BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ayza Wine and Chocolate Bar West Village

The world becomes a better place when you add a little chocolate and wine. We don't think there can ever be too much. AYZA West Village is our newest contribution to making life more pleasurable. Here, you will savor fine wine and desserts served in a romantic setting. Through the wall-to-wall windows, you feel a sense of space and continuity with the neighborhood. We think you will agree, AYZA West Village is the best wine bar West Village patrons have seen in a long time. http://ayzanyc.com...
Socialism ultimately fails for modern societies.

Pro contends that Socialism ultimately fails for modern societies. This is a tall order, given how many nations employ a mixed economy, wherein both Capitalism and Socialism thrive. I thank him for opening this debate, and look forward to hearing his arguments. In anticipation, I will provide a University-level working definition of Socialism: Socialism Most generally, socialism refers to state ownership of common property, or state ownership of the means of production. A purely socialist state would be one in which the state owns and operates the means of production. However, nearly all modern capitalist countries combine socialism and capitalism. The University of Idaho, and any other public school or university, is a "socialist" institutions, and those who attend it or work for it are partaking in socialism, because it is owned and operated by the state of Idaho. The same is true of federal and state highways, federal and state parks, harbors etc. source: http://www.class.uidaho.edu...
Socialism ultimately fails for modern societies.

First off, I will mention that the percentages offered in the opening section of Con's statement are both fallacious and irrelevant. The percentages fall under the Appeal to the People fallacy, just because those people think these programs are doing alright, doesn't mean they are. They are also irrelevant seeing as these are just the approval ratings Americans have for these programs, nothing that can actually alter the truth of the matter. I can't deny that these programs fall under the definition of Socialism, but are they really doing that well? Public libraries are down to only 50% usage between 1991 to 2004, with most books and other media being obtained through privately owned businesses. The National Highway System instituted by the United States cost over 5.4 billion dollars just when the act was initially signed, not to mention all the money spent in upkeep. And in the case of National Parks, that is an additional 2.9 billion a year in government spending for some aesthetically pleasing scenery to be kept alive. But why stop there with state-run programs that fail? There's still public schools and Obamacare. Public schools cost 600 billion dollars in 2009 alone. While private schools have shown to perform better on critical thinking tests. [1] Obamacare is projected to add between 500 billion and 700 billion to the national debt over the next decade by economists. None of these are sounding like successful programs when the facts are layed out, they reveal themselves to be debt increasing activities that collectively contribute to the present debt of the United States. Now, I recognize that these programs have had their benefits, but the very nature of how they're run is wasteful and harmful to a nation. Second, countries won't become poor as long as the inhabitants are free to develop their economy. Neither will they become disempowered unless the government oppresses them, and in that case a revolution is in order anyway. There is no shortage of homeless shelters and such that are opened by private citizens, there's no need to the federal government to do it. Third, investing money on a project with no immediate payoff, but huge long term rewards isn't Socialism, it's good business. Finally, in this case it is not Socialism that should be given any credit in this situation, as it is not state-ownership of common property (last I checked, there are innumerable places where you can be a volunteer fireman.) Or state-regulated production, it is a government doing what they're designed to do, protect the people. [1] http://www.time.com...
Socialism ultimately fails for modern societies.

I disagree that Socialism must ultimately fail in modern societies. 1. Positive, Long-lived Socialism in America First, I call attention to federal and state parks, federal and state highways, and the public library system. Each of these institutions fit the definition of Socialism set forth in round one of our debate. 88% of Americans say it's extremely or quite important for the federal government to protect and support national parks such as Yellowstone. Only 4% believe we spend too little on them[1]. 84% of Americans are opposed to the privatization of public roads and highways [2]. 81% of Americans are satisfied with their local public library [3]. While there's always room for improvement, it's self-evident that these systems are in fact functioning (non-failing) after many, many years of existence. With these facts alone I have demonstrated that Socialism doesn't ultimately fail for modern societies. I look forward to Pro attempting to prove his case. 2. Socialism Can Promote Stability Second, if a country's populace becomes too poor and disempowered, you face the prospect of revolution. This contributed to the French, Russian, and other revolutions. There is no direct profit in opening cold weather homeless shelters, providing free basic medical services, or providing pro bono legal assistance.. and yet the fact that Americans do it, helps to ensure their country doesn't wind up like those other countries. 3. Socialism Thinks Longer-Term Than Capitalism Third, capitalism tends to fail us when no profit will be seen in the near-term, but society has a good reason to proceed. Examples where Socialism helped here include space exploration and the Internet. 4. Socialism Succeeds Where Capitalism Fails Finally, I will provide a clear example in America where, historically, Capitalism failed and Socialism succeeded. That is in the realm of Firefighting. I will direct you to a wonderful article on the subject from the Huffington Post [4], but if you prefer a visual demonstration, I encourage you to rent Gangs of New York. [1] http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com... [2] http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org... [3] http://www.ala.org... [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Socialism ultimately fails for modern societies.

