BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism Is Superior to Capitalism

This is where you are incorrect. Capitalism is not inherently for consumers (individuals) or producers (businesses). You ignorantly (like many do) confuse capitalism with corporatism. Let me explain. Capitalism is where the means of production are controlled by producers of goods and services which are then made accessible to consumers via businesses that distribute the goods and services - an individual producer can also be the firm for which sells to consumers. Whereas... Corporatism is where the means of production are controlled by producers of goods and services but then are made accessible to consumers via large corporations that distribute the goods and services. The key difference is within the size and dominance of the business/corporation. Under corporatism the individual does not benefit from transactions (the purchasing of goods and services) as much as the producer does. The reason why capitalism works is because both parties believe they benefited equally or very close to equally. Corporations can get away with this because there aren't many alternatives, you are forced to buy your goods and services from them - you are forced to be employed by them. Corporatism is created when capitalism is corrupted with government intervention which allow markets to become less accessible and therefore less competitive. It favors greedy and corrupt politicians and businesses. Capitalism favors individuals, whether they are a workman or the owner of such workman - it is simply the equilibrium between worker and master (master being a term for boss when capitalism was sort of a thing - there has never been a time when pure capitalism was able to be exercised). Pure free-market capitalism DOES indeed promote freedom as it is the CHOICE of the consumer for what they will choose to consume. Whereas under communism, where the means of production are in control of the state (or to then the extent of the people), doesn't promote freedom for the variety of choice is limited to what the common man can produce - rather than what the common man wants to consume. Even if you are talking ideals capitalism prevails in economic freedom as well as individualist freedom. Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engels) promoted collectivism, which in the real world has given rise to the regressive left (a terrible thing for individual liberty). Speaking history the only thing communism promoted was oppression and collectivism - which ultimately goes against our rights as individuals.
Communism Is Superior to Capitalism

I am not stating whether the communism will work or not. I am stating that communism is better in ideals, motive, and importance when compared to capitalism. If a true communistic society is compared to a capitalistic society, it will always be better. Capitalism does not promote freedom. It gives a select few (large companies etc.) the power and it forces the working class and lower class into poverty. Communism promotes opportunity and wealth to all people of a society, not just a select few. Communism will always be better in ideals.
Communism Is Superior to Capitalism

Thank you for giving your opening argument. I will not refute any of your points until the next round, instead I am going to outline why capitalism is superior. Defining Terms: Capitalism is the economic system which was further developed and commented upin by Adam Smith, and others after him - in the book The Wealth of Nations. Capitalism is superior to communism based on its principles that describe realistic human behavior and nature - rather than idealistic and collectivist principles. It promotes the idea that individuals have the control of what they want to consume as producers want to make profit and therefore will only provide what the people want in demand. Thereby capitalism promotes freedom. Capitalism does not promote the idea that consumers should have control over the means of production but instead have the freedom to influence what is produced - as I have already described. I will now allow Pro to refute my opening argument/statement.
Communism Is Superior to Capitalism

Defining Terms- When I say communism I am speaking of the economic system proposed by Karl Marx in Capital and The Communist Manifesto. Communism is superior to capitalism based on its ideals. It promotes people to work together and act for a single purpose. It also gives power to the working class. The working class deserves all the power, the economy depends on them. Capitalism gives all the power to a select few. It allows the lower classes to be abused and exploited. Capitalism is unjust. Communism is just.
The U.S. should side with Assad and Russia instead of rebels in the Syrian Civil War.

My Overview: The U.S. got involved in Syria after the Arab spring erupted in the Middle East and North Africa. This is after the U.S. took sides and ousted government Egypt and Libya. Syria however was not a government that was easily overthrown and so the U.S. began supplying anti-tank weapons and training to rebel and Kurdish forces. ISIS formed as a result of the chaos and instability. Russia joined the stronger side of a 4 sided war. The 4 sides being Assad, rebels, ISIS, and Kurds. As a result of the ensuing chaos, ISIS spread to Iraq, refugees flock to Europe, terrorists attack France and Belgium, and ISIS inspired attacks spread to the U.S. My view is that fighting against Assad is impossible because the rebel groups are too diverse and not unified under one banner. If the rebels win, there would never be peace because they would fight each other again. My solution is that if the U.S. stops funding the rebels and maybe instead helps Assad, the rebels would quickly dissolve. The fight would then turn solely to ISIS. If ISIS is destroyed then there would be peace in Syria and Iraq. If there is peace in Syria, the refugee crisis would end and therefore a lesser chance of terrorist attacks. Quick and stable peace even through authoritarianism is better for Syria and the rest of the world than unstable forced democracy. So, tell me why I'm wrong and what your alternative solution is.
Bestiality is immoral

