BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free Market Capitalism (Pro) vs Mixed Economy(Con)

Free market capitalism is a bit more chaotic than mixed economy. We can find someway to give the economy what they need but if we"re in a society where our system has a decrease in boundaries, who knows what could happen. It wouldn't matter because we could be giving our society the wrong things for their bodies and then price WOULD matter since we"re giving such bad food. Another things that"s bad for the society"s health is that our history is filled with dishonest business, and now trust is scarce. Businesses polluted before pollution controls were established, businesses marketed addictive products such as tobacco, before regulations, businesses could"ve tested their products prior to FDA rules, businesses could have regulated themselves so there wasn't a vast financial crisis in 2008, businesses are carrying out harmful practices to society, but if all of this didn"t happen, maybe we could"ve talked about if government regulations were necessary. But it did happen and there"s nothing we can do to change that. Affording may be hard at times but I think a majority would risk a chance of that over risking [extremely] the consumption of harmful products. People would find a way to get back up on their feet faster than our society being in jeopardy for their health and their life. You stated something about higher profit but that"s what I also stated. Of course, without the health problems. Healthy competition will raise finance because it pushes you to be more creative so people will buy your products. You say that free market is more affordable for the poor. That may be. But I can assure you it"s not healthy for them. Of course we aren"t going to STARVE them. There are people trying to help this problem and that"s why we have donations and organizations. The free market will only jeopardize their living even more. With the chance of "poisoning" yourself from unhealthy products in free market, they will surely make you suffer even more than you already do which is why we need to help the poor regardless of our system. It"s bad either way. Capitalism DOES cause pollution. I stated before people carried out with pollution in their companies, before regulations were noted. Mixed economy fixes that because of it"s boundaries. Didn"t you catch that? It"s very difficult to change government policies and It"s extremely difficult for the average citizen to influence corporate policies using only consumer purchases and stockholder meetings. And that"s why we have government regulation.
Free Market Capitalism (Pro) vs Mixed Economy(Con)

Thank you for challenging me and I look forward to this debate. I want to start my argument off by saying there are advantages to mixed economy. With mixed economy, it allows private participation which in return allows a healthy competition and that results in profit. It also contributes to public ownership in manufacturing which also contributed to welfare needs. This is what keeps our society going. The system may be a little harder for some people to pay but it"s for the best. I would like to say that it"s for the best because aside from this we are trying to help those in need but Free Market Capitalism doesn"t solve that for the following: Imagine I"m selling muffins. Mine are for 50 cents each. And then imagine there"s a boy next to me selling muffins for five dollars each. I"m guessing people would come over to me. But what makes them 1 dollar? It probably costs 50 cents because I used ingredients that are easy to get and do not cost much, which results in unhealthy products that would be worse for the health of people who are struggling. In maybe a more extreme case, I could"ve poisoned the muffins. Although that may or may not happen, the ingredients are sure at a very high risk of bad for your body. With mixed economy, more boundaries are enforced, strengthening the safety of consumers. Like I said before, healthy competition results in profit so those with good jobs will have a stable life in terms of pay. Saying the products will be easier for people to get won"t matter. There"s always going to be financial problems in our world. It"s not that I don"t want to fix it we just have to be focused on giving all people the best as much as we can. Also with boundaries this can reduce pollution which causes global warming. Capitalism causes global warming because free trade like I said can produce unhealthy products. Those products may require factories and factories cause a part of global warming. With these boundaries and the best we can offer, mixed economy cuts down unhealthy products like that. I look forward to your response
Free Market Capitalism (Pro) vs Mixed Economy(Con)

Round 2 will be arguments Round 3 will be rebuttals Round 4 will be addressing opponent's rebhuttals and concluding statements Good luck and hope you accept this challenge Free Market Capitalism: A free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. An example would include Switzerland Mixed Economy: An economic system in which the government imposes boundaries on capitalism to limit the concentration of power and achieve social balance. The U. S. economic system is a mixed economy.
History is condemned to repeat itself

