BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smaller Countries are Better than Larger Countries

I strongly disagree with the credibility of con's argument. The examples presented by con are extraneous to the argument I produced in the first round and fail to contradict my points in every way possible. Here's why: 1.) Just because con has pointed out a few unsuccessful smaller countries, does not take anything away from the fact that it's only smaller countries that exist at the top of the three most reliable sources for exacting a countries well-being; the peace index, the happiness index and the corruption index. It's only smaller countries that appear in the top five of every one of these scales and Canada are the only larger country to appear to come close when it comes down to these three crucial index's. 2.) All three of the countries listed by con are third-world countries run by ruthless dictators - and therefore have not had the chance of growth and success. This is not the case with a vast number of smaller countries in the world; namely Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand and Iceland to name a few. 3.) Con has not taken into consideration the points I presented in my previous argument before indulging in his own. For one, con uses Canada as an example of a large successful country to prove that there's no direct link between the success of larger countries and smaller countries. However, as I pointed out in my previous argument, Canada only just reaches the top 10 in ONE of the THREE index's listed and this therefore does not deem Canada to be as successful as an abundance of other smaller countries that are ranked higher in all three index's. 4.) Con farcically lists Sweden and Norway as large successful nations after I blatantly pointed out at the start of this argument that Sweden and Norway should be classified as smaller countries and not larger countries as their populations are under the twenty million mark. Consequently, this makes this specific fragment of con's argument completely void. 5.) I successfully managed to prove that smaller countries are better than larger countries and did so with a diverse array of arguments with a range of different perspectives that render a country successful - con has attempted to point out three larger countries that he thinks proves his point that larger countries are better than smaller countries, and two of these countries (Norway/Sweden) aren't even larger countries, hence making his argument a bluster of void altercations. I shall recap my main stand point in this debate: smaller countries are better than larger countries because they are by far more socially and economically organised. My examples are bold with Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Iceland, Switzerland and Finland, who all appear in the top ten on the peace index, corruption index and happiness index. All three index's: Peace index: http://www.visionofhumanity.org... Corruption index: http://www.transparency.org... Happiness index: http://unsdsn.org...
Smaller Countries are Better than Larger Countries

For the sake of this argument, the definition of a small country can be defined as country that doesn't breach the population of twenty million. Smaller countries are generally more astutely organised socially and economically than larger countries who are often found to be in momentous amounts of debts, corruption and other futile complexities, such as war. Nations such as Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland and New Zealand are the all among the most happy countries on the planet according to the World Happiness Report (1) published in 2013 which utilises factors such as real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, freedom from corruption, and generosity. Larger nations such as the United States of America, Russia and China all fall below the top twenty spots. This proves that on average, smaller countries are socially more developed than larger countries and this results in a more pleased population as a whole. Smaller countries also appear to be significantly less corrupt than larger nations. The Corruptions Perception Index (2) produced in 2014 again appears to deem smaller countries such as Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden and Norway, all less broken than larger (world leaders) namely mass producer China (100th) and the vast land mass that is Russia that meanders depressingly at 136th. Although there are an abundance of small nations lying deep near the bottom of the scale, there is still NOT a single country above a population of twenty million in the top five and the only large country that exists in the top ten is Canada, which runs on a similar political structure to that of Denmark, Finland and Iceland. The fact is, smaller countries are generally less corrupt than larger countries and this once again bolsters the fact that smaller nations are better than larger ones. To top things off, it has been proven that smaller countries are more peaceful than larger ones, with the Global Peace Index (3) displaying Iceland, Denmark, New Zealand, Switzerland, Finland, Norway and Austria, all ranking in the top ten once again. The United States of America are ranked 101th, China 108th and Russia 152nd. Other large populations of Brazil and India are all under the 100th mark. To summarise, countries with smaller populations are generally happier, less corrupt and more peaceful than larger countries and are therefore better in the most crucial aspects for the basis of any countries well-being. Sources: (1) - http://unsdsn.org... (2) - http://www.transparency.org... (3) - http://www.visionofhumanity.org...
Margaret Thatcher was a Great Person

Once upon a time British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was called a``Iron Lady``. As Pro points out, ``she was indeed a great person. `` It is true that she challenged for introducing a drastic policy to strengthen the competitiveness of her country. However, unfortunately, it brought about serious problems on the life of many people of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I believe that she is not necessarily a ``good ``person. I look forward to an enlightening debate.
Margaret Thatcher was a Great Person

