BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Unregulated capitalism is amoral

I am struggling to grasp the nature of my opponent's latest comments in this debate. I laid out specific examples as to how capitalism can be seen both as a moral actor and as a force that causes moral and immoral actions in order to negate the resolution. My opponent has refuted none of my arguments and instead has gone on a tangent while providing no counterarguments at all. Vague metaphors and comparisons are used but there is nothing substantial to support his claims. The crux of my opponents argument here is "Capitalism is amoral because it is amoral." I honestly am at a loss of how to respond to such a statement. My opponent made this claim in the prior round to which I thoroughly replied and the response now is "yeah well it's still amoral because I say it is."My opponent throughout this debate has been contradicting, confused and unclear about his points and resolutions. This round is full of tirades against the destructiveness of capitalism, how it needs to be regulated and such profound points as "nor am I a communist."While the last round was not a forfeit I feel as though I must say that I extend my arguments since none of my points were specifically met or countered.My opponent tries to say capitalism is a "force without conscience" but in Round 2 they claim that capitalism is a self serving force based solely on greed. Isn't a force without conscience an immoral force? If you have no conscience are you not more inclined to act immorally than those who do indeed have a conscience?Capitalism in its unregulated form is not a neutral force. Quite the opposite. Left to its own devices capitalism will, due to the nature and structure of the system, corrupt itself and the men working in it in the single minded pursuit of profit. You pointed it out yourself, if left unchecked lives will be damaged, corruption will set in and people will be ignored as cogs in the system. You claim this is amoral, but it is not. It is immoral. Capitalism will play to the immoral side of people's natures making it a moral agent pushing immorality. It influences actions and outcomes which, as you said yourself, if left unchecked will ultimately be negative in the eye of society. Capitalism is not amoral.
Unregulated capitalism is amoral

Con writes: To hold up the Burden of Proof, Pro must prove that capitalism is not capable of right and wrong action and does not conflict with generally or traditionally held moral principles. False, I must only prove that Capitalism itself is without moral considerations. The human beings who enact it upon any given society may be immoral, or moral, it is not their agency that I am judging, it is the form of the theory itself. I must only prove that capitalism in theory is a neutral force, which may be used for good or ill. I shall reprint this caveat from my opening statement: "However, this is not to imply that capitalism has no value, indeed it does, as an engine that runs an economy. It is a powerful force, a market economy has the potential to improve standards of living and quality of life, but only when it is directed to do so. Capitalism is a force without conscience and so it must be balanced by ethical considerations." This is the crux of my argument. The force behind capitalism is strong, it provokes competition and, if not stifled by monopoly, it can engender innovation. One of the key components lacking in purer forms of socialism, is motivation. Capitalism is a force that can drive a market, but like any raw force, it can be destructive. Fire is destructive, but it is not immoral – even when used to commit arson. I am not against capitalism, nor am I a communist. I stand resolved that capitalism lacks a moral compass, and that it is up to society to give it one. A horse will pull your cart anywhere you send it, the question is where is it going, and what's in the cart? My original statement was purposefully noncommittal. I do not believe that capitalism is either moral, or immoral. I stand resolved that it is amoral and therefore society must harness its power for the common good. Although my arguments showcased the destructive side of capitalism, I only did so because I predicted a straightforward defense of it as a moral code. However, the contender's choice to frame the flip side of my argument doesn't change my stance. Capitalism is neither one nor the other, it can be used for good or ill. The fact that it is currently being used for mainly destructive purposes doesn't discount my argument as much as support it. The current abuses of capitalism clearly reinforce the need for regulation and direction. Nowhere do I state that private ownership in and of itself is immoral, or the conducting of business. My points illustrate abuses of power, and instances where regulation has failed or is lacking. My argument stands: capitalism is amoral, and therefore in need of societal restraint to force it to operate on the behalf of the public good.
Unregulated capitalism is amoral

Resolved: Unregulated capitalism is amoral. Unrestrained, unbridled, uncontrolled, capitalism is bereft of moral considerations. Without restriction on monopolies/mergers, and without labor rights, capitalism will eventually consolidate wealth into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. However, this is not to imply that capitalism has no value, indeed it does, as an engine that runs an economy. It is a powerful force, a market economy has the potential to improve standards of living and quality of life, but only when it is directed to do so. Capitalism is a force without conscience and so it must be balanced by ethical considerations. Definitions: Unregulated: not regulated; not subject to rule or discipline Capitalism: an economic system in which the investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. Amoral: Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong. Please use the first round to accept the terms of the debate. Argumentation begins in the second round, rebuttals in third, and closing summaries in the fourth - no new arguments in the final round. I appreciate the acceptance of this debate by a contender who is willing to engage for the entire four rounds. Thank you.
Poetry Slam!!

