BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
US Dollar is not only just a paper - All values given to it are imaginations that are failing

As mentioned in the first statement by my opponent "We all know that money has no intrinsic value..." while this does fit with the standard definition of intrinsic value, that is: the underlying value of a particular asset", this statement does not take into account the financial definition. "The actual value of a company or an asset based on an underlying perception of its true value including all aspects of the business (nation), in terms of both tangible and intangible factors." Now under this premise we can see that money does indeed have an intrinsic value and carries a higher significance than simply paper. It is, however, true that all value given to money is perceived or implied, a point mentioned by my opponent. Money is and will only hold value in a structured society, a point I will touch on later. The 2008 credit crisis in itself was an immensely broad series of conflicts, brought on by poor monetary policy in the form of systematic financial deregulation. But in such nations as Canada, their economy has remained generally unscathed as they have refused to lessen their level regulations on their financial industry, highlighting the efficiency of $ when managed responsibly. Perhaps a global adoption of Canadian financial policies would solve any future crises? To touch on my point of money within society, Economists would agree that principally $ fulfills three requirements: 1) A medium of exchange: A universal method to purchase and sell goods, the absence of $ would create a barter system in which we would need tangible goods that satisfy the demand of the individual owning the product we wish to purchase. 2) A store of value: Despite recent occurrences $ has and will remain a highly valuable, highly liquid commodity. An individual can own a valuable work of art, worth millions, yet he can only receive an amount a buyer is willing to pay. 3) A unit of account: This feature is fairly self explanatory, CAD$20 is worth the same amount all over Canada. Globally the purchasing power parity does differ, highlighting another example of the complexity of this system. Though few will argue that Western monetary policy within the last 30 years has generally failed, it is certainly not an indication to abandon $. Our world has been built around this item, the conversion to some other asset would subject nations to extreme volatility. This is why I challenge my opponent to propose a solution to this perceived problem, it is not a simple challenge and is almost assuredly impossible. Yet to criticize without being guilty of hypocrisy one must conceptualize an alternative.
US Dollar is not only just a paper - All values given to it are imaginations that are failing

Thanks to Con to have accepted and placed his arguments. I appreciate his valuable argts about economic value & the way we are implying,speculating & hedging currency and making one currency compete with another in open market to determine the forex value,etc. By all this he accepted the first part of the resolution we are debating:1) US Dollar is just a paper 2) All values given to it are imaginations adjusted by various activities he mentioned.The above 2 are taught to economic students for many years.Just because we accepted some theories and are doing according to the theories for generations doesnt mean it is the correct way.The emphasis of the debate is on "These implied imaginations (accepted theories in operation for long and we tried to do permutations and combinations within the scope of the accepted theory to perfect and move forward) failed to go into established fully accepted state yet but are instead failing" considering the points I mentioned and hundreds more points come to my mind but for brevity we stick with them for now.The world tried to resolve the problems as mentioned by CON of protecting one another, protecting assets, globalization of trade and commodites and many more by creating Currencies and debt instrucments etc. thinking these will resolve the problems.We all know in logic, the statement "All crows are Black" will be defeated the moment one sees another coloured crow. $ is taught to us as a " medium of exchange; unit of account; store of value; and a std of defr payment. "This is the black statement"In recession so many colured crows we saw, and no black crows at all:Currency not only failed to protect assets or atleast asset value but in Countries it cant protect itself as store of value as we are seeing.Also the function of the dollar that of trade or medium of exchange also is failing in recession as the tangible properties are not being cashed up for years.Cons mentioned that $ was created as a unit of measurement to protect our houses from thieves. Mortgagee auctions and other property grabs have just replaced thieves & are creating an easy means to take away assets. So $ has not only failed to protect but it revolted and went to hands of self-interests.So a useless paper is used to make people's beloved homes useless in the name of failed economic theory fundamentals. Con's initiation to credit valued asset evolution debate itself an evidence that tangible but useless $'s imagined value is failing its purpose.Also custodians of $ , the Banks " conceivably themselves become promoters & encourage others in unwise schemes by promises of assistance does not justify us in assigning to bank currency the causal influence which really belongs to the employment of the productive energies of a country in useless or unwisely planned enterprises." Ref: http://goo.gl... and wars.So $ is now controlled by inept self-interested guards- We just leave $ to them being scraps and switch to something else.
US Dollar is not only just a paper - All values given to it are imaginations that are failing

