BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The world needs to take measure to pressure North Korea for change.

Let me point out a fe thing before i go into politically. " they were "promised more food if they cried". Where did you get that information? I did quite extensive research during the period myself, but I never encountered that reason." i heard that from my teacher. "My second issue with your statement which I'd like to point out: "North Korea is one of the most sanctioned nations in the world"." now why do you think they are the most saunction nation in the world? is it because they do not want to change. they violate human rights. And make there people suffer. They have slave camps making people working tirelessy. They also have prision camps. Like the industry, services, and agriculture you talking about, they didn't have no choice. it wasn't there decision but the gov't.Now onto politics. With a vaguely democratic framework, North Korea Politics is based on a Single party system. North Korea Politics in based on the principle of Centralization and is widely considered to be a totalitarian dictatorship. Although the Constitution prescribes the protection of human rights and democratic system ofNorth Korea Politics, in reality, the real power is concentrated within the hands on the ruling elite. The Government and the overall North Korea Politics is dominated by the Workers' Party of Korea who have been in power ever since the independence of North Korea.Elections are an important part of the North Korea Politics but elections occur only in single-candidate races where the candidate has been selected by the WPK beforehand. Kin Il Sung , the famous North Korean leader, plays an important role in the North Korea Politics. He has been given the posthumous title of"Eternal President". This had made most analysts conclude that the North Korea Politics is based on the cult of personality.North Korea Politics is widely known to be following a Communist Ideology but the North Korea Governmenthas altered their political line . Formerly it was Marxism - Leninism that guided North Korea Politics but now it has been replaced by the locally developed concept of Juche, or self-reliance.North Korea Military has an important role in the North Korea Politics. Most of the social sectors are insisted to follow Military methods and adopt the Military spirit. The constitution of North Korea prescribes the line of North Korea Politics in clear words, it says, "the Democratic People's Republic of Korea shall, by carrying out a thorough cultural revolution, train all the people to be builders of socialism and communism". The world needs to pressure North Korea to give power to the people. To have free, fair, and transparent election. They need to be pressure into reforms on political issues.
The world needs to take measure to pressure North Korea for change.

I have a few issues in your statement to point out. Firstly, you stated that during the grieving period of the North Korean people, they were "promised more food if they cried". Where did you get that information? I did quite extensive research during the period myself, but I never encountered that reason. It's more likely that they were upset because according to Scott Atran, a psychologist at Michigan University, "everything they have came from the Dear Leader, and they have no alternative form of reality." My second issue with your statement which I'd like to point out: "North Korea is one of the most sanctioned nations in the world". This debate is about pressuring North Korea for change, yet you just pointed out a MAJOR reason why North Korea's economic system is at its state right now. Without the UN sanctions, North Korea would enjoy the economic freedoms of other nations, such as the United States, or members of the Commonwealth, and the economic system would most certainly improve. However, that isn't to say that the economic system isn't improving. The North Korean Famine ended in 1998, and since then, there have been economic improvements, albeit slow. Compared to other nations, however, the GDP of North Korea isn't as extreme. 18 of the 20 poorest nations on the planet (as of 2011) are in Africa, and I'm sure all of us are aware of how many charities help support the people there. For those countries, it isn't a matter of "pressuring the government to change", it's simply to assist the people in any way the charity can. But, because of sanctions and policies against the DPRK, people merely say "they can change". You don't see them saying that to the governments of Mali or @#!*% . The fact is, North Korea has operated well in it's limited situation, and only has trading in place with China. In North Korea, 63% of it's population works in industry and services, while 37% works in agriculture, a massive amount of people for a country of its size. Obviously, pressuring the government for change simply will not work, the people have lived that way for many decades, the personality cult surrounding their "Dear Leader" exists, so sudden change will likely spark aggression, not just from the government, but from the general population. North Korea's economy has done relatively well, for a country with only one trading partner, and being one of the most homogeneous nations on the planet. SOURCES: http://www.time.com... http://www.therichest.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The world needs to take measure to pressure North Korea for change.

