BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialism

Socialism is not a successful government and no matter how many times it has been attempted, it has been known to cause a mess of chaos. When I think of Socialism, I think of a very different countries from a few different time periods. Not a single country today (if you ask most people) is actually 100% Socialist. I first think of Soviet Russia when I think of Socialism, because that was the biggest Socialist State. But when I think of that, I also think of purges, starvation, poverty, lack of employment, no laws, no crimes punished, etc. I think of the masses being moved by the illusion of Socialism, but being hit with the shock of a world where you are lucky to get a loaf of bread. The government tries to evenly spread out money along the nation in Socialism, so that there are no income-based classes in the system. Unfortunately enough, instead of everyone being rich (as most presume it would be in an ideal Socialist nation), everyone seems to be made poor or somewhere in the middle. The thing about this countries is that business flourish, the military expands, and families still struggle to get food on the table and money in the house. With no real people owning businesses but the government, people become too reliant on the government and no one really achieves anything besides getting the necessities of life. It wouldn't shock me if I looked down the street in a Socialist State and saw a parade of revolutionaries coming my way! I would just randomly see the people of Capitalism or the people of a world where you are independent. In America, the rich top 1% of the nation own about 60% of the nation's wealth. In a Socialist State, that would not happen. But with the sacrifice of no 'richer' or 'poorer' citizens, everyone is practically made Middle Class. And everyone who owns a business is withdrawn from said business; the government controls all production, industrialization, etc. So in order to get more money than others you would need some sort of an underground business running. My main reason for not liking this form of government is trying to envision a world where no one is poorer or richer and everyone pretty much is in the middle. I don't like the idea of the government controlling it all or even spread in society either. It's just not my cup of tea and I wish to see it fully diminish some day. "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill. http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
Who should Israel/Palestine belong to? I personally think it belongs to the Palestinians

Both sides have made horrendous decisions, many Jewish and Arab children have been lost in many pointless wars. The Gaza Strip is little more than a concentration camp, and the Hamas are little more than a guerrilla force, ruling Palestinians by fear. I will not argue that Israel has a right to Golem Heights, or to Mount Sinai, but the State of Israel is justified in its existence, and belongs to the Arab and Jewish Israeli's who live there today. I said this in my last round to prevent the rant you just said. I'm not engaging in a "ISRAELIES ARE OCCUPYING NAZI MONSTERS DEBATE" I was really hoping for more nuance than that. It also has little to do with the resolution.
Who should Israel/Palestine belong to? I personally think it belongs to the Palestinians

Another genocide will not fix another one and that exactly what is happening to the Palestinians. The palestinians agreed to give the Jews a settlement in their country but how do they thank them? By killing them and taking their land, what the Israeli army does to the Palestinians is disgusting, they are creating another concentration camp in their homeland. Palestine has been a holy land for all major religions in the world throughout centuries hence why it's such a wanted land.
Who should Israel/Palestine belong to? I personally think it belongs to the Palestinians

I agree that Israel has caused a lot of conflict, and a lot of it was preventable. I will argue that that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish State, in the area is occupies today. The Holocaust The events of WWII were very important in leading to the creation of Israel in 1948. After witnessing the horrors of the holocaust, the United Nations felt the creation of the State of Israel was justified. There were hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees coming from varies liberated concentration camps, and with their homes destroyed and families lost, there was an enormous issue of where to put these victims, lost and alone in the middle of a continent that still experienced large amounts of anti-semitism. The state of Israel was created in the place it is today, because many Zionists had already owned huge tracks of land there, and it was the only permanent home the Jewish Nation has ever known. This argument is very sweet and all, but it can be dismissed quite easily if the area Israel was meant to occupy was owned by Palestinians, or infringed the inalienable human rights of Palestinians in its creation. This brings me to my next question: Who's land was it in the first place? I think it's interesting to point out that Palestinians did not own the track of land now known as Israel immediately before the creation of Israel in 1948. It was owned by the British, who were going to barter it off to Jordan and Egypt. That is to say, even without the creation of Israel, Palestinians were not going to have their own country. However with enormous pressure from Western Countries sympathizing with the bruised Jewish Survivors of the world, a plan was put forward to create a Jewish State, and a Palestinian State, side by side. In other words, the land now known as Israel was given to the Jews by the nations of the world. The promised Arab and Jewish state never happened though, immediately after the British left the area, Israel was attacked by foreign armies, and has been fighting for its existence ever since. Both sides have made horrendous decisions, many Jewish and Arab children have been lost in many pointless wars. The Gaza Strip is little more than a concentration camp, and the Hamas are little more than a guerrilla force, ruling Palestinians by fear. I will not argue that Israel has a right to Golem Heights, or to Mount Sinai, but the State of Israel is justified in its existence, and belongs to the Arab and Jewish Israeli's who live there today.
Digimon would beat Pokemon, hands down!