I feel my opponent has entered into the philosophical notion of paper currency, as opposed to, global economic value of the $. This value is implied, speculated, hedged, and analyzed both fundamentally and technically. It was created as a means to protect one another, centuries past we would pay royal guards to protect our land and home from thieves. It then began to evolve into a unit that could be measured according to the resources of the owner (nation), and emerged along with globalization as a means of trade. Do foreign currency markets expose and leave smaller countries vulnerable to market inefficiencies? Absolutely, yet foreign trade is only possible because of the implied value of money. But the condition on which it is useful is strictly within a structured society, if anarchy or zombies were to assume control the value of money would cease to exist. It would be nothing more than paper, however, coin carries value and always will. Older coins increase in value despite currency value, that is the value of four 1952 Canadian quarters will not move simultaneously with the current value of the CAD$. The only feasible alternative to paper currency is credit, this is a more divisive area, is the global reliance on credit ultimately positive? A greater debate would be the evolution towards a dependancy on credit valued assets (MBS, CDS) opposed to liquid, tangible assets and it's overall effect on the globe.
US Dollar is not only just a paper - All values given to it are imaginations that are failing

We all know that S$ has no intrinsic value. It is just a paper.But what is in question is whether it has any real value or are we imagining that it has value even when the perceptible value also started to lose its usefulness to quantification.As long as we dont quantify everything on earth into $ value, then this value the dollar has got is only perceived or imagined value that too relative value to each one's perception - and that too is falling when1) Recession type of situation where the House values which were considered as asset plummet -but we imagine the $ value works in the same way before2)When I cant put $ value for the friend's help when nobody else was willing to help me at that time.when I was drowning in the deep sea any amount of $ would not save me; but still we work towards getting more $ 3)When I cant put a $ value to mother's unflinching love even after chidren's insults to her, how can I say dollar is the means to things.4) When the billions of dollars that Banks and Federal put in to create employment fails massively for long periods.5)When Trillion of dollars spent on Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -still the problems are not solved - i hate to give any value on the dollars spent.6)When we are prepared to spend any $ to avert a Sandy, it anyway comes without our control then I dont want to value the $ we have with any respect.7)When Billion$ each fails to give us any clarity on the next President's action plan on presidential campaigns I cant value the Billion dolaras as Billion dollars.Those are just wasted papers.8)When my relative is prepared to spend any $ amount to save his ailing father - but Doctors said they could do nothing more and he is slowly dieing - Why do we put the dollars into any value at all in this case?9)I want to know what will happen after death - answers are all confusing and contradictory - Which $ will give me all-accepted answer-pl I can give a value to that.10)What denomination of $ will prevent me from ageing please tell me I will certainly consider a value in multiples for that.Therefore I dont want to value the $ any more than useless scrap of paper - but which can be used for some (not all as we discussed before) transactional purposes until an alternative is found out.If $ has past-current-future value please tell me how many people who got large wealth have their total investments sitting in the form of $ in their accounts.I invite some one take up the Con act so that atleast we create a $ less debate to prove that $ doesnt have a value in debate.org- but thats beneficial to the Society.
Philosophical Debate (Look at round 1 argument)

It is perfectly legal inmost states to keep a handgun, for an adult, in the seat cabinet of their car. The stated CNN case, where the teacher who chased the killer with his handgun was not even fired nor was he punished in any form whatsoever as everything he did was legal. He was to his car and got he gun from the driver's cabinet (where it is legal to keep a handgun for safety) and then chased the student away with it, in no way killing them or even harming them. The situation posted in round one is different entirely.The notion that the student who used an illegal weapon to kill the shooter didn't murder him could be valid if we see that killing in direct defence is not illegal. Nonetheless, the student, unlike police officers, had no special training on aiming long distance and easily could have missed the killer and murdered a student or teacher while doing so. Additionally the weapon he had in his car (I wonder why a student had a ca unless he was an adult) was an illegal one to possess nation-wide and in and of itself deserved expulsion from the school. Absolutely nothing he did was warranted or valid. He should have warned the killer that he had a gun and told him to drop the gun and run or something similar before shooting. Either way the possession of a rifle in USA is illegal in almost all states (I think all but am not sure)."If somebody was in a school that you intend[attend], or a school where your child were to attend, would you rather have the shooter killed by a student before they could kill you or your child, or would you rather they have several minutes of uninterrupted shooting where they could claim dozens of victims, possibly including yourself or your child?"I don't think you realise that the error here is with the killer. Whatever happens may happen and whatever expulsions must occur as a result will occur. This, unfortunately has to happen for the upholding of laws. I would indeed appreciate the illegal murder of this insane killer but would not legally, in any way, condone the murder in and of itself.
Philosophical Debate (Look at round 1 argument)