My opponent contends that I have conceded that things "could happen" and therefore I am not countering his argument. However, let us look at his Resolution again. "History is condemned to repeat itself". What does "condemned" mean? Does it mean "able"? No, it does not. The resolution stipulates that history MUST repeat itself, that there is no other way. Of course in a general sense some aspects of history may and some will repeat themselves. The sun rose yesterday (history) and most likely will tomorrow. In fact, given the assumptions of this debate, it CERTAINLY will rise tomorrow. Thus, history will repeat itself. But my opponent's argument is not "some aspects of history will repeat themselves". His argument is specific. He claims that there is a trend of small empires - large empires - small empires - large empires etc. He claims this trend will continue. I say that we've had the situation once or twice and that there is no reason to ever suggest that it indeed is a trend per se. It's simply a coincidence that my opponent has noticed and attempts to describe as a trend. For example, imagine that 10 days in a row there is a car accident in your street, right outside house number 35. My opponent's logic would have you believe that this means that there will be a car accident at 35 YourStreet on day 11. Trite to say, that would be a fallacy. Let us also not forget that throughout this whole time when my opponent claims a rotation of empires, at least one empire existed. I am here referring to the Ottoman Empire which was in existence from the 1200's until its decline in the 1800's, thus smoothly merging with the times of western colonisation. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The empire's borders varied throughout that time, at one stage reaching as far out as Vienna. My other point is that there were always reasons for the way things happened. For example, western colonisation (notably the British empire is the best example of this) happened due to the "discovery" of the New World. In today's world we have well established borders, most recognised by international law. Of course, I can't guarantee that the UN will always exist. But it is highly unlikely that, particularly after WWII's experience, humanity will allow any one nation to go on a vast spree of conquest. Can China start conquering the nations around it? Highly unlikely. Can Russia? Extremely unlikely, particularly given its economic state (disastrous). But even if such a possibility exists, that does not in any way prove my opponent's resolution that there is a trend or that such a trend (even if existent) will continue. In conclusion, there is no trend of small-large-small-large empires. Even if there were such a trend, it would be nothing other than a coincidence, much like the car accidents at 35 YourStreet. There is no substance in a proposition that history is condemned to repeat itself.
History is condemned to repeat itself

Yes, I skimmed over history and didn't go into detail, but I was giving an account of a history of power,control and ,essentially, politics in the history of Europe. I agree that our history has progress and it shows. Humanity has been considered more sacred and special than it used to be. You say that the U. N. is in place and is ready to stop a powerful nation arising. This is true. It happened in Desert storm, Korea and the Balkans. But that's assuming the U. N. stays in place. With human's beoming increasingly desperate, countries like North Korea, China, parts of South America, Russia, Iran and others. This could lead to the rise of a large Chinese and Russian empires. Another possibility is space empires. It's not a too distant dream of space colonies on the moon or mars. This would lead to larger empires that (like in colonial era) broke off and formed independent nations. This would continue the large-small-large-small empire cycle I talked about. Yes, Fascism isn't popular in old comm bloc countries. I was refrencing to Romania, where a far right group has emerged in places. But I feel that it is relevant to the debate. Part of my claim is that empires won't die because people will think that a dictatorship would work best for a nation. You're argument is basically that anything can happen. This neither proves or disproves my claim. Because you are saying whilse my idea may not happen it could. You say 'One cannot possibly conclude that history is condemned to repeat itself simply because we've had some ancient empires followed by the Dark Ages'. I said we had more than ancient empires. We had a period of small clan-like settlements, followed by larger empires, followed by smaller kingdoms, followed by large colonial empires, followed by our present day smaller nations. Yes, during those times there were smaller empires, but in other parts of the undiscovered world. To conclude, you're argument is based on sheer probability, which doesn't count out my theory. History doesn't have a rule to it, it plays itself out with every human action. But there is a trend showing, and distractions like war and recession can't be counted as something that will halt this, thse are things that fuel it. i look forward to you're next argument.
History is condemned to repeat itself

My claim is that history is condemned to repeat itself and I'll show you why. To start, we will not take global warming as a factor and presume for the next thousand years or so that the world won't be faced with threats of extinction. My first point is that all you need to do is look at a history book about Europe to see the pattern. In the early years after the ice age, we had small, dispersed clan settlements. These were soon conquered, or simply emerged after time. Then great empires such as the Egyptian, Greek and Roman emerged and engulfed huge land amounts for their time. However, law and order was at unrest, and soon these empires in Europe buckled, like Rome, and split into smaller and smaller states. In the dark and middle ages, smaller states fought for land. Even Dukes and other Aristocracy had to be paid by the King of the land to fight for him. However, soon Large empires grew again in the colonial era. Britain, France, Portugal, Spain and others acquired colonies ranging from the 13 states in America to the coasts of Africa to the trade-rich India. However, the people grew tired of Kings and overthrew them. The same happened in foreign colonies as they overthrew the foreign power ruling them and became independent. After WW1, Large empires in Europe like Prussia and austria-hungary disappeared and were divided into smaller states. Just look at the Balkans today. Kosovo declared itself independent on top of all the other small states like Croatia and Albania. Soon enough, superpowers may re-emerge and take over the progressivley smaller and smaller states. Its obvious history will repeat itself with small empires - large empires - small empires, etc. My second point is that whilse people die, ideologies don't. Hitler may die, but Nationalism and Fascism are still around and popular in the old Comm. bloc countries. As long as theres an ideology, it can happen. Theres nothing to stop the U. S. from electing a dictator to office, nor russia.
Deregulated Capitalism is Superior to Alternatives

