BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: On balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States.

Resolved: On balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States. The April Public Forum topic deals with the topic of whether or not unions of government employee laborers have a net positive impact on the United States. Before examining both sides of the resolution, let's break down some basic terms. In this context, a "union" is generally understood to be "an organization of employees formed to bargain with the employer; "you have to join the union in order to get a job". When employees are part of unions, the union negotiates on behalf of the collective group of employees/union members and to negotiate salaries/overtime and benefits (health care, vacation time, pensions, etc). A "pension" is essentially a salary that an employee draws for the rest of his or her life once he or she retires. The resolution specifically refers to pubic employee labor unions. This specific reference is important because there is a large conceptual difference between a union of public employees (employees that work for a level of government, federal, state, or local) and a union of employees that work for a private company. The difference is that employees of a private company know that they can only ask for so much in wages/benefits or those will start to threaten the viability of the company. Government employees, however, can ask for almost anything that they can get, knowing that the bill will simply have to be paid by the tax payers. The issue of public employee union wages and benefits being payed by taxpayers is what gives rise to this resolution. A declining economy/tax base is giving rise to growing government deficits that are being compounded by large obligations on the part of governments to pay (high) government employee union wages/benefits. This growing fiscal gap is increasing animosity toward public employee unions, and it is what likely gave rise to this topic and makes it timely. The final important concept/phrase in the resolution is "on the United States." This is important to highlight because it keeps the question macro/large what is the net impact of these unions on the country as a whole, not necessarily on individual states or counties (though these collective smaller impacts are what determine the "on balance" impact "on the United States." My partner and I stand in firm negation to the resolution.
Obama's tax plan is idiotic.

First of all Obama isn't raising the corporate tax, he's keeping it around the same with a small cut, but he's taking away loopholes that allow the corporations to sneak out of an estimated $1 trillion in taxes. (. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...) Obama will raise taxes for companies that make obscene profits, such as the oil companies. (. http://www.nysun.com...) and he'll lower the tax for start-up companies. Maybe what confused you is that the New York Sun article said in the first paragraph that Obama planned to raise taxes on corporations, but it later specified that taxes would only be raised on companies like oil companies, who have obscene profits. Obama also plans to raise the capital gains and dividends tax, but those are not on corporations, but on Wall Street stock holders. Obama will also eliminate tax breaks for companies who ship their jobs overseas, making it better economically for companies that keep their jobs in the US. Obama will stop tax money from being wasted on the Iraq war and put it into creating jobs, including green jobs, which serve a double purpose of providing jobs and helping the environment. Obama will increase taxes on the top 1 percent of the population, who won't end up dying on the street because they can't afford their fifth house and will lower or eliminate it for those in poverty, who actually could end up on the street. No taxes will be raised for those who earn above $250,000. This plan seems much too good for an idiot to think up and my common sense tells me this plan is not only good, but great. Taxes up for those who can afford it, down for those who can't, what a great idea. Not only that, but I can be confident that the tax money will be invested in worthwhile endeavors, not the pork barrel projects of the past. Barack Obama's record has proved this. Call me an idealist, but if ideals become reality, they aren't ideals anymore.
Obama's tax plan is idiotic.

I want to especially single out Obama's plan to raise the corporate tax from, which by the way, he hasnt said by how much....go figure. Right now the corporate tax rate in the United States is 35%, the second largest in the world (Japan is #1). Obama wants to raise this corporate tax rate. Do you know why we have unemployment? ITS BECAUSE COMPANIES GO TO MEXICO, CANADA, EUROPE, AND ASIA TO DO BUSINESS. Why would a corporation stay in the United States and get taxed to death when they can go to, for instance, Ireland whose corporate tax rate is 11%. Of course we're going to have more unemployment when corporations keep leaving the United States. But why wouldnt they? It makes so much sense. Obama's plan to raise the corporate tax is only going to create an even bigger problem. This isnt even about politics anymore. This is about common sense. How can you libs not see this? I forgot, you're a bunch if ideologues.
Obama's tax plan is idiotic.