I look forward to this debate. Now, to begin I will admit that Socialism can work, but only if those running the state are perfect, selfless humans, however, no such humans exist. The very nature of humans being in control with such absolute power is to be corrupted and greedy. Looking at Socialism from a historical stand point gives us a number of examples of Socialistic societies that ended in ruin, two such examples are Soviet Russian, and West and East Germany after WWII. Both of these countries explored Socialism and payed the price. Russia began by converting to Socialism. Now, Socialism is known as the gap between Marxism and Communism, it is inevitable that pursuing one of those will lead to the others. After a time, Russia followed this pattern, and the type of leaders this society attracted were mass murderers, tyrants who oppressed their people. In the case of West and East Germany it paints of very revealing comparison of Socialism versus democratic governments. The difference was West Germany having a flourishing economy and society, while East Germany being in a state of poverty.
Religion cannot back up any argument

Resolution Negated: Religion cannot back up any argument. Introduction: Let me start of my saying that the Bible is not the word of God. God does not exist. I think my opponent and I are in relative accord on these points. However, in this argument I intent to show that this does not invalidate the use of the Bible (or other religious texts) as a source, only that they must be considered as works of historical fiction and not divine inspiration. There are the main ways the Bible could be used as a legitimate source in a debate: 1. If the debate is theological in nature. When debating about topics with a certain religion, the texts of said religion make extremely valuable sources. Often the correct interpretation of scripture becomes a subject of debate. The use of religious texts in such a debate could provide valuable context for understanding other religious concepts. 2. As a means of understanding culture. Religion and culture are very closely tied together. In an especially religious place, religious texts of the faiths followed by the inhabitants could provide useful clues toward understanding their culture. 3. As a historical narrative. Though many of the events described in the Bible may be fictitious, it does describe many real events in a fair amount of detail. It also provides insight into the culture of the time when it was written. Conclusion: Though it may be circular reasoning the us the Bible as an argument for theism, it can certainly be used to support other arguments. To say that the Bible cannot be used as a source for any subject is to ignore its potential utility.
Religion cannot back up any argument

Many times I have come across debates and religion is used all too often as proof to back up which ever side. I'm going by the bible now, as I have read it and have a limited knowledge on this subject. Now it is meant to be the word of god, but seeing as this god has ceased to prove existence, how can it be trusted? I truly believe the bible is no source of proof or evidence to have any input into any debate, no matter the subject.
the handicapped should not be eligible to recieve any benefits from the government, and/or society

I would like to note that the Con defined "benefits" in terms of "special" considerations. I am opposed to the extension of "special" considerations toward anyone, by anyone, be it government or any other actor (Society is not an entity, it cannot take any actions). Now, certainly, some accommodations for disabilties are positive-- those which aren't "special considerations." The principle to be applied in general is "Provide things to others based on the values it will cause them to provide to you." Occasionally, then, accommodations for handicapped can be provided if the value gained exceeds the cost of the accommodations. This is not special, as it's how one treats everyone. Anything "Special," outside that rule, indicates that one is losing value-- one is investing more value than one expects to gross from the transaction. No one should do this, no one should destroy value on net, as the term "should" refers to the field of morality-- i.e., the field of attaining values.
the handicapped should not be eligible to recieve any benefits from the government, and/or society

I will simply set up parameters and define key terms within the resolution and then let my opponent (pro) make opening arguments. Parameters: by benefits I mean "special consideration" in regards to education, disability checks, disabled housing, live-in nurses, or anything that is given to a disabled person. Now I must present my bias. I am physically disabled. I suffer from moderate/severe Cerebral Palsy that solely affects me physically. My opponent should know that this topic hits close to home and should not be taken lightly. I only ask that my opponent accepts the fact that I am indeed disabled, and doesn't ask for proof. I appreciate it. Thanks. Definitions: handicapped: disabled; people collectively who are crippled or otherwise physically handicapped eligible: qualified for or allowed or worthy of being chosen benefits: (as outlined above) I hand the proverbial floor to my opponent Sources all definitions throughout this debate (from my side) are from wordnet. princeton. edu
progressive tax is fairer than flat tax

