BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism Doesn't Work

"First I will define communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Capitalism has only been around properly for a little over 200 years, whereas humans have been around for 200,000 years. For comparison in scale, if humans had been around for 24 hours then capitalism has existed for less than two minutes. It is a blip, and it would be naive to think it would last forever just as most people before us were naive in thinking that feudalism and the divine right of kings was the natural state of things and would last forever. Ultimately the power of governments and employers is based on them being able to hire some workers to kill for them. As the American businessmen Jay Gould said: "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." And while unfortunately it will always be the case that governments will be able to find people to kill for them the number who are prepared to do so has plummeted, particularly in the West, and seems unlikely to recover. In World War I millions of workers went to their deaths reasonably happily at first to kill their fellow workers who just happened to be German or French or English or what have you. But it ended with mutinies on the English side and full-blown revolutions in Germany and Russia. Even in World War II which had a high degree of ideological support from much of the population, only 15-20% of soldiers actually fired at the enemy.5 And after the mass mutinies of GIs in Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s there has not been nearly as significant a ground invasion by any Western power, nor do I think there is likely to be. Of course this doesn't mean that war will end, unfortunately it has just meant that governments have had to change their tactics from major ground invasions to more remote aerial and artillery bombardment, which also has the effect of massively increasing civilian casualties compared with military ones.6 But air and artillery power is not that helpful in maintaining social order at home, as Colonel Gaddafi recently discovered. As technology continues to improve, the possibilities for ending human suffering and the reality of that continuing suffering become even more ridiculously extreme. Even now despite massive technological and production increases, we continue to work longer and longer hours. And the annual income of the world's 100 richest people alone would be enough to end extreme poverty worldwide.7 And nearly 1 billion people go hungry while half of the world's food is wasted.8 On top of this, other technological developments, such as the fact that there is now the technology to allow everyone to have an instant voting device mean that representative government where we elect (usually who we think are "the least worst") people to vote on policies for us for four or five years is almost laughably outdated. These discrepancies will continue to get bigger and even more unjustifiable". Now back to you!!!
Communism Doesn't Work

Communism cannot work for many reasons. One of the largest being, people want power. As long as there is a power hungry tyrant, or people who want to remain above all others it could never work. People who say that Russia or China were ever truly Communist are wrong. They had similar characteristics to the definition of Communism, but as you can see there are still the people at the top. Even if those Tyrants were destroyed though, people don't like being told what to do, and living similarly as everyone else. People want to be above others, which ties back into my other point. Every nation that is supposedly Communist is only an attempt at the government type, yet a failure to capture the entire idea. Lastly, you don't need a huge post, to prove your point.
Really Rich People Should Assist the Homeless In Getting Jobs

Living paycheck to paycheck would be a much better life than living with NO paycheck. People will never stop giving up their money to celebrities. Celebrities are their source of entertainment; from actors to singers to authors our entertainment relies on these people. Americans value entertainment and overpay to get it. The mass of money people make by giving America a means to pass the time is more than they need. A high ranking fire fighter makes about 100k a year; much higher than the average annual income. This requires 72 hours a week of high stress work and overnight time away from home. The average fire fighter makes 45k, closer to the average American income. Fire fighting has been rated as the third most stressful job as of 2014 with a rated stress score of 60.45. Compared to these statistics, what kind of stress does a celebrity live under? While they lose a lot of privacy and being famous can have its downsides, the whole lifestyle of people loving them, getting paid to do what they love, and living in the lap of luxury is not a negative experience. What I'm saying is, I'm not mad at famous or rich people for having money but I think for those who don't spread the wealth, they're being selfish. If the same John Doe I used in my previous example were to put another 5 million in a mutual fund with a 12% interest rate [average] , that would build up 600k in one year that could be used exclusively for donating to charity or helping people with work. Setting aside another mutual fund [or using the same one] and putting the same amount in, John Doe could make enough money every year to live in extreme comfort for the rest of his life at 600k annually. He could make even more if he were to add more to it initially or leave the accumulated money in it to accrue even more interest until he lost his job or stopped earning an income from whatever his high-paying job was. Your argument on that matter is therefore invalid.
Really Rich People Should Assist the Homeless In Getting Jobs

I think that creating more jobs for people is the government's responsibility. Celebrities don't owe anything to lower income families. Yes, it would be nice. Yes, it would probably help. No, they should not be obligated to assist those who are less fortunate. They're not the gods of distributing money just because they have a lot. Honestly, there's not much they can do. If they paid minimum wage for people then the homeless would end up living paycheck to paycheck as well. What if the rich person happened to stop being rich, that would suddenly leave a lot of people without their jobs? I think a lot of this is just anger over high income opportunities. If people were really so upset over them making more money, you'd think that they'd stop giving their money up to them. Homeless people is not rich people's responsibility.
Really Rich People Should Assist the Homeless In Getting Jobs

