BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Japan is becoming a threat to the peace in East Asia

Perhaps he should clarify why he went to the shrine and explain he didn't have malicious intent.Then now he knows they don't like his visit to the shrine, but why hasn't he explained yet??? China is the threat to peace because they have started these border disputes with several of their neighbors aside from Japan. Perhaps you should adknowledge that now the border disputes are over and resolved, but when the Chinese tried to settle the border disputes with Japan, the Japanese were really stubborn and gave many false excuses. But I dont think Japan should attack China because China has a much more stronger military force. What Prime Minister Abe is trying to convey to the public we dont know, so China is afraid and now is very suspicious of Japan. I don't read the Japanese news so I wouldn't know their view at all on the subject.Well a recent poll for popularity of Shinzo Abe showed that the citizens saw nothing but a stuggling economy after Shinzo Abe was elected. He also used to be with the LDP party, led to a crushing defeat at the hands of the DPJ party. The LDP party was evicted later, but Mr. Abe still persisted and became Prime Minister.
Japan is becoming a threat to the peace in East Asia

"Also can you please research more on the Mass Killing of Nanking."I am very familiar with the Rape of Nanking and the atrocities that took place. I am also familiar with Japan's other malicious actions in Manchuria, Korea, and in Southeast Asia. But Prime Minister Abe is not responsible for the actions taken before he was born. Maybe a symbolic apology may be necessary from the government of Japan. But to assert Prime Minister Abe is personally responsible for Nanking and should apologize is a severe error. Perhaps he should clarify why he went to the shrine and explain he didn't have malicious intent."Japan is making another army similar to the US's Navy SEALS just recently."Japan is developing their military out of reaction to Chinese aggression. The Chinese have steadily become more aggressive in terms of flexing their influence. For example, a few months ago when a newspaper editor in Taiwan was asked to tone down the rhetoric in his paper because it offended the mainland Chinese government. "If you listen to the news, the US is disappointed in Prime Minister Abe's visit to the shrine too plus some other countries I forgot.I recommend you listen to Chinese and Korean viewpoints too on the topic."I read one Chinese newspaper a day aside from the other four papers I read I'm very familiar with the response by State Councilor Yang Jiechi denouncing Prime minister Abe(1). I don't read the Japanese news so I wouldn't know their view at all on the subject.(1)http://english.peopledaily.com.cn..."By the way, Japan is also falsly claiming islands that belong to the Chinese and Koreans like China's Diaoyu Island!!!Would you want a World War happen all over again?"Japan is not becoming a threat to peace. China is the threat to peace because they have started these border disputes with several of their neighbors aside from Japan. China is still disputing territory with Russia and India which had to deaths(2). Japan has had only border disputes with China. Japan has yet to engage in violence as China has utilized in their border disputes. China has a history of aggression in the last fifty years, not Japan. (2)http://en.wikipedia.org...(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Japan is becoming a threat to the peace in East Asia

(This is my first debate) Well, in World War II, Japan invaded China. It was commanded by the emperor and all the soldiers were either forced or were in need of money. The Yakuzuni shrine houses their war dead. Prime Minister (Thank You) Abe visited the shrine, angering China and Korea because they thought he was honoring the dead soldiers that invaded their homeland. Also, on CCTV News, there has been videos of speeches from officials on the topic: (Translated) Prime Minister Abe hasn't made an apology to China for the Mass Killing in Nanking yet, and that he should respect history, and not replicate the mistakes of men in history. Also can you please research more on the Mass Killing of Nanking. His actions only upset South Korea and China. That does not make Japan a threat to peace. The Prime Minister merely visited a shrine that honored alleged war criminals. Abe has not severed ties with his neighboring countries or armed Japan for war. Japan is making another army similar to the US's Navy SEALS just recently. If you listen to the news, the US is disappointed in Prime Minister Abe's visit to the shrine too plus some other countries I forgot :(I recommend you listen to Chinese and Korean viewpoints too on the topic. By the way, Japan is also falsly claiming islands that belong to the Chinese and Koreans like China's Diaoyu Island! !! Would you want a World War happen all over again?
Japan is becoming a threat to the peace in East Asia

As Con I will be arguing that Japan is not becoming a threat to East Asia. "Japan's president has been taking actions that are endangering the peace in the East Asian Region. " First, Japan does not have a president. Japan has a Prime Minister whose name is Shinzo Abe. I assume Pro is referring to how Abe recently visited the Yasakuni shrine(1). (1). http://www.irishtimes.com... His actions only upset South Korea and China. That does not make Japan a threat to peace. The Prime Minister merely visited a shrine that honored alleged war criminals. Abe has not severed ties with his neighboring countries or armed Japan for war.
Technology is ruining the world's economy

