BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
On avoiding the inefficiency of commerce as the basic function of City Centre

Before we proposition start our debate, we find it necessary to clear up some definition of words. Firstly, we only discuss private vehicle here. Secondly, the City Centre we are to discuss means Central Business District, CBD. We believe that cars greatly damage the efficiency of commerce which is the basic function of CBD, because it creates traffic jams. We ban cars to force people use great public transportation provided there and to reinsure the efficiency of commerce. The use of cars is the reason why traffic jams happen everyday in CBD. Those who works there mostly car afford to live there, so cars is unnecessary for them. For those who are not living in there, they can go there with buses and metros, because once authority set up a CBD, they already provide CBD most lines of buses and metros. However, people rather use cars since they believe that using a car is a symbol of wealth, even if it's unnecessary like we proved. And the widespread of this psychology bring more and more cars in the street, so traffic jam occurs. Traffic jam harms the basic function of CBD, which is to facilitate the efficiency of commerce. The nature of CBD is an area where people could have business more conveniently as all the big companies and financial organs can be found there. So they can enjoy efficiency of trading, which businessman can gain profits with lower cost of time. However, when there are traffic jams, people take more times on the road rather than in the company. The efficiency of trade is greatly harmed. That's why we need to ban cars to reinsure that CBD can be functional. Our action against traffic jam is justified since the function of CBD is of the benefits of the city as a whole. In this case, people cannot fulfill full liberty to use their property because the city is providing them with great facilities to gain profits, so they shall maintain CBD to function. That's the justification of our action. With a clear justification, we are proud to propose
The policy will help the transformation of CBD

The ideal CBD is a place that makes people enjoy the combination of work and life, therefore making the atmosphere more conducive for increasing productivity and employee satisfaction. Yet the status quo is quite the opposite: people are trapped in their cars--agitated by the non-moving traffic; blocked by the window to actually strike a nice conversation like passengers do in the public transportation system; in the mean time your car is pumping into air toxic gases and wastes simply for the waiting.....It creates a hostile environment from the start of the day! It reinforces the already thin "humanly" communication that a healthy employee needs; It turns all of us into the robot-like lives that reside in machines. Sufficient scientific data has shown the lack of communication is more likely to lead to mental illness. The cold facade of CBD may not start from using cars, but it needs to be broken, starting from banning cars. By banning cars at CBD, we are not only providing people to have more access to talk to each other (which is more likely to happen in the proposed scenario than, say a iron-clad isolated vehicle), we are contributing to the human interaction, the self-actualization, and the satisfaction that eventually comes with socializing in people: we can be heartened by a conversation with a stranger on the bus; or we can breath the crispy air and finally feel alive....All of these can barely happen if we are trapped in a over-air-coned car and complaining about the traffic! In the mean time, by having the ban, we become more environmental frjendly by both saving the energy and cutting cost. Last but not the least, less cars, and less demand for funding roads. Then there will be more money for improving public utilities. By removing cars from the CBD streets, we create opportunities for people to interact; we save more spaces for public utility; and we save the environment; And we get a more habitable CBD.
Increased traffic as a result of the prohibition of cars

One of the predominant characteristics among CBDs is their privileged geographical location within the cities in which they are located. It is a general norm that this prominent zones must be accessible for the entire city and that they need to be greatly connected in terms of its proximity with transportation centrals and governmental institutions. This is the reason why much of the urban growth has its epicenter in Financial Districts, meaning that at the they will be the axis of the city or at least one of most transited areas of it (that’s why they are built for, isn’t it?); it is the case of Polanco in Mexico, Innenstadt in Germany, the Yuzhong District in China and of many other CBDs in the world being connected with important avenues and districts. Because of this particular feature banning the presence of cars does not only directly impact City Centres, people who would usually transit through this channels while heading to their destinations in the terminus of the city or that were simply encouraged to cross this areas would find their most convenient route closed. As if digging an enormous hole in the middle of the city, people would now need to muddle through the peripheries of the city in order to get to where they need. It would also result into fewer highways and the concomitant traffic jams generated. In the end this won’t only impact the schedules of all of the citizens, but it would also be reflected in the economy as the routes of the cities’ industrial transportation become slower and companies invest more time in moving their products. Contrary to what the proposition established, there is no economic incentive here and a greater affection for the lesser good.
Status Quo is way better for the problem they try to solve

