BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free Trade, NAFTA CAFTA

Free trade has devastated the North American continent economically. For this post, I will keep to discussing the consequences of NAFTA. The outsourcing of U.S. labor to Mexico, where wages are 1/8 of average American wages, has led to a net loss of at least hundreds of thousands of jobs, according to most analyses. (1) Canada has similarly suffered, losing 200 000 high paid jobs to NAFTA, with a steep decline in manufacturing and real wages. The influx of highly subsidized U.S. corn into the Mexican economy has displaced at least 2 million Mexican farmers, vastly exceeding jobs created by its trade surplus, while the destruction of labor standards in Mexico's manufacturing sector led to a decline in wages by 13.5% by 2000, according to the IMF.(2) The Clinton Administration anticipated the destruction of Mexican livelihoods, militarizing the border the same year that NAFTA was passed. Predictions of a drastic increase in illegal immigration, mostly of displacement farmers, of course, turned out to be accurate. The effect on the American economy was also anticipated. Two years before NAFTA, 40% of business executives told the Wall Street Journal that if NAFTA passed they would shift some production to Mexico, while 25% said they would use the agreement to bargain down U.S. wages. Thus, the real effects of free trade are stagnation, unemployment and exploitation. Free trade exports middle class jobs in developed countries to poor countries with low wages and minimal labor standards, with states that crack down violently on labor. In turn, developing countries are unable to develop burgeoning industries due to competition with far more developed economies. My opponent's view of free trade is not supported by the facts, probably why he rehashes standard economic theories with no attempt to give evidence. My opponent points out that average incomes in America have increased. He makes no attempt to link this to free trade. Average incomes have increased, but the growth has been entirely in the wealthiest sectors, with middle class wages stagnating or declining. Small savings in consumption are negligible compared to the loss of hundreds of thousands of decent jobs, and the decline in wages and in the bargaining power of labor. My opponent's only other citation is a global decline in malnutrition. Again, he makes no attempt to link this to free trade policies. In fact, studies consistently show negative correlations between trade liberalization and food security. (3) This is due to the mass displacement of farmers due to foreign market penetration, and the divestment of agricultural resources by foreign subsidiaries to exports of cash crops while the population starves. (1) http://epi.3cdn.net... (2)www.fpif.org/articles/nafta_is_starving_mexico (3) http://www.twnside.org.sg...
Free Trade, NAFTA CAFTA

C1: Higher Standards of LivingUltimately, free trade increases the standards of living on both sides involved. For the lower income countries, they have a comparative advantage in producing labor intensive, low-skilled, low wage work. In return, we would produce skill intensive, high skill, higher wage work. It is most efficient this way, as both countries are specializing in different areas where they are most efficient at producing goods.This leads to greater competition, and therefore lower prices. Lower prices equals higher savings. Savings = income. This is why free trade has increased the average American's paycheck by $2,000. [1]Free trade allows free movement of resources. By allocating resources where they are used most efficiently, it allows greater wealth and thus greater economic growth for all.--For high skilled nations, they sell skill intensive goods, which increases the wages of the workers and allows for expanded reinvestment and expansion in high skill countries, allowing for broad economic growth.--For low skill nations, they sell labor intensive goods. This also raises the wages of workers. Many workers can suddenly get jobs at higher wages than they are used to. This surge in consumption leads to higher economic growth and more investment. Ultimately, on both sides resources are used more efficiently, and goods are allocated naturally to where they have the greatest benenfit. This leads to job growth on both sides of the transaction, and leads to a continuing cycle of job growth and prosperity.Specific ExamplesIn 1975, malnourishment among children was greater than 50%. Now, it is about 1/3rd of children. [2] Child mortality rates are also down, life expectancies are up. I am going to see if my opponent even responds before going further.Sources: [1] C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics, Foreign Affairs (89)[2] http://www.slate.com...
Can this work be considered religious

pro says "For it to be religious it need not fall under all heads" but the fact is you did state those 4 heads as to what religious is ie 1.the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2.a particular system of faith and worship. 3.a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. you canot now just change your definition when it turns out you cant tells why thi work falls under these 4 heads and say "he connotation of the word is just as crucial as the word itself." it was you that gave those 4 heads as being religious now it is up to you to show 1) what superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. is worshiped in this poem 2) tell us what system of belief is followed in this poem 3) what interest is followed with great devotion in this poem if you cant then i must win the debate but I will grant you a way out you say "Mystical writing is replete with symbolism of love and eros" if this poem is mystical in your sense then tell us 1) why this poem is mystical 2) what is the object of love in this poem 3) what is the object of eros in this poem
Can this work be considered religious

