BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialism (new challenger)

Pro made the assertion that the United States" health care system is private. This is far from the truth."- Private health care or private medicine is health care and medicine provided by entities other than the government. That is the definition of private health care. In the USA private companies are the ones who sell insurance.(1) (2) "Such as most of the wealth being given to the 1%, and how the 1% does not want anyone else up there unless they work hard. There is no evidence provided by pro to prove these points."- In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.(3)(4)(5) "they need to pay for free market things such as health care, a human right." "This is an opinion of pro as to what a human right is."- Denying someone the right to health care takes away life, what you said is a human right.(6) If you have a pre-existing condition almost all insurance companies will not cover it. Now is that fair to make someone suffer with a disease that they could not control like asthma or epilepsy?(7) In your opening statement you stated you would be arguing for "little to no taxation." Now how do you suppose public roads, schools, hospitals would be built? You may say have no publicly funded things, however how do you suppose people with little wealth could afford to attend school or visit the hospital without worrying about debt. Without taxation there would be no central government and therefore no laws. This is much like in ancient Rome before the Dark Ages which also led to inflation and job loss. "more government spending and tax burdens are related to higher unemployment, and slower economic growth"- Let us look at the Eisenhower Interstate System, which was a GOVERNMENT FUNDED highway that in fact caused for economic growth and created many jobs.(8)(9) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://publications.gc.ca... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://inequality.org... http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.nesri.org... http://www.webmd.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.history.com...
Socialism (new challenger)

#1- Every developed country has some form of socialism. Every developed country, excluding the USA has free universal health care. The reason is that these countries have accepted the fact that this health care system is the most fair for everyone as a whole. In all the countries there is some form of welfare, which is a very socialist program once again. Adam Lusher, a reporter for the Sunday Telegraph compared many different countries. His conclusions were that the place with the highest life expectancies were the more socialist countries. The top two were the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, with 80 years old. #2- Capitalism causes greed. In a capitalist society only the 1-2% can get ahead while the rest are stuck on the bottom. Once these people are on the top why would they want to let anyone else up there with them? THEY DON'T! Meanwhile the bottom 98-99% are being told if you work hard you will also one day be up here with us. #3- Socialism is for the greater good in society. In America the leading cause for bankruptcy is health care bills. This year alone, around 2 million people will declare bankruptcy due to PRIVATE health care. Capitalism also hurts the elderly as they need to use the hospital more than others, however with very little income may seniors can not afford this medical treatment and therefore are suffering more each day. http://www.cnbc.com...#. #4-The boom or bust In capitalist societies there is either a boom or bust which when it is in a bust time it creates recessions or high unemployment rates. See the link for more. http://www.economicshelp.org... The main problem with capitalism is that only the one percent can get anywhere while the rest struggle to make ends meet because they need to pay for free market things such as health care, a human right.
Socialism (new challenger)

First I will give a definition of both socialism and capitalism. Socialism- A social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. Capitalism- An economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labour.
Sending children to public school is an act of child abuse

Since you have forfieted your round, I will just close with some statistics taken from from the National Center of Children Exposed to Violence and offer a concluding statement: http://www.nccev.org... 71% of public elementary and secondary schools experienced at least one violent incident during the 1999-2000 school year, according to school principals (Violence in U.S. Public Schools: 2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety, October 2003) In 1999, 12% of 12- through 18- year-old students reported experiencing "any" form of victimization at school. (The Condition of Education 2002 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, June 2002.) In 1999, 12- through 18-year-old students living in urban and suburban locales were equally vulnerable to serious violent crime at school. (Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2001) Nationwide, 15% of high school students had participated in a physical fight in 1998. (Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999) In short, when we first enter school at six years old, we are curious, innovative, unique, creative and hopeful. When we get out of school, however, those attributes are all but gone, replaced with predictability, obedience and apathy, a before and after picture not unlike many other forms of abuse.
Sending children to public school is an act of child abuse