EconomicallyAmong the comity of nations, North Korea remains at the bottom of the leader speaking in economic term. The north korean government suffer it's own people. As video of kim jong il death, a vast number of North Korean were crying. The truth-not because their communist leader die but because they were promise more food by the government if they cry.http://www.youtube.com...North Korea remains one of the most saunction nation in the world by the UN. From reading this you'll see what this country faces and what it people goes through everyday.Economy - overview: North Korea, one of the world's most centrally directed and least open economies, faces chronic economic problems. Industrial capital stock is nearly beyond repair as a result of years of underinvestment, shortages of spare parts, and poor maintenance. Large-scale military spending draws off resources needed for investment and civilian consumption. Industrial and power output have stagnated for years at a fraction of pre-1990 levels. Frequent weather-related crop failures aggravated chronic food shortages caused by on-going systemic problems, including a lack of arable land, collective farming practices, poor soil quality, insufficient fertilization, and persistent shortages of tractors and fuel. Large-scale international food aid deliveries have allowed the people of North Korea to escape widespread starvation since famine threatened in 1995, but the population continues to suffer from prolonged malnutrition and poor living conditions. Since 2002, the government has allowed private "farmers' markets" to begin selling a wider range of goods. It also permitted some private farming - on an experimental basis - in an effort to boost agricultural output. In December 2009, North Korea carried out a redenomination of its currency, capping the amount of North Korean won that could be exchanged for the new notes, and limiting the exchange to a one-week window. A concurrent crackdown on markets and foreign currency use yielded severe shortages and inflation, forcing Pyongyang to ease the restrictions by February 2010. In response to the sinking of the South Korean destroyer Cheonan and the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, South Korea's government cut off most aid, trade, and bilateral cooperation activities, with the exception of operations at the Kaesong Industrial Complex. In 2012, KIM Jong Un's first year of leadership, the North displayed increased focus on the economy by renewing its commitment to special economic zones with China, negotiating a new payment structure to settle its $11 billion Soviet-era debt to Russia, and purportedly proposing new agricultural and industrial policies to boost domestic production. The North Korean government often highlights its goal of becoming a "strong and prosperous" nation and attracting foreign investment, a key factor for improving the overall standard of living. Nevertheless, firm political control remains the government's overriding concern, which likely will inhibit fundamental reforms of North Korea's current economic system.
Resolved: 2012 Obama would beat 2008 Obama in a presidential race 1 on 1

"Ok you kind of lost me on that last little part. You dont have to kill every last American to ensure it ends up being 08 Obama vs 012 Obama, you just have to kill the ones who do run.... Actually you dont even have to kill all of those people, just the ones who actually have a shot at winning. In 2008 and 2012 only about 30 people made a serious run for president in either election and it would be easier to just have them killed then all of America"The US has about 314 million people. The main reason most people don't run is, well, they don't stand a chance to win. Anyone can run, and the fact of the matter is if the choice is between Obama and Obama, many people will find that unacceptable. At the very least you need to kill all conservatives (about 40% of America according to Gallup[1]) and conservative-leaning independents or moderates. You also need to kill all people of wealth or who have the means to run a serious run, as well as any people on the left who might run. Simply put, it is easier to annihiliate all of America to ensure an Obama v. Obama than to systematically eliminate the very large portions of the country that dislike Obama. It is one action, nuking the world, versus having to send and fund hitmen to kill all people of a certain mold.Impossible. We dont have a space program anymore. Also there arent enough nukes to effectively kill everyone but more importantly we dont have a space program. Ok, but even then there are a slew of nuclear-protected bunkers they could retreat to. Joe Biden already revealed the location of one, and there are likely many moreYou don't need to kill everyone in the world, just the US. As of September 2009, the US had over 5,000 nuclear weapons - we can assume it was larger in 2008.[2] The US has only 285 cities with over 100,000 people, so the US could easily nuke all of those and have enough to spread over the rest of the country. No you havent..... You dont need to kill every last american to make sure the matchup is between 2008 Obama and 2012 Obama, you dont even have to kill all of those who do contend, just the ones who pose a threat to actually winning the presidency.... Extend all argumentsThere is not another realistic scenario. There are hundreds of thousands of conservative activists, hundreds of thousands of moderates, who would not want to see an Obama-Obama election. At what point can you eliminate the opposition while still maintaining a country? Keep in mind that Obama-Obama does nothing but split the liberal and left-leaning moderate vote - if anything it would make it easier for a no-name conservative to win! The easiest way to cause an Obama-Obama election is to annihilate the US. You eliminate all possible opposition and get the election to go on as planned.References:1: http://www.gallup.com...2: http://blogs.fas.org...3:
Resolved: 2012 Obama would beat 2008 Obama in a presidential race 1 on 1

