BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
International Organizations stop nations from reaching their full potential

< > yet again, you still have to stop making these arguments or explain how helping the big country harms the little one, the same goes to the second part of this paragraph. BTY isn't this the same mistake you apologized for in line 1? < > the government's budget being slightly lowered has no effect on the economy. < > your quote was that it is critical that small economies do well for the larger economies to do well, i still fail to see how this is relevant. < > I still fail to see how this article says that the UN's actions harmed the economy, i admit it would have been more helpfull to bring aid, but the article does not even claim a negative impact as far as i can tell, Voters, read it yourself and see who's right. < > Yet again you need to show how they harm the economies not how they don't help. Ask yourself, would the economy be better off if they did nothing? < > how does inaction mean doing harm. Once again would the situation be better if the UN was not there. <<"DPRK=North Korea" I am well aware... what is your point?>> I wasn't, and i don't think many of the voters are either, i just wanted to clarify for them. < > It is also communist. This means a socialist economic structure (which is not neccisarilly bad, it just rarely works, but thats not INGOs fault, it human nature) Interestingly, in an ideal socialist economy the average income would be 0 USD. < > They are also managed very differently, South Korea is capitalist, and i think a different economic structure is pretty significant to the economy. It might also be North Korea's isolationist attidude, causing their government to heavilly regulate international trade. Also just because they are very similar doesn't mean everything goes the same way. To demonstrate this point i will share an example i learned while i was touring Israel. Unfourtuantly i cannot site a source, so you need to trust my facts. A group of immigrants to palistine (now isreal) formed a socialist kibbutz. Two generations past and a large group in the third generation expressed a desire to become capitalist, threatening not to return after finishing in the army, which they are required to join for 2,3 years at 18. The kibbutz decided to split into two seperate kibbutzim, one capitalist, one socialist. They were still on the same land right next to each other, but for some reason (i'm not claiming economic structure) the capitalist one did very well ecconomicly, but the socialist one did not. Returning to the arguement, in order for yours to be true you must demonstrate that the sanctions are the only signifficant variable, which could be difficult because we don't even know what variables are significant.
International Organizations stop nations from reaching their full potential

< > two major problems with this argument. 1, it only shows that IMF has the ability to do so, in order to be relevant you must show that it has done so. 2. This arguement also has the same problem as your previous arguments. you show how the big countries can prevent the IMF from helping the little countries, so the worst case scenario in this situation is that we are in the same situation we would be in if the IMF did not exist, so you can not say it is harming the little country. < > explain relevance. < > this is the first argument that addresses mine that 'This is not stopping other nations from reaching their full potential, this is not helping them do so.' however by the nature of this argument it does not save your previous ones, including from this round and last. In response to this argument, i read your resource [4], and i could not find the part that said the economy would recover faster. In fact, it specificly states that "The only role the UN has played has been to evacuate (white) Europeans", please point out, the area in the article that supports your argument. < > DPRK=North Korea I read the economy section about North Korea, your source [5], and, at the time i read it, it sounds like North Korea is doing nicely with stable economic growth, the only mention of sanction i found was in the source list and that UN sanctions caused DPRK to progress with it uranium enrichment program, your source offered no evidence nor claim that North Korea's economy has stalled.
International Organizations stop nations from reaching their full potential

< > Your example shows how the IMF helps big country's more that little countries, you have not shown how this is harming the little country, more so than the IMF not existing. < > This is not stopping other nations from reaching their full potential, this is not helping them do so. Your resolution is that INGOs stop nations from reaching their full potential. I have seen no arguments to suggest that the INGOs are what is stopping them. if the INGOs did not exist would these nations be reaching their full potential. if so, i have seen no arguments to support this if not, clearly it is not the INGOs that are stopping them.
Laws restricting teens should be abolished.

Child labor laws should be abolished.In most Western, industrialized countries, inhumane work conditions rarely exist in the formal economy. Workers in the formal economy are now protected through workplace regulation and safety codes. They also get health insurance, pensions, a minimum wage, and vacation and sick leave.Child labor laws (which limit the hours youth can work, require parental consent, and a medical exam, and working papers given by the state based on a medical exam) force youth desperate for money to work in the informal economy, which lack safety regulations, minimum wage, and all those other benefits. This is not to say toddlers should be working.Compulsory schooling laws should be abolished.One can argue that youth are incompetent to quit school, but this problem can be easily countered by abolishing age limits for school attendance, allowing them to return at any time.Runaway laws should be abolished.The definition of runaway is "an unmarried child under the age of 18 years who is absent from the home of a parent or other lawful placement without the consent of the parent, guardian, or lawful custodian" so they need their parents permission to leave home. The reason behind runaway laws is teens don't know what they are getting into if they can't move out. If that's the case, why punish them for running away? We don't call an elderly person with Alzheimer's a "runaway" when they wander off. To evade capture by the authorities under terms of runaway laws, some youth will turn to the crime. If we allowed them to move out, work without restrictions, and to sign a lease, this problem would go away.
Mobile phones have adversely affected our social life and has emerged as a new form of addiction

