BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Businesses should make more of an effort to have good CSR.

Hello! This is my first debate about economics and businesses so this should be interesting for me!The motion today is: This house believes that businesses should make more of an effort to have good CSR.Burden of Proof is on both Pro and Con. I must prove why businesses should make an effort. Con must prove why they should not. This should be relatively straight forward. DefinitionsBusiness: For this debate, a business must have the ability to make a relatively significant impact on society, the environment, and the community. There is not a specific number, like a minimum of 150 employees or something, but I think Con should be able to understand that small companies that do not have much impact are not worth debating about. CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility. The effect that businesses have on society in an environmental, economical, and social aspect. Essentially, how much a company gives back to the community, or how much they donate to charities; things like that. Debate FormatProFirst Round: Introduction and DefinitionsSecond Round: ArgumentsThird Round: Rebuttal and New ArgumentsFourth Round: Rebuttal Only and ConclusionConFirst Round: Acceptance OnlySecond Round: Arguments Only Third Round: Rebuttal and New ArgumentsFourth Round: Rebuttal Only and ConclusionRulesFollow Format. No forfeitingUse decent spelling and grammar. A typo here or there is allowed. Sources are recommended. Any deviation from rules merits an automatic 7-point loss. Looking forward to an interesting debate! SWAG
Rural Areas Need to Embrace Immigrants

I am definitely making a moral argument, but this point should not be considered irrelevant as it is one that is ultimately more economically driven than morally driven. I am arguing that rural people should see the economic value in shifting their morals. If rural areas shifted their values to embrace immigrants, it would ultimately attract more people to the areas to raise families and start businesses because the areas would be seen as more inclusive (go back to my Post 1 to see the sociological theory). This would draw more businesses and, thus, new jobs (in healthcare, restaurants, infrastructure projects, etc). Americans could have their way and no take the job they wouldn't do in the first place AND still have a job because of these new businesses and projects. The adaptation to labor laws you mentioned sounds great and I agree with it in theory, but realistically that would take food producers and factory owners paying workers more than the 7, 8, 9 dollars an hour they receive now, or the $25 dollars per ton of sweet potatoes (ncfarmworkers.org), to something more like 20, 21, 22 dollars per hour or $75 per ton of sweet potatoes just to get Americans to take the jobs. The third biggest input in agriculture is labor and this would draw food prices up so high, Americans would not be willing to pay the social and societal costs of employing citizens over immigrants. If you went with labor reform that would try to make the jobs less dangerous and less laborious to attract Americans, there are only small improvements that could be made to change these conditions. For one thing, as Stephen Colbert said, "soil is not waist level." Also, food producers are under pressure from consumers to make food more and more efficiently and, unfortunately, the only way they can do that is to push their laborers hard and keep labor expenses down. One thing that could realistically work to stop (illegal) immigrants from coming in the first place is stricter immigration laws on future influx. Food producers would then have to rely on the H2A program to get immigrants legally. This would mean immigrants would have to go back to their home country at the end of the season and the rural areas would not have to "take them on" as you said. As for the immigrants who are here now, they are here for good. The only solution is for rural areas to see the value in shifting their morals to embrace the immigrants, which will make their rural towns more inclusive and thereby attract more young Americans back to create new jobs that they (Americans) will actually do. This can be done through outreach and welcoming programs as I mentioned in post 1. Thank you for sharing your point of view! --- MAIN SOURCES FOR ALL POSTS: Conclusions and Implications of New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America http://www.ers.usda.gov... Rural Hispanics at a glance: http://www.ers.usda.gov... Hired Farmworkers as Major Input For Some US Farm Sectors http://www.ers.usda.gov...
Rural Areas Need to Embrace Immigrants

I've heard the argument about Americans not being willing to do certain types of jobs, and that's never held too much water with me. Maybe it's true, but I don't think that can affect immigration policy. Rather than taking on droves of new residents, thousands at a time, a more effective solution would be to change labor laws to make these jobs desirable. It shouldn't take too much in a time of such great economic strife, with so many people so desperate for employment. But the way you're arguing this issue, it sounds like you're making a moral debate. You're making a moral point, one that I might agree with, but that's irrelevant. I believe that people have control over their own morals, not taking outside control from government or anybody else. If the government isn't going to stop immigration, it's not the citizens' responsibility to always welcome new people who are taking the jobs that could, albeit with some necessity for adaptation, be theirs, in a time when many of them need jobs themselves. I'm not a big fan stifling labor laws, but labor reform is the much lesser of two evils in this case. If stronger labor rights are guaranteed for the unemployed American citizens, then we will be able to get much more out of the American economy with the resources we already have. After it's stabilized, then we can look to take more people into the fold and actually expect people from middle America to accept them.
Rural Areas Need to Embrace Immigrants