"Before we begin, I think a few prerequisites need to be established. The most likely scenario for 2008 Obama (who I will refer to as 'past Obama') running against 2012 Obama (who I will call 'present Obama') in an election is if either one of them attains a time machine. The exact time period of the election does not matter as US law is constant, but bue to technological improvements we can assume that present Obama has a more likely chance of attaining a time machine, and such an election would be in 2008 between past Obama and present Obama. Second off, the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that past Obama would beat present Obama in a presidential election; a tie or loss by present Obama would result in a win for my side."Agreed. "The United States allows anyone to run for office.[2] Accordingly, such an election would have to be conducted after every American, with the exception of past Joe Biden and present Joe Biden (who must run for VP under the Constitution), is killed or dies."Ok you kind of lost me on that last little part. You dont have to kill every last American to ensure it ends up being 08 Obama vs 012 Obama, you just have to kill the ones who do run.... Actually you dont even have to kill all of those people, just the ones who actually have a shot at winning. In 2008 and 2012 only about 30 people made a serious run for president in either election and it would be easier to just have them killed then all of America"The easiest way to do this would be to launch our two Obamas and Bidens into space and then nuke the entire world so everyone, including abroad Americans, dies"Impossible. We dont have a space program anymore. Also there arent enough nukes to effectively kill everyone but more importantly we dont have a space program. "I have proven that present Obama would not beat past Obama in a one-on-one election, as such an election would result in a hung vote from a dead House of Representatives"No you havent..... You dont need to kill every last american to make sure the matchup is between 2008 Obama and 2012 Obama, you dont even have to kill all of those who do contend, just the ones who pose a threat to actually winning the presidency.... Extend all arguments
Resolved: 2012 Obama would beat 2008 Obama in a presidential race 1 on 1

Before we begin, I think a few prerequisites need to be established. The most likely scenario for 2008 Obama (who I will refer to as 'past Obama') running against 2012 Obama (who I will call 'present Obama') in an election is if either one of them attains a time machine. The exact time period of the election does not matter as US law is constant, but bue to technological improvements we can assume that present Obama has a more likely chance of attaining a time machine, and such an election would be in 2008 between past Obama and present Obama. Second off, the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that past Obama would beat present Obama in a presidential election; a tie or loss by present Obama would result in a win for my side. The United States allows anyone to run for office.[2] Accordingly, such an election would have to be conducted after every American, with the exception of past Joe Biden and present Joe Biden (who must run for VP under the Constitution), is killed or dies. The easiest way to do this would be to launch our two Obamas and Bidens into space and then nuke the entire world so everyone, including abroad Americans, dies. Once this is done, the election would begin. Since there are only four eligible voters (past and present Obama as well as past and present Biden), the odds are the election would end in a 50-50 tie for the 20 electoral votes from Illinois. Under the Constitution, tied presidential elections go to the House of Representatives, who would determine the president.[2] Unfortunately, the entire House of Representatives is dead, as they were all killed by the nuclear bombs. Accordingly, a President could not be chosen. The 12th Amendment has a solution for this problem; the Vice President, selected by the Senate, would become acting President.[2] Only two members of the senate, past Obama and past Biden, are still alive " the only candidates up for vote would be the top two-finishing candidates for VP.[2] These would be past Biden and present Biden, neither of whom are present Obama.[3] I have proven that present Obama would not beat past Obama in a one-on-one election, as such an election would result in a hung vote from a dead House of Representatives. References: 1: Back to the Future II 2: The Constitution 3: Common knowledge
Resolved: 2012 Obama would beat 2008 Obama in a presidential race 1 on 1