If that was the case, you should have mentioned earlier. I would have gone against this topic then maybe you would get a better answer. Anyway, for the sake of this debate, I cannot take the con side of the argument. If you are still interested in getting some points from me regarding the "con" side of this debate, then please message me. I can't message you because you have not enabled the option but I have enabled the option for the others.
Mobile phones have adversely affected our social life and has emerged as a new form of addiction

You believe that mobile phones are extremely necessary for our daily communications and that it enhances our social connections, right? If that is true, don't you think that people have become extremely dependent on this and it has become a part of their life. Rather than being a medium of communication, it has become an addiction. People are so dependent on it these days that they prefer to spend more time on these gadgets rather than socializing in person. Why do you think people find it easier to chat than to talk in person (in case you think they don't, you should conduct a survey)? it is because they have almost completely stopped spending time with other people in person. Communicating online is no more limited to exchanging valuable information, it has become a means of entertainment and serves as an alternate to our hobbies. You may never know a person and still become good friends with him/her. Do you really think that this kind of "friendship" is healthy? This has been the root cause for various crimes and frauds. Do you still think that Mobile phones are affecting our society only in the positive way? When I mentioned "various crimes and frauds", I was referring to the increased rate of kidnap, robbery, rape, murder and even divorce. People become "friends" online without knowing each other. They tend to put their trust in people whom they have never met or probably will never meet. Don't you think this affects our society? Talking about addiction to Mobile phones, it is almost redundant to state arguments for it. People spend a major portion of their life using mobiles to do various stuff. With the continuous improvements in technology, this addiction is getting worse. More and more features are available to us on these phones and so we spend more and more time on these devices. When we need entertainment, we have music, we have games, we have our own friends that we can contact and all this is possible through the phone so why do anything else? Isn't that what has become the trend of today. There is a need to do so some shopping,just look for some website like amazon and order is online and you'll have your items delivered to you. Want to learn something new? Just look up for what you require and you'll get to learn what you want to a million ways. Don't you see how many uses a mobile phone has? If you do, then you should immediately realize the need for the usage of this gadget. If you do realize the need, they I see no way how you can't see the way it has become an addiction in today's generation.
The "Start Three Debates" requirement for voting is too much verification.

"Debate.org is more likely to lose potential debators than to stop spammers and cheaters with this rule." How will they lose potential debaters? They are making it so debating is required before full access to all of the site's features, certainly not discouraging debating. Also, it gives all voters debate experience, so they know how annoying spamming and cheating is. Although it does lead some people to make one round debates in an effort to cheat the system, but that's nearly unavoidable. "This requirement is likely to spawn stupid debate topics from people like me who just want to be able to vote before they forget about a debate, or to turn them away from this site. I am interested to hear someone else's take on this, so please only respond if you are serious." Yes, people do start small debates in order to verify faster, but if they're about dumb topics they are reported. While this is also most likely one of these, it's about an interesting topic.
The "Start Three Debates" requirement for voting is too much verification.

Debate.org is more likely to lose potential debators than to stop spammers and cheaters with this rule. There should still be some other form of verification along with the cell phone number check (another thing I don't agree with, but that's for another debate), but it should be easier to accomplish. In my case, after signing up, I was browsing the debates and found one I really liked. I tried to vote on it, and couldn't becuase of the verification. I entered my cell number, but when I got to the start three debates requirement, I almost left. This requirement is likely to spawn stupid debate topics from people like me who just want to be able to vote before they forget about a debate, or to turn them away from this site. I am interested to hear someone else's take on this, so please only respond if you are serious.
We should not try to ban flag burning.

Are you on the debate team at your school or something? Maybe I'm jsut not too good at this... Well, anyway, that's completley off topic. Our freedom of speech has, somehow, always been limited to certain things. In such places as school, they can limit what you can and can't say, and isn't that restricting our freedom of speech? If it's restricted some of the time, then why not at all, of just restrict it all the time?
We should not try to ban flag burning.