Many people have complained about the restrictive nature of my previous arguments for the proper morality of bestiality. Said restrictions were necessary to make a positive case since in reality the default is that something acceptable until proven otherwise.This debate is a chance for those who think they can make the case from scratch. No moral or legal standard is given, pro will have to present their own and support it.BoP is on Pro to show that bestiality is immoral, this will certainly include giving the general reasons anything is immoral, and supporting that rule/principle against all challenges I make. No need for other debates, no room to complain about unfair preconditions.First round is for Pros first argument, Pro types only "end" in his/her last round.I lied, I will include one set of restrictions, the definitions section: (D) Definitions (D.1) Bestiality – the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species. (D.2) Zoophilia – the sexual orientation which describes a permanent sexual attraction towards animals by humans. (D.3) Rape – the forcing of sexual intercourse onto an organism capable of intelligent self-determination without their consent. NOTE consent as defined below. (D.4) Pain – the discomfort of an organism, established by some objective observation of behavior or biology. (D.5) Biological Damage – the objectively observable harm that that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of some organ or tissue in an organism. (D.6) Consent– and this is important, is defined as “permission for something to happen or agreement to do something” http://oxforddictionaries.com... .
Bestiality is immoral

Lay down. Your sweet and weary head. Night is falling. You have come to journey's end. Sleep now. And dream of the ones who came before. They are calling from across a distant shore. Why do you weep? What are these tears upon your face? Soon you will see. All of your fears will pass away, safe in my arms... you're only sleeping. What can you see? On the horizon? Why do the white gulls call? Across the sea. A pale moon rises. The ships have come to carry you home. And all will turn to silver glass. A light on the water, all souls pass. Hope fades... Until the world of night, through shadows falling. Out of memory and time. Don't say, we have come now to the end. White shores are calling, you and I will meet again. And you'll be here in my arms, just sleeping. What can you see? On the horizon? Why do the white gulls call? Across the sea. A pale moon rises. The ships have to come to carry you home. And all will turn to silver glass. A light on the water, grey ships past... into the west.
Poetry battle.

So is this the end of our first meeting, A friendly salute and a declaration of peace? Please, my foe, do not give up so quickly, For the audience wants a bout of poetic singing. While truth lies in poetry, This game here is not that. It is a game of words, of conflict Where both sides tip their hats. So please, my opponent, Do not give up just yet. Pour your heart and soul into your last poem, So we may finish this duet.
Poetry battle.

That is kind of you to say, My poetic rival of today. However this clash of words requires us, To battle with metaphorical thrusts. The competition is still on, As you can very much see. So we must continue to fight to the end, In this war of poetry. But if you wish to debate, With something with higher stakes, Then let us, after this, commence, With a more thoughtful prance. But for now, let us continue, This battle of literary dance, For while our audience might be small, Thoughtfulness is within them all.
Poetry battle.

In the bindings of convention, Two sides arrive to meet, Their beliefs being pronounced, As they begin to speak. In these bindings the two were kind. They debated, yes, but it was polite all the time. Then came the shattering of chains, And all Hell broke loose on that day. Like an inferno"s fury the two sides now fight, With neither side taking in the other"s advice. In brutality that claim the other side as evil, And, in their insanity, they attack the feeble. With names, they declare their faction superior, Drowning out the moderates of the interior. They crush those who dare to disagree, Even if they claim to be on the same team. So pray, the unchosen, who have not yet picked a side, Watch for the radicals, or else they will consume you alive. For they care not for reason or truth. They care only for the blood of the enemy"s troops.
Should T.V. Banned

Thank you for this debate. I look forward to a good discussion.As con, I will refute your points rather than present my own ideas.-----------------------------------------------------------------------"T.V. should be banned, becoz T.V. has made everybody' s life worst"Ans: I see no evidence to support this at all. As the pro, I would expect the burden of proof to be on you. "everyone" is a broad term, and I do not think the children in Africa that have received funds from T.V. ads have suffered because of T.V."While watching T.V., we are not aware of the flowing fluid called time."Ans: I do not see how this is different than reading a book, playing a video game, or just doing nothing. Everything takes time, and to call that a bad thing is illogical."T.V. is the worst thing ever that man has invented in his life."Ans: There are far worse things that man has made. Take the Nuclear Bomb for instance. Its purpose was needed, but it also started a stalemate between the powder kegs called the Cold War. T.V has many advantages: take the numerous educational programs that T.V. offers. Those surely cant be bad, can they? Of course not! Education is a wonderful thing, and most things that promote it are good." It shows how to kill, how to do bad things and all that nowadays people don't see useful things instead they watch the bad things."Every good things have some bad traits. Nothing is perfect, and TV is not an exception. However, I have not seen an accurate program that explicitly teaches murder, rape, torture or other atrocities. I eagerly await your responses.
Should T.V. Banned

