BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Economic Sanctions Should Not Be Used To Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives

I'm not sure that I understood my opponent's arguments in their entirety due to grammar and spelling, but I will address them to the best of my abilities in this final round. I point out first and most importantly that my opponent has failed to provide any evidence or sources to support his claims. They simply bear no weight without statistical or at least intellectual authority. I further add, to do so in his final round must be unacceptable as I will not have any further opportunities to offer rebuttal. My opponent has changed his mind from round two to round three. He initially stated that economic sanctions are ineffective, but now claims that not only are they effective- they are more effective than war. Not only does he fail to provide that less die in sanctioned regions than in war zones, he fails to address my primary contention that the innocent citizens are the members of a sanctioned nation which bear the weight of the punishment. Punishing is not what my opponent states- bombing schools and torture. That is more than punishment. That is explicit inhumanity. To imply that starving impoverished children and civilians is not punishment, and to reach the definition of punishment one must bomb schools reflects a political psychopathy. Finally, my opponent claims that sanctions will save more lives by not forcing us into war. He has offered no evidence of this again and has failed to address my contention that in the most extreme scenarios we are compelled to physical retribution (war) but in lesser situations, a simple UN reprimand would be effective enough to convey the general international opinion of an individual country's actions without punishing the innocent. My opponent has failed to offer any substantial reason to support economic sanctions, while I have shown that they are both unsuccessful and a form of war against the innocent.
Economic Sanctions Should Not Be Used To Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives

The argument is sanctions shouldn't be used to achieve foreign policy objectives, not if there morale which is all you're argument is saying and which was you're rebuttal 1. Economic sanctions are better than war, there more effective, few if any have to die and it doesn't waste human lives my evidence is that on its own 2. the effect of getting a country to think is clear with Russia moving its troops from the border of Ukraine Punishing the populous is harsh considering the affects of economic sanctions are only felt in the form of inflation there was recently reporters from the US that went into Iran and the people there are doing "fine" even with the inflation they stated people were sill at the shop and spending money, the sanctions target citizens to affect its government Iranian officials also mentioned the smuggling, Punishing would be bombing schools, torture, or what Israel wants us to do to them "starve them to get rid of the nukes" that is punishment the prices rising from inflation are what make them effective that prompts the people to not side with there own government, Something that i would like to add is it says your occupation is military what you are saying is that you would rather be sent into war because a country didn't follow what the rest of the world wants economic sanctions protect people not just in the military but citizens by not forcing them into conflicts that would be not worth it. Sanctions should be used to achieve political compliance because they will not stray from there ideologies because a officials ask them too economic sanctions act as a first step along with other types of sanctions to prevent war because that would be what was next.
Economic Sanctions Should Not Be Used To Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives

My opponent has conceded all of my points and offered no evidence to the contrary. He has not shown that economic sanctions are moral or in any way uphold societal welfare. He even states that sanctions are intrinsically unsuccessful and are in fact a form of economic war targeted against civilians. By that logic, carpet bombing cities is also an ethically just military strategy, as it would cause the general populous to become disgruntled and would ensure that we assume less casualties. I contend that my opponent cannot show how punishing the people is in any way a desirable or ethical system. My opponent offers only two solid arguments in favor of economic sanctions. I. That Economic Sanctions Are A Positive Alternative To War II. Sanctions Have The Positive Effect Of Causing The Sanctioned Nation To "Think" To my opponent's first contention, I ask this simple question: at what point between war and peace is the just alternative to punish the innocent populous? If a regime is so corrupt that our nation cannot tolerate its existence we are compelled to declare war on that regime. If not, then we must be content to sit by and allow them their autonomy. There is no middle ground in which the situation is not severe enough to warrant war, but is negative enough to allow for the punishment of the innocent and often their deaths. As to his later contention, I ask how economic sanctions mandate a nation to think in a way that a formal reprimand from the UN could not? Neither is a formal deceleration of war and both are explicit statements of disapproval of some aspect of the countries government, but one punishes the innocent while the other does not. My opponent has not justified sanctions, and has in fact by his acknowledgement of their corrupt nature condemned them.
Economic Sanctions Should Not Be Used To Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives

