BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free Trade is better for American society than Protectionism

Free Trade is better than protectionism for the following five reasons. 1. Free Trade is good for Americans Free Trade is good for Americans because consumers will benefit from producer surplus. This would be how Americans can consume at an overwhelming alarming rate. An example of this would be Walmart. Walmart can produce goods at a cheaper rate and consumers can purchase at a cheaper price[1]. Free Trade allows Americans to consume more at a cheaper price. [1]. http://www.forbes.com... 2. Free Trade is good for the impoverished As I said in #1, Free Trade allows consumers to consume more because of the surplus. This is most beneficial to those who are poor. The poor can consume and won't have to worry about their finances as they would under protectionism. Free Trade according to the World Trade Organizations helps to reduce poverty. [2]. http://www.wto.org... 3. Free Trade eliminates incompetent competitors For example, Free Trade allowed the Japanese to bring cars to America. The US auto manufacturers brought out the Pinto, Pacer, and Vega to compete but failed miserably. Americans should not have to purchase inferior products for the sake of incompetent producers. [3]. http://www.nbcnews.com... 4. Free Trade encourages economic development With Free Trade, foreign companies and American companies can invest in each other's countries. This allows corporations to have an interest in the economic growth of other countries. 5. Free Trade leads to a more mutually satisfying foreign policy Countries are mutually invested in each other. Therefore countries are less likely to go to war with one another. Countries engaged in a Free Trade agreement will reconsider going to war because they will suffer economically as a result. Free Trade also prevents the United States from getting into trade wars with other countries in the vile exchange of tariffs and quotas.
Agnosticism is self-contradictory in at least one way.

I believe that the doctrine of agnosticism inherently has at least one thing in it that does not make logical sense and I want to explore that idea more. I'm not super formal as a debater just so my opponent is aware. I will start with a definition and then, if my opponent agrees, we can go from there. Definition: Agnostic - noun a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. http://oxforddictionaries.com... Self-contradictory - adjective inconsistency between aspects or parts of a whole: http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Agnosticism is self-contradictory in at least one way.

Well since CON forfeited last round I will just reassert all of those statements for this round in case he debates in the final round. I would still be interested in hearing his rebuttal. I said I had more on "B." so I guess I'll post a small amount on that, no need to go into great detail if my opponent is finished debating though. But I'll include a bit since I did make the claim that I "had more on B.". 4. Premise B. My opponent's statement: "well, in short, my opponent wrongly assumes that the person having had revelation thinks that they know this truth personally, for what is a truth that no one can share with another?—" I have some questions about this statement...it seems to be logical that the person having the revelation knows that truth personally - because it has just been revealed to them! and "what is a truth that no one can share with another?" - notice that CON does not dispute the fact that the person KNOWS...and really that is all that is needed to meet the definition of knowing something. For example I know the combination to my lock, it is a fact that I know it even if no one else does. That combination is not MEANT to be shared!...When a person SHARES a revealed truth however, that is a SEPARATE ISSUE, it can be done, the thing the person KNOWS can be told to another person. BUT the separate issue is if the person receiving the TRUE KNOWLEDGE will accept it or not! For example: The apostle Paul received a vision about Jesus Christ, then he KNEW, and he did share that true knowledge with others, but as far as other people, some accepted it and some didn't. But if did not change the fundamental nature of Paul's knowledge. http://lds.org... In case my opponent posts a rebuttal in the last Round (instead of in the Round he forfeited) PRO will not have a chance to rebut CON's claims since this is PRO's last Round. PRO has shown that Agnosticism IS indeed self-contradictory in at least one way...and that is all that was required in the Resolution...just one way. In conclusion I would urge a VOTE for PRO! RESOLVED: Agnosticism is self-contradictory in at least one way. Thank you!
Agnosticism is self-contradictory in at least one way.

Welcome! thank you for accepting my debate. OK here are some of my ideas: A. Agnostics believe there might be a God - they claim they don't know if there is or isn't one - therefore this means that agnostics believe God might exist. B. So if there is a God (which agnostics believe is one possibility) then this God could have power to communicate with humans and make Himself known to some people. -It seems very logical to assume that GOD could have great power because if He is in fact the Creator of the universe and the creator of life itself, then He could also have power to also do something that required less power (ie. communicating with a person). -Therefore if that is the case, then some people can KNOW God exists. (Which is contrary to what agnostics believe is possible) C. OR (another option is) that agnostics could argue that if there is a God that He wouldn't have that power. But if agnostics say that, then how do they KNOW what powers God can or can't have? They can't. D. These things I mentioned are possibilities of what might be the truth - which agnostics seem to have no way to disprove that those points may be accurate. Agnostics simply "don't know" and don't claim to know those things. E. Therefore agnostics don't KNOW if God has revealed things to people. F. Therefore agnosticism is self-contradictory in at least one way because if agnostics don't KNOW if anyone KNOWS God exists, then how can they make the bold claim that "they KNOW that NO ONE knows if God exists or not"? They can't logically make that statement. SUMMARY: Agnosticism claims that no one can KNOW anything. BUT how would an agnostic person KNOW what another person knows or doesn't know? (Agnostics can't KNOW if someone KNOWS God exists or not...therefore Agnostics don't KNOW that no one knows...they just "believe" that no one knows!) which refutes the basic claim of Agnosticism that no one can KNOW. OK those are the basics of my argument. I look forward to my opponent's reply.
God

