BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pres. Obama bailed out big money and "too big to fail" corporations but not the working poor class

Due to free trade, our economy based on making money on money instead of making things is burning out. President Obama followed the other globalist free trader presidents and was forced to bail out those who were responsible for this economic crisis. He bailed out big money, the investment communities, banks and the "too big to fail" corporations while ignoring the suffering of all who lost everything due to free trade. He joined the last three globalist free trader president in a grand betrayal of American workers and workers everywhere. The value of workers and labor has been degraded and deflated. This represents trillions of dollars in value lost forever. The same applied to the trade deficit which represents trillions of dollars more lost forever. In the bail outs, President Obama merged big money with big government and created State Capitalism where the upper class now live off the working poor class. The middle class and up now depend on the government for survival based on these bail outs. Many on pensions now have to depend on the Federal Pension Reserve Program and are living off those who have no pensions. Everything is upside down with no one talking about it. Only about 38 percent of American workers qualify for unemployment insurance. This means that more than 60 percent of American workers are living in economic limbo. The unemployment statistics are a mirage. They do not match up with the real world and most everyone on street know this but very little is gets reported. Free trade came and ransacked the free enterprise system and the free market is isolated to only a few while millions of people are outside looking in. See more at http://tapsearch.com... http://tapsearch.com... http://ray-tapajna-info.net...
Anybody who wants the REAL news watches BBC, or foreign World News channels.

Uhhh no you these people dont "hate you" you just make stupid arguments about stupid things. Let me break this down for you. 1. You have no evidence throughout the debate on how BBC or Foreign news channels are even better... Flow that to the negative. 2. I agree that news sites are biased, but not just American news sites, ALL news sites. 3. You win nothing by proving nothing. I win everything i prove in my last two points why i win. So here is what people should vote on 1. Ron Paul sucks (sorry he does) 2. The Aff Proves notthing 3. The neg proves that while american news sites are biased so are ALL news sites. 4. The Final Voting Issues is no evidence has been presented by the aff (who has the burden of proof) for him to win. So Vote for the neg today because of that alone.
Anybody who wants the REAL news watches BBC, or foreign World News channels.

Thank you for proving MY point. You will just keep on saying they aren't biased and I'm proving your point. You proved my point by saying I proved yours when I said nothing. You, my friend, are full of crap. You obviously have shown no knowledge of any bias in medias. I will lose this debate however because I have built up a huge following of people who hate me. Congrats.
Anybody who wants the REAL news watches BBC, or foreign World News channels.

You cannot prove that the networks are unbiased. I can prove they are. To destroy your upcoming 3rd round argument, I'll prove they are biased in the 4th round. I want to see what you'll say in this round, seeing as how you now have no argument except to tell me, "How are they biased?" which I've already said I'll explain in round 3.
Anybody who wants the REAL news watches BBC, or foreign World News channels.

At the point when you began to bash American is when you posted the debate saying that real news comes from BBC and Foreign News Channels, and to say that those stations are the only biased one is a big, big overstatement. You automatically assume that they aren't not biased that all they do is preach the truth, and at the point you think that you lose the debate cause you are so one sided the BBC and every other news stations have there own biased so dont say those are the only biased stations. So now here is what you have to do to win provide evidence that BBC is not biased.
Anybody who wants the REAL news watches BBC, or foreign World News channels.

Alright well first off there is no reason to just say that the BBC and the World News Channels are the best. Because 1. They all have the same credibility if not more within the US 2. You assume that Non-American new channels are better (and yes that's what you are doing the BBC). 3. I have grown to distrust anything I hear on the news, and you automatically assume that everyone else is better, than the US, which is wrong in its self you have no reason to discredit any other news source even in a debate. Now your job in your next argument is post which news channels we are talking about and also explain why you are bashing America, and also defend yourself.
Anybody who wants the REAL news watches BBC, or foreign World News channels.

PLEASE READ ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE VOTING. This is a four rounder. Just give a 1 paragraph outline of what you'll be saying. I'll be proving that all news channels are bias and have some connection or other with the government and so don't tell you everything. I'll then prove that BBC is the only honest network, although they might be headed for a turn soon. I also have two other networks I'll be outlining that are good. I will probably lose this debate because most people on this site, who are under 16, just vote after reading the topic.
Lower the drinking age to 16