I do not think that we are "burning" our independence, when we set a piece of cloth with a certain pattern of dye on it aflame. I think we are practicing our rights. You must realize that that is the reason why we separated from Great Britain: To have rights such as the right to freedom of speech. You may or may not know that in the time of the revolutionary war, colonists DID indeed burn British flags. What would our founding fathers say if they heard that we would use the revolution as justification to take away our most sacred rights? To ban flag burning is incredibly Un-American. To truly "burn" your freedom would be to not burn a flag because of a law. To burn a flag because you have a strong opinion against your government, would be to practice your freedoms as a citizen of this great nation, America. I think that if nothing, such a bill would encourage flag-burning. People would be very rebellious, if such an unjust law was to be passed.
We should not try to ban flag burning.

To ban flag burning would be to deny our first amendment rights. It is a way to express our opinion. The support for a law banning flag burning does not come from any sort of idealism for public safety. It comes from blind, slave-like, obsessive patriotism. To deny our first amendment right would make many people, such as myself, very indignant. It would actually hurt public safety. Personally, I think that the Constitution should represent America more than a piece of cloth (often made in china, I should note).
We should not try to ban flag burning.

Unfortunately my school doesn't have a debate team to my knowledge. Your previous post seemed to be just the type of logic that murders democracy. One minute we restrict it just a little, than a little more, and then more, until finally we have a centralized government. Things such as the patriot act and this flag burning issue are the things that move the steps forward. But another thing we must consider is this really necessary? If there was an eminent danger from people burning flags, I might give in to idealism. I would like to present a rather surprising fact: in the entire year of 2004, the year that is most known for the controversial election which angered many, there were only 2 reported incidents of flag-burning. The entire year. The reasons that there are certain limitations to freedom of speech are sometimes justified and sometimes not. The general rule of thumb seems to be that it has to create an immediate danger to society; to provoke people to the point of violence. Right now, we are debating. We are disagreeing. We both passionately disagree with each other about this hypothetical law. Doesn't that prove that the law itself would create more controversy and disagreement than an occasional burning of a flag?
chicken or egg came first- the egg

This is my first debate on the site, seemed like a good one to get started on! Looking forward to your response! Now, let's begin... PRO makes an excellent case for what constitutes a chicken, and I do not dispute it. However, I believe that the fundamental question is not what constitutes a chicken, but rather, what constitutes a chicken egg? In the comments, a poster asked the quested "Are we talking about chicken eggs or eggs?" PRO responded by saying "it could be applicable to many species, but i chose the classical chicken and chicken egg scenario". Therefore, when deciding whether the chicken precedes the chicken egg, it seems that the key issue at question is: "what is a chicken egg?" There are three possible requirements that could potentially have to be met in order for something to constitute a chicken egg: 1. an egg which contains a collection of cells that currently is or has the potential to become a chick 2. an egg which at some point in the past contained a collection of cells that had the potential to become a chick 3. an egg produced by a chicken 4. all of the above I argue that only necessary requirement needed to constitute "a chicken egg" is number 3, an egg produced by a chicken. Common sense, reason and logic dictates that a "chicken egg" is an egg that has been produced by a chicken. The first egg to harbour a chick was just that; an egg with a chick inside. It is said that the likely ancestor of the chicken was the Junglefowl.[1] If this is the case, the egg that contained the first chick was a Junglefowl egg with a genetic mutant inside of it. The first chicken egg came when that genetic mutant laid an egg. In the words of PRO, we are speaking about a "chicken and chicken egg scenario". Because a chicken egg is an egg that has been produced by a chicken, the chicken must have preceded the egg. In conclusion, chicken came first ^_^ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
chicken or egg came first- the egg

"i'm not sure how con is trying to distinguish these points" Con on my position: "if it is a chicken in the egg, it should be a chicken that laid it" my position: for an egg to be a chicken egg, it must have been laid by a chicken The difference between these two points is subtle, but important. For example, if two Junglefowl were to mate, and the creature inside resultant egg shared the DNA of a chicken, we would have a chicken inside an egg that was not laid by a chicken. This is my point. Junglefowl + Junglefowl = Junglefowl egg, regardsless of the creature inside the egg. "but as to con's last post. that if we can call it a chicken egg, and it is a chicken in the egg, it must have came from a chicken" Again, this is not my position. As i pointed out in R2, the only neccersery requirment needed for an object to be classified as a chicken egg is that it was laid by a chicken. It does not necessarily have to have a chicken inside (infertile eggs etc). So, in conclusion, an egg laid by a chicken is a chicken egg. Since only a chicken can lay a chicken egg, the chicken must have come first.
chicken or egg came first- the egg