Immigrants can help save the heartland? That seems ridiculous, considering immigrants may be destroying the heartland right now. Unemployment rates in rural areas, as in other types of areas, have directly corresponded to immigration levels since 2007. The United States is currently trying to fight its way out of a severe recession, and nobody is being harder hit than rural areas. Once every rural American has a job for themselves, then they can focus on further expansion. Please excuse the brevity of my opening argument, but I feel that the charts I've found speak for themselves and I look forward to elaborating in the next round of this debate. In case the images don't load properly, here are the URLs: http://www.dailyyonder.com... http://www.publicagenda.org...
Hate crime laws

Good luck to you as wellWell I was expecting some points but I suppose ill use this to elaborate a little bit more.When said protected groups we tend to think of sexual orientation, but race, ethnicity, and religion ect. ect. are all included. the problem with the groups is who decides what groups are allowed in. Mankind, according to most religions and even to some non religious people, is not perfect. With this being said we know we are susceptible to greed, lust, power and many other things. With the protected groups we are giving a person or group the power to decide what groups are protected and being imperfect can and does cause problems discriminating against different groups not giving equal laws to them all. With my second and third point together I will make quote the incedibles because they say it well "if everyone is super, no one will be." this maybe is a little easier to understand. So all that is being said is that the point of hate crimes is irrelevant if everyone is protected. even if a crime is done with the intent to intimidate or because the group was disliked, the criminal has the right to dislike them as much as they want just his actions can not defile the law. Granted a hate crime can only be if an initial crime is done, but like I said before it says that not only is it not good enough to punish you for breaking the law, we punish you for disliking these people while you did it.We have hate crimes laws because we want security. We want to know that if people are after our 'group' that they get what they deserve and hate crime laws specifically address that. But what we are doing is giving the power to people to decide what groups are the 'right' groups and can lead to breaks in the law and society. As Benjamin Franklin said "those who are willing to trade freedom for security, deserve neither and will lose both"
Hate crime laws

I will be taking the side that hate crime laws are not necessary. Keep it friendly is all I ask. My first point is that hate crime laws create protected classes. Point two is that hate crime laws make the issue no longer about the crime committed but then focuses on why they did the crime. If a person is assaulted, would it make it hurt more if the assaulter did it because the victim was gay? Assault is illegal and should be charged because of the crime not also because of how they felt about it. Point three. By all definitions hate could be a factor in every crime. And minorities can commit hate crimes to the majority. So literally every person should be in a protected group, but if everyone is 'protected' then nobody really is. Which would beg the question off, why do we need these laws If people are worried about the intimidation factor of crimes we should increase the penalty of the crime, to say they were thinking the wrong thing when they commuted the crime seems out of line and could lead to problems in the future like certain groups being valued above another and inequality in the court of law.
Reclassify Hezbullah from Terrorists to Resctiance/Liberation movment

Isreal claims Palestine dosnt exsist and Brakes War laws and slaughters people there what makes what you claim to be Hezbullah any different? Hezbullah fights against isreal for that being a reason and the US invading to over through a government? How corrupt does that sound? Hezbullah is the defender of the Shi'ite faith the resist Al-Qeuda and any influence to alter the culture of the middle east and will launch 400-600 of https://www.google.com... These SCUD missiles. Real Jews will admit Isreal's War crimes and renounce the state of isreal until then Zionism shall be attacked. And Hezbullah will resist the UN NATO USA Al-CIAda and Zionism!
Reclassify Hezbullah from Terrorists to Resctiance/Liberation movment

You claim that Hezbollah is a resistance movement, but a resistance movement does not have the mentality "Israel has no place on this earth". Although I am sure there were ulterior motives, the United States invaded Iraq under the assumption that they had WMD's and invaded Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban. I think that any organization that calls for the destruction of any state should be classified as a terrorist organization. I doubt that Hezbollah will ever recognize that Israel is here to stay, and it is for that reason that it will always be classified as a terrorist organization.
Reclassify Hezbullah from Terrorists to Resctiance/Liberation movment

Isreal has no place on this earth and they attack Palestine in the name of Zionism and also Zionism is the reason Isreal is a nation today so Hezbullah will attack Isreal to ensure Isreal may no longer excite and to also show the world Shi'ite Islam will not be pushed around and will not tolerate Americans Invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Hezbullah has never had a Sucide attack once. Wikipedia is not a credible source either Live Leak and to a extent YouTube is not wikipedia unless you can find more sources stating this you are not credible. Also this hasn't been brough up but don't bring up anti-Semetic because Hassan Narushullah made it very very very clear they do not hate the Jewish community but are anti-Zionist.
Reclassify Hezbullah from Terrorists to Resctiance/Liberation movment