We say banning private cars in CBD instead of letting those cars stuck in the traffic jams is really important. Because it severely damage the efficiency of CBD, for example CBD of Beijing. Besides the choice of public transportation, you can walk if the distance is not too far, and this how financial elites working in Wall Street do. Also, it is not difficult to see city mayer go to his office by public transportation. The concern of being a target of terrorist in this case is far less harmful than living in a fixed habitation and working in a fixed location. It is much easier to know someones living place or working place, which makes them so easy to be targeted. Having a car is not a luxury. So that’s why so many people can buy it. However, overuse of cars in CBD have CBD fail to function or function less. The traffic jams caused by heavy traffic burdens requires a solution. OPP should not just talk about the benefit of owning a car without facing the situation we have. The solution of removing heavy traffic burdens is not about broad avenues or more highways, as we witness a lot of cities in China with super broad and super complicated transportation systems still cannot find a way to ease the burden of overuse of private cars, especially in the CBD areas where most of the cars are heading in or out. An example from CBD of Seoul, Korea, a high way constructed in the super busy CBD, removed and replaced by an artificial river. Consequently, the former traffic burden in that region has been removed and make the place nicer and much more efficient in transportation. But problem here today is the over use of cars in CBD region, which makes the region not as efficient as it is expected. Then we need to change, to perfect it with banning private cars used here. Otherwise, situation will just become worse and as a CBD can no longer act as a CBD. Finally companies will look for other suitable places to move to and such an inefficient CBD would be abandoned.
Car uses at CBD is a quintessential example of rational irrationality that takes a toll on the entire society

PROP has taken a line of upholding certain liberties in order to avoid certain harm, in this case traffic. We say that apparent harm is not really a harm but something natural of the cities but that even if it was a harm, it is not enough to withhold a liberty, and even if it was, in practical terms they will do more harm by creating a heart attack on a city whose main artery will be blocked. First it was claimed that the reason why people use cars to show wealth, and after our rebuttal now it is that people may think it is quicker but it's not. Well, in reality we cannot know what are the routes or thoughts of the people but we cannot generalize for either way, because sometimes the distances can be covered quicker by using a car (specially through roads that aren't as packed or at certain hours where there is less traffic) and those people will be affected with such a bad policy like this one. Yet, in the cases where actually public transportation could be quicker than car (because of the places where they live, routes they should take or whatever), we don't believe the reason for people using cars is not stupidity but it may be for more factors such as comfort or security and for that they are willing to maybe take an extra hour at the traffic creating a traffic that affects someone else that also has the choice of public transportation but still prefers their cars (for whatever reason) and so, it is just plain bad to try to reduce an apparent "harm" that the people are actually willing to take and prefer to have! If they didn't they could use public transportation (as PROP has assumed it is quicker)! The other problem that PROP addresses is pollution but then that can be said about almost everything we do (eating meat and using computers are terrible for global warming, for example) yet the solution is not prohibiting everything but try to mitigate the damage, such as the policies of some cars not circulating certain days or using alternative energy sources.
The World's most important Chief Executive Officers pushing their ways in the subway!

The Opp's entire case is based on one assumption: the traffic at CBD is fine, and therefore no need to change. However, they miss the central point of this debate which is CBDs are indeed crammed as hell. Otherwise we won't be having this at all. If they are truly as "logical" as they claimed, they should at least tell us how the all jammed-up CBD where everyone can't effectively transport is better than our proposed transportation which asks everyone especially the sedentary ones to move their chubby buttocks. Opp talks about efficiency and how cars are efficient. Yes, cars are pretty efficient, but not at CBD! What a real picture is hundreds of thousands of cars all swarm in the business center roads, car honking, people complaining yet no one is actually moving! There is a joke about the CBD of Beijing: with the majority of 750'000 registered cars pouring in, the CBD roads are now called the giant car parking lot. How is that efficient? How does businesses' profit not hurt when you virtually spend the better part of your day stuck in your car; when the mail delivery vehicles get jammed and consequently delay delivery? When it actually takes longer time to drive than to walk? And it is not just in Beijing, in Mexican city too, with "more than 3 million registered vehicles, Mexico City is difficult to navigate. Major roads are nearly always congested.."And the CBD which the Opp recognizes as the "Axis of Transportation" is going to take the hardest blow since all cars go to CBD, and traffic jam there will amount to the degree of unbearable.
Workers, living & transportation