I believe due to the resources and connections rich and/or famous people have access to, they should feel more obligated to help bring homeless or unemployed people work. More jobs are always available if people make them. For someone who makes upwards of a million dollars a year, they have more than enough money to live in luxury while still assisting people in need. I think a great way to assist homeless or unemployed people, instead of giving them handouts and enabling them to freeload, which some [not all] do, would be to give them menial labor such as picking up litter by roadsides. This has been used as a job for people who owe community service but it is also a perfect job for those who have no work and are desperate for employment. They would be improving the surroundings of everyone in their city in exchange for an income. Another task that could be given is cleaning up local buildings. I know most cities have those areas where things are just starting to look run down; weeds are poking through cement, buildings are accumulating moss, sidewalks are crumbling. This could be a good fixer upper project for people in need of money. Where do the rich people come in? They could start an obligation charity for people like themselves. While I don't think this idea would ever take off, it's nice to speculate. If a group of popular and rich people could come together and start a charity for employment, they could save tons of families in need of an income. If the average homeless person is making no money, not including those who perform and collect tips, getting a job could turn their life around. Even an annual 10K could be the difference between having a roof over their head. If John Doe makes ten million annually, what is he really spending it all on? If he took a million dollars and donated it to an employment system giving people jobs to restore their city, he would not only be helping clean up the city, but also changing lives in the process. If each person was being paid minimum wage and working enough hours to make 10K, that's 100 people who are getting their lives back by paid community service. This isn't including additional millions donated by other overpaid celebrities. And what does a hundred peoples' happiness cost them? That extra vacation house on the other side of the U.S? make a few cuts. They'll live. I think what it all comes down to is people complaining that celebrities earned their money like everyone else. Let's be honest, a lot of celebrities are swimming in cash because they were in the right place at the right time. They earned their money? No, people liked them and threw their money away on them. I know there are a lot of Americans who break their backs working day in and day out and come out making a thousandth of what most celebrities make. I'm not suggesting it's anyone's right to take rich people's money, I just think it all comes down to selfishness. Rich people are often times too selfish to care about the fact that people are dying because they don't have what said rich person would consider pocket change.
A Honey Addiction is Still an Addiction

Pro:Pooh bear is never deprived of honey in this episode so therefore, he is just dreaming about something he likes. Having a dream about something doesnt make you obsessed. If a person dreams of money, is he addicted to cash? No. So dreaming does not necessarily scream addiction. Con: The visual evidence shows Pooh Bear asking Rabbit if they can stop (on their way to rescue Christopher Robin) for lunch, which would indicate honey, only to have Rabbit tell him no and that he should be thinking about Christopher Robin instead, but Pooh Bear, however, continues to think about honey impulsively, seeing it everywhere he looks and morphing the word in every sound he hears. If you're on your way to save your friend's dear life, and you want to make a stop to indulge in your temptation, it is not a temptation at that point but is an addiction that one should seek immediate attention for. Pro: Stopping for lunch does not insinuate honey. who knows? Maybe Pooh Bear wanted a fruit? Or some other food? How do you know he wanted honey? Its just an inference. You cant very well save your best friend if youre hungry. Next of all, there lies the question of if its safe for children. Children see how strange Pooh Bear becomes after eating or thinking about honey. So from the show, they learn that addiction isnt good and that substance should be taken in moderation. <3
A Honey Addiction is Still an Addiction

Thank you so much for engaging in my first debate with me. I couldn't ask for a better opponent than you have presented yourself to be. I apologize for mismatching my title and my position, but fortunately, you're quick, and it didn't slow the procedure down. If I may take this moment to address that neither the film nor television series has examined Pooh Bear's fixation on honey thoroughly enough to provide us with just how extreme it is or is not, and therefore, any theory is only an assumption with no way of confirming itself. However, if signs of an addiction disorder is what Pro is going by, I have already provided my argument with visual evidence of Pooh Bear hallucinating honey in the first round, which is a common symptom addicts experience when deprived of said thing they're addicted to. The visual evidence shows Pooh Bear asking Rabbit if they can stop (on their way to rescue Christopher Robin) for lunch, which would indicate honey, only to have Rabbit tell him no and that he should be thinking about Christopher Robin instead, but Pooh Bear, however, continues to think about honey impulsively, seeing it everywhere he looks and morphing the word in every sound he hears. If you're on your way to save your friend's dear life, and you want to make a stop to indulge in your temptation, it is not a temptation at that point but is an addiction that one should seek immediate attention for. Pro defines being addicted to something as being unable to live without said thing addicted to and that Pooh Bear being able to live without honey means he's not addicted to it, but if an alcoholic can survive without alcohol, then Pooh Bear can live without honey and still be addicted to it nonetheless. I don't think Pooh Bear's desire for honey is safe for children, considering it portrays itself as an addiction without the bad name, making it something of a devil in disguise. As much as I'd like to agree that what I interpret as an addiction for honey is nothing more than an admiration for the sweet topping, I still can't bring myself to.
A Honey Addiction is Still an Addiction

