BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialism has made a comeback

"Socialism has made a comeback". Was there ever Socialism in the first place? Socialism was the imaginary world of well heeled philosophical types, Who had the way with all to be able to sit around all day thinking up utopian impossibilities. All societies are to a lesser or greater extent authoritarian, Without authority there would be anarchy. Authority unavoidably implies hierarchy and social division. So no matter how liberal the application of authority might be, The philosophical dream will always be rendered unworkable. Yes. The bus driver will drive the bus and the politician will run the country, Essentially they will both input a similar amount of time and effort into their society. But will they both be allocated the same level of reward for their time and efforts? And who decides that one persons time and efforts are more worthy? I doubt that it would be the bus driver who makes this decision. I would suggest that China is and always has been a nation of extremes. Extremely authoritarian in National Government but extremely equalitarian at a proletariat level. I would further suggest that this is due to the vastness of China and it's population which results in a naturally occurring society, Rather than a philosophically inspired social structure. Norway: A rich nation with a small population. But wealth is relative to the cost of living and in this respect poverty is still a significant and increasing factor in Norwegian society and this can only be as a result of an unequal distribution of resources and wealth. Assisting the less well of is not a defining principle of socialism. Socialism is based on a fair and equal allocation of wealth and resources in the first place. Pro looks optimistically at the world and states the obvious. All people are equal but some people are more equal than others. I am certainly not a pessimist, But perhaps I am a little more realistic. I do not look at the world and witness any truly socialist societies. Leaving me to conclude that; Socialism cannot comeback because it was never here in the first place.
Socialism has made a comeback

Everyone has trouble learning to do something, No one pops out of the womb talking and walking, We are all on an evolutionary journey. . No society I think will see absolute equality, Nor should it, True we don't want a bus driver running the country. . We want him driving a bus. . I think that is where he or she ( or how ever the bus driver self identifies) would be most happy, That doesnt mean everyone can't have a say and participate, That doesnt mean everyone can't have a more fair distribution of the nations wealth. . If you look at northern europe for example. . The market system is firmly in place. . And works quite well but at the same time there are high taxes a generous welfare state to re distribute goods like housing, Education and health care. One of three people works fo the state, In places like norway and also singapore though both are market friendly the state holds many assets in sobereign welath funds for the common good, So the mean of production are controled by a democratic state very democratic in the case of norway norway being the most eqaul nation in terms or distribution of wealth, It is on top of the lists for prosperity quality of life and standard of living. . And then ther is china where half the work force either work for the state or state owned companies, No nation on earth has taken more people out of poverty than china. . It is possible to be prosperous democratic equitable and successful people don't have to be absolutely equal, Just progressively less unequal is a good direction for society to move in, Call this a progeessive society call it market socialism or social democracy a word is a silly thing to be hung up on. . Socialism did not really fail. . It changed moderated became practical and in my opinion is now beating the more laissez faire models of capitalism, No system has ever been pure state run or pure private, Puer socialist or pure capitalist, That is a false dicotomy and a silly waste of time to argue over. . Maybe the ideal society will not be socialist. . Thats okay with me, But socialist values may soften the edges of the extremes of the Capitalist system.
The Earth is flat.

The reason why we can see the upward curvature of a mountain is because the speed of light is close to 300 * 10^6 m/s and light is being reflected from the mountain directly to the human eye. The speed of light is extremely fast and remember, light travels in a straight path! This, of course is just the basics since light can be manipulated. With this speed, combined with the ability of sight, an image in the brain can quickly be formed in the shape of the mountain. It is impossible to see behind a building, a downward curve, or in completely darkness because the light, or lack of lack from those areas do not reach directly into the human eye.
The Earth is flat.

If you really believe Earth is flat rather than a sphere, then you are mistaken. Pro has the burden of proof to present evidence to support the statement, "The Earth is flat." I will now debunk Pro premise.With your premise, you are using sight to make the observation. Sight occurs when there is light. Light travels in a straight path [1]. Your perspective of a flat Earth is the limitation of sight. Earth is a sphere. You cannot see the downward curve, but you can see an upward curve (hills and mountains).[1] http://www.cyberphysics.co.uk...
Dogs are better than cats