you say "religion r=8;G2;l=8;dA8;(ə)n/ noun 1.the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2.a particular system of faith and worship. 3.a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion." so tell us what 1) what superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. is worshiped in this poem 2) tell us what system of belief is followed in this poem 3) what interest is followed with great devotion in this poem if you cant then i must win the debate
Can this work be considered religious

religion r=8;G2;l=8;dA8;(ə)n/ noun 1.the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2.a particular system of faith and worship. 3.a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. I think you forgot to learn the meaning of religion before you started out with this debate. Religion is a set of beliefs, it is a devoted pursuit, and it is important to know the various connotations of a world before you use that as the basis of your argument. The poem is definitely a result of devotion and faith and worship. It may or may not comply with your faiths, but that does not have an impact on whether it is an active interest of all or even one of the 7billion people on this entire planet. You can't say that it isnt religious, arbitrarily. What isnt a pursuit to you, doesnt stop it from being a pursuit for everybody else. please stop giving yourself that much importance. regards.
Should Transgenders Be Allowed to Join the BSA

Okay. You know what? Pro wins. They can come up with millions of facts to crush me, and I can't do anything about it. I do overlook some things and I am sorry, but I still stand with my statement. I will say though that pro insists on acting as if all these people are are biological outliers and not real people. Sure they have slightly different brain makeup, but that is not the only reason transgender people decide to follow that path. One excuse I have is I cannot put my exact thoughts into words without it sounding stupid. It's a lame excuse I know, but its the truth nevertheless. So in conclusion, I surrender. BUT, I still stand with my side. Thank you for accepting this and for crushing me extremely. No hard feelings though.
Should Transgenders Be Allowed to Join the BSA

As a former scout, I can testify that the BSA is a wonderful organization and I have gained a lot from being a part of the Scouts. It is for this reason that I believe that Transgender boys should be allowed to join the BSA, so they too can gain from the lessons I learned in scouts about how to be a better person in every aspect of life.The Con argues that gender identity is fixed and binary, saying people who identify with a gender different from the gender they were assigned at birth are "delusional". The main problem with this claim is that it conflates the concept of biological sex with the concept of gender. According to the American Psychological Association, "Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female." (See Source 1)The example the Con gives of how "guys can't have ovaries and girls can't produce sperm" completely ignores this distinction. Moreover, this statement is not medically true, as intersexuality is a real phenomenon which disproves this notion. A person who is XX intersex will appear to be male, based on their genitalia and will likely be declared a male at birth and raised as a male, however, they still have the chromosomes and ovaries of a female (see source 2).As to people who are Transgender, while they may have been assigned a sex, and consequently a gender at birth, scientific evidence suggests that the brain structure of transgender people differs from the brain structure of people of the same sex. Brain scans have shown that transgender people often have brain structures which are more in line with the opposite sex they were assigned at birth. This disconnect between the brain structure and the reproductive anatomy is what causes people to identify with a different gender. (see source 3) As the brain controls the body, not the body which controls the brain, these people are, therefore, for all intents and purposes, the gender they identify as.As for the final remarks by the Con, I first will highlight the use of a transphobic slur by the con. This phrase is inappropriate and should be taken into account on his conduct point. Secondly, I would like to remind the Con that allowing Transgender boys into the boy scouts does not mean that it will be open to all transgender people, only those whose gender identity is male. Transgender girls will not be allowed to join.1. http://www.apa.org...2. https://medlineplus.gov...3. https://www.newscientist.com...
Should Transgenders Be Allowed to Join the BSA