You titled the debate topic " A Honey Addiction is still an addiction" but in your speech, you said that "This debate is whether Winnie the Poohs addiction to honey is safe for children or not". So since you talked about the latter in your speech, I guess Ill be pro on the latter and say why the addiction is safe. Initially, I want to establish the fact that Winnie the Pooh is not addicted to honey. There is a very thin line between an addiction and something that you just enjoy. With that in mind, I will define the term addiction as the condition of being dependent of a substance. In this case, just like any bear, Winnie the Pooh simply enjoys eating honey. He CAN live without it, both physically and mentally. Throughout the movie, when having honey taken away from him, the bear does not show any signs of addictive disorder. Furthermore, addictions are usually triggered if a person has addictive personality disorder. People with this disorder also have impulse control problem, compulsion disorder and Winnie the Pooh has never demonstrated such behavior. Also, a person with these issues often switches addiction and has many at the same time. Throughout the many episodes and movies, the bear has only shown interest in honey rather than dependency. Moreover, people with this disability show social alienation and tolerance for deviance. The bear in the movie has shown none of that since he has many friends to whom he is very kind[1] . https://en.wikipedia.org... With that said, there is no way that Winnie the Pooh could have a negative influence on children. Not only does her have an outstanding personality, he also shows kids that they can like something without being addicted to it. Thank you
A Honey Addiction is Still an Addiction

This debate is whether Winnie the Pooh's addiction to honey is safe for children or not. I can tell you why it isn't, and you can tell me why it is. Pooh Bear's need for honey portrays that it's okay (and even cute) to feel like you need something you don't actually need. Honey is on the forefront of Pooh Bear's mind. Honey is a priority for Pooh Bear, regardless of it not being a necessity. If Pooh Bear doesn't have any honey, he is disoriented until he gets it. The bear is reliant on honey to feed his physical and emotional needs, despite not actually needing it. [1] It doesn't matter what the addiction is; an addiction in itself is dangerous. [2] Even an addiction to a well-balanced breakfast every morning can be dangerous, if, say, your doctor were to prescribe something for you to digest on an empty stomach. [3] One has to know how to function without said temptation(s), and if one does not, then one is always at risk of dysfunction and even destruction. Resource(s): [1] https://m.youtube.com... [2] https://www.psychologytoday.com... [3] http://www.nhs.uk... Make the best debater win.
A Honey Addiction is Still an Addiction

I feel my opponent is contradicting herself in saying that Pooh Bear sets a good example for children whether he portrays himself as having a honey addiction or not. Such contradiction may imply that she will defend Pooh Bear no matter what, which is discouraging for me to come to terms with. Because she refuses to see anything but the good in Pooh Bear, I can no longer argue with her, but I will continue to argue for you voters. Although a poor portrayal of an addiction could serve as an example of why one should consider moderation and avoid addiction, Pooh Bear's addiction, however, is not portrayed as harmful but harmless, because, as close as it has come to harming him, it never actually has. In the visual evidence I shared of Pooh Bear, in round one, he is seen eating what he thought to be honey, only to snap out of his hallucination and realize it's not. Now, it could've been anything. It could've been poison. Lucky for him, it was only mud. Pooh Bear has gotten lucky, on several occasions, in regards to him and his addiction, leaving children under the impression that you get lucky in life. Luck is something Pooh Bear can rely on, because he's a fictional character, and in fiction, it's only mud, but in life, when you wander off into the wilderness, and you mistaken something for your favorite treat, sometimes, it's not mud. In his request to stop for lunch, even Rabbit accused him of referring to honey. If the accusation wasn't true, then Pooh Bear would've denied it, but instead, he lowered his head in shame, because the bear knew he was guilty. His dearest friend, Christopher Robin, was in danger, and on his trail to rescue him, he wanted to stop, and not to feed his taste buds, because taste buds are secondary, but to feed his addiction, because an addiction is first. That's my final piece. I would like to thank my opponent for her fruitful intelligence and lighthearted spirit. She can make as many excuses for Pooh Bear as she wants, but Pooh Bear shall not be excused. Good luck to my opponent, and make the best debater win.
Donald Trump

