BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Its our ethical duty to develop immortality.

Immortality Isn't Unethical' – Alexander Chrisholm, Guardian.co.uk 'With regards to immortality, I'm certainly a sympathiser: if a dictator was murdering tens of millions of people right across the world, we'd gladly do anything to overthrow him. And yet ageing, as eloquently put by the transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom, is a tyrant that kills us by the cartload – and what do we do to stop it? And yet most people remain unconvinced by the possibilities laid out by transhumanism, saying that even if it's possible, it's unethical.'
We would be letting down our species not to.

Every species seeks to adapt, to enable itself to survive better. What would be a better way to improve the human species than to make us unable to die? Why is selfishness always unethical? If I am a member of a minority group and 'everyone else' around me is a member of the majority group who oppresses us, my honour will allow me to ignore them or even act to their detriment. If the offspring will not be stronger than me (because I am already immortal and can replenish my cells to avoid illness and old age) why would my offspring be more important to the species than I am?
Life extension is a science.

Just like the medical technology we already have to enhance and prolong our lives, whatever technique we use to become immortal will be another tool. Tools by themselves are ethically neutral. If humans decide to hoard the technology or only sell it at an extortionately high price, it will be unethical behaviour, but it won't make the technology itself unethical. Debating what the dangers of immortality are is vital - to bring immortality into the world in a rash, ignorant way would itself be unethical - but calling immortality, as a concept, 'unethical' is false. Counterargument: Kyodo (possibly the oldest man living today) expressed that he is tired but doesn't want to die.-[[http://www.grg.org/CalmentMen.html]] It is unethical to doom everyone to an unavoidable death when the possibility of immortality exists.
It will widen the rich/poor divide.

Death is not the greatest leveller ever. Because the rich can die and then pass on their wealth to their children, the gap between the rich and the poor becomes greater. It is for this reason that we have so many debates revolving around inheritance tax [[https://debatewise.org/debates/333-inheritance-tax-should-be-raised-to-100-for-everyone-born-in-the-uk]]. One way to resolve the inequality would be to raise the inheritance tax to 100% as suggested in this debate. But hypothetically, immortality is in fact another way of reducing the difference. If the rich lived forever, then their wealth would be needed to sustain their own life. Therefore the wealth would not be passed to their children. If their children failed to make their own money, the wealth would have to get divided. As they lived forever and the family got bigger via more children being born the wealth would have to be split amongst more people. This reduces the wealth divide and therefore is ethical.
All major religions in the world promise an immortal afterlife/lives(for those who believe in multiple reincarnations)

The holy books of all three Monotheist religions(Christianity,Islam and Judaism) claim that Prophets like Noah and Adam lived to be about a thousand years(far longer than the highest recorded lifespan of the modern human; less than 200 years). [[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/04/did-people-live-over-900-years]] The claim that longevity is irreligious can be easily shirked off, taking into account these religious parables. All religions promise the immortality of the soul; God or the Gods had no beginning nor end and we are promised immortality(either in the after-world or in a manifestation of a series of reincarnations) . The pursuit of immortality by means of 'suicide' is usually discouraged and the antediluvian religions of yore that requested virgin sacrifices etc are no longer relevant off the pages of history. A Hindu window is expected to commit suicide or serve the gods till death; this custom (sutti) is fast disappearing because of Islamic and colonial influences in the subcontinent. Either way Hinduism promises a series of afterlives and therefore death is not the final death and therefore not really a move against immortality[[http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/how-does-religion-prevent-suicide.html]] However; as suicide is discouraged by texts of the Abrahamic beliefs and one is encouraged to do everything one can to live on (murder in self-defense is pressed in most religious texts); pursuing/seeking immortality within this life is not unethical but religiously egged on.
The old will outnumber the young.

This depends on the form of immortality. Immortality could mean indefinite cell replenishment that, if taken at a young age, keeps ones mind and body forever young. In this situation, would one have a 'young' mentality due to the young brain and active, lively body, or an 'old' brain because of the many years of experience? The immortality may make age irrelevant – a form of existence as information on a computer. Or humanity may start to value youth more if it is seen to be rare - we already value standards of beauty that very few humans can actually live up to.
Mental health problems will be exacerbated.

This does not touch upon any ethical considerations of immortality, but whether it is desirable or not. Of course if everyone were immortal, then they would always have the option of killing themselves, although that opens a new door of the ethics of suicide[[https://debatewise.org/debates/1422-assisted-suicide-a-topic-for-debate]]. But if people were immortal, then it would open the door to being ethical - killing yourself in order to prevent your mental disorder becoming a burden upon everyone else.
Immortality without a task suited to immortality is meaningless.

