BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All apposed to out sourcing must put up or shut up!!!

I will make this as brief as possible. I will begin by first addressing your last 4 contentions: 1. Your resolution was poorly worded and a little bit more confusing than it should have been. In future debates, please post a clearer resolution/opening. 2. Wish you could clarify, but this makes no sense. I believe I proved my point quite clearly during rounds 1 and 2. 3. see number 1 4. Don't mean to be a dick, but I highly doubt that. Just based on this debate, you have provided no counter-evidence or much in the terms of counter-arguements. -"Reports of sparks flying from Ipods as they charge pop up but sales have stayed steady." This is because of consumer advocacy groups, who alert businesses of problems, and keeps consumers informed of dnagers. Sales have stayed steady because of "whining." -"Computer batteries have been reported to burst into flames on occasion while computer is on but we still buy them." This is because consumers know that they have the right to compensation when they receive a faulty product. Without this right, consumers would not trust businesses: economies don't function. Thus, the ability to complain is necessary for economies to continue to develop and grow. When there is something is wrong with a product, be it from out-sourcing or simply poor business practice, consumer complaints act as an important component of a well-funcioning, growth economy. It acts as a check upon ramapant capitalism that poses potential dangers to consumers. To end, my opponent has been confused most of this round, stated that parents of children want lead-toys for their children, and actually has the audacity to still state that I have maken mistakes throughout this debate. I have substantiated all of my arguements with proof, articles, and evidence, as well as the underlying economic reasoning underneath them. My opponent has not. I urge a con vote.
All apposed to out sourcing must put up or shut up!!!

Okay I have literally five minutes to right this debate before I am forcibly kicked off the computer until tomorrow so I will be short and may have to ignore some lesser topics. 1.First off thank you for pointing out my contradicting statements it seems we both must work on that, 2.You said "I presented my response to his assertion (which I will note that he did not support with evidence), and he agreed with everything that I have stated thus far." Wrong and wrong again. Not only did I disagree with everything you said. But if you look back in this case disproving you proves my point. 3.Regardless of what I said the topic is clearly stated at the top of the page but I can admit when I was wrong and should have worded things differently. Because from the start it has been about how be are part off the problem. 4.I probably know more about the dangers of the stuff we buy than you do and by the way there's a lot out there but that hasn't stopped us from buying for example: Reports of sparks flying from Ipods as they charge pop up but sales have stayed steady. Computer batteries have been reported to burst into flames on occasion while computer is on but we still buy them. Constant car call backs but business hasn't slowed. Out of time To the readers of this debate though I have made mistakes so has he look at my past debates to judge. And if you want proof look into yourself if you've ever looked for the cheaper buy and knew you had the money to pay the extra for usa brand and didn't or got the newest of whatever when you didn't need it. If you're always the one with the newest and best stuff from overseas vote pro because you are at least a small part of the problem. (sorry for not having a full final round)
All apposed to out sourcing must put up or shut up!!!

First off good day to my opponent now to business. Now usually I start at the top off my opponent's argument and work my way down but after reading this I couldn't help but mention this first. In the last lines of your round you said and I quote "EVERYONE CONTRIBUTES TO OUTSOURCING." That sounds like you're supporting my argument because my debate is not about whether outsourcing is right or wrong or who is really is to blame it is about the fact that we can't complain because like you said everyone contributes. Now I keep trying to go back to the beginning but you won't let me because of another contradicting comment. You said "Of course we want the best we can have at the best prices!" Ding ding ding there it is complete contradiction to your stance as CON business are based off of what people want. You don't see many businesses that make you pay more for less you see businesses that let you pay less for more because that's what the people want so that's where the money is. Thanks to all of your very contradicting arguments I have given up on order. This next quote not only the first quote I provided but the second one as well you said "We are not the cause for outsourcing, economics is." Did you forget that the economy is based on what we buy sell and trade meaning even if you blame the economy you're still blaming us. And because we want the lowest prices (which you agreed with me on) we affect the economy in a bad way. But as I said before this is not a blame game it is about the fact that we have contributed to out sourcing. Now I had to comment on this your whole first point is way off topic I never said the best quality I said the best as in the newest, most high tech, the coolest, the fastest, the hip or popular the fact that there have been call backs does not change the fact that they are what everyone wants. Also another disproving quote "Consumers looking to maximize their limited wealth are no different from Companies looking to maximize their limited resources are no different from Outside Countries looking to maximize their resources; everyone acts in self-interest." The consumer's primary goal is to save and the big businesses goal is to gain money and the best way to do that is to give the consumer what he or she wants. "Everyone acts in their own interests." You couldn't be more right either you try to save or gain either one helps lead to outsourcing. Now as you can see I have completely undermined my opponent's argument while further enforcing my own so it is obvious that you should vote Pro it's the only smart decision. Your Turn
All apposed to out sourcing must put up or shut up!!!

