BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Guns be banned in the U.S.

Well since Con provided a brief argument, I shall as well be quite terse.Constiutionality: " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Well, if we are to examine the highly regarded amendment, we find that the right to bear arms seems to apply to a well regulated militia. No individual is synonymous with term militia, none the less a well regulated one. Individual safety is also not included, the safety of the state is reffered to.Criminals: If guns are readily accessible, as they are now, criminals may simply accquire them. If guns are taken away, it axiomatically follows that guns are more difficult to obtain.Effects Of Gun Bans: In countries that have instiutued gun bans, not only has gun violence gone down, but violent crime overall seems to have gone down, as seen in the UK.One is actualtually about forty times more likely to be shot in the US than in the UK.If one is to analyze a list of the worlds safest nations, there is strict gun control in the saftest nations and as the list goes on the gun control is less strict and subsequently safety is lowered. Especially in regards to highly industrialized nations. The US is 101 on the GPI, that is abysmal for an highly developed nation.Source:[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: Tariffs harm domestic and foreign economies.

As per the rules, I will not respond to my opponent's rebuttal, although my arguments will naturally do so."If protectionism in the form of tariffs really was a good idea, then why not raise the tariffs to 100% or 150% on all foreign goods? Surely the highest protectionist tariff would be the most beneficial, right? Wrong. The highest tariff in US history was the Hawley-Smoot Tariff, which was passed into law during the Great Depression, and as a result of its passing with Hoover's signature resulted in a severe US trade drop, an intensified depression, and retaliatory tariffs from abroad."Pro claims that since the Hawley-Smoot Tariff failed, tariffs harmful to the economy. This is an obvious logical fallacy. The success of tariffs obviously depends when and how they are enacted. After WWI farm prices declined. Tariffs were imposed to help farmers, and the isolationist movement grew out of control, with all sorts of industries demanding protection (the onset of the great depression helped spur this on). The result was a disaster that brought retaliatory tariffs and hurt foreign relations. [1.http://future.state.gov...] Saying that if tariffs helped the economy, they should be raised to the maximum is ridiculous. It is akin to saying if vegetables are good for you, you should stuff yourself with them all day. Furthermore, Pro ignores that the U.S. tariffs at the time were mostly successful, protecting its infant industries and allowing them to develop.[2.http://en.wikipedia.org...]"When a domestic economy levies a tariff on a good or service that domestic consumers want to buy, it hurts the foreign economy exporting the good or service. The reason is simply a loss in volume of sales: the higher a price increases, the less quantity of that good will be consumed. So the higher a tariff increases, the less wealth being created between the two countries, and the worse everybody is overall. The foreign economy loses business and has to close factories and manufacturing facilities to account for the drop in sales."My opponent simplifies things and ignores other effects of tariffs. Nearly all wealthy economies developed under protection of undeveloped industries. [3.http://www.ied.info...] What free trade does is gives major developed industries access to countries with weaker industries, allows them to take away their jobs and make the country dependent on them. This leads to stagnation and unemployment. Mexico, as I stated in my main argument, is a good example of this.Pro, if I understand the rules correctly, can only respond to this argument and not my previous ones. He should also not introduce new arguments in his argument as I will be unable to respond. I look forward to the final round. ;)"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists." -John Kenneth Galbraith
Resolved: Tariffs harm domestic and foreign economies.

Tariffs save domestic jobs and industries. If this were truly the case, then why don't we enact 150% tariffs on all foreign goods, so that our industries can flourish? Because, tariffs are a, "vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary taxation. " They go against the one principle of economics that most economists agree on: free trade makes everyone better off. This claim is similar to the claim that no economy ever got rich without using tariffs to industrialize. This claim is false. "This claim, generally used by developing countries to avoid cutting tariffs, has a two-word refutation: Hong Kong. Some say Hong Kong's postwar success was as a port and financial centre for China. Not true. Being the entrepot for a country under US and United Nations embargoes and ruled by an autarkic Communist was not exactly a licence to print money. Hong Kong did the same as the other Asian tigers – starting off with clothing and other labour-intensive manufacturing and moving into more sophisticated products and services later. "[. http://www.owen.org...]Free trade creates trade deficits. This claim goes back to the idea that when two parties make a transaction that one party will be left worse off and the other party will get the better deal. However, this ignores the concept of wealth creation and further capital production. If we import cheaper steel from China than we can produce in the United States, industries that use steal will benefit. If a tariff is placed on foreign steel, than we are just subsidizing the inefficiencies of our steel manufacturers when we could be specializing in some other industry we do better to achieve abosulte and comparative advantage. Also, the price for steel will increase in America, driving down demand and economic growth. The growth that we could achieve counterbalances the trade deficit, so we end up producing and exporting more without tariffs. [. http://www.britannica.com...]Free trade hurts foreign economies. t's a controversial statement because it isn't true. Economies develop by exporting, and they get harmed by overconsumption and not producing as much. Simple as that. [. http://www.lewrockwell.com...]Thanks.
Resolved: Tariffs harm domestic and foreign economies.

