BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prosperity of government through capitalism

My opponent makes a few excellent points about the growth of companies with relation to offshore jobs. The inevitable growth which results from increased profitability is of course an asset to a company. However, it cannot be assumed that the company will turn its focus back to the United States once it has experience greater growth in foreign markets. Capitalism is excellent for a global economy, but it is not the economy of the entire world we should be concerned with. Increased profits in foreign sectors may encourage a company to explore that market further, rather than revert back to its position in the United States. There is no guarantee of domestic growth. As stated before, Capitalism encourages shift to foreign markets because of decreased material and labor costs. My opponent states that outsourcing is necessary to stay competitive in a global economy. However, I encourage contemplation on the overall effect of this. At what cost, and for what period of time, do we allow the domestic market to suffer while companies build their strength overseas. It seems unreasonable to wait out economic trends when it may be within our power to shift public focus and provide for citizens, here and now. Another good point addressed was how inclined people are to donate money to charitable organizations when the government already has such programs. To clarify, I am advocating a shift towards greater mandatory distribution of wealth. This would be in the form of higher stratified taxes, only because it is completely within the means of most people to give more than they do. No matter how inclined people are to donate, they will, thus alleviating some of the inequality while sidestepping resistance to charitable donation. A difficult agenda for many to come to terms with, one necessary for the betterment of local communities. In this vein, the taxes should be at the state level, to ensure morale does not drop too significantly, which would also be detrimental in the long run. It is precisely through well run programs by the government that people in lower social classes will be empowered to better their situation. Serious discussion about ensuring that a level of motivation is built into the system is necessary, but it is certainly not the programs themselves that keep people from rising from their current situation. The issues of personal motivation and government programs are separate and should be dealt with as such.
Fascism is better than Communism.

The reason Italy failed was due to the fact that Mussolini made a stupid military decision, not a political one. That's why the Italian fascists failed. Hitler, while he wasn't a pure fascist, was close to a fascist. He was Germany's most popular leader, he didn't need bulletproof glass or a vests, millions of people would turn out just to look at him, he cared about his own people, as did Mussolini. Stalin killed because he found it entertaining, and was paranoid. Communism works like this, let's say you studied hard on a test and got an A, while the lazy kid did nothing and got an F, the teacher then bumps his grade up to an C, while dragging your's down to a C as well, all for equality. Fascism is rallying around a guy with great charisma, and Communism is slaving for other's benefits. The Soviet Union wasn't even communist.
Fascism is better than Communism.

While in fact history is not a main part. Fascism never ends up in a successful way , people always rebel because their leader is corrupt. Fascism opens the way for a horrible man to do horrible things if he acts nice at first. Communism has people work where is needed and not do meaningless work that will be regretted later. Communism generates what is needed when it is needed. Fascism is just a means of hoping whoever is in charge isn't a horrible person, because if he is you are kind of screwed. With Communism you do not have to work unless you are needed which helps people to work as effective as possible so they can finish and be free.
Fascism is better than Communism.

First off, the Soviet Union was not communist, true communism has never been achieved, they were socialist. During the Second World War, the Soviet suffered extreme losses in the early months of the German invasion, this is because Stalin didn't effectively organize the Soviet forces, because he was stupid enough to trust Hitler. Besides, this is about ideologies, not history. Communism is a system where the means of production and resources are distributed around according to need. While this is beautiful in theory, it creates a society of lazy people, as they can rely on others labor. Fascism is based on one man ruling, this man usually cares about the nation and his people, and there is no ideological split. Communist nations are usually destined to fail, as their economic system is heavily flawed.
Fascism is better than Communism.

Communism in WWII made the Soviet Union a successful nation that was powerful, while the Fascist nations of World War II were defeated. Communism helps to create a powerful nation even stronger while fascism fails. Communism is far superior because it gets stuff done unlike Fascism where a guy yells for a while and sometimes gets results. Also, it is 4 to 3 on the fact. I believe that you solely like Fascism more because you are a huge fan of Germany and at one point they were Fascist. While I am a fan of Russia, I honestly believe that Communism is better. Sure, Stalin was not the best leader, but Communism as a whole is not based around one leader at one point. Basically, Communism is better because it succeeds in having nations succeed and grow.
We should abolish the crime of treason in Canada

