BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Should Promote Free Trade

Sorry for the lateness I was bussy working the circus, but anyways let's get on to the debate.Contention 1: Tariffs lead to an improved America.During the time period from the early 1800s through the 1920s. The tariff has improved American business. The reason behind this is that the American businesses can function and can actually compete with foreign businesses (http://ecedweb.unomaha.edu...) During this time period the American economy flourished significantly. We saw the rise of monopolies with both vertical and horizontal integration and the lassie-faire type of economy really showed it's colors. (No, I'm not suggestion they're necessarily good) Free trade leads to out sourcing! This is because the prices are cheaper from foreign industries and they have less regulations on their business than America (http://useconomy.about.com...) This leads to more unemployment here in the US due to the fact that tons of jobs go over seas for "cheap labor." (http://economyincrisis.org...) We have lost over hundreds of thousand jobs overseas due to the out sourcing. (http://www.americanprogress.org...) Some say that the reason for the 2008 economic crisis was due to the out sourcing of American jobs overseas as from a period of 43 months we have lost millions of jobs and that's a stretch that out lasts the Great Depression trend. (http://www.americanprogress.org...) Contention 2: Price tagThe average citizen here also feels the benefits of Tariffs besides jobs. They also see foreign price tags go down, because foreign industries will see that they are losing money and will lower their prices. (https://www.britannica.com...) Now note that I am talking about a reasonably sized tariff and not one that is like the Hawley-Smoot Tariff of that of 40%, but more of one like 1-5% like we have today. (http://www.britannica.com...)
Judge people by their religion opinion is an hate crime

Well, I think there's no point losing time and words asking you to be respectful so I'm going to admit that it is just impossible to you to respect anyone else but yourself. Well, in the words of the great artist with a sad life "I believe more and more that we shouldn't judge the Good Lord for this world, since it was the study of Him which came wrong" by Vincent Van Gogh. And please don't play the crazy card... You call God a dictator on the Sky, a Big Brother who demands to kill children, pregnant women to please Him, but why would such a God say this words: Mathews 5:44 But I say:Love your enemies and pray for the ones who stock you Judas 1:2 Mercy, peace and love be multiplied for you. I could keep going, but I have to say that I think in the Bible there is the Word of God but that the Word of God it's not just there and that some of the texts of the Bible aren't the Word of God but the History of His people, who as everybody, even me, sometimes misunderstood God. The New Testament shows us a God of love, peace, harmony. A God that gave His children His love. You say God is bad based on the Old Testament, where people who hate blindly go get their arguments. Separated and only showed that one, God looks bad. But together, it shows redemption. That Jesus lived, that's a fact. That there was a man from the Palestine who changed the way man looked at God, from a dictator demanding the blood of His enemies to a Father who loved His Children, that's a fact. But we don't know if He was a Son of God, that's what you choose to believe or not. Of course human are all equal. But doesn't the sun shine to killers? Don't killers see rainbows? God looks for redemption and not revenge. And I think its a good example we should follow. Nobody is a saint. Nobody is a devil. As long as we regret our evil and get proud of our good, I believe God will accept us. Well, you are calling me a religitard, killer, racist, sexist, bigot using only the fact that I believe in God. That is just bad and I'm just saying it should be a way to punish, even that morally. I'm not here to convert, but only to make realise that you say all humans are equal, but some don't deserve respect. Hope you understand. Peace and Love.
Judge people by their religion opinion is an hate crime