I do not believe that sanctions are made to be successful, and i also agree that they target innocent civilians but that would be the point, crippling the economy of a country and having its people unhappy with the way that there leader is handling it, yes smuggling does become rampant which is something im sure leaders know of, which is another tool to use against the leader of what ever country is getting sanctioned news would cover the subject and the country seems even worse, sanctions create problems that everyone can see the outcome of they make more problems but for the country there put on, for example on may, 4th an article was published about Canada "putin" (joke) economic sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine situation this puts into the effects that I stated no there not made to be successful, and they target the citizens of Russia making them fussy and unhappy this situation is much better than if we were to directly attack Russia because 1. no one would win that fight and 2. people would most defiantly die like a lot of them, i think of sanctions as economic warfare its less violent and way less people die cause of it Sanctions unlike Actual war one side wins and its normally a majority over a topic that most countries feel is ill morale and just not right this is why they are used instead of warfare the convince countries to stop what there doing like Russia moving its troop away from the border to lessen the sanction put on it i do not know your side of the Ukraine crisis but i feel it wrong and sanctions aside from war and sitting back and watch a country get taken over is the best option, Sanctions are effective in the sense they get a country to think
Gandhigiri is relevant in today's world

I suppose, by Gandhigiri, you mean following non-violence and getting things done in a peaceful manner. Before I get to my point, I"d like to take the same reference you used in your argument. India and Pakistan, sure he wouldn"t have liked to see us fighting, but things are way different nowadays. The term terrorism was unheard of during those days(because until independence, to us bombing the parliament or killing a top British officer, were heroic activities by our freedom fighters and not terrorism). And if we sit here, following Gandhian laws...all we'd do is take bullets of the enemy. Bearing on this point, I come to my main argument. The relevance of Gandhian philosophy in the world today. In my opinion putting up such an argument is indeed laughable. Haven"t you heard of the phrases- "Nice Guys come last" or "The crying baby gets the milk"? Because they are more practical in the current situation, and in fact are the only ways one can drive home one's point. Citing a very recent example, The state of Telangana would"ve been a dream had their leaders followed the Gandhian way. Gandhian laws look good only on paper and in my opinion very impractical and unlike human tendencies. You"re right, Gandhi was indeed selfless and simple and extraordinarily ordinary and what not, but maybe it"s the God like characteristics that he possessed that makes HIM a Mahatma and not us.
Gandhigiri is relevant in today's world

Gandhigiri is relevant today. I would like to oppose the motion. Let us start by stating the example of India and Pakistan. As you can well observe, there are terrorist attacks, bombarding, bloodsheds, and none of the countries living in harmony. Is this what Gandhi wanted? He has given us such ideologies to work upon, shouldn"t we respect his thoughts and views. No one can deny the fact that we have failed to follow the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi. I would like to ask you, are we putting Gandhiji"s philosophies to good use? Mahatma Gandhi was a selfless leader for whom the problems of his country were at the forefront. His uniqueness did not lie in the fact that he was extraordinary, but in his being extraordinarily ordinary and this simplicity of his was reflected by his ideas. In today"s developing world, the individuality and personality is disappearing. With such a state of affairs, no one can become an influential leader like Gandhiji. The only solution to today"s emerging problems like corruption, violence, terrorism and black money is Satyagrah, which should be imbibed in the country. We need to learn that Gandhiji"s methods of resolution can solve major world issues without the need of revenge and war. I would therefore like to conclude by saying that I do not find enough proof of Gandhigiri in the world to say that "Gandhigiri is relevant today". Passing on to PRO" ATB!
Do not let your kids play team fortress 2

Hello, I am honestly shocked that of all the things you would have a grievance about in Team Fortress 2 it would be that but hey who am I too judge. Anyway first off if you have a problem with your child playing the game you or someone else must have gotten it for him in the first place. This game is rated by "M PEGi for 16+". This game should have never have been gotten for your child in the first lace and you or the person you who got it for them is too blame. Not the actual game. You see if you do not like the language that is used in this game then you should realize your self there is a reason the game is rated this way and try and return or simply keep your child from playing it. Now I believe one of your big grievances is that it says things wrong about your religion and "God" The Internet is a free place of criticism and it cannot adjust to ones religion otherwise it would simply just be censoring things to appeal to a religion which I hope we both can agree is wrong. Now sure you do not like the language but I believe this is more of a matter of misinterpretation rather then an actual problem. You see the language you described is not blatantly directed at your grievances. Now of course there is a possibility it actually was. But, in conclusion if a company really wanted to slander a religion which nearly half the world worships it would loose so much money. They could be anti western anti Christian Muslims and they would still rather make millions of dollars than make a point. Also, saying that they would is idiotic and no person serious about business would even do that.
Do not let your kids play team fortress 2

