BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

I really appreciate the being given the opportunity to debate a subject that relates to my favourite interest in life – cars – and I thank Russia very much for the invitation. Now, to respond to each point in turn: 1 – My opponent made a semi-valid point that all alternative fuels do not solve the problem of pollution and the shortage of oil. I assume, although he didn't say, that he is referring to diesel – which is already in common use in Europe where over half of all new passenger cars sold run on this fuel. http://www.eagleaid.com...... True, diesel is not a complete solution, though as it burns more efficiently than gasoline (petroleum) it produces less CO2 and provides better fuel economy. An alternative power unit such as hydrogen fuel cells produce only water vapour as a bi-product and, as my opponent conceded, solar power is a free source of energy and pollution free (although this would probably only be used as a supplementary source of power). Of course, these technologies need further development in order to become viable mass alternatives to fossil fuels, but the car companies have over 30 years to achieve this and have already made significant advances. http://www.audi.co.uk...... http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk...... http://www.hybridcars.com...... Just think about the advances in vehicle technology that have been made in the last 30 years and, with access to far more powerful computers, what can be achieved in the next 30 years. 2 – Certainly nuclear power is an alternative power source. However, I wouldn't envisage each car being fitted with its own nuclear-powered engine, rather that electricity generated in nuclear power stations would be used to charge the cars' batteries. 3 – 2040 may seem arbitrary, and perhaps a year either way wouldn't make much difference. However, One year had to be chosen and that year was 2040. It doesn't follow that because there is "nothing special" about that year that my opponent "ought to win" this debate by default! Thank you.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

I stand to negate the following once more (I read the agreement this time so I hope there won't be nothing I' do wrong this time): "Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels." 1. To start of, the fact that we are changing to alternative fuels is bad and means no improvement of the status quo : pollution and oil shortage; What happens is that when you introduce these new vehicles with their alt. fuels, is that these are still fuels. To get them will cost more CO2 and they themselves won't solve much. What we need is alternative energy run cars: solar energy, not another CO2 producer. You see the problem is that the fuels need land and transportation and finally conversion, when these factors are included there is no reduction of CO2. 2. The resolution calls for "alternative fuels", this i presume to be all types of fuels other than oil. Nuclear energy is a type of alt. fuel and it in itself is the worst idea of the century, imagine cars running on nuclear fuel. My opponent has to defend all types of alternative fuels which is in itself a suicide. For example, Hydrogen vehicles will be used by the terrorist since each car will be like a big bomb. 3. The resolution asks for 2040, as long as I prove it could be 2041 or 2039 etc. I ought to win. There is nothing special about 2040 and this fact alone negates the affirmative resolution. 4. Finally ask yourself, why should the government mandate the change, obviously the alternative fuels are not competitive, a better way would be to go with tax incentives. Thanks and good luck.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

With thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate, I should like to reply as follows: 1 – Even though I may not be able to prove that there will be significant advances in vehicle technology in the next thirty years, we can infer that there will be by the advances that have been made over the previous thirty years. 2 – Tax breaks are useful but not enough on their own. There will always be a selfish minority of people that are rich enough not to worry about such trifling amounts of money and will insist upon buying V16 Bugatti Veyrons or V8 Ford F-450s that belch huge amounts of toxic gasses into the atmosphere thus polluting the air that we all have to breathe. Although very little investment in environmentally-friendly cars has so far been made by American manufacturers, European and Japanese car companies already have a wide range to choose from, and will no doubt be happy to supply the United States in 2040 should the likes of Ford and GM refuse to develop alternative fuel power-plants. 3 – I didn't address these issues in my last round, so it would be unfair to my opponent to use this round to do so as this would deny him the opportunity to respond so I therefore concede this point. 4 and 5 - A date had to chosen and 2040 was chosen as it gives more than enough time for manufacturers to develop new products. In conclusion, the need to reduce the amount of pollution that enters our atmosphere is an urgent one and cars are a major source of pollution. It therefore seems reasonable that the motor manufacturing industry should be given a deadline by which they should be producing less polluting vehicles. Thank you.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

