BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free Market Capitalism Inevitably Leads to Corruption

The problem is not in how many or how few the regulations but how effective and how meaningful. Further it is not the freedoms of the market that inherently corrupt but rather corruption that begets more corruption. In a Democratic government ( which is not mandatory for a free market system counter to popular believe) the ability to lobby is a mechanism of the public sector and not the private sector how ever exploited it maybe. The fundamental problem is not in the private sector but in the structure and form of the public sector. The United states in particular but all of the developed nations as well face a system that is better known as Corporatism. A system that first reared its head in the financial crisis, which though initiated through deregulation (reference: CFMA2000 ) culminated in the "too big to fail" mantra of 2008-2009. How ever, while the corruption of the private sector is obvious the fundamental corruption is in the public sector, it was the ability to influence politicians with money that ensure public resources would be used to monetize the losses. On it's own, No institution in a natural market-environment can become too big to fail due to an inherit self correcting nature of the market.
Free Market Capitalism Inevitably Leads to Corruption

All following rounds may be free-form. My opening statement: It seems to be inevitably the case that the further a given municipal, provincial, or national government works to de-regulate and "get government out of the way" of the private sector, the end result seems to be Private institutions/businesses leveraging their freedom for greater political power, often legally or illegally supplying money to lawmakers along the way. The cases of this are numerous (the US was recently reclassified as an oligarchy according to one Princeton study) and while I would not be in favor of a totalitarian state as an alternative, it seems that un-tethered market freedom seems to have a very similar result.
War isn't just

This is a flaw of causation. You're trying to say that war is the only thing causing a drop in educational vitality around the globe, but what about personal greed? How much do we throw away on pop stars and celebrities when we could also be spending that on the less fortunate? Besides, since when was it our duty to look after the world? Yes, there are people out there that are less fortunate than us, but why are we all more focused on people in places like Africa, when we can't even help the homeless in our own country? Did you know that a starving man in Kenya is more likely to recieve sympathy than a starving man in the streets of your own city? A child in Milawii who hasn't been allowed an education is more likely to have funding given to them than the same child in America or even Britain. You are repeatedly appealing to emotion. Thousands of people die every day from illness, starvation, depression and mistreatment, but you still focus on war, as if it were the only world evil and the cause of every malady about the globe?
War isn't just

You're missing my point about the educational systems. You're stating that countries that partake in war are leading in world education and reserach. Correct. However, I was stating that the countries who are less fortunate than those countries, do not have a chance. For example, third world countries have terrible education. If the money that is funded in the building and distribution of weapons was converted, then all children would have an education. How is war more acceptable than education? Children in certain countries know how to use a gun, not a pen. War is making people live in fear and become paranoid and generally unhappy. War is bad for people, the economy, the environment. You would think that people would have learned that war is unacceptable because of previous wars, it causes nothing but devestation. The killing of hundreds of thousands is not, in any way, justifiable.
War isn't just

Those men and boys that were forced into the war still had a choice. Yes, it would have been seen as highly dishonourable, but these men had all the chances to run or surrendered themselves or just refuse to fight. No one wants a soldier that won't raise his gun. Also, the education systems in the majority of countries - namely the ones that partake in wars, actually - are spectacular and haven't exactly suffered from the effects of war. The United Kingdom, America, Canada, Germany: a handful of the main aggressors in all three of the wars that you have just mentioned. All of these nations are currently leading in world education and research. A lot of war is deemed senseless and, as you say, purely destructive, but if it weren't for war, places like Poland, Greece, Italy, The Republic of Ireland, England itself, would all still be trapped and subjected to a totalitarian rule and no one would have freedom, save those who stole the world powers. War does have benefits. As a result of the London bombings, yes, much of London was destroyed, but it gave the city a chance to rebuild and renew. Masses of council houses with no indoor toilets and very poor general hygiene standards were destroyed. This gave the people living in these appalling standards a chance to build a new home and claim better living quarters for themselves and their families.
War isn't just

In previous wars, for example the Fauklands and World Wars I and II, men, and young boys from the ages of 16, were forced to depart their families and defend their country. Do you really think that boys who aren't even men yet, want to fight? If they didn't they would be shamed upon by women and feel like they haven't served their country properly. War does nothing but cause destruction, deaths and promotes agression. If all the money that has been spent on Nuclear weapons was exchanged for eduction funds, all children in the world would be able to have an education. So, hundreds of thousands of men are dying and leaving behind families and destroying areas. But because of the ignorance of war competeing countries, the education of children is being ignored. How is that just?
War isn't just