I am sorry, was this a debate re-enactment of Billy Madison or are we discussing Progressive tax vs. Flat tax in terms of fairness? Progressive Tax: a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases. Flat Tax: a tax system with a constant marginal rate, usually applied to individual or corporate income. Fair: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism All google search definitions Logic dictates that Flat tax is fairer than Progressive tax based on the definition of fair. And just for s**ts and giggles. Only the rich should pay a luxory tax. Who are these rich people, What percentage of the population are they? According to IRS data, the people in the 1% don't stay there from year to year. So how are you going to keep tabs on these rich people and make sure they are paying their luxury tax? You can't, that is why luxory tax is applied as a consumer tax. If you make $30k/yr or $500k/yr and purchase a Range Rover you goin pay that luxory tax.
progressive tax is fairer than flat tax

Sorry work was busy the past couple of days. I am not sure what this notion of fair is to the pro. The definition of fair goes against every fiber of a progressive tax. In the U. S. , fair is getting to use what YOU earn. In a Flat tax system you pay the same rate as every individual in that society. There is no bias based on the amount of capital you have earned. This logic makes a flat tax fairer than a progressive tax. I am not going to address either of your arguments; they are both nonsensical.
progressive tax is fairer than flat tax

the rich should pay a luxory tax, which pays for all the spending that is done on the poor. why is it fair to make everyone pay it when most people are just able to take care of themselves and not taking such large amounts of resources?imagine if the earth was owned by a trillionaire who owned all the earth but a plot of land where everyone else resides. natural law would say they could branch out, plant crops etc on the other land, but the law of man has prevented that. this is not so far fetched..... half the worlds resources are owned by less than a percent of the population.
Battlefield 4 (Pro) VS. COD Ghosts (Con)

i would first like to start off by saying that us gamers are not enemies the only enemies i have are trollers that like to team kill, unless it is me that is trolling it is not funny ! anyways im going to disagree with you as a avid cod player since the beginning of COD life i will agree that ghosts is a fail ! ..untillllll onslaught came out as DLC and as for all my zombies and extinction fans on here i know yall will find this pleasing because last i recall BF4 STILL HAS NO DINO MODE ! ! as for the call of duty gameplay goes lets just say the more options the better . if your into small team communiction there is many options i believe it is easier and more fun to communicate and host parties on call of duty and i really enjoy the gaming engine and as i recall from last night lets face it battlefield online is still glitchy ,no gun animations sometimes for 45 seconds or no sound . and id also like to state where you said that on call of duty ghosts you dont like how it spawns you into vehicles ...well sir im sorry to inform you that there are no vehicles in call of duty i dont know where you came up with that .yes battlefeild 4 has more guns but how long did it take EA to at least fix the stability and gameplay ? and why does all there updates end up just causing more errors ?
Battlefield 4 (Pro) VS. COD Ghosts (Con)

In my opinion BF4 is a better game then Cod Ghosts in many aspects. First, there is no reward for camping because the maps are so big. In Cod there are much more campers. I agree that Cod Ghosts is much better for campaign, so I think we should focus on multiplayer. First off Ghosts has terrible game modes, the only good one is infected. Also, the Ghosts spawns are crap, either spawning you near vehicles or right in front of a camper. In battlefield spawns you can choose from multiple spawn points. Also, battlefield players are normally classier then cod players. They play with teamwork and actually use the mic's for things other then trolling. The terrain in battlefield is also superior, because it can help change the course of the game. The cod terrain is kind of lame because the things you blow up don't really do anything. Also, being able to actually legitimately snipe is a huge thing in battlefield. In Ghosts mosts people just quick scope. Lastly the weapon unlocks are much better in battlefield, requiring you to use a certain type of weapon to unlock more of that type. I am looking forward to having a good debate. P.S: please don't reply to this as a troll.
Is Government Necessary

while the government does need money to support the country the government is corrupt. instead of putting money towards certain things the country needs they neglect certain things and profit off the American tax money as much as they can. governors, senators, and other political people steal millions of dollars, go on expensive trips, buy overly expensive vehicles, houses, etc. instead of putting tax money towards what really matters. you give a man more power than they can handle and bad things happen... without power hitler would not have been able to kill millions of people just because he didn't think they deserved to live. Hitler took advantage of his people and corrupted their minds into believing that he was right and his way was the only way. their are hundreds of other examples of power hungry politicians doing what they think is right whether it is best for the country or not. people do what they want without considering the side effects of their actions.
Is Government Necessary