I understand and thank you again for the debate. Firstly cross apply all of my points and weigh them against Pro, with that said let's go line by line: 1. First of all, I win that technology is not good now and that you cannot predict thing (Menand 2005), therefore at this point technically the debate is over. 2. Look at the plan, (PF January Resolution) it mandates a use of alternative fuels by 2040, why should the government mandate? Well, I don't know, it seems like a better idea would be to go with tax breaks and incentives which is not contested therefore I ought to win. Secondly if we put a mandate, what will happen? Well, the companies will have to start production ASAP with the technologies currently in place witch I prove, fail, therefore the solvency will simply not happen. 3. With my impacts, poorer people, pollution, global warming acceleration, and terrorism due to hydrogen cars, it is simply all too vivid that alternative fuels are not a good idea, and will produce bad impacts. 4. Pro has also failed to prove why 2040 is key therefore the resolution is ambiguous. 5. "30 years should be sufficient time to develop alternative fuel-powered cars" -No evidence therefore voters should disregard this -Develop? Last time I check we have already "developed" these cars, yet they are just simply bad as far as things go.
The Logistics and practicality of Communism.

Since the argument is near half-over, let me bring up new issues. 1. One major issue with communism is the fact that it has never worked out in history. Can you point to any examples of a successful communist society? 2. Many supporters of communism say "USSR and China weren't TRUE communism", but they were the closest we have seen. If the only examples of a theoretical system failed, that really isn't a good sign. In fact there is ONE example of 'communism' today- open source software. Everyone is free to contribute to it but many don't and just download it for their own use without improving it. That leads to... 3. Human nature i.e. selfishness always prevails and people can and will stop working. You keep saying that people will "work because they want to." Humans are intrinsically lazy and will choose to not work if the result is the same. "communism makes you want to work"- in what way? You can't change human nature without forcing it- but that won't make people equal if they are forced to work by another person. "these less desirable jobs become less undesirable when you are in control of doing it and are not pressured by your employer." Then what would make me want to do that job? Let's say no one likes working in sanitation. What will make people want to work there? Certainly not more money, because that would imply their job is more important = not equal to others. "of course you would like to just lay around and do nothing right now in your current job but this is because of the worker alienation you are experiencing at your job." I don't understand what you mean by this- because in my hypothetical scenario I don't have a job nor do I want one. I am perfectly content sitting at home until I die. I have hobbies but none contribute to society (such as video games and movies). What then? 4. Communism only works in small groups, where societal pressures drive people to work. If they don't, the peer pressure around them will make them work. This encourages all to work to benefit each other. The problem arises when this is scaled to a whole country. Now there isn't one tight-knit community- there are millions of people. The pressures disappear and now people have no drive. This is why every time communism has failed at large scales. A power vacuum is created with someone calling the shots to replace the "natural" pressures by a tight-knit community.
The Logistics and practicality of Communism.

Thank you for being respectful and understanding, I will rebuttal to the best of my ability. I would like to point out communism is a near utopian society but it would only solve the current problems with capitalism as Marx only intended it to be. Other problems would arise for sure. 1.Now i have encountered this argument several times and while it is true there are some less desirable jobs it doesn't change the premise of my original argument. People will work for others as well and realize that some jobs must be done. These less desirable jobs become less undesirable when you are in control of doing it and are not pressured by your employer. Not to mention you receive the praise from your peers and the society as a whole and your job would feel like it has intrinsic meaning and importance. I don't really think I need to address this argument any further because automation would take care of the ones you listed and much more and this isn't exactly speculation either. 2.Supply and demand go up and down but depending on their elasticity a surplus is usually created and sold at a low price to rid the excess supply. People will consume many different commodities but is this really what they want or what makes them happy? This leads into the philosophical part of this debate. Marx got much of his ideas from the philosopher Epicurus who spent his life trying to find out what made us happy and through his empirical studies he found out that it is not material wealth that makes us happy but our friends and family (I know sounds generic). I will leave a video further explaining his philosophy. 3. This is a very opinionated argument. You would almost certainly get bored of doing nothing at all after awhile. I don't really see how this argument be resolved since it will be very opinionated either way. Again, you work because you want to in communism. The point of communism is to make you want to work. Of course you would like to just lay around and do nothing right now in your current job but this is because of the worker alienation you are experiencing at your job.
The Logistics and practicality of Communism.