Although war is, generally, a massive waste of time, we need to remember that a lot of these men, and now women as well, chose to fight for their country. Those on the aggressing side chose to rise in the name of a leader that they all trusted to lead them to victory. It was their choice to charge the lands of 'innocent' people, who likely have as much blood on their hands as they do. On the other hand, the people being attacked have the right to defend their homes and their land - should they be labels as sinners and killers for trying to defend what they hold dear to their hearts?
IVF Debate

Although that option to destroy the embryos is available, there are alternative choices that are available for the couples to decide. Couples can decide to donate the embryos to other infertile couples thus giving another couple a chance at conceiving a baby. ("After IVF: The Embryo Decision." - RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association. RESOLVE, n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2015.) There is also the option of donating the embryos to scientific research. By donating the embryos to science can help further research and knowledge on medical procedures. Couples can donate their embryos to stem cell research to help find cures for diseases. Another option is to store the embryos indefinitely if the couple can not decide on the other choices.
IVF Debate

When undergoing IVF, there are usualy around 8 embryos that are created. Only 3-4 of these are implanted in the woman's uterus. All of the left over embryos are frozen and stored or can be destroyed depending on what the couple wants. One problem that arises with this is that if the embryos are frozen, they can be thawed and used again, regardless of who the woman is. Another issue is the custody of the embryos. Technically, eggs and sperm are custody of their respective owners, but when mixed together, many issues arise over who has custody. Another issue with this is if one person has custody of the embryos, should they be allowed to use them with another person?
IVF Debate

However genetically screening of embryos can be beneficial to couples that have a family history of genetic diseases. If the couple has genetic diseases that run in their family history, screening of the eggs or sperm can be done in the IVF procedure. Using IVF and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis the conditions that were apparent in the embryos can be reduced. ( "Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF." IVF Sunshine Coast and Bundaberg Clinics. Fertility Solutions., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2015.) The couple also has a choice if the embryo has a genetic disease to continue with the procedure by proceeding with another IVF cycle. There is also an option to get a donor that does not have genetic diseases so they would not have to pick out certain traits but can find an alternative way if their embryos have the possibility of getting a genetic disease.
IVF Debate

One advancement in IVF technology is PGD ( Preimplantation genetic diagnosis ). PGD is a new technology that allows doctors and researchers to examine embryos from IVF for genetic diseases. This raises many ethical issues because due to PGD, couples can choose which embryos they want, instead of leaving it up to chance. ( http://www.givf.com... ) Another ethical issue with IVF is the ability for couples to genetically modify the embryos to have specific traits, or to remove certain traits.
IVF Debate

There are financial issues that result from IVF procedure but according to article, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) by the American Pregnancy Association, the success rate in performing the procedure for each IVF cycle in the United States is approximately 41-43% for women under age 35, 33-36% for women ages 35 to 37, 23-27% for women ages 38-40, and 13-18% for women ages over 40. ("In Vitro Fertilization (IVF): Side Effects and Risks." American Pregnancy Association. American Pregnancy Association, 24 Apr. 2012. Web. 26 Apr. 2015.) The basic steps to an IVF procedure is first the women is given fertility medications to stimulate the production of eggs. Then the eggs are collected and the sperm is secured. Once this is completed, the sperm and egg are combined in a laboratory and stored for fertilization. After the eggs are fertilized these embryos are then transferred into the woman's uterus.
IVF Debate

Although IVF is a popular alternative for couples who face infertility, there are many financial issues surrounding the procedure. Just the process of removing the eggs from a woman and mixing them with sperm from the man costs $12,000. Along with the process of gathering the eggs and sperm from the participants, medication is also required which costs anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000. After the eggs and sperm are mixed, the embryos undergo PGD, which is a screening to check for genetic or chromosomal disorders are present, and this step costs anywhere between $3,000 and $6,000. After the embryos are implanted in the woman, the entire process has cost about $20,000, for a 40-50% chance that the procedure works. $20,000 is a large amount of money to spend on one thing, and something that many couples can't afford. ( http://www.forbes.com... )
IVF Debate

The benefits of performing an IVF procedure is that it can provide a way for infertile couples to conceive a child. ("American Experience: TV's Most-watched History Series." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.) It allows for infertile parents to conceive a child of their own because it is using their sperm and eggs. Another beneficial aspect of IVF is the possibility of preventing birth defects because scientists can take out the egg and sperm to examine and collect information on how to prevent certain birth defects. In the same article, it states, "Proponents also noted the possibility that knowledge gleaned from IVF would advance medicine in general, helping with prenatal care." Some reasons that a person might undergo IVF, is if the female has blocked Fallopian tubes, if a female has blocked Fallopian tubes it is difficult for the embryo to reach the uterus. Another reason is if a male has a low sperm count, it can be difficult for the sperm to fertilize the egg.
IVF Debate