Please note that this argument is limited in scope to schools within the united states.Terms:"Public school" - a state institution in which children are required to consume state-approved information, perform rituals and repetitive tasks, and obey state officials against their will (ie, they don't "want" to go to school, but they "have" to go to school)."child abuse" - The infliction of pain, suffering, humiliation, or other physical, sexual and/or psychological harm onto a child, or the causing of trauma.I contend that, while the experience of being in public school may not be perceived as child abuse by the victim, the perception of it being "abusive" is not required. (eg, many victims of childhood sexual abuse do not perceive it as being abusive at that time, and many victims of physical or verbal abuse may perceive that abuse as "normal", esp. if they witness other children of the same age being subject to the same kind of abuse).I believe abuse can be demonstrated by looking at the following: The inherent nature of public schools. The predictable and measurable effects of public schools. The purpose of sending children to public schools, both historically and practically. (ei, what is the history of the public school system and why do parents send their children to public schools?) The experiences unique to and/or more probable in public schools, especially as compared to private schools and/or home schooling.
Moral Relativism is an erroneous ethical theory.

Hmm, as this is an interesting argument, i suppose i shall take it. First, let me say that i accept both definitions. As this is a debate on a neutral stance, i suggest we forgo with the burden of proof nonsense, as both sides should present arguments for, and against why Moral Relativism is an erroneous ethical theory, and go from there. My argument is the following: 1. It is easy, when we look back in time, to show that morality, ethical standards, have undoubtedly changed. 2000 years ago, it was ethical, and morally correct to stone an unruly child to death.(1) Today, most civilized countries will disagree, as there are laws that prevent us from harming our children, no matter how unruly they may be. So, the question here, is what changed? If you ask any person on the street, as to whether or not they find the morals that were present 2000 years ago, as acceptable moral standards, most, if not all people will answer, "No." Clearly, this means that our individual ethical and moral standards have changed, from those that used to prevail 2000 years ago. 2. I am the ultimate moral judge of my own moral beliefs. Why? Because I control my own actions, and beliefs. Things can affect my judgement, but in the end, it is I who decides whether or not something is moral or ethical. Sources 1. http://www.blueletterbible.org...
Moral Relativism is an erroneous ethical theory.

I find this to be an interesting topic (ethics in general is interesting; I refused to be bored with it) and I hope a worthy opponent can accept this as I'd desire a hearty exchange. I noticed that there are some moral relativists on this website, notably Kleptin. I'd like to challenge them on this issue, since I find moral relativism to be unequivocally an incredibly flawed conception. The reason why I implemented 4 rounds is because of the wide range of moral relativism. Basically, there are many theories that can be called moral relativism but that differ from one another (cultural relativism, individualist ethical subjectivism, etc. ). So for my opponent's first round, I want him outline what theory they are defending (that obviously is in accord with moral relativism) and give a defense for it. That being said, here are the definitions: [Moral Relativism] [. http://www.moral-relativism.com...] "Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. " [Erroneous] [. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] "Containing or derived from error; mistaken"
Moral Relativism is an erroneous ethical theory.

I agree with my opponent that the burden of proof is equal on both of us, and I'm glad to see that he has accepted my definitions. So now, my arguments: ==================== My opponent's confusion between a descriptive theory and a prescriptive/normative theory ==================== There is a stark difference between descriptive theories and prescriptive theories - they play different roles. Take this explanation by Business Dictionary[1]: A descriptive theory is "that depicts or describes how things actually work, and answers the question, "What is this? " In comparison, normative models are prescriptive and suggest what ought to be done (how things should work) according to an assumption or standard. " As you can see, my definition of moral relativism refers to the NORMATIVE version of it. While there is a descriptive version, it's quite uncontroversial and likely correct (though a little simplistic). Ultimately, my opponent fails to even realize what topic we are debating about, so I haven't much to say. However, I will be generous and supply one main argument: ==================== Prescriptive moral relativism results in a logical contradiction ==================== I will defend this in a simple syllogism: P1. If prescriptive moral relativism (PMR) is true, then morality is relative. P2. Morality has truth values. P3. If morality is relative, and has a truth value, then there is a truth that is relative. P4. If truth is relative, then this means A =/= A. P4. A=A :. Therefore, PMR is incoherent. ==================== Conclusion and a few remarcks ==================== "I am the ultimate moral judge of my own moral beliefs. Why? Because I control my own actions, and beliefs. Things can affect my judgement, but in the end, it is I who decides whether or not something is moral or ethical. " ----> There is no reason to believe that moral judgments can only be adequately made from a first-person perspective. Would you say that since Hitler thought the genocide of Jews was justified, then he is correct? Of course not - morality is not subjective and relative but rather objective (assuming it exists, of course). Since my opponent has failed to capture even the topic of our discussion, I will say no further until he can make a comeback. ---References--- 1. . http://www.businessdictionary.com...
Plastic bags are the superior grocery bag compared to paper.