First off I thank whoever accepts this debate and though I would prefer debating someone apposed to outsourcing I will take on anyone who accepts. Now what I mean by this title is if you are not willing to or able to pay the extra cash needed to make everything in America shut up with the complaining because you are the main cause. And the reasons are: 1.We have become way to interested in having the most and best of everything there was a time when just about every thing was made in America but because of our need for useless stuff companies had to send work overseas just to keep up with supply and demand thus starting outsourcing. 2.And we're cheap we want every thing and we want it at a low price and that's how business like wal-mart came into being every body blames wal-mart for layoffs, factory closings, and mom and pop businesses shutting down but that couldn't be further from the truth. In fact we caused it business men don't just make up a new concept and hope it catches on especially one that they could potentially lose money in because they lowered prices to much. See a need fill a need that's how they work they saw people wanted more for less and they gave it to us they are just doing the will of the people we are the cause. As you can see we are the real cause and unless you can truthfully answer to yourself that you could pay 40 to 50 percent more on everything you take for granted now you can't complain. (Clarification: I am not for outsourcing and this debate is not about whether out sourcing is right or wrong.) Your Turn
God does NOT Exist!

Hello, I'm new to this website but I'm interested to debate with you guys on my beliefs. In this debate there will be 3 rounds we will discuss our thoughts and opinions respectfully and openly. god doesn't exist for the simple fact that the things we ere told in the bible couldn't have possibly have happened based of off scientific events. throughout my short lifespan I've read and did my research on mythology and its clear that many of the stories in the bible have been copied. After reading the old testament I was freaked out. why would god; a being that we love and worship seem so wrathful and evil? like most people I use to be a firm believer in Christ but as I got older and formed my own opinion it became clear to me. This my be a little out there but if Jesus was a Caucasian man why would he live in the middle east? I mean wouldn't the sun burn him to pieces? and what about the ancient drawings? we always see them kneeling before a god but never the one that we are familiar with. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the conventional god that everyone prays to isn't who we really should be worshiping. something doesn't add up, if your eyes are open you would see that something fishy is definitely going on in the world so how could you possibly trust anything? I for one don't. When African Americans were brought from our countries they wouldn't allow us to practice our old religions or speak our old language they stripped us of everything and gave us there way of thinking, they considered us less than but yet they gave us a bible and told us to practice its teachings. That's weird, in my own opinion I think it was done to keep us mentally enslaved. But this has nothing to do with race because we've ALL been deceived and unless someone can give me irrefutable evidences that he did exist I wont budge.
God does NOT Exist!

Counter CaseA1: Lack of evidencePro drops modal ontological argument, which *is* the proof for the God I speak of. The ontological arguments I presented are sufficient to fulfill my BoP. Pro fails to fulfill their BoP by proving -- with certainty -- that God does not exist. Pro argues from the Bible, but this is a red herring [1] and a straw man [2], since it misrepresents my position, which does not defend a God of the Bible. As such, vote Con. References [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
God does NOT Exist!

Wheres the proof of this god you speak of? Where can i find him exactly since the bible doesn't help much. we all want to believe we were put on this earth for a reason but what if we weren't. what if aliens happen to create man. i wouldn't be surprised. Even evolution doesnt support why humans were placed on this earth if you think about it how were we given the ablity to speak and have logical thinking? monkeys are our distant ancestors but yet they don't have the capability to speak and think as well as we do maybe a different life force saw our potential and helped with our creation.
Resolved: The phrase "anything is possible" is false.

1. your i apologize for not understanding your point at the beginning, however this resolution does not say the word anything, or imply by any means that it is saying the word isn't possible. 2.The very fact that impossibility is possible makes the statement false, you do not need firm evidence of something being impossible because the phrase provides that, the meer possibility of something being impossible proves it false, And as far as your statement "impossibility is impossible" this to is a paradox if impossibility is impossible then the fact that it is impossible proves the statement false there are some things that are impossible.
Resolved: The phrase "anything is possible" is false.