Hello everyone once again. My opponent and I have agreed, in this final round, to make a brief summary and crystallization of the debate. My role will be to identify the major themes occurring throughout the debate and make the case for why PRO has ultimately won the debate. My opponent has continuously repeated that I have not established a strong enough burden for my side of the case and have been ignoring the spirit of his arguments. I contest that I have done the exact opposite. In this debate, on the PRO side, I have deliberately chosen a unique approach. Firstly, I identified the modern trend towards globalization within countries and how our allegiances have changed. In these times, we've now established allegiances to things like religion & culture higher than our domestic national patriotism. When these come in conflict, treason becomes nullified and void in its lawful sense. A government that supports multi-culturalism as Canada does cannot also support a nationalistic crime such as treason - this is complete hypocrisy. Lastly, I've also made the case for why treason can do good and why for these cases especially, it cannot be treated as a crime. Wikileaks has aided justice immensely by releasing private war videos that provide evidence of the U. S. governments attacks on innocent civilians. In cases like these, we cannot ignore the reality of how treason can serve as an aid in justice, not an impediment of it. On the contrary, my opponent has done little to prove the burden on his side. His cases mostly revolved around hypothetical situations which I've slowly deconstructed to be irrelevant. Even worse, his hypothetical revolved around the MURDER of high-ranking officials rather than treason against them (further weakening the case). What this debate ultimately boils down to is what treating treason as a crime does to our nation. I have shown that it does no change to the current state of treasonous action in our society (lack of immediacy of the crime), that it divides what is currently a multi-cultural society (goes against the Charter of Rights & Freedoms) and that it ultimately impedes on the potentiality of treason as a force for justice in our society.
We should abolish the crime of treason in Canada

As I have 2000 characters to write with, I will, in this last round, really clarify and crystallize the debate into major problems and show why CON clearly wins. In my arguments, I have talked a lot about the reaction of the government and how the crime's abolition will lead to increased instability. Arturo sidesteps the question again and again and then, at the last minute, suddenly defines his position as that treason can be morally good for the citizens as it ensures that it can make sure the government is kept in line. As per the definition of treason and the "we" as the Canadian government, each argument must be traced back towards that treason is bad for Canada. My arguments continually deal with the reality that instability to the government (ie. treason detrimentally affects governmental authority by going against it) and how the special crime of treason deals with it well. My opponent believes that the crime of treason should be abolished and further argues that treason is good. To back up his examples, he cites WikiLeaks as a force of good. I cited how it hurts world affairs, the United States image, and now, new statements that compromise Canadian image. He attacked my lack of evidence (as I clearly could have done against him) but I assumed we were going on common knowledge. And no, when I said military preparation, I obviously was referring to increased military preparation in direct correlation to the President's statement. But none of that is important. What is important is realizing what each sides burdens were. My burden was to prove why treason is bad and the crime is needed. My opponent said treason was good and thus, the crime was not needed. He completely ignores my arguments regarding instability and attacks the examples not the spirit of the argument and then to support himself, cites one obscure example when treason can be seen as good. "Why shouldn't we put these individuals to trial who refuse to commit treason against their allegiances? Because it contradicts our very Charter of Rights & Freedoms - the foundation to Canadian Law." This rebuilding does not even solve the issue. He sidesteps my rebuttal which goes to the fabric; that without the survival of Canada, which he has still not proven that treason does not destroy it and he has directly denied, there can be no guarantee of anything. That our nation is the most important and that treason is a direct harm towards that. That is the crux of the debate.VOTE
Jesus died on a cross (pro) or stake (con)

Thank you my opponett for this debate, and I will let the forfeiture pass :). Here are my arguments from a reputable source as to why Jesus died on a cross, and not a stake THE GREEK: The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says this about the Greek stauros: Corresponding to the vb. (stauroo) which was more common, stauros can mean a stake which was sometimes pointed on which an executed criminal was publicly displayed in shame as a further punishment. It could be used for hanging (so probably Diod. Sic., 2, 18, 2), impaling, or strangulation. stauros could also be an instrument of torture, perhaps in the sense of the Lat. patibulum, a crossbeam laid on the shoulders. Finally it could be an instrument of execution in the form of a vertical stake and a crossbeam of the same length forming a cross in the narrower sense of the term. It took the form either of a T (Lat. crux commissa) or of a + (crux immissa). (Vol. 1, page 391) The Greek word xylon can mean "wood, a piece of wood, or anything made of wood," and can refer to a cross as well, as pointed out in Vine's Expository Dictionary, Vol. 4, p. 153.Source: http://www.freeminds.org...thank you again for this debate :)
Jesus died on a cross (pro) or stake (con)