I won't construct any arguments because you haven't given me an alternative, so I'll just answer your questions.1)The criterion for aggression is whether something is voluntary. So if someone voluntarily agrees to work in a factory with unsafe working conditions, this is not a violation of the NAP.2) Yes. Any kind of property is in principle ownable by many people. Specifically I think that the use-theory of ownership is the most logically compatible with the NAP. It states that you have a right to do something as long as it does not aggressively interfere with what someone else is already doing. So you can farm a plot of unowned land, and no one has a right to interfere with your farming. But they can still use the land in ways that don't interfere with your activity, such as flying planes over or broadcasting radio waves through it. So I reject lockean/mixing/cardinal theories of ownership.If you have any further questions, go to the comments or PM me. We have a limited number of rounds.
Deregulated Capitalism is Superior to Alternatives

I accept your challenge but first I would like you to make a couple of distinctions: 1. You have already distinguished your form of libertarianism as stemming from the non-aggression principle which is defined in your article as (I'm paraphrasing here) the government will serve as a regulator if and only if harm is initiated upon a person or persons or their property. Does this extend to laborers working under dangerous conditions due to the negligence of a proprietor? I realize this strays quite a bit from the definition but I would like to be sure before I argue my points. 2. In your definition of libertarianism can the means of production be owned by the laborers or a collective of people instead of one sole proprietor?
Deregulated Capitalism is Superior to Alternatives

http://www.youtube.com...=== Framework ===Deregulated Capitalism - The bare bones laws stemming from the Non-Aggression Principle. http://en.wikipedia.org... Superior - I'll chose my weighing standard later if necessary. I plan to demonstrate uncontroversial advantage. Just remember this is a comparative exercise, so if you don't employ ceteris parabis you fail. http://en.wikipedia.org...Alternatives - Pick whatever you want. I basically plan to cross-apply all your arguments back on you. === Prestandards ===In order to promote fair debate, the following prestandards are copypasted from my previous debates. Always use protection! 1) Dropping arguments and bringing them up later allows an unfair advantage. For example, if I run utilitarianism in round 1, egalitariansim in round 2, and justice in round 3, I can just pick up whichever my opponent fails to address in round 4. Because we have limited space, dropped arguments ought to count as concessions. 2) Supporting citations must be clearly articulated in the debate. Writing: "Abortion is wrong [1]" is problematic on two counts. First, it does not justify a ballot because this is not an substantiated argument - it's an appeal to authority. Second, it is abusive because the debater is trying to glean offense outside of their round. To the voters: Honor my prestandards. My opponent is completely free to argue against them. However, if they still stand, they apply. I bring them forward not to gain special personal advantage but to ensure a principled debate. Debating begins in round 2.
stealing is better than begging

Okay, so, let me try to break this up. These 'gentlemen thieves' have a desire for the thrill of theft. That is why they steal. Begging obviously cannot fulfill this thrill. If this is the case then it is you arguing x and I arguing y. I agreed to the debate because I thought this was arguing which was better, stealing or begging, in the way that they are similar, as in making money. I would not have agreed if your argument of the 'gentleman thief' prevails. Your argument about the cop killer is a good one, but you forgot two things: 1. the cop is killing someone who is actively hurting people, and the thief stole from someone passively hurting people. Although, he's not really hurting anyone, which beings us to point 2. The equation. Let's say all people are at 0, and if you give them a benefit you raise them to 1 or higher, and hurting them brings them to -1. The shooter is attempting to bring people down to -1, while the victim of the theft was simply not bringing people up 1. The thief is bringing up the people who receive the charity up by 1, butt bringing down the victim of the theft by 1. Begging, which could be charity collecting, is only only bringing up the people receiving the money up by 1. Now, you could say that the charity collector is bringing the person giving the charity down by one, but still, there are giant differences from being stolen from and giving to charity. To start, most people would want to give to charity than be stolen from. We could do a poll and see this.
stealing is better than begging