No, I got this information from Wikipedia [1], not Fox news. Of course Hezbollah denies all of these attacks, but we don't need a confession to put the pieces together. Referring to Israeli's as Zionist pigs is completely unnecessary, and I'm not really sure how it advances the debate, so I will disregard it. Assad admitted to possessing chemical weapons in an interview, and although he denies using them, I think it it quite clear that Assad had the weapons and was willing to use them against the rebels, who we can assume were not armed with WMD's [2]. Assad then agreed to get rid of them, but only because Russia asked nicely, surely not because of any US threats. Finally, you say that they are resisting capitalism, zionism, and western influence, but why would senseless violence prevent these ideologies? The only thing that can prevent these is isolationism, does Hezbollah really believe that by attacking Israeli's that they are resisting Zionism? Its clearly not a resistance movement, it is a terrorist organization with the ultimate goal of destroying the state of Israel. I must ask you, why would a resistance movement call for the destruction of any state? Hezbollah cannot justify such hostility towards Israel with self-defense, that simply does not cut it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.globalpost.com...
Reclassify Hezbullah from Terrorists to Resctiance/Liberation movment

"What are they Resisting?" They are Resisting Captialism,Zionism,Westernism, and Imperialism. Further more were have you gotten Sucicide Bombings? They are a Islamic Organization not a Wahabi group like Al-Qeuda did you get this from Fox News? Which lacks credibility. Hezbullah denies the claims of Sucide Bombings and I think you're smart enough to know why they attack those Zionist animals in Isreal. Bashir Al-Assad didn't use such wepons in attacks. So if you would like to see proof that Hezbullah never used Sucicde Bombers I will send you proof.
Reclassify Hezbullah from Terrorists to Resctiance/Liberation movment

The notion that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization is simply absurd. Hezbollah, although a party in Lebanon, is not part of the Lebanese military, and has conducted suicide and terror attacks against Israeli, French, and American forces. After the Seven Day war, Israel and Hezbollah militants had a written deal that stated Hezbollah would not fire missiles into Israel and Israel would not fire on Lebanese civilians. However, in April 1996, after continued Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, the Israeli armed forces launched Operation Grapes of Wrath, which was supposed to greatly weaken Hezbollah's base in Southern Lebanon. Hezbollah has clearly stated that one of their goals is the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah's allies, as I am sure you are aware, on not exactly on par with the international community either. Syria has been involved in a civil war in which it has attacked its own citizens with chemical weapons. Iran on the other hand has had much controversy over its nuclear program, which it has promised to scale back in exchange for temporary sanction relief. So, after taking all of this into consideration, how could you ask the international community to classify Hezbollah as a resistance movement? What exactly are they resisting, the Israeli occupation has ended and Hezbollah is currently involved in Syria's civil war, fighting with the Assad regime. Sure, its fighting Al-qaeda, but that does not mean that it is not a terrorist organization.
Reclassify Hezbullah from Terrorists to Resctiance/Liberation movment

I say Hezbullah should gain more international support besides Russian Fediration, The Islamic Republic of Iran, Palestine, and The Arab People's Republic of Syria. The US says they are terrorists because they Fight back against opposing Forces but they also Fight America's Number 1 enemy Al-Qeuda. They also have many social programs set up with in Lebanon and Syria they seek to stop tensions between Sunni/Shi'ite and Protect Lebanon and Syria from Isreal. They Have a amazing army a gobsmacking Air Force and they know how to run secret operations and blow up ships. Hezbullah should have a Political Party with in the USA. Hezbullah is the true liberation. Hezbullah will fight for Islam populism and the people. They Didn't Leve Palestine in the Shadows they didn't walk away from Bosnia in 1992 they didn't just let the US set up another puppet in Bosnia. They are here for the Muslim people and the Arab people and for all Labyaik Hezbullah!
Reclassify Hezbullah from Terrorists to Resctiance/Liberation movment

Clearly your religious views have somewhat distorted your view on the matter. If you are going to claim that Israeli soldiers rape and murder woman all the time, then I ask you to please cite your sources, because that's simply not true. Israel, and any nation for that matter, has the right to defend itself against any such attacks. The fact that you mention Jihad only supports my argument. Hezbollah encourages Holy War, with the idea that by killing Jews (or whoever), that they are somehow exerting the will of Allah. This kind of delusional thinking is why Hezbollah is classified as a terrorist organization. It is nothing like a resistance movement, its a violent organization that advocates murder of all Israeli's, and the Lebanese civilians never needed protection from Israel. Israel is not going to disappear anytime soon, and there is nothing that Hezbollah, or any other terrorist organization, will ever be able to do about that. The United Nations and NATO are meant to prevent war, but Hezbollah seems determined to start war. So, in conclusion, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that will stop at nothing to destroy Israel, against the wishes of International community, meant to maintain peace throughout the world.
Reclassify Hezbullah from Terrorists to Resctiance/Liberation movment

