BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Business should be nationalised to ensure people get paid more fairly

I would propose university tuition fees be paid for by taxes as well. This may sound like an ad hoc hypothesis but my main focus is considering ways to improve this system, more than proving a point. You're right that setting up this system would be expensive and somewhat complicated, but we already have some of it organised - minimum wage is already checked across the UK. It's not necessarily going to be more work just because the minimum wage would be a lot higher as it would still be the same number of people being regulated. But getting people to part with their money would be tricky. And I suppose it would take a lot of work to get it up and running. But in the long term, I think it would be worth the money, time and manpower for the benefit to future society. I see what you mean about corruption possibility though. I guess you'd just have to vet your political party really strongly from the get go. But even then, you're right that bad ones will get in. However, it would be super hard to explain away such biased pay to the public with them being as cautious of this system as they are. I hear a lot that there would be no motivation to make profit or invest in research & development, but the current system actually reduces R&D even more as look at medical patents for instance: they only last 20 years before expiring so as to prevent monopoly, but this means that no company is willing to invest in developing new medicines because it won't be profitable. The need for profit actually pushes down attempts at scientific development. But if you take profit out of the picture and have the government run altruistic R&D then it gets done. And you mention the USSR, but they were broke to begin with. You mention that the possibility of making a profit motivates efficiency improvements, but this is only true to a small degree. For the most part, costs just get cut by reducing salaries and increasing workloads of employees. You have made some interesting points and I await your next argument
Business should be nationalised to ensure people get paid more fairly

Firstly, I agree that that many people are paid unfairly. However, you state that "a banker is able to work similarly hard to a cleaner". While this my be true in some cases you are leaving out that fact that a banker, or any highly paid worker for that matter, will most likely have a college degree. They will spend at least four years studying to earn a degree while accruing thousands of dollars in debt from paying tuition. Furthermore, most people after they graduate still have to go into further study or take more test after college to come anywhere near earn that kind of money. These people dedicate their lives to their profession and should be compensated adequately for this. In addition I'm also going to take your statement of "a system whereby all business is nationalised" literally. Truthfully, I could never see a system like this working. The cost alone of setting it up would be exorbitant. Think of all the extra staff that would have to be hired to accomplish this. Agencies would have to set up to insure that the correct wages where being paid. This system also seem to be highly susceptible to corruption. The reins of power are held by to few people. You talk about how the government could raise wages to create an incentive. What's to stop the government from manipulating this to aid themselves or those around them. Finally, I would like to add some points on the danger of nationalising all business. In doing so you remove all motivation to create profit. While this may seem insignificant it can destroy economies. Profit motive is the sole reason for a business to invest in research and development. By nationalising all business you stifle innovation. You need only look at the economies of the USA and the USSR towards the end of the Cold War. While the USSR, who had a state controlled economy, was producing shoes, the USA where leading the way in electronics in Silicon Valley. Similarly, by putting industries under direct government control you drastically reduce efficiency. Instead of have experts in their field running business you will have inexperienced government bureaucrats. These people, more than likely, won't seize opportunities to aid their respective industries the same way an expert would. There is also the the moral argument that taking businesses directly under state control from people is effectively stealing, however, I feel this doesn't necessarily contribute to the debate we're having.
Business should be nationalised to ensure people get paid more fairly

About the debate: I would like to begin by asking my opponent to use good English, explain their arguments clearly, not repeat or paraphrase arguments and to avoid presenting arguments with emotional elements. Most of all, let's not let things get too heated - debates can be fun. If either of us does not understand an argument of our opponent, ask them in the comments section to avoid wasting rounds. My proposed system: People are paid unfairly currently. That's undeniable. The fact that someone such as a banker is able to work similarly hard to a cleaner and earn 100s times their salary is unfair. Therefore, I propose a system whereby all business is nationalised so that the government can subsidise the salaries of the lower paid with the unnecessary surplus income of the higher paid. One noteworty thing is that I do not propose pay be exactly equal. This is unfortunate, but pay must be made a little bit unequal to provide incentive for "skilled" labourers to only do skilled jobs as they are the only people who can. Therefore, there would be a small pay gap, but nothing close to what we have at the moment - we've got a long way to go. To preempt some counter arguments: Yes, it could be argued that a banker has more responsibility for risk taking than a cleaner, but the only reason the banker's salary is so high is because they are more happy about firing him because he's already set for life. However this is only because he gets paid so highly on the first place. Thus the "accountability" argument is void. Also, it is oftentimes thought that capitalism pushes down prices of products because of competition, but capitalism does not reduce the profit margin to do this. Instead it encourages cost-cutting and the unfair lowering of worker salaries. In addition, many would say that "what you're proposing there son, sounds alot like communism to me". Maybe it does - I'm not sure what you'd call it, but the name affects the validity of the argument in no way whatsoever. (Most people don't need this made clear, you probably already understood this yourself, but not everyone does, so I thought I'd explain it just in case). Finally, yes some jobs are harder than others. So there would be a little bit of leeway in the system for extremely different job difficulties, but generally it would be the same. Thank you for your time and thought.
Russia Will be the worlds next superpower.

