BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Essential services should be socialized, and privatized services should be regulated.

In his rebuttal of my first premise, Con claims that the only essential services in society are police, courts, and defense. While I agree that all 3 of those are essential services, I disagree with the notion that those are the only one that should be provided publicly. For example, healthcare is needed in every individuals life. Without the services, we could not live our lives (or at least, live them to the highest quality possible). And when healthcare can only be provided to those who can afford it (like the ongoing situation in the United States), poor people aren't able to live their lives properly. Thus, making the service essential to all members of society. The same applies to education. People need an education to have a basic understanding of the world. Before the common-school movement, very few people had access to it. Only the wealthy had that opportunity. So the Government started providing it, and soon everyone had access. Food/housing should only be provided to those who are in need. Not to those who have the means of acquiring them. I agree with Con that universal distribution of these services would not be good. The State would not ration this. Neither would they be the "sole employer". Transportation is a natural monopoly. One business could control the entire network of the city's roads/transit. So it would be ideal to place that power in an organization that answers to, and only to the public. The support for the second premise is affirmed. In his rebuttal to my third premise, my opponent claims that competition would cause businesses to not pay their workers pennies a day. Historical evidence shows that this is false. If all businesses pay their workers very low wages, the worker will not have much a "choice". In the late 1800's, this is especially prevalent. And if it is true that environmental laws are not needed, why did society start advocating for it? Because the notion that property rights could protect the environment didn't work, and doesn't work. Why go through the trouble of lawsuits and diverting capital to lawyers/courts when just outlawing it would be much easier and effective? If monopolies are unlikely in a free market, how come Theodore Roosevelt and many other Americans fought for anti-trust legislation during the Progressive era? Monopolies/Trusts were not taken down by market forces, instead, they were broken up by Government regulation.
Che Guevara was a murderous thug and the kids that walk around wearing his shirts are morons!

OK, so my opponent didn't put down a third point, which is fine, but than I will just repeat what I stated earlier. Che Guevara was killed very early after the end of the Cuban Revolution, and obviously had nothing to do with the communistic epidemic that occurred when the nation was controlled by Castro. In addition, while you are right that just because Batista was bad, that does not make Guevara and Fidel good, but they were fighting for a noble cause, and they felt that they would lead the control better than he did under a communistic government. However, similar to what happened in Russia, this led to a dictatorship with a few elite running the entire nation in a totalitarian regime. And while the after effects of the revolution were atrocious, Guevara had nothing to do with it, and the main culprit was and still is Castro. In addition, you never really address my argument that when people were Guevara's face on a shirt, they usually don't ever support him, but just his philosophies of revolution against dictatorship and crimes against humanity. They usually have a major problem with the way our nation is being run, and to support a change and to express how they feel towards our current political system, they wear his face on their clothing, not to express their devotion to the man himself, but what he believed in. Lastly, again, I state that the documented casualties of the Cuban revolution amounted to 180 deaths, and not "tens of thousands" that you have stated time and time again, so I just want to point that out. In conclusion, I feel that while Che Guevara brought his revolution and coup out in a relatively bloody fashion, he did it for a noble cause, and the people who where him on their shirts do so to represent revolution in itself, and not the man behind it.
Che Guevara was a murderous thug and the kids that walk around wearing his shirts are morons!

While you make some excellent points about how the current government in Cuba is a authoritarian disaster, I still feel that you never realy point out how this is Che's fault. Guevara was killed very early after the end of the Cuban Revolution, and obviously had nothing to do with the communistic epidemic that occurred when the nation was controlled by Castro. In addition, while you are right that just because Batista was bad, that does not make Guevara and Fidel good, but they were fighting for a noble cause, and they felt that they would lead the control better than he did under a communistic government. However, similar to what happened in Russia, this led to a dictatorship with a few elite running the entire nation in a totalitarian regime. And while the after effects of the revolution were atrocious, Guevara had nothing to do with it, and the main culprit was and still is Castro. In addition, you never really address my argument that when people were Guevara's face on a shirt, they usually don't ever support him, but just his philosophies of revolution against dictatorship and crimes against humanity. They usually have a major problem with the way our nation is being run, and to support a change and to express how they feel towards our current political system, they wear his face on their clothing, not to express their devotion to the man himself, but what he believed in. Lastly, again, I state that the documented casualties of the Cuban revolution amounted to 180 deaths, and not "tens of thousands" that you have stated time and time again, so I just want to point that out. In conclusion, I feel that while Che Guevara brought his revolution and coup out in a relatively bloody fashion, he did it for a noble cause, and the people who where him on their shirts do so to represent revolution in itself, and not the man behind it.
Che Guevara was a murderous thug and the kids that walk around wearing his shirts are morons!