Sedentary! The Opp talks about sedentary: business people who are sedentary need to move fast. Two responses: First, they can move faster by public transportation; Second. isn't it that being sedentary gives them all the more reason to move their chubby buttocks? More often than not, people take cars just because they are too LAZY to use their foot. And more importantly, this creeping mentality that all the privileged people get to use cars make the CBD snobs all the more willing to cram up in the cars, the millions of which are destroying the functioning transportation in the CBD! But at some point we have the courtesy to concede, public transportation is not perfect. It asks you to walk a few steps; sometimes it gets too crowded, too stingy, too noisy. But that is not public transportation is inherently about. It is not that all pleasant at the present is that it is so underfunded! In the case of D.C. metro system, "About $50 billion in backlog repairs is needed for rail transit systems, but just $5.6 billion was spent in 2006". The governments are so obsessive with building more roads to accommodate cars (which doesn't quite solve the problem because it extends to size of the city, making people travel more distance and takes away the public space which otherwise could be a park to rest in, a museum to immerse in; or a library to contemplate in), thereby making the funding available for public system barely meet the needs. If we ban cars in the CBD, the funding need for more roads will be reduced, and more money will be available for a comfortable and spacious subway and bus system.
Status Quo is way better for the problem they try to solve

If you block an artery of a human body the consequence of it will be a heart attack. Same applies with the main roads of a city, and that is what the Proposition tries to implement. As we have already said, through the CBDs transit many cars, not only those of the people that work there, but also people that live around and want to go to any other place, or people that cross the city. Actually there is more people that transit those streets than those that actually go to CBDs that, as we have raised, are small. And yes, we stand on our point that the traffic is not bad within CBDs because people don't take cars to travel 200 meters (the majority of the World's CBDs are less than a kilometer long). Does the proposition really think that people use cars when they can just arrive in one or two minutes walking? That's not the case, the traffic is caused by everyone that transits around the city and needs to go through the center (from east to west, north to south...). Now picture all the people that want to move within the city blocked! The only result will be total chaos of a city! The people will need to look for alternative routes (that will be even more jam packed, since they are not built to receive traffic, unlike those that pass in CBDs) and if there are none, then the government will need to build other roads (which is almost impossible) just to avoid those 600 meters that are the main artery of the city. It will just be a ridiculous policy. Now, on the point of security, we don't say cars are perfectly safe (so of course the Proposition can raise hundredths of hypothetical crimes committed against car drivers) however in public transportation you are exposed and vulnerable, unlike cars, where you can go unnoticed and less of a target (specially in those traffic roads without traffic lights), and in cases of high profile people, they may need bodyguard cars that ARE NOT public as the Proposition tries to say, since those services are not provided by the state.
Car uses at CBD is a quintessential example of rational irrationality that takes a toll on the entire society

Using cars at CBD demonstrates the rational irrationality that ultimately undermines the interests of every "rational" individual. "Driving cars could be fast, and therefore I should drive a car." This is the rationale for an individual. And it surely makes sense. But when millions of people in town all think the same and consequently acting the same, we get problems. Cars are everywhere, making driving a short distance take a long long time: people get stuck in cars, wasting fuels, polluting the environment (for just for waiting!). No body can travel around at all. Yes, we love to realize people's full liberty's to drive cars and listen to car radios, but that liberty comes with a cost, a cost too big for the society to function, a cost that severely undermines everybody's liberty in this regard. Because when people adheres perfect rationally to their preference, sometime they also act without regard to the irrationality of the decisions cost-benefit analysis in the bigger picture. And the total traffic turmoil is the bigger picture that people forget to take into account. As a result, no one wins. No one get to effectively move at all. Sometimes we need to limit some freedom in order to people to enjoy more freedom in the same way we ban hate speech, we ban racially discriminatory contents. In order for every one to be able to MOVE in CBD, we ban cars here.
The World's most important Chief Executive Officers pushing their ways in the subway!