1. My round 1 argument has a semantic split from what you are deducing. Your first argument was that the phrase's non-literal meaning is false. In my first argument, I stated that the phrase's literal meaning (aka the word "anything" itself is possible) is not false. As you did not successfully refute my argument, I extend it. 2. "You must look at this logically if anything is possible then impossibility is possible. That is a fact. and if Impossibility is possible then something could be impossible, and since the statement says anything is possible, the fact that some things are impossible makes it false." You state that it is fact that some things are impossible, but you offer no proof showing that some things are impossible. The very definition of possible is that it MAY happen; that an event has POTENTIAL (http://www.m-w.com...). Thus, though it is possible some things may be impossible, there is no proof in this debate that some things are definitely impossible. 3. According to your logic, couldn't Impossibility be impossible making anything possible and the phrase "anything is possible" true?
Resolved: The phrase "anything is possible" is false.

You could not be more wrong in order for a statement to be false the components must exist. False is defined as not true by Merriam webster's dictionary is . Truth is defined as the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality by Merriam webster's as well. So as you can see statement isn't in accordance with reality not the parts. You must look at this logically if anything is possible then impossibility is possible. That is a fact. and if Impossibility is possible then something could be impossible, and since the statement says anything is possible, the fact that some things are impossible makes it false.
Resolved: The phrase "anything is possible" is false.

You proved yourself wrong in your own argument by typing the word "anything". The title states that the phrase "Anything is possible is false". If it is false, it is impossible for the word "anything" to exist. As both the title, your argument, and my argument use the word anything, common sense dictates that it is at least possible "anything" exits. Respected sources have entries for anything including Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com... and Merriam Webster's Dictionary: http://www.m-w.com... I now stand for cross examination :)
Resolved: The phrase "anything is possible" is false.

1. Sorry, I probably could of made it clearer. However, the topic states that the phrase "anything is possible" is false. It does not specify how the topic should be debated. The instigator has ample space and unlimited time in the first argument to place any specific limits other than the resolution on the debate. As you did not ban debate over the literal meaning of the phrase, any opponent must assume that the literal meaning is open to debate. Anything that the instigator assumes everyone else will know assumes at their own risk. I extend my 1st argument unopposed. Voters should vote for con on this alone as con has proved the phrase not false and pro has not opposed and therefore agreed with it and conceded. 2. As pro/affirmative, you have the burden of proof and I as con/negative have the burden of refutation. In this debate, that means you must prove the phrase "anything is false" to win and I must successfully refute your arguments to win. I successfully refuted your argument by showing that you had no firm evidence that the statement was false and you replied stating that you did not need evidence rather that the mere possibility of it being false is enough to back up your case. However, dictionary.com defines the proof you are burdened with as "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true". (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Thus you cannot have proof without evidence. Since you have no firm evidence, you have no proof and do not fill the burden you need to fill to win. Why the voters should vote con: 1.Con proved aforementioned phrase is true (and as Pro defined not false) in the literal sense and Pro has conceded this. 2.Con fulfilled burden of refutation needed to win and successfully refuted Pro's arguments. 3.Pro does not have evidence for his arguments therefore does not have proof that the phrase is false therefore Pro does not fill his burden of proof and it is almost like Pro does not have any arguments at all.
The New york knicks are beter than the miami heat.

Well lets look at your argument. the raptors worse than the wizards?? the wizards are 3-18 while the raptors are 5-19. The raptors have the better winning percentage as well with a .208 compared to a .143. Now you didn't argue with me on two points here. If the heat are better why did they drop two to the knicks. They gave up 18 three pointers without carmelo anthony and they lost by 20. Also the knicks are 18-5 while the heat are 15-6. As far as I know if the heat are better they should have the better record. Also I liked how you sourced the Bleacher report because on the updated power rankings the heat are 4th and the knicks are 2nd. So if the heat are the better team how come the knicks are higher than them on the rankings? Also I want to point out that that article with the one on one defenders was written a day after the beginning of the season. It was far too early to see whether or not they could fit that rank. Let's analyze this now. In steals lebron only has 1.3 steals which is dead last in the rankings. Also I checked blocks and couldn't find lebron anywhere. Now we go to Shane Battier who was ranked 9th he has 0.6 steals per game and 0.9 blocks per game. Those numbers don't show hes a great defender. I also want to say that lebron has 0.7 blocks as well. So my point there was showing that article is outdated. Now lets look at a player on the Knicks the 39 year old Jason Kidd. He has more steals than lebron and battier with 1.8 and even though he has 0.6 blocked shots that's pretty impressive looking at his age and size. So even though the heat on paper might be a better team defensively its not lebron or battier that are making it better. I also want to point out that you said that the heat are averaging more points than the knicks they aren't now. even though its only by .1 its still be impressive that they were down by 2 whole points during the season. I urge that you vote for con :) http://sports.yahoo.com... http://sports.yahoo.com... http://sports.yahoo.com... http://sports.yahoo.com... http://sports.yahoo.com... http://sports.yahoo.com... http://sports.yahoo.com... http://bleacherreport.com...
The New york knicks are beter than the miami heat.