I'd first like to discuss the topic itself, which I am against, "Che Guevara was a murderous thug and the kids that walk around wearing his shirts are morons! " First of all, I will deal with the "murderous thug" part. I will not deny the fact that Guevara and Castro killed Cuban soldiers he was fighting for a definitely noble cause. One thing that you stated was that you are a member of Jefferson's party, and respect him. However, what was the Revolutionary War, but just that, a war, where many people died. While in no way am I saying it was not for a great cause, I feel the American Revolution and the Cuban Revolution are very similar. In pre-communist Cuba, there was a military regime, ran by Batista, where many people died in the awful and brital totalitarian regime. In colonial America, We ere oppressively controlled by the United Kingdom, and were forced to do a great deal of things and pay a great deal of taxes we did not agree with. Both revolutionaries, Castro and Che, and our forefathers, felt that the one solution that would work without fail would be a violent coup, and in both cases, were very successful. So in fact, Che was not a "thug" but in fact a liberator and a freedom fight, waging war against oppression and dictatorship. Now, to the next point, about how the people who where the shirts are "morons". However, this could not be farther from the truth. When people were a shirt with his face on it, they are not necessarily supporting him, but his philosophy of revolution and change. Many people, especially "college students" as you have mentioned, are disgruntled with our current political system, and feel that one way to show it is by wearing one of the most famous revolutionaries on their shirt. In addition, another result, probably unplanned, of creating mugs, posters, shirts etc. with Che's face on it is to in essence go AGAINST his violent and communistic beliefs. He commonly attested that capitalism was atrocious, and that the only treu successful government would be a communism. But by creating a vast amount of merchandise, a very capitalistic action, this just causes him to roll in his grave, and for many people to further separate themselves from his actions, and to further solely represent his revolutionary freedom fighting, and not his communism and murder. One last quick point, I believe it was about 180 people that Che's forces killed, which don't get me wrong is atrocious, but far fewer than the "tens of thousands" you tote.
Che Guevara was a murderous thug and the kids that walk around wearing his shirts are morons!

As a Democrat, the party of Jefferson, Roosevelt and Kennedy, I have always been baffled by how the main stream media and Hollywood producers have portrayed Che Guevara as being this wonderful revolutionary freedom fighter and college kids wear t-shirts with his face on it. The fact is that Che Guevara was from that. He was a Machavellian murderer and along with his buddy, Fidel Castro, killed tens of thousands of innocent people in a bloody revolution. Ironically, the first people I see wearing Che shirts are college students, generally the long-haired rocker crowd. What they fail to realize is that in Cuba, Che Guevara would send young students to labor camps if they listened to rock music (like the Beatles). Castro's regime would also patrol the streets and round up young people by the dozens and force them to cut their hair "or else." Che Guevara was also a racist. In his now-famous diaries he wrote that "blacks are lazy" as opposed to Europeans, which are "forward thinking." I bet you didn't see that in the Motorcycle Diaries. This isn't a right vs. left issue, it's about right and wrong. Young people should take off their Che shirts, burn them and help promote peaceful transitions to democracy around the world.
Better to be dead with big cock than alive with tiny one.

If you have big cock but are dead it means you don't suffer and wouldn't anyway if you were alive. This is both beneficial relative and absolute in both present, concrete sense and potential.If you are alive with small penis, you are suffering and will have to suffer more to earn the money to afford sex toys and/or viagra to comepensate for it. Thi sis suffering both in present and potential.
Better to be dead with big cock than alive with tiny one.

Apologies for the forfeited round. I could not find time to get on debate this weekend. Again, most women say that the size of the penis doesn't matter for pleasure in intercourse, but rather his performance. Also, you are working for all kinds of things in your life, and if you are that insecure about how big or small your penis is, I guess it's worth not having cable TV for a couple of months. To wrap up my arguments, it is better to live with a smaller penis than to be dead with a large one because there is no use for a penis in death, size doesn't matter but rather performance does, enlargements CAN be purchased inexpensively.
Better to be dead with big cock than alive with tiny one.

Con, people may have dissagreements as to what's big or small. could you explain more?Note, the rooster, or cockerel argument is there to prove a point, a rooster is useless in death like a penis is useless. Argument: Penis size can be adjusted, while it can be expensive. Many enlargement pills exist, and some methods are affordable. Also, many women don't care about size, they may laugh a bit but in the end as many scientists have proved, size really doesn't matter, except for looks. good luck to pro, I must conclude here.http://www.medicaldaily.com...
Better to be dead with big cock than alive with tiny one.