Reasons why cats are better than dogs: 1. Yes, dogs can make you laugh. Cats can too. There are lots of cute and funny images of both cats and dogs on Google images. 2. Lots of people do have dogs, lots of people have cats too. Both are easy to talk about and good to talk about. 3. You can teach commands to cats. It won't be as easy but it's possible. 4. Cats take care of their toys a lot better than dogs. A lot of old dog toys are ruined where cats like to take care of their toys and preserve them so they last longer. 5. It doesn't cost as much to feed cats. Dogs can be a lot bigger than cats and it will take more to feed them. 6. When cats are happy and full of joy they purr. Which is very cute. Where dogs wag their tales which CAN knock things of balance. CAN. 7. When a guest comes into the house cats don't go up to them and sniff, lick and walk around them. Which I find very annoying. 8. Cats love to bring presents to you... Like a dead rat... Lovely :) 9. If you have a laser pointer, the cat will follow it. With nothing stopping it. The cat may even climb a wall to get the laser. Meow
Dogs are better than cats

There are scientific facts that dogs are better than cats, they are the following. 1. Dogs make you laugh. Dogs are funny and playful, and make you laugh easily. 2. Dogs affect your social life in a good way. Dogs are a great social topic to talk about. Lots of people have dogs therefore it's easy to find dog owners to socialise with. 3. Dogs aren't just good pets, they are life savers. Researchers have trained Golden Retrievers and German Shepards to sniff out ovarian cancer. 4. Whilst cats bat crumpled pieces of tissue, some dogs have learnt to recognise and respond to commands given to them by an iPad like, Sit, Stay and other commands as well as taking selfies! 5. Dogs keep us fit. Dogs need walk, so owners take them for walks, this doesn't just give the dog exercise but exercise the owner as well. 6. Dogs are heroes. They can sniff out bombs, find missing people and track down criminals! 7. Some dogs are seziure alert, they can detect a seziure if someone is going to have one 12 to 14 hours before the attack, the dogs are trained to hit a special button that calls an ambulance. Try making a cat do these things. I know these aren't all dogs, but this just proves dogs have a very positive impact on our society.
Dogs are better than cats

Not all cats poo in a box, they only do when they are young and haven't got the skill. I don't even know where my cat does it's business which is really good because it's out of the way. When I go to friends houses who have dogs I find myself always dodging poo in the backyard. You can take cats for walks, it might be a bit odd but it's simply possible. Cats can be very active too, most only mope around and do nothing all day because they are old. When I had my dog and went for walks, I can count 2 times my dog started having sex with another and they haven't even met! Cats don't do that. Cats do comfort you, a lot. When my sister goes to bed my cat likes to sleep on the end of her bed. All night! Cats aren't noisy and bark, they are quiet and can climb trees very well...
Dogs are better than cats

Not all dogs make a mess, they're easy to train if you have the skill, cats on the other hand are not compliant to commands. At least dogs don't do their busness in a box then if your lucky flick it everywhere. Cats are lazy, if you have an active lifestyle and you have a cat, don't expect it to go for walkies and play in the park. If you are a lazy person go ahead and get a cat, but for the active people dogs are perfect. Cats don't comfort you when you are sad, they just lay around all day, dogs comfort you in your time of need.
Dogs are better than cats

I own a cat myself and I had a dog once, we got rid of her because she was destroying our furniture, making a mess and shitting everywhere. I am allergic to animals and dogs always like to lick my face making it puffy (I know this because TheUnorthodox's dog licked my face). But cats just lay around and don't do much, making it easy to give them a nice pet every now and then. They are clean with their poop and wee, they don't do it all over the yard and expect you to clean it up.
Evolution: False without involving Creationsim

My opponent claims that evolution is false, and also says that he will not bring up creationism as an alternative(refreshing). So let us take a look at what the theory is itself. The theory in short states This is a basic overview so that my opponent will understand what he is claiming*A species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring.*Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them.*Natural selsms are produced than can survive because of limited resources.*Organisms stection explains how this evolution has happened: *More organiruggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources.*Individuals within a population vary in their traits; some of these traits are heritable -- passed on to offspring.*Some variants are better adapted to survive and reproduce under local conditions than others.*Better-adapted individuals (the "fit enough") are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on copies of their genes to the next generation.*Species whose individuals are best adapted survive; others become extinct. So I believe my adversary has the term in which we are debating confused. We are debating "is evolution true". Simply stating it is adaption does not prove that it is inaccurate, but in fact you are acknowledging that it is true. You perhaps should have worded the debate to show that you do not like the term evolution. Actually the theory of evolution encompasses what it means to adapt and survive. It says that orgasms can evolve by "chance"(I will address the word chance below) in order to adapt to their environment. For example, consider the process of natural selection and what it entails, which results in adaptations presenting certain features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live ( An example would be the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to certain types of pathogens, and the ability of bats to echo-locate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. My adversary claims it is mere adaption but it is much more than to simply tag that word on it. In closing he has claimed that evolution is false in itself, and just stated it was adaption. The theory itself embraces adaption as one of its primary vocal points, so my opponent has not show how this theory is false. Thank youhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu...http://www.spaceandmotion.com...http://evolution.berkeley.edu...http://www.richarddawkins.net...
We All Need To Die At SomePoint