T. V. should be banned, becoz T. V. has made everybody's life worst. While watching T. V. , we are not aware of the flowing fluid called time. T. V. is the worst thing ever that man has invented in his life. T. V. is a very harmful things. Why others call it a idiot box? Becoz it is a bad thing. It shows how to kill, how to do bad things and all that. Nowadays people dont see useful things. Instead they watch the bad things.
We should let Africans eat Fat People

1. It is wrong to say that something is good if it is natural. Viruses are natural, floods are natural, Sugar is natural. On the flipside, medicine, robotics, and eyeglasses are unnatural, but they are good nonetheless. 2. Yeah, maybe they should eat our garbage, especially before it's safe and thrown out. It's a known fact that usable food is thrown away, Plus there are ways to make eating garbage as safe as eating people. 3. Those nutritional requirements can be met by food from the trash. 5. We can always go deeper. People will also be more willing to change than you'd think. 6. Up until one part of your argument, you did nothing for justification.
We should let Africans eat Fat People

1. Appeal to Nature then. I ask con, how is that a bad thing? I am merely countering the argument saying that cannabilism is unnatrual because it is natural.2. There are nutrients in food that goes to waste. Examples are the food in trash bins in grocery stores and restaurants. And there is much weight to be gained as the wasted food includes healthy and unhealthy alike. You are saying that these poor people in Africa should eat our garbage? You still haven't touched the nutritional benefits of eating people, it is much more safer to eat people, they just have to cook them.3. I still have doubts about those claims, as there many parts of people that are inedible.Here is a list of edible body parts in the human bodyteeth=36 caloriesskin=10,278skeleton=25,331torso+head=5,418thigh=13,354calf=4,486upper arm=7,451forearm==1,664adipose tissue=49,938https://www.pbs.org...As you can see the nutritional value of humans are well suited to feed a village in Africa.5. Many fat people feel that they are shamed by society into losing weight. We could start making those claims legitimate with smear campaigns using white, grey, and black propoganda. I ask you, what if they just don't care? We live in a society where bullying is wrong, so how could you use those campigns to shift with a antibullying society into a pro bullying society?6. Well it still doesn't justify sending them to death.Could you touch on them? You still haven't touched my points on my justifcation with it. All you are saying is statements with nothing to back it up.
We should let Africans eat Fat People

1. Appeal to Nature then. 2. There are nutrients in food that goes to waste. Examples are the food in trash bins in grocery stores and restaurants. And there is much weight to be gained as the wasted food includes healthy and unhealthy alike. 3. I still have doubts about those claims, as there many parts of people that are inedible. 4. It would cost more if we just set off an already existing plague and some mustard gas into the vents. 5. Many fat people feel that they are shamed by society into losing weight. We could start making those claims legitimate with smear campaigns using white, grey, and black propoganda. 6. Well it still doesn't justify sending them to death.
We should let Africans eat Fat People

1. Appeal to popularity. 2. There are nutrients in food that goes to waste that can be used. 3. I highly doubt that one obese human can feed a whole village, much less sufficiently. 4. Why don't we just kill off China? That would also help fight climate change. 5. There are better ways to get them to lose weight. 6. Giving them a prize for forcing them death isn't making it a good thing. 7. Again, we can change humanity through alternative means. Conclusion: Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.
fragment of peace

Currently, the world has approximately 7,436,800,000 people living in it. [1]As a result, it would be extremely inadequate, and almost impossible to cut a key into 7.4 billion pieces and distribute it to each and every individual.In addition, there is no chance that nations will agree to have their nuclear stockpiles taken and put into 1 location. Therefore, due to the inability for governments to freely organize such a feat, as well as the cost of cutting a key and disributing it to each and every single person in the world, the assertion by Pro is void.Sources:[1]http://www.worldometers.info...;
Those Convicted of Serious Offences should be used for Medicine

It is my position that those convicted of serious offences such as, murder, rape and terrorism have forfeited their human rights and may be used for medical research, experimentation and organ donors until death. My argument rests on these points, 1: Rights carry obligations. By committing such heinous offences the criminal should forfeit all rights. 2: Murder, rape and terrorism are such terrible crimes that the criminal is unlikely ever to be 'rehabilitated' and should never be freed to endanger society. 3: Permanent incarceration is a drain on the resources of the State and it is amoral to expect the taxpayer to support such people. Whilst imprisoned there is always the chance that the prisoner may harm prison staff or escape back into society. 4: Simple execution fails to give anything back to society. 5: Medical testing on animals raises ethical concerns, people are more concerned with the well being of an average rabbit than they are of a rapist. 6: Medical testing on animals is of limited scientific value. 7: The testing of new drugs or procedures on patients or paid volunteers is unethical, why should normal members of society be used as guinea pigs when we have a surplus of unproductive and worthless criminals?
If God is Omniscient and Omnipotent, Predestination is Evident