Hi Lance, I figured this would be a fun first debate as I'm new here. You probably started this debate as a joke but I think there is some ironic insight into your statement. Buddhist philosophy and the idea of "enlightenment" suggests that you (and I) are God, we just haven't realized it yet. Realizing that you are God is enlightenment. The problem arises when you try to lock down what you mean by "I". That's where things get tricky and can slip down the slope of solipsism and megalomania. Because you started by saying "I am Lance", I'm going to assume that by "I", you mean the individual personality - the memories, brain activity, preferences, and psychological traits that collectively make the story of you. If that assumption is correct, then I challenge your assertion that "you" are God. Let's assume that God is infinite and timeless. Your personality (or your "story") is not infinite nor timeless. It has an end. When you die and your brain activity stops, "Lance" is no more. The memories are no more. YOU are no more. Lance becomes nothing more than a memory in the minds of those Lance leaves behind. So, Lance cannot be God because Lance will one day come to an end. Let's assume that, if God is infinite and timeless, God doesn't change. After all, change requires time. Without time, there is no change. But "Lance" has changed a great deal since he was born. He has learned, he has grown, his personal preferences have evolved, and that change will continue until "Lance" dies. Since that personality that you identify as "Lance" changes over time, he can't be God. God is timeless, God doesn't change. Now, if you were to become enlightened, in the Buddhist or Zen sense of the word, then that, too, would kill Lance. Your body would still exist. Your mind would still work but your identity would transform dramatically and the personality would dissolve. After enlightenment, the word "I" would have a very different meaning. I'm in no position to explain what that meaning would be... but based on the countless books I've read on this topic, you would no longer identify as a personality. You would identify as the consciousness that observes the personality. You would identify as as an instance of awareness that is shared among all living things. If you were an enlightened being, I wouldn't attempt to argue with you if you claimed to be God. However, you're not an enlightened being. You're Lance - a personality. Therefore, you are not God. You are just a confused mish-mash of brain activity that can self-reflect, witnessed by an all-encompassing awareness we call "consciousness", just like the rest of us.
The Confederate flag is racist

My opponent arguments are as follows 1. "the Confederate flag is a historical document and therefore, is a part of American history." It is historical. That does not impact if it is or is not racist. Thus this point is irrelevant to the topic at hand. In any case as I have shown the flag is a historically racist symbol. 2. "the country that made it, The Confederacy of the United States, despite what people say, was not made just because they wanted to keep slavery." While Slavery was not the only reason it was a primary reason. In fact the Vice President of the Confederacy cited the cornerstone of their principles being "the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man." 3. "slavery itself isn't racist." Whether all slavery is or is not, American slavery certainly was as is evident by the historical context I provided. 4. "the fact that reason people only care about it now is the fact everyone is super dramatic." People have cared about this for a long time, though recent events have certainly made this a more pressing issue. Like the first point, this does not impact whether or not the flag is racist and is thus irrelevant to the topic at hand. Summary: My opponent says that the above points are their "reasons for the confederate flag" not being racist. As I have demonstrated, these arguments are either incorrect or not topically relevant. My case has clearly shown the flag to be a symbol of racism.
The Confederate flag is racist

In keeping with the format I will present my opening argument. Resolved: The Confederate Flag is Racist A:Historical Backround and the Civil War“The secession of the Southern states (in chronological order, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina) in 1860–61 and the ensuing outbreak of armed hostilities were the culmination of decades of growing sectional friction over slavery. ”(1)The south seceded from the North for a number of reasons. Slavery was perhaps the biggest reason. The South became “Confederate States of America. ” Jefferson Davis was elected as the President of the Confederacy. His Vice President was Alexander Stephens. “in 1861, Stephens explained to a cheering audience that the Confederacy was founded to expressly reject the proposition that men of all races were equal. Instead, Stephens stated, "The foundations of our new government are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. "(2)B: The purpose of a flag“Flags are an extremely easy way to identify a country or area immediately, language is not a barrier. The colors and emblems chosen by each country for its flag are deeply symbolic. ” (3)The Confederate Flag was used as a way to identify the confederacy and therefore the principles of the confederacy. Conclusion:The Confederacy choose their flag to represent their identity and principles. The Confederacy was founded upon the principle that “the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. ” This is obviously and indisputably a racist principle. The Confederate Flag is a symbol of Racism. Sources:(1) . http://www.britannica.com...(2) . http://www.cnn.com...(3) . http://www.signology.org...
The Confederate flag is racist