Many things wrong with your statement. I don't think you know what the short term, and long term effects are with the consumption of alcohol. You're being very optimistic, as if drinking large amounts of beer is a good thing. Let's go over your points. - "It will help me bond with my father." This may seem offensive, but if you need alcohol to bond with any given person, there's something terribly wrong with that relationship. I bond with my father just fine, and no reason to "pop a cold one". I'm sorry if this isn't the same for you, but it isn't the same for us. This situation doesn't apply to everyone. People have abusive parents who over-consume alcohol, then proceed to beat them. It's great to hear you want to bond with your father, but in some cases, you just can't bond with someone who doesn't want to bond. - "Make more friends at school" Basically the same argument as above. Drinking large amounts of alcohol with a bunch of other teens, has proved to be a terrible experience in the long run. Teenagers, especially those who are 16 and just got their driver's license.
Lower the drinking age to 16

I cannot tell you how many times I have wanted to sit down and watch the baseball game with my father, while we both pop a cold one. Lowering this drinking age has many benefits, it will help me bond with my father, it will help others make friends easier. The reason I say that is because the maturity that comes with this new law, would build a special bond with me and my father. And it would give an option to make more friends at school, such as there would be more parties, and that would allow others to have a even bigger chance of making new friends. So those are the reasons I stand behind this new law.
Businesses should charge extra for bags.

Pro: Businesses should charge extra for bags.Con: Businesses should not charge extra for bags.At the grocery store, pharmacy, mall, etc. businesses should charge extra for plastic bags. Or any type of bag for that matter. 8,000 character maxcomment for questionscon cannot give new arguments in round 4 (as pro has no more rounds for rebuttal)first round acceptanceWe need to bag the bags. Good luck!
Businesses should charge extra for bags.

There was no debate, so I will extend the argument from round two and conclude by jumping on my soap box...Try to be aware of how much garbage you contribute to our one and only (for now) home. If everyone takes in one less plastic bag a month, there would be close to 84 billion unused plastic bags in a given year. Since they are seemingly etermal, there would be 84 billion less plastic bags produced in the following year. Its simple really. Carry that awquard misfit that takes up a whole bag at the grocery store. Ask the fast food joint to keep the bag; especially if you plan to eat on the go. Tell the convenience store clerk you don't need a bag for the couple items you picked up. If they've already bagged it, take it out there and return the bag; you'll have to unbag it at some point. When they give you that funny look, throw them some of those numbers I gave you. Be the drop that starts a ripple.Thank you for your time!
The Ukrainian Government is massacring civilians and needs to be stopped

Thank you for accepting and good luck to my opponent as well! Now, I would like to establish the definition of the terms that we will be arguing/using: MASSACRE: 1. the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty http://www.merriam-webster.com... EVIL : morally bad : causing harm or injury to someone http://www.merriam-webster.com... CORRUPT: 1a : morally degenerate and perverted http://www.merriam-webster.com... FASCIST: very harsh control or authority http://www.merriam-webster.com... CIVILIAN: 1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization. http://dictionary.reference.com... If my opponent would like to establish any other definitions or discuss them, I request that he do so in the comments. After an agreement is reached in the comments, he may use it in the debate. With that out of the way, we can begin. The Ukrainian military is actively bombing villages and cities which are primarily (if not completely) populated by civilians. As a result, dozens of civilians are being killed by airstrikes and artillery fire. http://www.hrw.org... http://revolution-news.com... http://www.globalresearch.ca... It cannot be called "accidental" because this has been going on for months and the Ukrainian government has not changed its strategy in any way to minimize civilian losses. This is inhumane and must be stopped. The civilians are not capable of significantly improving their conditions, so I propose external intervention by another nation. This may include but is not limited to: direct military action against the Ukrainian military and/or heavy sanctions that will force the Ukrainian government to discontinue its current course of action. On to Con.
The Ukrainian Government is massacring civilians and needs to be stopped

He says that I "may" begin my arguments in R1, implying that this is optional. I chose not to do so at this time. However, I would like to define a key term in the resolution. "Massacre" means "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty. " [. http://i.word.com...] I would argue that when discussing a massacre, we use international legal norms as standards by which to evaluate our arguments. Specifically, I suggest that as this debate is set in the contest of an ongoing civil war in Ukraine, that we interpret the term "massacre" to imply the unlawful killing, en masse, of civilians in the war zone; such a massacre would naturally constitute a war crime. [. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...] I also wish to point out that Pro has the sole BOP, as he is affirming a positive claim. [. http://www.qcc.cuny.edu...] With that, I turn things over to Pro. Good luck!
Narendra Modi shuld be the next PM of india