I see Pro's perspective on that he hates Hitler, Isis, and that Minecraft hacker, but that doesn't suffice for a good argument. Allow me to elaborate: Not all people are evil, you know. We had George Washington, who was a good 1st president. Also, it's a shame Einstein had to fall as well, I like the guy. He made the Theory of Brownian motion, and "E = mc^2" (E is the energy of a physical system, m is the mass of the system, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum (about 3"10^8 m/s)" You can go here for all of Einstein's accomplishments: https://en.wikipedia.org... . There's lots of good people, me, you, parents, teachers, etc. ! Are you saying they should die for no punishment? Now, let's take a look at Pro's rebuttal: "The debate is We all need to die at SOMEPOINT!!!! Not now, but at somepoint!!" And I say we WILL die, but not NEED to die. It's not the same thing. "Need" means "a requirement" (in my own words). "Will" means "it's going to happen at some point". It's not the same thing. Pro says "Also What I meant is that is we never died at all, we would still have hitler, and GANDALF the grey, I WANT GANDALF THE WHITE!!!!!!" I quote "I WANT GANDALF THE WHITE!!!!", this is my opponent's opinion on that he likes Gandalf the White better than Gandalf the Grey, who are Lord of the Rings characters; fictional! (Thanks to KingofEverything for that little bit) I assume Pro also hates Anakin Skywalker? Anakin is Darth Vader. You wish for a Jedi (yes, he went to the Dark Side, but came back) to die? Unacceptable. To sum up my opponent's argument, he claims we need to die at some point to pay for our sins. But when? When do we need to pay for our sins via... murdering the sinner? Is Pro suggesting we murder the Minecraft hacker? I'm against this, as I have said before in Round 1, especially children! We all get angry at some point, and perhaps wish we could stab him/her in the neck, but they should live up to 30+ years old! It's a waste of a baby to kill it before it makes a difference in the world! (which is actually my reasoning for being against children deaths) I await my opponent's response.
We All Need To Die At SomePoint

WOAH! Easy there, buddy! Let's not get carried away. My opening argument: I say we don't need to die. We WILL die some time in our lives, but that's not the same thing as we MUST die. I prefer a person to die from natural causes at ages 40-80+. Murder shouldn't be a thing, because, well, we're taking the lives of humanity. It's even against the law! Of course I am 100% against the murder of children and teens below the age of 20. Yeah, that's my personal opinion, but I'm gonna state that now: the murder of children is wrong. They should live up to age 40. Or at least 30. My rebuttal against Pro: "Is we all lived we would suffer from the following, which I will detail later on" Okay, let's see... "Overpopulation" How would overpopulation be a bad thing? I know deer would eat all the grass if we didn't hunt them, but humanity doesn't have that same problem. "Bordem" Ehh... Boredom isn't a cause of death. 'Die of boredom' is just an expression. "More Bordem" Uhhh, I just went over that point. "HITLER ,ASSAD ,GADAFI ,MEMEBERS OF ISIS ,JESUS ,GANDALF ,DARTH VADER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT HACKER IN MINECRAFT LAST NIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!" WOAH! Easy buddy! Hitler's long dead. I don't know Assad, Gadafi, or Isis, but that's probably irrelevant anyways. Jesus is a religion; he's the lord! How is Jesus Christ death again? Gandalf, I believe he's a Harry Potter character, so he's irrelevant. Darth Vader? Now your going crazy. Hacker in minecraft... What even? My conclusion: Pro might've lost it the moment he made this debate. (Which is actually why I joined this debate!) After Pro calms down, I would like a good argument from him on why we NEED to die. I wish you luck. (Not expecting a serious debate from this guy, though)
We All Need To Die At SomePoint

I believe that we all have to die, I have to die, you have have to die, one day. Is we all lived we would suffer from the following, which I will detail later on. Overpopulation, Bordem, More Bordem, HITLER ,ASSAD ,GADAFI ,MEMEBERS OF ISIS ,JESUS ,GANDALF ,DARTH VADER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT HACKER IN MINECRAFT LAST NIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Capitalism Vs. Socalism