I will begin this debate with the following arguments as to why Jesus died on a cross as opposed to a stake. Jesus died on a cross and not a stake, In particular the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus died on a stake, not a cross.1 It really does not matter on which one Jesus died. The issue is whether or not He shed His blood for our sins. The Greek word used in many Bibles which is translated into "cross" is the Greek word "stauros" which means, "an upright stake, esp. a pointed one, a cross. "2 If a stake were used, instead of a cross, then Jesus' hands would have been placed above His head with a nail driven through His wrists. Since the wrists would most likely overlap, only one nail is needed through both wrists. However, John 20:25 says, "The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. " Notice the use of the word nails (plural) in reference to hands (plural). It makes far more sense to say that Jesus was crucified on a cross with outstretched hands and one nail in each hand placed above each other on a stake. That is why it says " . . . in his hands the print of the nails . . . " Therefore, it is most logical to state that Jesus died on a cross with outstretched arms. One last thing, the Jehovah's Witnesses will say that the cross is a pagan symbol, but that is meaningless. The cross was one of the Roman Empire's methods of execution. It would be like saying that the electric chair is a pagan symbol. It isn't. It is just a means of execution. Source: . https://carm.org...Thank you again for this debae :), and I can't wait for your arguments
Jesus died on a cross (pro) or stake (con)

Hey it's your friend Kylar :). I have a debate that I want to do that I think both myself and Con will enjoy and learn a lot on. This debate is on whether Jesus died on a cross, or a stake, as the Jehovah's Witnesses would tell you. Not to be rude to Jehovah's Witnesses, as you are Christians same as I am, but I would willingly refute you by saying that Jesus died on a cross, and it was the traditional latin lowercase t shape that we all know. I want a good civil debate on this, and lets have a good debate :).Good luck to Con :)!
cooking

My opponent's argument does not make any sense whatsoever."i believe cooking with certain oils can be bad but what are good iols to cook with"My best guess is that his argument is actually a question; consider the part where it says "what are good iols to cook with"(note the lack of punctuation). I guess I have to prove that cooking with "iol"s is good, so that's what I'll do.OLIVE OIL Olive oil is one of the most popular oils used in cooking, especially in Mediterranean countries [1]. HEALTH BENEFITSEating olive oil has multiple heath benefits. The following is not a complete list. [2]-Reduced risk of cardiovasular diseases-Reduced risk of stroke (41%!)-Reduced risk of depression-Reduced risk of brest cancer-Maintains cholesterol levels-Helps liver TASTE BENEFITSOlive oil tastes so good it's used as a salad dressing [1]. Also, different types of olive oil have unique flavors, such as extra virgin olive oil, which has a "fruity" flavor [3].1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...3. http://www.oliveoiltimes.com...Sorry I don't have time for any more right now. I'll discuss other oils in the next round.
This expression makes sense

Joe is beginning to feel apologetic that he even brought the subject up around Bob, knowing how retrogressive he tends to be in class. "I'm sorry I brought this up. Let me try to be as clear as possible. First, the distinction between 'reading' words and symbols is not the point I"m trying to address. It is the same issue here: Whether I am in the process of 'working on' a problem or 'figuring out' a problem, I am still doing the same action. The issue of concern is 'difference' in the phrase you are trying to defend. The Korean text you show me doesn't really change my opinion on anything; I never showed you anything that requires prior knowledge to understand." Joe reminds Bob that 'same difference' is in English, and the numbers he showed earlier as examples are also using the numerical symbols that are used in the English language. http://www.debate.org... "You're beginning to get extremely far off topic, telling me that symbols of language and math and English all represent concepts. You continue to miss the point." Joe shakes his head as he says "miss the point". "My concern with the pun 'military intelligence' is not one of 'not getting it'. The accuracy of the oxymoron you introduced is exactly what I am targeting; if one does wish to juxtapose two 'seeming adverse terms' in jest, they should at least make grammatical sense OR sense in context. Again, notice how you get off topic- in the case of 'same difference', you weren't making a joke. Rather, you were trying to accurately describe how two given descriptions of a situation had the same meaning. NOW does it make any sense?" Joe takes a sip from Bob's drink and remarks on his lack of good taste. "Read from this website here. It says:" Perceived oxymora _______________ Oxymoron is sometimes used to simply describe a contradiction in terms. Often, it is used to describe expressions which are used earnestly without any implication of a paradox. When such expressions are termed oxymorons, the PURPOSE IS TO CRITICIZE ITS USE AND LABEL IT AS NONSENSICAL. http://www.articleworld.org... "So, definitionally an oxymoron doesn't make sense. Moreover, you still are addressing oxymorons in general as a joke; meanwhile, I am addressing 'same difference specifically. You have failed to prove me wrong, so I guess it's time that I move on. Thanks for an interesting time, though." Joe leaves the coffee house. Joe returns and takes his backpack. Joe leaves the coffee house. Joe returns one more time to address Bob. "Oh yea, and remember when I said 'the problem is that it makes a reference to something external that is absolutely unrefered to. I.e. when you said 'same difference' regarding studying and reading, what 'difference' is it the 'same' as? When taken directly, oxymorons can make some sort of internal sense. Military intelligence, for one, is not an oxymoron. The military takes on strategies that are more elaborate than you could ever think of.'? Well, you never addressed the issue of internal consistency regarding the specific oxymoron we were discussing." Joe leaves the coffee house.
This expression makes sense

