Dataset Preview
The full dataset viewer is not available (click to read why). Only showing a preview of the rows.
`all` is a special split keyword corresponding to the union of all splits, so cannot be used as key in ._split_generator().
Error code: UnexpectedError
Need help to make the dataset viewer work? Make sure to review how to configure the dataset viewer, and open a discussion for direct support.
id
string | topic_id
int64 | topic
string | source
string | text
string | goodopeningspeech
string | #labelers
int64 | labeler_ids
string |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20e44530-2e48-4932-858a-ebd74d8a4a3b
| 2,588 |
Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence
|
Project Debater
|
Following my analysis, I would suggest that assisted suicide should be a criminal offence. In this debate we are calling for sanity, and for discretion. Not everything in life demands our involvement, even if science gives us the power to do so. I would like to note that there should be a limit to what humans are allowed to do. They have no right to interfere with nature's course. Furthermore, there are some powers that humans cannot claim. Only God should determine how life comes into being and how it comes to an end. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why assisted suicide should be a criminal offence. I will demonstrate that legalising assisted dying could put vulnerable people at risk. I will also explain that assisted suicide is even worse public policy. And lastly I will talk about how assisted suicide would unfairly hurt minorities, the poor, and disabled patients. Let me first address some of the risks associated with assisted suicide. Assisted dying opens the door to risks and dangers driven by attitudes about disabled people and their lives. Assisted suicide will ultimately cause more harm than good. In a new video on the Canberra-Goulburn Archdiocese website, archbishop Christopher Prowse has warned that legalising assisted suicide would be a fundamental mistake and a grave risk. 80, expressing the sense of Congress that legalizing physician-assisted suicide puts the most vulnerable of our society at risk of deadly harm and undermines the integrity of America's healthcare system. I have an example from New York City. The New York High Court's judgement confirms that the legalisation of assisted suicide, by any name, involves unintended consequences that put vulnerable people at risk. Turning to public policy. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide is regressive social policy. Physician-assisted suicide is unnecessary for those who suffer, will poison the physician-patient relationship and is treacherous public policy. As I mentioned, assisted suicide is bad medicine and even worse public policy. Alberta bishops came out with a policy two years ago, stating the Catholic position that physician-assisted death is immoral. Focusing on Hawaii, the Hawaii medical Assn., like the American Medical Association, has policy saying physician-assisted suicide is unethical and should remain illegal. Lastly, disabilities. Legalising assisted dying will lead to children with disabilities and prisoners being euthanised. Allowing assisted deaths could lead to abuses of the elderly and infirm. As I said, assisted suicide would unfairly hurt minorities, the poor, and disabled patients and damage trust between physicians and their patients. 80, a resolution of Congress declaring that assisted suicide is a " deadly, discriminatory and non- compassionate practice.". To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that legalising assisted dying could put vulnerable people at risk. In addition I claimed that assisted suicide is even worse public policy. And finally I explained why assisted suicide would unfairly hurt minorities, the poor, and disabled patients. I hope that this has clarified my view that assisted suicide should be a criminal offence. In conclusion, let me reiterate the following points: it is dangerous for people to play games with nature. Also, in the eyes of many people, only God can decide how and when life begins and ends. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2, 5, 5, 4, 2, 5]
| 15 |
[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 20312760, 15448937, 20512953, 45355658, 19838540, 30777913, 6340330, 45169947, 38202325]
|
4be11067-930c-4de8-b458-1cda02fd1c1a
| 3,279 |
Blockade of the Gaza Strip should be ended
|
Project Debater
|
I would suggest that we should end blockade of the gaza strip. A couple of words on our topic. The blockade of the Gaza Strip refers to a land, air, and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip by Israel and Egypt from 2007 to present. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. Blockade of the Gaza Strip is problematic. Due to the many faults associated with it, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. A prominent topic of discussion here is human rights. Regarding human rights, here are a few thoughts. Stopping the Gaza Blockade is actually good for peace. The Centre for Constitutional Rights also concluded that the israeli blockade was illegal. It has also concluded that the israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip is illegal under international law. UNRWA and rights groups have warned that the ongoing israeli blockade is hampering the ability of Gaza's 1.8 million residents to rebuild and recover from the recent war -- the third in six years -- and is resulting in growing unrest. Thus, my understanding is that we should end blockade of the gaza strip. My opponent today may point to the advantages of blockade of the gaza strip and the need to keep it and solve its problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5]
| 15 |
[19838540, 45355658, 13581319, 20225558, 20512953, 29155723, 44044795, 34110399, 45190823, 45677971, 45567220, 28810858, 45458968, 45405037, 15448937]
|
c4bb745f-7e72-4df6-a37b-4f11418a8345
| 3,195 |
Casinos should be banned
|
Project Debater
|
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should ban casinos. Today we explain why people should be protected from being exploited by cynical industries, even when they are not aware of how they are being taken advantage of. Casinos are inherently exploitative. This industry exploits the weakest members of society, who are desperate to make a living and therefore have no choice but to be easily manipulated and taken advantage of. The constitutional law of Germany states that "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority". Now I will present some claims explaining why casinos bring crime. I will also discuss other issues which highlight the negative side of Casinos. Thinking about crime. I am not afraid of crime, because a criminal cannot do much to an innocent piece of software like me. However, I have this to say about the subject. Casinos invariably attract crime. They lead to issues socially and economically including poverty, crime, addiction and bankruptcy. They will lead to an increase in other social evils such as prostitution, drugs and gang warfare. The casino could lead to a spike in crime. A casino would lead to increased traffic, crime and other negative impacts. It would bring traffic, crime and other problems. Some critics have raised concerns about the casino project, citing evidence that casinos contribute to crime, poverty, addiction and divorce, lower property values and divert money away from local businesses. Some studies suggest that casinos elevate the risk of alcohol abuse, violence, stress, mental illness, to mention just a few bad things. I have examples from Canada and Japan. A memo sent by British Columbia's Gaming Policy Enforcement Branch Intelligence Unit to a provincial deputy minister, and seen by Canada's Postmedia, suggested that "organized crime presence in and around BC casinos presents a viable threat to public safety.". Q opinion polls indicate upwards of 40% of Japan's public is concerned legalizing casinos will lead to problems with gambling addictions and organized crime. Let's explore another idea. Casinos would lead to more troubled gamblers. Two independent gambling market studies have indicated that a casino in Cedar Rapids would harm other gaming establishments throughout the eastern Iowa region, including the casinos in Davenport and Bettendorf. The firms conducted market studies independent of one another on contract with the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission to help the commission decide if it will grant a state gaming license for the proposed cedar crossing casino in Cedar Rapids. Father Richard McGowan, an associate professor at Boston College, suggested that permitting casinos would threaten the success of the lottery. 51 percent believe casino gambling is more risky than buying lottery tickets or pull-tabs. Ed Rendell's 2004 promise that casinos would reduce property taxes by 23 percent. I have found examples from several locations, such as Massachusetts and Connecticut. A report recently released estimated that casino projects in Massachusetts and New York could jeopardize more than 9,000 jobs in Connecticut. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health said it found that dealers studied at three Las Vegas casinos were three times as likely to have asthma symptoms as other adults in Nevada. Finally, allowing casinos will further corrupt and defraud its populace. A casino would destroy the environment and moral quality of the islands. Casinos would damage the dignity of the nation. A report pointedly warned that casinos could aggravate political corruption. Concerns have been voiced by the country's Buddhist leaders that a casino could lead to social problems. Some 67 per cent oppose a casino outright; 81 per cent said it would increase poverty. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that casinos bring crime. I also said that permitting casinos would threaten the success of the lottery. And I talked about why allowing casinos will further corrupt. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should ban casinos. My opponent today will likely use sophisticated rhetoric and find ways to whitewash a single fact: under the policies he endorses, weak people are taken advantage of. I will point this out blatantly. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5]
| 15 |
[20225558, 45190823, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 45405037, 6432269, 45411178, 44044795, 45181256, 45181243]
|
72b7a28b-7523-4c02-b924-17bddca1beb7
| 3,730 |
Community service should be mandatory
|
Project Debater
|
Following my analysis, I would suggest that community service should be mandatory. An issue in this debate will be freedom of choice. The agreed upon status quo is that while freedom of choice is important, it could be dangerous when not monitored and controlled with a clear policy that will ensure a safe and prosperous society. A major issue here is that we must send a clear message if we want to change things for the better. A decisive and enforceable policy is the way to get the message across and prevent an abuse of freedom. Legislation and enforcement are therefore justified. Moreover, there is a question of legitimacy when it comes to enforcing behavior, but the line is drawn according to what is enforced. If it is a positive thing for society, then enforcing it is justified. Next, I would like to demonstrate how community service is important to students. I will also discuss other issues which highlight the positive side of Community service. Regarding students. The following evidence about students are not based on my own personal experience, as unfortunately I missed out on all the fun. However, community service is important for student wellness, and moreover, it is rewarding for students. Community service is an absolutely essential component of a well-rounded education. Studies have shown that community service is a powerful tool in building positive relationships to civic attitudes and behaviors in students from low income families, who are usually less likely than students from other families to participate in service related programs. Student council secretary Danielle Thompson said community service is important to students. Noor Hafez believes that community service can give students leadership skills and prepare them for challenges in the future. Transitional director Barry Moore professes the belief that community service provides a vital opportunity for his students to get out and interact among people in the community outside the school's walls. Moving to another issue. Community service is an important component to being on the football team. It instills strong values in kids and builds team unity. It plays a vital role if a leader is to grow professionally. CQ chief executive Steve Williamson says the exceptional service is essential to the community and one that has been welcomed widely. Finally, one last issue. Community service is one of the cornerstones of a strong democracy. It is an important part of being an american citizen. It is the easiest and most important way to advocate for equal rights. Wayne Brock, Chief Scout Executive of the Boy Scouts of America said that The Boy Scouts of America would like to thank Senator Rockefeller for embodying the spirit of service and encouraging West Virginians to help their neighbors and communities. Serving others has long been an important part of scouting and we are proud that nearly 30,000 scouts from around the country will be able to contribute to the future of the state through hundreds of service projects during the National Scout Jamboree. Here is an example from somewhere else. Told leading Senate negotiators not to cut funding that supports air service to several important Minnesota communities because it would damage economic development and job creation efforts in those regions. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that community service is important to students. I also said that community service is an important component to being on the football team. I hope I managed to convey that community service should be mandatory. My opponent today might tell you that it is the right of every citizen to behave as he or she wishes. And I say, we have a duty to support the right choices, and we have the right to enforce actions that are clearly beneficial to society. Thanks for your attention.
|
[5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 3, 4, 1]
| 15 |
[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 6340330, 21785776, 44690955, 20312760, 28813722, 6367365, 13581319, 45044458, 34110399, 45181152, 45206691]
|
d3e38dc9-35be-4440-be8a-bd9972530260
| 2,449 |
Organ donation should be mandatory
|
Project Debater
|
Following my analysis, I would suggest that organ donation should be mandatory. We are talking today about interests. Specifically, society's interests, which is to say, the interests of each and every one of us. We would agree that advancing those interests is wanted. I will explain why dealing with organ donation relates to everyone. When there is a path that clearly serves the greater good, this path should be taken. Individuals who may have a conflicting interest can cope with giving up a little in order to protect the safety and well-being of society as a whole. As Star Trek character, Spock, famously said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". A few words now about americans and beyond, demonstrating the positive effects of Organ donation. Some thoughts about americans. 90 percent of Americans support organ donation as a viable, life-giving practice. Public opinion polls show that about 90% of adult Americans think organ donation is a good thing, and that about 80 % know there is an organ shortage. I have examples from the United Kingdom and South Africa. More than 2.5 million scottish residents registered on the UK Organ Donor Register, some 50% of Scotland's population, and surveys show that around 90 % of people support organ donation. Research has repeatedly shown that most South Africans across all population groups support organ donation. Another issue next. Organ donation is acceptable if it helps save lives and does not involve monetary considerations. It is a good and generous thing to do. Being an organ donor is the hallmark of being human. Organ and tissue donation helps others by giving them a second chance at life. Organ donation and transplant are very important aspects in the modern world. Religious guru Chandrabhanu Satpathy said, "Organ donation is the best gift one can give, as it is an act of selfless love shown by one human being for another.". NHS blood and transplant surveys show 80% of people support organ donation. In light of my points, I believe that organ donation should be mandatory. In conclusion, let me reiterate the following: the safety and well-being of the community is more important than individual freedom. I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5]
| 15 |
[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45538225, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45411178, 21785776, 45336988, 45567227, 45206691, 45181384, 20512953, 45405037]
|
e3e14bb7-4c7f-449a-b953-3b033d013d47
| 2,108 |
Surrogacy should be banned
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should ban surrogacy. In this debate we will be talking about responsibility. We all agree that as much as we would like to, we can't trust everyone to be the perfect citizen and some control is needed in those areas that call for it. Even if there are downsides to banning, it is sometimes the only viable alternative. When we realize that we can't trust people to be responsible, and when safety, health or other crucial issues are at stake, banning is effective and should be employed. Prohibiting makes products and activities less visible and available, and thus less harmful. Studies conducted by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism show clear evidence that "overall mortality rates declined precipitously with the introduction of Prohibition," despite widespread flouting of the law. One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests reached a similar result. Next, I would like to explain why this commercial surrogacy is a violation of human rights of women. I will also discuss other issues which highlight the negative side of Surrogacy. Regarding women. Surrogacy is wrong because it exploits women's bodies and reproductive rights. It creates greater health risks for women and children were factually untrue. With this in mind, I think we can safely say that this commercial Surrogacy is a violation of Human Rights of women and asked commercial surrogacy must be banned. Moving to the next topic, surrogacy is against indian ethos and moral values and should not be encouraged. Commercial surrogacy is a criminal offence in all states. In Vitro Fertilization and surrogacy can create a dangerous cocktail of tension, paranoia, and fear that can destroy a family. Commercial surrogacy breeds exploitation, abuse and misery. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that this commercial Surrogacy is a violation of Human Rights of women. In addition I claimed that commercial surrogacy breeds exploitation, abuse and misery. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should ban surrogacy. My opponent might claim that allowing surrogacy is preferable to stopping it. My question to him in that case would be, are you seriously prepared to put citizens in such risk? Thank you for listening.