hi all as grateful as i am i am here to tell you all to ban team fortress 2 (abbreviated as TF2) for the following reasons i discovered about it this weekend when my 10 year old son charlie brought home his friend and they were playing on his friend's laptop a game where it's nothing but killing, bad words, god bashing, anti-american propaganda, and worst of all HOMOSEXUALITY there is blantent homosexuality (when the doctor heals his patients they all say things like "i love this doctor" or "get behind me doctor!") they made a character that looks like a soldier and he talks about god's world being his ("this is my world, you are not welcome in my world!") when i heard this i was MORBIDLY SHOCKED and appalled and ashamed of my son and he knew it i was wondering why my son was getting into fights and after i saw this i banned him from ever seeing his friends if you see your child playing this, tell them to uninstall it and watch him do it!!! hope this helps parents out so your child doesn't stray far from god!
Rap should not be considered art or music, and the "rappers" should not be considered artists!

I appreciate my opponent's concession and kind words. Please extend all of my arguments. I will also include a source that lays out a handful of positive rap songs, or rap songs with a political, emotional or otherwise serious message. This will help prove that rap is indeed a legitimate medium of art, as it conveys one's interpretation of their conscious experience. Rap Music = Music = Art. http://hiphopnews.yuku.com...
Rap should not be considered art or music, and the "rappers" should not be considered artists!

This topic is one of many that I have been questioning and using on this site to find out what other people think. I guess my musical taste being a lot different from most teens ad such these days has altered my view of rap music. But as I said I use this site to find out other peoples views. I have seen Danielle's view and I appreciate what it is you have said. I may even try listening to some rap music, at least give it a try. "Never judge a book by it's cover"
the government should not decide how many children a woman can have.

I'd like to point out to my opponent that voters will be debating Believe it or not, I am no mind reader. When I accepted a debate that said that I would have 72 hours to respond, I took it in knowing that I would be able to respond in that time frame, with myself being busy for the first 48 or so. If my opponent would have made any comment of wanting a response withing 20 minutes of acceptance, I would have not accepted. If my opponent would have set the time limit for posting an argument to anything shorter than what I thought I would be able to respond to, I would not have accepted. However, because none of these were listed, I accepted the normal expectations for a debate within the parameters that my opponent herself set, that being: -I would negate the resolution that the government should not decide the number of children that a woman can have. -I would have three rounds of argumentation to negate the aforementioned resolution. -I would post those three arguments within 72 hours of my opponent posting her preceding arguments. If anyone feels that I have failed to meet any of these expectations, go ahead and vote Pro. However, seeing as I have not forfeited any of these three rounds, its self-evident that I have. Also note that all of the "problems" that my opponent holds against me could have been prevented with a click of the mouse while creating this debate or a sentence or two in her opening argument. Instead of doing any of these things, and instead of even making a single attempt to defend her position, she chooses to complain that her schedule and mine "didn't match up", which is of no fault to me, as I had no idea of her desire for a 30-minute debate or her personal life.
the government should not decide how many children a woman can have.

Sorry that I'm in a rush, I'll make my arguments brief and to the point. Considering that the government cannot physically control the reproductive cycles of a woman, and also considering the dialogue of my opponent in her opening statement, I shall assume that my opponent wishes there to be no government action in relation to the number of children that a woman gives birth to. Note that because no government is mentioned in the resolution, it is assumed that my opponent is debating this on a matter of principle and will use government as a general concept to defend her position. My opponent must thus accept that there is no instance where the government should hold any power over "excessive" children. Now, the government's entire purpose is to protect its citizens and to ensure their welfare. If the welfare is being threatened, it is the government's duty to ensure that the welfare is protected, and they ensure the welfare by creating laws. Assume a country threatened by overpopulation. Food supplies are down, water reserves are depleted, and there are barely enough resources to support the current population, not to mention any additional incoming members of the community. Any excessive addition to the population would not only worsen the livelihood of the child, but would also deplete the welfare of everyone else in the community. I therefore move that a government threatened by overpopulation take a course of action similar to China, by removing government funding for any children born that exceed the number that the government sees to be a threat to the general welfare. Note that no immoral action is being taken by a Negative stance, as because there is no life being removed, no murder is taking place. Also note that freedom only extends to the point where welfare can be managed. We cannot exercise our "freedom" to murder someone because it depletes the good of that individual. Therefore, the Affirmative holds the burden of proving that the limiting of the population cannot serve the welfare of society under any and all circumstances. Negated.
the government should not decide how many children a woman can have.

