BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That the world can not be sustailned

We need sustainable sources of energy for the future because we are using up our natural resources i.e. oil faster than the planet can replenish them. That means we will eventually run out of oil. It does not mean that no more oil will ever be created, it just means that it will take a very, very long time to happen and we will be hundreds upon millions of years without it. We need another form of energy--nuclear power is the most viable option right now, but it is dangerous and slightly unstable. Wind, hydroelectric, and solar power will always be renewable but the means by which we harvest them don't allow us to "extract" enough power. We need sustainable sources of energy because without them, we will run out of all other means of energy, and won't be able to use electricity anymore. This means no artificial heat or cooler, efficient travel, modern day medical help, etc. Sustainable development is necessary because the need for development is as great as ever, but the model of the past cannot be used as a pattern for the future. Millions of people worldwide live below the poverty line, have no access to health care, and have inadequate shelter. With the rapid increase of the global population, the disparity between rich and poor is becoming greater. Ireland and North Tipperary do not have problems on such a scale, but we cannot afford to stand aside from these issues. Global prosperity must increase and must be more widely shared. Living standards must be improved. Historically, economic activity tended to mean pollution and wasting of resources. Such activity is clearly unsustainable. We have to find a new way forward: this is the challenge of sustainable development. For the future, we need to simultaneously achieve economic, social and environmental objectives, and consider the longer-term implications of decisions. The choices made will either promote more sustainable practices or lead us further from that outcome. At a local level, our County needs thriving villages and towns based on strong economies, good access to services, and attractive and safe surroundings. Our countryside needs to be valued as a natural asset and not treated simply as development land, which can be developed at the impulse of its current owner.
communism can and has worked

Thank you for taking up this debate. You have come up with the main criticism of communism and it is a valid criticism, The more taxation there is the less incentive there is to work as hard because you get a smaller percentage. First I must explain the difference in socialist systems; socialism, By definition would be anything to the left of the political spectrum, As such there are a myriad of systems which have their roots in socialism. Your complaint is defiantly true in comparison to Stalinism and classical Marxism, However the key point of Leninism is that it doesn't force counter intuitive ideas like having only one wage regardless of your job; under that system your argument would be and has proven to be spot on. Under Leninism however a flat tax rate will take much but not all of the profits and use the money to provide essentials to all, The rest of your money is free to be used however you desire; everyone's needs are meet, Ethical working conditions are set and you will always have a part of your wage free to use as you will, Maintaining the incentives to work hard for rewards. People all say that its just a excuse that people say that communist parties never practiced real communism, But it is accurate. Sticking to Lenin and Russian communism they never claimed to be communist, The USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; they were socialist, They worked to create a society where communism would eventually take over. However the main reason they called themselves communist not socialist was in order to separate themselves from democratic socialists and other leftist groups. In conclusion, The majority of communist groups do fall apart, Because the original communist manifesto is quite literally a pamphlet, (I have personally seen one of the original copies in the British Library), It doesn't detail every issue and it's very open to interpretation and many criticisms of communism are true; Stalinism is oppressive and produced a economy which stagnated in the 1980s, Maoism was flawed in that it described a endless class struggle even after revolution. Leninism has its flaws, It will more than likely will make a economy slightly less effective, But the wealth in a nation doesn't matter if it is only available to the few.
communism can and has worked

"The reality is that the tenets of Communism are, Indeed, Workable; the only problem is that they produce super inefficient economies, Such that, Even though the people in a Communist system fully support its ideals, They soon start conducting themselves in a manner that shows their deep yearning for the freedoms of Capitalism. " - The Last Contrarian This is a quote basically sums up my argument, As there is not much more to explain. You can't get anywhere in a communist system. No matter how much extra work you put in or the desire to break out of the routine of the constant same every day actions, People will start to become bored, Which in resulting will start uprisings and revolts as which is why MAJORITY of communist groups fall apart.
Child Suicide Bombers vs. Moral Relativism