People should not be denied to use the means of transportation that they want, and less if it is one of their property, such as a well-earned car, or at least not for the reasons provided by the proposition. PROP mentioned that the reason why people use cars is just to show their wealth. We don't just say that is false (for example, in Caracas almost every car has blackened windows so the other people cannot see who is in the car) but we also say that there are many powerful reasons why anyone, and specially those that work in CBDs, would decide to use their cars as best option for transportation (yet again, not opposing public transportation). A good reason for that is security. Someone like a CEO of a big transnational or the director of a financial institution becomes a vulnerable target when going on public transportation. It is just an absurd idea to think that those men (who may well be some of the most powerful men in the World) would decide to go in an overcrowded metro or bus instead of going with their cars, which are probably surrounded by other 4 with bodyguards. We believe these people need to go to their work in private cars because in any other case they would be an easy target for kidnappings or heavy assaults. If that's not the case then picture them with ten bodyguards around pushing everyone to get into the metro wagon, which right now is already overcrowded in any city you can tell me, and now adding in basically almost everyone that works in CBDs. Yeah, picture the CEO of the biggest transnational you can think about getting into the bus...Now imagine the reporters and general people stalking them...OPP can't. People have that right over their own cars and they should use them if they want to avoid pushing and being targets for robberies and go comfortable in their cars as well. Whoever doesn't want to have traffic should use public transportation, however if you are willing to wake up an hour earlier but listening your car's music, go for it
It is unfair to claim that celebrities choose this lifestyle. If you are talented at modelling, spor...

Celebrities use the media to promote their careers. Their success often depends on their ability to stay in the public eye. Actors and footballers strive to be stars who are known and recognised worldwide. This increases the success of their films or their ability to gain well-paid sponsors. It is unreasonable, after using the media in this way, to complain when they do not like the stories published about them. The media should be able to reveal negative stories as well as positive ones.
It is unfair to claim that celebrities choose this lifestyle. If you are talented at modelling, spor...

It is unfair to claim that celebrities choose this lifestyle. If you are talented at modelling, sport, singing, or acting it is natural to want to profit from that talent. It is reasonable to choose a career where that talent can be recognised, rewarded and shared with others. This is no different to somebody who is good at mathematics choosing to become a banker. Your personal life should not be exposed to millions of people, just because you choose to exploit your talents.
The fact that some celebrities invite the media into their lives, does not justify abusing the priva...

Celebrities betray the public when they present a false image of themselves in order to sell more CDs, books, shirts, etc. It is fair to bring the truth to light. For example, if a television chef presents himself as a family man, the public deserves to know if he is having an affair. Otherwise they might buy his products on the basis of lies. Celebrities such as Britney Spears and Tiger Woods are also often role models for young people. Those young people deserve to know if their role models are less perfect than they had thought.
Media attention can be upsetting for both celebrities and their families. Paparazzi wait outside th...

Celebrities often use their private lives as a means of generating media attention. Jamie Oliver encouraged cameramen to film his family as part of a TV series. Similarly, Madonna promoted her children’s book with her seven-year-old daughter, Lourdes, who read extracts from the book to sick children at a hospital. It is unreasonable for celebrities to use the media when it suits them, and then complain when the public becomes interested in their families as a result.
Media attention can be upsetting for both celebrities and their families. Paparazzi wait outside th...

Media attention can be upsetting for both celebrities and their families. Paparazzi wait outside their homes, jump in front of their cars, and swarm around them in public. The car crash which killed Princess Diana in 1997 was the result of attempts to escape chasing journalists. If photographers can’t earn hundreds of thousands of dollars for these pictures, they will have no reason to harass celebrities in this way.
Reform will never effectively turn the tables in subsidy distribution. Large-scale agri-businesses ...

Reform will never effectively turn the tables in subsidy distribution. Large-scale agri-businesses have the power to manipulate policy through lobbying and campaign contributions in order to ensure they can maintain their comfortable government issued subsidy. Small family farms cannot compete with these rich agro-corporations, who can spend millions of dollars lobbying to stop legislation that would reform current problematic subsidy expenditures. This is exactly why the Grossley-Dorgan Bill was never enacted and implemented. As any system aimed at channeling federal money to agriculture will be open to these abuses, it would be far better to end subsidies completely, supporting poorer farming families instead through welfare benefits and tax credits.
Domestic subsidization of agriculture harms international human right to livelihood. Agriculture is...

Domestic subsidization of agriculture harms international human right to livelihood. Agriculture is the backbone of most developing countries, and ranges from 50%-80% of their economy. In contrast, the USA relies on agribusiness for a mere 1.5% of its economy. If 50-80% of the businesses of a poor country are unable to sell, they are unable to spend, which further exacerbates their financially conundrum. In turn, subsidies deny livelihoods abroad by not allowing local farmers a chance to compete on the market, whereas before subsidies they would be able to, and also since the farmers (50-80% of the economy) have no income, they are being denied the ability to afford education and other job opportunities. Even more negatively, denying poor farmers a legitimate living will only encourage some of them to turn to illegal crops, such as coca and opium poppy, instead.