sure people steal for the dollars, but there are those who 'desire' adventure a thrill people steal to have this thrill you may know them as 'gentleman thieves' who steal not for the money but for the adventure something they desired and achieved, the stolen goods are given away without a trace. most of these thieves, robbers or what ever you want to title them are satisfied but that is information that can't be contained for they are based upon their motives and emotions not something others can decide, so some can be satisfied or dissatisfied depending who they are. as for effectiveness we can perceive it as you did, an effect but can also be implied as 'successful in producing a desired or intended result', whether that be money or adrenaline as long you get the end result its effective. There is also no limitations on this said robber.whether he be homeless, poverty, or a man.There are also those who do something right but others perceive it wrong e.g. A cop shooting a person who could of easily killed many people, if he shot the person it could be a crime of murder but others can see it as heroic something good how would this be different from a thieve it doesn't have to be a thief or a cop but the same thing applies whether its a man licensed with a gun who shot can be trialled for murder but has done something heroic or the thieve just being an ordinary civilian who stoled for another person's benefit how are these two things different?
stealing is better than begging

Okay, you didn't clarify what type of stealing it was. Still, stealing and then giving to charity will still end you up in jail. Presumably we are talking about a poor man on the street, correct? Limited resources don't make a good thief. It's likely he would end up in jail soon. And as for you definition, I'll break it down bit by bit. 1. Desirable: Stealing is not desirable. So is begging. But stealing less so. The only reason why they o steal is for 3. 2. Satisfactory: Like the first one, I doubt most thieves are satisfied with their way of life. 3. Effective: Remember, they are doing criminal activity. The police are their enemy.
stealing is better than begging

the way that you are currently viewing 'stealing' is in a negative sense e.g. drugs and money for ones own benefit. but if we did it to help people or the community in a positive way things would be achieved and the results aren't so negative. its better to take action than endlessly beg without any results, for some people they are forced into it e.g. a begger who has done so much for the community but doesn't get anything in return may resolve to taking action and actually get some results. this debate isn't about whats morally correct or what is righteous but what is better (more desirable, satisfactory, or effective.) in this case if we are going by the title and what it defines (stealing is better than begging) than it would seem that stealing is better.
stealing is better than begging

stealing is better than begging. No one will respect you for begging to them you need to take action you won't get around anywhere,survive, or take care of people in harsh conditions without stealing, such as an old tale i'm sure everyone has heard of 'Robin hood' a person that had stoled from the rich to give to the poor do you really think he could've done all that by begging. No he couldn't he took action and he was respected.
God is smart; Religions are stupid

The resolution is "God is smart; Religions are stupid". And while my opponents argument is clearly in the con (Based off of his argument, merely God is not smart, ignoring the second part until the last few lines), however, my opponent is in the Pro. Thus his entire argument is negated. Since I am in the con for the debate, I will be proving that God is NOT smart, and religion are NOT stupid. God is not smart for several reasons. Accepting god as the basis behind intelligent (or in this case, unintelligent) design, we may observe God as an Engineer. Taking one of his most prized inventions, the human, there are several pressing flaws in our design, observed in two specific places: the mouth and genitalia. Countless people die everyday from having to use the same hole to eat, breathe, and converse. Would not a smarter engineer create a separate hole for each function ? Several organisms on this planet have different holes for each function, as needed. Looking at the reproductive system, I know of no self-respecting engineer who would intertwine the reproductive and the waste disposal system so closely, if at all. Understanding these two flaws, we see that God, the intelligent designer, is not very smart. Religion being smart also pretty much speaks for itself. Religions across the world have the ability to bind hordes of people together behind the most idiotic ideas and stories, and get them to throw tons of money away and do the most ridiculous things. They play on fears in order to move the masses, and have been able to do this since almost the conception of man.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

I'll admit the Kalam argument is popularly argued for and against. I'll use this round to further explain its points. P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause, No object can come from nothingness. A chair comes from a factory, a bunny comes from the magician's hat in the magic trick, fire fomes from heated molecules, I think you get the picture. If it didn't begin to exist, it always existed. P2: The Universe began to exist. There are many facts pointing to a beginning of the Universe, like the Big Bang, which the Universe started as a small dot, then expanded, and still is expanding. Conclusion: The Universe had a cause. The Kalam argument doesn't state it was God per se that made the Universe. I'll probably research a bit to come to a conclusion on how the Universe began its existence. But if everything with a beginning has a cause, and the Universe had a beginning, then the conclusion is sound.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is as follows: P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause P2: The universe began to exist C: Therefore, the universe has a cause The advocate of this argument must show that the argument is successful. My job in this debate will be to undermine my opponent's reasoning for affirming the soundness of the argument. My opponent will present his/ her opening arguments in the first round (the first round will be for Pro to present arguments, not for merely accepting the debate). However, in order to ensure we get the same amount of rounds to argue, in the last round, my opponent will simply put "no argument will be posted here".