BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free Trade

I will begin by attacking my opponents case. First I will begin by stating that one of the sources used by my opponent is fairly biased. EndSlaveryNow was a website used and it is obviously biased too make all their evidence sound like free trade is bad because of child slavery. So that entire contention falls just because of this biased source. Now to their 2nd argument which is that free trade hurts the jobs in america, but according to the US Chamber of Commerce, the increased trade brought about by the agreement has created 5 million jobs in America alone. This evidence shows that free trade is creating jobs unlike my opponent wants you too think. So onto my 1st contention which is that free trade gives us access to lower priced goods. Free trade increases access to higher-quality, lower-priced goods. Cheaper imports, particularly from countries such as China and Mexico, have eased inflationary pressure in the United States.1 Prices are held down by more than 2 percent for every 1 percent share in the market by imports from low-income countries like China. This piece of evidence states that we are getting better goods for lower prices because of free trade. Free Trade is helping the U.S. get these goods for a much lower price then normal because there is no tariffs or taxes on the trade which helps the u.s substantially. Now to my 2nd contention which is that it boosts the economy. After my last pieces of evidence that stated that free trade has created jobs and that it gives the U.S. goods for less; it is obvious that free trade helps our economy significantly. Free trade means more growth. At least half of US imports are not consumer goods; they are inputs for US-based producers, according to economists from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Freeing trade reduces imported-input costs, thus reducing businesses" production costs and promoting economic growth. Businesses' aren't having to pay as much to produce goods because of free trade. Free trade is giving the U.S. a great boost in it's economy because of the reasons I have stated in this contention. Now to my third contention which is that free trade improves efficiency and innovation. Over time, free trade works with other market processes to shift workers and resources to more productive uses, allowing more efficient industries to thrive. The result is higher wages, investment in such things as infrastructure, and a more dynamic economy that continues to create new jobs and opportunities. According to the Washington Post the U.S. has seen an increase of about .96% to American wages. The efficiency and innovation being shown by free trade is substantial. Free trade is something that we must keep so these wages will keep going higher and so efficiency and innovation can continue to be improved. So it is for these reasons that I strongly stand in firm affirmation for free trade. Sources: https://www.mercatus.org...
Free Trade

I am taking the position against free trade. Burden of proof is shared equally. Pro may begin their argument in round 1 if they wish, but I ask that they waive round 4 since I am not using round 1 for debate, in order to keep the rounds used for debate equal. In round 4, if you use round 1 for debate, you should say something like "I am waiving this round as agreed upon". Otherwise, you could use round 1 for acceptance, agreement of definitions, and a brief overview of your position, but no arguments, and then you can use round 4 for debate. It's up to you whether you want to start the debate in round 1 or 2 of course. Free Trade is defined as "international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions." [1] Source: [1] https://www.google.com...
Free Trade

So my opponent has stated that protectionism is the way to go, but protectionism isn't better than free trade. In the long term, trade protectionism weakens the industry. Without competition, companies within the industry won't innovate and improve their products or services. There's no need to. Eventually, consumers will pay more for a lower quality product than they would get from foreign competitors. Job outsourcing is a result of declining U.S. competitiveness, itself a result of decades of the U.S. not investing in education. This is particularly true for high tech, engineering, and science. Increased trade opens new markets for businesses to sell their products. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that ending all trade barriers would increase U.S. income by $500 billion. Increasing U.S. protectionism will further slow economic growth and cause more layoffs, not less. If the United States closes its borders, other countries will do the same. This could cause layoffs among the 12 million U.S. workers who owe their jobs to exports. Our economy will be significantly weakened because of protectionism. People will lose jobs and it will lower competition. Also protectionism can lead to a trade war. Protectionism means that the United States is raising the prices on certain things coming into our country. While we are an incredible source of imported goods, that does not mean that we are the only one. Other countries responsible for exporting goods to the United States may not like it if protectionism stops their goods from being sold in American markets. As a result, they may retaliate and put protectionism legislation in place to increase the cost of their goods. What starts small can quickly escalate into a larger multinational disagreement regarding aspects of international trade. When this happens, business goes down and prices go up. My opponent also stated that protectionism created more jobs, but it most likely won't. An important thing to consider is that protectionism may not actually protect jobs. Simply making the competition more expensive does not necessarily drive local growth. Unless there is a demand in the market, local job growth will not improve. Protectionism is faulty in many ways that I have stated above. Protectionism will hurt our economy more then free trade ever will and without a strong economy we will not have a strong America. Reasons I have won this debate: 1) I have proved that free trade creates jobs and creates booms in our economy making America stronger. 2) His only argument against me for most of the debate was that trading with countries that use underpaid workers is immoral. While it's not right that doesn't mean we can't trade with them. 3) I have also proved that protectionism is faulty and won't help the U.S. much. 4) I have also proved that free trade creates competition which helps the economy. It's for these reasons that I strongly urge a pro ballot in this debate. Thanks to the neg side for an awesome debate!
Someone Should Create a Separate Nation For People of "Alternate Sexualities"