This is a debate for whether or not Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister from 1979-1990, was a great person. Some quick definitions: GREAT: Inspiring; famous BUT not necessarily popular or "good" I'll just point that out again; this is not a debate about whether she was well liked or a "good" person, but about whether she was great or not. Therefore this debate will not discuss her political ideals but her as a person. Round 1: Opening Statements Round 2: Argument, no rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: " Round 5: Closing Statements I'm taking the "pro" side of the argument because I believe Margaret Thatcher was indeed a great person and very inspiring.
Margaret Thatcher was a Great Person

Let me present my conclusion. Conclusion : A great person like Churchill and Thatcher influenced greatly on the course and destiny of their nation. Their action and decision-making brought about benefits and unreasonable effects on the society and the life of people. However, I believe that we must keep in mind their achievements in historical perspective. In my opinion a great person of the future must face and cope with many problems like global warming, recession and international tension existing in many parts of the world. Sense of responsibility and leadership will be required as Thatcher and Churchill assumed. This was an enlightening debate for me. Good luck.
Margaret Thatcher was a Great Person

"Winston Churchill was greater than her"While I do agree that Churchill was a great leader, he was at his best when Britain and the rest of the World had gone to war. Therefore I believe that Churchill was one of the great war-time politicians while Thatcher was one of the greatest peace-time politicians. Therefore it is almost impossible to compare them as the two jobs have drastically different duties. Also, Thatcher was the longest serving PM ever, serving even longer than Churchill. "Churchill is and will be remembered"Again, I believe Churchill flourished in war rather than in peace so is in a completely different medium to Thatcher. In addition; Churchill was remembered primarily of the war that went on around him. Do you think he would have been remembered if he had led Britain through a time of peace? It is the same for many politicians we see today; they may be remembered if something drastic happened during their empowerment, but otherwise they would, most probably, be forgotten. Therefore Thatcher stands out of the crowd as a great person who will be remembered. Closing StatementI, wholeheartedly, believe that Margaret Thatcher was a great person as she stood out from the crowd, had conviction and was dedicated to her country. She will also be remembered; she is, and forever will be, Britain's Iron Lady.
Margaret Thatcher was a Great Person

I will present my rebuttals. First is regarding the argument, ``First female Prime Minister of Great Britain. `` However, in my opinion, Winston Churchill was greater than her. The reason is that he contributed to ending the World War Second and helped greatly reconstruct Europe which had been devastated by the War. Moreover, he taught the importance of peace for the people of the world. Second is regarding the argument, ``The Iron Lady`` and ``Lasting Impact. `` Pro said : ``She was , and will be, remembered unlike many of the politicians we see in power today. `` I believe Churchill is and will be remembered by many people in the United Kingdom. I think that his power, political leadership and diplomatic ability are not inferior to that of Thatcher. So she was not the only great person in the country. Third is regarding the argument, ``A True Patriot. `` As Pro argued, I think she devoted her political life to make the country powerful and competitive in spite of receiving the protests from many people. I look forward to Pro`s reply.
Margaret Thatcher was a Great Person

I will commence with my rebuttals. Tax Increase etc. .. While this was not one of her best decisions, I will admit, I do think that it was for the best. The money raised by taxes would have helped support those in unemployment, so she was, in fact, supporting Britain through a particularly bad time. Naturally, people will feel upset when they are forced to pay more. I think that people in general can become obsessed with their own needs and fail to see the good it is doing elsewhere, so her loss in popularity would be because of general greed rather than actual distrust in her policies. EU I beg to differ! While she may have rejected the EU, her cooperation with other countries spread across the World. Her relationship with Ronald Reagan, in particular, showed her eagerness to cooperate with other countries. Also, I think her decision to join the EU was a good one. The EU hasn't really done much for Britain and it seems that many want us to leave it; just look at how well UKIP did in the last elections! ! Falklands War Actually, I think this war just showed her dedication to Britain. How would Britain have looked if they had just given away some of their territory? It would make Britain, and her, look weak and helpless, persuading others to come in and take their pick. There can be no war without casualties. While I do not think it right that so many died, they died for their country and for, what I believe, a noble cause. I look forward to my opponent's reply.
Margaret Thatcher was a Great Person