I must admit, that Pro debater has excellent presentation skills, sophisticated language and advanced skills to express his stands in a well-structured manner. Though I admire and respect his, I'd like to note, this doesn't necessarily mean his stand on the issue is correct. There aren't any studies necessary to answer the commonly obvious question - that plastic bags, unlike paper ones, greatly contribute to polluting waste, with impact on soil beneath, water through and air above the hordes of dumped plastic bag, and the production is also significantly 'dirtier' in terms of toxic fumes. The concept of single-use / disposal plastic bags and plastic wrapping in food industry is maybe cheap and convenient, but it breaches the basic fundamentals of environmental effort to maintain and preserve nature for healthy life - also for the future generations of people as well as plants and animals. In my opinion all the viable alternatives should be endorsed, supported and also made preferential. It may appear just a fashionable, hip gesture, but there's a lot of meaning behind it. There are cons of pros of paper bags use, however, I think they should be used wherever applicable (where paper bag can serve the same purpose as plastic bag, e.g. when purchasing clothes in a store). Substituting a plastic bag with a paper one is more rational choice as far as the consumption of wood for production of bags isn't more alarming (in regard to usage/replanting ratio) as the environmental impacts of plastic waste. The con presented a valid statement - plastic materials are more durable. And indeed, they are! They are lighter, relatively cheap and durable, but these qualities come with a price - it contributes to waste that can't be rationally processed without enviro impacts. That's why plastics should be used to make long-lasting materials, while disposable bags and wrappings should be made of more eco-friendly materials - e.g. paper, tin or aluminium, which can be well recycled. Luckily, most retailers do want to be more eco-friendly, because they know, they customers will appreciate, especially in the free western world. I understand it wouldn't be pleasant if the choice of non-plastic materials was enforced by the law as it would heavily inpact the economy, however, I am convinced the trends should be introduced and such choice should be supported by the government in consequent stages, starting from tax cuts, later subventions and just then, when solutions are viable and economy ready, substantial reduction of use of disposable plastic should be implemented.
Plastic bags are the superior grocery bag compared to paper.

From my assessment, it appears as though Con is using their time to refute rather than build their own case. At least, as an overall review of the case submitted. Since Con has opted to make their case point for point, and in some instance a refute during Con's argument phase, I will adopt a like minded rebuttal. 1) "often failed to hold leaking contents"--- Citation, please. Con concedes aspects of durability in circumstances in which Con's durability is not proven any better. A pierced bag is a pierced bag, If Con would like to submit that absorption of leaked material is a quantifiable metric in round 4, I will be enlightened. Considering the material, I believe it to be self evident that should paper being to absorb condensate, or any other material, its integrity soon becomes suspect. Such is not the case with plastic. 2) I am not confident I understand Con's rebuttal. In representation of 2 varieties of plastic bag, no specific faults can be ascribed, and the ones that do are at odds with Pro's contention of 5) and remain unresolved. More to the point the point, specific carrying capacity, Con mentioned that "the thin bag can be used, but it's not very strong". This violates Con's terms of carrying capacity. Pro made no arguments based on how much a paper or plastic bag can carry due to Con's terms. 3) Of course it does. (concession noted due to 1) ) . Con takes the best aspect of their product, and champions it as exclusive, when its clearly not the case. Without citation or evidence contrary, Pro is forced to demand that Con justify how 9 fold reduction in supplier space is 'not much'. 4) Pro cannot stress this enough: Post initial use, post initial use, post initial use. A recycled paper product has a finite life span. My current referenced articles have demonstrated that a post plastic vs a post paper recycle sacrifices durability. A post use/recycled paper bag WILL NOT have the same durability as a virgin paper bag vs a recycled plastic bag. Con does not mention the 'labor cost' of a plastic bag on conception, and wisely so. if the frailties of Con's product force workers to be exposed repeatedly to hazards as a defect of the products inferiority, I would neglect it as well. Again, the mentioned citations will satisfy this argument as fallacy: including human resources, a plastic bag takes less resources to produce. 5) There are no stand alone stats. Much of Con's premise relies upon user negligence rather than merits of the substance. When Con states they can never be recycled in 'the true sense', I would hope Con does some deep introspection on that matter. A grown, harvested, pulped, chopped, chemically dried and formed paper bag doesn't service 'nature' better than an collected from human waste infinitely reusable, infinitely malleable substance. The core of rebuttals is easily surmised: On equal terms, wood can become broken. Plastic can't.
Plastic bags are the superior grocery bag compared to paper.