First of all. Rule 2 of 2 of the debate which you said you accepted: Respect. Just because you don't agree with someone, that doesn't mean you are right and they are wrong. So, don't call ANY belief filthy. I'm treating you with all the respect I'm able to show to someone with your disrespectful ways. Well, unfortunately for me and billions of people the english language is the language of internationalism. I'm sorry I'm not as good at it as a person who has taught since birth in that language. Well, lets call it a Franklin tie? Well, Madre Teresa devoted her life to help people. I'm sure History will forgive her. Well, if going to a poor country help the less fortunate is a pathetic way to live, that explains a lot why the world is like this. :) It isn't feel good. It is doing good things. Although religion also can make you feel good, it makes you a good person when Well understood. Narcotics don't. Thousands of missionaries follow what they feel being the Word of God to jungles, to poor countries, abandoning all comforts, because of religion. Well, lets just remember that YOU called me religitard, insane, childish as other religious people after I said that I believed in Theistic Evolution. I believe the world wasn't created 6000 years ago in 7 days! The 7 days are to honor the Sabbath! Well, you can debate why you insult people, but you are not better than a simple anti-semitic is polite for jewish people. The God I pray is a God of Peace, as it is in the New Testament. A God who gave us His own only Son to redemption of mankind. Well, you brought that into subject. Ok, do you know insulting people in public in many countries is a crime? I'm not talking about important figures. If I have proofs that you insulted me openly I can charge you. And I'm not talking about America, were we can charge the State by falling in the street. European countries, for example. Well, not all catholics are what you say, and your hate on us makes you blind. Many catholic people, as me and many of the people I know and even the Pope have no problem with gay people. If you paid attention to that, you would know how foolish that is. Well, I support the atheistic fight to the right of not believing, but its a SHAME that fight is not more for equality are harmony but to make everyone else inferior. Has women aren't better than men, african-American better than caucasian, jewish people aren't better than germans, atheists aren't also better than religious. You even read the Word respect? Do you need a dictionary? I spent half my words begging you to respect! When the ones who were attacked turn against the attacker, all their dignity is lost.
Judge people by their religion opinion is an hate crime

Well, this all started with my opponent calling me in a commentary a "uneducated religitard" because I said that I believed the Book of Genesis should not be taken literally. According to devient, because God didn't spoke to me verbally, I must be a "religitard" whatever that is. Unfortunately, this happens awfully lots of times, in the web and in the day-a-day. My country, even Pacific about that, also has this troubles time to time. But the internet is full of it. Even a clean environment, like this site, has people doing that. Before I continue, I would like to know why my opponent called me that and if I wasn't the only of the victims of this hate.
Emma Watson is Wrong About Male Suicide

I accept. Since Round 1 is for definitions/framework, let's just be clear about the resolution. The "full" version actually contains *three* propositions, all of which Pro has the burden to prove: (1) The following statement made by Emma Watson is "wrong": "men [are] unable to ask for help [for mental illness] for fear it would make them less of a man." (2) The following statement is "wrong": male suicide rates are high because men feel too emasculated to seek help. (3) Arguing in favor of propositions 1 or 2 constitutes "man hating." If Pro fails to carry the burden to prove *any* of these three propositions, Pro loses.
Emma Watson is Wrong About Male Suicide

Emma Watson is Wrong About Male Suicide "I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help for fear it would make them less of a man. In fact, in the UK, suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20 to 49, eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I've seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality, either." - Emma WatsonFull Resolution:Emma Watson is wrong about male suicide being a problem because men wont get help because of fear, or that it would make them less of a man. Male suicide rates being high has very little to do with men not being emasculated enough to seek help, and if Emma Watson was aware of the actual issue her comments would have constituted actual man hating. Note:The resolution leaves Emma Watson’s knowledge of this in doubt. The resolution is not attempting to accuse Emma Watson of being a man hater. Only that if she were actually aware it would be man hating. The resolution is leaning towards the issue being more likely that Emma Watson is unaware of the facts.Round 1 is for accepting, and defining any needed terms.Definitions:Man hating: The act of hating men, or masculine attributes of men.Suicide: The act of ending, or attempting to end one's own life.Emasculate: Depriving a man of his male identity, or forcing feminine ideals onto a man.Debate Requirements:Age: 18 or olderDebates: 5 or more
Libertarians have it right on taxes- national sales tax, abolish that pesky income tax

-"The NRST is well researched. The sales tax would be about 13%. This would raise the cost of goods but the average America pay 43% " I searched long and hard for this statistic, and was unable to find a reliable source, and I would like for you to show us all where you found this statistic. -Although I disagree with the fundamentals of your budget cuts argument we aren't here to decide what should and shouldn't be cut, but for you to assume that the government will change their ways because of a new form of taxes is foolish, until you can somehow prove that the government is going to stop cutting funding from places they are now, we must assume that they will continue their current, destructive patterns. -I am sad to say, but in case you didn't know, your story isn't the norm, and can't be generalized to everyone who is on welfare. I still believe my arguments on welfare are true. -You state that "Increasing consumption and spending is great for the economy. It "stimulates" the "economy."" In retaliation to my argument about manipulating markets, but in your first argument you state that "Tax rates can be targeted to encourage or discourage the consumption of certain items." So you aren't just increasing consumption of one thing but also decreasing the consumption of another, and again you have failed to disprove my argument. -The manipulation of markets which I have referred to several times now could also cause inflation, and as we all know, the worth of the dollar is already going down, and the United States' economy cannot handle something like this making it even more worthless, it would destroy are ability to trade internationally. Again I would like to remind you of my press for evidence in the first paragraph, although I trust you.
Libertarians have it right on taxes- national sales tax, abolish that pesky income tax