did u know that the big oil companies who make "obscene profits" pay right around 40% on taxes, more than any other industry by far. They pay more in taxes than they make in profit. Do your research before you listen to these liberal talking points. And the reason why $40 billion in profits seems insane is because you dont realize how big Exxon is. It is a $500 billion industry, so when you compare it quantitatively with other industries, it is not obscene. You're not getting the whole outsourcing/corporate tax argument. Corporations want an incentive to stay in the United States. The corporate tax needs to be cut. It is the second biggest in the entire world and is increasing unemployment in the United States because companies have realized how stupid it is to stay in the United States at a 35% tax rate when they can go a country away and pay way less in taxes. I thought Obama was the change candidate? We need to encourage corporations to stay here, and John McCain is on the money by saying that he would cut the corporate tax to 25%. And by the way, I dont like John McCain at all. "Obama also plans to raise the capital gains and dividends tax, but those are not on corporations, but on Wall Street stock holders. " Do you know that more than 100,000,000 Americans have stock? Raising the capital gains tax to 28%, as Obama has said he would do, is idiotic. Most countries dont even have a capital gains tax and most economists say the capital gains tax is the stupidest tax we have. Middle and Lower class families that have their money invested in retirement or a vacation are gonna pay a lot more in taxes when they obtain their assets. Doubling the capital gains tax is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. It affects all Americans. " No taxes will be raised for those who earn above $250,000." That is completely incorrect. Barack Obama is going to distribute wealth like a typical Marxist. You just said he was going to tax the top 1%.
AN alligator could beat a shark.

An alligator could not win because of size because it is smaller than a shark, and it is not faster than a shark because they have been known to get up to about 40 miles per hour and i found that on this websited . http://www.elasmo-research.org... if you still doubt my facts, and as i was saying you could not compare a shark to a buffalo because one is a predator, and the other is prey, and the settings of the buffalo and the alligator like I said would be closer to land.
AN alligator could beat a shark.

First of all a whale shark is a peaceful creature and would not fight an alligator. Also an alligator could win due to speed and size. The alligator is much faster than a shark so the alligator would reach the shark first. Also when I used the water buffalo as an example I was comparing it to the shark. Alligators also have a hard outer skin while alligators have a complete cartilage body [besides its teeth]. So Con I wish you good luck and I thank you for accepting this argument.
AN alligator could beat a shark.

That 43,700 lbs shark was a whale shark, but a great white could weigh up to 2,700 lbs. and an alligator killing a buffalo is a completely different scenario, because a buffalo is not a predator, and that would be in a swampy, or marshy area, not in the open water where any type of shark would be. You also need to quit talking about what you think, because your opinion does not matter, the facts are the only thing that matter, and your argument is full of opinions. Half of your argument does not even make sense "On animal-face off (t.v show) the great white shark, because the like it better." That is the first sentence from the fifth paragraph of your last argument, that makes no sense at all. And there is no recorded incidents where an alligator attacked any of those animals out in the open water, which once again would be where they would have to fight.
AN alligator could beat a shark.

First of all I would not beleive a shark would weigh 43,700 pounds and you need to get your facts right. Alligators could kill a equal size bull shark, tiger shark, and it could kill a great white shark. A bull shark will put up a better fight because of its aggression. A 16 foot alligator will weigh about 700-1000 kilograms. I have talk to alligators scientist who have weighed wild 16 foot alligators, which are about 1700-2200 pounds and the people who said a 16 foot alligator weigh only 1000 pounds are wrong! They have the strongest bite force of any animal in the animal kingdom and in the water don't get tired fast! They swim 15-18 miles underwater.Alligator sare also real agile in the water and very fast. The shark is more agile and have shaper teeth. Alligators kill 2200 pound water buffalo and can kill a person in one good chomp! They have been know to eat and kill tigers, large wild boars, humans, sharks, horses, etc... Great white sharks are not as aggressive and will have problems biting through the alligators bony plates and under the bony plates are thick, rough skin, which are much tougher than a female great white sharks! The average fully grown male alligator is 15.4 to 16.6 ft. A 16 foot great white shark will weigh 2500 to 2700 pounds, it might weigh more than the alligator but the alligator makes up for it with power! On animal-face off ( t.v show )the great white shark, because they like it better. I think the alligator was 21 feet and 3000 pounds, which the alligator should of weigh more! And the great white 21 feet and 7500 pounds, which the shark should weigh around 5000-6000 pounds. Alligators are stronger with pulling things, it takes more than 10 fully grown people to pull and restrain a 14-16 foot alligator.
AN alligator could beat a shark.

