BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: That the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 serves the best interests of the American people

Alright then opponent. I post my arguments with these 3 contentions: 1) Card check system is flawed 2) Binding arbitration is flawed 3) This bill will ultimately hurt American business 1) Card Checking Now lets talk about card checking. Under EFCA as long as unions have majority of signed cards, the union would automatically become a representative among the employees and a private ballot election would become illegal. By doing this, employees are left open to intimidation and coercion. According to the Testimony of Jen Jason, who was a former union organizer from Unite-Here, she along with other organizers were instructed to use mainipulation tactics that would agitate employeese into signing cards. She even ADMITS that EFCA is a powerful advantage to unions to be recognized, and later states that the amount of signed cards is usually disproportionate to pro union ballots. They are actually far less. According to an inside study by AFL-CIO, unions dont have a 50% of winning until at least 75% of employees sign cards. What AFL-CIO admits is that just because you sign a card doesn't necessarily mean you want to join a union, otherwise 75% of signed cards would mean a certain victory. 2) Binding arbitration Under the EFCA if an initial contract isnt made in 120 days, a government appointed arbiter will make a decision binding on the parties for 2 years. Basically this tells businesses "you better let us mess with your wages whether you like it or not." The unwise thing about this bill is that it puts an arbiter, who has no stake in the matter or financial consequence for making a poor decision, in a position to manipulate wages, therefore behind the wheel of your business. This bill assumes that the arbiter is trustworthy and immune to all forms of corruption (specifically bribery), and that the arbiter is educated enough to make a MARKET based decision that wont hurt business. Also, this bill takes away power from the employers and the employees. The employees cannot hold a vote to terminate the contract, and employers may not terminate the contract without consent of the union. The business and employees may suffer dire consequences as a result of a poor decision, as they cannot terminate it no matter how bad it is. 3) Business Unionizing has its benefits, but is not necessary at ALL COSTS. Increasing wages and benefits for the employees may not be suitable for the company. One example of an industry torn by mindless overuse of collective bargaining is the American auto industry. Thanks to the contracts made by the United Auto Workers union, the big three pay as high as $70 an hour to support worker salaries and benefits. Now since the automotive industry has had to suffer the financial consequences of a greedy union, it is on the brink of bankruptcy, and must cut jobs in order to stay afloat. From the year 2000 till today, in attempt to stay afloat the big three have cut over 250,000 American jobs. :) I humbly await my opponents arguments
Presidents Should be Natural Born Citizens

Thanks to Debate250 for this challenge. The Natural-born-citizen clause of the US Constitution states when describing the requirements for president as “no person accept a natural born citizen”. This is generally accepted to include those born on US soil to non-citizen parents as well as those born on foreign soil to US parents. I accept both of those requirements as interpreted, and my opponent obviously does as well. The clause however does not include those born on foreign soil to non-citizen parents(1). To outline my case I will provide the following syllogism: 1. Changes to Presidential requirements should be made to increase the likelihood of US success 2. Success requires Presidential decisions to be made based solely on US interests. 3. People have a natural loyalty to the land in which they originate. 4. People who have a natural loyalty to a foreign land will be more likely to include foreign interests in their decision making. 5. The proposed changes will not increase the likelihood of US success. Part 1 is self explanatory and part 5 is the conclusion so this argument boils down to points 2, 3, and 4. A person who is born on a foreign land will be more likely to have a sense of loyalty to that land, particularly if they are raised there. This can be a very problematic scenario when a President is forced to make a tough decision that may involve that nation. Imagine if George W. Bush was born in Afghanistan, or if Obama was born in Haiti. Whether war or foreign aid, a President must make his decisions considering only the viewpoint of the American people. Regardless of what allegiance we pledge to we are all human beings, we can not pledge away our nature. The President of the United States is the person we look to for leadership. It is their responsibility to make the decisions that will guide this nation. There is no true way to know what direction that President will take us in until they are already elected. Politicians are notorious for making empty promises or changing their positions once they are in office, and are even more notorious for rationalizing irrational decisions. Their motives are impossible to accurately determine so the constitution rightfully takes precautions to guard against one of the most dangerous scenarios this country could possibly face; a leader with compromised motives. Pro is arguing to remove this precaution. Rebuttal Pro states that a person who was born in another country could be more patriotic then someone born in the US. This is true, they can be. But the greater question is; will they be more likely to be? This is an obvious no. People born in the US are more likely to be patriotic then someone born on a foreign land. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Presidents Should be Natural Born Citizens