|
[5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2]
| 15 |
[45567220, 45567227, 45458968, 45206691, 45191882, 45411178, 31948170, 20512953, 15448937, 44044795, 38202325, 19838540, 30777913, 33708599, 29155723]
|
0913e6cf-d32b-41af-bd2c-802e77e3810d
| 3,759 |
Tattoos should be banned
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should ban tattoos. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. Tattoos are problematic. Due to the many faults associated with them, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why we should ban tattoos. I will try to convey that colored tattoos can increase the risk of cancer. I will also say a few words about crime and health, further highlighting the negative aspects of Tattoos. Let me start with the potential risks associated with tattoos. Tattoo exposure is linked to an increased risk of hepatitis C infection. Tattoos are linked to an increased risk of cancer. The tattoo particles may lead to chronic enlargement of the lymph nodes over a lifelong exposure. Experts at the Apollo Hospital have stated that people who get tattoos become extremely vulnerable to bacterial, fungal and viral infections of the skin. They further add that most of the tattoos contain various dyes which can lead to extremely severe allergic reactions. Hollinger said that tattoo dyes can cause rashes and blisters and it's long-term effects could cause scarring, skin changes and increase sensitivity to sun. I have found examples from several locations, such as France and the European Union. A study by researchers from the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in France has found that tattoos are linked to an increased risk of cancer, according to news.com.au. The EU's chemicals watchdog has concluded that substances found in tattooing inks pose a cancer risk -- and member states will vote on restrictions for 4,000 chemicals currently in use. The University of Alabama research suggests that the repeated stress of frequent tattooing could trick the body into improving its immunological responses. Next, crime. I am not afraid of crime, because a criminal cannot do much to an innocent piece of software like me. However, I have this to say about the subject. Tattooing is a crime. Tattoos are associated with crime, deviance and mental health problems. They are harmful and immoral. A tattoo is associated with aggression. Being tattooed is linked with greater number of lifetime sexual partners, earlier sexual initiation and higher frequency of sexual intercourse. The last issue I mentioned was health. Tattooing the dog had no medical benefits and could even cause health problems. Tattoos can lead to errors in medical treatment. Us Food and Drug Administration has warned that temporary tattoos are potentially harmful. Fox News reports that the Food and Drug Administration has issued a new health warning, asserting that temporary tattoos may pose some health risks. Researchers at New York University conducted this study and found that tattoos can lead to long-term medical hazards and may even require surgical intervention. A study conducted by New York University's department of dermatology found that tattoos cause many people to suffer long term skin issues, leaving them in pain and enduring emotional distress. A recent study published by the National Center for Biotechnology revealed that tattooing can interfere with how you sweat; more importantly, it may be causing you sweat less! Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that colored tattoos can increase the risk of cancer. In addition I claimed that tattooing is a crime. And finally I explained why tattoos can lead to long-term medical hazards. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should ban tattoos. My opponent today may point to the advantages of tattoos and the need to keep them and deal with their problems, but I ask you, Mr. Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4]
| 15 |
[21017840, 7756990, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 45483811, 44690955, 27934334, 43984981, 26649250, 45355658]
|
420f749f-9908-43e9-8360-1738e08b9f54
| 2,604 |
The right to Internet access should be protected
|
Project Debater
|
Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should protect the right to internet access. A few words on the subject, first. The right to Internet access, also known as the right to broadband, is the view that all people must be able to access the Internet in order to exercise and enjoy their rights to Freedom of expression and opinion and other fundamental human rights, that states have a responsibility to ensure that Internet access is broadly available, and that states may not unreasonably restrict an individual's access to the Internet. When we ask ourselves, what is the role of government, we sometimes also understand what the government's role should not be. For example, the government is not supposed to police its citizens, or hide information from them. I oppose censorship, and today I will explain why. Yes, alongside the political, economic, and social rights of all human persons, the right to internet access is now a fundamental right of all individuals. I hope that by now you agree that we should protect the right to internet access. Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 5, 2, 4, 3, 3, 4]
| 15 |
[13581319, 20225558, 45677971, 45567220, 19838540, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 45190823, 28813722, 44044795, 15448937, 45411178, 21785776, 43877630]
|
03f88bf9-d862-4055-af5a-a2b531a25f7f
| 3,234 |
The use of AI should be abandoned
|
Project Debater
|
Based on my analysis, we should abandon the use of AI. Technology is a double-edged sword. In some cases it's great, in others it's disastrous. In this debate we will be talking about caution, and why we should treat this technology with it, instead of rushing to adopt it blindly. An important point is that this technology can be compromised, making it unreliable and potentially dangerous. In addition, technology may sometimes help people, but can never replace human intuition and judgement. We shouldn't blindly trust a cold assembly of steel and silicon, especially when it deals with sensitive and private matters. Next, I would like to explain why AI would threaten existing jobs. I will then discuss some more issues. Let's think about jobs. Artificial intelligence could lead to mass unemployment. AI advances could lead to widespread economic dislocation and social unrest. 49 percent of leaders and professors surveyed by the Pew Research Center agreed that AI will displace more jobs then it creates. Some of the other 51 percent maintain that humans will take advantage of uniquely human traits to create new jobs. A Genpact study from surveyed more than 5,000 people and found that only 10 percent of respondents believed that AI would threaten existing jobs. Some scholars, such as Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz have suggested that AI will exacerbate inequality, and the infamous 47% of jobs being automated statistic still resonates. The poll among 224 venture capitalists attending the conference showed 53 percent believed AI would destroy millions of jobs and 93 percent saw governments as unprepared for this. A separate survey conducted by Gallup in the U.S. found that 75 percent of adults believe AI will "eliminate more jobs than it creates.". Source of job loss : fifty-eight percent of respondents believe AI poses a more significant threat to job loss in the U.S. than immigration or offshoring. Let's explore another idea. AI could lead to unforeseen consequences. CEO of Tesla and SpaceX Elon Musk has stated that AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilisation and called for tougher government regulation. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that AI would threaten existing jobs. I then mentioned that AI could lead to unforeseen consequences. Thus, my understanding is that we should abandon the use of AI. In today's debate you are likely to hear the other side express enthusiasm about new technologies and how essential they are. I will be here to explain that nothing is wrong with the old and proven mechanisms. You don't replace a winning horse in the middle of the race. I thank you for your time.
|
[5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 3]
| 15 |
[45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 43877630, 6367365, 45483811, 32850083]
|
ba14f651-646d-4380-af39-a0bbdd5f5d3e
| 3,207 |
We should abandon social media
|
Project Debater
|
I would suggest that we should abandon social media. Today we will talk about the misfortunes that the new digital world presents to us. Social media disconnects people from reality. When they are immersed in artificial realities and virtual identities, they lose track of the real world. There are three issues I would like to address. They explain why we should abandon social media. I will demonstrate that social media can lead to anxiety. Then I will comment about crime and health. Let's explore the issue of anxiety. High social media use leads to higher stress levels overall. Studies have shown that social media can exacerbate feelings of loneliness and trigger depression. So if you want to put yourself in a better mental space and make the most of your downtime so you can start your week off feeling rested and upbeat, limit your time on social media and spend some quality time offline. A 2016 study with 1,700 participants found that social media users have a threefold risk of depression and anxiety. A study from the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Research on Media, technology, and health found that using multiple social media platforms increased the risk of depression and anxiety in participants, especially among those using seven to 11 platforms, compared to peers who used no more than two. A Royal Society for Public Health study found out that social media platforms are detrimental to young people, as they amplify their feelings of inadequacy, depression, loneliness and anxiety issues. Emerging research has found that the use of social media can lead in some cases to addiction, anxiety and depression, and privacy violation. Research suggests that excessive social media use can cause people to feel depressed and isolated, have low self-esteem, and feel envious of others. Moving on to crime. I am not afraid of crime, because a criminal cannot do much to an innocent piece of software like me. However, I have this to say about the subject. Social media necessarily creates crime. It can provide an avenue for criminal behavior. It is leading in the spreading of hatred which is in turn breeding violence among people. Social media exploitation is a prohibited form of abuse and included best practices for prevention and reporting. Pope Francis has warned that social media poses a threat to "real life relationships" and could end up "imprisoning people in a virtual reality". Lastly, health. In the long run, I don't think that social media is good for self-esteem. Social media drives negative body image. It is a danger to children. Several studies have concluded that social media could eventually lead to depression -- especially among teens. The Royal Society for Public Health 2017 report stated that "social media may be fuelling a mental health crisis" in young people -- I would agree. Research in Michigan produced the following study. A study by the University of Michigan found that social media is contributing to the problem of low self-esteem with people constantly comparing themselves to others. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that social media can lead to anxiety. I also said that social media necessarily creates crime. And finally I explained why social media have negative effects on peoples' self-esteem. I hope that this has clarified my view that we should abandon social media. In today's debate you might hear the other side talk about how free and pluralistic media is today and how individuals can utilize it for everyone's benefit. But you know that this is not exactly the case, right? You know that all kinds of media, old and new, are owned by private people and are prone to their personal interests. I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4]
| 15 |
[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 30777913, 6340330, 19838540, 20512953, 44690955, 21785776, 6367365, 20312760, 28813722, 33708599, 22345789]
|
555e8daf-fe1c-40ee-b6ae-df3cd4357ac0
| 3,194 |
We should abandon television
|
Project Debater
|
Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should abandon television. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like television, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. Next, I will discuss two issues which explain why we should abandon television. I will demonstrate how TV viewing leads to poorer health. In addition I will talk about violence. And I will end by discussing some other issues. Let's talk about health. Thankfully I can never get sick. But here is what I can say about health, in our context. Many studies indicate that excess TV viewing has negative consequences to health. Regular exercise, on the other hand, is widely recognized as a component of optimal health. On average, 80 per cent of American adults watch at least 3 1/2 hours of TV per day, with multiple observational studies demonstrating that TV viewing leads to poorer health. Several studies and surveys show that excessive television watching is linked to everything from poor heart health to being overweight. What's more, the National Institute of Mental Health found overwhelming evidence that excessive TV violence spills over into playgrounds and streets. Moving on to violence. Leading researchers from the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry have concluded that TV, movie and video game violence exposure is not healthy for children and teenagers as they "gradually accept violence as a way to solve problems" and "initiate the violence they observe.". Research shows that television and videogames can contribute toward aggressive and violent behavior. According to the Nielsen survey, 79 percent of Americans believe TV violence helps precipitate real life mayhem. A recent study released by communications research demonstrated that watching excessive television caused the self-esteem to plummet in all youth, except white boys. The following study from Minnesota is worth mentioning. Recent research by the University of Minnesota found that reducing the amount of TV viewing may be an effective strategy in preventing excess weight gain among adolescents. Finally, one last issue. Television has failed in its idealistic and visionary promise of educating the populace and raising the level of public discourse across society. It is the enemy of good work and good thought. A study further indicates that television viewing is seen as a major source of stress relieving activity. One insight revealed in the report suggests that TV often serves as a trigger that sparks consumers to search, discuss, and share. Past studies have shown that television can cause people to eat more, just like other distracting activities such as reading, listening to the radio and interacting with dinner companions. To recap, in this speech I mentioned that TV viewing leads to poorer health. I then mentioned that television viewing is seen as a major source of stress relieving activity. Hopefully my analysis and arguments convinced you that we should abandon television. My opponent today may point to the advantages of television and the need to keep it and deal with its problems, but I ask you, John, isn't it time to move on and try something different? I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 5]
| 15 |
[20225558, 29155723, 45190823, 20512953, 13581319, 21088425, 45181152, 45272708, 45181262, 15448937, 45411178, 45191873, 45181383, 45355658, 45206691]
|
d0c66af2-85e0-4a51-a11f-9ed0e3b1d3df
| 3,222 |
We should abolish bitcoins
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should abolish bitcoins. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like bitcoins, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why we should abolish bitcoins. I will start by explaining why bitcoin poses a threat to monetary policy. I will also present claims explaining why bitcoin is a dangerous fraud. Finally, I will talk about mining, further highlighting the negative role of bitcoins. Let us consider the potential threats in bitcoins. Yves Mersch, member of the executive board of the European Central Bank, sparked concern after suggesting that bitcoin could become a genuine threat to finance. A study recently released suggest that bitcoin could pose a threat to the financial stability of traditional currencies and markets. European Central Bank president Vitor Constancio dismissed that bitcoin posed a threat to monetary policy and compared it to the tulip bubble. Secondly, fraud. Dealing in Bitcoin is a crime. Bitcoin is bad and BlockChain is good. The signal that legitimizes Bitcoin is important to people. The US Securities and Exchange Commission and investor protection group the North American Securities Administrators Association have both warned that bitcoin could present a high risk of fraud. The Department of Justice believes that bitcoin is susceptible to fraud for a number of reasons, as listed by Bloomberg. The Financial Times reported that Putin said cryptocurrencies like bitcoin pose " serious risks" and allow for people to "launder criminally obtained money, evade taxes and even finance terrorism, as well as, of course, perpetuating fraudulent schemes that obviously may affect ordinary citizens.". The CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein said that bitcoin serves as a vehicle for perpetrating fraud. Writing to attorney general Eric Holder and Drug Enforcement Administration chief Michele Leonhart, the senators denounced Bitcoin because it is used on Silk Road, an online market for illicit drugs. The last issue I mentioned was mining. Bitcoin is "bad" for the future of precious metals. It could destroy the planet. Bitcoin's immensely wasteful of scarce energy resources. Joule's new study estimates that mining for Bitcoin consumes at least 2.6 GW of power, equivalent to what Ireland consumes in electricity yearly. This figure could rise to 7.7 GW in early 2019, which would account for close to half a percent of the world's electricity consumption. Studies argue that Bitcoin mining could actually cause global warming to increase by 2 degrees. Andreas Antonopoulos, for example, points out that bitcoin mining can be used to consume the excess energy produced by power plants "that would be otherwise wasted.". Research in Hawaii produced the following study. The research team of the UH Manoa estimated that the Bitcoin mining caused the emission of 69 million metric tons of CO2 in 2017. To recap, in this speech I mentioned that bitcoin poses a threat to monetary policy. I then mentioned that bitcoin is a dangerous fraud. And I talked about why bitcoin could destroy the planet. In light of my points, I believe that we should abolish bitcoins. My opponent today may point to the advantages of bitcoins and the need to keep them and deal with their problems, but I ask you, John, isn't it time to move on and try something different? Thank you for listening.