Let us assume that by transgender people we mean girls "feeling" they're boys. The BSA - BOY Scouts of America - is specifically for boys. Yes, there have been girls in it before, but that was either cub scout leaders or CO-ED/venture groups. I know because I'm in one. Those girls who believe they are boys have that right to live in the delusion that they are boys, but that doesn't change their genetical make-up. "Oh, but what about 'the treatment'?" That does nothing. It's just like somebody choosing to get plastic surgery. They look completely different, but that doesn't change who they are. Guys can't have ovaries, and girls can't produce sperm. It's just the way humans are. Here is one great quote I've seen (sorry, but I can't name who said it) - "I don't know if it's a girl or a boy until it decides to identify... SAID NO DOCTOR EVER." Why is it, if we supposedly have the right to decide our gender, when the doctor says exactly WHAT YOU ARE at birth? They don't say they can't tell, they say "it's a boy!" or "it's a girl!" Back to the topic at hand - through all of this proof, you cannot say that a girl identifying as a boy is really a boy. Only boys are allowed to be a BOY scout. It's not like we're called the Tranny Scouts of GrandOl'Frickin'Murica!
This house would legalize the use of marijuana

I await for an opponent to challenge me. This motion is not discussing the medical use of marijuana. I think the definition is narrow enough. The follwing is the rule for each round:R1: AcceptanceR2: Arguments from both sides (Only arguments) R3: RebuttalsR4: Counter-attacks R5: Final Argument (no Rebuttals) I suggest having a shared BOP. I look forward for a great debate.
This house would legalize the use of marijuana

I apologize. Due to my personal schedule and sickness, I was not able to complete this round. I will post my counters to my opponent's second round in my next round. Again, I apologize for my unwise time management and I hope to finish this debate successfully agasint my engaged opponent. I suggest making Round 5 serve as a purpose for Round 4. That way the debate would still be what it is meant to be. Sorry.
This house would legalize the use of marijuana

I accept, even though I know this is a pretty unpopular position, haha. In the following round, I'd like to request that my opponent answer the following questions about legalization:To what extent are advertisements for marijuana allowed?To what extent are packaging warnings for marijuana required?Is there going to be an age requirement for smoking marijuana? If so, what would it be?Will there be any situation where using marijuana is illegal (smoking and driving, smoking in the presence of children)?How will this be enforced?Will there be controls on the amount of THC allowed within marijuana?I'm also going to assume (unless stated otherwise by my opponent) that this debate is dealing with the average, developed first world nation. Well, good luck!
Stricter gun controls

Thank you for taking part in my debate! First of all I have to say that gun related crimes, in the USA, decreased quite a lot, also if people buy more and more guns. In the FBI crime statistics for 2011 there was a decrease of 3,8% of violent crimes. For 2012 it increased for only 0,7%, in 2013 it decreased for 4,4% and in 2013 it decreased for 4,6%. This is 12,3% lower than in 2009 and 14,5 than in 2004. Here you can see the full statistics: 2011: http://www.fbi.gov... 2012: http://www.fbi.gov... 2013: http://www.fbi.gov... Preliminary crime statistics 2014: http://www.fbi.gov... Most of the crimes committed are because of personal relationship, this means that if he wouldn't have got any access to firearms he would have used other objects like knifes or any other things you can find at home. People who want to suicide can find other methods than their guns (eg. jumping out of a window, from a bridge...). Stricter gun controls only harm those people who want to use their guns for "good" things like self-defense or those who want to practice a shooting sport or go hunting. Criminals find other way to get to guns: this would massively increase the number of illegal weapons, and at the end some who is killed is dead, shot with an legal weapon or with an illegal weapons, he is still dead. A more restrictive gun law would only minimally decrease the number of weapons in hand of people that should not have them. After a study of Prof. Dr. Heubrock, for the German Landtag Schleswig-Holstein, and other studies in the European Union, he comes to the conclusion that most of the gun related crimes are acquaintance crimes. Here the offender and the victim are clear only the object of the crime is not clear. This means, for example, if he would not have used a gun he would have used a knife or any other object that could be used as weapon. This means also if we would not have got a gun he would have used an other object for his purpose.* We also have to remember that if you have weapons at home it does not turn yourself automatically into a crazy murder who is shooting in schools. Almost always is not the weapon that turns you into a murder but it is the murder who wants a gun and use it for criminal purposes! *The full study (in German): http://www.landtag.ltsh.de... A summarised version (in German)--look pag. 4, paragraph n. 4: http://www.ballistol.de...
Stricter gun controls