My opponent does not mention any of the explanation that I have given him in round 3 and instead goes on trying to show the validity of his claims by posting a news article, a link that does not work and a news video. My opponent has been unable to formulate a clear argument that explains his view that technology is ruining the world's economy. I have explained and clarified every single point that he has brought up. Furthermore my opponent clearly does not understand the fundamental principles of the free market and of economics in general. In the his last round he tries to imply that the negative effect of inflation and the fact that real wages are not going up as fast as inflation is caused by technological advances that increase the productivity of workers. This is of course a ridiculous argument that shows a serious misunderstanding of the market forces. Inflation is not a byproduct of technological advance but of monetary policy, and is expressed by the formulaMV=PQ where M is the nominal quantity of money, V is the velocity of money in final expenditures, P is the general price level and Q is an index of the real valueof final expenditures. This equation is on paragraph 1 on Page 1 of pretty much every textbook of economics and monetary policy, and the fact that my opponent does not understand that the rise of inflation is caused by monetary policy - this is, by keeping printing money out of thin air to be able to repay government debt-, is proof that his entire argumentation is flawed. I encourage my opponent to read this link . http://mises.org..., which provides some interesting data about food expenditures as a share of disposable income, real household income and some other factors. There is no doubt that the standard of living has been increasing during the past century, and technology and the free market are the major driving forces behind it. We have a much longer life span, a smaller percentage of child mortality and have made progress in every single economic sector because of technology. As his final point, my opponent writes:"When technology eliminates jobs, it is bad for the economy. Simple as that. And, it's quite obvious that technology has eliminated millions of jobs over the past 30 years. "Well indeed it is not "as simple as that" when you are thoughtful and understand how the economy works. This is clearly not the case with my opponent, as he fails to understand the difference between a microeconomic event such as the lost of some jobs because a company restructures its manufacturing plant, and the macroeconomic reality. Technology has indeed eliminated millions of jobs over the past 30 years, but has created billions more. I encourage my opponent to take a few economics classes to better understand the mechanisms involved in the world's economy and the role of government in the private sector. There is no doubt that technology has improved not only the world's economy, but the standard of living of people across nations.
Technology is ruining the world's economy

The "affordability index" that I was referring to is simply stating the fact that wages have not kept up with inflation over the last 30 years. And, the reasons are as I've previously laid out.http://www.washingtontimes.com...Or, as CNN reported in 2006. "Employee pay lowest share of GDP since 1947, when government started tracking data. Corporate profits highest share of GDP since the 1960s." http://money.cnn.com...;My opponent seems to be attempting to convolute the subject of the debate. When technology eliminates jobs, it is bad for the economy. Simple as that. And, it's quite obvious that technology has eliminated millions of jobs over the past 30 years.And, finally, our standard-of-living IS declining. Watch the video from CNBC. http://video.cnbc.com... Things are not getting better - they're getting worse. They'll continue to do so. It's just the reality we live in.Thanks for the debate!
Technology is ruining the world's economy

It seems obvious that my opponent has taken an economics course, possible a couple of them. I say this because his arguments are fairly sound, THEORETICALLY. Kind of like tax cuts for the rich will stimulate the economy, and tax-cuts for business will encourage investments. While these positions are worthy of debate, they simply aren't how things really work.1) My opponent believes that a business which operates more cost-effectively due to technological advances will pass the savings on to their customers - so really it's the customers that save. Nothing is further from the truth. Companies simply pocket the extra profits and generally dispurse them to their shareholders as dividends. Or, pay their CEO's huge, obscene bonuses. That's reality.2) My opponent argues that we have today "more good per capita than before because of technology", yet show's no evidence to back that claim up. Besides that, economists argue all of the time of the affect of the GDP on the normal standard of living - "are we just working a lot more than we did before?". What good is having a high-GDP if the population isn't compensated (rewarded) for it?3) Then, my opponent argues, "In a free market economy those workers don't just get thrown away, they are still valuable assets for another company or another manufacturing place or a new business that is starting up." Really? That's just more of the "Voo-doo" economic theory that has been PROVEN not to be the way things work in reality. What is the purpose in society of technology? To increase our standard-of-living. While, yes, it has given us some cool things...it hasn't helped with the affordability index that common workers experience.4) My opponent quoted me on one and a half sentences??? I'm not sure what happened there - if he was just trying to take something out of context, or what?The correct quote should be:"The simple economic law of supply and demand shows that workers are becoming less valuable. Due to an ever-increasing world population (supply) and technological advances resulting in less of a need for workers (demand), the value of labor is decreased. This results in low-wage positions being offered and, begrudgingly, accepted."I agree that technology can be good for the economy, but not when it is used to make workers obsolete. This is just a small part of the tragic old "trickle-down" theory popularized by Reagan. It reminds me the once widely-held theory that the world was, in fact, flat.
Technology is ruining the world's economy