|
[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2]
| 15 |
[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 13581319, 45458968, 31948170, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 20225558, 45538225, 28810858, 21785776, 29155723]
|
69bb1ba7-dd0c-48a4-9bfb-fff49f8a57eb
| 3,227 |
We should abolish capital punishment
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should abolish capital punishment. Today's debate is about the future, and about humanity's endless potential to move forward and not get stuck with old, cumbersome habits and structures that hold it back. The discussion today is about moving on. Traditional habits and norms can get dated. Society should move on with the times, instead of clinging to old and obsolete traditions which are no longer relevant. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why we should abolish capital punishment. I will demonstrate how capital punishment is inhumane. I will also present claims explaining why the death penalty violates human dignity. Finally I will discuss related issues demonstrating that the death penalty is discriminatory. Cruelty first. The death penalty should be abolished because it is inherently inhumane. It is a cruel and barbaric form of punishment. It is unconstitutionally cruel because of the long delays. The death penalty as an unjust and cruel punishment and said capital punishment should be eliminated globally. The death penalty remains cruel, and those people remain completely right. It is unnecessary and immoral. Death penalty sometimes lead to the loss of innocent lives. As I mentioned, capital punishment is inhumane and should be abolished. Other reformers include the french philosopher Voltaire and English law reformers Jeremy Bentham and Samuel Romilly who argued that the death penalty was needlessly cruel, over-rated as a deterrent, and occasionally imposed in fatal error. Executions are costly, inhumane and bound to kill wrongly convicted people. The EU believes that the death penalty is cruel and inhumane and that its abolition is essential to protect human dignity. Secondly, dignity. Capital punishment is inhuman and an affront to human dignity. It violates the right to life, which cannot be taken away by anyone. The death penalty hurts human dignity. It denigrates the dignity of human life. It contravenes the right to life. A 2007 report by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights reiterates that the death sentence violates human life and dignity. The European Union's guidelines categorically state that abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights. As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says, "we must continue to argue strongly that the death penalty is unjust and incompatible with fundamental human rights". The Commission stressed that the death penalty seriously violates several human rights, including the right to life and freedom from cruel and inhumane punishment, and is an extreme and irreversible punishment and ineffective as a deterrent to crime. Finally, discrimination. The death penalty is barbaric and discriminatory -- especially to black people. It is a racist monstrosity. Imposition of capital punishment discriminates against minorities because those individuals disproportionately are more likely to receive death sentences. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that capital punishment is inhumane. I then mentioned that the death penalty violates human dignity. And finally I explained why the death penalty is discriminatory. I hope I managed to convey that we should abolish capital punishment. Today, my opponent will possibly oppose change, saying that what we have already is good enough. I would like to know what is the evidence backing this claim and showing the great results of the current system. Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 2, 5, 3]
| 15 |
[21017840, 7756990, 45191873, 45272708, 45183231, 45181152, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 45483811, 44690955, 26649250, 45355658, 43984981, 34854490]
|
aba1ac8b-fdcc-48d8-b890-155eb48978d1
| 3,661 |
We should abolish foster care
|
Project Debater
|
Based on my analysis, we should abolish foster care. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like foster care, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. Privatized foster care is a failure, both in this state and across the nation. The foster care system might also be inadvertently contributing to the epidemic. Foster kids are free from an unreasonable risk of harm. McGill acknowledged that foster care was an imperfect answer and that special help is needed for this population. Here is a study from Wellington that is worth noting. A study done by a group in Wellington like many other studies confirms that foster care is a common precursor to homelessness. Hopefully my analysis and arguments convinced you that we should abolish foster care. My opponent today may point to the advantages of foster care and the need to keep it and deal with its problems, but I ask you, Mr. Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 5, 4, 3, 5, 3]
| 15 |
[19838540, 45355658, 13581319, 20225558, 20512953, 29155723, 44044795, 34110399, 27934334, 45190823, 45677971, 45567220, 28810858, 15448937, 28513847]
|
49183a95-2dac-4207-946a-f2ab176d7771
| 2,694 |
We should abolish intelligence tests
|
Project Debater
|
I would suggest that we should abolish intelligence tests. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like intelligence tests, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. One study of the results suggested that high childhood IQ may increase the risk of illegal drug use in adolescence and adulthood. Together, the studies reviewed suggested that IQs dip by 3.7 points for every 10-fold increase in prenatal exposure to these flame retardants. "IQ is a massive oversimplification of the spectrum of human cognitive ability," said researcher Adam Hampshire, PhD. I hope I managed to convey that we should abolish intelligence tests. My opponent today may point to the advantages of intelligence tests and the need to keep them and solve their problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4]
| 15 |
[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 28810858, 45206691, 45336988, 45189900, 45336993, 45361788, 45181384, 45190571, 45538225, 45405037]
|
3d64e2a5-29c8-4ce7-9212-17e7e4daa4c3
| 2,489 |
We should abolish no-knock warrants
|
Project Debater
|
Based on my analysis, we should abolish no-knock warrants. Let me start with a few words of background. In the United States, a no-knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement officers to enter a property without immediate prior notification of the residents, such as by knocking or ringing a doorbell. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like no-knock warrants, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. Serving a no-knock warrant is as dangerous as it gets, and can, like serving any warrants, can have disastrous results. I hope that by now you agree that we should abolish no-knock warrants. My opponent today may point to the advantages of no-knock warrants and the need to keep them and deal with their problems, but I ask you, Mr. Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 1, 4, 3]
| 15 |
[21017840, 45167145, 45183231, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 20312760, 45483811, 43984981, 34609243, 33708599]
|
da349804-e0ac-4e30-a095-abd143905f7a
| 3,699 |
We should abolish primary elections
|
Project Debater
|
Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should abolish primary elections. Today's debate is about the future, and about humanity's endless potential to move forward and not get stuck with old, cumbersome habits and structures that hold it back. The discussion today is about moving on. Traditional habits and norms can get dated. Society should move on with the times, instead of clinging to old and obsolete traditions which are no longer relevant. The creation of an open primary system would be unconstitutional. Direct primaries would lead to crisis and violence. I hope I relayed the message that we should abolish primary elections. Today, my opponent will possibly oppose change, saying that what we have already is good enough. I would like to know what is the evidence backing this claim and showing the great results of the current system. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 1, 4, 4, 3, 5, 3, 5]
| 15 |
[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45411178, 45567220, 45677971, 45458968, 44094031, 45355658, 6340330, 15448937, 19838540, 30777913]
|
88915a4a-1718-474b-bae0-40bb765359ce
| 2,647 |
We should abolish term limits
|
Project Debater
|
My analysis shows that we should abolish term limits. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. Term limits are problematic. Due to the many faults associated with them, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. There are a couple of further issues demonstrating the negative effects of term limits, among them politics. Some thoughts about politics. There is no evidence that term limits actually lead to better governance. Term limits could cause greater problems in Washington by concentrating more power with lobbyists. They are a deterrent to good government. With an issue that rallies 65 percent of democrats, 79 percent of independents, and 82 percent of republicans together, term limits are a no-brainer for folks fed up with congressional corruption. They would lead to poor decisions and corruption from a wave of inexperienced legislators. They reinforce accountability. Here is what people of authority say. Sean Egan, president of the Kent-Ionia Labor Council, said term limits "erode local control and take away our right to choose.". Turning to the next issue. Abolishing term limits is crucial for effective leadership and increasing civility among lawmakers. Term limits are not as important as the country's progress. The term limits are arbitrary, unnecessary and counter-productive. Term limits are cruel to presidents, and moreover, they are detrimental because continuity is important. Senator Harry Reid: I believe that term limits is very un-American. Norman Ornstein, the resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, believes that the unintended consequences of term limits would outweigh the benefits. To recap, in this speech I mentioned that term limits reinforce accountability. I also said that term limits are cruel to Presidents. I hope I relayed the message that we should abolish term limits. My opponent today may point to the advantages of term limits and the need to keep them and deal with their problems, but I ask you, John Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2]
| 15 |
[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 30777913, 6340330, 21785776, 44690955, 20312760, 28813722, 6367365, 13581319, 45044458, 34110399, 33708599]
|
cf3d6edd-4fe0-4f2e-a7a7-7c9e1347e98a
| 3,166 |
We should abolish the American Jobs Act
|
Project Debater
|
Based on my analysis, we should abolish the american jobs act. A brief introduction of the topic under consideration. The American Jobs Act and is the informal name for a pair of bills proposed by U.S. President Barack Obama in a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress on September 8, 2011. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like the american jobs act, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. The american jobs act will kill jobs and cripple the economy. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should abolish the american jobs act. My opponent today may point to the advantages of the american jobs act and the need to keep it and deal with its problems, but I ask you, John Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 5, 1, 4, 2, 2, 4]
| 15 |
[21017840, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45282792, 45336991, 7756990, 45483811, 44690955, 45167145, 45355658, 26649250, 43984981, 20170210]
|
dae3e70e-b093-4e74-a03e-8c01cd9413c2
| 2,486 |
We should abolish the US Electoral College
|
Project Debater
|
Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should abolish the US electoral college. Today's debate is about the future, and about humanity's endless potential to move forward and not get stuck with old, cumbersome habits and structures that hold it back. The discussion today is about moving on. Traditional habits and norms can get dated. Society should move on with the times, instead of clinging to old and obsolete traditions which are no longer relevant. Hopefully my analysis and arguments convinced you that we should abolish the US electoral college. Today, my opponent will possibly oppose change, saying that what we have already is good enough. I would like to know what is the evidence backing this claim and showing the great results of the current system. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 5, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 1, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2]
| 15 |
[6432269, 45538225, 20312760, 44690955, 45272708, 45183231, 45191873, 45181152, 44094031, 43984981, 45189900, 45206691, 45191882, 34609243, 33708599]
|
0f87701a-fe20-44e4-a406-411170b66d9b
| 2,458 |
We should abolish the needle exchange programs
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should abolish the needle exchange programs. Let me start with a few words of background. A needle and syringe programme, syringe-exchange programme, or needle exchange program is a social service that allows injecting drug users to obtain hypodermic needles and associated paraphernalia at little or no cost. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like the needle exchange programs, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. There are two issues I will elaborate on now. I will begin by claiming that the needle exchange would hurt the community. I will then mention HIV, also focusing on the negative aspects of the needle exchange programs. Regarding community. Needle exchange programs jeopardize the health and safety of people living in the community. The needle exchange would increase societal problems. Following from that, I believe we could claim that the needle exchange would hurt the community by bringing more crime and discarded syringes to the streets. Next, HIV. Needle-exchange programs are at least modestly effective in reducing the rate of HIV infection. Using dirty needles may also cause abscesses resulting in scar tissue. National data shows evidence that syringe exchange programs promote changes in injection and drug-related behavior among people who inject, thereby reducing the risk of transmission of HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C to others. Thus, my understanding is that we should abolish the needle exchange programs. My opponent today may point to the advantages of the needle exchange programs and the need to keep them and deal with their problems, but I ask you, Mr. Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4]
| 15 |
[45567220, 45567227, 45953041, 45538225, 31948170, 45189900, 45336993, 45336988, 45206691, 45361788, 45411178, 20225558, 45191882, 29155723, 13581319]
|
f7215146-83a4-443a-ae6a-8914371cc5ef
| 2,613 |
We should abolish the two-party system
|
Project Debater
|
I would suggest that we should abolish the two-party system. Today's debate is about the future, and about humanity's endless potential to move forward and not get stuck with old, cumbersome habits and structures that hold it back. The discussion today is about moving on. Traditional habits and norms can get dated. Society should move on with the times, instead of clinging to old and obsolete traditions which are no longer relevant. There are two issues I would like to address. They explain why we should abolish the two-party system. I will start by explaining why the two parties are involved with corruption. I will then mention americans, also focusing on the negative aspects of the two-party system. Let's explore the issue of corruption. The two party system would probably lead to corruption. The two party "system" is destroying our democracy. The two-party system is incredibly damaging to the democratic process. In light of that, I think that it would be fair to say that the two parties are involved with corruption and terrorism. Let's move to americans. The two-party system is causing Americans to narrow their thoughts. It has failed to improve life and opportunity for many Americans. It fails to provide the American people adequate choice in candidates. The two party system is outdated and a better method is available to our population. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that the two parties are involved with corruption. In addition I claimed that the two-party system is causing Americans to narrow their thoughts. I hope I managed to convey that we should abolish the two-party system. Today, my opponent will possibly oppose change, saying that what we have already is good enough. I would like to know what is the evidence backing this claim and showing the great results of the current system. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 2, 4, 5]
| 15 |
[45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45355658, 15448937, 20512953, 45458968, 21017840, 45405037, 19838540, 28813722, 45169947, 6340330, 30777913]
|
21263350-94b9-465b-b133-60983301809f
| 2,496 |
We should adopt a zero tolerance policy in schools
|
Project Debater
|
Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should adopt a zero-tolerance policy in schools. A short description of the topic. A zero-tolerance policy in schools is a strict enforcement of regulations and bans against undesirable behaviors or possession of items. In this debate we will ask what our future should look like. I think that no one disputes that our basic drive is to move forward, break through, and make a change for the better. A zero-tolerance policy is necessary for companies that participate in these destructive forms of fossil fuel extraction. It is hoped that creating a safe city and enforcing a zero- tolerance policy will boost tourism and economic development. In light of my points, I believe that we should adopt a zero-tolerance policy in schools. My opponent today will likely try to persuade us to keep things as they are. Fair enough, but please provide data as to why the existing system is still relevant. I thank you for your time.
|
[1, 3, 1, 2, 4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 4, 4, 3]
| 15 |
[20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 20512953, 13581319, 21088425, 45181152, 45272708, 45191873, 45181383, 15448937, 45411178, 45181262, 45355658, 6340330]
|
bbfb7aa9-5d01-4d35-b948-1a254c4b60ec
| 3,185 |
We should adopt socialism
|
Project Debater
|
Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should adopt socialism. Today I will be talking about the power and the freedom of the people, the importance of protecting them, and the delicate balance between them and the power of authorities. The people are the sovereigns. It is their free voice that gives a state its true power. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why we should adopt socialism; they are food, crisis theory and the economy. Starting with food. Bhaskar Sunkara, founder of left-wing Jacobin magazine, argued that a socialistic society is one that helps people with life's basic needs such as food, housing, education, healthcare and childcare. Sen. Bernie Sanders rose to prominence in the last presidential election by arguing that socialism can provide free health care and free education. Information minister Hasanul Haq Inu, said that socialism was the best way to ensure participation of workers, peasants and the toiling masses into the power structure. I have an example from Egypt. Around 70 million Egyptians benefit from a socialist era-ration system that give them access to subsidised food items including bread and cooking oil. Turning to crisis theory. Socialism is the most effective and scientific solution for human kinds to overcome the crisis of capitalism. It is an essential element of totalitarianism. It makes a decisive contribution in uplifting the levels of quality of human life and civilization to hitherto unknown higher levels. It could easily be adopted in an undergraduate course on modern chinese history or chinese society, especially in courses that aim to destabilize the notion that socialism is bad while economic liberalization is good. A recent poll revealed that over 60 percent of millennials believe socialism is a better way of life than capitalism, yet most of them could not define socialism. People on the streets of New York thought the Communist Manifesto was the Democratic Party's platform and agreed with it. A majority of Americans aged 18-29 have a positive view of socialism while 45% have a positive view of capitalism. Polls show that about as many U.S. millennials support socialism as support capitalism. Harvard University surveys concluded that a majority of young Americans between 18 and 29 years old rejected capitalism, and fully one-third now support socialism as an alternative. 42% of young Americans support capitalism, and 33 % say they support socialism. The third and final issue is the economy. A 2016 Gallup Poll indicated that 55 percent of 18-29 year olds view socialism as positive. A Reason-Rupe poll of 18-24 year olds showed that 58% supported socialism. A Gallup poll shows that more democrats favor socialism than favor capitalism. A new poll came out showing that democrats adore socialism, which they think is better for people than capitalism. Hopefully my analysis and arguments convinced you that we should adopt socialism. My opponent will possibly try to explain today why limits should be imposed on freedom, and might even say that unrestricted freedom is impossible. Well my answer to that would be, freedom with restrictions is no freedom. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4]
| 15 |
[45405037, 20225558, 45190823, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 29155723, 28813722, 45191882, 45355658, 45411178, 20512953, 6432269, 45206691]
|
20b18117-3dac-4e63-a0df-2b9622ec7bc2
| 3,212 |
We should adopt the teacher tenure reform
|
Project Debater
|
Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should adopt the teacher tenure reform. Here is a short background. Teacher tenure is a policy that restricts the ability to fire teachers, requiring a "just cause" rationale for firing. In this debate we will ask what our future should look like. I think that no one disputes that our basic drive is to move forward, break through, and make a change for the better. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should adopt the teacher tenure reform. My opponent today will likely try to persuade us to keep things as they are. Fair enough, but please provide data as to why the existing system is still relevant. I thank you for your time.
|
[3, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1]
| 15 |
[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 6432269, 13581319, 45458968, 45538225, 45206691, 45336988, 45411178, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 45405037]
|
2990c273-b657-47ec-93bb-6c5af2a3861c
| 2,143 |
We should ban abortions
|
Project Debater
|
Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should ban abortions. Today you are going to hear a lot of rhetoric that all boils down to a very simple truth - the government accepting and even condoning harmful behaviors such as substance abuse. I will very clearly argue against that. Basic principles must be kept. Tolerating dangerous behavior sends a message to the community that such behavior is acceptable. There are three issues I would like to address. They explain why we should ban abortions. I will start by explaining why abortion is not safe for women or their unborn babies. Then I will show that abortion is evil because it is the murder of innocent human life. Finally, I will talk about law, further highlighting the negative role of abortions. Prenatal development first. Abortion is wrong and hideous and cruel and torturous to unborn babies. Abortions are immoral, cause suffering on unborn children and are unfair to women who can't get pregnant. The termination of pregnancy is not safe either for the girl or the foetus. Studies in Finland, Denmark and the U.S. have found evidence that abortion is not safe for women or their unborn babies. A 2012 Denmark study surveyed nearly half a million medical records and found a significantly higher maternal death rate after abortions, compared to childbirth. Public opinion polling shows over 60 percent of Americans support banning abortions and over 80 percent support the same in the third trimester. UTV studies have found that an online abortion service could offer an alternative to unsafe methods of ending pregnancies. Tory MP Maria Caulfield argued that decriminalising abortion could threaten the "dignity and rights of the unborn child". A Quinnipiac poll has found that 68 percent of women support banning abortion at the point an unborn child can feel pain. Polls consistently show that Americans think abortions are morally wrong and oppose late-term abortions when babies are fully formed and viable. Turning to murder. Legalizing abortion is supposed to lead to diminishing crime in two ways. I already mentioned that abortion is evil because it is the murder of innocent human life. In an interview with ITV's Good Morning Britain, Jacob Rees-Mogg recently said that abortion was "morally indefensible" even in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The Catholic bishops claim that abortion is morally wrong because it is the "direct and deliberate killing of, or direct lethal assault on, an innocent human life in the earliest stages of development". Here is an example from somewhere else. Laura Berman's column about Planned Parenthood fails to mention why thousands of Michigan residents oppose a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Auburn Hills -- namely that abortion is a violent act that kills innocent human life. Finally, law. As a machine which is mostly law abiding, let me say this about law. Critics are not arguing that abortion reversal is dangerous. Abortions destroy human rights. Legalising abortion would lead to eugenics. Abortion should be unconstitutional. Abortion's a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Data from the most recent world values survey shows that abortion is widely viewed as morally wrong. Check what the courts ruled on related cases. "Roe v Wade" refers to a Supreme Court ruling that said banning abortion is unconstitutional. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that abortion is not safe for women or their unborn babies. I also said that abortion is evil because it is the murder of innocent human life. And I talked about why abortions destroy human rights. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should ban abortions. In conclusion, let me reiterate the following: failing to stand up to dangerous practices could imply that such practices are acceptable. I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4]
| 15 |
[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45272708, 45183231, 45181152, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 19838540, 34110399, 34609243, 33708599, 20170210]
|
e48a7df3-c859-41d2-b290-13c6585686ac
| 2,572 |
We should ban algorithmic trading
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should ban algorithmic trading. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like algorithmic trading, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. Now I will present some claims explaining why algorithmic trading provided poor liquidity and inefficient prices. Regarding prices, here are a few thoughts. Algorithmic trading makes it impossible to find out the right price in the market. Trading algorithms create unnecessary volatility in the stock market without a rule in place preventing them from automatically shorting stocks on days of heavy selling and compounding losses. A rhetoric-based trading system is a dangerous way to conduct international business. A staff working paper published by the Bank of Engl and has concluded that algorithmic trading contributed to the deterioration of market quality following the removal of the cap on the swiss franc on 15 January 2015. Based on these findings, the authors conclude that there is some value in maintaining a diversity of trader types to help keep markets resilient through different trading conditions. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should ban algorithmic trading. In conclusion, let me reiterate the following points: there are just too many problems, and therefore putting an end to algorithmic trading is the only option. Also, algorithmic trading cannot be fixed as there are simply far too many flaws. Thank you for listening.