Human beings do not only have the function to avoid death. We have interests/pursuits/hobbies; there a million things to discover about ourselves and the worlds around us. The survival instinct has become softer as less effort is required to survive. If no effort is required to live, we can concentrate on other things(not carnal ephemeral ideas) . To claim that we'll be bored and therefore should die is presumptuous and human beings are naturally organized which makes us like repetitive patterns and readable logic. A voyage of discovery may end in a thousand years but creativity,design and consistent change as a result of boredom and recorded anguish could go on forever.
Its our ethical duty to develop immortality.

Immortality with superlative health; for each and everyone of us; is arguably ethical. Albeit if a means to achieve immortality was invented; it would be patented not freely distributed. Immortality is not the same as being disease-free so suffering and aging may also continue on. The age-gene is not the death-gene; there is no death gene; so to speak. The ethics of euthanasia and the accounts of women with the longest recorded lives prod to the want to give up, being tired and that there comes a point when people do not want to suffer,live or work any more.
There are better ways to deal with strikes than putting people in Jail

In 1919 there was a general strike in Winnipeg, Canada [[http://bit.ly/cXFtmO]]. The strike ended on what is known today as "Bloody Saturday", when the police attacked the protesters.This happened in a time when Canadians didn't have a right to collectively bargain. Dissatisfaction had no outlet. The workers had no way to change things and the government felt free to abuse the people. Punishing people for protesting by fining them or putting them in jail, like the opposition is suggesting is first taking a right from the people but it's also bound to cause violence, because workers won't have an outlet and will feel that they have no other option other than to resort to violent protest. Instead of this the other party could use strike-breakers (people who replace strikers during the strike) in truly indispensable jobs, provide alternative transportation (taxis, subway, train way, buses), telling users to find their own transportation and organizing car pooling can mitigate the effect of strikes. Of course this is a partial solution and a temporary one, but this comes to answer the false assertion that these workers are too essential to be permitted even a day of strike. This is simply not so, and by finding better ways to deal with strikes that are a rare occurrence (since negotiation can solve problems between parties, as prop acknowledges) we get the advantages of having the right of collective bargain and at the same time we minimize the harms.
Model

1. Strikes made illegal under all circumstances with immediate effect. 2. Those engaging in the now illegal strikes will be punished with custodial sentences and/or fines which will be to the discretion of a judge who will take into account the severity of the crime and well as the offenders personal circumstances. 3. Current wages of transport workers will apply. 4. In case of wage disputes, negotiations will ensue. If said negotiations fail to yeild amicable solutions then the disputants can take the matter to a mutually agreed upon arbitrator who will make a legally binding agreement taking into account factors such as; -Current wages -Rate of inflation -The cost of living -Wages in comparative industries -Ability of the govt/company to pay requested wages 5. Losing party will bear the full cost of bringing the case to arbitration in order to disincentivize frivolous cases. 6. Legally mandate employers to pay a living wage to their employees as determined by govt cost of living estimates. We recognize the importance of workers rights to decent wages and working conditions and how they currently use striking as an option the ensure this. However we feel that; 1. Workers rights can be secured without resorting to means (strikes) that harm innocent third parties (the rest of society) 2. Even if strikes were the only way to resolve these issues, the negative effects of the strikes themselves outweigh any good that they allegedly provide.
Strikes are unique means to attain leverage and their benefits weight more than their harms

Some employers care about their image, quality of service and worker's morale; others don't. Prop says employers won't let things get bad enough because then everyone will quit. We explained before: employers don't find this a credible threat. Historical evolution of labor rights and even the example of Greece confirms some employers can let things go badly: paying low wages, discriminating, violating people's rights and others . Strikes are unique in providing better and safer service to all users. Prop admits that the user's safety is linked to the driver. What they propose is the user to sue the company if something happens. Prop proposes this scenario: workers who know the status of the vehicles protest about lack of maintenance, no one listens, then people die in a train wreck and victims sue. Years later it goes bankrupt because of the costs of the civil case and workers are unemployed. How about workers go on strike until it is solved, management having to comply, no one dying, no bankruptcy or unemployment. Prop says: Either workers have other ways to protest besides strikes or they need strikes to achieve their goals. A false disjunctive, since we presented strikes a last resort measure, other ways of protest do exist, standing outside with a banner and negotiating sometimes are sufficient. Sometimes they aren't. Regarding slowdowns, we are not saying that workers will succeed with those measures. Only that they'll take them out of frustration. If they accomplish anything it takes longer and there are compounded repercussions. Also the harms of a strike can be minimized so only the company will suffer. We give more evidence of this on POI response. On strike breakers: true they can be used in the easier jobs. OK, some truck drivers are easily replaceable. Prop needs to explain why they're included on their model. We agree with the idea that It would be better for Greece to up the number of truckers with licenses, no need to put restrictions on strikes.
The ability to strike allows unions to extort