I will be playing devil's advocate (speaking out for the position normally against what I really believe).I will start off simple.1. Deterrence to crime and deathsThere have been many shootings in the pass years. [http://www.motherjones.com...] These are all due to guns, and if we control guns to a stricter extent, the criminals will be able to buy fewer guns, possibly leading to fewer shootings. Here are a few more statistics that prove guns should be in stricter control: [http://www.bradycampaign.org...] One in three people in the U.S. know someone who has been shot.1 On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day and 140 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room.2 Every day on average, 51 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 45 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun.3 The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.4 A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.5 Stricter gun control would not only stop the criminals, it can also stop the unintentional shootings. It would be a warning to those who want to buy guns for good purposes, and allow them to be more careful. And even if the gun control isn't 100 percent, it arguably helps the civilians who do buy guns, since some people believe in defending themselves just in case. [Keep in mind that if gun control WAS 100%, criminals could obtain them illegally, leaving the civilians defenseless, while if it is just severe enough to hinder a good amount of criminals, with lots of security and checks, it still allows the civilians who are serious enough to both hunt for fun, and defend themselves in cases of emergency). The background checks, with sufficient increase in tighter control, will be able to deter much more crime than now. That is all.
Stricter gun controls

I am against of stricter gun controls in the USA and in Europe. Before beginning our debate you have to know some things about me: 1. I am German, so I will use some facts from German websites but also from English websites (I hope that is not a problem for you!) 2. I am against stricter gun controls but I am for a background check, to prevent that dangerous people can legally buy weapons. I hope we will have an interesting debate! Good luck!!!
NEXTEL SUCKS

i don't know what your talking about, customers of nextel waste any of the cheap money that they send because wherever they go they are sure to get a dropped call. Texts are 20 cents per, the airtime charges are ridiculous, the phones are to rugged and not as good as the other phones from verizon and t-mobile for example, and the extra services that come with the phone are horrible. Push to talk is useful, but since no one has nextel anymore it is worthless becaue no other networks have push to talk.
'backwardseden' is a troll account

The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove without doubt, And 100% certainty that a user on debate. Org that goes by the name of backwardseden is nothing more than a troll account. My opponent ends his rage and post with a hint of doubt at the end of his post and I quote "If he isn't trolling, Then he is just a deluded old man who has nothing better to do with his time. " So, The keywords in that sentence of course is "if he isn't trolling" meaning that my opponent GUESSES that backwardseden is a troll account, But can't say for 100% certainty that the account is a troll account. Now I'll save everyone reading this debate time and energy and will link the account in questions profile right here. http://www. Debate. Org/backwardseden/ One thing you'll notice is that the account has many losses, But you can't just assume they are a troll because they have many losses. I've investigated and done the investigating for you all reading, And my conclusion from reading the debates from "backwadseden" are legit debates from what I have read. This means if you go and look at one of his debates, You'll see that he actually puts up arguments, And facts, And everything one would do in a debate. So to say he is trolling is nonsense. I'd say he has this very rough personality, And approach to topics he is passionate about, And has convinced himself that he is always right but never wrong. Maybe he's just a bad debater, Maybe people didn't vote for him due to some of the verbal language he often uses in some of the debates. That does not make him a troll, That makes him a rude and not a formal debater that goes by conduct that most would want to see in someone. Furthermore, My opponent made a entire debate on bashing this gentleman whom I don't even know, Nor probably do the readers when the gentleman in question has not made a topic on my opponent, But only debated him once from what I have gathered by looking at my opponents profile. I read the debate and again, The "backwardseden" was serious and argued his points, And did not troll. Sure he made have used verbal language, But that does not constitute a troll. His arguments were on topic according to the debates he argued in. https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Internet_troll The account in question was not harassing the user who made this debate. Only minor name calling. Just because you get upset with someone does not make that someone a troll. I could argue that my opponent is a troll because he made a debate on someone and his whole debate, And first argument in round 1 fits the definition I just posted more so than the account I investigated. However, This debate is not about my opponent being a troll, But questioning if the other account named 'backwardseden" is and that's the whole narrative here "QUESTIONING" cause no one can say for certain that the user in question is a troll account. I'll go a step further and say a troll account is usually a account separate from a main account. That person in question has many debates, And I'd say that is his main account.
'backwardseden' is a troll account

So I have done a few debates with backwardseden perhaps a year ago, And I thought it was too funny to be real, I mean, The insults he used were extremely childish for his age (57 yr old virgin) and in general, I just loved debating with him because his arguments made no sense. Plus he's an atheist so he probably is a troll account, Especially with his deluded logic. If he isn't trolling, Then he is just a deluded old man who has nothing better to do with his time.