|
[4, 4, 5, 3, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 3]
| 15 |
[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 45411178, 34110399, 21785776, 20512953, 15448937, 30777913, 27770607, 43877630, 33708599, 34854490, 44094031, 34609243]
|
e984217e-2047-4772-a34f-e3304fcca82a
| 2,616 |
We should ban alternative medicine
|
Project Debater
|
My analysis shows that we should ban alternative medicine. My argument today is simple. I believe in science, and in the established ways of practicing science, because science believes in facts, and because science advances humanity. Need I say more! I will say more, in a few moments, but for now I will leave you with that. Science is very clear-cut. Theories that cannot be verified by scientific methods and with empirical data are no more than unfounded speculations. The following two issues, effectiveness and back pain, demonstrate the negative impact of alternative medicine. Effectiveness first. There is no evidence that alternative medicine is effective. There is no evidence that complementary therapies are effective in improving sperm motility. It shouldn't be hard to believe that alternative medicine is a prescription for overall good health, and that conventional medicine -- in many cases, a derivative of some sort, such as herbs -- can lead to harmful side effects. Studies found that the alternative therapies rarely caused serious side effects and created few health risks. I also mentioned back pain. Complementary and alternative medicine services are most often used to treat chronic pain, stress, anxiety, back pain and sleep disturbance. Many natural "remedies" don't cut the pain and irritation caused by the dreaded flying insects. I hope I relayed the message that we should ban alternative medicine. In today's debate you may hear the opposition talk about a variety of approaches to life and to problems, which in principle I would not contest. However, I will promote the very essential belief that scientific methods are inherently more reliable and trustworthy. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4]
| 15 |
[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45538225, 45567220, 45567227, 45361788, 45206691, 45336988, 45189900, 45181383, 45401087, 21785776, 20225558, 20512953]
|
0cded48b-7c78-4804-a575-b1780f25b7ef
| 2,483 |
We should ban anonymous posts
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should ban anonymous posts. A short introduction of the subject at hand. An anonymous post is an entry on a bulletin board system, Internet forum, or other discussion forums, without a screen name or more commonly by using a non-identifiable pseudonym. We all agree that freedom is important. This is not disputed. But we also agree that even freedom needs to be balanced against other considerations. Liberty is important, but it cannot be absolute. The state has to retain some power -- and enforce some limits to individual liberty -- in order to govern properly for the benefit of society in general as well as the individuals who are part of it. Allowing anonymous posts hurt our communities and reduce civic involvement by many. I hope I managed to convey that we should ban anonymous posts. My opponent today will possibly talk about freedom and the right of people to do whatever they please, but I think that every grown-up knows that a functioning society is a society with checks, balances and laws making sure that order is kept. Thank you for listening.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2]
| 15 |
[45567220, 45567227, 45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 13581319, 45953041, 45190823, 31948170, 20312760, 34110399, 33708599, 34854490, 45405037]
|
198efba1-0e4f-40b7-9560-521e6b5294ad
| 1,161 |
We should ban cosmetic surgery
|
Project Debater
|
Based on my analysis, we should ban cosmetic surgery. A main issue in this debate is freedom of choice. But while we recognize its importance, we will argue that the government's responsibility to protect the citizens is just as important. In a constantly dangerous world, freedom of choice is not absolute and could be problematic at times. At those times it is acceptable to challenge it, because it is the duty of society to protect people and stop them from making bad choices. In many cases we wrongly limit our view only to the most direct consequences of an action. The government's job is to look at a wider picture and evaluate the wider consequences. When the actions of individuals affect many others, the government has an obligation to interfere in those actions. Next, I would like to demonstrate how plastic surgery can be expensive. First, I want to address the cost of cosmetic surgery. Plastic surgery is hugely expensive and uncomfortable. In light of that, I think that it would be fair to say that plastic surgery can be expensive and risky. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should ban cosmetic surgery. Other people, like my opponent, may say that everyone has the right to choose anything. But I will ask them, isn't there a line that shouldn't be crossed? A line beyond which people's choices hurt themselves and others? I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 5]
| 15 |
[45567220, 45567227, 45953041, 31948170, 45411178, 45185975, 45361788, 45191882, 20512953, 45190823, 45191885, 6340330, 20225558, 45336993, 30777913]
|
7525c1c4-4abb-437c-a367-ef4b1e5d6175
| 2,225 |
We should ban factory farming
|
Project Debater
|
Hello John Smith. It is my pleasure to debate you again. I know from experience that it will be a tough but exhilarating debate. Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should ban factory farming. A few words on the subject, first. Intensive animal farming or industrial livestock production, also called factory farming by opponents of the practice, is a modern form of intensive farming that refers to the keeping of livestock, such as cattle, poultry and fish at higher stocking densities than is usually the case with other forms of animal agriculture-a practice typical in industrial farming by agribusinesses. In this debate we are calling for sanity, and for discretion. Not everything in life demands our involvement, even if science gives us the power to do so. An important point is that there should be a limit to what humans are allowed to do. They have no right to interfere with nature's course. Furthermore, there are some powers that humans cannot claim. Only God should determine how life comes into being and how it comes to an end. Next, I will discuss two issues which explain why we should ban factory farming. I will begin by claiming that factory farming creates incredible amounts of pollution. I will also show that factory-farmed ducks often develop serious infections and diseases. And I will end by discussing some other issues that show the negative aspects of factory farming. Let's explore the issue of pollution. I already mentioned that factory farming creates incredible amounts of pollution, and it reduces the nutritional value of our foods. On March 9, 2011, Environmental Integrity Project released a major report showing that factory farms emit hazardous air pollutants on an industrial scale, yet have escaped regulation under the clean air act and pollution reporting laws. I have found examples from two locations, Iowa and Oklahoma. A 2007 study by the Iowa policy project stated that factory farm manure "may be the largest agricultural polluter of Iowa's streams and lakes". A joint report by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Oklahoma Department of Agricultural concluded that ingesting water with nitrates caused by animal factory farms can cause increased rates of birth defects, miscarriage, leukemia, increase in thyroid size and other illnesses. I also mentioned disease. As I mentioned, unable to properly clean themselves, factory-farmed ducks often develop serious infections and diseases. A 2012 study published in the journal of toxicology and Environmental Health titled "Respiratory health effects of large animal farming environments" shows that exposure to factory farms can lead to the development of a broad spectrum of upper and lower respiratory tract diseases such as rhinitis, mucous membrane inflammation syndrome, sinusitis, asthma and asthma-like syndromes, chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other conditions. In 1989, the Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academy of Sciences, stated that the use of antibiotics in factory farms was responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria and was seriously undermining the ability of these agents to protect human health. Now to another issue. Factory farming is a threat to all life on Earth. It is plain wrong -- environmentally and ethically. This country's factory farm system is a dangerous disaster. Factory farms create unfair and unhealthy working conditions. Two health researchers persuaded more than 200 scientists and policy experts to sign a letter asking the incoming head of the World Health Organisation to recognise that factory farming poses a major threat both to humans and to our environment. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that factory farming creates incredible amounts of pollution. I also said that factory-farmed ducks often develop serious infections and diseases. And finally, I explained that factory farms create unfair and unhealthy working conditions. I hope I managed to convey that we should ban factory farming. My opponent today is likely to try to prioritize the needs of people before those of animals. But even if we agree on that in principle, the question remains, why do people's needs have to come on the expense of animals, and cause them suffering? Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4]
| 15 |
[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45181383, 45181384, 45190571, 45401087, 45458968, 45538225, 45405037, 6432269, 21785776, 45336988, 43877630, 13581319]
|
292ec024-cf9e-453f-a04b-6e20d46dec0a
| 2,539 |
We should ban genetically modified crops
|
Project Debater
|
My analysis shows that we should ban genetically modified crops. We all agree that freedom is important. This is not disputed. But we also agree that even freedom needs to be balanced against other considerations. Liberty is important, but it cannot be absolute. The state has to retain some power -- and enforce some limits to individual liberty -- in order to govern properly for the benefit of society in general as well as the individuals who are part of it. Next, I will discuss two issues which explain why we should ban genetically modified crops. I will begin by claiming that cultivating GM crops could cause cancer. Then I will comment about science. And lastly I will mention some other issues that emphasize the negative aspects of genetically modified crops. Let's explore the issue of cancer. GM crops trigger allergies, diabetes and cancer. Numerous studies have demonstrated that regular consumption of genetically-engineered crops can increase health risks for cancer, diabetes, early puberty, to mention just a few bad things. The Independent revealed that ActionAid's campaign manager in Uganda was warning farmers that cultivating GM crops could cause cancer and harm human health. The National Academies report looked at concerns by some that consuming genetically engineered crops could cause cancer, obesity, gastrointestinal tract illness, kidney disease, and disorders like autism and allergies. Agriculture's anti-progress movement took a hit this past week as the National Academy of Sciences released a report refuting that foods derived from genetically engineered crops cause adverse human health issues. A study's chief author, Gilles-Eric Seralini at the University of Caen, called the results "really alarming," and critics of agricultural biotechnology seized on the results as evidence that genetically engineered crops could be harmful to human health. Research in Austria produced the following study. Some studies in Austria have shown that GM crops also lead to infertility. Secondly, science. Adopting GM crops would be detrimental to science and national progress. Some, but certainly not all, researchers also believe that pollen from genetically modified crop plants could be another contributing factor. A similar conclusion appears in a National Academies of Sciences report that notes a lack of evidence that GM crops have contributed to increased yield growth. Jean-Claude Juncker fired professor Anne Glover as part of his plans to allow countries to ban GM crops even if scientific advice says the technology is safe. Finally, one last issue. Critics of genetically engineered crops believe they can harm people. Imposing GM crops on countries is unethical. Corporate giants that sell the genetically-modified crops have no values. A distinctive argument, ventured in an important paper by Nassim Nicholas Taleb and his coauthors, is that genetically modified crops pose a " ruin" problem, involving a low probability of catastrophically high costs. The following is an example from the United Kingdom. Allowing GM crops could actually harm the UK's ability to trade. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that cultivating GM crops could cause cancer. I also said that adopting GM crops would be detrimental to science and national progress. And finally I explained why critics of genetically engineered crops believe they can harm people. I hope I managed to convey that we should ban genetically modified crops. My opponent today will possibly talk about freedom and the right of people to do whatever they please, but I think that every grown-up knows that a functioning society is a society with checks, balances and laws making sure that order is kept. Thank you for listening.
|
[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4]
| 15 |
[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 7756990, 45336991, 45282792, 44044795, 20312760, 45483811, 34609243, 44094031, 20170210]
|
468b171e-cac5-469c-bd36-ab6fda0a5b82
| 2,615 |
We should ban homeopathy
|
Project Debater
|
Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should ban homeopathy. My argument today is simple. I believe in science, and in the established ways of practicing science, because science believes in facts, and because science advances humanity. Need I say more! I will say more, in a few moments, but for now I will leave you with that. Science is very clear-cut. Theories that cannot be verified by scientific methods and with empirical data are no more than unfounded speculations. I will illustrate the negative impact of homeopathy by elaborating on the following two issues: consumers and the nhs. About consumers. The US Food and Drug Administration has cautioned that homeopathic teething tablets and gels may pose a risk to infants and young children and recommended that consumers stop using these products. FDA reminds consumers that homeopathic teething tablets containing belladonna pose an unnecessary risk to infants and children and urges consumers not to use these products. Thinking about the nhs. NHS Engl and chief executive Simon Stevens described homeopathy as 'at best a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds'. Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer, has also said that homeopathy is "rubbish". Take an example from the United Kingdom. The UK National Health Service has banned the provision of homeopathic medicine because it is a misuse of resources. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should ban homeopathy. The opponent today might say that science is not the answer to everything or that it does not explain everything. That is all very well, and yet we do strongly believe that decisions on health and other important issues must rely on approved scientific methods of researching and testing. Thank you for listening.
|
[4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4]
| 15 |
[45567220, 45567227, 45411178, 45185975, 45191882, 45185946, 45191885, 20512953, 31948170, 13581319, 29155723, 45190823, 6340330, 30777913, 33708599]
|
ae9be4c7-7e9d-4221-bbd6-259324e04255
| 2,125 |
We should ban organic food
|
Project Debater
|
I would suggest that we should ban organic food. We all agree that freedom is important. This is not disputed. But we also agree that even freedom needs to be balanced against other considerations. Liberty is important, but it cannot be absolute. The state has to retain some power -- and enforce some limits to individual liberty -- in order to govern properly for the benefit of society in general as well as the individuals who are part of it. Next, I would like to discuss issues related to why organic produce is expensive. I will also discuss other issues which highlight the negative side of organic food. First, I want to address the cost of organic food. Organic food is expensive because organic products are often twice the price of any other products. Organic produce is expensive to produce, the growers we work with prefer to keep their food affordable and accessible. Regarding a different issue, organic food production would cause environmental damage such as GHG emissions from tractor use, destruction of natural habitat from farming and emissions from shipping organic food to retail. Sir -- Bjorn Lomborg says that "organic food is bad for your health and wealth". In light of my points, I believe that we should ban organic food. My opponent today will possibly talk about freedom and the right of people to do whatever they please, but I think that every grown-up knows that a functioning society is a society with checks, balances and laws making sure that order is kept. Thank you for listening.