The trade union will push the employer for as many concessions as possible while the employer tries to employ its workers for as low as possible, this relationship usually results in equilibrium. The two side’s weapons are threat of retrenchment from the employer & threat of quitting from the employees. Striking upsets this balance because employers cannot realistically fire all their employees because of high turnover costs[[http://goo.gl/zlEk]] [[http://goo.gl/dL5u]]. This leads to trade unions gaining more concessions as employers don’t have any recourse. The risk of this happening is high because of the political nature of trade unions. Due to the immense benefits that union reps get, there is an incentive for people to run for & retain their position as union rep. In order for them to get re-elected, they compete to cater to the demands of the workers. Workers are constantly pushing their union reps to demand more from the employers. They do not consider the ability of the employer to pay higher wages because they are looking out solely for the worker which leads to the employer being abused. In such cases with vital industries such as transport, the harms are considerably high. Before going into the harms, we need to remember that this is a comparison between gaining worker’s rights through legal arbitration, versus through strikes. • The Greek govt subsidizes public transport to make it affordable for people to travel. This is because every government knows that without mobility for its citizens, productivity is impaired. The govt uses tax-payer money to fund the transportation industry because it recognizes mobility as a fundamental right of the people, so to take away this right, even for a few days, one needs to have strong justification. • Opp argues striking is also a fundamental right, so we would need strong justification to take away that right.In order to decide who’s side we take, we need a cost benefit analysis of both cases.[[http://g
The right to strike keeps negotiating power balanced

The premise of this argument is that the only leverage that workers have at gaining concessions is striking. Firstly, it is in the economic interest of the employers to have their employees not quitting, especially in the transport sector where there are huge training costs which dis-incentivizes high turnover. Due to looking out for themselves, logically employers will not allow conditions to go bad enough for workers to quit. Such a circumstance can only arise when the employer has no money in which case striking wouldn’t help anything. So the relevant circumstance for this debate is for when the employer does have money but chooses not to pay a fair wage. Such issues can be solved with arbitration where the employees are able to make their case that the employer has money but is being stingy. The arbitration will take into account the issues outlined in our proposal & will also have the force of law. Also, they assert using Marxist logic that it is always the worker who will be exploited by the employer. This does not take into account basic human psychology where an individual will always lookout for themselves first. If they allow these workers to strike, how will they ensure that workers will only stop their demands at what they deserve & not ask for more? This is exactly what happened in Greece with the retirement benefits. Moreover the ability to strike hampers reform once the country is hit with tough times. This is exactly what happened when the govt tried to bring retirement benefits in line with the rest of the EU[[http://goo.gl/UlPh]]. Workers making excessive demands to employers is also what helped bring down the big 4 auto companies in the US where through industrial action they mulcted benefits that led to automakers like GM paying $70/hr per worker which made them uncompetitive compared to Toyota & led to their bankruptcy[[http://goo.gl/ZzLC]]. This will be the fate of the Greek state unless union hegemony is curbed.
Definitions

The definitions mostly okay. Sadly, the prop wasted 3 of their total of 6 points of the debate on things they could have said in one point. They also didn't utilise the executive summary at the top of the debate (where the site promps you ”Write a brief introduction to your debate“) which is the ideal place for context and definitions. We had wished for a challenge and we are afraid this debate will be too one sided, since in their next phase they can add only two more points, according to WODC rules. Of course we want to remind the other side that their burden is to prove that no kind of strike should be permitted to transport workers: from an hour to indefinite strikes they should reject all and call for a ban.
Arbitration doesn't work without a credible threat and other problems with their model