To make arguments easier to follow, I will use the same system as my opponent - Lack of govt. funds + The NRST is well researched. The sales tax would be about 13%. This would raise the cost of goods but the average America pay 43% in income taxes, this is far less money for every American depending on how much they buy. But they'll have the oppurtunity to pay more or less taxes if they want. Also, now, drug dealers, odd job workers, illegal immigrants and more pay no taxes except sales taxes. Their revenue would make up for the small loss. -Budget cuts + The government would have to cut the budget. And cutting the budget is a good thing-- just the right programs. We can kill the USDA or the FDA (two organizations who are inffective and do the exact same thing). We can kill marijuana laws those cost us trillions a year. We can kill the Iraq War, a useless war that costs us in lives and money. We would not have to cut the budget but it would be nice if they did anyway. - Welfare + ....Welfare would continue... Right now, I know a family who buys lobster on food stamps, wears nicer clothes than I do on welfare, and has a nice, convenient apartment on government housing. Why is this? My mom owns a law firm adn my father is a lieutenant in the Atlanta Police Dept. Why are we worse off than that family when they dont even have jobs? Welfare should be decreased, significantly. -NST will cause prices to go up + True. But the price raising is less than wgat you spend on income tax. The average American pays 43% of their income on income taxes. A higher price on goods will be less money but the government will retain the same from big spenders and current-non-taxpayers. - Increasing consumption and spending is great for the economy. It "stimulates" the "economy."
Libertarians have it right on taxes- national sales tax, abolish that pesky income tax

To make arguments easier to follow, I will use the same system as my opponent -A logical national sales tax would cause the government to go deeper into debt; Unless national sales tax (NST)was raised extremely high, the government would lose money. The only way the government could maintain a stable income is that NST makes up for all previous taxes plus previous sales tax, if this didn't happen, the government would make less money, leading to budget cuts. The NST rate would have to be astronomically high. -Budget cuts are a serious issue; With the United States' current budget deficit, and the occurrence of budget cuts, it has been obvious where the money comes from when it is cut. Medicare, and Medicaid have been seriously targeted, along with medical research funding, and public education. If cuts occurred as stated in first point, we could logically assume that the government would continue is current pattern of cutting from these programs, and at this point we cannot lose any more money in these programs. -NST hurts government reliant people; If the government could somehow get the same amount of money they do now through through taxes with NST, they would have the same amount of money to put into programs such as welfare, Social Security, etc.. The problem would be that people wouldn't get the same amount for there money because of the high sales tax rates, so the poor would get poorer, and the rich would get richer, and that is the first step toward becoming a third world country. -NST will cause prices to go up; Although hidden taxes do add up in our current system, the same thing would happen with sales tax on many necessities, which the government doesn't even focus current "hidden" taxes on. For an example, I challenge anyone to tell me a food item that is sold directly from the producer without any other companies involvement ie. making labels, boxes, jars, shipping, retailing, etc. This shows that the price of food, which is seldom hit by hidden taxes would actually go up, proving the point I make in the previous paragraph. -Focus of taxation will cause serious economic problems; Simple economics tell us that the government needs to leave the economy alone, trying to push it is what sends us into recession. So if you try to increase the consumption of cars, for example, you help the car industry, so if a car company needs to buy steel, and a housing company needs to buy steel, the car company will be able to offer the higher price, and the housing company will be hurt. This example can be correlated with nearly every market. Another problem with this is that if you try to push a market and create more jobs in that market, when you stop helping that market those people lose their jobs, so the idea of focused taxation clearly wont work.
Libertarians have it right on taxes- national sales tax, abolish that pesky income tax