Is it the case that our species continuing to exist is moral? After all, you claim that the killing of innocents is morally wrong, and what is more innocent than nature? We as a species hold ourselves to a higher standard than the other creatures living on this planet and are constantly draining it of its resources and causing pollution. In turn, that causes the loss of many other species on this planet. The majority, if not all, of the problems in this world stem from us causing destruction, pollution, and death on a large scale. Given the way we have treated everything else in this world, I don't believe that we as humans are in any position of being able to decide what is or is not morally right in first place.
Child Suicide Bombers vs. Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is the case that you are making here. Many people agree with it, and it can be applied to some circumstances, but not. The problem with the argument is that if it were valid it would follow that literally any action conceivable is moral justified because it can be correct within someone's culture. To give a very extreme example, blowing up the entire cosmos would be acceptable if you you accept moral relativism and the person who blew it up has a God in their culture who told them this is the correct course of action to be taken. There are some things that we must accept as objectively morally correct, such as the continued existence of the species. Without the continued existence of the species, We would not even be able to have an argument on whether or not something is morally correct or not, because the species would no longer exist. Anything that is detrimental to the continued survival of the human race must be viewed as immoral and suicide bombers, killing of innocents, and immoral war tactics all fit that bill.
Child Suicide Bombers vs. Moral Relativism

I don't necessarily agree with you saying that "All's fair in love and war" is a "primitive" and "incorrect" statement. The reason that phrase exists is when situations like this are taking place. The entire way of life for these people is being changed, and whether or not you agree with how they live, that is how their world functions. When one's world is beginning to completely collapse around them, they will do what ever it takes to defend it. In order for your statement to stand, you will pretty much have to say that your way of living is better or more valuable than theirs is. I'm not saying that I agree with the way they operate, but I'm not in any position to pass judgement on them because I don't live in that society. Without being in the position of these people or being able to see just how much they stem to lose in this, it can be determined whether or not their methods are crossing the line.
Child Suicide Bombers vs. Moral Relativism

Well, your first contention was that it is permissible due to the fact that the fact that the children (or any suicide bomber) would go to paradise. Or, at the very least, we cannot prove that they will NOT go to paradise. If that is the case, then I believe my previous argument about killing for one's personal gain still applies. Now you bring up the argument that the suicide bombings are being done, not for personal gain, but as a war tactic. While this may be true, I find it much more plausible that the war is an excuse to use the children for personal gain. Surely there are more effective weapons and tactics in war than using children strapped with bombs. Even if one would say that this was an effective war tactic because no one expected this from children, those days are long gone as everyone (in the countries where these bombings occur) are aware of the use of children and are no longer caught off guard. in addition, the "All's far in love and war" saying is primitive and incorrect. Killing soldiers on a battlefield is permissible in war because presumably, all these soldiers have signed up for the services, and are aware of the risks. In the case of the children, they cannot consent, and are brainwashed from birth.
Child Suicide Bombers vs. Moral Relativism

Your conclusion "To take another life simply for one's personal gain is immoral", while likely true, is not necessarily the case in this argument. Wars aren't waged for the benefit of any one person, but rather for the common goal of those are fighting in it. All soldiers who are going of to war are putting there lives on the line and the same standard holds for the children. They are not giving their lives for themselves, but rather for those who have already fallen and those who have yet to fight. In conclusion, it is not the case that they are taking the lives of others for personal gain, but rather for a common purpose and therefore do not violate the moral philosophy that you claim they do.
Child Suicide Bombers vs. Moral Relativism

The premise that no one knows what happens after death and these bombers might actually go to paradise may be true, but it is still no excuse or justification for the actions based on moral relativism. Firstly, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that an afterlife exists at all, and although people are free to believe that there is one if they so choose, it is illogical to support or condone a moral issue based on that. Also, even if it were 100% true that suicide bombers go to paradise, it still does not make it morally justified. To take another life simply for one's personal gain is immoral. It is an unsustainable moral philosophy that would cause the breakdown of any society that condones it.
Child Suicide Bombers vs. Moral Relativism

1. Interpretations of religious works are subjective and can vary drastically from person to person. 2. You can not determine that those involved in suicide bombings will not be going to paradise as it is impossible to determine what, if anything, happens after death. 3. Your own cultural background may be obstructing your view on this issue _________________________________________________________________________________ 4. It can not be determined whether or not this is excusable by moral relativism.
Child Suicide Bombers vs. Moral Relativism

1. Child Suicide bombing is the act of deceit used by Muslim extremists to use children as a transport for explosives, telling them either they will survive, what is being attached to them is not a bomb, or they will die but will go to paradise. 2. The actions that these terrorists coerce the children into doing directly causes the unlawful and immoral death of innocents. 3.Children are not consenting adults and cannot agree to these terms even if they were moral ________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.The usage of child suicide bombers by the Taliban is not morally excused by any moral relativism argument
Winter break is good for students and schools