My opponent opens his argument by writing that the purpose of technology in business is to make a company more efficient and, therefore more profitable. This is of course a fact. My opponent however does not recognize the fact that the very same technology that makes a business more profitable and efficient also provides the customers of that very same business with a superior product. There is no doubt that we wouldn't be able to manufacture the same products at the same low cost if it wasn't because of the high level of technology that we have. Having a business running efficiently, besides making it more profitable, allows it to manufacture products at a lower cost, which in turns benefits a large share of the population who is able to afford the products. We have today more good per capita than before because of technology, and since the well-being of an economy is measured by several indicators such as growth rate, gross domestic product and gross domestic products per capita, it is clear that technology has greatly improved the world's economy. My opponent cites an excerpt from the 2011 State of the Union, in which President Obama said that "Steel mills that used to require 1000 workers, can now do the same work with 100", and wrongfully comes to the conclusion that "the other 900 workers . .. Get retrained (generally, at tax-payer expense)? Collect unemployment insurance? Go on Welfare? "This is of course a huge fallacy. In a free market economy those workers don't just get thrown away, they are still valuable assets for another company or another manufacturing place or a new business that is starting up. Those 900 workers will go and produce something else, in let's say 5 new companies, and will produce thousands of new goods and product that would have not been on the market if the first company would not have improved their manufacturing process. Running a business that could produce let's say 1000 units of product A at a labor cost of 1000$ is not better for the economy than a business that produces the very same 1000 units of product A at a labor cost of 500$. First of all, because the second business will be able to make the product more affordable, second because wealth is measure in total output. Technology not only improves the products that we want to buy, but it also reduces their cost and encourages competition. My opponents than argues that "The simple economic law of supply and demand shows that workers are becoming less valuable. Due to an ever-increasing world population" This is of course another fallacy, because even though population increase increases the size of the work force, it also increases the size of customers who are responsible for demand. Technology has been advancing for years, and so has economic growth. It is in nobody's interest to manufacture a product that nobody can buy, because it is impossible to make a profit that way. My opponent clearly shows a lack of understanding of basic economic laws.
Technology is ruining the world's economy

What is the purpose of technology? Well, in business, it is to make a company more efficient and, therefore, profitable. One of the main ways this is accomplished is by making the necessity of employees obsolete. Labor costs are generally one of the biggest expenses a business incurs - they are also one of the most controllable expenses. To CEO's, employees are only seen as an "asset", something utilized to accomplish a business goal. Whether it's making a widget, or selling a service - employees are only necessary until a new technology comes along that makes their jobs obsolete. President Obama points out @ 7:30 of his 2011 State-Of-The-Union address that, due to technology, "Steel mills that used to require 1000 workers, can now do the same work with 100". OK....so what do the other 900 workers do? Get retrained (generally, at tax-payer expense)? Collect unemployment insurance? Go on Welfare? The simple economic law of supply and demand shows that workers are becoming less valuable. Due to an ever-increasing world population (supply) and technological advances resulting in less of a need for workers (demand), the value of labor is decreased. This results in low-wage positions being offered and, begrudgingly, accepted. While this situation initially seems great for business (lower costs), in reality, it's ruining our economy. If people don't have the ability to earn a wage that affords them the capability to buy anything but the necessities, who is going to buy the products or services a business offers? The answer is "no one". So, as it stands right now, technology IS ruining the world's economy.http://www.youtube.com...
Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products

That sentence was my response to you stating, "Walgreens is not known for cigarettes and candy." True that may be, but the problem still exists. My analogy, "America is not known for having poverty, but it still exists and needs to be stopped." Smoking is something that is about to become the largest killer in the world. So I would say that smoking is in the top 10 major problems that need to be solved. With that, I will be going back to an earlier point. How can you market things that cause death as "Happy and Healthy?" I do realize that Walgreens isn't known for unhealthy products, but they are still there and are in plain sight of every customer who walks in, and they are still sold. CVS pharmacy made 2 billion off tobacco a year until they stopped selling tobacco, so it is reasonable to assum that Walgreens is somewhat known for tobacco. As for doctors, they lose crediblity when they say, "Don't smoke" yet they smoke. They also are hypocrites. Thank you con for the debate.
Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products