How do you explain the photos of Isreali soldiers murdering women and children and documentation of Isreali Support of Al-Qeuda via Mossad? Also Hezbullah will fight the Jihad to defend there Muslim Brothers Sunni or Shi'ite as true Islam calls for so until Isreal knows they are not a real nation but nothing more than the NATO Modle state. Than Hezbullah,Iran,Syria, and Palesitne shall fight with Support from PLO and PFLP. Hezbullah will fight the nightmare kown as Zionism till the end of this earth Bismillah.
Reclassify Hezbullah from Terrorists to Resctiance/Liberation movment

Israel may be engaged in combat with Hamas, but I can assure you that it does not target Palestinian civilians. Hezbollah on the other hand, will target anybody in Israeli territory. It seems that you have only helped my argument by pointing out the build up of weaponry that Hezbollah has obtained for use against Israel. If anything, Israel should have a right to defend itself against Hezbollah, and another other hostile organization or state that supports its destruction. Disputed territory between Israel and Palestine is not at all similar to attacks against Israel. Quite frankly, your assertion that any good jew would acknowledge Israel's "war crimes" is absurd. Why anybody oppose a state where jews can all live together without facing anti-semitism, especially after what happened during WWII. To answer your question about the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, its not corrupt when you are removing oppressive regimes that were openly hostile towards other countries. Suddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, did that not warrant an international response? Also, it was a US led coalition, so it is not as if the United States did not have the backing of the international community, but decided to invade anyways.
We don't exist. Nothing does. We are simply thought.

(Note: I'm new here and don't yet understand how to forfeit/add comments.) :) That was, indeed, a very good argument. I'm almost ashamed for not having read "A Brief History of Time" yet, being the science nerd that I am. I am also ashamed of allowing myself to think of time as only linear, seeing as I often will fight against accepted thought. With this, I forfeit the debate. Thank you.
We don't exist. Nothing does. We are simply thought.

.. I'll try to address the two issues and move to a discussion of why there must be *something* in existence. ********************************* First, my opponent somewhat mischaracterizes time as necessarily linear. In "A Brief History of Time," Hawking describes time as being a much more pliable concept. Humans only perceive time as linear because we are hardwired to do so. In fact, temporal ordering was one of Kant's metaphysical "lenses" - ways that ideas/objects conform to the mind, instead of the mind to the objects. Consider a type of time that is as a dimension. Events would have four coordinates in spacetime. These coordinates could be described as static or relative, depending on preference. For the sake of simplicity, I'll stick with static, meaning that the 0,0,0,0 point would be the center of whatever existed at the time of the Big Bang (0,0,0) and the instant it happened (0). So an event that happened yesterday could have coordinates X, Y, Z, T and something that happened one hour later would have coordinates X, Y, Z, (T+1). In this fashion, time is not a linear construct per se, but is just an arbitrary measurement of the temporal distance between two events. My opponent dismisses the idea that time has no beginning or end, but this is the correct view. If time is just another measurement, then the point at which you "start" or have a reference is arbitrary. Time will still work if everything before the Big Bang has a "negative" time, and everything after has a "positive" time. In this way, time has no beginning and no end, but is, again, just another way to measure something. ****************************** Why must something besides the mind exist? There are several way to attack this problem. First, the mind cannot exist without the brain. The brain is a physical object that is a necessary condition for the human mind to exist. However, I suppose my opponent will argue that we have been fooled into thinking this. Second, for just an intelligence to exist, there must be a collection known as "existence" in which the mind exists. Call it a medium for existence if you will. However, I suppose my opponent will argue that the mind is the only thing in existence. Third, for the mind to think about something else, there must exist these things to give the mind something to think about. For example, if the mind considers a unicorn, something must exist to give the mind that idea. Fourth, for us to be simply thought, there must be some sort of intelligence to think the thought. Thought cannot exist without intelligence. ********************************* Thus, the resolution has been negated. Consider: 1. We (humans? ) do not exist. 2. Nothing exists. 3. We (humans? ) are simply thought. A necessary condition for condition three is that thought exists. And a necessary condition for the existence of thought is that intelligence exists. Both these conditions negate the second condition, negating the resolution. ***************************** NEGATED.