No one will be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump. Mostly because Islamic terrorism is eating up large portions of the Middle East and they"ve become rich. They even built a hotel making themselves a direct competitor of Trump Hotel. Trump is undeniably a great negotiator, and despite his outrageous public statements in the recent past, he knows how to navigate complex deals and convince a wide variety of industries, businesses, and investors to do what he wants and to work with him to achieve his goals. Trump isn"t politically correct. He isn"t afraid to say what he thinks, and he can certainly voice an opinion. If he has an issue with you, he will say it to your face. It"d be nice to have a politician in office with that level of transparency.
Donald Trump

Trump gets it. He believes in American exceptionalism, he"s committed to education, an he demands high performance. After all, he has been know to fire anyone that doesn"t meet his high standards. Talk about efficiency. rump is planning to build a great, great wall (yes"two "greats") on our southern border between the U.S. and Mexico. The best part? He"s planning to have Mexico pay for that wall, and mark his words, "" I will immediately terminate President Obama"s illegal executive order on immigration." Plus, with less authentic delicious Mexican food here in the U.S., obesity rates will probably drop. Trump is extremely rich, obviously, and his track record for financial success proves that he knows how to build a successful empire. With the U.S. trillions of dollars in debt, this is the sort of leader that might be able to turn it all around. Trump"s loyalty will only be to America and Americans"not any political party, special interest group or foreign entity. Like his slogan reads, "Make America great again!" He has emphasized beliefs in free enterprise and a strong military. He repeatedly highlights his acumen for success, his ability to get things done, and understanding of finances
Christianity is Probably False

Thank you n7, I will now present my opening arguments, as to why Christianity is true.Contention 1: It Exists Every religion has a founder. Budd founded Buddhism; Mohammad founded Islam; Socrates founded Greek thinking. However, very few religions survive when their leader dies. The Christian religion hinges on the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, however, many claim His resurrection was either faked, exaggerated, or flat-out invented. I beg to differ. The Bible mentions something very relevant, His followers had given up on Him and the principles He taught them, and were afraid of persecution. Christianity would have died along with its founder. However, Jesus appeared to them, and they were emboldened to spread what they had been taught.[1] Had Jesus not been resurrected and seen by them, Christianity would not exist today.Contention 2: It is the Most Moral Religion Of the major religions, Christianity stands as a contrast to the philosophies of most. Islam advocates the killing of "infidels" and other non-believers;[2] Buddhism speaks of complete separation from all material things;[3] Atheism would have us believe that we are simply animals fighting for survival, with no one to answer to.[4] Jesus spoke of loving our enemies, doing good to those who hate us, and helping every man. Jesus never advocated forcing people into Christianity. Ultimately He became the greatest example of a Christian,for indeed He was the Christ.[5]Contention 3: Fulfilled Prophecies and Signs Finally, and one of the most interesting points is all the things which were prophesied thousands of years beforehand, as well as the signs in the natural realm. Here is a quick chart of fulfilled prophecy. Prophecy Old Testament Prophecy New Testament FulfillmentBorn of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matt. 1:18,25Born at Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matt. 2:1He would be preceded by a Messenger Isaiah 40:3 Matt. 3:1-2Rejected by His own people Isaiah 53:3 John 7:5;"7:48Betrayed by a close friend Isaiah 41:9 John 13:26-30His side pierced Zech. 12:10 John 19:34 Crucifixion Psalm 22:1,Psalm 22:11-18 Luke 23:33; John19:23,24 Resurrection of Christ Psalm 16:10 Acts 13:34-37[6] Some would claim that the New Testament was written around these prophecies in order to accommodate them, but there is no substantial evidence of this. Another great point is the precise events in the sky which happened just as they were written of. A man investigated the happenings in astronomy at the time when the Messiah supposedly came, his results were astounding. He found that indeed, there was a great host of evidence for the Bible, and specifically the star of Bethlehem, contained in the history of the sky. For his amazing study please use the reference. He found that there was a bright happening over the eastern sky during the time of Christ's birth, as well as a lunar eclipse and blood moon during Christ's death.[7] Thank you for reading. Back to you Pro.[1] Bible: John 20:19[2] Quaran 2:191-193[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] Bible: Matthew-John[6] http://carm.org...[7] http://www.bethlehemstar.net...