As we can see Con is so confused that they contradicted and sidetracked their own argument in four different directions. This often happens when debating for the wrong side.Con begins to attack me for having somehow indicated that the dead person with the big cock is a fetus or was never alive. I never once said this and something that was never alive cant be dead in the first place so that's really dumb to suggest.Following on from this, the use of the penis is irrelevant to the dead person. The small penis causes the person humiliation and suffering due to its petite appearance.The entire cockerel reference is absurd. A dead person cannot own anything as all their property gets redistributed either by a will or whatever system the laws of that state provide for such an event. In other words, to suggest that if a farmer died he'd still be the owner of his big cockerel would be to deny all definitions altogether as well as law. Thus it follows that the only relevant definition of 'cock' left to take is that of the penis.Thank you and goodbye.
Better to be dead with big cock than alive with tiny one.

I realise you were probably talking about human penises, but in death there is no use for a penis. You also stated that this death is one that was not following a life, so this human was probably a dead fetus. A fetus has an incredibly small penis, even a big one would be no more than two centimeters long. Again a dead fetus has no use for it's penis, so I will continue with a reasonal debate.Rebbutal: There is no reason to have a massive rooster in death.Sorry but I found it unclear what you meant when you said tiny cock. It was unclarified whether the rooster full grown, or if it is still young. I'm going to continue though as to it being young as long periods of suffering tend to be worse and raising a male chicken is a hastle.If you own a rooster in life, and also a hen, the rooster can fertilize the hens eggs. It is true that larger roosters have higher fertility, providing more eggs, but you cannot consume, nor sell/profit from them if your dead.I have no extra time to right a seperate argument so I must conclude this round, good luck to pro in the next round.
Pewdiepie saying the n word should not have been a big deal

As a society, we interpret ideas and words differently. While the n word might not be offensive to you, many people in our society find the word offensive and they are entitled to take actions, as prohibited by law, when they are offended. It's unfair for anybody to say that everyone in a society should adopt a certain view, especially if the view is a matter of opinion such as this. Some people may not be offended, and that's okay. But some other people are offended, and that's okay too.
Pewdiepie saying the n word should not have been a big deal

Well that brings me to my next thing why should saying the n-word be bad its no longer offensive the Spanish language uses it for the word black. And to be honest its like if you were a white person and I called you honky or a Mexican and I called you a beaner or a Hispanic and I called you a Mexican. It's not really as offensive as people make it out to be all these words are old things and just offend people who aren't even of the race its being pointed out to. Pewdiepie said it not knowing if the dude was black or not or even if it was a dude. I really think that the backlash Pewdiepie got was from people who weren't even black.
Pewdiepie saying the n word should not have been a big deal

Pwediepie saying the n word is a big deal because he is in a position of power, and if says it without repercussions, that sets a precedent that it's okay for everyone to say the n word. Additionally, if Pewdiepie's affiliates stand by and do nothing, that means they find his behavior acceptable. Pewdiepie only faces a lot of backlash because he is so big and influential.
Pewdiepie saying the n word should not have been a big deal

Well I am a black person you may not belive me or think i'm some crazy white 7 year old boy who loves pewdiepie to be honest he's ok but He should not have been so slammed for saying the n-word lots of people say it and they don't get as slammed as him in fact take Logan Paul straight up disrespecting Japan nothing bad really happened to him except maybe people getting mad he didn't lose any subs or anything I think Pewdiepie said it on accident and shouldn't have been punished for it
AOW War Scenario: Pakistan (pro) vs Italy (con)

Any casulaties caused by fighting with India or War on terror are void. Italy PwrIndx: 0.5735 16 MANPOWER Going beyond military equipment totals and perceived fighting strength is the actual manpower that drives a given military. Wars of attrition favor those with more. Total Population: 61,680,122 Available Manpower: 27,869,443 Fit for Service: 22,596,141 Reaching Military Age Annually: 569,859] Active Frontline Personnel: 320,000 Active Reserve Personnel: 42,000 LAND SYSTEMS Tank value includes Main Battle Tanks, light tanks and tank destroyers, either wheeled or tracked. AFV value includes Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs). Tanks: 586 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 6,972 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 164 Towed-Artillery: 92 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 21 AIR POWER Includes both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft from all branches of service. Total Aircraft: 760 Fighters/Interceptors: 117 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 153 Transport Aircraft: 399 Trainer Aircraft: 153 Helicopters: 355 Attack Helicopters: 59 NAVAL POWER Aircraft Carrier value includes dedicated "helicopter carrier" vessels. Total naval strength includes all known auxiliaries as well. Total Naval Strength: 174 Aircraft Carriers: 2 Frigates: 14 Destroyers: 4 Corvettes: 5 Submarines: 6 Coastal Defense Craft: 14 Mine Warfare: 10 RESOURCES (PETROLEUM) Despite the advances made in battlefield technology, oil remains the lifeblood of any fighting force as well as local economy. Oil Production: 146,500 bbl/day Oil Consumption: 1,550,000 bbl/day] Proven Oil Reserves: 521,300,000 bbl/day LOGISTICAL War is as much a battle of logistics - moving man and machine from points all over - as it is direct combat. Labor Force reflects possible wartime industry strength. Labor Force: 25,740,000 Merchant Marine Strength: 681] Major Ports and Terminals: 9 Roadway Coverage: 487,700 Railway Coverage: 20,255 Serviceable Airports: 129 FINANCIAL (in USD) Regardless of military strength in numbers, war is still driven by financing as much as any one leader or weapon. Defense Budget: $34,000,000,000 External Debt: $2,604,000,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $181,700,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity: $1,805,000,000,000 GEOGRAPHY (in km) Geographical values primarily figure into a defensive-minded war (i.e. invasion). Square Land Area: 301,340 km Coastline: 7,600 km Shared Border: 1,836 km Waterways: 2,400 km Let the war begin
AOW War Scenario: Pakistan (pro) vs Italy (con)