The Confederate flag is not racist for several reasons. One, the Confederate flag is a historical document and therefore, is a part of American history. Second, the country that made it, The Confederacy of the United States, despite what people say, was not made just because they wanted to keep slavery. There were several other reasons I'm not going to go in depth about. Third, slavery itself isn't racist. There have been several cases of whites enslaving whites, blacks enslaving blacks( In medieval Gambia), etc. So slavery is not racist. It's not like every slave ever was an African American. Fourth, the fact that reason people only care about it now is the fact everyone is super dramatic. You can't say squat without being called racist. These are my reasons for the confederate flag isn't racist.
Ban on homework

In 2006, Duke University psychology professor Harris Cooper found that "homework can cause physical and emotional fatigue, fuel negative attitudes about learning and limit leisure time for children" as found in a Time article. Homework is exhausting for children and teenager. Some educators assign homework based on a "10-minute policy", where first graders have 10 minutes of homework, whereas high school seniors have 2 hours worth of homework. This cannot always apply to every student. Every student varies in family life and after school activities. Homework restricts them and what they can or cannot do.
Ban on homework

Students should not be given homework because it is an unnecessary burden on them. All of the schoolwork should be completed during the school hours. After school hours should be dedicated to extracurricular activities and family time, not more schoolwork. They deserve the break after 7 hours in school--especially during holidays. High schoolers and college students consider homework to be the enemy. At this point, they are enrolled in multiple courses that may hand out homework everyday. After their after school activities, they are stressing to complete the work. They are willing to get sick or injured to have extra time to get it done. Is this what you want your children to be doing?
Ban on homework

Homework can also be a stressful thing. There are children who might not have the proper materials or resources available to complete their homework at home. Some children do not have their parents around for them to get help, and can ask their siblings instead. Homework can also be less important because most problems can be too difficult for the child, resulting in parents or siblings doing the work for them, according to a Huffington Post article. Bombarding children with homework can burn them out at home as well. In an article in HealthLine titled "Is Too Much Homework Bad for Your Kid's Health?", it states: "And all those extra assignments may lead to family stress, especially when parents with limited education aren't confident in their ability to help kids with the work. The researchers reported that family fights about homework were 200 percent more likely when parents didn't have a college degree." This will only stress out the child even more. In higher education, homework is a stressor. On the same HealthLine article, it was also stated that: "In 2013, research conducted at Stanford University found that students in high-achieving communities who spend too much time on homework experience more stress, physical health problems, a lack of balance in their lives, and alienation from society." Homework is not necessary. We do not need stressed and tired students. Schoolwork is enough. Even in a college course that I am currently taking (History 7), homework is never issued. All of the material on the exams are presented in our notes. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ban on homework

According to the website teAchnology, the article "5 reasons why kids need homework and 5 reasons they dont" says that homework brings families closer together and also helps the parents get more involved in the kid educational life. Even get a better relationship with their teacher cause it helps them discuss the issues the child is having in class. Again, homework helps the child practice the work and benefits them to be successful in school and in life. So getting rid of homework will take some of the benefits away from learning etc.
Bully=bullshiit human being

No a bully is not a bullsh1t human being, Yes they have done something severely morally wrong but you have to take into account that everyone comes from different backgrounds maybe the bully knows nothing but violence he could have grown up in a family affiliated with a gang, Maybe he grew up in an abusive family, Maybe he grew up not knowing what his parents looked like or knowing if they love him, So no they are not a bullsh1t human being they could simply just be struggling and need some help BULLYING IS JUST WRONG NOT THE BULLY.
A technocracy is better than a democracy.