- A national sales tax discourages consumption, leading to a conservation of resources. - The removal of an income tax encourages saving and investing, which is the key to job growth. - Individuals would have an extra incentive to work hard and earn income, leading to a far more productive nation. - A sales tax would be a much simpler system, eliminating the need for individuals to comply with complex tax reporting requirements and freeing up all the money & time lost on the income tax process. - Tax rates can be targeted to encourage or discourage the consumption of certain items. - Consumer prices of certain items would fall since labor and tax compliance costs would be cheaper to businesses. - It would allow a greater collection of tax money from those carrying out illegal transactions, since their income is hid from the income tax system but will be taxed when they spend it in a sales tax. - It's a tax system consistent with a free society; i.e. Americans have a choice regarding their taxes, unlike our current confiscation system. - Kill other ridiculous taxes. How would you like to purchase a new $23,000 Ford Taurus for only $12,650? That's the price you would pay if the government didn't tax every product you buy at every stage of its production, reports Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). According to an ATR study, hidden taxes significantly boost--by as much as 26% to 75%--the price of every consumer product you buy.
Monkeys Have Intelligence Similar to Humans

Sure, humans and other apes are closely related, as we evolved in similar environments, and thus we have many similarities. This does not mean, however, that we are intelligent in similar ways overall. For starters, empathy is found in lions[1], tool use is found in tuskfish[2], and flies lived and evolved in every area that our prehistoric ancestors lived and evolved in. None of these "Have Intelligence Similar to Humans". Chimpanzees are very intelligent, as they can use tools, test ideas, and draw upon past experiences. In some cases, they may even be smarter than most humans in an individual area[3]. This does not mean we intelligent in similar ways; the way in which we most strongly distinguish ourselves form other apes is not our lack of hair nor our upright posture, but our language, superior tool use, and social organization. These are the traits which build civilization- which no other ape has. [1] http://abcn.ws... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly...
Monkeys Have Intelligence Similar to Humans

My apologies for not using any sources. It's hard to find some. I hope you can tolerate. For start, the physical traits you've mentioned (limb size, feet...etc.) have little to do with intelligence even though the traits are distinguished. The 5 million year span follows the implication of same direction of brain development but can't possibly be entirely different. For it to not be the same, it has to in some way be related. http://www.youtube.com... Now, you can't expect any other species to do this. This solidifies the similarity of monkeys and humans. Riding tricycles is nothing compared to this. Monkeys and apes only have the brain capacity to hold an AK-47 and again, implies the relation of brains. My hope is falling for this debate...
Monkeys Have Intelligence Similar to Humans

As a first point, I would like to point out that while humans and other monkeys have a common ancestor, that was at least 5 million years ago and possibly longer. [1] During this time, we have diverged to the point where not only are we and chimpanzees different species, but, we have different physical traits (limb size, feet, musculature, brain size, and even senses). [2][3] Based on this, I would state that while humans and chimpanzees are comparable, we are not similar. The human like qualities you ascribed to chimpanzees are also found in other animals which do not have a similar mind to humans. (other animals will raise up young and can be taught to ride tricycles) Lastly, you missed the most important difference that distinguishes humans from other apes, one that is almost purely psychological: civilization. [1] . http://bit.ly... [2] . http://to.pbs.org... [3] . http://bit.ly...
Monkeys Have Intelligence Similar to Humans

I've decided to choose on the topic that if monkeys have similar intelligence to humans. It sounds trivial, but I think it can be fun, and I would like to point out that this is NOT a serious debate. Good luck if you decide to participate. I will be arguing pro. Definitions: Intelligence: the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience The setting point of my argument is evolution; monkeys and humans have evolved from the same ancestor which implies the inheritance of same brain structure, or so the ability to think. Although the human brain took a different path for the change in it's structure, monkeys, if not the same, is still similar because they are part of the same evolution system to humans. Next point, monkeys have shown incredible human like qualities. One monkey has be seen to raise a child (as crazy as it sounds) with itself being the parent to care for it, similar to how a mother human would raise it. Also, monkeys have been seen to ride tricycles, the rest is self explanatory.
should air be considered gravity

I will provide some definitions below: Definitions: Air: A gas made up of 78.09% Nitrogen, 20.95% Oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Can be found everywhere on the planet Earth. Gravity; The force that pulls us towards the center of an object in space. The amount of gravity an object has is directly dependent on its mass. There are many gases in outer space, such as Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, and Carbon Dioxide. These gases could potentially combine, and we'd call it "air". How would these gases combine? Well, these gases all have mass, which brings the gases closer to each other. The air might also bring in dust particles into itself, using its gravitational pull. Since the air pulls things into itself, like gravity, it must be gravity. I await my opponent's response.