Opp seems to be confused about what arbitration entails. Arbitration is not a negotiation where you need leverage. Arbitration is much like going to court, where the arbitrator will hear the case of the disputants and will make a LEGALLY BINDING ruling based on the soundness of their arguments[1]. So if the demands of the workers are indeed justified then they will win. A "credible threat" such as striking is therefore not needed because if the employer refuses to abide by the decision they can be taken to court and punished. The problem with strikes is that there is no safeguard to determine whether the demands are reasonable or not. Such unfettered power is what enabled the UAW union in the US to get benefits that bankrupted the US Auto makers. Furthermore, opp conceded that name of the arbitrator is something that is included in the employment contract. No one is foolish enough to leave that to a later date. It's like being hired first then discussing pay later. No one does this. If workers think the CEO or a govt agency will be impartial then so be it. There is no reason why arbitrators cannot fast track issues that are urgent. There is precedence for this in court proceedings, where procedures can be hastened to allow for quick resolutions[2] [1]-http://goo.gl/TS6G [2]-http://goo.gl/yTJU
Disclaimer

Prop. didn't provide a quotation for any of the assertions on their sole constructive point. We would love to be able to check the evidence. They say "the industry is too important" to be permitted to go on strike, but if this is a reason many industries should be forbidden from going on strike: health, food industry and government employees. These industries going on strike also can disrupt the economy. If these are essential workers they shouldn't be treated as slaves and be made to work. They should be able to collectively or privately bargain for better wages. This model could make some would-be workers stay away, since they know that they can't get better conditions through going on strike. We are against the government of Greece forcing (by putting them in jail otherwise) people to work for whatever they think is right and on whatever conditions they decide. We agree with the "loss in productivity" risk. But this can happen with dilatory practices as a slowdown. In many cases lives are lost because truckers and drivers have bad working conditions. We prefer a short time without these workers than constant bad quality and danger. It's misleading when they argue that society is being affected by a conflict which only involves a handful of people. When the stockholders of a private company loose money because their managers failed to prevent a strike, we don't regard them as innocent third parties to the conflict only because others are acting on their behalf. In the state controlled Greek transport industry context, the Greek society as a whole is involved and is responsible for the success or failure of the negotiations between their employees (public employees after all) and the politicians elected to administer public assets. There are no innocent bystanders when a government representing the whole of society can't reach an agreement with public employees. In fact the citizens will extort pressure on the government to cause the strike to end.
Venezuelan Summary

At the beginning the prop unjustifiably set the debate in Greece, where an exceptional situation occurrs. Making it harder to debate everyday life. But we found ways to show that even there the right to strike should be preserved. The Prop. made several mistakes: They failed to match their definitions with the debate by focusing only on Unions. Their model imposed harsh punishments on strikers. They proposed that all wage disputes should be taken to arbitration. We showed the problems of the model: it treats workers as slaves, the negotiations lack leverage & that means choosing of the arbitrator can be problematic. Opp’s reason for their plan: transport workers are important to the economy. But they didn't prove the relevance by comparing to losses from strikes in other industries. They blamed Unions for the Greek Crisis & the bankruptcy of GM. But by their own definitions the debate was not only about Unionized workers, but that non-unionized people couldn't strike. We explained GM isn't a good example. Many companies flourish despite the right to strike. They proposed workers would strike for any reason. We proved that there are 3 why this won't happen: 1.Strikers and their families need transport 2. Strikers need public opinion to favor them. And 3. They know that if they bankrupt the company they’ll lose their job. Lastly they say employers aren't so bad & that the public will protect workers. We explained that some employers are bad. The public learns about worker's problems mainly when they go on strike. Users won't stop using cheap services to protest. Strikes work better & faster than politics. We explained the need for leverage; Prop said the threat to leave is leverage enough. We proved that to be effective the threat has to be credible. Workers value their salary more than a 10% increase. In places with high unemployment, leaving isn't credible. Without leverage arbitration doesn't work. We also showed workers can take actions from anger or frustration that hurt society that are as detrimental as strikes, but being less public, they aren't effective as leverage. We said the ability of workers to get improvements is good for users, and are swifter than a suit. Besides, suits usually come after sues. Strikes would minimize the frequency of tragedies . They asserted that the effect of strikes can't be mitigated. We gave examples (Hospitals in Israel and US, Lufthansa and Greek unions) to show the contrary. Also, having the possibility of a strike balances negotiations, but doesn't necessarily cause a strike. On the contrary, not having this leverage can even cause violence (Winnipeg strike example). We proved the right to strike brings benefits to workers & to society. Furthermore, prohibition will make underlying problems worse. Especially with the implementation of a plan as radical as Prop's. Banning hurts possibilities of reaching fair agreements & has severe consequences. Strikes should not be banned.