When One Rips His Pantsby Massive Dump'Twas Lunchtime,When a man needs money for the one he loves, He'll do any dare.When a man is given a dare, Diced peaches, four plastic cups full, shall be consumed,And down they go, Drunken like some terrible beverage, The corn syrup brings a nausea that makes one forget he's even eating fruit in the first place, But he perseveres,And makes five bucks.'Twas Study Hall,One has a slow-motion finger gun fight with his friends,Does a bad split,Hilarity ensues.
Poetry Slam!!

Meme.Love -Now Now Lord before you take me away from my respect and judge me for what I did on this Earth just know that I aint never seen a clear sky, Im something like a earthworm moving through dirt..Tryna do what's worth been shot been stab for chasing after boys head first like a jab..Until, I start breathin, Then I started wheezing running fom myself I shouldn't be running from myself..All I ask is people don't run from yourself cause when I got it I run to my sister for help..!
I will not contradict myself.

Very well. As well as breaking his own (flawed) rules twice (not answering my questions last round and one of my questions previously), my opponent has lost the debate on the following six main contradictions. Note that even if only one of these is a contradiction, my opponent should lose the debate.1. ElvisMy opponent in round 2 stated: "I believe in life after death. "In round 3 he stated: "I do not believe that Elvis Presley is alive. "In round 4 he clarified: "At one point in the past I believe a man named Elvis Presley was alive. "So - Elvis was alive, and is not presently alive. That means Elvis must have undergone death. However, my opponent states he believes in life after death. Since Elvis has undergone death, he must therefore now have life. That contradicts his statement that Elvis is not alive.2. BelieveIn round 3 my opponent notes: "I do not know if anything is true. "In round 4 he adds: "something always has to be true. "So my opponent knows that something is true according to the second sentance, but he is unsure if something is true according to the first sentance.3. Free MarketsIn round 2 my opponent states: "I believe free markets exist. "In round 4, in response to me asking whether a free market would be a market, my opponent says "no". By the second statement, my opponent admits "free market" is a contradiction of terms, but by the first statement he says free markets exist.4. MistakesIn round 2, question 1, my opponent made a spelling mistake by writing: "tommorow" instead of "tomorrow. "In round 4 he confirms that it is, in fact, a mistake by affirming what I believe to be the correct spelling. In round 3, however, my opponent states: "In questions 1-9 in round 2, I do not believe I made any errors". Actually he also mis-spelled Bieber's name in response to question 8, but it's the same principle. He said he spelt it wrong, yet affirmed that his work was error-free meaning he spelt it right.5. BieberMy opponent states that Justin Bieber is "a good singer" in round 2. Note that he did not, strictly speaking, say Justin was "good at singing," but rather that he was "good" and a "singer. "In round 3 he adds that "I do not believe all of Justin Bieber's songs contain positive moral messages. "In round 4 he states "I don't believe it is "good" to spread negative moral messages. "So, if not all of Justin's songs contain positive moral messages, the messages must be negative moral messages. By my opponent's standards, therefore, Justin cannot be described as good. However, that is exactly what my opponent did in round 2!6. TomorrowMy opponent states that "I believe tommorow will be a day just like today" in round 2. In round 3 he says "It might be a day unless, say, the solar system explodes. "So, first he said it will be, and then he said it might be. In round 4 he continues the deviations from his initial certainty. Not only might tomorrow not be a day, but it also might not be "just like today". He even gave examples!
I will not contradict myself.

The rules state I am required to post 10 questions this round, although your answers to these questions will not be used in my list of contradictions, which I look forward to presenting. First, however, is it POSSIBLE to answer question 5, round 2? The question was: "Would you agree that it is difficult to count to infinity twice? " It is possible to answer this question with a yes or no, with a yes indicating agreement and a no indicating disagreement, therefore it was not a rule-breaking question. It may have been a contradiction for pro to give those answers, but there is no rule saying that pro doesn't have to answer a question if that would lead to a contradiction. There is, however, a clear rule stating that ALL questions, without exceptions for legitimacy or contradiction, need to be answered by pro. Remember, voters, that the following questions don't count for anything and can't be used for contradictions, although pro does still need to answer them "in some way" or else he loses.1. Are the ten questions I am writing pointless?2. Do you agree that the rules should be clarified to avoid me having to write these pointless questions?3. Do you think coming up with pointless questions is easy?4. Do you think voters will appreciate reading these pointless questions?5. Did you like my questions in previous rounds?6. Did you do anything interesting today?7. Did you, in general, enjoy this little debate?8. Have you ever contradicted yourself before this debate?9. Has anybody wasted your time today?10. Are you able to type the word "yes"?
I will not contradict myself.