well, i guess i dont agree that with the first point you listed, for the technicality arguemnts you gave. my only point is that the egg should be considered chicken egg if it is fertialized. con agaain stresses that to common understandings, the egg is a chicken egg, not because it can grow into a chicken, but because it came from a chicken. he uses an analogy to stress the point. "my argument when he claims my main point to be "that if it is a chicken in the egg, it should be a chicken that laid it". That is not my claim. My claim is that if an egg is to be designated the title of "chicken egg", the only necessary requirement that must be met is that the egg in question must have been produced by a chicken." i'm not sure how con is trying to distinguish these points. it sounds like he is repeating himself. he disagrees with my characteriztion that it must be a chicken that laid it if it is a chicken egg, but insists what he means is for it to be an egg it must have been produced by a chicken. to use our terminologies. how is this different? but as to con's last post. that if we can call it a chicken egg, and it is a chicken in the egg, it must have came from a chicken. again this is basically what he's been arguing all along, he's just dressing up the argument with points about eggs coming from chickens etc. he must be focusing on looking at the species at the local level. my only problem is that we should be looking at the species in the bigger picture. to clarify, my train wreck regression scenario was overly complicated and a bit not accurate. the best way to characterize this stuff would be to say.... for the acnesters of every chicken in existence now, there will be ancesters that cannot mate with any chicken in existence now. then, there will be one first ancester who would have the ability to mate with a chicken in existence now. this chicken came first as an egg. it is not insignficant that the parents of that egg could not mate with any chicken in existence now. to constitue a chicken proper, it must be able to mate with a chicken in existence now.... by definition. bottoline, we have to have a cut off. perhaps we can call that first mateable ancester's parents as chicken hybrids or something. but they cannot be considered chickens proper because they cannot mate with a chicken in existence now.
chicken or egg came first- the egg

PRO states: "I would argue that the first of con's choices should be picked": 1. an egg which contains a collection of cells that currently is or has the potential to become a chick I would argue that this is an incomplete definition of a chicken egg. For example, say Chicken X lays an infertile egg (we"ll call this Egg X) that could never grow to become a chick ("An infertile egg contains only the hen's genetic material, which means a chick can never hatch from that egg") [1] The egg then gets shown to reasonable, rational human being. The human is informed that Egg X is infertile, that it does not and never will have the potential to become a chicken. The human is also informed that Egg X was laid by a chicken. The man is then asked whether or not he believes Egg X to be a chicken egg. The man says he believes the egg to be a chicken egg. Because his response is not illogical or irrational, this suggests that the only requirement needed to constitute a chicken egg is the fact that the egg in question came from a chicken. PRO misunderstands my argument when he claims my main point to be "that if it is a chicken in the egg, it should be a chicken that laid it". That is not my claim. My claim is that if an egg is to be designated the title of "chicken egg", the only necessary requirement that must be met is that the egg in question must have been produced by a chicken. PRO argues that a line must be drawn, and I agree. While although there would have been some overlap between the domesticated chicken and his Junglefowl ancestors, the first creature that could have been objectively recognised as a chicken would have been the only creature capable at that time of producing a chicken egg. Once again, I reiterate my argument that the only fundamental aspect of what constitutes a chicken egg is the fact that egg in question was produced by a chicken. Since only a chicken can produce a chicken egg, the chicken must have come first. [1]http://www.the-chicken-chick.com...
chicken or egg came first- the egg

i would argue that the first of con's choices should be picked. a chicken egg is that which has a chicken developing inside it. what about con's main point though, that if it is a chicken in the egg, it should be a chicken that laid it? con basically argued what i had expected con to argue in the initial post of the deabte.... that they are so related that they are the same species. con just used the chicken egg point as the spring board to the point. to that, as i said before, sure, one could say they are the same, to some extent. but, when we do the mate regression train wreck scenario, we are forced to draw a line eventually when mating starts to occur. this is a definite line to indicate speciation. so, we'd have junglefowl on one end. chickens on the other end. and a transitional species in between. again, there is simply just an over lap. but just because there is an overlap, doesn't means we should call the egg's parent a chicken too. it was significant that the parent coudl breed with the ancesters, but the egg when hatched couldn't. again, a line has to be drawn. perhaps they are the same species when looking at the local group, but they are not the same species when looking at the bigger picture of speciation. bottomline: the line must be drawn.