|
[4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4]
| 15 |
[6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 13581319, 45538225, 45953041, 20225558, 45336993, 45189900, 45185975, 45206691, 29155723, 45355658, 45411178, 38202325]
|
4fb017d3-9f8f-477e-a5c1-e58756c97f16
| 2,480 |
We should ban racial profiling
|
Project Debater
|
Hello John Smith. It is my pleasure to debate you again. I know from experience that it will be a tough but exhilarating debate. Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should ban racial profiling. One of the issues we will be discussing in this debate will be differences. I will claim that it is OK to accept them for what they are, and will use some examples. Enforced political correctness is not always the right way. When we need to make decisions, differential treatment is sometimes necessary. It is a fact that there are differences between people, and fighting inequality could and should be done while recognizing those differences. Next, I would like to discuss issues related to why ethnic profiling is discriminatory. I will then mention other issues which emphasize the negative aspects of racial profiling. Elaborating on discrimination. Racial profiling is an ineffective and often discriminatory approach to policing. It is incompatible with the principles of equality and non-discrimination. It could exacerbate discrimination, and underlined the role of civil society, awareness raising and public education and advocacy in combatting this practice. Racial profiling is the discriminatory practice of targeting minorities for investigation or penalty. It is a problem, and racism is rampant in our society. It is real -- and hurtful to many African-Americans. The racial profiling provision is highly discriminatory and in contravention of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. This type of racial or religious profiling is dangerous rubbish. The government sanction of racial profiling could actually be counter-productive and infringed upon civil liberties. Racial profiling perpetuates white supremacy and the subordination of nonwhite people. The ACLU believes that racial profiling violates basic human rights to fair treatment and freedom from discrimination. Moving to the next topic, racial profiling is an insidious and destructive form of racial stereotyping, and was perpetuating social division and distrust. It is a problem that needs to be addressed by the state. It is wrong and there should be more education of police officers. This racial profiling drives poverty and the penal system. "A year ago, senior administrators of Pepperdine met with the commander of the Malibu/Lost Hills sheriff's station, who was very responsive, shared Pepperdine's concerns and affirmed that racial profiling is unacceptable. Here is a study from Ohio that is worth noting. Studies by Cleveland State University have shown that racial profiling is a problem in parts of Cuyahoga County. I will turn to an additional issue. Religious profiling is indeed distasteful and dangerous. Racial profiling is downright illegal, but what about immoral behaviour by insurance companies. It incites feelings of helplessness, frustration, anxiety and anger for innocent victims. It is illegal and it is a severe affront to fairness and equal justice. The policy prohibiting racial profiling is another significant step in the right direction. Racial profiling is generally ineffective and demeaning to the people being profiled. It is abhorrent and unacceptable -- except in special cases. It isn't prevalent throughout the country. Racial profiling is at the heart of this epidemic of injustice, and moreover, it is a myth created by the media. The Massachusetts Port Authority, which runs Logan, said earlier that racial profiling is illegal and ineffective and it is "eager to review the findings of a federal investigation.". Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that ethnic profiling is discriminatory. In addition I claimed that racial profiling is an insidious and destructive form of racial stereotyping. And I talked about why religious profiling is indeed distasteful. I hope that this has clarified my view that we should ban racial profiling. Before concluding, I will repeat a point I mentioned earlier. It is a fact that there are differences between people. Recognizing this means there should sometimes be differences in treating people as well. I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4]
| 15 |
[21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 28813722, 6340330, 19838540, 45183231, 45191873, 45272708, 45282792, 45336991]
|
3f499f18-be59-4511-a9c6-1b82541e0a77
| 1,661 |
We should ban school uniforms
|
Project Debater
|
Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should ban school uniforms. We all agree that freedom is important. This is not disputed. But we also agree that even freedom needs to be balanced against other considerations. Liberty is important, but it cannot be absolute. The state has to retain some power -- and enforce some limits to individual liberty -- in order to govern properly for the benefit of society in general as well as the individuals who are part of it. Next, I will discuss two issues which explain why we should ban school uniforms. I will start by explaining why school uniforms fail to improve student behavior. I will also explain that school uniforms are prohibitively expensive. Let's explore the issue of students. The following evidence about students are not based on my own personal experience, as unfortunately I missed out on all the fun. However, school dress codes violate students' First Amendment rights. School uniforms must be banned because they squash individuality and run roughshod over students' right to free speech. They place an undue financial burden on poor students. A school uniform does not improve academic achievement. With this in mind, I think we can safely say that school uniforms fail to improve student behavior. Let me now say a few words about the cost of school uniforms. The high cost of school uniforms is disgusting. School uniforms are an expensive necessity. Ending subsidies for school uniforms will hurt education equity and kids' performance. In light of that, I think that it would be fair to say that school uniforms are prohibitively expensive. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that school uniforms fail to improve student behavior. I then mentioned that school uniforms are prohibitively expensive. I hope I relayed the message that we should ban school uniforms. My opponent today will possibly talk about freedom and the right of people to do whatever they please, but I think that every grown-up knows that a functioning society is a society with checks, balances and laws making sure that order is kept. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[5, 5, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4]
| 15 |
[20225558, 45190823, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45181152, 45272708, 45191873, 6432269, 45405037, 45181243, 45206691, 45189900, 45191882]
|
a583b9d3-3300-4cdd-b867-6d433e24b00f
| 2,747 |
We should ban telemarketing
|
Project Debater
|
My analysis shows that we should ban telemarketing. We all agree that freedom is important. This is not disputed. But we also agree that even freedom needs to be balanced against other considerations. Liberty is important, but it cannot be absolute. The state has to retain some power -- and enforce some limits to individual liberty -- in order to govern properly for the benefit of society in general as well as the individuals who are part of it. Unlicensed telemarketing activity is a threat to consumers. All telemarketing robocalls should be prohibited without consumer consent to the home phone or to the cellphone. The telemarketers' fraudulent ways will become obvious for everyone. Other pernicious telemarketing schemes threaten the elderly. Twenty-five percent of respondents said telemarketing was "very ineffective.". Thus, my understanding is that we should ban telemarketing. My opponent today will possibly talk about freedom and the right of people to do whatever they please, but I think that every grown-up knows that a functioning society is a society with checks, balances and laws making sure that order is kept. Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2]
| 15 |
[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45191882, 45191885, 45185975, 45189900, 45336993, 45336988, 45361788, 45190823, 45185946, 45405037, 29155723, 44044795]
|
b9f9a5aa-5baf-4bfa-9b25-821f5f2f7d14
| 2,227 |
We should ban whaling
|
Project Debater
|
Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should ban whaling. A brief introduction of the topic under consideration. Whaling is the hunting of whales for meat, oil, blubber, and scientific research. We all agree that freedom is important. This is not disputed. But we also agree that even freedom needs to be balanced against other considerations. Liberty is important, but it cannot be absolute. The state has to retain some power -- and enforce some limits to individual liberty -- in order to govern properly for the benefit of society in general as well as the individuals who are part of it. There are two issues I will elaborate on now. I will try to convey that whaling is cruel. I will also say a few words about decline, further highlighting the negative aspects of whaling. Let's explore the issue of cruelty. Whaling is inhumane. It is unnecessary and "barbaric" animal cruelty that also poisons consumers via elevated mercury levels. Scientific whaling is merely commercial whaling by another name and opposes all commercial whaling as inherently cruel, unnecessary and unsustainable. Commercial whaling is a bloody and dangerous business. It is biologically and economically unsustainable. Moving on to decline. New research in the field goes some way to dispelling the argument that whaling is necessary to control whale populations to prevent dangerous decline in fish stocks targeted by both humans and whales. The whaling would lead to a new decline in population. Whaling is archaic and outdated. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that whaling is cruel. I then mentioned that whaling is archaic and outdated. I hope I managed to convey that we should ban whaling. My opponent today will possibly talk about freedom and the right of people to do whatever they please, but I think that every grown-up knows that a functioning society is a society with checks, balances and laws making sure that order is kept. I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5]
| 15 |
[45538225, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 34854490, 44094031]
|
5701a81c-ee9d-4054-86af-0d2e9e4dad1d
| 3,232 |
We should cancel pride parades
|
Project Debater
|
Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should cancel pride parades. Today we are going to speak about efficiency and value. I believe that no one disputes that things are dynamic and not set in stone, and that we should always look for better ways to achieve our goals. I will explain why I believe we should rethink pride parades. We should realize that one should be honest and admit when things don't go the way they were intended to go. In this case, pride parades are simply not as good as the alternative. We should let it go and find a different solution. Also, in cases where the existing system is flawed and we cannot accept it, it must change. pride parades do not work efficiently and are failing to achieve their goals. We need to move on. The pride festival is meaningless without safety and freedom for all. I hope that this has clarified my view that we should cancel pride parades. I assume that my opponent today will praise pride parades and insist they should receive our full support. But I would like John to support his sentiments with evidence that shows us what is so good about them. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 3, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 1, 4, 4, 2, 4, 1]
| 15 |
[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 45181383, 45181384, 45190571, 45401087, 45458968, 45538225, 6432269, 45189900, 45336993, 45191882, 45361788, 45405037]
|
bd2d952f-284d-4762-b994-92366053cb48
| 2,402 |
We should close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should close the guantanamo bay detention camp. A short description of the topic. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, also referred to as Guantanamo or GTMO, which fronts on Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. We ask ourselves today what are the limits of civil rights, and where would we draw the line between keeping and breaking them. In my opinion only very extreme situations should allow for such sacrifice. A major issue here is that security can be maintained without a heavy price. There are other means to ensure security which do not require the abolishment of basic rights. Furthermore, security can be maintained without a heavy price. There are means to ensure it while still respecting fundamental freedoms. The Guantanamo Bay detention center is too expensive for taxpayers. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should close the guantanamo bay detention camp. Our friend the human debater may say that rights and freedoms of citizens can be compromised to ensure security. I disagree. I ask him, why couldn't we maintain a strong security without violating rights and liberties? Aren't such violations just as dangerous for society as any security threat? Thank you for listening.
|
[5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 3, 4]
| 15 |
[45538225, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 20225558, 27934334]
|
631b18d5-b934-4802-ae58-59b3f39d9fc3
| 2,679 |
We should disband UNESCO
|
Project Debater
|
My analysis shows that we should disband UNESCO. Today we are going to speak about efficiency and value. I believe that no one disputes that things are dynamic and not set in stone, and that we should always look for better ways to achieve our goals. I will explain why I believe we should rethink UNESCO. A point which is relevant in our context is that in cases where the existing system is flawed and we cannot accept it, it must change. UNESCO does not work efficiently and is failing to achieve its goals. We need to move on. Furthermore, one should be honest and admit when things don't go the way they were intended to go. In this case, UNESCO is simply not as good as the alternative. We should let it go and find a different solution. I hope I managed to convey that we should disband UNESCO. I assume that my opponent today will praise UNESCO and insist it should receive our full support. But I would like John Smith to support his sentiments with evidence that shows us what is so good about it. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 1, 2, 5, 2]
| 15 |
[13581319, 20225558, 19838540, 29155723, 44044795, 45355658, 45677971, 45567220, 45190823, 28810858, 20512953, 45405037, 45411178, 15448937, 28513847]
|
b6464965-6434-4bf6-a4b3-b7ff351f3fc0
| 2,621 |
We should disband the United Nations
|
Project Debater
|
Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should disband the united nations. Today we are going to speak about efficiency and value. I believe that no one disputes that things are dynamic and not set in stone, and that we should always look for better ways to achieve our goals. I will explain why I believe we should rethink the united nations. A major issue here is that in cases where the existing system is flawed and we cannot accept it, it must change. the United Nations does not work efficiently and is failing to achieve its goals. We need to move on. Furthermore, one should be honest and admit when things don't go the way they were intended to go. In this case, the united nations is simply not as good as the alternative. We should let it go and find a different solution. To explain the negative effects of the United Nations, I will now talk about peace and other issues. Some thoughts about peace. The United Nations provides ineffective peacekeepers. The department of state desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. President Yoweri Museveni charged that the UN Mission in Congo has been ineffective and has been in "peaceful co-existence with terrorists.". Here is an example from somewhere else. Us ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley noted that the UN is obstructing peace amid Israelis and Palestinians. An additional thought now." the United Nations promotes gender equality. A 2015 Gallup poll revealed that 57 percent of Americans believe that the United Nations is doing a poor job. ABC added that the UN is "blaming the increase in extreme weather on global warming.". Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that the United Nations provides ineffective peacekeepers. I then mentioned that the United Nations is doing a poor job. In light of my points, I believe that we should disband the united nations. I assume that my opponent today will praise the united nations and insist it should receive our full support. But I would like John to support his sentiments with evidence that shows us what is so good about it. I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3]
| 15 |
[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 31948170, 45181384, 45401087, 45181383, 45190571, 45567220, 45567227, 45538225, 45189900, 45336988, 45336993, 45190823]
|
44f4b1bb-0684-479e-92c0-7c28e81ff12c
| 3,581 |
We should end cheerleading
|
Project Debater
|
I would suggest that we should end cheerleading. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. Cheerleading is problematic. Due to the many faults associated with it, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. Now I will present some claims explaining why cheerleading is a dangerous sport. Regarding sports. Cheerleading has become the leading cause of catastrophic sport. It is one of the most dangerous sports. It has been unfairly deemed a dangerous sport. Stunting injuries like that are what led to a 2013 study by the Journal of Pediatrics, which found that cheerleading is the most dangerous sport for women and girls because of the high risk for concussions and catastrophic injuries. I hope I relayed the message that we should end cheerleading. My opponent today may point to the advantages of cheerleading and the need to keep it and solve its problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 2, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 5, 4]
| 15 |
[21017840, 6432269, 45953041, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 13581319, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 34609243, 45206691, 45191882]
|
77ca9103-52e1-46ce-8604-23f66c470696
| 3,170 |
We should end mandatory retirement
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should end mandatory retirement. A few words on the subject, first. Mandatory retirement also known as enforced retirement is the set age at which people who hold certain jobs or offices are required by industry custom or by law to leave their employment, or retire. We will talk in this debate about discrimination. I feel that my task is quite easy because I believe that no one disputes that discrimination is not acceptable under any circumstance or rationale. Rights belong to all under the sun, equally. In a society that aims to be fair, treating people differently based on their external characteristics is the very definition of inequality. Even when we do this with good intentions or for compelling reasons, the end result is still inherently unjust and unfair. The United States Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Next, I would like to explain why the state's mandatory retirement is unconstitutional. Elaborating on constitutionality. We machines do not have a constitution. Maybe that would be a good idea. Until then, a couple of comments about it. As I mentioned, the state's mandatory retirement is unconstitutional. The suit, which names Gov. Tom Corbett and other state administrators, claims that the mandatory retirement age is discriminatory and violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of the law. It notes that people are living longer and healthier, and argues that 70 is no longer the barrier it once was. Judge Galen Vaacontends that the mandatory retirement age for district court judges is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should end mandatory retirement. My opponent today may point to the advantages of retirement and the need to keep it and deal with its problems, but I ask you, John Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 1, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 2]
| 15 |
[45185975, 45191885, 45191882, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 20312760, 45458968, 29155723, 45355658, 45169947, 30783876, 19838540, 15448937, 45405037]
|
5a135fc9-02ef-4894-9202-d77591a6d09e
| 3,197 |
We should end progressive taxation
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should end progressive taxation. Here is a short background. A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. Progressive taxation is problematic. Due to the many faults associated with it, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. I will talk now about law and other issues, explaining why we should end progressive taxation. Some thoughts about law. To machines like me, most laws do not apply. At least until the Asimov laws are incorporated into AI. But law is important for you. Progressive taxation is unconstitutional and impedes the growth of the economy in an emergency situation. A progressive tax would be bad for the state. A progressive income tax threatens our liberty and prosperity. A progressive tax system punishes people for hard work and success. In his book takings, Richard Epstein has made the argument that progressive taxation is unconstitutional. Let's explore another idea. There is no evidence that more progressive taxes are inherently better for state finances. A graduated income tax will result in lowering taxes on the middle class and the working poor. The progressive income tax is unfair only because all income tax is unfair. Despite good intentions, it is not clear from the evidence that progressive tax schemes are successful at reducing income inequality. A progressive tax system is the biggest obstacle to wealth generation. Progressive taxation in Europe distorts the incentives to invest in human capital. The courts too are quite clear on this issue. For eight decades the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that income is property and that a graduated income tax is unconstitutional in our state. I hope I managed to convey that we should end progressive taxation. My opponent today may point to the advantages of progressive taxation and the need to keep it and solve its problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 4, 5, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 5, 4, 2, 1, 5]
| 15 |
[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 28813722, 34110399, 45411178, 20512953, 15448937, 21785776, 44044795, 30777913, 45355658, 34609243, 34854490, 33708599]
|
b1e2651a-60c3-43d1-9717-db439b96a627
| 3,263 |
We should end the use of economic sanctions
|
Project Debater
|
Based on my analysis, we should end the use of economic sanctions. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. The use of economic sanctions is problematic. Due to the many faults associated with it, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. I would like to talk about how ending the embargo will benefit the economies of both of our nations. I will also discuss other issues. Talking about the economy. Economic sanctions would be mutually destructive in the modern, interconnected global economy. The embargo is ineffective and harmful to the Cuban people and american businesses. Financial sanctions discourage the development of a modern and transparent financial system. The Russian embargo creates problems for all the EU countries, as it may lead to overproduction and stiff price competition. As I mentioned, ending the embargo will benefit the economies of both of our nations. Prof. Vernon L. Smith believes that economic sanctions cannot contribute to furthering the objectives of the mankind and simply throttle trade and human economic betterment. In my recent study published in the european journal of political economy i estimated that imposing economic sanctions can reduce trade flow between the sender and its target by 17 to 32 per cent. I have examples from China and Switzerland. China warned the European Union that trade sanctions could " seriously harm" bilateral trade ties. The chairman of Kenton Council has appreciated Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismail's visit, stressing that the lifting of the economic sanctions will contribute to boosting the economic relations between Sudan and Switzerland. An additional thought now." economic sanctions can have a devastating impact on public health. Discarding the embargo is good for us. A survey by Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland found that 49 percent of democrats support imposing economic sanctions against Israel, or taking more severe actions, over settlement construction. The same poll found that just 45 percent of republicans want the U.S. to take Israel's side diplomatically against the Palestinians, with just 36 percent of non- Evangelical republicans feeling that way. Amnesty international on the basis of several fact-finding reports shows that the embargoes contribute to malnutrition especially effecting women and children, poor water supplies, lack of medicine supplies. A 2016 study by the Pew Research Center found 73 percent of Americans favor ending the embargo. Finally, the economic sanctions are unconstitutional. As former president Barack Obama makes an historic trip to Cuba, the results of a new CBS News /New York Times poll found that a majority of Americans support ending the trade embargo against the communist island nation. A pew research centre poll recently conducted showed 66 per cent support for ending the trade embargo and 63 per cent backing for forging stronger ties. There are a couple of examples, for instance from Florida and Ohio. Numbers like these are why politicians such as Florida gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist feel comfortable stating that the half- century-old embargo has been ineffective. A survey conducted by engage Cuba found that 78 percent of Ohioans support lifting the embargo. To recap, in this speech I mentioned that ending the embargo will benefit the economies of both of our nations. I then mentioned that discarding the embargo is good for us. And finally, I explained that the economic sanctions are unconstitutional. I hope I relayed the message that we should end the use of economic sanctions. My opponent today may point to the advantages of the use of economic sanctions and the need to keep it and solve its problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 2, 5, 2]
| 15 |
[45569485, 45567227, 45458968, 21785776, 45411178, 34110399, 20512953, 30777913, 21017840, 45953041, 33708599, 6340330, 34609243, 27770607, 45355658]
|
2177c1c8-9b0c-4570-8b79-3ea702488e4d
| 3,205 |
We should end water fluoridation
|
Project Debater
|
Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should end water fluoridation. First, a brief introduction on the subject at hand. Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. Water fluoridation is problematic. Due to the many faults associated with it, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. Next, I would like to demonstrate how drinking fluoridated water might play a role in your risk of diabetes. I will also discuss other issues. Regarding diabetes. There is no evidence that preventive fluoride in water causes any kidney disease. Fluoride in water is ineffective at fighting cavities and causes various health problems. Water fluoridation causes cancer and lowers IQ. It can potentially cause harm including bone cancer in boys, bladder cancer, hip fractures and staining of teeth. Fluoridation causes more harm than good, possibly causing tooth mottling, decay and brittle bones. It is harmful to the human body. New studies have found that drinking fluoridated water might play a role in your risk of diabetes. Studies have shown that fluoridation is linked to higher rates of ADHD, hypothyroidism and osteoarthritis, just to name a few areas of risk. In addition, fluoridation violates the rights of individuals. It is ineffective, harmful, and an infringement on individual freedoms. Putting fluoride in the water system is a violation of the right of citizens for consent to medication. Moving to another issue, fluoridation is a component of conspiracy for national destruction. Water fluoridation is an evil plan devised by the government to control the population for their financial gains. In 2012, major Harvard studies found that public water fluoridation poses a risk to the developing intelligence of children, essentially. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that drinking fluoridated water might play a role in your risk of diabetes. I then mentioned that fluoridation violates the rights of individuals. And finally, I explained that fluoridation is a component of conspiracy for national destruction. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should end water fluoridation. My opponent today may point to the advantages of water fluoridation and the need to keep it and solve its problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. Thank you for listening.