I apologize for not specifying the weapon used, that was my fault completely. But that does not change the fact that the person who went into the school had the intent of killing as many people as he could. While I understand that it is preferable to detain the subject, that does not change the fact that sometimes it is, unfortunately, necessary to kill them.Secondly, your argument about the handgun being a more "valid" weapon is completely false. A "No Gun Zone," means no guns! Handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. are all punishable. Whether that is the expulsion of a student or the termination of an adult employee, it doesn't matter. Mr. Myrick was, technically, breaking the law by bringing a handgun to a school. So according to your logic, it is perfectly feasible that an adult can break the law by bringing a firearm to school.Thirdly, it is not "murder" if the person who was killed had the intent of killing others. If the police had arrived and shot the student to death, would that have been murder? And the student who had the rifle was obviously not going to use it for mass murder, as he not only shot the perpetrator, but then obviously cooperated with law enforcement and school officials.My leaving thought is this; if somebody was in a school that you intend, or a school where your child were to attend, would you rather have the shooter killed by a student before they could kill you or your child, or would you rather they have several minutes of uninterrupted shooting where they could claim dozens of victims, possibly including yourself or your child?
Philosophical Debate (Look at round 1 argument)

In your round one you never, ever specified that the gun being used by the original murderer was a rifle. Nonetheless, two wrongs don't make a right and this statement is entirely false.The example you stated had a student, who shouldn't have any weapon on grounds, possessing a rifle, which is illegal even for adults, and murdering another human being. The CNN case you gave had a full grown adult using a valid handgun kept in their car for defence purposes not at all killing the perpetrator but instead chasing him with the gun until he tried to flee with the car (then an army officer who worked for the police had arrived in time to detain the boy).the boy was never killed and the weapons used was a handgun and it was used by a legal adult. It is entirely separate to the case of murder you offered and shouldn't be used as a comparison.
Philosophical Debate (Look at round 1 argument)

But a man with a rifle who had the intent to kill several people was killed before the police even reached the school, thereby neutralizing the danger that could have resulted in several people killed. This is kind of like the Pearl River Mississippi shooting. Pearl River was a case in which a 16 year old Luke Woodham bludgeoned his mother to death, then went to school armed with a rifle. He went into the school and shot two students to death, and then went to his car to try and flee the scene before the police arrived. But then what happened was, before he could flee, assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a Colt .45 from his vehicle and was able to attain Woodham until police arrived. While I understand that it was a student in this case, and the weapon the student was using was NOT a Colt .45, it is still similar that somebody broke the rules and brought a firearm into a "no gun zone" to use it for good, and when somebody tried to bring a gun into a "no gun zone" for evil, the good guy was able to take out the evildoer before anybody was seriously hurt. The point is that even though the student broke the rules and brought a gun onto school grounds, he was able to detain a situation that could have ended tragically as students and teachers would be forced to wait for a police force that could very well be minutes away. Sources: http://ireport.cnn.com...
Philosophical Debate (Look at round 1 argument)

Here's a situation: A person goes into a school with the intent to shoot as many people as possible. But before he can get more then a few shots off, a student who had a rifle in their car in the school's parking lot takes out the shooter. Other then the shooter, nobody was seriously hurt. Although the student possibly saved countless lives, he got expelled. Did he deserve to get expelled? I am arguing that he should not have, while my opponent will be arguing for the affirmative.
Philosophical Debate (Look at round 1 argument)

My opponent said that I should have spelt 'defence' as 'defense'. All I have to say is this: . http://oxforddictionaries.com... Definition of defence noun 1 [mass noun] the action of defending from or resisting attack:methods of defence against this kind of attackshe came to the defence of the eccentric professorhe spoke in defence of a disciplined approach [count noun] an instance of defending a title or seat in a contest or election:his first title defence against Jones military measures or resources for protecting a country:the minister of defence[as modifier]:defence policy a means of protecting something from attack:wire netting is the best defence against rabbits (defences) fortifications or barriers against attack:coastal defences 2the case presented by or on behalf of the party accused of a crime or being sued in a civil lawsuit:the farmer’s defence was that he intended only to wound the thief (the defence) [treated as singular or plural] the counsel for the defendant in a lawsuit:the defence requested more time to prepare their case 3(in sport) the action or role of defending one’s goal or wicket against the opposition:Wolves were pressed back into defence (the defence) the players in a team who defend the goal:despite heavy pressure the defence was coping wellFord returns to United’s defence[count noun]:dribbling through defences So yeah :)Aside from that, the issue of an adult having a handgun on school property is irrelevant to the debate propose din round one and shall as such be discarded from debate. It is illegal for a student to use a rifle to murder another person since they are neither trained to kill with a gun nor legally allowed to possess a rifle. I have clearly won.
Philosophical Debate (Look at round 1 argument)