Since it would be a black guy vs a black guy though, then the whole minority vote is thrown wide open, meaning that both Obama's would have to rely more on their campaign promises and policies rather then the fact that they are black and stuff. 2) 2008 Obama was a lot more extreme then 2012 Obama 2008 Obama supported the stimulus, he signed the NDAA, he increased the hell out of drone warfare, and ultimately he bit off a lot more then he could chew by promising he would fix the economy, control the national debt, shut down Guantanamo, and a lot of other things as well that he ultimately failed to deliver on. .. . 2012 Obama though would know exactly what 2008 Obama would never be able to pull off everything he promised, and that what he would do would harm the country. 2012 Obama could point out where 2008 Obama would fail because 2012 Obama experienced it first hand, but 2008 Obama has no idea where 2012 Obama would fail. This gives 2012 Obama a MASSIVE advantage over 2008 Obama, since essentially 2012 Obama knows what will and wont work while 2008 Obama wont. 3) 2012 Obama would have 4 more years of experience in the White House then 2008 Obama One of the biggest problems with running against an incumbent is that the incumbent can campaign on what hes accomplished while in office to use against whoever challenges him. 2008 Obama has had no experience in the White House at all while 2012 Obama has. 2012 Obama has had a lot more experience in handling foreign policy, economic policy, immigration reform, LGBT rights, gun control, etc that 2008 Obama doesnt have, which gives 2012 Obama a pretty massive leg up on 2008 Obama. 4) 2012 Obama has a lot less scandals to deal with then 2008 Obama 2008 Obama had to deal with the complete failure in the 'fast and furious' gun deal that collapsed, and the Libyan Embassy attack that still annoys people to this day. 2012 Obama though hasnt had any scandals to deal with, the only thing of significance that happened under him was failing to handle the sequester, but 2008 Obama also has had trouble reaching budget agreements. 2008 Obama has a lot more scandals that haunt him then 2012 Obama does 5) 2008 Obama won against an easy opponent while 2012 Obama didnt. 2008 Obama basically walked into the White House thanks to a pretty sh*tty campaign from McCain and Palin, while 2012 Obama went toe to toe against a much better opponent in the form of Romney and Ryan. 2012 Obama has better experience campaigning and slinging sh*t at tough opponents then 2008 Obama, who didnt have much of a challenge to become president in 2008. This gives 2012 Obama an edge since hes more experienced in campaigning against tough opponents while 2008 Obama does not Ill end here for now, over to the Con
Resolved: 2012 Obama would beat 2008 Obama in a presidential race 1 on 1

I believe that the Barack Obama who was re-elected president in 2012 would beat the Barack Obama who was elected president in 2008 in a presidential race 1 on 1. Con will argue that the 2008 Obama would beat the 2012 Obama First round is acceptance only. 6000 characters and 4 rounds.
Tax Corporate Pollution

i only post semi hostile when people start it with me. maybe you hadn't meant it, but saying things like implying that i didn't understand basic econ. here is the flaw in what you've been saying: "we should do what makes sense even if it costs us to bring down solution. taxing pollution doesn't bring down solution and only costs us money. oh wait, taxing i guess does bring down pollution (as you said right here) "If company A dodges the tax by raising prices, company B will raise bost by using scrubbers and thereby still have to compensate by raising the price. The hike by A is just more direct. They get taxed $5 and raise accordingly. Instead of being taxed, company B spends $5 on scrubbers and raises accordingly. Competition remains the same, but now the tax induces an inherent $5 cost. The consumer always pays the brunt of corporate tax." so... wait a minute. if i said we should be willing to spend money, and the only reason i was hesitant is because it didn't bring down pollution. but, now i see that it does bring down pollution, then my initial premise was flawed that i'd be against it. now... you may have an argument in something else.. but your initial argument was flawed for all to see. (also the fact you wantto subsidize again shows your willingness to pay from the consumer) and the next argument is smoke and mirrors in avoiding that. aside from perhaps the inefficiencies of gov action in taxes, your initial point has been refuted. you push subsidies. the problem with this is that both cause the consumer to have to pay, even still... which is what you were against to begin with and so this is not the problem. this also spreads the costs on to people through taxes who have nothing to do with the product. this also has the same inefficiencies that a gov would have to do in determining the taxes. all the gov has to do is determine what they'd pay for scrubber and tax accordingly in a proportional way. if the private sector does it, they'd have more incentive to do it better than if the government does as they have a money incentive to do it optimally and without reserve, even innovating new technolgies to avoid the tax. so... even your argument involves taxes on the consumer. you're for regulating the pollution in some way. so you have nothing to be against. the only thing you could be against now, is not what you were aginst in the beginning... ie at now its how we should do it, not whether taxes would work in reducing pollution as it was before.. but i think i've made the case that even your new argument isn't as strong as mine.