Legal issues over the eggs usually arise when a couple gets divorced or separated. In most cases the man or woman wants the embryos destroyed and the other partner wants the embryos to be frozen. There are also some people who want the embryos to be frozen and donated to future genetic and medical research. The legal issues surrounding the custody of the eggs is solely based on what the couple can agree one. Very few states have a solid answer for who should have custody of the embryos because technically, sperm and egg are property of their respective owners. There is also an argument that the embryo is a form of life and has the right to life as well. Overall, IVF can be a very good alternative to natural reproduction, but there are many issues that arise when performing IVF. Some of these are legal and some are financial, but in the end, a couple should seriously consider the problems that come with performing IVF. ( http://www.macelree.com... )
IVF Debate

Yes, the reality of multiple births is that about 1 in 4 IVF pregnancies result in multiple births and over 20 % of all multiple births are resulting from IVF according to article, IVF-the risks. ("IVF - the Risks." IVF Risks. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2015.) Professor Peter Braude, Head of the Department of Women"s Health, states, "We can no longer accept that more than 1 in 5 pregnancies resulting from IVF are twins or more"" Due to the possibilities of getting multiple births from IVF procedures there are ways to avoid this from occurring. The procedures that most IVF clinics are now performing is to only transfer one embryo into the woman"s uterus rather than transplanting three to five embryos, this procedure is called Elective Single Embryo Transfer. There is also Blastocyst Culture and Transfer where the embryos are put in a nutrient-rich media for 5 days and this allows for the selection of the best embryos to implant. ("Avoiding Multiple Births in IVF." - RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.) In vitro fertilization offers couples who are unable to conceive a child due to health related issues the opportunity to have a baby. There are beneficial aspects that arise from performing IVF procedures and after the procedure has finished the couple has various options in deciding what to do with the excess embryos. Despite the arguments against IVF, there are many positive aspects of performing IVF and this procedure allows for couples to be able to start a family that they weren"t able to do so before.
IVF Debate

With IVF, 3-4 embryos are implanted in the woman for the reason that usually only 1-2 survive, in some cases all 3 or 4 have survived. In the case of "Octomom", the doctor broke protocol and implanted all 8 embryos into her uterus. All 8 embryos ended up surviving, but now she lives a tough life because he story was all over social media and the news and on top of that, she has to raise 8 kids at once now. Having multiple births with IVF, especially in the case of "Octomom", she must now raise all 8 children on her own and studies have shown that from the time a child is born to the time a child is 18, it costs around $250,000 or roughly $14,000 which is a lot of money for a single mother. Having multiple births not only has a big financial impact on a couple , but with the more children a woman has, the more likely there is a child that has a birth defect, which also causes more complications in the long run. Studies have shown that having multiple births also put the mother at a greater risk for complications during delivery. ( http://www.oneatatime.org.uk... )
Farming animals should be illegal

I strongly disagree with you. Despite farming being the leading cause of pollution in Europe, the leading Global cause for air pollution are factories. In Europe, the grounds are nice and rich with soil, with plenty of flat terrain. In the United States of America however, the leading cause of pollution is in fact Carbon Dioxide and Methane being leached into the air. This also comes up in why America is the leading economic power house, because of oil and other natural gas trades. In China, you have literally sections of land cut off due to air pollution because of the factories that the children need to live in. On to water. Farming may use up a lot of water, but it has used more in the past (proportionately). Back in the Middle-Ages, when water was only used for drinking and farming, water was proportionately used more for farming, and less than human consumption. So right now, despite the ever-growing use of water in farms, it does not even compare to how much us humans use for bathing and cleaning. And now onto the logic. There is a plague going around called colony collapse disorder, where bees are dying due to foreign viruses brought across by transportation, by the natural fall and rise of populations, and by the use of fertilizers and pesticides. In a few decades, the loss of bees will result in a loss of 2/3 of our food. By making farming animals illegal, we're reducing our food production even more, causing famines across an ever growing global population. If sources are requested, please ask so in the comments and I shall put them in my next counter.
Farming animals should be illegal

