BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should ship all strong Liberals to Sweden.

I would contest that the U. S. Government would have to give each left-wing dissident quite a lot of money as Fairtrade herbal tea, organically-grown lentils and carbon-neutral, sustainable-sourced, ethically-aware, dolphin-friendly, line-caught tuna are all very expensive in Sweden. In fact, they would have to financially underwrite each bearded sandal-wearer until they had learnt enough Swedish to get jobs as special-needs teachers, paediatric social workers or gay and lesbian workshop facilitators, and, given that the average salary in Nordic countries is EUR84,800 (US$129,720)* and that you would realistically need to subsidise them for an average of a year, US$2million would only allow you to deport 15 liberals, which would not make a significant difference in the number of tax and spend legislators. * . http://www.macdonaldandcompany.com...
We should ship all strong Liberals to Sweden.

Sweden is a strong liberal state. I think that America should give all Liberals a free flight to Sweden, along with a little money for an apartment and food. Liberals make us raise taxes tremendously and spend tons of money. The investment would be well worth it. The couple million it would take to send all the Liberals to Sweden would pale in comparison to a year of the Liberals in Congress. This would significantly lower taxes because Conservatives and Libertarians would keep them low and this would significantly lower spending for the same reason. Besides they would be happier in a liberal state with liberal laws and regulations. And this would be a choice so nobody would be forced. Imagine saying to the next Liberal that wants to raise your taxes, "I'd be happy to have my tax dollars pay for you to go on a flight to Sweden!"
We should ship all strong Liberals to Sweden.

Nice to see you back. While you were away I did the quiz on the Libertarian website (lp. org) which I seem to recall you recommended somewhere. What a nightmare! I always considered myself to be left wing but it appears that I am, in fact, a centrist with distinct Libertarian leanings! Since I trust the Libertarians to pose the questions in an unbiased manner, I'm now going to have to cancel my membership of the Labour Party! Okay, back to the debate. We both agree that introducing free health care would mean a hike in taxes, but that's not a bad thing if it means everyone in society receives decent treatment, regardless of their ability to pay. Personally, I have a sense of noblesse oblige and am therefore happy to pay higher taxes in the knowledge that they may benefit someone less fortunate than myself. Also, public health services can work if enough money is pumped in – in Britain there are few waiting lists and if a public hospital doesn't have space, a patient can go to a private hospital, home or abroad, and the NHS will pick up the bill. Anyway, this debate was supposed to be about shipping lefties over to Sweden. This would only be fair if the same amount of right-wingers were shipped to somewhere with few or no social provisions, where it's dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest and let the devil take the hindmost, like Zimbabwe.
We should ship all strong Liberals to Sweden.

Sorry. Internet down for couple of daysbut I'm back. - I would contest that the U. S. Government would have to give each left-wing dissident quite a lot of money as Fairtrade herbal tea, organically-grown lentils and carbon-neutral, sustainable-sourced, ethically-aware, dolphin-friendly, line-caught tuna are all very expensive in Sweden. + Sweden is socialistic democratic. Their welfare system will take good care of those Liberals. And they could eat on a budget. The health care taxes will be incredible like in Britain or Sweden. The taxes they impose on us when they have control of the house, senate, and white house, will cost us huge! Shipping them to Sweden will be a one time cost, not annually like taxes, and we'll save a huge amount of money. And the Liberals will be happy in their own country. - They might start by introducing a national health service, free at the point of use. Yes, this would mean higher taxes, but you would no longer need to pay for private health insurance. + Free health insurance causes many problems. In Sweden, they have free health insurance. There is less money to be made in the medical profession there, so there are less doctors, which makes longer waiting lists. Those waiting can often go up to six months. 6 months of excruciating pain and ultimately, potentially, death. They have less resources and people die while waiting for heralth care. This is why people in the states go to Canada go there to buy drugs cheaper but if Canadians need surgery and fast they sneak over to the good ol' USA for quick surgery because waiting lists on free health care are incredible and you will likely die on that waiting list. A good alternative is tax breaks. If we give a tax break to pay for health care, there will remain competition. There will be a lot of resources and taxes wont grow. Taxes are way higher in Sweden, something those Liberals wouldn't mind. Look at our private schools, they perform better than public by far, If we have public health care it will deteriorate further. Private schools have to compete so they do better. If our health care systems have to compete, they will do better and retain doctors and resources. If they have no incentive to compete, they will buy bad equipment, do bad service and pay little like in Sweden or Canada. A tax break for health care allows competition and a great health care system for free. The poor will have their care paid for because they dont pay very many taxes. Why not use this LIBERTARIAN plan? Thank you.
Religion is BAD!!!