my first argument has to do with the size of the two animals a shark can weigh up to 43700 pounds!!! Alligators can weigh as little as 800 pounds. Another argument is that the animals would have to be in deep water making it hard for the alligator to do its infamous death roll, and a shark has three rows of razor sharp teeth in the water it would be in its own habitat and the alligator would be at a disadvantage
Color guard should be considered a sport

so now that I am on my final speech, it will be short and sweet. You've read the prior of this debate so I will not waste your time attempting to re-iterate every inch of my stance (you are not idiots). Instead I will cover a few key points that I see as important. first, my opponent has still provided absolutely no clash with my own logic. they claims that calling the color guard an activity is disrespectful; but give you no warrant to believe this. Color guard is a highly respectable activity; but it is not a sport. It is indeed an activity. Second, we must look and see the nature of a sport and analyze the differences while color guard may be competitive, it is not a sport. the judging is not based on direct clash in opposing competitions of skill, but of judging these color teams one on one and determining who this the best (and keep in mind this is only competitive color guard, the military also has a color guard and they are not competitive) if you chose to follow my opponent's line of logic, then you would also have to consider a pie contest a sport, or a car show, or a science fair. Just because something is an activity does not make it a sport; And just because something is competitive does not make it a sport; The Color Guard is not a sport. My opponent has proven that we ought to respect the Color guard (something I never disagreed with in the first place) so we have no reason to believe it is. and so for this reason alone you cannot vote for the Pro, instead vote Con. I thank you all for reading this debate; and my opponent for having it with me.
Color guard should be considered a sport

If a anything has the qualifications of a certain word than that is exactly what it is. Guard just happens to fall under the definition of a sport. If my opponent says that color guard deserves respect and admiration, but is calling it an activity, then my opponent is contradicting himself. Calling it an activity is completely disrespecting color guard. Color guard is full of athletes and passion, but because it has passion does not make it a hobby. I am not saying that everything should be considered a sport. Color is something very unique and different which may be why people disagree but if people were to closely look at it and possibly try it then maybe my opponent and others will realize that it deserves to be called a sport. Calling color guard an activity does so much injustice to color guard, which is exactly why it needs to be officially named a sport. How would you feel if something you treasured and had passion for was named what it isn't? It would wouldn't be fair to deny what it is simply because people aren't familiar with it? It isn't fair or even right to do such a thing. I enjoyed having this debate with my opponent. I look forward for more in the future. :)
Color guard should be considered a sport

Before going on to my own extensions, and making some further clash, I will answer my opponent's questions. No, I have never been to a color guard competition (which by the way is a competition not a sport) No, I cannot say I know any-on who has done color guard (Although I would be lying if I said I asked every-person I've ever met such a question.) I have also offered a definition for the term sport, to which my opponent has not called any attention to; nor has he given any reason why we need an alternative definition. please don't look to this definition unless he can provide some reason why we need to look to it, definition debates just waste time. I also feel the need that my opponent offered no clash with the Con stance, but instead opted to attempt clash by quoting a part of my previous argumentation that furthered his stance none. I did not deny that Color Guard did not take athletic skill and prowess. That still does not make it a sport. so in conclusion, I ask you all to consider this; What is a sport, and what is an activity? if they are one and the same then athletes' passions' are only but a hobby. it is no longer something special, no longer something unique. but just another phrase to list on one's face-book. Again I leave with this, Color Guard- whether they are a member of a scout organization, the Military, or even a High School Band. they perform an important and special activity that deserves respect and admiration; it is not however a sport.
Color guard should be considered a sport

I will first start this round by asking you questions: Have you ever been to a guard competition? Do you know anyone who had done guard? The definition of a sport goes as follows: 1. competitive physical activity: an individual or group competitive activity involving physical exertion or skill, governed by rules, and sometimes engaged in professionally ( often used in the plural ) Is color guard a competitive physical activity? Yes it is there are many competitions. Now there may not be a definite loser but that is because so many groups that compete. For sure the winner does get prestige just as if they had won a super bowl. Color guard is a group activity that is very physical and full of athleticism. My opponent said that color guard requires SOME level of athletic prowess and that is not true. If in color guard you must have to skill and athleticism, if you don't you will not succeed and not become the winner. Because it is not considered a sport not much respect and admiration is given to it, so it needs to be to get the respect and admiration it deserves.
Color guard should be considered a sport