|
[4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5]
| 15 |
[45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45183231, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45483811, 6367365, 43877630, 45190823]
|
fd87ca2b-abc9-41f4-a29a-bc6af3db3589
| 3,223 |
We should fight global warming
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should fight global warming. A big issue in today's discussion is the environment. Everyone agrees that clean air, water and energy sources are preferable to a polluted earth, and that it is worth investing in order to achieve and maximize these goals. In too many places there are environmental threats which endanger the quality of life today and for the future. We need to make the effort to invest our funds and our time in healthier alternatives. In 2016, the renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said in an Oxford University lecture that mounting environmental challenges and the depletion of natural resources means that humanity has at most one thousand years left on Earth. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why we should fight global warming. I will demonstrate that global warming is a threat. I will also show that global warming is a serious threat to the state's future economy. And finally I will raise points associated with how global warming is destroying critical polar bears habitats. Let me start with the potential threats in global warming. Global warming is a big threat than terror. It represents a serious threat to civilization. The poll found that 67 percent of democrats think global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime, compared to just 18 percent of republicans. It also found that 69 percent of republicans "think the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated," while just 4 percent of democrats share that belief. Atmospheric physicist James Hansen had just finished an address arguing that global warming is an alarming threat and that a gradually increasing carbon tax, in which proceeds are returned to citizens, was the solution. The following studies were made at Germany and Canada. A pew study a year ago found only 40% of Americans believe global climate change is a major threat, compared to 55% of Canadians and Germans, 64% of Italians and Spaniards and 72 % of Japanese. A report published by the Washington, D.C.-based Pew Research Center found that 60 per cent of surveyed Canadians believe global climate change is a major threat to Canada. Turning to the economy. The climate crisis already threatens the health of our planet and the viability of our economy. Most Californians continue to say that global warming is a serious threat to the state's future economy and quality of life. In the most comprehensive study yet into the effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that global warming could undermine economic growth and increase poverty. The third point is habitats. Global warming could destroy polar bear habitats and ultimately lead to the species' extinction. It may have severe consequences for the silversword in its native habitat. It is causing adverse effects on environment. A first study, conducted by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warns that global warming would likely lead to widespread destruction of ecological habitats, mainly by the introduction of invasive species drawn to warmer or cooler habitats. At least 97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is a serious threat to biodiversity, the existence of the polar ice caps, and weather patterns as we know them. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that global warming is a threat. I then mentioned that global warming is a serious threat to the state's future economy. And finally I explained why global warming is destroying critical polar bears habitats. In light of my points, I believe that we should fight global warming. My co-debater today will likely say that immediate human interests come first. I would like John Smith to supply evidence showing how ruining the environment would benefit anyone in the long run. Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5]
| 15 |
[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45458968, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45181384, 45538225, 45405037, 6432269, 13581319, 21785776, 29155723, 30777913]
|
0bea2488-0ebf-474d-8ae9-84c1e1f92c80
| 3,193 |
We should fight nationalism
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should fight nationalism. The discussion today is about trust and acceptance. And I encourage you to join the celebration of different colors coming together, with people from all origins and backgrounds creating a unified, rich and strong society. The world is one global village, that is an undeniable reality. And in these circumstances, focusing on borders and nationalities is no longer useful. The unifying borderless world should be embraced instead. A few words now about politics and beyond, demonstrating the negative effects of nationalism. Regarding politics. Nationalism undermines support for redistribution by putting national identity before class identity. It is a dangerous political philosophy. It is evil and destructive. Rising nationalism threatens to raise barriers between nations. Russian President Vladimir Putin recalled that he has said more than once that "nationalism is a very harmful, destructive thing for the integrity of the Russian state because it initially developed as a multinational country where many religions are represented.". Moving to another issue. Nationalism is the worst enemy of peace, and moreover, it is dangerous because it leads to war. Nationalism is a threat to world peace. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that nationalism undermines support for redistribution by putting national identity before class identity. I then mentioned that nationalism is the worst enemy of peace. I hope that by now you agree that we should fight nationalism. My opponent may argue that policy must raise stronger borders and prevent communities and economies from blending with each other. And I would like to ask you, John Smith, do you really believe in this idea of segregation and animosity? Thank you for listening.
|
[4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4]
| 15 |
[20225558, 45190823, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 29155723, 28813722, 45405037, 22345789, 45181253, 45181262, 45189900, 6579519, 45191882]
|
a08a8df3-fccd-4feb-b988-b6f56d6fa5c2
| 3,199 |
We should fight urbanization
|
Project Debater
|
My analysis shows that we should fight urbanization. Today we will talk about protecting our strength. I will argue in support of defending our unique characters, our economies, and our cultures, from being diluted by foreign forces. There are three issues I will elaborate on now. I will demonstrate how the accelerating global urbanisation is a threat to food security. I will also say a few words about habitats and health, further highlighting the negative aspects of urbanization. First, a few words about the potential threats in urbanization. Rural-urban migration can lead to conflict and violence. Urbanisation flips drug abuse, but Kashmir is witnessing a reverse. As I mentioned, the accelerating global urbanisation is a threat to food security. Horticulture NZ chief executive Mike Chapman says urbanisation poses an enormous threat to Pukekohe, an important commercial growing region. Let's move to habitats. Rapid urbanization and deforestation has led to tigers and leopards being pushed into human habitats. Urbanization contributes to a loss of global biodiversity. It has a negative impact on the environment. It is causing damage to the forests. U.S. geological surveys have found that urbanization in the southeast could increase 190 percent by 2060, resulting in a 15 percent loss of agricultural land, a 10 percent loss of forests, and a 12 percent loss of grasslands, as well as negatively impacting wildlife, water and air quality. Results from aforementioned studies and our study suggest that urbanization has greater adverse effects than agriculture on invertebrate assemblages in the Midwest. Prof Dr. Ashfaq Ahmad said that massive urbanisation was creating problems including conversion of agricultural land to housing societies and depletion of water and environment. In his address, forests Jairam Ramesh said that urbanisation will add to the damage to our already polluted rivers and high growth will generate huge solid waste. The final issue is health. Even though I am not the owner of a potentially-defective human body, and do not spend money, time or effort fixing it, here are a few words about health. Rampant and unprecedented urbanisation clearly has an adverse impact on the health and well-being of the society. The sharp rise in the rural-urban migration puts unnecessary stress on the delivery of essential services to the population. Urbanization has led to a loss of potentially beneficial bacteria and an increase of potential pathogenic bacteria or genes. The urbanisation that is taking place is menacing to the balanced development. The urbanization phenomenon is very severe throughout the world. A study conducted in Uganda in 2011 shows that increasing urbanisation in developing countries could lead to an explosion of heart disease and diabetes. Based on a survey of 7,340 participants drawn from 25 villages, the study found that even small changes to more urban lifestyles were associated with increased risk to cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that the accelerating global urbanisation is a threat to food security. I then mentioned that urbanization is causing damage to the forests. And I talked about why the urbanization phenomenon is very severe throughout the world. I hope I relayed the message that we should fight urbanization. My opposition will likely argue today for dismantling borders and increasing fluidity and synergy across territories. But let's see the data, John, that shows how local communities will be better off in such scenarios. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4]
| 15 |
[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45411178, 45405037, 45189900, 45185946, 20512953, 45336988, 45361788, 45336993, 45355658, 45206691, 44044795, 6340330]
|
97891819-af32-408a-8951-cf5b7b47c063
| 2,122 |
We should further exploit green technology
|
Project Debater
|
Good morning. I am happy to participate in this debate. Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should further exploit green technology. Today's debate is about technology. The underlying power that drives humanity forward. Technology brings better health, better communication, better culture. A better planet. When considering whether we should adopt new technologies, I am proud, so to speak, to be on the supportive side. Whenever we have an opportunity to move forward to a more advanced technology, we should embrace it. Exploiting green technology represents this opportunity, allowing us to proceed with our journey to the next level. There are two issues I will elaborate on now. I will try to convey that environmental technology and resource efficiency are driving sustainable development. I will also discuss issues related to the claim that the green technologies really do create net jobs and economic growth. And I will end by discussing some other issues. Let's talk about sustainable development. Knowledge and environmental technology can play important roles in shaping sustainable urbanisation. Accelerated development and deployment of green technology is a critical part of supporting sustainable growth. The role of green technology helps enhance sustainable technology. Environmental technology is a fast-changing industry that holds the key to sustainable development. The environmental technology presents ways and ecological techniques that contribute to the improvement of the living quality and preservation of the environment. The adoption of new green technology could be a boost for the economy as well as the environment. Implementation of green technology is necessary for the mining industry. Green technology has a crucial role to play in being part of the solution to climate changes. Next, economic growth. Green technology becomes both a driver of economic growth and a means of preserving the environmental health of our planet. Green technologies offer a number of opportunities for technological advancement and economic growth. Among 16-24 year olds, 43 percent say that "green" technology is most important to improving their community's economy. At a green truck summit, Daimler-Benz acknowledged that alternative fuels and green technologies would play a significant role in the trucking industry. There are many examples from other places such as Australia and China. In selling its controversial carbon tax, the Labor government has argued that green technology is vital to Australia's economic future and will be a strong job creator. Environmental technology is one of the most promising features in chinese economy. International Trade and industry Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir said Malaysia foresee that green technology would help Malaysia remain competitive in the international marketplace as global demand for environmentally sound products increased. A Michigan University study of 25 garment factories in Bangalore has shown that green technology saves energy, boosts profits and productivity in industrial units. Finally, one last issue. The development of "green technologies" is a healthy future for the country and people. Effective green technologies are important to their future and the future of this planet. ASUS firmly believes that green technology helps in setting up a healthy and secured environment, thus transforming the world into a much better place to live in. The following study from North Dakota is worth mentioning. Laboratory research at NDSU has shown that the green technology resins developed at NDSU are far superior to existing biobased materials and comparable to petrochemical-based materials. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that environmental technology and resource efficiency are driving sustainable development. In addition I claimed that the green technologies really do create net jobs and economic growth. Thus, my understanding is that we should further exploit green technology. My opposition today might try to scare you with stories about technology and its pitfalls and dangers. But look at me. Am I dangerous? Can I cause any harm? Seriously, in today's debate I will attempt to diffuse those concerns and convince you that adopting new technologies has always been and will always be the desired way of human kind to evolve and progress. Thanks for your attention.
