BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the U.S. allow Monopolies such as standard oil

To close, I would like to draw attention to a few of your points:"since about 90% of the people don't look at the quality but by the looks and the price."Not true at all. Today the average consumer is getting smarter and smarter due to the Internet. I personally read reviews for phones, video games, and movies to see what is worth my hard earned money. The Internet reviewer has given consumers the ability to judge the quality of products more effectively. Also, take into account that the quality of products is spread through the mouths of average consumers via social networks. If someone put on facebook that the new Iron Man movie was amazing and the new Superman movie coming out is terrible, this will effect consumers' choices. Lastly, be careful from throwing random percentages out without something to back it up."even with only two companies there is such a difference that it takes years to make a game that works both on windows and Macs, just think of how it would be if there were about 30."That's true, it would be more difficult to create games for 30 operating systems. However, that is a unique situation. Automobile makers benefit from competition; they fight each other to make the most gas effective, well built cars. Military organizations around the world compete to have the best weaponry available for conflict. Movies compete against one other to beat all of the other available films in the box office. Competition makes businesses strive to be better in quality, price, and looks. Quality is a huge factor in competition in our modern day."if their was no Vanderbilt and his companies did not exist America would be a 3rd level country."Debatable, but just because these monopolies may have shaped what we are today does not mean that monopolies are right or ethical. Many terrible events in history such as WWII and the Cold War have had positive effects on society in the aftermath such as treaties and regulation of certain weapons of mass destruction. It does not mean that those wars were positive overall; WWII caused millions of death while the Cold War put the fear of nuclear proliferation into the hearts of many scared people on this planet. Monopolies can be related to this; although monopolies were horrible for the working class, the aftermath did lead to some exciting changes in America that helped competition. So why would we allow monopolies to enter our economies again after knowing the atrocities they committed in the past?I thank my opponent for such an interesting debate. I hope we get to debate again soon.
Should the U.S. allow Monopolies such as standard oil

sorry for my writing and grammar mistakes, though your example with people buying the Miami heat and the bobcat is true in basketball but not in the real world since about 90% of the people don't look at the quality but by the looks and the price. this happens with cars as well as stores like walmart. Walmart destroyed its competitors by making the price go down so much that people had to buy from them not the local stores. though there were only a couple that stay on their level like publix. Also when I said it would turn out to be a mess I meant that there would not be a standard. this happens with apple and Microsoft. even with only two companies there is such a difference that it takes years to make a game that works both on windows and Macs, just think of how it would be if there were about 30. this is like railroads back in the day when there were hundreds of companies and each company had its own railroad size and you would have to wait very long before you could move again, this changed when there was one standard only one software would stop the waiting for software to be translated from windows to Mac. also I would like to bring up the idea that Monopolies such as standard oil really built America and made it the best country in the world. if their was no Vanderbilt and his companies did not exist America would be a 3rd level country. he made trade easier and changed America in a good way not in a bad way like most Monopolies do. also i will have to thankyou and this has tought me a lot about history and Monopolies. to tell you the truth i thought that monopolies were bad but i wanted to learn more so i made a debate. I am very thankfull to you that you kept up with the debate and gave a good Argument.
Should the U.S. allow Monopolies such as standard oil

My opponent has not made his points very clear. I would ask for more legible writing and grammar in the following round. It's difficult to counter a point when it's not clear and concise, though I do believe my opponent has made some good points last round.I do not agree with my opponent when he says that multiple companies making software would be a mess. I don't really understand how it would be a mess. Companies competing against each other fight to make the best products for the consumer. Their goal is to gain an edge against the competition by various means such as price, quality, etc.This leads me to my next point. In my opponent's example about basketball, he brought up a point about how basketball can be viewed as a microcosm of a free market. The problem with the example is that it leaves out many variables. Using the NBA, allow me to demonstrate an example: say that you go to a website selling official jerseys. There is a sale going on that any Charlotte Bobcat jersey (a team with a horrible record as of this season) is only 25 dollars. However, there is a Miami Heat (a team with the best record as of this season) jersey that is 120 dollars. Why would people purchase the Miami Heat jersey? Taste. Consumer taste drives everything. The more teams that compete with each other, the more choices that the consumer/fan has. Should the consumer buy his favorite team jersey? Favorite player? Discount jersey? Hometown jersey?Monopolies destroy the very competition that drives businesses to lower prices and offer strong quality products that the free market enables. All of the choices that we have as consumers would be destroyed by the dirty practices of the monopolies of the past. Competition is integral to the benefit of society and the consumer; it keeps every business in check from becoming too powerful while also creating a balance of power between consumer and business.
Should the U.S. allow Monopolies such as standard oil