Firstly, I want to clarify that I am not arguing that religion is only good, just that it's not all horrible. There are lots of lovely aspects of religion, such as love for all and kindness and the belief to reserve judgement. However, I am willing to agree that fundamentalist religion is wrong, that people who take the Bible/Qu'ran literally are bound to be dangerous, it's a two thousand year old book. It cannot be said religion is without fault. Christianity preaches love and then discriminates against gays, Muslim say each person is equal and then brutally assault women. However, this is not in ALL cases, only extremists. And while you may have the argument that even that proves religion is bad, perhaps the fault is not in the religion, but in the people who have the religion. Perhaps people shouldn't have religion because they themselves are bad. That being said, religion has done many wonderful things. Believers have given us wonderful artwork in the past (The Taking of Christ by Carravagio, David by Michelangelo), it has maybe made people think about their actions a bit more, even if for impure reasons, and it has contributed many charities and organisations to help people in need. But even think about the small things, it helps a lot of people sleep at night, it assures them of justice, and it makes death slightly less scary for those who are afraid. And maybe religion is bad for other things, but it was supposed to be good. It's the people that have screwed it up.
Racism isn't a bad thing in itself

I believe I clearly specified the difference in racism and bigotry. You, simply redefined bigotry. I don't see anything hateful or wrong with acknowledging a person's skin color for example. To do otherwise would be dishonest. I can't honestly say that I can't tell what part of the world a person might be from by the color of their skin, no more than I can pretend to not have a good idea what part of the country a person is from by the accent they speak with. If I were asked who my English teacher is, but didn't know his name and he was the only black teacher, it would be racist of me to say,"the black guy." But I don't believe that is bigotry at all. I would be referring to his race in order for you to understand who I'm talking about with no malicious intent. I don't see anything wrong with that. But if I was to say it in a manner of discontent or disapproval because of his race, such as,"I got the dang black one," that would be bigotry. See the difference?
Racism isn't a bad thing in itself

Let's begin by defining racism. I would define racism as simply recognition that the human race is divided into different sub-races which share common characteristics among each group. The most obvious being skin color. Where is the evil in that point of view? By believing this to be true. I outwardly admit I'm a racist. Now we can move on to bigotry. Simple definition...I will completely concede to Wiki's definition on this one. A bigot is someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status. I am not a bigot. I believe there is a huge difference in the meaning of these two words. I also believe it is an injustice to delude the two.
Having bad table manners makes you a less liked person.

"A man's manners are a mirror in which he shows his portrait." ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe I apologize to my opponent, judge, and any who read this debate, but since the topic at hand is such a minor debate, I only contest one point. As my quote before mentions that a man's manners are how they themselves are viewed; thus that is my focus in this debate. Now before I move on, even though I hope this won't be a problem in this debate, I would like to just clarify a few things. As the topic is dealing with actions specifically taking place at the dining table, we are not talking about people that do not dine with the person in question. Also, to avoid the "extremes" argument, I would just like to set the grounds that we are neither talking about a single instance nor every instance. Since the topic at hand is vague, we should be looking at an average example. The people we are talking about should not have taken classes on etiquette nor have been raised by animals, but lived a normal life. The reason I would like to set this standard is to provide for the best possible debate, and I hope that you agree Mr. Cumbee. Moving on, if the person does not have good table manners (just a few examples being burping, blowing bubbles in drinks, sloppy/childish demeanor, devouring food like a pig, talking with a mouth full of food, etc.), than the other dining across from them will be disgusted. We live in a civilized society and the majority of people have been grown up with at least some form of manners. There are some exceptions to this, but for the most part, if you walked by a table when a person is doing this, you will most likely have a bad impression of them; and in some circumstances, a person's dining experience may be a first impression, take for example, a date. If you are sitting across from someone and their table manners are sub par, they will be less liked and less attractive, even if they have an amazing personality. "First impressions are often the truest." ~William Hazlitt The first impression is meant to set the basis for a person's relationship with another. That is a person's basis on how the other may act in the future, and if they wish to continue hanging out with them. Without a good first impression, oftentimes you cannot reverse it, and furthermore, if you are able to reverse it, you can never reach as high of a level as you could with a good first impression. Some people may even give a second chance, but if bad manners are to continue, you will be seen as a lesser person in the eyes of those who dine next to you, no matter what. Whether it is a first or a last impression, the majority of relationships (not necessarily just romantic, this includes friendships) will have dining experiences sooner or later. Thus, having bad table manners does in fact make you a less liked person. I will patiently await your response, and good luck in the tournament Luke. PS - I still think that you were brown-nosing me on Facebook, lol.
Innovation and automation is worth the reduction of jobs