1. Presuming I was asking YOU, if I gave away free goods, would that be a market? (please don't dodge the question this time)Take note that ever time I dodge a question, it's generally because I don't know the answer. And I don't know. So I'll just say no, it would not be a market, but a charity.2. Is it possible that nothing is true?No, because if nothing was true that would still make that statement true. So something always has to be true.3. Do you believe that, in the past, a man named Elvis Presley was alive?At one point in the past I believe a man named Elvis Presley was alive.4. To clarify your views on the status of "tomorrow", could your conception of "tomorrow" be summarised as "the calendar day after today"?I could conceive it like that.5. Have I spelt "tomorrow" correctly between the quotation marks? (according to the English language)To the best of my knowledge, yes.6. Are you aware that, with the concept of limits in calculus, it is possible to "sum to infinity"?No I am not aware of that.7. Do you believe in ESP, or any other intangible senses?I believe in other intangible senses, but not ESP.8. Do you believe that it is "good" to spread negative moral messages?No, I don't believe it is "good" to spread negative moral messages.9. If the solar system explodes, will tomorrow be a day just like today?If the solar system explodes today there will no be tomorrow on Earth.If the solar system explodes tomorrow the tomorrow would not have been a full day, and not like today at all.If the solar system explodes after tomorrow than tomorrow would be a day.10.Are Justin Bieber, Elvis Presley and MC Hammer all people?They were all people at one point, although they could be using a fake name. My opponent didn't answer question number five, simply stating that if he answered it he would be contradicting himself. That's in violation of the rules; the second rule was that all questions had to be answered by pro or else pro loses. Therefore, according to the rules, I win the debate.The question you asked is not a yes or no question. In fact, there is no conceivable answer, no matter how you would have worded it. Anything I could have said would be wrong. Yes or no are not legitimate answers, so that question violates the rules.I'm eager to hear the contradictions I may have made, because for now almost all of them, if any do exist, have blown over my head. Thank you to CON for a fascinating round of questioning.
I will not contradict myself.

My opponent didn't answer question number five, simply stating that if he answered it he would be contradicting himself. That's in violation of the rules; the second rule was that all questions had to be answered by pro or else pro loses. Therefore, according to the rules, I win the debate.1. Presuming I was asking YOU, if I gave away free goods, would that be a market? (please don't dodge the question this time)2. Is it possible that nothing is true?3. Do you believe that, in the past, a man named Elvis Presley was alive?4. To clarify your views on the status of "tomorrow", could your conception of "tomorrow" be summarised as "the calender day after today"?5. Have I spelt "tomorrow" correctly between the quotation marks? (according to the English language)6. Are you aware that, with the concept of limits in calculus, it is possible to "sum to infinity"?7. Do you believe in ESP, or any other intangible senses?8. Do you believe that it is "good" to spread negative moral messages?9. If the solar system explodes, will tomorrow be a day just like today?10.Are Justin Bieber, Elvis Presley and MC Hammer all people?
I will not contradict myself.

R10. Do you ever accept anything as being true?I accept some things to be true, but I do not know if anything is true.1. Do you believe tomorrow will be a day after the present time?I believe tomorrow will be a time after the present time. It might be a day unless, say, the solar system explodes.2. Would you agree that it is argument that differentiates debate from discussion?No I would not agree that argument differentiates debate from discussion by itself.3. Have you made any errors in answering any previous questions?In questions 1-9 in round 2, I do not believe I made any errors in my answers.4. Following on from my previous question 4, do Pokémon exist in an intangible sense?Yes, Pokémon exist in my mind as memories and ideas, if that is to be considered an intangible sense.5. Would you agree that it is difficult to count to infinity twice?This question is a contradiction. He is asking me how hard is it to do something which is impossible, so I cannot answer without contradicting myself.6. Do you believe you are able to touch people in a non-physical sense? (for example, emotionally)I believe I can emotionally touch people. (Not touch as in your fingers)7. Do you believe that calculus is a valid form of mathematics?I believe calculus is a valid form of mathematics.8. Do you believe that Elvis Presley is alive?I do not believe that Elvis Presley is alive.9. Do you believe Justin Bieber's songs contain positive moral messages?I do not believe all of Justin Bieber's songs contain positive moral messages.10.If I gave away free goods, would that be a market? (as opposed to, say, a charity)It could be perceived as a market and/or a charity, depending on who you are asking.
I will not contradict myself.

Clarification - 10.Do you believe? -> Do you ever accept anything as being true?1. Do you believe tomorrow will be a day after the present time?2. Would you agree that it is argument that differentiates debate from discussion?3. Have you made any errors in answering any previous questions?4. Following on from my previous question 4, do Pokémon exist in an intangible sense?5. Would you agree that it is difficult to count to infinity twice?6. Do you believe you are able to touch people in a non-physical sense? (for example, emotionally)7. Do you believe that calculus is a valid form of mathematics?8. Do you believe that Elvis Presley is alive?9. Do you believe Justin Bieber's songs contain positive moral messages?10.If I gave away free goods, would that be a market? (as opposed to, say, a charity)
I will not contradict myself.