Sure, there'd be some unemployment and housing troubles. However, it'd be quite easy to fit 750,000 people in one city. It'd be less than a third the population of Chicago, and there could be two or three cities. However, I suppose you could exclude the Pedophiles and allow the LGBT community and the natives to coexist. What am I hearing now? Do you want to exclude the pedophiles from the community you made for them? That's rich. Why don't you take all of them and put them in a seperate state. Most likely the US Government. We're already wasting huge amounts of money anyway, so why not waste our money on something worthwile? I don't have to out that's a logical fallacy. If you feel like funding the LGBT state is a waste, then you're arguing on the wrong side. I also somehow doubt the US government would want to give money to the people who forced their citizens out of their homes. Deja vous? If the land is allotted to this new nation, then it's their right to control the oil, not the BP's right. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline system has bought the land for oil drillage, it's their right to control it. They paid for it. That's what exports are for. Or they could adjust to eating local food. With what money will they buy these foreign foods? With oil money they can't get? Pro has described a very unlikely scenario of people with only alternate sexualities to move to one state. He thereby wants to force the natives out of their homes and force them to cooperate. He also dismisses the fact that the new nation will never be funded, and they can't make their own money because the oil is not theirs. This community will never be built on a strong foundation that is family, because no family will exist. The people, all coming from different regions and climates, will have great struggles living in their new home. And if they will all get along, that's just the question. People punishing homosexuals and others for being just that is wrong, and ignorance should be battled. But sending all of them to a seperate country, is not the solution.
Someone Should Create a Separate Nation For People of "Alternate Sexualities"

What are planes for?I was actually aiming at the fact that Alaska is not close to inhabited Russia at all, which you suggested. So Russian homosexuals would have a long trip as well as other countries.The Alaskan citizens could easily be recolated to two or three cities, and the LGBT nation could have all the rest.I see you're trying very hard to sweep this under the carpet, but it's immensly unfair to just relocate all of its citizens, no matter how much there are. You want to force them out of their home, where they're familiar, and dump all of them in two or three cities. This sudden gigantic growth of the cities may cause a temporary unemployment and trouble. And they can't get back to where they live because their town is now inhabited by people who have sex with little kids, animals and dead people. Nice, huh?..but today we have heaters and stuff like that which could prevent this from happening.Don't underestimate one's adjustment to his natural climate. The American biologist Joel Allen researched the anatomic built of people in relation to their environment. He concluded that people in Africa are taller and more slender because they take up more space and therefore lose more bodywarmth, which is ideal in hot climates. At the same time, people in cold climates are generally shorter and wider, preserving bodywarmth. Their bodies are not meant for the exact opposite climate. And yes, while radiation may prevent hypothermia, it will still be very uncomfortable.http://anthro.palomar.edu...There'd be houses, towns, heaters, air conditioners etc. These basics would be provided as donation by several governments.And which governments would those be? Will it be the American government, whose citizens' lives in Alaska you've just destroyed? Or will it be the European government, who will have no participation in this since they accept alternate sexualities? Maybe the Russian government will want to donate? Oh no, I can't imagine they would. The middle east? Would they be willing to donate money to an entire community which they would reject in their own countries?Feeling pedophobic? They're born that way, right?My opinion on the matter is not important, the fact remains that these children will be constantly threatened. And for the record, if pedophobic means I wouldn't want a pedophile in my town near my children, then yes I guess I am. Tolerance only goes so far.Alaska has tons of Oil. The LGBT people would make their living pumping the stuff out of the ground and exporting it.And do you think BP will be happy with the LGBT people stealing a large sum of their profit? The Alaskan oil refinery is managed by the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. This organisation is made up of BP, ConocoPhilips, Exxon Mobil and many more. I'm not an expert on the matter, but I doubt they would be fine with the local community stealing their oil and selling it to other countries.Plus, I'm sure that even in Alaska there's some kidn of crop or edible substance which can be grown.Might be, but no tomatoes, rice, potatoes, bananas and many more foods we take for granted.
Someone Should Create a Separate Nation For People of "Alternate Sexualities"