I find your first sentence is very confusing: "Just because something is not known for something opposite of what it's known for does not mean it doesn't exist."Poverty does exist in countries which are said to be rich, and people go to a doctor or chemist to improve their health, but they don't encourage anyone to smoke or eat candy. Staff at Walgreens are there to help customers. People can freely choose to consume what they like, and should not be prevented from doing so when those products are legal.
Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products

1) Walgreens is the largest drug retailing chain in the United States [1], and it is now rolling out freshly prepared food, and customers are likely to find a pharmacist in the aisle to greet them and answer questions [2]. It is not known for it's candy and cigarettes, so I would say it's "happy and healthy" theme is very suitable. Below is a link to the television advert if you wish to watch - First Timers (GPE) Walgreens Commercial My nepthew is 4 years old yet he knows sweets, chocolate, and cigarettes are unhealthy. He would never think his teacher, and family are wrong simply because he saw a sign saying "At the corner of happy and healthy" on Walgreen even if he wanted to believe candy is healthy.I think by the time a child reaches an age where they are given pocket money, or are old enough to get a paper round or other low paid job, they will know that candy is a treat, especially if their parents only lets him/her have candy as a way to reward good behaviour.2) Doctors should be able to choose their own life style as it is their life, and they should live it which ever way they choose provided it doesn't harm anyone. Eating burgers, and smoking etc in their own free time does not hurt anyone else. Doctors don't need to be physically fit to help others, they just need to be knowledable. People who are obsessed about avoiding particular foods because they are labelled unhealthy tend to develop eating disorders. It is therefore important for doctors health to listen to their body. Treating yourself now and then does no harm. In fact it would reduce stress.sources:[1] wikipedia[2] http://www.bizjournals.com...
Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products

#1) While you could argue that Walgreens jingle is not saying what they sell; kids could see they sell healthy foods, and then could assume cigarettes and candy are healthy. At minimum, that is hypocritical of them. #2) You state that a doctor should do what makes them happy, but isn't it hypocritical to say dont smoke when the doctor smokes a pack a day. Or at rehab, where the doctor uses crack like the patient
Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products

No problem,I agree that false advertising or deceptive advertising should not be allowed, and in my country it is against the law to use false or misleading statements in advertisement which negatively affect consumers. However what you have described does not sound like false advertisement.A chip shop might sell pizzas and burgers. A Burger King will also sells chips. A placed called 'Italian Pizzas' may sells chips and burgers. Petrol stations often sell food and cigerattes. The list goes on. As long as a company sells the thing they advertise they can sell anything else for extra revenue. I don't think anyone has a genuine reason to complain about seeing an item inside a shop they didn't know was there until they entered e.g. candy and ciggarettes inside Walgreens. Nobody has to buy them so what is the problem?Nicorettes are usually sold beside cigarettes because they both contain tobacco, and it makes sense to keep those products closeby behind a counter to deter thieves stealing them.Smoking, and eating Mc Donalds does not affect a doctors ability to do their job. It's important to reward yourself and unhealthy to completely avoid the things you enjoy. Provided you have a balanced diet you can eat anything, and still be healthy.
Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products

Thank you for accepting Walgreens's motto/slogan is "At the corner of happy and healthy," thereby implying that they sell products that are heakty and cause happyness. How are candy and cigarettes healthy? Candy causes cavities and diabetes; tobacco causes cancer and emphysema. That is the opposite of healthy. It is hypocritical of a company to advertise their products as healthy when infact they do the opposite. I once saw nicorette sold next to cigarettes. That kind of makes you lose credibility when you have product A, then have product B right next to product A, and B is to help quit A. In this medical hypocritisy, my doctors office sells candy and chips! That is hypocritical. Also, how can doctors tell a person they need to eat healthier or to stop smoking, but then go out and buy McDonald's and have a smoke break. The first example is false advertising, and the second one is just hypocrisy, of which niether should be allowed.
The government should not regulate abortion

Regardless of personal belief of abortion, the government is obligated to regulate it one way or another. We as a nation have to decide whether or not this and other issues will effect the way we live,vote, and conduct our personal lives. I believe this issue, and many others, are being dodged by our elected officials. Until we take a stand and let the government know we are serious about our morality,ethics, and values, there will be no end to the debate. The media dictates to us what is right and wrong and who the best person to uphold these pseudo morals is. We were told Bush would be the one to take up our causes, he did not. We were told something would get done about our current over taxation, only duct tape and bubble gum were applied. We were told something would get done about abortion, and we got the partial birth abortion bill which actually did next to nothing for the pro life cause. Enough preaching from me on the issues though, Happy New Year all! God Bless you in the upcoming year.