Let me present my arguments. Firstly, a great person must devote his or her life to realize the prosperity and the welfare of their fellow people. The first female British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was called a ``Iron Lady.`` However, many people suffered from tax increase and mass unemployment caused by the privatization of the state-run industries during the time when she served the Prime Minister. This contributed to losing her popularity. People showed distrust toward her government. Secondly, she did not have an interest in participating in European Union. This shows her lack in international mind and cooperative behavior with member countries. Therefore, she lost trust and respect from them. Thirdly, she decided to involve in the Falkland war. This war was meaningless. People did not understand the reason of going to the war. Her action and decision had a harmful effect not only on the society but on the life of the general public of her country. Therefore, it is doubtful that we call her a great person. Good Luck.
Margaret Thatcher was a Great Person

I'd like to point out, for the third time that this debate is focusing on her as a person and not her political ideals, thus rendering my opponent's arguments invalid. Therefore I will give my opponent a second chance to rewrite his argument so it does not focus on her policies in the next round. The format from now on will be: Round 3: Arguments, no rebuttals* Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Final rebuttals and closing statements *I will forfeit this round so my opponent can rewrite his argument. Therefore I forfeit this round. I look forward to my opponent's argument.
Margaret Thatcher was a Great Person

I believe that Margaret Thatcher was not a great person. Firstly, her revitalizing policy which was called ``New Liberalism``created a mass unemployment. The privatization of the State-run industries led to the loss of job opportunities among workers. In particular, mine workers were seriously hit. Secondly, ``tax policies were deliberately repressive, increasing inequality and decreasing social mobility.``(1) The important thing is that tax of the wealthy people and the big companies were reduced but the consumption tax was raised. ``The burden on consumers was increased. The VAT(value added tax), a kind of sales tax , and the motor fuel tax were raised. These increases fell mainly on middle-and low-income people.``(2) In particular, ``consumption taxes fell heaviest on low-income families and the poor.``(3) And ``the Thatcher government did not succeed in reducing taxes overall. Taxation accounted for 38.5 per cent of GDP in 1979 and 40.75 per cent in 1990.``(4) Thirdly, ``Community Care Act greatly impacted ability to deal with mental illness, causing increase in number of homelessness and suicide.``(5) This means that financial resources for local care programs were greatly reduced. ``A number of community health services were transferred to the responsibility of local authorities.``(6) And ``increasing pressure was being placed on local authority finances.``(7) Fourthly, she decided to involve in the war. ``The Falklands war was pointless, sending British soldiers to fight for a tiny island just off the coast of Argentina that no one had heard of and before you say about the strategic importance.``( Is Margaret Thatcher great ?, wiki.answers.com) This war was meaningless and public money should have been used for a meaningful purpose instead of using for a military action. Conclusion: A great person must be respected and be admired by all the people including the rich and the poor for a long time. However, unfortunately, the jobs which Mrs. Thatcher did are not highly evaluated by the people who suffered from the hardship caused by her decision-making. They believe that the root cause of the recent recession in the United Kingdom originates from it. Therefore, in my opinion Margaret Thatcher was not necessarily a great person. I look forward to Pro`s reply. References : (1)-(7) ``Thatcher is not great``by Rob Brown, internationalcritique.wordpress.com.)
Good and Evil Does Not Exist

http://en.wikipedia.org...The terms of good and evil which I will use in order to avoid confusion are:Evil-Profoundly immoralGood-To be desired or approved of. In other words to be morally right.Moral- Principles concerning between right and wrongSource of definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com...==Morality=="Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The adjective moral is synonymous with "good" or "right." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. good or right)"Morality ChangesSince Morality is based off of an individuals philosophy, religion and culture, morality itself both takes up countless of different shapes and forms and therefore remains inconsistent and contradictory. If most of us were to consider childhood marriage, for example, most of us would find it a repulsive thought and one which is morally wrong. In other widespread areas around the world however, such as Rural India, Africa and rustic parts of Asia, child marriage is much more common and is generally accepted by certain jurisdiction, thus not making it morally incorrect. It is estimated that "In Mali, the female:male ratio of marriage before age 18 is 72:1; in Kenya, 21:1.[12]Morality Is DiverseAside from the above reasons which might take morality to its extremity, we will take a look between the Big Issues themselves. Socialism for example is a subject in which much of the European and western powers find despicable, due to its potential for corruption. In several nations located in Africa and Asia however, socialism is part of the norm and is also a philosophy which moral is based upon, so therefore what we find as a morally coded flawed philosophy, they find it perfectly ordinary. Currently, as of today, there are exactly 4 different socialist countries, respectively the People's Republic of China, Republic of Cuba, Lao's People Democratic Republic and Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Current Socialist Republics include the Republic of India, North Korea, Sri Lanka and Tanzania.The flaws with the belief of that morality exist is based upon the fact of diversity. Because there are many nations which have a different standard of moral codes which contradict one another, there is no generally accepted rule for morality. There is absolutely no way of proving what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Though morality itself does exist at a singular state, the very distinction of morality changes from culture to culture. Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Donald Trump's child rape case allegations are credible.