"Let's start with the location, Alaska. You say it's really close to Russia but is it? Most people in Russia live in the far west. You would have to travel all the way over Siberia to reach it, which is approximately 13 million square kilometers. About half the world." What are planes for? "So you send all of them over there, what about people in Alaska? Will they just get sent away? Or will they just have to accept pedophiles and necrophiles in their community? That sounds very unfair to me." Well, there's very few people in that huge strip of land. The state of Rhode Island has more people than Alaska does, and that's saying a lot! The Alaskan denizens could easily be relocated to two or three cities, and the LGBT nation could have all the rest. "Not to mention that the most alternate people would come from Africa and the Middle East. How will they adjust to the climate? They can get sick and cold, they might even freeze to death. That sounds pretty ironic considering it's the "humane thing to do." They can adjust. Don't forget that Europeans (a peoples from a cold climate) went to Africa (a very hot place). Granted, Africa was called "White Man's Grave" because of this, but today we have heaters and stuff like that which could prevent this from happening. "So let's pretend all the inhabitants are magically fine with it, and let's pretend the extreme cold isn't a problem. Then they'll have to build a society." Dude, I'm not suggesting they start from scratch! There'd be houses, towns, heaters, air conditioners etc. These basics would be provided as donations by several governments. "I imagine that will be very hard considering nobody can start families because there are no straight men and women." Correct, but there will always be new arrivals. "There will be no biological children, and in the very rare case that there are, they will be constantly threatened by pedophiles walking around." What's the matter, feeling Pedophobic? It's just an alternate lifestyle, right? They're born that way, right? "Okay, so let's ignore that problem as well. So they alternate people have built a community and they're tired of eating all the reindeer and crab legs. They want some potatoes and rice. How will they get that? Do they have money? What's their currency? The American dollar? I doubt the evil conservatives would want to fund a state completely made up by alternate sexualities." Ignoring your Conservaphobic remark, Alaska has tons of oil. The LGBT people would make their living pumping the stuff out of the ground and exporting it all around the world. With the money they'd make they could import whatever food they want. Plus, I'm sure that even in Alaska there's some kind of crop or edible substance which can be grown. I'm looking forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
Someone Should Create a Separate Nation For People of "Alternate Sexualities"

I'm going to start off this debate by saying I have no intention of offending any cultural group in the world, I'm just being realistic. Since I'm taking the con side it will be extremely diffictult to defend my point without sounding racist.Let's start with the location, Alaska. You say it's really close to Russia but is it? Most people in Russia live in the far west. You would have to travel all the way over Siberia to reach it, which is approximately 13 million square kilometers. About half the world. So you send all of them over there, what about people in Alaska? Will they just get sent away? Or will they just have to accept pedophiles and necrophiles in their community? That sounds very unfair to me.Not to mention that the most alternate people would come from Africa and the Middle East. How will they adjust to the climate? They can get sick and cold, they might even freeze to death. That sounds pretty ironic considering it's the "humane thing to do".So let's pretend all the inhabitants are magically fine with it, and let's pretend the extreme cold isn't a problem. Then they'll have to build a society. I imagine that will be very hard considering nobody can start families because there are no straight men and women. There will be no biological children, and in the very rare case that there are, they will be constantly threatened by pedophiles walking around.Okay, so let's ignore that problem as well. So they alternate people have built a community and they're tired of eating all the reindeer and crab legs. They want some potatoes and rice. How will they get that? Do they have money? What's their currency? The American dollar? I doubt the evil conservatives would want to fund a state completely made up by alternate sexualities.I'm looking forward to round 3.
Someone Should Create a Separate Nation For People of "Alternate Sexualities"

All right, let's say you live in Uganda and you're caught being gay. You'll probably be imprisoned for life. If you're in Saudi Arabia, well, you get stoned or hung. But why do that when you can just deport them to this new gay country? After all: 1. A single plane ride would be cheaper than life imprisonment 2. It'd be the humane thing to do According to international law, any country that had anti-gay laws would be required to deport their "happy" people to this new nation. And then again, if your country tolerated the presence of gays, this wouldn't affect you. Also, many nations currently have a ban on LGBT behavior, so such a nation would be a safe haven for them to engage in their homosexual behavior. http://76crimes.com... Now, let's discuss the location of this theoretical nation. This can be problematic, considering there are an estimated 9 million LGBT people in the United States alone (not counting sex offenders and male prostitutes). http://en.wikipedia.org... Since the world is a lot bigger than the United States, this country would need to be able to fit a LOT of people. I considered the US State of Vermont being a possible place where the LGBTQPZN people would be allowed to make their own nation out of, but that area is far too small to accommodate the world's LGBTQPZN population. So, I suggested we give the LGBTQPZN people Alaska. There's less than a million people living on that huge strip of land. And since it's so close to Russia, a country that's not exactly gay-friendly, it'd improve relations because the Russians would be happy to have a place to deport all their gays to instead of providing for them in prison indefinitely. My point is that homosexual people, instead of having their heads chopped off in Saudi Arabia, would be deported to live in Alaska. The population of this new nation would not waste away because there'd always be new people from the Middle East and Africa being sent there. In this nation, they'd be able to forge their own destinies. As long as they stayed in Alaska, they'd have complete freedom. Plus, conservatives won't have to deal with gay people any more and gay people won't have to deal with conservatives any more. If this scenario is carried out, everybody wins. They'd be deported from their Middle Eastern homes, but it's better than being beheaded.
Someone Should Create a Separate Nation For People of "Alternate Sexualities"