I negate: Russia Will be the worlds next superpower. Contention I. China will be the worlds next Superpower. A) China controls Global Trade. China has created a deficit with every major power in the world. The US, Russia, and the EU. The dominate global trade, by having 70% exports and 20% imports. Also, they have a grip on Russia's oil supply, making much of the income being created by it. They have the largest global market; it has the ability to end a country's market, or liven it up. B) China is on the leading edge of Military prowess. According to NewsWeek, China has the most rapid growing army, as well as getting to the most advanced. A war between Russia and China is a blow out, Gina would win easily. Therefore, with both China and Russia looking to become the next Superpower, China may resort to military action.
Russia Will be the worlds next superpower.

"In response to A, Russia has been experiencing a boom in capital investment since the beginning of 2007.Capital investment showed record growth in June, rising 27.2 percent over June of last year in real terms (adjusted for price changes), to 579.8 billion rubles(Currency of Russia), with construction industry leading the way. That is a rise of 58 percent in nominal terms and a better showing than in China. Modern Russia has never before seen such a growth rate." My Response: My opponent apparently doesn't understand my argument. Yes, Russia has seen growth in investment. However, my sub-point A dealt with global trade, not domestic economy. China controls almost every economy in the world. Why? Because it is the largest exporter of goods in the world. Also, China lends the most capital to major powers, like US and Russia, therefore increasing those countries deficits. However, looking at the idea of domestic economy, China has the fastest growing stock market, next to Dubai. Russia, isn't even on the map when it comes to the Stock Market Exchange. "It is believed that Russia will start surpassing China in various economic fields by the end of 2008. Russia also has influence over other nations economy just look at its neighboring countries. 8 countries were part of the formal soviet union which Russia still keeps some control over." My Response: First off, my opponent doesn't provide any source for this point. However more importantly, according to the Economist, China will have the strongest economy at of every country (Predicted 2030), and will be the new superpower. Also, those 8 countries have no economic status at all. "In response to only the last part of B, Russia and China aren't enemy's as they once where and have found a common enemy. that enemy is of course us, the united states." My Response: They indeed are. China and Russia have both threatened military action because of border disputes, like Manchuria. Also, China is an economic ally with the US. "Lastly the government of china is suppressive and totalitarian. Russia is a Federal Republic. While the PRC is a Communist State with only one party and like Ive stated is very totalitarian." My Response: So, Nazi Germany was an oppressive regime, yet they almost became the major superpower by conquering Europe. Only until the US joined, was that halted. Being oppressive means nothing about getting the global title of "Superpower." =============================================================================== This is a clear negative vote. Being a superpower lies within how strong a countries hold on the global market is. China is just that. Therefore, China will the be the world's next superpower. I urge a negation of the resolution. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Russia Will be the worlds next superpower.

First I would like to address the correct order of active nuclear warheads by nation. It is Russia, USA, France, United Kingdom, then... china, although like you said Israel might have some... maybe even more than china? http://thebulletin.metapress.com... In response to A, Russia has been experiencing a boom in capital investment since the beginning of 2007.Capital investment showed record growth in June, rising 27.2 percent over June of last year in real terms (adjusted for price changes), to 579.8 billion rubles(Currency of Russia), with construction industry leading the way. That is a rise of 58 percent in nominal terms and a better showing than in China. Modern Russia has never before seen such a growth rate. It is believed that Russia will start surpassing China in various economic fields by the end of 2008. Russia also has influence over other nations economy just look at its neighboring countries. 8 countries were part of the formal soviet union which Russia still keeps some control over. In response to only the last part of B, Russia and China aren't enemy's as they once where and have found a common enemy. that enemy is of course us, the united states. I have already answered part B entirely. Russia's armed forces is more advanced than china's. The PRC is currently Russia's largest customer of imports needed to modernize the People's Liberation Army. Lastly the government of china is suppressive and totalitarian. Russia is a Federal Republic. While the PRC is a Communist State with only one party and like Ive stated is very totalitarian.
Russia Will be the worlds next superpower.