Phew! I thought you were gonna give up for quite the while. Better late than never I suppose. Anyways, on with my argument. *cracks knuckles* Looks like Con is going for the big one: Arceus. They always go for Arceus. I suppose it makes sense, he is a powerful god afterall. Only problem with that is: Arceus is the peak of the pokemon multi-species. Thus, if any digimon could defeat him, they could defeat any and all pokemon. That they most certainly can. Con doesn't seem to take into account that there are digimon gods. Yes, gods, plural. Gods who are just as powerful, if not more so than Arceus is. They can do everything Arceus can and better. ZeedMilleniummon can create an infinite ammount of pocket dimensions and collapse them instantly. Chronomon can manipulate time(as his name suggests). So it simply comes down to a case of numbers. It's one god versus many, and they're just as powerful as each other. And since Arceus is the best pokemon around, it looks like digimon would still win. By the way Con, while I do wish to improve my grammer and spelling, using my mistakes as a way to argue your case was rather stupid, to put it mildly. This debate isn't about our grammer or spelling, but rather about our arguments to the topic at hand. I suppose the only reason why you pointed them out was a simple, yet ineffective tactic out of desperation.
Digimon would beat Pokemon, hands down!

Next time Con, please stick to the original rules to the debate you're accepting for they are part of your challenge. I will only let it slide this time because 1) this is my first debate on this site and 2) it gives me the advantage to make arguments ahead of you. With that outta the way, time for additional points to my introduction argument. Digimon do not die, at least not in the true sense. Rather they turn into digieggs where they hatch from to be born again. Pokemon, on the other hand, permanently die. This gives another huge advantage to digimon, as they can practically respawn if any of them are killed(I say "if" because pokemon would be extremely hard-pressed to defeat a lot of digimon, especailly the stronger ones). Plus, pokemon have several element weaknesses that digimon can fully exploit. Sure, the pokemon also have resistences and immunities, but some digimon would be aware of such, as some digimon would probably study the pokemon from a distance to look for potential weaknesses(which pokemon have a ton of). Once exploited, these weaknesses practically render pokemon helpless, as using a decent move of the proper element can more often than not bring any pokemon down in one hit. What's more is that some of the more powerful digimon have elemental moves that can sweep across a huge open field, like ShineGreymon's Glorious Burst. Finally, there's this guy! http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net... His name is BanchoLeomon. Both Chuck Norris and Kenshiro COMBINED pale in comparison to this guy. Why? Well, amongst other things, he was able to hold TWO. F***ING. WORLDS from colliding with each other at an immense speed. Can any pokemon do that? No? Didn't think so. Now over to you Con.
Taxes on the Rich should be Increased

After reading your eloquent barrage of information, I hope you do realize that you went off subject sir. The topic was about the rich, individuals, having increased tax rate. You simply cannot compare oranges to apples as you did with individuals to companies. At a suggested 70% tax rate, by a FRENCH economist, how many of the wealthy Americans would stay in this country? None! You have gone off subject many times. From income inequality to company tax breaks, it has nothing to do with increased tax rates on rich American individuals and their families. I felt when reading your opening arguments that it sounded like a typical episode of MSNBC Evening News. I wish opponent good luck. P.S. April 15th is just around the corner.
Taxes on the Rich should be Increased