Pro has made statistical claims that are unsourced, and should thus be dismissed until proof of authenticity is provided.Pro said that the Heat lost to the Wizards, which is partially true, yet irrelevant in the grand scheme of the NBA, because the most recent game the Miami Heat bested the Washington Wizards 102 - 72. That is a 30-point margin. Had there been a sense of urgency on the night the Heat lost to the Wizards 105-101, the outcome would have been wholly different. [1] My opponent also told a blatant falsehood by referring to the Washington Wizards as "by far the worst team in the nba." The Toronto Raptors have had a worse season than the Wizards by a two-game margin. [2]My opponent claims that defense is what wins games. I don't fully agree to this analysis, but suppose we were to assume that it were true for the sake of argument. Positing that defense wins games, the Miami Heat are still the superior team. According to the statistics, Miami is ranked 16th best defense, which contrasts with New York's ranking: 20th. [3] In a power ranking of the NBA's best one-on-one defenders, two of the Heat's players demonstrated strong performances: Shane Battier at 9th place and LeBron James at 2nd. The only Knicks player on the list was Iman Shumpert at 10th. [4] The Bleacher Report's Dan Favale had this to say about Heat small forward LeBron James' defensive prowess: "The small forward is both explosive and versatile enough to defend every position on the floor and excel while doing so. And while he lights up the defensive stat lines by snagging 1.7 steals and swatting away nearly one block per contest, it's his impervious demeanor that truly makes him a great man-to-man defender. Despite being one of the most powerful athletes in the game, James sacrifices nothing in swiftness. He can navigate the floor while defending with his back to the basket extremely well, and he has the hands and timing necessary to make an opponent pay if they do manage to pass him. It simply doesn't get much better than James here. But then again, it never does." [5] So, to recap:According to the statistics, the Heat score more points than Knicks, have a better team defense than the Knicks, have better one-on-one defensive players than the Knicks, and have better fans than the Knicks.[1] http://www.nba.com...[2] http://www.nba.com...[3] http://hoopdata.com...[4] http://bleacherreport.com...[5] http://bleacherreport.com...
The New york knicks are beter than the miami heat.

So my opponent says that points win games. Golden state from the 2010 season was averaging 103.2 points but their record was 36-46. Defense wins games. This season the heat are allowing 99.5 points per game while the knicks are averaging 95.3. So if "points win games" my friend how come the heat are 14-6 and the knicks are 16-5? The heat lost to the washington wizards, by far the wost team in the nba. To this day their 3-16. How could the heat even go to the finals if they cant beat the wizards? Also the knicks and heat have played twice this season and the knicks bet the heat on the road and at home. One victory came with their best player Carmelo Anthony injured for that game but the knicks still beat the heat by 20. And the reason they lost was because of defense not points. the knicks had 18 threes when they faced miami 5 days ago. Good luck
The New york knicks are beter than the miami heat.

Pro has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the New York* Knicks* are better* than the Miami* Heat*. So far, all we have heard from Pro is assertions about the athletic quality of the New York Knicks, describing aspects of the team that might have a slight edge over the Miami Heat. There are no sources to substantiate these claims and no examples as to how New York may be superior.I'll mention the most important aspect of winning basketball games: points. The team with the greatest number of points wins the basketball game. In points per game, the Miami Heat outperform the New York Knicks on average by 1 point in a 103.6 to 102.6 PPG. [1, 2][1] http://www.nba.com...[2] http://www.nba.com...
The New york knicks are beter than the miami heat.

The new York knicks are a better team overall than the Miami heat. I look for a great debate. may the best man win :) The knicks have had a great season. Even though the heat have won the championship last year there defense has been horrible. they are 15th in the league in steals compared to the knicks who are 3rd. Also rebounding wise the heat have been horrible and even though the knicks aren't much better the heat are a bigger team. The knicks have a free throw percentage than the heat which is crucial in winning games.
Cyber-bullying upon social media is very preventable

Profiles take seconds to set up, and numerous accounts could be created within a matter of minutes. Equally, if the persercuter is phobic of something (homosexuals, ethnic minorities), they would be much more likely to create these profiles just to purposefully harm others, and these cause psychological harm. Although this can be preventable sometimes, these can cause long term harms, and people willingness to put up with this abuse varies, and although one abuse may not harm someone, to someone else this could be the pinicle of assault. My point is that although it may preventable, it may cause harmful effects to children long lasting, and may be more devestating than just the children being bullied, and may cause family effects. Sometimes effect is more crutial than the cause.