I am for animal farming being illegal purely because of the detrimental environmental effects. It is the largest contributor towards global warming and environmental companies aren't doing anything about it. Due to animal agriculture, by 2050, Co2 emissions will have increased by 80%. It's destroying our planet and I can't understand why people are okay with this just because meat is 'tasty'. The amount of water that goes into a making one burger is 6000 litres. Think about how ridiculous the concept of not running tap water while brushing your teeth 'to save the environment' is when you're going to go and waste 1300 gallons of water in a few bites and a momentary fullness. Ridiculous, ban meat farming and get 50% of America's water that goes into it back. Watch 10 mins of the Netflix documentary Cowspiracy and come back to argue your point against banning meat.
'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all

I've always been interested by this Lord Tennyson Alfred quote. I find it to be untrue. Heres why: 1. The Story behind It: These lines are a part of In Memoriam, which Tennyson wrote after the death of his beloved friend Arthur Hallam. Tennyson had met Hallam in 1829, when they were both students at Trinity College, Cambridge. Hallam's sudden death in 1833 threw Tennyson into a tormented and near-suicidal state. Clearly it is not true, merely by its context. His grief was almost too much to endure, and this grief could clearly be avoided if this friend had not been in his life in the first place. Clearly this argument shows how i outweigh in terms of magnitude: voting pro can result in death, the ultimate result that we want to avoid. 2. It is physically untrue. According to Bella DePaulo, Professor of psychology at the University of Caifornia, Santa Barbara: "Tennyson has been felled by science - the data show that the phrase is just not true. In happiness, health, longevity, and just about everything else that has been studied, people who have always been single do better than people who were previously married (divorced or widowed). The results are are quite consistently in the opposite direction than Tennyson would have led us to believe." Thus we can see why in no physical sense is the phrase true, and that is enough to vote con, no matter what my opponent says. 3. The phrase leads to more stress in the future. DePaulo continues: "Scholars have a ready response to the phrase. It even has its own name, with three variations: the "stress" or "crisis" or "loss" hypothesis. People who have always been single have not experienced the same depth of stress (or crisis or loss) as people who have divorced or become widowed." This is important: inherently, therefore, the con is creating less depth of stress in the future than the pro. 4. People who work alone have a greater mastery of the activities of life. Think of all the tasks that married people divide between them. The splits are a little less likely to be traditional than they once were (she takes care of the kids and the cooking, he pays the bills and mows the lawn), but they are often apportioned in some way. While the marriage lasts, this can be useful and efficient. When it is over, though, the newly uncoupled individuals are left with mastery of only those tasks that were once in their domain. So once your loved one leaves, you are left without the skill set necessary to survive in years, while single people always have these abilities. I am look forward to my opponents rebuttal.
2014 congress or bjp

First of all, I'd like to emphasise that the debate is about who *would* win the 2014 elections, and not who *should* win the elections. Also, (for the sake of clearity) my opponent believes Congress would be win the elections (again) as he mentions at the end of his argument that 'Modi could be the best thing that happened to Congress', Modi being the projected head of BJP party. 1. My opponent points out the coalition problems with BJP. Although it cannot be disputed that BJP did disintegrate the last time it came into power because it wasn't able to consolidate necessary votes to form a coalition, the fact remains that the party has come a long way now. However, it should be noted that even congress has squandered the support it gained. Congress seats have declined from 415 Lok Sabha seats to 119-131 seats, while BJP have more or less remained stagnant at 116. The deviation isn't statistically significnt. Both of them rely on coalitions (Of which, Congress is losing out on, fast).BJP has been pretty successful in gaining support recently, (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...), with TDP in talks with BJP, and Modi heralding a proactive approach to politics. Congress has failed to consolidate its position in the last 10 years. BJP has been fairly successful in Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh, the states it did rule in. All in all, what we can sufficiently gather from this is that both of them would have to woo local parties, parties that are, in effect, trying to come into power. So apart from 'who' woos them, the question is their expectations of who comes into power.2. Opinion polls show that with the dismal performance of Congress, people have been rooting for BJP (or more succintly, for Modi). (http://www.firstpost.com...) Opinion polls show that Modi is far ahead in the race as of now, DESPITE the populist measures taken by Congress. a k a the food security Bill, the Aadhaar card scheme, the petrol prices reduction, and the entire hoopla.In a Rahul vs Modi fight, people do have more faith in Modi (and his libertarian policies) as opposed to the person whose mother still instructs him on public speaking (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...). Given that the parties are more or less at an equal footing, the projected head is the only swaying factor. As long as Congress doesn't elect anybody better than Rahul Gandhi, BJP is going to be, by default, people's choice.Summing up, coalition is a problem for both the parties, people prefer BJP, hence that'd add a boost to the party support within the parliament form the parties in the sidelines. a k a BJP has a high probability of coming into power as of now, contingent on the fact that they don'tr pick a better leader.