Your arguments are somewhat valid, but in my opinion, you are still wrong.Firstly, the reason a student might have a car would be because he's in high school (again, my fault for not specifying).Secondly, you said that "the notion that the student who used an illegal weapon to kill the shooter didn't murder him could be valid if we see that killing in direct defence [defense] is not illegal." While that is true, your definition of murder is completely off. Murder is "The crime of unlawfully killing another person, especially with malice aforethought." This term more closely fits the antagonist in the scenario, whereas by calling the student who defused the situation (albeit through the death of the antagonist), using this word in this manner, you are misconstruing the evidence in a manner that suits you. The more appropriate term might be "guardian." Guardian, "one who has the care of the person/property." While this term may only be loosely affiliated with the student in question, it can still be an affiliation as the student did protect the school's students and property.Thirdly, "It is perfectly legal inmost [in most] states to keep a handgun, for and adult, in the seat cabinet of their car." That is true, when it is off of school property. However, he was on school property and therefore, was in violation of the law. Once again, a "no gun zone" means a "no gun zone."Lastly, your final comment about the "illegal murder of this insane killer." If this person is about to go on a killing spree which is illegal, then it is legal to kill them before any substantial damage can be done to persons or property.I would like to thank Consummator for accepting this debate, and I respect your opinions fully. Good luck in voting.
banning smoking

I'm against banning smoking in public areas for the very name: Public Space. I do not have much to say for an opening, since really I am in a bit of a rush and was not expecting this. However, I will say this, if you think smoking should be banned in these three types of areas solely on the basis of second hand smoke and it being bad, than you should completely ban it on the basis of second hand being literally everywhere, no matter where you go. Smoking being reduced to your private home will not be good and removes freedom so you can overly protect those who can not protect their own kids out of sheer ignorance. People have every right to smoke on public property, since they also pay tax dollars, and the people who own private land that is of public accommodations, have a right to say who can and can't smoke. That is if you can or not on the land. If you have an issue with that, do your research before hand and do not go to places where people might smoke. Look where you walk. At that point you you have to see that smoke travels, just like the smog in San Fransisco that is actually from China. Meaning no matter where you are, the chemicals will travel or have the chance too. Drinking in your house also opens doors for you to walk out, get in a car, and drive that can kill someone. Should we ban drinking too? Prevent home drinking? Maybe cars are next as their fumes are also bad. One study showed that with 3 cigarette in a closed room was a car exhaust, the cigarette produced, i n30 minutes like the car, 10x the amount the car. Not you will face more fumes with mutliple cars in one day than 3 cigarette by each other like that closed test. One means that a single cigarette produces 3.333% more than the car. But you face more than 10 to 1 with a car to a cigarette in a single day, equaling it out and than besting that number. (1) (2) So when you are in a closed garage, one smoker and one car, each by themselves for thirty minutes. The cigarette will do 3.333% more than the car. So it's like having basically 3.5 cars in to equal one cigarette. But you face far more in one day. So, by this logic, lets ban car use because they are so clearly worse. Should we outright remove anything and everything that can possibly harm our kids? No, that is nonsensical. I should also add I am playing Devils Ad, I have no real positioning this at the moment in time. Not even sure where pro got the notion I was against it. I'm against banning smoking in general, not public. Just like I am for legalizing all drugs, I do not think you should be snorting meth next too kid in the supermarket. That is all. I really have nothing to go by till pro post something. Cited Work: 1) http://www.healthline.com... 2) http://rhinofitnesslivehealthy.blogspot.com...
banning smoking

They are not banning smoking for good, just in public places. If there is a kid in a public place where someone is smoking they are going to get smoke in their lungs from the air. Second hand smoke contains more than 4,000 substances, including 200 known poisons and 43 cancer-causing agents. Who would want their kid to get sick from all of the chemicals when the kid is not the one smoking. My parents smoke and I make them go outside or in the garage they are not allowed to smoke in the car because the smoke will get in the seats and it makes it stink. Cigarettes are a ticking time bomb. Over 400,000 people die every year from smoking. I have lost family to smoking. It is stupid and pointless. But if smoking is banned in public places, workplaces, and restaurants then kids wont be harmed when they are out with their family. Families do not want to go out and later find out their kid is sick from second hand smoke. Say it is your kid, would you be mad if you found out they were sick from someone else's choice? I would be pretty dang ticked. Smoking is not banned forever. it never could because the businesses are huge and they would go out of business. Why are you so against it?