Extend all the previous arguments. And the ones before that.Also, I would have preferred if Pro would have cited the source he blatantly pagarized from: http://punjabnewsline.com...But, more to the point- just because there have been scams with distinct government role doesn't mean that BJP would be better than Congress. A party that relies on religious politics, has dubious 'morals' as there anchor of political proposals, a murderer as a prime minister, it's not really appealing.Also, a lot of people indicted in the scams have been arrested, and there are being tried right now. In the 2G spectrum case, for example, all 122 licences given out during the tenure of A Raja were quashed. A JPC committee was formed, A Raja was forced to resign. The cases pending against him are being heard right now. http://www.dnaindia.com...In the Commonwealth games scandal, Suresh Kalmadi was arrested. http://world.time.com... had been investigating the case with utmost attention, and would file chargesheet against CPWD and DDA officials, for collusion with Jubilee Sports Pvt Limited, for alleged cost inflation of laying synthetic turf.I can go on and on, but the point is yes, there have been scams, but Congress is addressing those. Prime MinisterManmohan Singh stated that he was willing to be investigated by concerned authorities when the opposition raised the cry for the first time. Somehow, I don't see Narendra Modi doing that, given that he has used all his political power to ensure that he was acquited in the genocide he perpetrated back in 2002.The point being argued isn't that Congress is the best party that has blessed the land of teh incredible India since its inception, but that it is better than BJP. My opponent still hasn't addressed this accusition.
Narendra Modi shuld be the next PM of india

He stated that Muslims, not Modi should be blamed for the genocide, since (I assume he means) it was the Muslims who burnt the Godhara Express, with all the Hindus in it. A state reaction of killing Muslims regardless of their role in the burning, cannot be justified by any length of logic. That’s straight up Nazi logic, Jews killed Jesus, we’ll kill all the Jews. That’s preposterous. Secondly, he brings up the crimes against women. I think my opponent is a little misinformed, fast track courts were instated. Supreme Court gave its approval for their creation, and the first one of them was instated on 2nd January (7 days after the ghastly rape). . http://www.hindustantimes.com...The rape accused were arrested within 24 hours of the crime, one of them committed suicide, 4 of them are being tried, true, but death penalty is a very big punishment. I would feel comfortable if justice was carried out through due process, and not bowing to public pressure. The J S Verma committee was set up, suggestion were explicitely asked for, from the citizens of the country (that’s democracy in action for you), and the new law was made. The stronger law. This is a feather in the Congress cap, if anything. My opponent then goes on to point out that Congress has failed because it has not been able to bring women’s reservation bill or food security bill to light. The food security bill, for one, isn’t being brought to light because of the obstructionist attitude of the opposition, aka BJP, which is stalling basic parliamentary functions, which is a strike against BJP. Stalling the parliament should be an unacceptable way to bring about your dissent. Congress, for one, has stepped up their efforts to push food security bill, by bringing an ordinance to implement the food security bill if there is no political consensus. Regarding the women’s reservation bill, the Rajya Sabha passed the bill on 9th Mar 2010. It has not been passed in Lok Sabha because SP and parties like RJD are deat set against the bill. Congress is now virtually daring them to withdraw their support from the government. So again, a stepping up of the efforts. I’d even far enough to say that this is the beauty of a democracy. You can’t streamroll any of the concerns. . http://indiatoday.intoday.in...I don’t know what my opponent means when he says that the total amount in Swiss Banks fell. Considering that the money held in Swiss banks is evading taxation, is ‘black money’, as the sentiment often proclaimed goes, it’s a good thing. (? )I’ve already addressed the scams, they are being taken care of. Considering my opponent didn’t address, or oppose the rebuttal, I would say that’s already a concession. Lastly, and I can’t stress this enough, Modi himself ‘tarnished his image’, when he decided to perpetrate a genocide.
Narendra Modi shuld be the next PM of india

I dont understand how can modi be blamed for the gujrat riots ,it were the muslims groups to be blamed for the riots instead of which Mr. Modi is being blamed and you are telling that he used his political power ,then howcome he won the election for the second time. . http://en.wikipedia.org...You would be aware of the recent violence against women and minor girls ,manmohan singh had promised to establish fast track courts for such cases and the most disgusting was the one which happened in Delhi In the month of january,where a girl was raped in a bus by five men and this case is still in the trial period can you tell the reason for this and for this the upa govt is to be blamed. . http://en.wikipedia.org...I feel that UPA govt has failed on all fronts,it has not been able to bring womens reservation bill and food security bills, also the total amount held by Indians in Swiss banks fell from Rs 23,373 crore in 2006 to Rs 9,295 in 2010. There is ineffieciency in the UPA govt no one in the UPA is willing to improve the worsening conditions in India,there have been scams sfter scams the recent coal and ipl scams are some of the examples ,there has been no improvement in the economy of india instead it has been declining. In India everyday one girl is raped,there has been no improvement in the infrastructure and we need a leader who can improve these conditions and only Mr. Modi can do that. Many anti-modi people make his image bad in front of the people (most probably congress)by blaming him for the gujrat 2000 riots but they will not see the progress that gujrat has made under him and about the gujrat model and with all the achievements he has made in the past 15 years he is surley the best choice for the PM post. I leave it to the voters now.
Developed Countries should have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change

Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change This debate would be done in a form somewhat similar to Public Forum debate N is Negative A is Affirmative Rules: 1 N: Introductory statements/ Definitions 1 A: Acceptance/First constructive speech 2 N: Constructive speech 2 A: Rebuttal on N constructive 3 N: Rebuttal on A constructive 3 A: Summary (Refutation on rebuttal) 4 N: Summary 4 A: Final Focus (Why our side wins the debate) 5 N: Final Focus/ Closing statements 5 A: Closing statements Definitions: Developed countries are countries that tend to have the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, have well-developed basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society, or a infrastructure for transportation, communications, and energy. These countries, the wealthiest nations in the world, include Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. China, India, Pakistan and Russia are not considered "developed" The definition of moral means right as opposed to something which is wrong. An obligation is a promise, duty or commitment. So we can say a moral obligation is a duty to take an action which is right (moral). A moral obligation does not mean one has a legal obligation but one can argue that fulfilling a legal obligation is a moral obligation. For example I may have a moral obligation to help my neighbor, but there is no legal requirement for me do so. If I choose not to fulfill my moral obligation to help, the police will not be knocking on my door. Mitigate to lessen, make less severe or painful. Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in average weather conditions, or in the distribution of weather around the average conditions. For example: more or fewer extreme weather events.
The Human Predicament

The Human Predicament Pro states that the human predicament is this.. Man cannot be happy if life is ultimately without meaning, value, or purpose. Because Pro believes that an atheistic worldview leads to the inevitable conclusion that life has no meaning, value, or purpose, it is impossible for an atheist to be happy. Pro's position as I understand it, is this.. (Premise 1) To be happy, man needs to have objective meaning, value or purpose (Premise 2) An atheist does not have objective meaning, value or purpose (Conclusion) An atheist can not be happy Premise 1 is completely false. Happiness is not contingent on meaning, value, or purpose. Happiness is contingent on one's ability to accept reality for the way it is, and to embrace it. Absurdism deals directly with this issue. This is fundamentally an epistemelogical issue. If the question is asked, "What is the meaning of life?", this question is absurd, because it is impossible to answer. "Meaning" in itself is a human construct, and can't be anything other than relative. There can't be an objective "meaning" in the human sense, because everything simply is what it is. Things simply are, there is no meaning behind any of it. Meaning, as humans tend to think of it, can not be objectively discerned. The question, "What is the meaning of life?" is as nonsensical a question as "What is the meaning of this rock?". Meaning, value, and purpose are all fundamentally unknowable. Despite this, people may still BELIEVE that they have an objective meaning, value, or purpose. An absurdist understands that any meaning, value, or purpose they place on life is a fabrication of the mind, it is just play. This is not a position of lying to oneself, as Pro might think. It is a form of self awareness, a humility where one doesn't place the phantoms of their mind on an elevated pedestal. An absurdist does not take these things seriously, as they are aware that it is just a game. At the same time, I would argue that objectively measuring happiness is not possible, as happiness itself is a subjective opinion of one's current mind state. I am an atheist. I do not believe that I have an objective meaning, value, or purpose. I am happy, and I don't see how Pro can tell me that I am not.
The Human Predicament

I would however like to make clear what an "atheistic worldview" is, as this could be used to describe many possible different worldviews, some of which actually do prescribe meaning, value, or purpose. These things are not intrinsic to an "atheistic worldview". An atheistic worldview is any worldview that results from the lack of belief in the theistic conception of "God", which is the traditional idea of a personal, yet external creator that reveals itself through divine revelation and is usually considered worthy of worship. This would not include the pantheist conception of God, where God is equated with the universe. This would also not be equated with the deist conception of God which declares that an external God created the universe, and then left it as is without any type of interference. This would also not be equated with the idea that God is "actuality", though a theistic worldview might also claim this among other things. I myself take the "Ignostic" stance when it comes to the existence of God, but am considered to be an atheist. I will primarily be debating from the "absurdist" position, which postulates that objective meaning, value, and purpose are inherently unknowable, and that said qualities are subjective and relative in nature. So, it could be said that I am arguing from a position that does not believe in a "meaning, value, or purpose", but I am by no means a nihilist. I understand the structure of the debate, and hope to have an engaging discussion about this particular viewpoint.