abondon the baby inside the hospital." Obviously a better outcome would be the adoption of a baby but this doesn't matter, what matters is whether or not the woman who has been rapped should have the option to abort. "only roughly 1% of abortions are done because of rape" This is totally irrelevant, to the woman who has been rapped and is pregnant it doesn't matter whether or not it is 1% or 100%. "'BUT THE FETUS IS UNCONCIOUS' and so is a 6 month year old baby that doesn't mean its right to kill it, While rape is a sad issue, it still does not justify the murder of an innocent child." This is a straw man argument, it is not used by anyone except yourself. Now I have finished my rebuttal I will start my case. "92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester" [1] as you can see most abortions occur in the first few weeks of pregnancy when the fetus can do very little reminiscent of a human, true it does have human DNA but so does a placenta, it doesn't even have a well developed nervous system, that will develop (to a relative standard) at the age of 18 weeks [2]. During the first trimester the baby can do little that makes it human, it still is because of genetics but so is a placenta or a detached fingernail. In a hypothetical situation a two year old child needs a liver transplant (don't know why, maybe heavy drinker) the only person who can give the baby the liver they need is the babies mother, should the mother be forced to give up her liver, if the answer is no then you are a hypocrite. This is to do with bodily rights, while the fetus does have the right to live it doesn't have the right to live at another's expense. Specifically in the case of rape the victim is likely to be physiology traumatized [3] and they are in no state to give birth (regardless of what happens to those children). Eventually the chances are they will recover [4] and may in future have children when they are able to raze them. I look forward to your counter arguments. [1] http://www.abort73.com... [2] http://www.whattoexpect.com... [3] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...(1990)16:5%3C297::AID-AB2480160503%3E3.0.CO;2-V/abstract [4] http://www.uic.edu...
Abortion is not okay in the case of rape

We've all heard the argument that "abortion is justified in cases where the mother has been raped". Frankly I have to disagree with this. Abortion Is taking Away a life and this is why it's wrong why is abortion justified when its caused by rape is it the baby's fault that it's father is a rapist? is the child any less love deserving? even if the mother has a problem with keeping it she can always give it to adoption and in fact in most states in the USA she can abondon the baby inside the hospital , only roughly 1% of abortions are done because of rape . 'BUT THE FETUS IS UNCONCIOUS' and so is a 6 month year old baby that doesn't mean its right to kill it, While rape is a sad issue, it still does not justify the murder of an innocent child. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... "The results showed that more than half of the women expressed that a bad relationship with the partner in one way or another was a motive for the abortion. Other important motives included characteristics of the women and their partners, mainly immaturity, work/studies and unsuitable life situation for having a child. Less common motives seemed to be economy, dwelling and medical and health factors." I await my Opponents respone and why he thinks abortion is okay in the case of rape.