I will break my argument into 4 main arguments 1) Holidays/Family. Winter break encompasses 3 of the most beloved holiday's and celebrations among Americans. Christmas, New Years Eve, and Hanukkah. All three of these holidays are the largest holiday's where families travel to be together, and with winter break students are granted the opportunity to enjoy time off from school to spend it with their family over the holiday's. If Winter Break was not in place then the amount of time students have to spend with their families over the holiday's would plummet from a combination of being at school and being stuck doing homework. Winter Break is good because it helps students enjoy their family ties during the holiday's 2) Mental exhaustion. Anybody still in school can relate to how exhausting the first few months of school can be, even with weekends. Winter break is a long revered time off by students who may be feeling pressured from a relentless 3 and a half month siege of homework, tests, and high school drama as well. Winter break gives mentally exhausted students an extensive amount of time to get themselves back together, maybe restock on school supplies, and become re-energized in general. If Winter Break was not in place students would labor on tirelessly until Spring Break leaving students with 6 almost non stop months of dealing with homework, grades, teachers, etc. 3) School operational costs. One of the biggest things that eat out of a school's yearly budget is the cost to pay for teachers, staff, administrators, and just to get the school running 5 times a week. Winter Break allows schools to cut back on their operational costs which eases the burden that schools face financially. Without Winter Break schools would be spending a lot more money that they often dont have much of anyway which could affect the quality of education the school can provide for the rest of the year because of financial constraints. 4) Students can still learn. Think back to the first winter break you had when one of your teachers gave you an enormous project that would be due when school resumed in January. For me it was a project in World Geography where students had to build a clay model of an African country and place stuff on it to highlight where the countries resources, major cities, and conflict zones were located in. I ended up with Egypt and while researching for these things in the clay model project I learned a good amount of stuff about Egypt's resources, location of major cities along the Nile River and the Mediterranean Sea, and areas of conflict close to its border with Israel. My point is Winter break still allows student to absorb more information even when schools are closed for well over 2 weeks straight. I will end here for now :)
elementry school kids are learning to much!

Personally I think it is unfair other kids get a more intense schooling program than I did. Yes, it might be a little bit of pressure, but if they don't get any pressure in 3rd grade, then when they are in sixth grade and actually being challenged, how are they supposed to be ready? Babying them with easy schoolwork will not help them. I remember learning a little bit of division in first grade, and wishing the teacher would tech it to me so I could understand it more. Thank you for this debate
elementry school kids are learning to much!

It's good to have more education but that is way to much for a 3rd grader comming right out of 2nd grade.All the pressure put on them when they have to take a test.I also visited another school and they were doing alot of easier stuff than that 3rd grade class i think it is unfair to some kids that they get off with easier stuff and some kids have to learn alot more.
Who is the better villain: Lex Luthor or Norman Osborn

I will start the final part of this debate NY saying that it was an honor working with pro. I would like to say that although it does say that it was suggested on marvel wiki that it was mark 29, they had reasons such as resemblance, size, and that it was the type that wasn't adjusted to the extremis. I would also like to say that even if lex has superior force fields (which we don't know), zero point energy can also be used as a shield or forcefield. As demonstrated when tony stark created a zero point energy shield for captain america. this would make it easier to defend. Pro also stated that advanced combat doesn't make a good point. I dissagree, for lex has tried to defeat batman and night wing, in which he failed. I am just stating that hand to hand will be used at some point during a battle. Another point is that one thing not mentioned on the marvel wiki is that they took out Jarvis. They kept as much as they could, unless they didn't know how it worked. He also has voice recognition. The interface inside the arm our would be able to find possible weak points, and his reflexes would counter a few of lex's moves. I will now leave it to the public to vote. I hope you choose con May the best man win
Who is the better villain: Lex Luthor or Norman Osborn

I will start the third and final round by saying this. From the marvel wiki (. http://marvel.wikia.com...) it says that it was only ever suggested that it was the armour Norman Osborn used and was never confirmed. And to counter the zero-point tech, Norman Osborn would have to hit Luthor to manipulate him with it and to do that he would have to get past the Force-Fields. You also said that Norman would beat Luthor without any equipment which I agree with but I do find it a weak argument. We are discussing who is the better villain and at most times a villain would be using his equipment. Since they are also both in buisness so I find it unlikely they would even fight outside of there respective armour. You also said that Norman Osborn was extremely intelligent but Luthor is definitely smarter. Like I said before Luthor's tech is on par with Apokolips which is billions of years ahead of earth. And because of the sheer strength that comes with Luthor's armour and the amazing durability, Osborn would never be able to defeat him. You said he founded the Dark Avengers. Not nearly as impressive as Luthor leading America. I will now let my opponent to make his final statement.
Who is the better villain: Lex Luthor or Norman Osborn