Tariffs save domestic jobs and industries. Tariffs protects domestic goods and services from foreign goods and services. This also protects domestic jobs involved with the industries from cheaper overseas competition. Many developing industries rely on trade tariffs to be able to compete with foreign goods. Entire communities reliant on them will sink into poverty. An example of successful tariffs would be Japan. After WWII, they levied massive tariffs to keep their weak economy afloat. Today Japan is one of the biggest economies in the world and a major exporter. Tariffs saved their industry in an event from the 1960's to the 1980's referred to as the "Japanese post-war economic miracle. " [1. . http://www.country-data.com...]2. Free trade creates trade deficits. A trade deficit is a negative balance of trade. Calculating a trade deficit requires totaling imports and exports from both countries. The side where imports are greater than exports has a trade deficit. Net foreign ownership of American assets is currently $2.7 trillion. [2. . http://economyincrisis.org...] William Bahr, an economist of the Economic Strategy Institute has estimated that our trade deficit since 1991 has made our economy 13% smaller than it otherwise would be. Before 1980 the GDP grew at an average of 3.8% per year. Afterwards, as our trade deficit grew, it dropped to 3.1%. [3. . http://industryweek.com...]3. Free trade hurts foreign economies. "Free trade hurts foreign economies" is a controversial statement . It does not apply to all countries, however free trade can be devastating for some. For instance look at NAFTA. Only ten percent of Mexicans have seen an increase in standard of living during the last decade, and that does not make up for the jobs lost due to U. S. dominance in foods or other goods. [4. . http://witness4peace.blogspot.com...] NAFTA was essentially a failure for the foreign economies. In fact, the evidence has shown that Latin America's per capita income has been reduced to half thanks to the free trade policies it adopted in the 80's. [5. . http://www.eclac.org...]Trade tariffs are necessary to help small industries grow and stop trade deficit. I am done with my argument and turn the debate over to Pro. "Economy is the basis of society. When the economy is stable, society develops. The ideal economy combines the spiritual and the material, and the best commodities to trade in are sincerity and love. " -Morihei Ueshiba
Resolved: Tariffs harm domestic and foreign economies.

This is part of round one of the economics debate tournament.ResolutionResolved: Tariffs harm domestic and foreign economies.Rules Debater must have typing experience.Debater must have internet access.Must structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.Must insert one witty/interesting quote per round.Please no lawyering, waging source wars, dictionary assaults (semantics), or fallacies. Rounds (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + voting issues (one paragraph)I accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel. With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner. Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.Let the game begin!"Tariff laws, the vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended." -President Grover Cleveland: State of the Union Message (1887)
Pascal's Wager does not warrant for a belief in god (Read Description)