The S.A.F.E. act is, of course, a violation of the Bill of Rights, but it was only considered because of the rapid growth of gun violence in America. Yes, the criminals involved would likely buy guns illegally, but the act would lower the amounts of violence at least for people that buy them legally. This is not to say I am for the S.A.F.E. act, I am for the most part against it. But the part of the act I am not against is the principle behind it. At least they were actually trying to solve the issue. Another thing that the government can many times be needed for is to solve big issues. The government has been involved in the solving of many issues such as the Great Depression and Civil Rights. Many times when the government is trying to make a lot of money is because of the fact that they need to use it in order to support our country and the people that live in it. The government is not just a group of many people that makes a lot of money, it's an organization that makes the lives of Americans fair and safe, as well as solving problems we cannot fix ourselves. Without government, we would be living in poverty with people being oppressed constantly, slave trade would still probably exist, or we might not be alive at all.
Is Government Necessary

while that is true, people wouldn't even know about a person's "unalienable rights". The government has certain points where it is necessary and helpful. But there are more times where the government is more interested in protecting itself and are more interested in doing what they want to do than the people of the country. Passing obscene laws like the safe act and other gun regulations for starters. Does the government really believe that taking away a persons right to self defense is the right thing to do? If someone wants to use a gun to kill people they are not going to go to a gun store, they are going to buy it illegally. Instead of punishing the American people the government should be allowing people to own self defense weapons. The only thing the government wants is to make as much money as possible while doing what they want whether it is in the nations best interest or not.
Is Government Necessary

While it may be true that government at times can be faulty, government when done correctly can be used very effectively. Government is often seen as a way to oppress the people of a country. Without government, however, citizens would in a way be even more oppressed. Since the government creates laws, they will make laws in order to protect certain "unalienable rights". The lack of these laws would allow anyone to take advantage of this and keep others from using their rights. Government in this sense keeps things in order as well as organized and fair.
Women have the right to get an abortion

" when should the fetus be considered a child?" Because they have all the necessary chromosomes to be a human being. A fetus should be a child when they have all the necessary chromosomes to be so. Chromosomes separate humans from non humans. "Before 24 weeks, the fetus is just a bunch of cells." You're technically a bundle of cells if you think about it. This does not disqualify you from being human. It also does not disqualify a fetus from achieving human status. "people shouldn't restrict themselves from doing what they want because of a hypothetical." It's not a hypothetical. A hypothetical is something that does not exist and is not designed to. Pregnancy is a possibility. "Very few woman have an easy time deciding whether or not to get an abortion." The decision could be simple. No abortions allowed. If abortion was illegal, the choice would be much simpler and the abortion rate would decrease, which is what both the left and the right want to accomplish. There is no guarantee that it’s the best decision for both parties and how could it be that way if one of the parties dies non consensually?
Women have the right to get an abortion

A lot of the disagreements that occur between both sides in this matter stem from one question; when should the fetus be considered a child? In my opinion, it is when the child's fully formed with all of it's organs and can live outside of their mother's womb. This is at 24 weeks. Before 24 weeks, the fetus is just a bunch of cells. Women should be allowed to receive an abortion before that time since there isn't any fully formed human that can live on it's own. And even after that point, a woman should be allowed to decide for herself what she wants to do with her body, that is not something anyone can make for her. On your point about not having sex if you do not want to endure the 'consequences', people shouldn't restrict themselves from doing what they want because of a hypothetical. Very few woman have an easy time deciding whether or not to get an abortion. It is a hard decision, but the decision is always made for what is best for both parties.
Women have the right to get an abortion

1) "Abortion's are things that women get when they are either not ready, no in the right place, or don't want to put their bodies through the toll of having a child." If they aren't ready for a child then they don't have sex. Sex may feel good, but rape also feels good to a rapist. That doesn't mean they should do it. Just because something feels good does not jstify having the sex. Even though sex feels good, it does not justify killing the unborn child that comes as a result of it.2) "No one can tell a women if she wants to have a baby or not, and therefore should chose what she wants to do." Read argument #1.3) "Deciding whether or not to have a child (which is based on many different factors) should one a woman's and only that woman's choice." Read argument 1 and the reasons that I believe I should add here. Science has confirmed that a fetus is a human being. A fetus has all the nessesary chromosomes to be alive and they meet all the nessesary criteria for life. A fetus is therefore a human being. If a woman does not want the child, she can set the kid up for adoption.If you have more questions, I have a link here that you and viewers should check out:https://docs.google.com...