"Russia is often considered to be an energy superpower and a nuclear superpower due to its vast amounts of natural resources and large nuclear arsenal mostly leftover from the former Soviet Union." My Response: Good observation, however the Russian government is controlled by criminals and mafia. This has led them to inefficiency with this stockpile of natural resources. Also, as I have brought up, China controls a portion of those resources. "The oil industry of Russia is one of the largest in the world. Russia has the largest reserve, and is the largest exporter, of natural gas; the second largest coal reserves, and the eighth largest reserve, and is the second largest exporter, of oil." I agree, however link my first response to this too. Also, Russia is the 2nd largest exporter...compared to OPEC, who dominates the oil industry. Sand is the cheapest to drill, drilling in Russia's rugged terrain is expensive, and Russia is looking to CHINA for more money to drill. "Russia possesses the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. If Russia went to war against china they could just unload on them..." My Response: This is indeed false. Rank in order: 1) US, 2) Russia, 3) China (Countries with most nuclear weapons). Also, Israel has taken lots of Soviet Weaponry during the Cold War. Furthermore, Russia possesses nuclear weapons, but most of which are outdated and non-functional. This is in due part to the Salt Talks, etc. =============================================================================== My opponent has yet to respond to my 2 contentions, so extend them for the remainder of the round.
Russia Will be the worlds next superpower.

Russia is often considered to be an energy superpower and a nuclear superpower due to its vast amounts of natural resources and large nuclear arsenal mostly leftover from the former Soviet Union. The oil industry of Russia is one of the largest in the world. Russia has the largest reserve, and is the largest exporter, of natural gas; the second largest coal reserves, and the eighth largest reserve, and is the second largest exporter, of oil. Russia possesses the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. If Russia went to war against china they could just unload on them...
Genome editing in a fetus is negative.

I shall be arguing that it would not be a negative, which is to say it would either balance out, or be positive. Arguments Free Will Parents make medical choices for their children constantly. Circumcision for example, ear piercings another, which school to attend, etc. No one contests these are rights of the parents to decide what they think is best for their offspring, so long as it is not evidenced to be direct harm. Not doing certain things has been proven to be direct harm, which gets children taken away and/or parents thrown in prison. To willingly cause your child to die horribly rather than get proven medical treatments is in simple terms evil; a recent case of this a set of parents decided if Maple-Syrup didn't work it was better if the child died horribly of meningitis [1]. Vaccines The arguments against improving the genome of a person, closely mirror the arguments against common vaccines. Both are changing people for their own benefit, as well as that of society [2, cue YouTube Video]. This debate is specifically dealing with unborn children, so imagine with a single visit to the doctor during pregnancy you could make the child completely immune to various incurable (and often fatal) diseases; that is a serious net benefit (if questioned I'll pull stats on them). The murderous couple from my first source could even have had their children altered so that Maple-Syrup would be enough, making children comparable with the life-styles to be forced upon them, rather than die slowly and painfully. Rebuttals "Beauty" Altering genes would not eliminate beauty, as many things we regard as ugly are not genetic. There is no fat gene that makes fat no matter how little they eat, nor a strong gene that replaces the gym. Professional athletes will still have to work for it, even the ones who take shortcuts (steroids) still work for it (even if slightly less hard). To be beautiful for any non-mental standard, we will still have to work for it. "Invincible Army" The countries which enslave children to fight their wars, are incapable of even mass produced vaccination programs when those are outright offered to them, let alone advanced complex individualized genetic engineering. The rest of the world morally would not. Genetic engineering can be viewed as good, while slavery remains unacceptable. "Overpopulation" There exists no shortage of land. We actively choose to live in overpopulated areas. If anything genetic engineering could fix our instincts to steer us away from such poor decision making. "God, or Gods, have created us the way we are for a specific reason" See source [1] for how horrible that already gets when parents hate their children so much. "Blind People" Irrelevant. This debate is not about fixing adults who are currently blind. Sources [1] http://addictinginfo.org... [2] YouTube http://www.youtube.com...
Genome editing in a fetus is negative.