I would like to point out that while it is true that advancement of technology has begun replacing jobs, it cannot be said that the number of jobs is decreasing. From The Straits Times 24 June 2017 A40: "Philip Auerswald in his book 'The Coming Prosperity' mentioned that, whenever machine and tools substituted one type of human capability, new human experiences and capabilities actually emerged." However, this claim is another debate on its own. I disagree that innovation and automation are worth the reduction of jobs. "However, automation increases the standards of living and is overall beneficial for the majority." I believe that the opposition would agree with me that at least 30% of the world's workers are doing menial and mundane jobs that can be replaced with technology (Assumption). Replacing these workers' jobs with automation would means that these people will be jobless. Furthermore, since most jobs will be automated, it increases the difficulty of finding a job. With the rising costs of living around the world, people need jobs to survive and to take care of their families. No doubt automation increases the standards of living, but overall beneficial for the majority is questionable.
Building a wall (economic aspect)

Allow me to preface this saying I am not a Trump supporter but more of a person with a strong dislike for Hillary, and I usually support the democratic candidates. This debate will be strictly about the economic aspect of the wall, as the title suggests. This means we can disregard the environment protection argument. If we take the estimates from various sources we get the cost of the wall to be somewhere between $12-50 billion dollars. This is completely doable. This could actually just be taken from the military's budget. About $156 billion dollars is spent maintaining overseas military bases. This sounds very important right? Yes and no. If we had a modest amount of them then it would be important and we should touch that budget, but: "We have 174 bases and military sites in Germany alone. We also have 113 in Japan and 83 in South Korea. We even have one in Aruba, yes Aruba." We simply have too many that are unneeded. Plus, these excessive bases may turn out to hurt America's interests, but that's not pertinent to the debate. We can easily cut a third of this part of the military budget. Overall $50 billion, the most expensive estimate, is only 8.3% of the annual military budget. http://www.cnbc.com... Building the wall would have no effect on the economy in that sense but it won't affect travel between either. The ports will still be there, unaffected by the wall. We will not "screw ourselves" by defending our nation, that is ludicrous. Mexico's only beef with this is paying for it, which is reasonable.
Building a wall (economic aspect)

Building Wall (Economic) The border between Mexico and the United States was the protagonist of the electoral campaign of the now president, Donald Trump. This is one of the most guarded borders, perhaps the most watched in the world and yet hundreds of thousands of people continue to try to cross it every year. People coming to this country need to come under certain regulations and laws because illegal immigration is very destabilizing for this country, so we believe that on the one hand, the wall would limit the flow of people who illegally enter. However, if we only construct a wall, this will not succeed, there must be other complementary measures to achieve success. On the other hand, building a wall would be too expensive, and inefficient. This will not stop people; they will keep coming and think of the wall as a challenge. A raise of taxes will be needed and this is against everything he has said. This will be a huge cost of money and blow our ties with Mexico and screw ourselves. We feel that a wall would be too costly, ineffective, unpractical, and history has shown that walls don't work. The wall will help to reduce the statistics of drug trafficking and illegal people, but the wall will not completely end that problems. Then it is here that we will realize that all the money invested was thrown away. Even if the wall would help reduce immigrant deaths, create jobs, and "would not be paid" by the United States, it is not the best option. The potential for environmental damage is one more reason President Trump should not proceed with his planned wall. Our environment is too precious to destroy it by building a huge wall in an unnecessary location. Along with the social and political problems, this should be a message to Trump to stop, the environment is also at stake.
It's rational to believe in religion and/or God or just have faith

I'll allow (influential empiricist) David Hume to provide support for the existence of religions:http://oll.libertyfund.org...I think I may not have been clear enough for my opponent regarding the amount of evidence of extraterrestrials and deities; as with god (as I'd mentioned) there is precisely none. It is impossible for me (or anyone) to provide support for the idea that all religions, faiths and gods are collectively a rational belief, because it is, in itself an unreasonable proposition. It is equivalent to "all scientific hypothesis are true". My opponent has made very little attempt to specify or undermine the rationalism in any religion, faith or god hypothesis despite repeated encouragement from his challenger. I had hoped that Con would test any ability I have as a devil's advocate, unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to advocate as I would have liked. I attempted to lead my opponent to challenge me to justify a particular belief (virgin birth, omnipotent god, resurrection etc) however he chose not to do so.
It's rational to believe in religion and/or God or just have faith