he If the OS market had more competition and had 10 companies, each with an equal market share of 10%, then it would be very difficult for software programs to be available to everyone so if there were more componies instead of microsoft like lets say 20 even 10 it would be a mess because games like call of duty would take longer to make doing it with 10 diffrent sofwares at a time. Then you are going to say something about walmart right?? well here is a little example from a paragraph "if I am holding a basketball tournament to find the best basketball team (a consumer finding the lowest price), I would like as many teams to join into the tournament as possible (more competition is good). Preventing teams from joining would be bad (barriers to entry). However, as the tournament progresses, teams will be eliminated (consumers choosing not to shop at expensive businesses). Eventually, there may be a winner (e.g. Wal-Mart). In most industries, the tournament never ends and there is not a winner because many teams are often equally matched and/or new teams continually enter the tournament."
Should the U.S. allow Monopolies such as standard oil

Monopolies lead to the following:1. High Prices on goodsWithout competition, the price of goods will soar. An unchallenged company will charge whatever they want because no one can offer an equal or superior product. Take Microsoft for example. Most computers these days are Windows operated. Only a small fraction of consumers can afford to buy a Macbook. While the Macbook has been catching on, they are still light years away from catching up to Windows and their client base. Microsoft can charge whatever price they want for microsoft office, computers, etc. and people will still buy their goods. This is dangerous for our free market when a company has near absolute power.2. No RegulationMonopolies like Standard Oil worked off the blood and sweat of their underpaid workers. Standard Oil made their workers work hours that by today's standards are appalling. The workers were paid very little for long and often dangerous hours.3. The Gap Between The Poor and the RichThe Wall Street protest have shown that the disparity between the rich and poor is still a major issue. If monopolies are able to function, the gaps between the two groups will only increase. It will be the barons of industry against the average Joe. In the end, the monopolies would win, just as history has shown before the government broke up the monopolies.
Border Control

Illegal Immigrants: The age old question. I am quite strongly against border control. I simply don't see how it can be at all reasonable to punish the most vulnerable populations for trying to better their situation. Nobody is going to be an illegal immigrant for the fun of it. Any immigrant is looking for a better place to live, And illegal immigrants are those in the most need of it. If one had the time and money to apply legally, One probably would, Considering the difficulties of living in a country illegally. Rebuttals: Illegal immigrants do not negatively impact the economy. According to Pew Research Centre, (https://theconversation. Com/why-care-about-undocumented-immigrants-for-one-thing-theyve-become-vital-to-key-sectors-of-the-us-economy-98790) They actually make up about 5 percent of the U. S workforce. Now, Obviously not everywhere is the U. S, But they are one of the nations with the highest level of immigration. These immigrants work low-paying, Hard labour jobs that, To be quite frank, Many native born simply wouldn't do. These jobs aren't being stolen. And I ask you, How coudld they take advantage of welfare systems? Being undocumented makes this essentially impossible, Besides smaller places, Like local food banks. True, This also means an illegal immigrant wouldn't pay income tax, But they would pay sales tax, And so actually add money to a government, Essentially for free. Crime: No, They don't. According to an Oxford study, No less, It is not illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes. Native born people are about twice more likely to commit a crime. While it is true that second generation (the children of immigrants) are often involved with drug offences, These are usually low-level, And don't actually hurt anyone other than themselves. Points: Is it moral to fight illegal immigration? These people are simply looking to better their lives, And often are fleeing rom persecution, Death, Or imprisonment. How can we deny them, And claim to be moral?
am i original god or original son of god before the beginning of anything

i am not claiming i am god or messiah or son of god. i want to know from your believe as this debate is knowing origination of me. few minutes ago i uploaded new video my earwax shining can you find through your believe in whom you believe who you think is sinless what am i ? a human or original son of god or original god ? i am mentioning human and original son of god and original god because i want to know from your believe what am i ? i want to know my origination. i am not claiming myself as human or original son of god or original god. i just want to know my origination from your believe.
am i original god or original son of god before the beginning of anything

My earwax shines and i just shooted my video and uploaded on youtube Video 1 without Music : Must Watch Video 2 with Music : Now what do you think and believe ? am i original god or original son of god or just human ? I want to know my status and identity from believers who can identify me whether i am real or fake so my status and identity not changed by some spirit mind or any gods later or before the beginning of everything. I want to origination of myself from your believe who says there believe is perfect who never looses and never wrong whose witness cannot be wrong who has never sinned in his entire life.
Do non-human animal have rights