It seems today women have been encouraged to have vast amounts of children and the taxpayers or the government will take care of them. Maybe with reality shows like John and Kate plus eight,18 and counting, and now Table for 12, young women might be thinking they too will have a show, a book deal, or maybe Oprah will step in and finance there life. Look at this latest women with 6 children at home and her doctor inseminates her with 8 more. What where they thinking, 14 kids who's going to support them? Her parents , the government!!!! Even with all this I still think its a personal choice, we still live in a free society and government control over this issue is not an option.
The Lasris Argument

I did provide a third option: unsure. I thought I made that clear. Unsure is an option other than those two, because those two depend upon the notion of active knowledge; unsure does not depend upon this notion, meaning that it cannot fall under either of these categories. I have also shown that there are theists who are unsure, which makes it a viable option. I would say I have won this debate, regardless of whether or not my opponent has forfeited.
The Lasris Argument

If that point is unneccessary, then why even worry about it! You have not made any case on this argument other than stating your disagreement with it without actually a third option! False Dichotomy or not, it is still a valid argument and you did not refute it, you refuted a part of it and that does not make the argument less valid!Like I said, I forfeit on the reasons that this debate was not carried out in the way the argument was presented!
The Lasris Argument

The argument I was making was against this specific point in your argument, that is completely necessary for it to work: "With MB, you claim to actually know that your God(s) are Make Believe, but you choose to believe otherwise. This of course is Logical and Rational for Kids, but is Irrational and Illogical for Adults. This can also include Agnostics." I stated that agnostics cannot possibly fall under this definition, because they, by its very definition, have no knowledge, and therefore cannot "know" that your God(s) are MB. My opponent has refused to argue this point, claiming that this is strictly about belief. I contend. This became about knowledge as well as belief the second you restricted the definitions of MB and REAL to include active knowledge. Therefore, whether the theist has an active knowledge or not is completely relevant. My opponent is merely backing out of the debate because he cannot argue against my points; whether I'm a theist or not is irrelevant, because this is about whether the argue is sound. Just like a Christian can believe that the Kalam Cosmological argument is not sound, I can believe that the Lasris Argument is the pile of sh*t it is.
The Lasris Argument

I concede to my opponent on the fact that the argument was directed to Theists , whether Agnostic Theists or Gnostic theists.You either believe or you don't. That is the claim of this argument along with the existence of god. As my opponent decides to argue against without actually following the argument, I will bow out. It is not worth arguing with a like minded individual who just want to argue to get more wins on his profile!
The Lasris Argument

My opponent has not provided any justifiable reason why they are not a part of the debate. He simply says they are not. I believe I have justified how they are. You stated that no theist can provide an argument against this. However, your argue replies on a false dichomy. Both of these ideas require that the person know for certain (at least within their own mind) that they make something up or that the deity is real, which is exactly what you said in your first post. Agnostic theists are still theists. As such, your resolution applies just as much to them as to gnostic theists (those that this argument defeats). At no point did I claim that there was a middle ground. Once again, you seem to be implying that I am arguing that agnosticism is a middle ground; it isn"t. It has no relevance in belief, it has relevance in knowledge. You might claim, then, that this is irrelevant to the discussion, but I disagree. You brought up knowledge by claiming that a MB knows that they made something up, and that a REAL knows that a deity exists. Therefore, you bring up that both of your points have a knowledge, meaning that this argument only applies to gnostic theists (those who have a knowledge that the deity exists) or secret atheists. Agnostic theists are neither of these things. I did look at the arguments in their basic form. That"s how I came to the conclusion that it doesn"t fit with agnostic theists to begin with. You have not justified how agnosticism has no relevance, while I have. Please either provide legitimate justification (besides you simply saying that it is so with no other reason posted) or concede to the point.
The Lasris Argument

As for your stance on agnoticism being valid in my argument. Agnostic Theism, Gnostic Theism. Agnosticism, Agnostic Atheism and Gonstic Atheism are not a part of this argument and therefore are not vaild at all. You either believe or you don't! Is there a god or is there not? If you claim there is a god whether you know or not, you fall under MB and that is my point. If you are arguing just to be heard and do not understand what this argument is, then this is no longer a debate. If you want to debate this argument and you are a theist, then do you believe a god exists? And if you do, can you give a third option if the first 2 do not fit your views.Posting links and definitions of what something is when you are not looking at the issue in it's basic form is not helping you in this debate.Again, please keep on topic as you said you were, but obviously are not!