Genome editing in a fetus is negative, as genetic alterations could basically transform every future newborn in a "perfect" child, basically eliminating beauty. If everyone is beautiful, muscular, athletic and very healthy future generations wouldn't recognise real beauty, as there wouldn't actually BE "ugly" people. Moreover, we all know that if this practice was publicly well seen governments would jump at the occasion of creating an invincible army of soldiers, topic on which I hope we can all agree would be devastating. In addition to this, we would all be able to live up to be 200 years old, increasing drastically overpopulation. Lastly, I'd like to dedicate some words to the religious among the audience. Most religions believe their God, or Gods, have created us the way we are for a specific reason. Genome editing would surely be helpful to reduce life shortening diseases, however reading lots of articles I noticed that a lot of kids who's parents DIDN'T correct their genome were happier to be disabled than "customized", as this would totally eliminate any unique trait of a person. A recent study made blind people see again after an operation made them very depressed. Some of them even commit suicide, as it was too big of a change. When we don't feel appreciated we would all like to be the most perfect being, but making this reality would create the base level where everyone is perfect, which would become a paradox. I would like to apologize if my English isn't the best, as I'm not English.
Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold the law

Extend my case arguments :) Hopefully, my opponent will have time in the next few days to post. If not, we shall have to have a rematch! If there isn't a response next round, I will post my responses to the affirmative's case in the hope that he or anyone else can use the information competitively. But, I will forfeit if I wait until I have access to my responses (on another server in another city).
Fortnite is better than PubG

This entire topic is completely subjective. both games are well made, solid products. I personally don't enjoy either game. The battle royale genre is something that just disinterests me in general. But even from an outsiders perspective it is clear that both games are good in different areas. Pubg has different shooting, tactics and a different artstyle than fortnite, and some people enjoy it more. Fortnite is definitely more successful, but that just comes down to good marketability (the game is made to be accessible to the widest group of people possible, appealing to all ages). Pubg does not try to appeal to children, but instead markets itself to a smaller, older audience. As for your arguments, they make very little sense to me. Pubg does update their game, fixing bugs and occasionally adding new maps, weapons and vehicles. Just because they don't add a gimmicky new weapon or item every few weeks doesn't make the game worse, and it certainly doesn't mean that the developers don't care about their game. And your statement about the game not being "kid friendly", is a personal problem for you and does not impact the quality of the game. The developers of pubg intended to make a game for teenagers and adults, and that's what they did. There is absolutely nothing to critisize about a video game being aimed at an older audience. That's like saying that a movie is bad because it isn't rated PG, which is ridiculous. Every art form or product has and target demographic, and it just so happens that fortite wanted to make alot of money, so they made a game for younger children. So if you're a kid, then fortnite is great for you, but that doesn't mean that it is better than it's competitors.
Fortnite is better than PubG

Fortnite is better than pubg because Fortnite is a kid friendly game. The developers don't care about Pubg they just care about the money. They don't update the game, while Fortnite updates their game every week. Pubg is more of an adult game to play. Pubg has more realistic stuff and kids should be exposed to it. The blood loss in pubg is way more graphic than Fortnite which just shows numbers and colors not blood. I wish my fellow debater the best of luck. May the best debater win.
Should prostitution be legal

Prostitution should be legal for a lot of reasons. A good example of prostitution working in a civil society is the Netherlands. Prostitution has been legal for years in this country and the people has benefitted from the tax revenue generated from prostitution. Many people say prostitution should be illegal for religious or moral reasons. This is a false premise to ban prostitution. The urge for sexual reproduction is inherent in all men. Those men who lack the skills or time to court women and engage in sex should not be denied their sexual instincts because the government deciding prostitution is illegal. Some argue that prostitution is derisive to the women who work in the industry. Allegedly many legal prostitutes are forced into their work and have no choice in the matter. The Dutch engineered a solution to this by providing social services and protection to the prostitutes working in the country's many red-light districts. If a Dutch night walker feels under pressure from a pimp and not acting under her own choice she would have many resources available to her. In a country with illegal prostitution these options do not exist. In Sweden the government has tried to fight illegal prostitution by prosecuting the men caught in the act rather than the hussy. Then they offer the call girls alternative education opportunities to reeducate them and reintegrate them into moral society. The man on the other hand must endure the difficult legal process and face the possibility of paying fines and doing community service/Jail time. While it is not surprising the Swedish socialist government would opt for such an extreme measure it nevertheless highlights why neither side of the exchange should be punished for paid sexual favors. While many men enjoy a good go-around with a slankpop once in a while we should still raise our children to avoid such behavior.