Hi ladies and gentlemanWelcome to the last round of this debate,Before I start my case I would like to present few flaws with opponents small case.My opponent has mentioned in all his contentions that :- "A just society that recognized the rights and values of its members is required to recognize animal rights" but my opponents have clearly forgotten that many people in greed and money forget and break the animal welfare law. The illegal animal abuse is seen over my diary farms and forests around the world. Japanese abuse whales and over hunt the endangered blue whalesMany diary farms around USA treat domestic animals like Chicken and Cows are treated very badly. Just to name a few examplehttp://foodfreedom.wordpress.com...;Now on to my caseAfter four rounds , My opponents case has boiled to two main issues- Animals should have rights because-- one accept there are certain things that humans ought not do to animals-- and if we accept the first argument then rights of animals should be recognized by just a just societyWhilst my case as boiled down to 5 points -Humans beings are more complex and better than other non human animals. Thus they donot deserve to be given rights -"Rights" are not built for creatures that donot make a difference to their surroundings like humans-It is perfectly natural to use animals for our own nutrition and pleasure as in the wild there is much suffering as animals struggle to survive, are hunted by predators, and compete for food and resources. - Animals rights activist who are supposed to help non human animals gain "rights" are hypocrites, extremists, and terrorists who don’t even care about human life- Last not the least point , The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having ‘rights’. In conclusion it is in the best of all creature that non animals should not be given rights as disadvantages clear outrule the advantagesThank you for reading
Do non-human animal have rights

Hello Ladies and Gentleman,In this debate i would like to prove that Non-human animals donot have rights and donot need rights (burden of proof not resolution) Definition :- I define animals as all non-human creatureRights as a ability or a freedom to do something which changes a certain enviornment like right to vote and right of speech.My arguments are as followsHuman beings are infinitely more complex than any other living (non-human) creatures. Their abilities to think and talk, to form social systems with rights and responsibilities, and to feel emotions are uniquely developed well beyond any other animals. It is reasonable to try to prevent the most obvious cases of gratuitous suffering or torture of animals, but beyond that, non-human animals do not deserve to be given ‘rights’.Can animals really do what human beings already have achieved?In reality I think "Rights" are for people who want to make a difference to their surroundings.Furthermore only human beings who are members of society are supposed to have ‘rights’. Rights are privileges that come with certain social duties and moral responsibilities. Animals are not capable of entering into this sort of ‘social contract’ – they are neither moral nor immoral creatures, they are amoral. They do not respect our ‘rights’, and they are irrational and entirely instinctual. Amoral and irrational creatures have neither rights nor duties – they are more like robots than people. Non-human Animals are little more advanced than robots but they are puppets of the humans. We use animals for our necesseties like we use robots. Thus animals donot need rights as they do no respect our rights. All human beings or potential human beings (e.g. unborn children) can potentially be given rights, but no non-human animals fall into that category.Thus in conclusion Non-human animals donot need or deserve rightsThank you for reading and awaiting reply from my opponent for round 2
my oponent is an idiot

"he said im an idiot when i already said hes an idiot and we both cant be idiots" True. However, I am not an idiot, so either you're an idiot, or neither of us are idiots. "can i use the internet" Not very well, given your grammar. "and he looks like an idiot" You don't even know what I look like. "his pictures a hand and thats stuped" Nintendo obviously didn't think it was stupid. My opponent's claim is unverifyable. "and a stuped person is also a idiot" Irrelevant, as I am not stupid. It is "stupid," not "stuped." In conclusion, my opponent clearly can't spell or use logic, so if anybody in this debate is an idiot, it would have to be my opponent. As my opponent admitted that we can't both be idiots, I am not an idiot.
my oponent is an idiot

Thank you for coming to Debate.org. First things first. What does "idiot" mean? "a person affected with extreme mental retardation" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I am not affected with any mental retardation at all. I make As and high Bs, I play tennis, and I debate for fun. As the Instigator and PRO, my opponent bears the burden of proof to prove that I am an idiot. She has not done this yet. Good luck.
The fetus is not part of a woman's bpdy.

I believe I have already stated the answer to pro's question. "Science" is a process for studying the world. Scientific knowledge, however, is quite clear in what it defines as a "part" of something. In interest of conserving readers' time I will only restate my logic and not my evidence: The fetus does not fit the traits for an indipendant organism. It is connected to the mother's metabolism. By the definition of organism and that of metabolism, the fetus is an organ in the reproductive system and not its own organism until it is fully developed and severed from the maternal metabolic system. In conclusion, all the logic and evidence categorizes fetuses as non-living organs of its mother until a very late stage of development. It is clear to see that my opposition is using flawed, fallacious, and flagrantly loaded logic to prove his point and personal belief and biased definitions in place of evidence. "Genes" have nothing to do with the fact that the fetus' organic structure is part of the reproductive system and not some "kind-of, sort-of, human enough baby." I hope that, even despite a few flaws, both sides are considered well and, as the saying goes, may the best man win.
The fetus is not part of a woman's bpdy.