Good points you are making. However, I want to know if you are thinking about a "Utopia-esque" Communism or one in an actual country where many will oppose it and there will be multiple viewpoints. Please let me know about that, because that really does change things. Seems to me like you are for the Utopian version, which is not a problem for the argument. 1. Your first part of no.1 is pretty much an umbrella statement and can be applied to capitalism as well. However, "[work] brings us joy [in communism]" might not be the case. What if no one wanted to clean sewers, or build houses, or maintain public services, etc. With capitalism it will be alleviated with higher pay and more incentives, but in communism that cannot be the case, since everyone is equal and no job is higher than another if the same hours and labor are used. Another issue, "we must produce what the capitalist demands"- you are implying that people are forced to work in a capitalist society, which is completely untrue. You can quit jobs or not work at all, both with different outcomes. 2. Who says capitalism is over-producing? Supply and demand is a huge factor in both production and end consumption, and there are thousands of analysts working for companies to try to calculate exactly how much to make for the highest profit. And that isn't a bad thing. More profit=larger company=more workers. Now I know trickle-down economics is a joke, but it CAN create jobs, which is a good thing for capitalism. Sidenote on the CPG gray video: I have watched it many times, and automation will play a huge part in the advancement of capitalism----->socialism ---> communism. However we are not there yet so this is all speculation. Sounds good in theory to have 'robot slaves' to do all our work for us, but it will take many years to achieve that. Right now, capitalism is superior. Many jobs require a "human element"- i.e. some form of human interaction. 3. We both agree that it is human to be lazy if the opportunity presents itself. "people will work because they want to"- what if they don't? What if I don't enjoy any job at all? I would be perfectly fine sitting at home watching TV. In a capitalist society I would not be able to provide for my basic needs, thus requiring me to work. In a communist society where everyone is equal, there cannot be someone above me to force me to work, and I must be sustained, so what happens? "8 hours is unlikely"- that was merely a hypothetical/placeholder. You bring up some valid points however the fact that you are thinking of a "theoretical/Utopian" version of communism means you need to define/explain some things- you make many assumptions about the people in a communist society.
The Logistics and practicality of Communism.

Thank you for participating in this debate and coming up with real and legitimate criticisms. 1.What you are assuming is that the only kind of incentive we have to do anything requires some kind of monetary incentive. This is completely false and everyday life makes this visible. We will work for mental or physical gains all the time regardless of money. We read books to educate us, learn to play instruments, plant gardens in our front yards, take care of pets all of these require work but we don't demand any money from them. Why? Becuase we enjoy them. And this is what communism will do for any kind of work. We no longer do work because we have to in order to sustain ourselves, we work because we want to and because it brings us joy in doing so. The capitalist system destroyed the beauty in working by demanding non-stop production and efficiency. Marx called this enfremtdung or alienation. Where we are alienated from our own creations. We are not given the time to admire our creations or "see ourselves" in them. We must produce what the capitalist demands and as fast as we can in the name of profit. This leads tasks that should be joyful and fulfilling to become dull and boring. Incentive doesn't vanish, it evolves. 2.There are plenty of room for inventors, During marx's analysis of capitalism he realized that very few of us actually needed to work. We could give everybody a house, food a car but we produce far more than we could ever be able to consume or need to consume. We could literally only have to work a fraction of what the average working day is today in the united states to sustain ourselves and others. Peter Kropotkin and other communist thinkers suggested we would only need to have a 4 hour working day and cut off the unneeded overproduction. This time after work would leave plenty of time to innovate if that is what the individual enjoys doing. Weather you believe me or not about this it's going to happen, automation is making communism extremely viable and the vast majority of available jobs right now could be automated. people will have to find something to do without a monetary incentive and automation will aid in this greatly. CPG gray did an excellent video on this subject which I will link to you. 3. I don't really see your argument here. If the person is weak and can only work 3 hours at X activity, he would be moved to a job which he can do better at. And as i stated above, 8 hours of working is an unlikely working day in a communist society. And again, people aren't going to work because they have to, they will work because they want to. Communism isn't only an economical and social revolution, it's also a psychological and sociological revolution as well. CPG Gray video:
The Logistics and practicality of Communism.