So going to the meat and potatoes of this debate, I disagree with he statement, that "Color Guard is a sport" First of, I apologize in advance if I seem to be a bit scatter brained in my explanation; I will no be taking a traditional point by point stance in my constructive arguments, but instead will simply explain my stance, and apply clash to mty opponent as I deem appropriate. I will happily clarify any discrepancies or misunderstandings either in my next speech, (if my opponent so desires) or in the comments section (also at my opponent's; or even the voter's requests) So no going onto the stance I will take, The Color Guard is not a sport, but an activity. A sport, is competitive activity between two individuals, or two teams in which there is a definitive winner or loser, (meaning that you could possibly consider Chess, or a Debate a sport but no the Color guard) Now my opponent would have you believe that because it is difficult to do, or because it requires some level of athletic prowess, that is is a sport. but that's not necessarily true. for instance, performing a surgical operation is extremely difficult, and not everybody can do that. but that doesn't make it a sport. And Weightlifting (not power-lifting, or any competitive variation of the such) is an activity that an athlete may do to prepare them for their sport; but it in and of itself is not a sport just because it requires athletic ability And finally there really is no winner or loser when the Color Guard ends. Unlike say Football, or Soccer, there is no way to either determine clash, or even measure clash. so in closing, Color Guard- whether they are a member of a scout organization, the Military, or even a High School Band. they perform an important and special activity that deserves respect and admiration; it is not however a sport. I look forward to a wonderful debate!
Color guard should be considered a sport

Most people that I know and are in in band or color guard say that isn't a sport. But I think it is. All of my high school career, I was involved in color guard. It requires you to push yourself physically and mentally. For those who do not know what color guard is, it is where you have dancing and equipment all put together to music. The equipment that you spin is a flag saber and rifle. Most people think anyone can do that. I dare you to try. There is so much technique involved and athleticism required. It is a group of people who perform and tell a story together. Everyone has to move as if where one person. I know it may not have an offense or defense but it is a very competitive sport. WGI (Winter Guard International) is an organization in which guards and drum lines compete in. It is an international division guards as far as china come to compete in WGI. I am no longer a performer but I am an instructor and teach it to students. It would just do so much justice if it was officially know as sport. Here is an example of a guard: http://www.youtube.com... They are 9 time consecutive world class champs in WGI I believe.
phones in class

I accept. There are several reasons phones should be allowed in class. First, PRO's argument that they are "distracting" is subjective and dependnt entirley on the person. If that particular person is easily distracted, than anything at all, perhaps even the sight of his friends, will pose a distraction. You can't ban everything that may be even remotely distracting. It's impractal and treats children as though they aren't intelligent enough to make their own decisions. Second, learning is what you make of it. Some don't want to learn, and that ought to be their choice. Some can learn even whilst multi-tasking. Banning phones is a one-size-fits-all solution that doesn't apply to every child, and thus adopting the policy if prohibitng them in the classroom is deleterious to the learning process. Third, phones are extremely useful for the sake of research and for asking questions. This is especially true because textbooks nowadays are extremely expensive and technology is so advanced that you can actually load up an entire book on a phone.
Lannan13's 300th Debate: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should mine asteroids.

I accept and am honored to be able to pop the 300th cherry for Lannan.Since the definition of "small" and "rocky" can be subjective, I believe a clarification for Asteroids is in order. It is also distinguished from Planets, Moons, Dwarf Planets, and Comets.Here is the IAU distinguishing [1][2] since it established definitions in the mid 2000's.[1] http://www.differencebetween.info...;[2] http://www.iau.org...;
Lannan13's 300th Debate: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should mine asteroids.

I would like to thank Ore_Ele for accepting this debate and having this rematch of my 3rd debate on this site 3 years ago on the same topic. Now I'll lay down a few rules and such before we begin our debate.RulesFirst Round is acceptance and definitions.Second Round is for Contentions, no rebuttles.Third Round is for Rebuttles.Forth Round is for Rebuttles and Conclusions. (No new arguments)No semantics Should- Used to express obligation or duty (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Mine- a pit or tunnel from which minerals (such as coal, gold, diamonds, etc.) are taken (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Asteroids- any of the small rocky celestial bodies found especially between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Discipline should be instilled by parents not school.

Once again I assume that your argument is entirely from <http://www.americanhumane.org...;. I do agree with you that parents need to use discipline to shape children into responsible adults, assets to society. However, your argument does not state why schools should not also use discipline. In fact, your argument strengthens the argument that discipline is useful, which supports my argument that there is no reason for schools to withhold from discipline.
Discipline should be instilled by parents not school.

As part of their natural development, children sometimes challenge or test parental and adult expectations and authority. Sometimes, children simply choose to misbehave in order to gain something (e.g., attention, an object, power, peer approval). This is a significant part of the growth process of children, yet it should not be without consequence. Discipline is how children learn right from wrong, acceptable from unacceptable. Parental or adult discipline of children should be designed to help children engage better with others and to modify or control their behavior. Providing appropriate discipline to children is one of the most essential responsibilities of a parent. And providing consistent and positive discipline helps children grow into responsible adults.