Bob scratches his head and wonders if Joe would qualify for the armed forces under the aforementioned pun. "To take your initial issue - the initial usage referred to you making a distinction between reading words and reading an equation. Both require the same skill of recognising sequential symbols. One we call language, the other mathematics, and in this case a string of mathematical symbols called an equation. In both instances one is reading symbols that require a prior concept base to interpret properly. For instance I cannot read S.Korean, a language comprised of symbols - to do so would require knowledge to do so." Bob shows Joe some Korean text on his phone. "The symbols of languages are no different than the symbols of mathematics or English in the sense that both are representations of concepts." Bob pauses, takes a sip from his drink and continues. "Your concern with the pun "military intelligence" is purely one of 'not getting it'. Whether the joke is accurate or not is *irrelevant* to the purpose and the usage of it i.e. that those in conversation using it wish to juxtapose two seemingly adverse terms for the purposes of a joke." At this point Bob pauses to show Joe usage on his phone. [4] http://www.lifeisajoke.com... [5] http://www.quotationspage.com... "The fact that you don't get the joke, Joe, is not indicative of the validity of its purpose, or the purpose of a oxymoron in general, nor any indication that the initial question can be unresolved. Your understanding of it Joe is thankfully not a requisite for the usage of same difference, or that it can be valid to do so."
This expression makes sense

Joe, unwilling to give in because Bob is acting incredibly stuck up, responds: "Okay. That's fine. I realize that it is an oxymoron; the problem is that it makes a reference to something external that is absolutely unrefered to. I.e. when you said 'same difference' regarding studying and reading, what 'difference' is it the 'same' as? When taken directly, oxymorons can make some sort of internal sense. Military intelligence, for one, is not an oxymoron. The military takes on strategies that are more elaborate than you could ever think of." Joe pulls up a link full of different kinds of strategies as an example. http://www.au.af.mil... "Furthermore, you said 'the term same is used to denote no or equal'. Last time I checked, 'no' doesn't mean the same thing as 'equal'. I.e. 'equal difference' and 'no difference' don't mean the same thing. The numbers 5 and 1 have an equal difference with the numbers 8 and 4. BUT, the numbers 5 and 5 have no difference. Does that make sense, or am I thinking too far ahead of your comprehension? If so, fiddle with this a little bit- it'll get you up to par." Joe presents a website to help Bob deal with his incompetence. http://www.internet4classrooms.com... "By the way, I'm not taking any english classes this semester. I'm exempt because of my AP scores from high school. Thanks though."
This expression makes sense

Bob with a look of dull excitement whips out his iphone and tells you the following in a mildly forceful tone: "Same difference is from a class of literary phrases termed oxymorons - whose purpose is to juxtapose two contradictory terms as one phrase. Popularised oxymorons, instead of appealing to the paradox are instead intended to create a lightly amusing turn of phrase using seemingly two opposing terms. You may have heard of "military intelligence" being touted as a joke - this is the precursor to forming two terms into a seemingly contradictory joke." Bob takes a deep breath "In the case of same difference the term same is used to denote no or equal- the phrase meaning is in essence, no difference, or, the two things distinguished (different) are not (same)." Bob being a right smart ar** then shows the following links on his iphone. [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.etymonline.com... [3] http://www.wordnik.com... "Ooh I wonder if there is a calculus app I can download ... anyway you should probably study for English it seems, though it's the same difference to me whether you fail or pass."
This expression makes sense

I have, for the longest time, hated the expression "same difference". It makes absolutely no sense, and I think it really shows that English is extremely strange. In case my opponent decides to take this debate but hasn't heard the expression used, here's an example: Bob: I really don't want to read for the calculus exam.. Joe: You mean study? All it is is equations, you don't really read them. Bob: Same difference. Joe: THAT MAKES NO SENSE. Don't ever say that again. Bob: Haha yea it does... This is what it means: ~~~ We are basically going to continue this conversation, except it is not required to talk in the context of a calculus exam. I will be Joe. My opponent is Bob. Good luck to my opponent. By the way, this debate is just for fun. Have fun :)
There is Observable Impericle Evidence that Allah Exists.

I accept. I was personally challenged to this debate. I would like to clarigy the resolution with definitions, first. I'll start arguments Round 2. (And if my opponent forfeits, it's not my fault.)Definitions:Observable: Able to be sensed via sight, or other senses.Impericle: Not a word. I think he meant "Undenyable".Undenyable: Foolish to doubt, as cold, hard evidence exists.Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid (Gotten from Google)Allah: God, as said by Muslims and Arabics. Allah is described as the all knowing, and all powerful creator of the Universe. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)Exists: Having objective being within our Universe.I look forward to this discussion. Let's begin, and may Arceus watch over.