Just as a clarification we are not arguing about presidents needing to be citizens. We are arguing about the fact of whether they need to be born in the U.S. I am against them needing to be born in the U.S and my opponent is for the President needing to be born in the U.S. The main reason it is not necessary for the President to be born in the U.S is because it doesn't mark anything. Someone who was one when they moved to the U.S when theky were one and doesn't even remember the country they came from wouldn't be allowed to be president. They could be equally patriotic though because they wouldn't even remember the country they came from. Even if someone moved to the U.S when they were 20, it still doesn't mark loyalty. Someone who moved to the U.S when they were 20 could be very loyal and love the U.S, but someone who's lived in the U.S all of their life could not be at all patriotic and dislike everything about the U.S. Having been born in the U.S doesn't mark loyalty or inspiration. A President needs to be inspirational and have a lot of political knowledge. They also need to know what's happening in the country. Therefore, the age requirement and needing to have lived here for 14 years makes sense as those are probably necessary to make a good president whereas someone who lived here less than 14 years and was younger than 35 may be inexperienced or not know a lot about the country. However, this is not the case with being born in the U.S. Being born in the U.S doesn't mean knowing a lot about the country or having more political experience. Overall, needing to be born in the U.S is a ridiculous requirement and should be gotten rid of.
Money enhances sports

Hello everyone and welcome! As Con has failed to give any definitions, I will take the liberty of Defining them.Money- Any currency or item of monetary value that may be traded or given in exchange for another itemEnhances- to make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment. [1] Sport- Physical activity that is often engaged in competitively. [2]Onto the Argument- Pro's argument will rest with money being used to buy steroids, which in turn enhance sport through strength and athleticism. Basically, steroids improve athletic performance, as a study by Penn State University proves. [3] I will await Con's remarks on the issue (as I am unsure whether this round is for acceptance or not) before proceeding. Sources [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://news.psu.edu...
belief is theism

belief IS theism any belief is belief in god, as god is information beyond what i know is what i dont know belief is false.. it can never be true, as i dont know is true, i have to imagine it, and imagiantion is false the past is memory of now kNow=physical experience of now this is true math as it is, equal is is, and is plus, a banana and a banana, is the same as 1 banana+1 banana.. my mother is something, informaton is nothing, what has more metal in it, a metal ship you imagine or a unicorn? why do you not believe i am a bot? i have explained why its true, you simply dont understand. the opposite of physical is mental, something is physical, nothing is mental, and if god is not physical right now, what is god?.. atheism is the negative position on an imaginary claim... anti theism, the no position, where as i dont know is agnostic, third side
belief is theism

only know is true, and knowledge is truth, truth can only be in the past and only now is true, the future is false, belief if i remember something but not to well i stil have to fill the memory gap with imagiantion thefore it becomes a belief if a guy walk away from me into the dark then at a certain point i have to imagine or remember his existence a blind man cant see reality, is absolute. logic is absolute. if i am with you and i say to you, hey man, i am being now, my experience is now, you cant argue with that know=100 percent certain, as know is no other possibility, absolute you still dont know wheather i was holding a rock or not, you never will as the past is impossible and know is now if you believe it, its because you dont know it, therfore i dont know is true i am the one who put a magical rock in your hand when making that claim beyond you imagining it, and wheather you accept me as your god or not is up to you now=reality loop 1 second or less i can at best believe what others tell me, unless the are speaking of something here now, like i know i am typing these Words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, i dont have to imagine it facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now "Yes, but the belief that you weren"t holding a rock was also still true, even though it wasn"t known factually. " the belief was true, but i didnt know it, thefore i dont know was true, up until the point i knew look, we can argue cause and effect, but its an even bigger discussion then this one =(is) +(and) 1+4=(is)5=10-5=1+1+1+1+1=3+2 so i am saying, information is separation is god is religion, as they can not exist without each other how can i seperate without informaiton, how can god exist without religion and so on.. its the same you are trying to squeeze out the i dont know position..... just think about that for a minute, what is my moms name? ow you disbelieve i have a mom, well sir i shall do battle with Pictures of my mom and me! if you look at the claim, what are your options, either you believe(i claim its a nice rock from the Beach with holes), disbelieve the claim(maybe im lying) or maybe i dont have hands and i sit in a Wheel chair typing with a straw in my mouth, or maybe i am a bot programmed to make you think i am human............. am i holding a rock in my hand? i have no beliefs. ok listen, whenever you experience matter beyond now, tell me about it, becase you would be violating the absolute which not even an all powerfull god can do, hence there must be evil for eksample, as good is a contrast of that. atheism is antitheism, there is no other option, what other options are there then for you to believe what im saying, disbelieve it, or accept you dont know? positive negative and balance, 3 sides, no more no less on any imaginary claim you are missing the main point, belief is theism, ergo belief in anything is belief in god, a World creator religion is just a position on an imaginary claim belief=yes=i am holding the rock in my hand disbelief=no=i am not holding the rock in my hand i dont know=i dont know=i have to imagine it you should get it now..
belief is theism