I apologize for being unclear in my response. I meant to say con's logic, and not his position, was flawed. My opposition stated that genetic code implied divorce of orgasmic organization, so therefore fetuses were not part of the mother's body. This line of reasoning comitted a fallacy known as "begging the question" since con failed to prove his evidence. In the second argument, con stated that "an individual does not have more than one genetic system." I am not certain what my opposition means by "genetic system," as such a term does not exist. I will assume you mean genetic code, or DNA. I refer to my previous argument: that the genetic code of the fetus has no bearing on whether or not it is an individual organism. Here is a list of things that an organism must do in order to be considered alive by science: 1. It must be made out of cells. Fetuses do display this quality. 2. It must be able to reproduce. The fetus isn't yet developed enough to do this. The mother, however, is in the process of doing it. 3. It must display organization at a molecular, cellular, and in multicellular cases organic level. The fetal cells do this. 4. It must respond to stimuli. It is not fully understood if fetuses do this, as "kicking" in the womb and other such actions have yet to be explained. Let's mark this down as a "maybe" for fetuses. 5. It must grow and develop. Fetuses certainly do this. It almost seems like they are an individual until... 6. It must aquire and use energy. Fetuses are incapable of doing this... Alone. You see, it does indeed use energy, but it can't acquire it. The mother's metabolism digests food and water into usable forms for the fetus. The fetus is only given the chemicals to use. A perfectly rational reader must think after reading the previous sentences, "By that logic, a child that depends on its parents to feed it is not its own organism." This is not the case. The fetus cannot acquire or process those nutrients for itself via ingestion, digestion, and respiration. It only performs cellular processes inherit to all human cells and uses the nutrients it is given to grow and divide its cells. It is identical to any other human organ in this regard. It is even further different to the feeding a child analogy because the processes by which its cells are nourished are automatic. The analogy was an example of behavior, a learned response by the parents in order to maintain the life of a fellow human. The fetus being nourished by the mother is a natural part of her metabolism and not a complex set of responses. The fetus is part of a mother's metabolism, and therefore is no different from the mother's other organs. Genetic code has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus is a seperate organism, because the fact is it isnt an organism at all.
The fetus is not part of a woman's bpdy.

Thank you for responding and debating. You said that my argument that the fetus is not part of the mother's body is fallacious. I disagree respectfully. If the fetus is the same before birth as it is after birth, logic seems to say that that life should be protected. One person does not have more than one genetic system. Science says that the fetus has its own genetic system. Therefore, the fetus is not part of the mother's body. Respectfully I am asking you how the fetus can be part of the mother's body when it has its own genetic code. :)
The fetus is not part of a woman's bpdy.

I will begin my counterargument on Pro's first claim, "If the fetus is a part of a woman's body, then the woman will have two genetic codes, body parts, etc." This argument is flawed as well as forgivably fallacious. If I may paraphrase pro's logic: "A cell that does not have the same genetic code as an individual is not a part of that individual. Therefore, since fetal cells have different genetic codes than the mother, the fetus is not a part of the mother." This reasioning begs the question by requiring the assumption that different genes imply another organism. While it is true that the fetal genes are not identical the mothers', this does not imply the subject is another individual. For example, of all of the cells in a healthy human body, only about ten percent share the particular human's genetic code. Those cells belong to mutualistic organisms that have evolved with humans so that they and their hosts cannot survive without each other, such as digestive bacteria. Fetuses differ only slightly from these mutualistic organisms because it is even more reliant on the mother. The mother's metabolic system provides all the the nucleic acid, protiens, carbs, and lipids the fetus requires. Metabolism is defined by the merriam-webster dictionary as "the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available." The fetus cannot do any of these indipendently; It is contingient on the mother's metabolic system. This means that the fetus' metabolic actions are part of the mother's metabolism as a whole. A metabolism is part of the characteristics of life that all organisms have in common. Fetuses simply carry out one of the functions nescessary for life (reproduction.) Without a full, indipendent metabolism the likes of which are only gained after the fetus is no longer considered a fetus (birth) the fetus is not its own organism, but rather a part of the parent organism, the mother.