My opponent makes a good argument. Although iron patriot doesn't have near enough equipment, he is significantly smaller and more agile. It is unclear to me the powers of the iron patriot. But I realize that it is thought to be based off of the iron man model 29 because it had to be made after tony got injected with extremis. If it was, the powers would be repulsors, uni-beam and sonics. Concussion blasts. Zero-point energy. These may not be as powerful as any of the beams, except from the zero point energy which can manipulate or freeze mater into one position. This can be used to manipulate lex. He was firstly the green goblin. Which was a serum which gave him powers such as strength, stamina, and reflexes. It was also believed that he kept his green goblin powers when he wasn't under the influence of the serum. This means that if lex destroyed the suit, he can attack on his own. As he is in his armor, he would have advanced reflexes and healing. Osborn is also extremely intelegent. Intelegent enough to make robots that not only can attack, but can be reasoned with. Some would say that robots that can be reasoned with aren't as effective. But this is just suggesting that he is extremely smart and a great engineer. His suit also has hammer tech which is in top three technology businesses. Norman will also have upgraded the armor or the shields to be better. Lex has basic hand to hand combat. Where as norman has advanced hand to hand combat. Without the aid of a suit, he can lift up to 9 tons. With the suit he can lift over 100 tons. This also means that without the suits, Norman will win.
Who is the better villain: Lex Luthor or Norman Osborn

I have accepted my opponents challenge and am going to defend iron patriot because I believe he would win. Norman Osborn is the founder of oscorp and the dark avengers. Both are well known to lovers of marvel. He has created a suit of his own based on iron mans suit. In the next part of the debate I will introduce his weapons, armor, and past to persuade you to join my side. I shall now let my opponent say why led luthor is the better villain
Who is the better villain: Lex Luthor or Norman Osborn

In this debate I have challenged Frankosaurus to the topic of who is a better villain: Lex Luthor or Norman Osborn. I will be defending the side of Lex Luthor. My opponent will be defending the Iron Patriot version of Norman Osborn as oppose to the Green Goblin. In round 1 we will each give a description of each of our characters and why we support them. Lex Luthor is the Evil Genius of the DC universe. He is considered a "power hungry and sadistic villain of pure evil" and lives up to his name. He had an abusive childhood which led him to murder his father . With age he has become more and more ruthless. He sees everyone as a tool to manipulate and has created a company to cover his crimes. He is said to control most of Metropolis. When Superman appeared, he thought that Metropolis replaced him and he vowed to kill him. I support Lex in this fight. He has created the ultimate battle suit used to fight superman and does a great job doing it. This is considering that brute force like Braniac and Lobo are needed to cause physical pain to him. For this reason I believe that Luthor would win
Free Market Capitalism Inevitably Leads to Corruption

Thank you so much for taking up my debate, and for launching with such eloquent gusto. I'm going to enjoy this! First to rebut: I would agree completely that democracy and a free market aren't really connected in any way other than perception, but that being said, the free-er a market is, (i.e. the less regulated, less taxed, less monitered) the more businesses that find success will be able to leverage that success into a tilted playing field that favors them. The public sector could be entirely absent, yet this would still be true. Merchants better able to control the flow of resources, distribution or (in truly anarchistic conditions) violence will rise to the top, command all power, and rule by default in a system that is wholly corrupt. A weak public sector produces the same result. I'm glad that you brought up Corporatism (the unholy alliance of government machinery with corporate interest so that the two leverage against everything else for the success of the private sector) because it is my contention that Corporatism is the innevitable result of any system that begins to try a free market approach to meet public needs. I categorically reject the notion that in a free-market system no business could become too big to fail. What's to prevent it? If I get to the point where I control all the grains in a given market, what keeps me from snowballing that control into greater and greater and greater benefit for myself? There was a time in the late 1800's that saw newly industrialized businesses taking full advantage of an unregulated market, and despite the whines of Robber-Barons that regulations were somehow unfair, without them, monopolization and direct and unfair control of the stock market was the result. I feel I have addressed your points, and, to my satisfaction at least, shown that free markets have the capacity to result in unchecked corporate power just as well as a weakly regulated market.