September 1st After guiding Germany to victory in the riot-bank war against France, And defeating Pakistan in what is called the cat fight war, Then Guiding India to victory against the UK in the second commonwealth war, PM greatkitteh gets worldwide fame. Soon, Countries trip over each other to let PM greatkitteh be the leader of the country. September 2nd The hearing of Hussain is declared. -innocent! September 3rd The popularity of PM greatkitteh clashing with the popularity of Epic Diplomat Mr.almighty lead to the first war drums of a different debate That I might soon do. . . September 5th PM greatkitteh is declared a hero in the EU for leading them to two Decisive EU victories in Germany and Italy. September 7th Italy becomes a superpower. Rumors say PM greatkitteh is heading to North Korea. . . September 8th More hostilities between Nations form as PM greatkitteh Goes to north Korea. GreatKitteh Soon leads Russia to victory in the Russo-Ukraine war. September 10th Supreme leader Kim Jung un, Eternal Marshall and PM greatkitteh share leadership ideas, Leading to skirmishes in nations. Thank you for the war debate my friend!
AOW War Scenario: Pakistan (pro) vs Italy (con)

Thank you for the debate, this was a lot harder than I expected my friend. August 18th Pakistan PM Sharif proposes acceptance of the treaty reluctanly to the Pakistan Parliament for voting on. August 20th Pakistan's Parliament votes to accept the treaty. August 22nd Pakistan PM Sharif forwards the treaty to President Hussain. August 30th The treaty is signed by President Hussain
AOW War Scenario: Pakistan (pro) vs Italy (con)

Just asking, How is killing of 7 people raise the morale? August 9th Italy quickly seizes bahawalanagar with only 2 men dead. Pakistan loses one helicopter and 1 hovercraft. August 10th After Beating Pakistan`s navy, Italy captures the satluji River, and land eastward of it. August 11th Italy fasley shows Pakistan a video of "Pakistan`s" Soldier freeing "Prisoners". Pakistan then kills of 5 people, And morale sinks again.. August 15th 89% of the Pakistan`s armed forces want a stop to the war. Pakistan then kills 100,000 troops for disloyalty. Italy then show Pakistan another video of a general letting troops desert, Leading to morale loss and 10 famous generals dead. August 16th Pakistan being forced to promote people quicker leads to blunders in a air battle at Islamabad. The capital is soon bombed and re-taken by Italy. August 17th With virtually all land taken by Italy, Italy provides a treaty. It is up to you to accept. Treaty Kitteh. Pakistan pays $5 billion to Italy Pakistan sign an apology to India and china Pakistan, With it`s navy destroyed, allows Italy to ship goods and trade The two countries sign an economic agreement Italy Restore cyberspace Italy is the victor Pakistan stop the death penalty Pakistan be a Italian Puppet-state for 5 years, then gets a choice for commonwealth or free state. Currently, I captured most land, with a few land up northwest as an expedition. However, The land at northwest is easy to capture, Unlike the northeast.
AOW War Scenario: Pakistan (pro) vs Italy (con)

Thank you for the debate-let the war continue! I am learning a lot my friend. July 28th Pakistan PM Sharif is outraged at the morale loss. Balochistan's Mach Jail is prepped to hang Italian prisoners. July 30th Pakistan troops muster outside an oil field and fight hard, capturing 200 Italian troops while losing 210 troops killed and $100,000. Italy loses 102 killed. August 1st Lahore High Court issues black death warrants for 7 Italian troops, setting execution date for August 5th August 3rd Pakistan army retakes Islamabad, at least the ruins of it, losing 300 troops. Italy loses 100 more troops killed in the process. August 5th Pakistan hangs 7 Italian soldiers in Mach Jail at 5:40 am Pakistan time. August 8th Faisalabad Central Jail is fortified and Faisalabad in general is heavily fortified.