Dear KingDebater369, et al., Thank you for selecting this topic. I confess that I have done only nominal reading on this topic, primarily consisting of reviews of Pascal's Wager (Le Pari de Pascal, it is probably called in the original French) and a negative assessment through the rather famous atheist, Michael Martin, of Boston University. However, I do just happen to read and enjoy the French language so this particular debate will actually motivate me to read Pascal's wager in the original French which I have failed to do hitherto. Also, I want to thank you personally, KingDebater369, for making this debate topic available for a lesser-experienced debater (on this site) to accept. I find that so many challenges have stipulations as to the debating experience of the interlocutors. Alright. As to the argument itself, I believe that the context, at least the historical context of the argument, is betting. So, would it be rational to bet in a particular way, even if the odds were stacked against you? Alternatively, it is rational to bet when the odds are clearly in your favor? The latter seems to be fairly self-evident. But is it rational to bet in the former case? Some people might argue that they have intuitively rational basis upon which to argue the former case, even when oddsmakers are suggesting that it is not rational, or, at least, that they will not win the bet. That is all quite interesting. But let us approach the issue from a different angle. Let us approach the problem from the angle of betting against or for oneself. It does not seem rational to bet against oneself when one is highly confident of one's ability to accomplish a task. Let us say that my task is to drive to a local store, only a few block away from my residence. I know that I can get this done without entering into an automobile accident. And yet I bet against myself every time I take out a new automobile insurance police or renew an existing policy. Why would I bet against myself when I am sure that I can make it to the store without an accident occurring? Now, if I am sure (and rational?) about this decision, then I can certainly make a more rational decision, one where the betting is even less "betting" and more sound decision-making. The Latin term is a fortiori. If I will bet against myself when I am sure that I am right or competent and that decision (betting) is rational, then I would definitely, or a fortiori, bet against myself (rationally) when I am less sure of my competence or ability. Yet many skeptics are very sure of their ability to render a negative verdict about the existence of God? Are they sure of their ability to drive to a local store without getting into an accident? But they bet against themselves, or have already done so, by taking out an insurance policy. Is that rational? If not, can we ask whether they rationally rendered the verdict against God. I'm just using that as an example but I believe it to be a powerful illustration of how rationality and betting are curiously intertwined and separated by thin strands.
Pascal's Wager does not warrant for a belief in god (Read Description)

Hello Everyone. Pascal's Wager is often a common argument from Christians based on a decision theory. It evaluates which is the best decision to take, to believe in god, or to not believe in him. It goes a little something like this: If you believe that god exists, and you're right, you'll go to heavan.If you believe that god exists, and you're wrong, you haven't lost anything.But if you don't believe that god exists, and you're right, you haven't lost anything.But if you don't believe that god exists, and you're wrong, then you'll go to hell.The best bet is to believe in god.Pascal's wager has many logical fallacies, and I will argue that Pacal's wager does NOT warrant for a belief in god.Structure of the debate:R1: AcceptanceR2: ArguementsR3: RebuttalsR4: More Rebuttals and Conclusions
we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives and a terminal illness

a precise definition of the terms con asks for would be mostly irrelvant. we can define something most people would be for, and the main point is there can be a couple doctors to verify that the criteria is met. the point isn't the precise definiitions, the point is whether or not euthanasia is immoral or not once definitions are chosen. whether people's greatest fear is pain or death is a secondary point to this debate.... i could concede that perhaps that is mistake, i just assumed it was true. but that doesn't change whether euthanasia is moral or not. con doesn't respond to the idea that if people are more sacred than dogs, shoudln't that be all the more reason we should treat them with the respect of "putting them out of their misery" epecially when it's the desire of the person? con just argues the argument i responded to right away in the debate, that some say people are worth more than dogs. yes, but i gave a response to that, and con hasn't addressed specifically teh response. it's not "allowing the state to allow an individual to help take a life" it is mostly just the state saying "we do not make illegal euthanasia in the right situations". it is about letting people have freedom to choose themselves. it is just the state acknowledgeing that it shouldn't push murder charges on a doctor, or the person who took his own life. lastly, there may be mistakes, but that's just life. most of the time it would work. and in any case, we can be sure that nntety nine percent of the time or more that the person who took their life was in a tortured state anyway, regardless of whether they would have lived longer than thought or not.
we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives and a terminal illness

Stance: We should not support physician-assisted suicide for "those living tortured lives and a terminal illness". First and foremost, it would be preferable for this debate if the Instigator to give a precise definition of what a "tortured life" and "terminal illness" is. Until then, it will not be possible to supply articulated arguments against euthanasia (which I define as physician-assisted suicide). Since these vital definitions aren"t provided, this opening argument will instead criticize Pro"s opening arguments, which are flawed. The assertion that people"s greatest fear is suffering, not death, is insofar unsubstantiated. Also, our intuition of what to do to dogs and what to do with humans aren"t the same because humans are intrinsically more valuable than a dog (a dog, for example, cannot debate euthanasia on the Internet). The Instigator"s argument that many of us would our loved ones to die than suffer is also unsubstantiated. Furthermore, being against state-sponsored physician-assisted suicide isn"t so much about thinking the State is right; it"s about not letting the State have the legal ability to allow one take another citizen"s life. Finally, since even medical professions do not have total precision and accuracy of measuring someone"s lifetime, euthanizing someone would have survived much longer otherwise will inevitably occur.
we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives and a terminal illness