Extend all arguments.I would also note..I will provide a couple links to various articles and/or studies that suggest "experts" are not what they claim. Ironically, in studies confidence has actually been inversely correlated to accuracy in many situations. And, to compound the problem, people tend to shut down their own critical thinking when listening to an "expert." Everyone loses.This article from the New York [1] opines on the incompetence of "experts" at some length. " “Expert Political Judgment” is just one of more than a hundred studies that have pitted experts against statistical or actuarial formulas, and in almost all of those studies the people either do no better than the formulas or do worse."Another great read on the subject is "The Little Book of Behavioral Investing" which is chock full of studies indicating that experts aren't, and confidence is dangerous. From my notes: (p. 61) "Across the vast array of predictions, experts who reported they had 80 percent or more confidence in their prediction were actually correct only around 45 percent of the time. Across all predictions, the experts were little better than coin tossers." (p. 62) "Despite incontrovertible evidence that they were wrong, they showed no signs of cutting their faith in their own understanding of the situation."The lesson: Beware of "experts." [1]: http://www.newyorker.com...
A technocracy is better than a democracy.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are in the midst of global uncertainty. Questions abound from the most common to the most trivial. We are concerned about global warming, economic uncertainty, all of us right now, are unsure of what path we take. A technocracy can be defined as a form of government wherein the people would be appointed, not generally elected, based on their technical expertise. A democracy, however, can be defined as a system of government wherein all eligible citizens can participate in the creation of laws for the benefit of the whole society. I would argue that a technocracy deals much more effectively at economic problems than a democracy. I believe that most governments want to raise the standard of living of their citizens, but a technocracy deals with it better than a democracy. Let me ask you a question, "Do you trust someone, other than your doctor or some medically-trained man, with your disease?" As a rational answer, you would say no. And at a technocracy, you can rest assured that the state is being led by people who know what they're doing, compared to those people elected by the general public in a democratic government who think they know what they're doing. A demonstration of this case would be of China. It's political system is headed by the Politburo, a group of nine people whose significant decisions affect China's billion population. Out of the nine members, eight have engineering degrees. I would argue that having the skill of an engineer in dealing with macroeconomic problems lead the Chinese government to effectively construct modern infrastructure in a span of less than two decades: the high-speed rail network, the National Trunk Highway System, and the Three Gorges Damn, and a myriad of buildings, bridges, and roads that can act as a catalyst for economic development. Having set out to build modern infrastructure, they also embarked on getting people from the rural provinces to live in the big cities, and as a result millions were lifted out of poverty. In a democracy, however, a simple airport would be subject to much debate, resulting to having wasted time and resources on just getting things done. I rest my case.
Attractive/best female athletes. Version 2: Video debate

Gina Carano is a women of strength and power. She is a fighter in both the MMA and the UFC. She's got the agility to fight well against other opponent's as her 12-1-1 record shows. She has toppled many Champions and Captured wonderful glory as well as the hearts of others admiring her awe striking power and beauty. Her fighting skills caught the attention of many Sports broadcasters as she made a Cover of an ESPN magazine. http://www.youtube.com...
Attractive/best female athletes. Version 2: Video debate

Cool. I had my first video ready which I was watching yesterday: Lotta Schelin is a Swedish soccer player who's got incredible dribbling skills, speed, and great looks. She's not very well-known because unlike most other European women who play soccer, she didn't migrate to the United States. The video is a compilation made by an amateur youtube user showing some of her best moves. Watch from 17 seconds onward.
Attractive/best female athletes. Version 2: Video debate

You can start round 1 or use it for acceptance whichever you prefer. You don't have to pass the last round either way. Post an extra video. Who cares anyway. My previous debate on a similar topic: http://www.debate.org...24 hours per round.No RFD required.I set the limit at 1000 characters per round. Besides videos, I suppose you could write a description in the alloted space. Or write whatever you want. This debate basically just serves to gamble my ELO and take a break from serious debates.One video per round preferably showing their best moves. Try not to make it too long. Less then ten minutes is a good estimate.I set the ELO to 1500 to keep away spambots since this debate won't be moderated. Nearly everyone has a higher ELO than 1500 anyways.
Fox News is a propaganda network

As for your first rebuttal: You supplied to evidence for your argument either, therefore your argument is just as invalid as mine. However, since you asked, here it is. http://www.salon.com... Also, you responded to my comment, "Likewise, high rating don't make something good. Just like how Justin Bieber has millions of followers- does that make him good?" I used this situation as a metaphor. "with very high ratings. If it was biased, and had political slander, it wouldn't have high ratings, or many viewers. " You implied that because they have high ratings, that they are not biased. This however, is incorrect. Rebuttal 2: If CNN is liberal, pecan pie would articles like this be released? http://www.cnn.com... I'm not saying it has bias either, it just covers it up a little better. Rebuttal 3: It is completely relevant, I will explain why now. It's no secret that Fox news has handled racism issues before. Watch this explain to me how having a completely white staff, and then saying that racism is over is acceptable.