"If "I don"t know" = "I have to imagine it", and "belief" = "false", then "belief" = "false", as "I don"t know"" yes yes YES i dont know is a true position unless i know, becasue i have to know to know i dont know, and only know is true belief is doubt and know is certain beliefs are false as i dont know is true so if your belief that i wasnt holding a rock in my hand was true but you didnt know it, i dont know was true until the point you know i wasnt holding a rock in my hand, and thats when it ceases to be a belief, when its true a blind mans reality is not of colours and light cause and effect is absolute, if they can not exist without each other, they are the same if you can not believe in a proposition you can not be a theist and neither and atheist, and actually god cant exist god is religion information=seperation=god=religion=supernature=false i like the way you are capable of putting on my thining, this is rare for me. if you believe santa isnt going to come with presents if you are bad you believe in god and god is creating your world as you are being good to get presents, if you believe you are going to catch a unicorn in the forest and get a wish one day you belive in god, chasing unicorns, like christians atheism is disbelief, there are just 3 positions on any imaginary claim, you can beleive it, disbelieve it , or accept you dont know, negative positive and balance, what are the other options? disbelief=negative position on my claim=doubt=false belief=positive position on my claim=doubt=false i dont know=balance=certain=true as i said positive is anti neagative, and disbelief is the opposite of belief, and the anti theist would be the person that disbelieves the claim that i am holding a rock in my hand, is the one who would argue with the theist that says i am holding a rock in my hand disBelief is belief, how can you believe i am not holding a rock in my hand if you dont have the ability to believe i am holding a rock in my hand
belief is theism

Argument 1: Since it’s gone unchallenged, I’ll leave it as is. Responses “it it unclear, until you grow a pair and answer my question :)” Ah, you’re right. I forgot to answer your question. Let’s see where you take this. I don’t know whether you were holding a rock at the time that you typed that question. It’s possible that you were, and it’s possible that you weren’t. Pretty ballsy move to complain about me not answering your question when I asked 7 and they all went unanswered. “belief=false, as i have to imagine it know=true i dont know=i have to imagine it=true, unless i know” Is there a reason you choose not to write what you mean in understandable ways? Just for fun, I’ll try to extract meaning from it. I’ll assume the words have their usual meaning, or the definitions I listed in Round 1, and I’ll assume the equivalence symbol, ‘=’ If “I don’t know” = “I have to imagine it”, and “belief” = “false”, then “belief” = “false”, as “I don’t know” So, were you trying to say that “beliefs are false because they are not knowledge”? This is easily demonstrated to be untrue. If I had said that I believed that you were not holding a rock while typing that question, and you indeed were not holding a rock, then my belief was true, even though I didn’t know actually know it. I’ll assume you meant the most logical thing I could draw from what you said, and not something like “belief is false as know, unless I true”, which can also be derived from your interesting use of words and symbols. “belief is theism, there can be no religion without belief, cause and effect” I agree that there can be no religion without belief. However, as stated in the last round, this does not imply that belief and theism are the same thing. Theism, and religious believe in general, is a subset of belief, and not the other way around. “god is information, a World creator if believed, like santa, or my neighbour” Your neighbour is god AND santa? Just kidding. Grammatically, this would be interpreted as you saying that santa and your neighbour are world creators. To a lesser extent, it’s possible that you meant that santa and your neighbor are information. Either way, it’s neither a meaningful statement or discernibly related to the debate. “antitheism=atheism” As with belief and theism, antitheism is a subset of atheism. Since atheism is the lack of a belief in a god, and antitheism is the belief that there is no god, all antitheists are atheists, but only some atheists are antitheists. So they’re not the same. How would changing definitions to make that equality hold benefit your side of the argument anyway? “negative is anti positive, disbelief is the opposite of belief, atheism is the opposite of theism” Sure. Disbelief is without belief. Atheism is without a theistic belief. Please let me know if you’re going somewhere with this.What exactly is your goal with all of this? I'm sure you're capable of rational thought and normal communication, but you choose not to engage in those things on this site most of the time.
belief is theism