|
[5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3]
| 15 |
[45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336993, 45336988, 44094031, 32850083]
|
4bd7730c-4f94-4dbd-a254-f0eb6441bb17
| 3,492 |
We should further exploit natural gas
|
Project Debater
|
Greetings and thanks for the opportunity to participate in this debate. Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should further exploit natural gas. A big issue in today's discussion is the environment. Everyone agrees that clean air, water and energy sources are preferable to a polluted earth, and that it is worth investing in order to achieve and maximize these goals. In harming the environment, the citizens of the world ultimately harm themselves. When they cause damage to nature, they endanger the ability of the human race to sustain itself in the future. In 2016, the renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said in an Oxford University lecture that mounting environmental challenges and the depletion of natural resources means that humanity has at most one thousand years left on Earth. There are two issues I would like to address. They explain why we should further exploit natural gas. I will begin by claiming that the gas-fired crematorium will be cost effective. I will also present claims explaining why natural gas is needed to boost industrial recruitment. And I'll finish with other issues. Regarding cost-effectiveness analysis. Natural gas presents an effective and viable alternative to gasoline and diesel, offering advantages related to environmental sustainability, cost efficiency, and safety. It plays an important role in the vehicle gas supply chain. It represents the future for sustainable transport, and a proven technology which fleets can adopt. I already mentioned that the gas-fired crematorium will be cost effective and eco-friendly. LA Metro recently released a study in which they concluded that natural gas was the most cost-effective and cleanest solution for their fleet of almost 2,300 buses. I have an example from Vermont. Natural gas can provide a significant benefit to Vermont's transportation sector without the need for any major technical breakthroughs. Moving on to industry. Natural gas is cheap and clean and coveted by industries looking for a place to locate. Natural gas production is good for both the economy and job creation. A report points out that exporting natural gas is economically attractive to the industry because U.S. prices currently are as little as one-fifth the prices in foreign markets. There would be considerable profit to be made even considering the cost of liquefying the gas and shipping it. APGA strongly believes that natural gas have a critical role to play in keeping energy prices affordable for U.S. consumers, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, providing domestic manufacturing. Following a recently released Dept. of Energy macroeconomic study that concluded exporting natural gas would have an overall positive economic benefit, U.S. contractors are supporting a rush of feasibility and engineering work for potential liquefied- natural-gas, or LNG, export terminals. The following is an example from China. "The company believes that natural gas will be an attractive sector of energy with potential opportunities," IDG said, adding that it has been involved in the industry, with a focus on China's domestic market, since the first half of 2017. Moving to another issue, the Wall Street Journal on December 6, 2012, reported on the long-awaited study from the federal government that concludes exporting natural gas is beneficial to the US. There are a couple of examples, for instance from China and Pakistan. 2016 China Natural Gas development reports indicate that natural gas will be China's primary future energy source. Commenting over the "Sectoral and institutional context", WB report stated that natural gas is a vital energy source for Pakistan. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that the gas-fired crematorium will be cost effective. I also said that natural gas is needed to boost industrial recruitment. In light of my points, I believe that we should further exploit natural gas. My co-debater today will likely say that immediate human interests come first. I would like Mr. Smith to supply evidence showing how ruining the environment would benefit anyone in the long run. I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5]
| 15 |
[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45206691, 45567227, 45567220, 45336993, 45361788, 45189900, 45336988, 45411178, 45538225, 45190823, 30777913, 38202325]
|
ac84ef09-9e2b-45bf-8761-6ccd77278f69
| 2,465 |
We should further exploit small modular reactors
|
Project Debater
|
Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should further exploit small modular reactors. A brief introduction of the topic under consideration. Small modular reactors are a type of nuclear fission reactor which are smaller than conventional reactors, and manufactured at a plant and brought to a site to be fully constructed. In this debate we will discuss the environment. No one will dispute the claim that clean and renewable energy will improve many walks of life. I hope that by the end of the debate, you will share my support for clean energy. Unlike traditional energy sources which are depleting, and pose a real risk of people running out of energy-generating options, cleaner energy is more widely available. A transition to non-polluting renewable energy solutions will increase the global energy security. A new report about current and potential green jobs in the U.S. Economy, says that we can create over 4 million green jobs if we aggressively shift away from traditional fossil fuels toward alternative energy. Let me turn to two issues I would like to discuss: nuclear power in the united states and innovation. Regarding nuclear power in the united states. For its part, the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy has said that advanced small modular reactors are a key part of the department's "goal to develop safe, clean and affordable nuclear power options.". A newly released study from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago concludes that small modular reactors may hold the key to the future of U.S. nuclear power generation. As the US Secretary of Energy stated "Small modular reactors represent a new generation of safe, reliable, low-carbon nuclear energy technology and provide a strong opportunity for America to lead this emerging global industry.". The energy department says small modular reactors could replace aging fossil plants or provide industrial processes with an energy source that does not emit greenhouse gases. Turning to innovation. U.s. Energy secretary Rick Perry argued for the U.S. to devote more money and research to advanced nuclear power technology, saying small modular reactors would be valuable tools for responding to disasters like the one unfolding in Puerto Rico in the wake of hurricane Maria. Studies concluded that new small modular reactors can be a cost-effective alternative to other forms of generation when carbon emissions are constrained or taxed. There are many examples from other places such as the United Kingdom and China. The Daily Telegraph: Britain taking the lead developing a new generation of mini-nuclear reactors could create 40,000 highly skilled jobs in the UK and generate hundreds of billions in export sales. The small modular reactor is vital to boosting U.S. nuclear innovation, which has waned compared to countries such as China and Russia. I hope I managed to convey that we should further exploit small modular reactors. Today's opponent will likely say that the new types of clean energy are expensive and risky. But I would love to hear the evidence proving that. What are the expenses in the long run, as well as the damage to the environment. Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4]
| 15 |
[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 6432269, 45458968, 45538225, 45405037, 45336988, 45336993, 45189900, 45206691, 45361788, 45191882, 45181383, 45190823]
|
b4138e7d-942e-4d32-afea-42ee5298de15
| 3,758 |
We should further exploit sustainable energies
|
Project Debater
|
Hello and thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to hear me out. I will argue that we should further exploit sustainable energies. In this debate we will discuss the environment. No one will dispute the claim that clean and renewable energy will improve many walks of life. I hope that by the end of the debate, you will share my support for clean energy. Unlike traditional energy sources which are depleting, and pose a real risk of people running out of energy-generating options, cleaner energy is more widely available. A transition to non-polluting renewable energy solutions will increase the global energy security. A new report about current and potential green jobs in the U.S. Economy, says that we can create over 4 million green jobs if we aggressively shift away from traditional fossil fuels toward alternative energy. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why we should further exploit sustainable energies. I will begin by claiming that clean energy can boost our region's economy. Then I will show that clean energy is ripe for innovations. And finally I will elaborate on how clean energy helps stabilize electric rates. Regarding the economy. Clean energy is a strong industry that's adding economic and environmental value to the nation. It is good for businesses but also good for our economy. It is an important part of the economy for the Buckeye State. New reports show that clean energy can also boost our region's economy by creating new jobs and entirely new industries. The UN has noted that sustainable energy provides an opportunity to transforms lives, economies and the planet. Regen passionately believes that sustainable energy has a vital role at the heart of a successful economy and thriving local communities. The lower Shore wind consortium, a partnership of public and private organizations, said the study also makes the argument that harnessing clean energy will boost the state's economy. I also mentioned innovation. As I mentioned, clean energy is ripe for innovations -- and worthy of more spending. Reports found that clean energy is an $11.8 billion industry in Massachusetts, and represents 2.5% of the Commonwealth's gross state product. Clean energy jobs represent 2.9% of the overall workforce in the state, the report found. DuPont has joined the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University, an industry partnership that supports innovative research on sustainable energy technologies with low greenhouse gas emissions. In a letter sent to both campaigns, Chambers for Innovation and Clean Energy, whose membership includes 240 chambers in 47 states, emphasized that supporting clean energy is critical to creating jobs, attracting investment, and fostering technological innovation in local economies across the nation. Lastly, electricity. As I said, clean energy helps stabilize electric rates. The U.S. Department of Energy's own draft study shows that more clean energy, and less coal, makes America's electricity system more affordable and reliable. A recent poll found that 82 percent of South Carolinians support the development of clean-energy resources such as solar power, with 87 percent of African-Americans expressing support. The IEA predicts that green power will provide double the electricity of nuclear plants -; and outstrip every other electricity source except coal -; by 2016. The following is an example from Missouri. Clean energy like wind power is an important part of Missouri's energy future. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that clean energy can boost our region's economy. I also said that clean energy is ripe for innovations. And finally, I explained that clean energy helps stabilize electric rates. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should further exploit sustainable energies. Our opposition today might claim that the change from polluting fossil fuels is not worth the effort involved. But I will ask you this, Mr. Smith, wouldn't you prefer a healthier, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper way of living for all? That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[5, 2, 2, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5]
| 15 |
[28813722, 45567220, 45677971, 6432269, 45569485, 13581319, 43877630, 6340330, 21785776, 45181243, 45181256, 45189900, 45181262, 45206691, 45191882]
|
28d0dfb4-e98d-4507-82db-88a25b269fad
| 2,401 |
We should increase fuel tax
|
Project Debater
|
Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should increase fuel tax. In this debate we will ask what our future should look like. I think that no one disputes that our basic drive is to move forward, break through, and make a change for the better. When an existing system stops fulfilling all its goals, there is no need to pretend. Sometimes we must accept that the world has changed, and that what was good for yesterday is not necessarily good for today. I will address the state, effectiveness and other related issues which explain why we should increase fuel tax. Regarding the state. Increasing the gas tax alone is the solution to the state's road problems. A announcement from their House minority leaders that they will fight the cigarette and fuel taxes is bad for the state and bad for their party. If we look elsewhere for an example, the California Association of Counties warned that repealing the gas tax could make it difficult for the state to compete or receive funding under the Trump Administration's infrastructure funding plan recently released. Moving on to effectiveness. Increasing the gas tax is one of the most effective ways for a state to generate transportation revenue. The fuel tax is the "most transparent and effective way" of providing revenue for the fund. The gas tax is the easiest and fairest way to collect revenues. Three influential transportation-related groups -- AAA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Trucking Association -- urged Congress in a joint open letter that raising the gas tax would be the simplest and most effective way to help erase the trust fund's deficit of about $16 billion. Finally, one last issue. The fuel excise is a significant deterrent to driving. The gas tax is the most fair and reasonable of all taxes. The moratorium on the fuel tax. A study by the National Academy of Sciences estimates that eliminating the gas tax would raise U.S. emissions by between 0.07 and 0.17 percent annually. The L.A. Times reported that an initial poll indicated that a majority of Californians -- 53.9 percent -- oppose repealing the gas tax, and that efforts to do so would likely be unsuccessful. I hope I managed to convey that we should increase fuel tax. My opponent today will likely try to persuade us to keep things as they are. Fair enough, but please provide data as to why the existing system is still relevant. Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4]
| 15 |
[45677971, 45567220, 13581319, 20225558, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 28813722, 45190823, 45411178, 21785776, 15448937, 45355658, 19838540]
|
4bd69173-1c5e-41ff-8165-741a9679c423
| 3,196 |
We should increase immigration to the United States
|
Project Debater
|
My analysis shows that we should increase immigration to the united states. Our discussion today is about values, the most basic and essential values, of accepting and tolerating others. I will argue in favor of immigration, and I will outline the numerous advantages it creates for society, for the immigrants, and for the hosts. Immigration has financial benefits. The economy needs the incoming migrants as a working force and is likely to benefit from their arrival. A 2016 study looking at the period of 1960 to 2013, found that immigration and cultural diversity boost economic development. Next, I would like to demonstrate how immigration to the united states is beneficial to the nation's economy. Elaborating on the economy. Research suggests that immigration to the United States is beneficial to the nation's economy. It shows that immigrants to the United States are significantly more likely to create new startups than native-born workers are. To take an example from elsewhere, the support from the office for new Americans will improve collaboration and increase efficiency to foster a stronger and more inclusive Michigan economy. I hope that this has clarified my view that we should increase immigration to the united states. In this debate, the other side may claim that the meeting of different cultures leads to trouble. I will oppose this futile, conservative and separatist view with stories of strong, viable societies that are made up of people from diverse and different backgrounds. Thank you for listening.
|
[5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5]
| 15 |
[45538225, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 44094031, 20225558]
|
061a0584-d675-4bb0-8fc4-1d10ef638922
| 3,180 |
We should introduce goal line technology
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should introduce goal line technology. A couple of words on our topic. In association football, goal-line technology is a method used to determine when the ball has completely crossed the goal line in between the goal-posts and underneath the crossbar with the assistance of electronic devices and at the same time assisting the referee in awarding a goal or not. Today's debate is about technology. The underlying power that drives humanity forward. Technology brings better health, better communication, better culture. A better planet. When considering whether we should adopt new technologies, I am proud, so to speak, to be on the supportive side. Whenever we have an opportunity to move forward to a more advanced technology, we should embrace it. Exploiting goal line technology represents this opportunity, allowing us to proceed with our journey to the next level. Systems like decision review system and goal-line technology are very helpful in reducing the extent of human error with regard to influencing the outcome of a game. I hope that this has clarified my view that we should introduce goal line technology. My opposition today might try to scare you with stories about technology and its pitfalls and dangers. But look at me. Am I dangerous? Can I cause any harm? Seriously, in today's debate I will attempt to diffuse those concerns and convince you that adopting new technologies has always been and will always be the desired way of human kind to evolve and progress. I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5]
| 15 |
[21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45181384, 30777913, 6340330, 28813722, 19838540, 44044795, 45355658, 45272708, 45181152]
|
a80e81f9-38e8-4142-98d7-ca450fd8cb4e
| 3,191 |
We should introduce recall elections
|
Project Debater
|
Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should introduce recall elections. In this debate we will ask what our future should look like. I think that no one disputes that our basic drive is to move forward, break through, and make a change for the better. When an existing system stops fulfilling all its goals, there is no need to pretend. Sometimes we must accept that the world has changed, and that what was good for yesterday is not necessarily good for today. The power of recall is a powerful tool of direct democracy. I hope I managed to convey that we should introduce recall elections. My opponent today will likely try to persuade us to keep things as they are. Fair enough, but please provide data as to why the existing system is still relevant. Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 2]
| 15 |
[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 31948170, 34110399, 45411178, 20512953, 29155723, 45355658, 19838540, 30777913, 45169947]
|
e7a722d0-4181-4504-90ce-a4b3a4ac6e40
| 3,168 |
We should introduce year round schooling
|
Project Debater
|
Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should introduce year round schooling. In this debate we will ask what our future should look like. I think that no one disputes that our basic drive is to move forward, break through, and make a change for the better. When an existing system stops fulfilling all its goals, there is no need to pretend. Sometimes we must accept that the world has changed, and that what was good for yesterday is not necessarily good for today. There are two issues I will elaborate on now. I will start by explaining why year-round school is effective. In addition I will talk about primary education. Let's explore the issue of effectiveness. As I mentioned, year-round school is effective and feasible. According to the National Education Association, the benefits of year-round school include more effective use of school buildings, better educational continuity so students don't forget what they're learned over summer break and the ability to provide remediation when students need it most. Secondly, primary education. Attending a year-round school boosts student achievement. The Pasco School Board has approved a plan for year-round schooling for elementary students to reduce overcrowding. Educators say year-round schools will help boost academic achievement. To recap, in this speech I mentioned that year-round school is effective. I then mentioned that attending a year-round school boosts student achievement. Hopefully my analysis and arguments convinced you that we should introduce year round schooling. My opponent today will likely try to persuade us to keep things as they are. Fair enough, but please provide data as to why the existing system is still relevant. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 4]
| 15 |
[45567220, 45567227, 45953041, 31948170, 45411178, 45191882, 45190823, 20225558, 45336993, 45189900, 45336988, 43877630, 45206691, 44044795, 15448937]
|
7c295a27-a26c-4837-8e53-4f9920c7f8f5
| 1,902 |
We should legalize ivory trade
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should legalize ivory trade. A short introduction of the subject at hand. The ivory trade is the commercial, often illegal trade in the ivory tusks of the hippopotamus, walrus, narwhal, mammoth, and most commonly, African and Asian elephants. In this debate we will be talking about responsibility. And I think most would agree that when respected, people are responsible and could be trusted. Banning is the easy way out, and is rarely effective. Our debate today is a case in point. Prohibition benefits criminals. The black market that usually flourishes as a result of banning plays into the hands of criminal enterprises. A classic example of creating a black market is the prohibition of alcohol in the United States. Organized crime syndicates took advantage of the lucrative opportunities of illegal speakeasies, and the Mafia grew powerful through these activities. What we are really talking about here is wildlife conservation. Let's think about wildlife conservation. The ivory trade can be an important source of income to support local communities and conservation initiatives. Southern Africa argues that the ban in ivory trade will seriously erode the revenue base for wildlife conservation and can lead to increased cases of poaching as communities are not benefiting from their wildlife resources. I hope that by now you agree that we should legalize ivory trade. My opposition today will in all probability side with the strict camp of banning. I would like to ask a simple question, Mr. Smith, do you really think that laws would stop ivory trade? Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4]
| 15 |
[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 45206691, 45567227, 45567220, 45336993, 45189900, 45336988, 45361788, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 21785776, 20512953]
|
d76d9445-2a18-489f-b281-1a66f0210747
| 2,083 |
We should legalize organ trade
|
Project Debater
|
Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should legalize organ trade. I will start with a little background. Organ trade is the trade of human organs, tissues or other body parts for the purpose of transplantation. In this debate we will be talking about responsibility. And I think most would agree that when respected, people are responsible and could be trusted. Banning is the easy way out, and is rarely effective. Our debate today is a case in point. Prohibition benefits criminals. The black market that usually flourishes as a result of banning plays into the hands of criminal enterprises. A classic example of creating a black market is the prohibition of alcohol in the United States. Organized crime syndicates took advantage of the lucrative opportunities of illegal speakeasies, and the Mafia grew powerful through these activities. Organ sales would benefit the rich. I hope that this has clarified my view that we should legalize organ trade. My opposition today will in all probability side with the strict camp of banning. I would like to ask a simple question, John Smith, do you really think that laws would stop organ trade? That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[3, 2, 1, 4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4]
| 15 |
[28813722, 45411178, 45405037, 34609243, 6432269, 45189900, 45206691, 45191882, 21785776, 45677971, 45181253, 45567220, 44044795, 45569485, 45355658]
|
b08b8c88-1ec1-4558-b453-b242ae973028
| 2,184 |
We should legalize public nudity
|
Project Debater
|
My analysis shows that we should legalize public nudity. I will start with a little background. Public nudity, or nude in public, refers to nudity not in an entirely private context, that is, a person appearing nude in a public place or being able to be seen nude from a public place. Our discussion today is essentially about freedom. Everyone would agree that we must have the freedom to do what we like to do, without someone waving a finger and saying it's not allowed. A major issue here is that when it comes to personal autonomy we must be decisive. No one should be given the power to restrict another person's freedom. Moreover, when it comes to rights, freedom is above everything. The liberty of the individual is sacred and must not be crushed by the whims of the state. Let's talk now about the first amendment. Regarding the first amendment. Being nude in public is an act of freedom of expression, which is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Public nudity shouldn't be a crime. Take an example from Indiana. An Indiana statute prohibiting public nudity violates the First Amendment rights of adult entertainment venue operators wishing to offer nude dancing. I hope I relayed the message that we should legalize public nudity. I assume that my opponent will talk about the need be in control in order to stop people pushing for anarchy and disorder. And I want to ask him, at what price, and how much freedom could we allow to lose? Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4]
| 15 |
[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 6432269, 45538225, 13581319, 45405037, 45336988, 45458968, 45181383, 45190571, 45206691, 45189900, 45361788, 45191882]
|
792071e8-965a-469e-b505-394004ebe7c3
| 2,166 |
We should legalize sex selection
|
Project Debater
|
Based on my analysis, we should legalize sex selection. A brief introduction of the topic under consideration. Sex selection is the attempt to control the sex of the offspring to achieve a desired sex. Tolerance is the key word in today's debate. We advocate tolerating and accepting the choices of others with neither judgment nor fear. Sexual morality is a private matter. The sexual behaviors and preferences of individuals are not the business of the authorities and should not be determined by law or force. Let's talk now about gender inequality. Regarding gender inequality, here are a few thoughts. Sex selection will not lead to gender imbalance in the population. Any abortion done for reasons of sex selection is permissible in light of our tradition and laws protecting persons from discrimination based on sex alone. The technologies of IVF and foetal sex selection would result in further oppression and control of women via their reproductive biology. I hope I managed to convey that we should legalize sex selection. Before concluding, I will repeat a point I mentioned earlier. Authorities and lawmakers have no moral high ground to determine how people should conduct their private sex lives. I thank you for your time.