With appreciation to Con's terms regarding carrying ability, I can agree to exclude potential capacity. Being objective, if the argument is whether or not an object is too heavy for a bag, it is reasonable to forgo a paper or plastic bag, or simply use more bags (double bag, triple bag) as needed to carry the parcel. I also agree there are better options than 'paper or plastic'. That being said, there are plenty of other qualities available on which to affirm a stance of choosing plastic over paper. 1) Durability: a plastic bag, by its nature is not nearly as susceptible to the elements. It does not require additional special papers to carry moist items, or 'double bagging' in the event of potential condensate from cold materials, it will not mold or dry out and break as fast its paper counterpart. 2) Reuse ability: this is quite different from being recycled, the concept of reusing something gives it new purpose from its creation. I have many times seen plastic bags used as a stop gap 'plug', making use of their durability beyond simple transportation of goods. I have also personally made use of a plastic bag upturned as shield against the rain, for both myself, and water-sensitive items. Lastly, again making use of the durability, plastic bags can be kept in regular collection to serve as a commodity that would normally be purchased: trash can linings. I can think of no person that would rather spend money on trash can liners than simply reuse a handful of plastic bags they have from the grocer. 3) Space: Should a number of shoppers using 1000 paper bags toss said paper bags straight into their trash can (no recycling, straight to the land fill), it would uses 9 times more space in the landfill than 1000 plastic bags. Speaking from a pre-use stand point, 1000 plastic bags vs 1000 paper bags occupies MUCH less volume for the grocer, and requires much less effort to transport. *1 4) Cost: rather than dollars and cents, I am referring to cost as a complete in vs out expenditure. The bottom line of it is that it costs less to make plastic bags *2. Less fuel, less electricity, less raw materials, the component parts of plastic bags have even been known to use by-products of natural gas harvesting. ""The polyethylene material used for conventional plastic shopping bags is made from ethane, which is the strand of natural gas that is burned off during the refining process to lower the BTU value of the gas so that the gas does not burn too hot (so it can be used as fuel in our homes" *3. 5) Environmental Impact: It has already been demonstrated that a plastic bag requires less material and energy to make. That alone should make it the superior choice. There is no reason from an enviro-friendly standpoint to think a plastic bag is some how less recyclable. A plastic bag post recycling suffers no adverse effect to its durability. It is with these points in mind that Pro finds it resolved that a plastic bag is superior to a paper bag when this choice is presented. *1 http://www.interplas.com... *2 http://envimpact.org... *3 http://www.allaboutbags.ca...
Plastic bags are the superior grocery bag compared to paper.

All the types of bags the 'Pro' debater mentioned have specific properties and purposes. In my opinion the ultimately superior choice would be the "green" cloth bags, because they can carry solid weight and can be used repeatedly. The debate, however, focuses specifically on paper vs. plastic bags. I chose to defend the paper bags in this battle, but I will use this first round for clarification of terms. I assume we both agree, that plastic bag will carry more weight. I suggest the debate should be : 1) about choice of type of bag within weight limit that both bags qualify for and/or 2) about cost and environmental impacts of the two + optional: should people pay notable price for a bag in the store, which encourages them to bring their own In case this is not acceptable, or if you have other points in mind, feel free to declare so, I will follow and respect the terms of debate selected by you as an owner of the topic.
Plastic bags are the superior grocery bag compared to paper.

I assert that plastic bags are the superior choice for carrying groceries when asked at any grocer or super market. For purposes of clarification, this is specific to the regular paper or plastic bags that is in regular supply, not self purchased "green" cloth bags, or recycled fiber plastic bags, or artificial paper ones. First round is for pleasantries and terms. Second round is for creation of arguments. Third round is refute only. Fourth round is reconstruction of the case, no new arguments or new refutes. Citations should be compiled and present in any round they are used. Shall we spar, good sir?