we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives and a terminal illness. why euthanasia is the moral permissiveness in this situation: -most people's biggest fear isn't death... it's pained living. that's why the "torture" debate is so gut wrenching and passion filled. -we understand intuitively that we should put dog's "out of their misery", as the humane thing to do. why with people is it suddenly inhumane? there is some merit to claiming people aren't dogs and have a higher dignity... but this argument about dignity could even more easily be used the other way, it's all the more reason to be humane and "put them out of their misery", especially when we are thinking it's about humane activity etc to begin with in the one situation. -liberty. at best this is a tough issue. why do we let the government decide who's right in a tough issue, when the person this is affecting most could be the decider? plus if you were real about it... probably a high percentage of those who might be against euthanasia would suddenly be for it if they found them self (or possibly a loved one) in a terrible situation. -i do not pretend to offer easy answers. but we as a soeciety, or at least professional doctors, can demarcate when someone is in 'terminal and tortured pain'. this wouldnt allow for back pain. or slight pain at terminal stage. sure there might some be gray cases, but that's just life.
This house believe in the united states of the world

http://www.youtube.com... If you don't like big countries why you don't emigrate to a smaller one, perhaps you would prefer to life in Tokelau which have less than 2000 people as the total population. If you are that against super-states, why you don't ask to dissolve the Federal US government? Would you prefer to life in a micro independent state? Of course you don't, that is why you prefer to stay in the states. If we had one world government, the terrorists will not have a place to hide, and it will be no need to invade foreigner countries, the regular police would be able to go there and take them. I can't let you go with the argument about labour, Let's imagine a sport shop, custocountries not going to buy less stuff just because all all sport shops open fogreedy. a week (the same days), therefore no one will lose money but all workers will work less. This will reduce the stress of the population without damaging the profit of the companies. Some companies leave US to other countries in order to pay less taxes, it is not for they own survival, it is just gready.
This house believe in the united states of the world

"Imagine a world in which we don't need to set our taxes lower than the neighbor country just to keep the companies with us"Well then those companies would take a hell of a hit in terms of how much profit they bring in at the end of the day. That would cause the people who work for those companies to bring home less pay which in turn limits how much they spend and how much stuff they buy, which then hurts the companies they buy all their stuff from. This further hampers how much money they make and how they would have to limit pay and thus we find ourselves in a never ending cycle of everyone losing. Also the fact that the world is already in bad shape even WITH competition and companies doing as well as they are, a world government with a single tax rate on companies would do tons of damage to just about every company that has low tax rates for companies. "imagine no need to spend budget in army"Armies are used for reasons other then defending against other countries though. Within the US you have the coast guard, the national guard, etc who are part of the military but operate for smaller level governments or exist for non-military purposes. If the world suddenly somehow unites then we would still need to pay for an army to keep the world at peace and in good shape following natural disasters. However, given the conflicts in the Middle East, ongoing chaos in Somalia, numerous genocides all across the world, and natural disasters that are now breaking records in damage done, the world would still need a military and still have to pay for it, even more then we did before since now we would be obligated to fund every damn conflict that happens instead of just sitting on the sidelines like most of the world does, including the US once in a while. "imagine no need to hide the work of our researches to other countries"Other countries arent the only people we hide research from. Warlords, terrorists, and hackers are just a few people who have it out for what the US is researching, and they dont belong to any one particular country either. They belong to just about ALL countries, and if there were one world government then we would still be forced to hide whatever it is we are researching from those who want to watch the world burn. "imagine a world in which we can agree to limit our labour work to four days a week without loosing competitivity against other countries."Remember that first argument I made where corporations suffer = workers lose pay = less spending and buying = harms corporations more = harms workers more, and how that whole never ending cycle would kill the world economy? The same thing applies to this one since limiting labour work to four days a week would wreak havoc on how much money corporations make every quarter. "A united states of the world would have more benefits than inconvenient"From what I can tell, a United States of the World has ONLY inconveniences and no foreseeable benefits....
This house believe in the united states of the world

Honorable members of debate.org, I encourage you to support this motion. Imagine a world in which we don't need to set our taxes lower than the neighbor country just to keep the companies with us, imagine no need to spend budget in army, imagine no need to hide the work of our researches to other countries, imagine a world in which we can agree to limit our labour work to four days a week without loosing competitivity against other countries. A united states of the world would have more benefits than inconvenient