We believe that we are given free will in this life, but Allah knows beforehand where we will end up and what we will do beforehand. The question of fate and free will is one of the most intriguing topics in metaphysics and religion. Man feels absolutely powerless, regarding many of the circumstances in which he/she finds him/herself. One might feel that there are so many givens, which one has to take for granted, and nothing can be done about them. On the other hand, there are many areas where one feels free to act. Look at the marvelous progress of humanity through the centuries. If humans were mere puppets, could we have managed all these wonderful achievements, which have made us so proud of human potential? Indeed the question of pre-destination and free will has haunted Man for so long; but it has been adequately dealt with in the Holy Qur'an. From the Qur'anic point of view, Man is not completely a master of his fate; nor is he a puppet subject to the hazards of destiny. It is true that God's sovereignty is all pervading and nothing falls outside its purview. This means that God knows everything and it is according to His will, things happen here. The universe is completely subject to the overriding power of God, and nothing happens without God willing it to be so. However, God not only created everything, but He determined its nature and scope. In His infinite wisdom and mercy, He gave Man limited power and great freedoms, including the freedom of choice. It is because of this autonomy, enjoyed by Man, that he/she is held accountable for the individual deeds. Couldn't have said it better. Source http://www.readingislam.com...
If God is Omniscient and Omnipotent, Predestination is Evident

I assert that if God is omniscient and omnipotent, predestination is evident. For this argument, I ask my opponent to agree with these attributes of God. God: Omniscient, Omnipotent, Creator. _____________________________________________________________ =Omniscient Creator= God knows everything. He knew everything before the universe came into existence, and certainly before I came into existence. If he knows everything, that implies that, he knew my fate before I came into existence. As God is the creator of everything, and created me, completely aware of my fate, my life was already predestined before I came into existence. It is impossible for an omniscient creator to allow free will. The two are not compatible, as an omniscient creator would be fully aware of the "free" choices made by his creation. =Novelist Analogy= God is much like a novelist of the universe. My personal view is that God creates to appreciate his creation, much like how a musician, poet, and artist create to appreciate theirs. Now if God is the novelist, this makes me a protagonist. My story has already been written in God's omniscient mind. Even if he is omnipresent (was, is, and is to come), even if he is, right this moment, with me as a 5 year old, and with me in the future as a 50 year old, it does not change my past or my present. My story has been complete before my I was born. Omnipresence only implies that God has written my story, and is choosing to reread them for his enjoyment. =Free Will is an Illusion= I believe that free will exists as an illusion. Whatever we do out of "choice" has already been calculated and decided by God before any of us were brought into existence. But as we do not know our own futures, our illusion of free will is complete. This very debate was done out of my choice, but a choice that had already been decided and calculated by God. =Omnipotence= Omnipotence implies that he is in control over everything. Nothing that is aside from his will can be done. What if our "free will" was against God's will? Free will implies that God is NOT omnipotent, as free will gives US the power, and not God. If it was in God's will for us to have free will, then he cannot be an omniscient creator. =Conclusion= I disagree with many of Calvinist beliefs. But logic tells me that, Romeo and Juliet will always die in the play written by William Shakespeare, no matter how many times I read it. No matter what page I choose to read from, in the end, both Romeo and Juliet will die. It has been written, it will not change. Romeo and Juliet's fate were predestined by William Shakespeare, the omniscient creator of the play. I look forward to my opponent's argument.
Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

Oh... Well... OK.Psychologically, legalizing marijuana would send the message that using it would be acceptable, which it clearly generates more complications than it solves.But it IS acceptable. There is no reason why an adult shouldn't be aloud to use. Why is it unacceptable.From a legal standpoint, laws would need to be altered in order to accommodate for committing or engaging in criminal activity under the influence of marijuana.How and Why? Those Under the Influence of Alchohol are considered responsible for their actions. Treat marijuana the same way.Needless to say, our tax-payer funded public health care systems would use taxpayer money to fund both medical and rehabilitative treatment for those involved with the substance.How is that worse than 10x that amount being used to fund 10+ year prison sentences for posession of a drug that only hurts the person who uses?
Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

Great! I will post my opening statement again for you to respond to. The legalization on marijuana for recreational purposes will only amplify rates of drug usage among individuals at all ends of the age spectrum. Psychologically, legalizing marijuana would send the message that using it would be acceptable, which it clearly generates more complications than it solves. From a legal standpoint, laws would need to be altered in order to accommodate for committing or engaging in criminal activity under the influence of marijuana. Needless to say, our tax-payer funded public health care systems would use taxpayer money to fund both medical and rehabilitative treatment for those involved with the substance.