Good responses so far. I am talking about all the religions, gods and faiths. At least he major ones: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism. As for this you wrote: "There certainly is empirical evidence for the existence of religions and strong and numerous testaments to faith. There is of course no empirical evidence for the existence of a god, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is precisely the same amount of empirical evidence for an intelligent creator as there is for intelligent extraterrestrials, this does nothing to condemn the belief that either exist." Show those empirical evidences for religions and faiths. Show the evidence for an intelligent creator and extra-terrestrials.
It's rational to believe in religion and/or God or just have faith

I appreciate you trying to add some body to your proposition, however I am still guessing as to which god, religion or faith you are referring to. I assumed in accepting this debate and the regulations you proposed for it that you would either have a strong position against gods, religions and faiths of all types or that you had a convincing (non-philosophical, of course!) argument against the possibility of a creator. I was curious as to how you might achieve this, given the extent of the subject. - there is no empirical evidence for such thingsThere certainly is empirical evidence for the existence of religions and strong and numerous testaments to faith. There is of course no empirical evidence for the existence of a god, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is precisely the same amount of empirical evidence for an intelligent creator as there is for intelligent extraterrestrials, this does nothing to condemn the belief that either exist. - many if such phenomena were either debunked or are just anecdotal in natureIf a particular phenomena is scientifically 'debunked' or does not adhere to the laws of logic and reason, then yes, it would be fair to put this particular belief, regarding this singular subject into the category of 'irrational' belief. However, you have not described such phenomena, and 'god, religions and faiths' do not rest upon the validity of a singular claim of 'phenomena'. - some people believe in these things for comforttI believe I responded to this without rebuttal in round 2. - people create such beliefs about what things are unknown to themThis seems to be a true statement, about all humans in all circumstances. Again, I discussed this in round 2 and have not yet been challenged on this discussion. - religion indoctrinated people and perhaps brainwashes themA belief can only be considered irrational or unreasonable if it fails critically to exist within the boundaries of reason and rationalism, a person who has been indoctrinated has, by definition, not had this implanted belief held to any reasonable or rational account. This does not make the belief irrational or unreasonable, it makes it pre-rational and pre-reasoned. The fact that some religions (the most successful ones, you'll note!) can/have/do indoctrinate, does not make their belief any more or less valid. (unless their belief is that it is impossible to indoctrinate, I suppose). - many people who become knowledgeable cease to believe in such thingsMany people who become religious cease to believe other such things. Again, people hold beliefs based on the evidence (or lack of) to hand, scientists held the belief for a very, very long time that the earth was the center of the universe, was this irrational? No. It was perfectly, perfectly rational based on the evidence available.
It's rational to believe in religion and/or God or just have faith

Okay I'll try to make it into an argument. This is why people shouldn't believe in spiritual/religious things: - there is no empirical evidence for such things - many if such phenomena were either debunked or are just anecdotal in nature - some people believe in these things for comfort - people create such beliefs about what things are unknown to them - religion indoctrinated people and perhaps brainwashes them - many people who become knowledgeable cease to believe in such things So there seems no reason to believe in such things
It's rational to believe in religion and/or God or just have faith

Well, I suppose I had hoped for a little more to get my teeth into, but, I will try to respond accordingly. To answer the first question, I would submit that the question answers itself. A belief is a precarious acceptance of a proposition in the absence of conclusive evidence. You could, for example, believe that there probably are intelligent extraterrestrials somewhere in the universe, I would argue that this is a reasonable belief. I would suggest that in order for a belief to be rightfully deemed unreasonable, you would have to provide some compelling argument which conflicts with the belief. "Are these things only made for comfort..." I'm not sure how this suggestion might negate the premise -my pants are made for comfort, it does not negate the fact that they are pants. However, if what you intend by this statement (don't let me speak for you) is to imply that the concept of a creator can be reduced to a fraction of Freudian thought on the matter, that the concept is emotionaly satisfying, I would say that this represented a very narrow perspective on the general history of human progression. Note that the concept of a god satisfied the overwhelming majority (including among them the greatest) of minds throughout our history. You must also consider that if a comforting conclusion negates the validity of the belief then so must a distressing Conclusion. "Explain the unexplainable" What is and isn't explainable is very difficult to establish. I'd suggest that it is known to be more productive to attempt simply to explain the unexplained, disagreeing with this means disagreeing with every intellectual and scientific pursuit.