Hello, this is my first debate, and I would gladly talk with you. I have many concerns about communism. 1. It discourages innovation and is anti-technology. By this I mean there are no incentives for "American/Western Big Business" to come in and sell their technology. Since a communist country is mostly economically isolated, there is no incentive for "rich capitalists" to come in and sell their technology. There would be no one to sell it to. 2. As an addition to no.1, it discourages creativity as well. There is no room for inventors as a communist country would view them as "useless" unless they directly improve the country. Since communists discourage differing opinions, art and culture will not be developed as much as they would be in a capitalist country, where opinions are welcomed, much less allowed. 3. Labor output will sharply decline. People can simply "stop caring" about their work. The saying "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" can be a huge negative. Someone strong and hard-working who works for 8 hours a day can start to become jealous of a weaker person working 3 hours a day. People can simply stop working to their max and the whole country will suffer long-term. These are only a few reasons, and I would be happy to clarify. Can you help by defining what exactly you mean by "practicality" and explain the system for what you believe to be a 'perfect' Communist country?
The Logistics and practicality of Communism.

I would like to debate and hopefully convince skeptics of communism to rethink their position on this subject. I would like Con to start by pointing out their concerns about communism and structure an argument. PLEASE READ: I have done many of these kind of debates before and most arguments have been complete straw-mans. You can argue against the marxist-leninist method of achieving communism if you like. Communism: A stateless, classless, moneyless society where the means of production are socially owned and private property is abolished.
Drone Warfare does more good than harm

Counter Refutations1. Drones gather informationMy opponent said that this point is irrelevant. Drone warfare is a bucket term that includes all uses of drones in wars. And yes, it is true that the same can be done with manned planes. However, we are discussing drones. It doesn't matter if the same can be done with manned planes. Drones do it very well without risking anybody's lives.2. Drones save soldier's lives. My opponent agrees with me and then goes on to say that we should value money more than lives. This is completely shameful. We are saving lives. End of point. As to the tangent my opponent goes on afterwards, I'm not sure what you are really saying and how it is relating to this discussion.3. Drones are effective. First off, my opponent says there is no universal opinion on what a militant or terrorist is. Okay, how about this. A terrorist is someone plotting against a America and poses a serious threat to our well being via hateful attacks, and a militant is a soldier on the other side. It doesn't matter if the other side says they aren't a terrorist. That's why we are in a war against them. We can't believe them when they say that their citizens aren't terrorists when the US government says that they are. He refutes only this part of my argument and nothing else.
Drone Warfare does more good than harm

Refutations:1. The point that drones can gather information accurately and safely is true. However, this is about drone warfare, not drone espionage. Also, it is not the drones that are highly accurate, it's their weaponry which can be carried just as easy by a manned fighter. [1]2. Once again, you are right by saying that a drone is not a person and no life is lost when they are shot down. But drones are ridiculously expensive, we have already spent 12 billion on the Reapers alone, so couldn't this 12 billion be spent better somewhere else? That's only one type of drone too and that's the government numbers which are traditionally understated. Also, drones have made us believe that we can win the "war on terror". With these media-glorified tools of destruction, we have continued to terrify the populations in the Middle East such as those in Pakistan (see my prior argument, the last sentence of section 4). People there are terrified because of the drones and this is bad for two reasons. One, it leads to generations of citizens who might be friendly towards the U.S. to instead hate us for our constant presence in their country. Second, when we do finally leave whatever country we get involved in, we hope that the local government will be stable and be harsh on terrorists and actively seek them out [2]. That won't happen if their people are mad at us over our use of drones. What does this all have to do with soldiers dieing? War is continued needlessly as thousands of soldiers are killed and future conflicts are a possibility where even more soldiers will die. 3. I've already covered my views in my initial argument regarding drone effectiveness but I'd like to point out once again that the effectiveness of drones is highly varied because of several reasons. First off, there is no universal opinion on what a militant or terrorist is. The U.S. might believe someone to be a terrorist while other government or sources believe otherwise. Also, as I have stated before, rescuers are too terrified to visit the site of the drone attack right away which can lead to disputed body counts. This hesitation is because there have been reports of drones continuing to circle the area even after their attack, sometimes shooting at the site when people tried to help [3].[1] http://nation.time.com... [2] http://www.pewglobal.org... [3] http://www.guardian.co.uk...