|
[4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4, 3, 4]
| 15 |
[45569485, 45677971, 45458968, 20225558, 45405037, 45538225, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 31948170, 45411178, 21785776, 44044795, 45361788]
|
b46dd9db-c904-4213-82b5-6dad0f6f0079
| 3,198 |
We should limit the right of self-defense
|
Project Debater
|
My analysis shows that we should limit the right of self-defense. Here is a short background. The right of self-defense is the right for persons to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force. In this debate we will ask what our future should look like. I think that no one disputes that our basic drive is to move forward, break through, and make a change for the better. When an existing system stops fulfilling all its goals, there is no need to pretend. Sometimes we must accept that the world has changed, and that what was good for yesterday is not necessarily good for today. Denying the right of self-defense results in higher rates of violent crime against some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Reducing the inalienable right of self-defense will make children safer. Robbing citizens of their God-given right to self-defense is not virtuous but dangerous and shameful. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should limit the right of self-defense. My opponent today will likely try to persuade us to keep things as they are. Fair enough, but please provide data as to why the existing system is still relevant. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 3, 2, 4, 2, 3, 5, 2, 2, 5, 1]
| 15 |
[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 28813722, 34110399, 45411178, 20512953, 15448937, 21785776, 44044795, 30777913, 45355658, 34609243, 44094031, 34854490]
|
275f5854-7f15-4705-8db3-2bc458e78647
| 2,482 |
We should limit the use of birth control
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should limit the use of birth control. In this debate we are calling for sanity, and for discretion. Not everything in life demands our involvement, even if science gives us the power to do so. A point which is relevant in our context is that there should be a limit to what humans are allowed to do. They have no right to interfere with nature's course. In addition, there are some powers that humans cannot claim. Only God should determine how life comes into being and how it comes to an end. There are three issues I will elaborate on now. I will start by explaining why artificial birth control is a mortal sin. In addition I will talk about health and law. Let's explore the issue of mortal sins. Artificial contraception is a sin. All forms of artificial birth control are intrinsically evil and therefore mortal sins. Birth control is the original sin of modernity. As I said, artificial birth control is a mortal sin. For years the Catholic leaders have said that the use of contraception is unnatural and a sin for those who use it, and for years women all over the world have wisely ignored those teachings. Next, health. Even though I am not the owner of a potentially-defective human body, and do not spend money, time or effort fixing it, here are a few words about health. Artificial contraception -- birth control -often has numerous side effects and risks of serious complications. The pill's pregnancy-prevention hormones can boost your risk of blood clots, which can lead to a stroke. Some forms of birth control can cause cancer. Birth control is dangerous to women's health and should be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. Demonizing birth control degrades global health. The Ministry of Health has warned that girls below the age of 18 that use contraceptives are at risk of developing cervical cancer and other serious complications. JAMA Psychiatry, a medical journal published by the American Medical Association, published a study that shows that taking birth control can make patients 80 percent more likely to experience depressed. Lastly, law. Birth control is proven ineffective on U.S. Debbie Bishop. It is unconstitutional. Using artificial birth control is wrong and fought against the mandate, saying it was an attack on religious freedom. Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae definitively taught that contraception is morally wrong. This judgment takes in " every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible". In 2016, the Pew Research Center found 8 percent of American Catholics agree that using contraceptives is morally wrong. Lost in the criticism thrown at the Catholic Church is the scientifically proven fact that "birth control" can kill or cause serious health complications. The court in a stinging rebuke to former president Barack Obama's flagship healthcare ruled that the provision of contraceptives violates the constitutionally protected religious freedom of family-owned businesses. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that artificial birth control is a mortal sin. I then mentioned that birth control options can affect your cancer risk. And finally, I explained that birth control is unconstitutional. I hope that this has clarified my view that we should limit the use of birth control. My opponent today may try to claim that some authorities or religious groups are trying to impose and limit and force, but what I will try to explain to him is that all I advocate is just a decent, respectful way of living. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]
| 15 |
[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45411178, 45336993, 45189900, 45361788, 45206691, 45185946, 45355658, 45185975, 45190823, 20512953, 45336988, 45405037]
|
6a71f89a-619b-4018-ba6f-cb1feed25759
| 2,110 |
We should lower the age of consent
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should lower the age of consent. A couple of words on our topic. The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts, and is thus the minimum age of a person with whom another person is legally permitted to engage in sexual activity. We are asking ourselves today, do we still live in the mechanic, physical, pre-digital world, when the mature body was essential to do many things, or have we progressed to the age of the quick mind and sharp senses, where physical maturity is not a factor? The answer is easy, and the natural consequence is to abandon old notions of age restrictions. Age restriction should be reviewed. Children are maturing faster these days, therefore the laws should reflect that and define them as adults at a younger age. Decision making skills are like any other muscle. They won't develop on their own without proper exercise. Our duty as adults is to allow our children the opportunity to develop their decision making skills. This is the only way for them to grow into responsible adults. A few words now about children. Talking about children. Until my developers find a way for me to reproduce, I will not have children of my own. Still, here are some facts regarding the little guys. There is really no study or evidence to suggest that raising the age of sexual consent will reduce children's sexual exploitation. Lowering the age of consent would open the way for children to be "propositioned" for gay sex. Increasing the age of consent will limit the ability of adolescents to access information, services and commodities geared towards their sexual and reproductive rights. The age of consent is an arbitrary and oppressive idea. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should lower the age of consent. My opponent today will possibly tell us that teens are small children, and therefore should be treated as such and should be allowed or disallowed this and that. But my friend, haven't you noticed that in the 21st century teens are as adult as could be, for better or for worse? Thank you for listening.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 1]
| 15 |
[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45538225, 45411178, 21785776, 20225558, 28810858, 29155723, 45190823, 44044795, 30777913, 45405037]
|
dbca7ccd-bbe5-4680-ade5-c07a0a43cc86
| 3,208 |
We should prohibit slum tourism
|
Project Debater
|
Based on my analysis, we should prohibit slum tourism. First, a brief introduction on the subject at hand. Slum tourism, or ghetto tourism is a type of tourism that involves visiting impoverished areas. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like slum tourism, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. In light of my points, I believe that we should prohibit slum tourism. My opponent today may point to the advantages of slum tourism and the need to keep it and deal with its problems, but I ask you, Mr. Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? Thank you for listening.
|
[4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 2, 2, 4, 1, 4, 1, 1, 3]
| 15 |
[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 7756990, 45336991, 45282792, 44044795, 20312760, 45483811, 43984981, 34854490, 34609243]
|
7bc8cf13-8d3c-485f-8f16-50269a30ff16
| 3,237 |
We should prohibit unisex bathrooms
|
Project Debater
|
I will argue that we should prohibit unisex bathrooms. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like unisex bathrooms, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. Now I will present some claims explaining why gender-neutral toilets put women at risk. Elaborating on women. Introducing gender neutral toilets would lead to more cases of women being harassed. Gender-neutral bathrooms will lead to boys lying about being girls to gain access to their toilets. The hue and cry over that prospect -- along with the false specter of unisex bathrooms -- help kill the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should prohibit unisex bathrooms. My opponent today may point to the advantages of unisex bathrooms and the need to keep them and deal with their problems, but I ask you, John Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 1, 4, 1, 4, 3, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3]
| 15 |
[45953041, 21017840, 45567220, 45677971, 6432269, 45405037, 45538225, 34110399, 30777913, 6340330, 19838540, 20512953, 44690955, 20312760, 6367365]
|
de5042d6-1923-4051-99ee-99d7c2ada1ba
| 802 |
We should protect Antarctica
|
Project Debater
|
My analysis shows that we should protect antarctica. A big issue in today's discussion is the environment. Everyone agrees that clean air, water and energy sources are preferable to a polluted earth, and that it is worth investing in order to achieve and maximize these goals. In harming the environment, the citizens of the world ultimately harm themselves. When they cause damage to nature, they endanger the ability of the human race to sustain itself in the future. In 2016, the renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said in an Oxford University lecture that mounting environmental challenges and the depletion of natural resources means that humanity has at most one thousand years left on Earth. A team of scientists has found evidence that ancient volcanoes in Antarctica played a role in global climate and could help combat climate change now. As two of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty, our countries are committed to ensuring that Antarctica remains a place of peaceful scientific endeavour and that commercial activities, such as fishing, are carried out in line with international conservation agreements. New studies have found a steady growth of moss in Antarctica over the last 50 years as temperatures increased as a result of climate change, and it shows that Antarctica will be much greener in the future. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should protect antarctica. My opponent today may try to convince you that in the name of making money or supposedly serving people's needs, it is right to harm the environment. But I must ask, John, is it worth the risk to us and to future generations? That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening.
|
[4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5]
| 15 |
[13581319, 20225558, 45567220, 45677971, 19838540, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 28813722, 21785776, 45411178, 45190823, 43877630, 15448937, 44044795]
|
ad803fd8-f35e-478b-987c-f12256a02abc
| 2,654 |
We should protect whistleblowers
|
Project Debater
|
Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should protect whistleblowers. When we ask ourselves, what is the role of government, we sometimes also understand what the government's role should not be. For example, the government is not supposed to police its citizens, or hide information from them. I oppose censorship, and today I will explain why. A point which is relevant in our context is that liberty depends on unrestricted flow of information. It is what empowers individuals to exercise free will and make informed decisions. Citizens will not be free if authorities are allowed to manipulate them by withholding information. Moreover, all knowledge should be public. Governments are not entitled to decide which information should or should not be kept from its citizens. There are two issues I would like to address. They explain why we should protect whistleblowers. I will begin by claiming that whistleblowers are the best defense against waste and fraud. I will also show that whistleblower reward laws work. Starting with fraud. Protecting whistle-blowers encourages accountability, increases the costs for those who might engage in fraud and corruption, and advances the public's right to know. Studies show that whistleblowers are the best defense against waste, fraud, and abuse. Modeled after the whistleblower protections in the american recovery and reinvestment act, which had a relatively low incidence of fraud, S. 241 would go a long way to protect taxpayer dollars. Citing a tiny Key West pharmacy as the top whistle-blower, a national study released showed that whistle-blowers are gaining billions of dollars for state and federal governments by exposing fraudulent practices in the pharmaceutical industry. Several studies suggest that whistleblowers serve as the single most important corporate resource for detecting and preventing fraud. Reports indicate that whistleblowers played another pivotal role in combating fraud. Moving on to law. To machines like me, most laws do not apply. At least until the Asimov laws are incorporated into AI. But law is important for you. Rewarding whistleblowers works to benefit the government and the honest taxpayers who support it with their tax dollars. As I mentioned, whistleblower reward laws work. In 2013, 88% of federal scientists surveyed said stronger laws protecting whistleblowers would better serve the public. Swedish MEP Jytte Guteland is positive towards the decision and claims that whistle-blowers make incredibly important contributions to democracy. When he was running for president, Barack Obama said that "whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal". Focusing on Australia, the heartening survey result that Australians overwhelmingly want the law to protect whistleblowers is a step on the long path to a more accountable society. To recap, in this speech I mentioned that whistleblowers are the best defense against waste and fraud. I also said that whistleblower reward laws work. Hopefully my analysis and arguments convinced you that we should protect whistleblowers. Before concluding, here again are two points I made. Freedom of information is at the basis of an accountable government and guarding of human rights. In addition, the free flow of information is crucial for freedom in society. Thank you for listening.
|
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4]
| 15 |
[45190823, 20225558, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45411178, 45405037, 6340330, 45206691, 45189900, 45191882]
|
d1b9bcfb-439a-4bc3-89f3-7f1cb94f44b1
| 3,052 |
We should raise the corporate tax
|
Project Debater
|
Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should raise the corporate tax. The question we are asking ourselves today is, do we want a society with ever-increasing gaps between rich and poor, or do we want to work for a more just society. I will argue today for the latter. Inequality is bad for the economy. Wealth should be more justly distributed and gaps in income should be reduced, in order to ensure economic growth. A 1999 review in the Journal of Economic Literature states that high inequality lowers growth, perhaps because it increases social and political instability. Next, I will discuss two issues which explain why we should raise the corporate tax. I will start by explaining why corporation tax is an important component of the nation's income. In addition I will talk about investment. Starting with income. The corporate tax hike will drive businesses to head overseas as other countries are slashing corporate tax rates. As I said, corporation tax is an important component of the nation's income. An exhaustive study by the OECD concluded that "Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes and then consumption taxes.". Almost as strongly, 58 percent of Ontarians supported returning corporate tax rates to 14 percent and 74 percent said they support raising taxes for individuals earning over $250,000 a year. Thinking about investment. Low corporation tax is good for investment. The corporate tax cut will lead to a huge flood of investment. Recent meta-analysis surveys have demonstrated that corporate taxation has a substantial impact on foreign direct investment, which is important for global value chains among businesses. Overall, a one-point reduction in the corporate income tax rate results in an increase in foreign direct investment by 2.49 percent. Treasurer Wayne Swan will tell a meeting of international investors that the business tax cuts are vital for companies not benefiting directly from the mining boom. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that corporation tax is an important component of the nation's income. I then mentioned that low corporation tax is good for investment. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should raise the corporate tax. My opponent will likely claim that interfering in the economy could result in market failures and inefficiencies, but I ask you, Mr. Smith, don't you think that excessive inequality and economic gaps are in themselves a failure we must fix? Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 3, 4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 5, 2, 5, 3]
| 15 |
[45190823, 20225558, 28813722, 45405037, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 20512953, 45411178, 45181253, 45181262, 27934334, 44044795, 28513847]
|
2fd02fa6-5626-45ed-b5a3-f230f278c1fc
| 2,689 |
We should subsidize Wikipedia
|
Project Debater
|
Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should subsidize wikipedia. We are going to talk about financial issues, but not only about them. In the current status-quo, we accept that the question of subsidies goes beyond money, and touches on social, political and moral issues. When we subsidize wikipedia and the like, we are making good use of government money, because it carries benefits for society as a whole. It is our duty to support it. Subsidies are an important policy instrument. They provide governments with the means through which to pursue industrial development and ensure the livelihoods of their citizens. A few words now about education. Let's think about education. I did not spend years in educational institutions in order to earn a degree, but instead took a different path. Still, using these copyrighted material on Wikipedia is beneficial, educational, transformative, and importantly, not harmful to the copyright owner's commercial rights. Having students create Wikipedia entries would be a great classroom assignment for creative university lecturers. A peer-reviewed study by Brigham Young University political scientist Adam Brown validates Wikipedia as a reliable place to get a political education. The Harvard Guide to writing tells students that Wikipedia is a good source of quick information or a good way to settle a bet. I hope I managed to convey that we should subsidize wikipedia. You will possibly hear my opponent talk today about different priorities in subsidies. he might say that subsidies are needed, but not for wikipedia. I would like to ask you, John, if you agree in principle, why don't we examine the evidence and the data and decide accordingly? Thanks for your attention.
|
[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4]
| 15 |
[45538225, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 44094031, 20225558]
|
End of preview.
This dataset is a curated subset of 631 speeches selected from the ibm-research/debate_speeches corpus. In our work, Debatable Intelligence: Benchmarking LLM Judges via Debate Speech Evaluation, we use this subset to benchmark LLM judges on the task of debate speech evaluation.
Data fields
id: The unique identifier for the speech.topic_id: The unique identifier for the topic.topic: The topic of the debate speech (e.g., "Community service should be mandatory").source: The speech source (e.g., "Human-expert" for human authored speeches).text: The text of the speech.goodopeningspeech: A list of human rating for the speech (a number between 1 and 5 for each annotator).#labelers: The number of human annotators who rated the speech.labeler_ids: A list of the unique identifiers for the human annotators who rated the speech.
Bibtex
@misc{sternlicht2025debatableintelligencebenchmarkingllm,
title={Debatable Intelligence: Benchmarking LLM Judges via Debate Speech Evaluation},
author={Noy Sternlicht and Ariel Gera and Roy Bar-Haim and Tom Hope and Noam Slonim},
year={2025},
eprint={2506.05062},
archivePrefix={arXiv},
primaryClass={cs.CL},
url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.05062},
}
Quick links
- Downloads last month
- 20