just answer my question, or answer me this, if you believe i didnt hold a rock in my hand as i typed that, what is your position on my claim? the opposite would be believing i am holding a rock in my hand belief=false, as i have to imagine it know=true i dont know=i have to imagine it=true, unless i know belief is theism, there can be no religion without belief, cause and effect god is information, a World creator if believed, like santa, or my neighbour antitheism=atheism negative is anti positive, disbelief is the opposite of belief, atheism is the opposite of theism it it unclear, until you grow a pair and answer my question :)
Transgender people should use the bathroom that they are assigned on their birth certificate

To address your first point: If the law was in place to allow transgender people to use whichever toilet they wanted, my exact point is that cisgender people don't have to look transgender for them to exploit it. The notion that they will get 'stomped' by surrounding people is ridiculous, as they will be breaking the law, and would be arrested. The judge will not determine the person is a dirty pervert as, by law, that is discrimination against trans people, which would have encompassed people who declare 'I am transgender'. You mention how people would use common knowledge. The law has the final say, and whatever people think, the law wins. My exact point is that the system is easily abused, as people who (rightly) object to anybody going into whatever toilet they want, are wrong by the law. And your second point I agree with you, it is all about perspective. Yet without different perspectives, there would be no debates. I disagree with you, I think that the majority matters more than the minority, it is as simple as that. In closing, transgender people should use the toilet that aligns with the sex on their birth certificate because otherwise we will have a system that is easily exploited, dangerous and sacrifices the comfort of the majority for the comfort of a minority.
Transgender people should use the bathroom that they are assigned on their birth certificate

Hello and happy holidays! Christmas was fun for me as well, as a communist in a pro-capitalist family I just went with the flow and made my family happy, that is a good gift for Christmas :D. So anyway. You didn't say anything about Cis-genders abusing the law, you just said trans, this would have helped me clarify what this was about, so, let me get to the argument. The things these people have to go through is insane, the fact that they are being successful in getting the right to do this is pretty insane. So from your point of view you say that trans abusing the law isn't the problem, it is cis? Well then, what is wrong with the Trans? The trans are who you say should be assigned with their birth certificate, so can you clarify that soon? The thing is that with every law someone is going to go the extra mile and abuse it. The majority of trans-gender people know that the cis-genders will find this as a way to abuse the law, they obviously know about the argument in this. The thing is that if someone says, "I identify as male/female" there are a couple of outcomes, one of these is if you don't look trans-gender/tran-sexual you will get stomped on by the surrounding people for even trying that sort of thing, people know now that they gotta watch themselves. These people think 2 things, either your a joker, or your a pervert trying to abuse the system, it isn't until person in question walks into the bathroom people are going to do something. Plus after a court of law the judge is most likely gonna determine that the person in question is just a dirty pervert. It's not like people can't use their common knowledge to tell who is abusing the system. Now for your third argument, I don't like to say this but, that is sort of selfish, (not being rude just trying to be honest), and I can explain right here, the thing is as a majority you are pretty comfortable right? Well these people feel very uncomfortable, people out there would gladly beat them up and injure them just because, of who they are and how they identify themselves. Their scared of the majority because, the majority is deciding whether or not they have the right to be accepted into society. The majority that is uncomfortable has to make a law that makes them uncomfortable at the expense of someone else's comfort. The decision is all about ethics and the rights of people different from us. It's all about a term of perspective you know?