My point is not invalid, because it is impossible to reject the presence of drugs in the areas where Jane would be living. And again I say it is a myth that welfare programs make people lazy, and it does not kill her drive to be successful. And it's not fair to call people who are less fortunate than your father lazy. While your father's story is truly inspiring, it is not the common story in society and it's not fair to say that if your dad can do it anyone can. And while yes a smart person doesn't get pregnant at 16, it is a fact of our society, it happens and we have to deal with. And saying that she should've not gotten pregnant does not fix the problem that she already is. And if there are not socialist programs that help her to raise a child there is no way she will ever have the time or money to go back to school and get a good job. Because yes there are ways to get an education outside of the primary youth k-12 program, but after that it is not free and it often happens at night. So if Jane works all day and gets her kid from school she cannot leave at night to go to class unless she can have someone watch her child, which she cannot afford because she is making minimum wage at $7.25, an amount that could be lower if the socialist program known as the minimum wage was not enacted. These businesses that only offer minimum wage to their employees prove that trickle down economics do not work, and they never have. These companies that pay minimum wage are not struggling to get by, their CEO's are still banking in millions. Walmart, which is the largest employer of low wage employees, their CEO made $35 Million dollars last year.
Capitalism Vs. Socalism

First off let me say i never said anything about drugs so your point there is invalid. Jane would be rewarded under capitalism if she tried hard and used common sense and didn't get pregnant at 16. If she waited until she found a job found a reasonably stable job she could educate herself because there are tons of ways that you can do that. then she could raise a family. All i am saying is that under socialism, Jane here will have no push to educate herself and raise a family properly, and her kid will probably end up just like her. If Jane was smart she would have done what my father did. she would have worked hard to educate herself and try and find a job. My dad grew up poor and his parents were always at work but he found a way. From your story it sounds like jane is lazy and wants to rely on the welfare system.
Capitalism Vs. Socalism

It's a common misconception that their is widespread abuse of welfare program, the idea that they use all their money for drugs is totally false. In a sample of Florida members of welfare programs it was found only 2.6% came back as failing the drug test. It is common of Republicans to make a huge issue out of something that there is no real problem, no system is perfect. There will always be people who take advantage of the system, but the entire system is working. How is Jane rewarded under a capitalist society? She has no money, and their is no government programs to help her. She will never be able to go to school which is required for any decent paying job, you are suppressing to be in the lower class her entire life, while socialism can help lift her into the middle class.
Capitalism Vs. Socalism

1. What you have to remember is that any time that you see a socialist movement come forward, it is because the government has had to step in because the capitalist market has not worked. ~When a government steps in it is because it wants power, and under socialism it gets the power that it wants. 2. Think of it like this, John Doe is born in Northern California to an upper middle class, he is encouraged to attend class everyday by his 2 parents living in the same house, he goes to college and graduates debt free. He gets an desk job at a private firm in Los Angeles and begins his life, this cycle repeats for this family for generations. Now you have Jane Doe, she is the child of a runaway father, mom is working hourly at your local restaurant, no one tells Jane to go to school, no encouragement, she has no insurance so when she gets sick she just stays at home and does not get any better. She gets pregnant at 16, just like her mother did, and so she drops out of high school to raise her baby. Her mother is fortunate enough to get Jane a job at the same restaurant, no college, no desk job. This cycle also repeats. ~Yes there is inequality in this world and some people get rougher starts than others and that is truly sad to me. The problem with the story is that under socialism is that people like Jane fall back and rely on the welfare program and although they might not abuse it many people do. Under Capitalism Jane would be rewarded for working hard. My father grew up in a poor family but he worked hard and didn't rely on welfare. With his hard work he was able to provide a good life for me to live. When people work that hard, does it seem fair for the government to give to the people that don't work as hard. It goes back to the analogy that I used earlier about the grades if some don't try hard but they get a good grade because of other peoples hard work more people stop working hard. With people like Jane in the story if they put a little bit of effort into trying to work and start a good life they would most likely succeed. In the story with jane it seems like she wants the welfare to provide for her. If she didn't go and get pregnant at 16 and she did her best to educate herself she wouldn't have to rely on the welfare system as much. I don't mind paying taxes for welfare but i think that there should be more limitations on it I don't mind paying for people with physical and mental disabilities that's great. I fell that with people like Jane in your story we should give them a small amount to get them back on their feet but don't continue to just give them money because if you do that they will never have drive to do anything or try hard. Please don't see me as a heartless person I don't mind helping people get back onto their feet, that's what america is but when you continue to just give them money it ends up failing.