Hello, thanks for the debate response. I'll copy my original response. "The "plaintiff", according to Snopes, was never located, interviewed and identified (1). A judge had ordered her to supposedly pay for her attorneys' fees and court costs but the "plaintiff" asked to be let off the hook, claiming she only had $300 to her name. The address affiliated with her name was found to be an abandoned home and her phone number goes straight to voicemail." This is enough details to abandon the case because the "plaintiff" cannot even give the right information in which she could be contacted and had chosen to settle in a federal court in which she cannot even afford. That is enough information for me to gather that the "plaintiff" is not serious in this case. You said, "You would be scared too if you were threated. People take time to come forward when they are young. These allegiations are credible and warrant further investigation." Really? For 22 years, she did not do a single thing, just waiting for her "violator" to have his moment of ultimate victory? Are you telling me that Trump and Epstein had her in surveillance for 22 years? That is hogwash. She didn't even explain what she did with her life after these attacks. Donald Trump has been attacked many times after receiving his presumptive presidential nomination in the Republican Party and ultimately the party's presidential nominee. If the "plaintiff" just chose to speak up now after 22 years and that she cannot even give her right details in which she could be contacted and that she didn't even explain what she did after these attacks, this whole case paints a picture that it is highly likely to be an attempt to bring Donald Trump down and damage his reputations. Make America Great Again!
Donald Trump's child rape case allegations are credible.

"The "plaintiff", according to Snopes, was never located, interviewed and identified (1). A judge had ordered her to supposedly pay for her attorneys' fees and court costs but the "plaintiff" asked to be let off the hook, claiming she only had $300 to her name. The address affiliated with her name was found to be an abandoned home and her phone number goes straight to voicemail. Also, the "plaintiff" just chose to speak up after 22 years when the supposed "defendant" is on his peak of victory on presidential election? That is very fishy." Jamais23All of this can be explained because the plantiff was allegedly threatened. "Johnson says in the complaint that Trump and Epstein threatened her and her family with bodily harm if she didn’t comply with all of their disgusting demands." [3]You would be scared too if you were threated. People take time to come forward when they are young. These allegiations are credible and warrant further investigation. Sources.3. http://www.snopes.com...
Donald Trump's child rape case allegations are credible.

As much as it is intriguing that the "plaintiff" just spoke up now, I don't think these allegations should be given further investigation. My reason: The "plaintiff", according to Snopes, was never located, interviewed and identified (1). A judge had ordered her to supposedly pay for her attorneys' fees and court costs but the "plaintiff" asked to be let off the hook, claiming she only had $300 to her name. The address affiliated with her name was found to be an abandoned home and her phone number goes straight to voicemail. Also, the "plaintiff" just chose to speak up after 22 years when the supposed "defendant" is on his peak of victory on presidential election? That is very fishy. SOURCES: (1) http://www.snopes.com...
Obesity

Although over eating is a huge aspect of obesity, people should be aware that for some people, food intake has nothing to do with their weight. In many cases, it is a legitimate health disorder. For people with diabetes, it is mandatory to eat certain foods at certain times. Before judging someone immediately because of their weight, you need to contemplate the possibilities. Also, metabolism contributes to obesity. Some people are born to eat whatever they want, and some gain weight from the littlest thing. Food is not the only catalyst to obesity.
Obesity

I think that obesity is a serious problem in society today. There are many children in elementary school that are obese and eat tons of food a day. I think that the problem is there parents don't control their diet. Parents should be responsible for giving their children three healthy meals a day and maybe one unhealthy snack a day. If parents did that, then their children would be at a healthy weight. Parents have a huge role in controlling whether their child becomes obese or not, and I believe that obesity is something that can be controlled.
Obesity

Yes, that is all valid information, but not everyone is judgmental of others. Sometimes, a person is quick to judge, but once you get to know them, they find out the truth. Even if you can't control your health issues, there are still ways to thin out. If you need to eat for diabetes, you can go to the gym after school or just go for a jog around the neighborhood. Although people with diabetes have to eat certain things at certain times, it does not refrain them from exercising and then furthermore eating healthy at times where they can eat healthy.