1. Do you believe tomorrow will be another day?I believe tommorow will be a day just like today is a day.2. Do you believe in free markets?I believe free markets exist.3. Do you believe in a higher power?I believe a higher power exists.4. Do you believe in Pokemon?I do not believe Pokemon exist in a tangible sense.5. Do you believe in life after death?I believe in life after death.6. Do you believe you can touch MC Hammer?I believe I can physically touch MC Hammer.7. Do you believe that Chuck Norris has counted to infinity twice?I do not believe Chuck Norris has counted to infinity twice.8. Do you believe Justin Bieber sucks?I believe Justin Beiber is a good singer, and only sucks part of the time.9. Do you believe that this debate is not really a debate?While it is a possibility, I do not believe this debate is not really a debate.10.Do you believe?In what? Please rephrase next round. (+1 question for CON)
I will not contradict myself.

1. Do you believe tomorrow will be another day?2. Do you believe in free markets?3. Do you believe in a higher power?4. Do you believe in Pokemon?5. Do you believe in life after death?6. Do you believe you can touch MC Hammer?7. Do you believe that Chuck Norris has counted to infinity twice?8. Do you believe Justin Bieber sucks?9. Do you believe that this debate is not really a debate?10.Do you believe?
I will not contradict myself.

CON: Please note that the time limit is 1 day time limit and a 6,000 character limit.Resolved: I will not contradict myself.Rules:1. CON must post 10 questions, directed at PRO, that could be answered with a 'yes' or 'no' or else CON loses. This does not apply to the final round.2. PRO must respond to all questions posed by CON in some manner or else PRO loses.3. If PRO's response does not give any opinion (e.g. "I don't know" or "I'm not sure"), then CON is entitled to another question next round. This is the only reason CON may post more than 10 questions.4. PRO wins if he is found never to have contradicted himself. Likewise, CON wins if he can prove that PRO has contradicted himself.5. Only statements made by PRO in rounds 2, 3, and 4 of this debate are subject to be examined for contradiction. No outside sources (my profile, previous debates, etc.) are applicable. Statements made by PRO in this debate not in direct response to any question posed by CON are still applicable.6. Round 5 no more questions can be asked, it is for final defense of PRO that in the previous rounds he has not contradicted himself and CON to make his/her finale case that PRO in fact did contradict himself.++++++++++I bid good luck to my opponent! Let the debate begin!
the chicken came before the egg

Let me put one thing on the table: If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, it would be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg. With that point, the egg must have come first before the chicken. The chicken came from two different types of species of birds. These two birds came together to create the first domestic chicken. There DNA mutated to form the commonly known chicken of this day. Eggs were around long before the chicken first appeared. Some animal other than a chicken laid the first chicken egg which contained the first chicken. In this case the chicken egg came before the chicken. Scientists use the theory of punctuated equilibrium which says that the actual speciation of an organism from its ancestral species is usually the result of many mutations combined with new geographical surroundings, called cladogenesis. This shows that the chicken had to first have its DNA in an embryo that developed into its true form. Finally because you did not define egg at the beginning to be from a chicken, the egg could have been from any species of animal or bird. Dinosaur eggs have been around longer than chicken eggs, you can look at fossil evidence for that claim. For an animal to change, its genetics would have to change also and this is impossible. Therefore the change would have to take place as an embryo or egg. So the first chicken was most likely spawned in prehistoric times as an embryo/egg. Concluding that the first living organism had to come from the form of an egg or embryo. It was great debating you!!! Hopefully we will both get some useful tips out of this.
the chicken came before the egg

Thanks for responding so fast ;). Ok I know I did not define everything as well as I should have. Thank you also for going easy on me. If the egg existed before the chicken, how would the egg have hatched into a chicken, without body warmth from a chicken incubating it long enough to hatch? Also, if the egg contained the DNA inside it for a chicken before it actually hatched, would that not mean that the essential form of the chicken(by way of a DNA strand) must have existed before the egg? Therefore, would not this train of thought lead one to logically conclude that the chicken came before the egg, because the egg had to be incubated? The egg could not have hatched into a chicken without being laid and incubated by a mother hen. Also, the egg might have been eaten (or otherwise destroyed) by predators if the mother hen had not been around to protect it. Whether or not the word chicken or egg came first does not mean that there wasn't a chicken and an egg around before the word. English was not the first language. So therefore, a chicken and an egg existed long before the English words were used. Your argument about word origin can then be thrown out. Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham, told the UK Press Association this "The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into." So the chicken had to come first for the egg to be created.