I will be arguing in this debate that the US (or some other nation) should create a nation that will serve as a safe haven for LGBTQPZN (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Questioning, Pedophile, Zoophile, and Necrophile) people from all over the world. It'd be a nation set aside specifically for these people. Straight or asexual people would be second-class citizens in this nation, in the same way that LGBTQPZN people are in many parts of the world. I will also discuss which part(s) of the world this nation could be established in. Burden of Proof will be shared, first round is for acceptance. Anyone may accept this debate challenge, regardless of your stance on the issue of gay rights. I await a worthy opponent who dares challenge me.
Reflections only exist in our minds.

Let's get going with the last argument!My opponent largely understands my argument, but his own argument is structured such that essentially nothing is real.For example, he states that "it is up to conscious mind to recognize the fact that there is a mirror there", which leaves us with the dangerous implication that a conscious mind is necessary for anything to be there at all. Again, we'll picture a soccer ball on some distant, lonely planet. According to my opponent, since there isn't a mind there to see and interpret the photons generated by the soccer ball, the soccer ball doesn't have existence. This reminds me of the over-quoted philosophical question: "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?" From a phyics standpoint, we know it will make a sound, as the force of the tree hitting the ground creates sound waves. Similarly, my opponent is asking "If a tree is refelcted in a mirror and no one is around to see it, does the tree have a reflection."Based upon the logic with the tree in the woods, by invoking physics and understanding the nature of reflective surfaces, we can be sure that the reflection of the tree will exist. My opponent is right in his claim that, in a mirror, the reflected object is not the same as the reflection. (His words: "...our subconscious mind creates the image of the ball... There is no real object where we see it." And this is mostly true, as I previously pointed out. When a soccer ball is reflected in a mirror, there is no real soccerball where we see it. However, there is without a doubt a reflection occuring in the mirror, regardless of whether we're there to see it or not. ConclusionThe opponent makes the mistake in assuming that one must see something for it to have objective reality. I have shown that reflections are composed of real, meaningful parts and that a reflection is the result of a physical process. There does not need to exist a mind in order for a reflection to exist, just as there does not be a mind in order for an apple to fall from a tree. Physics happens with or without us around.
Reflections only exist in our minds.

My opponent is absolutely correct in stating that photon exist and that reflection is a physical process, but seeing something is also a process. A process that starts in the real world and finishes in the mind. Like color starts out as light waves of different frequencies but ends with our minds creating colors in our heads. Without the eyes and brain, colors do not exist. The problem is that the imaging function of our brain is subconscious. It creates an image based on the photons striking our retina and can't differentiate between real or illusion. It's up to our conscious mind to recognize the fact that there is a mirror there. There are 3 types of light waves that hit our retina. Direct, reflected and phantom light. Direct light is light from a light source such as the sun, a flame, a globe, etc. Reflected light is direct light reflected of an object such as the moon, an apple, a tree, etc. Phantom light is light which appears to come from a location, but has actually been reflected by a mirror, water or glass. That is why our subconscious mind creates the image of a ball where there is no ball. Direct light and reflected light come from objects that exist where we percieve them to be, but phantom light is just an illusion. There is no real object where we see it. Photons reflecting off a mirror or glacier do not make a reflection. Photons need eyes and a mind to create a picture. What we see is the reflection. If nobody sees it, a reflection doesn't exist.
Reflections only exist in our minds.

Thanks for accepting. Unlike most people believe, we do not actually see reality with our eyes. The eyes are mere light wave receptors which send electrical impulses to our brains. Our brains convert these electrical impulses into a visual representation of our surroundings. This is what we actually see. Now although there are objects that exist in reality, reflections are an optical illusion. We see something where nothing exists. Reflections do not occupy physical space and can not be perceived with any of our other sense organs. The image we see exists only in our mind.