I believe the rich, the top 2 percent as you defined, are already doing their part in society with their tax rate of 40%. Considering that the top 10% paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010 [1], I would not be complaining. This does not count towards millions of dollars donated to charities and other organizations. Most of the rich got where they are by hard work. They do not deserve to be taxed more simply because they were more successful in life. They do their part as they should. They should not have to pay more just because someone else cannot. That is completely unfair. The wealthy already pay the large majority of taxes, why make them pay for all of it? Thank you for this debate and good luck to my opponent for his or hers opening arguments. [1] http://money.cnn.com...
Taxes on the Rich should be Increased

Definitions: Rich: Top 2 percent Structure Round 1: Pro: Rules Con: Opening Arguments Round 2: Pro: Opening ArgumentsCon: Rebuttal Round 3: Pro: Rebuttal Con: "No round, as agred upon" Note: Con cannot post an argument in Round 3 because doing so will allow him or her an extra argument. If Con does not comply with this rule, he or she will forfeit all 7 points to me. Forfeitting will be an automatic 7-point loss.
Taxes on the Rich should be Increased

I haven't taken any time to respond critically? Last time I checked, 30 minutes is by no means enough time. How is mentioning how much the wealthy paid in taxes irrelevant? At least I truly stayed on topic. I would love to meet someone who would pay 80% in taxes. Also, I cited from CNN. .. not Fox News. It's not a matter of taxing the rich more. It's a matter of waste in tax money by the government. I dare mention this, since it's considered off topic.
Euthanasia - Putting People out of Their Misery

Strict regulations must be implemented and monitored closely. The government should work hand in hand with the insurance companies to establish proper regulations to avoid an influx of malpractice lawsuits, and large increases in medical insurance. Euthanasia is a valuable, underused procedure in American medicine. Terminal illnesses cause large amounts of pain and sickness with little hope for survival. If a person is suffering and almost assured death, then why leave them in agony? Death can and should occur with dignity and humanity. Rotting away in a hospital bed is no way to live. If a person's misery can end just a little sooner, who are we to stop them? Euthanasia offers comfort to terminally ill patients who cannot live a fulfilling, painless life anymore. It also spares their loved ones the pain and agony of visiting them in their time of suffering, because we all know how hard it is to see someone you love in pain.
Euthanasia - Putting People out of Their Misery

One solution to resolve the abuse of this method would be death panels. The idea of a death panel is that a group of physicians meet with a terminally ill patient who is seeking assisted suicide as a means to end their life. The panel looks at the patients medical records and asks questions to determine if they are a proper candidate for assisted suicide. Interviewing the patient is an important aspect of this procedure as some patients may not be in a sane state of mind at the time of their request. If a person is considered to be mentally incapable of requesting their own death, then the procedure will not be carried out. Ultimately the suffering patient is the only one who can make the decision. A relative or caretaker would not be allowed to file for euthanasia on behalf of the terminally ill patient.
Euthanasia - Putting People out of Their Misery

Euthanasia should remain illegal in the United States. Though many people are suffering from suffering due to injury or illness modern medicine has been effective in controlling and making pain less sever in those who are suffering, they do not need to be assisted in suicide to alleviate their pain. If euthanasia is to become legal it may result in abuse, for example a family member may try and convince their terminally ill relative to ask to be euthanized because they will be a financial strain on them or they wish to collect their inheritance, even though it may be against their individual's wishes. Suffering is an important part of life, and through suffering a person learns to better appreciate life and makes peaces with things that happened in their past and the people in their life. If you eliminate this process it may result negatively on those who knew the individual.
Euthanasia - Putting People out of Their Misery

Euthanasia should indeed be legalized in the United States. Many people are suffering and living almost intolerable lives that could be ended humanely while the person still has a shred of dignity left. Many will argue that Euthanasia is morally wrong, but who is to say in the matter? Is it not more compassionate to end a human's suffering then to make them hold on only to die later after a long, drawn out pain filled battle?
The Confederate Flag is reasonably construed as a symbol of racism.

My opponent says “I hope to try and divorce the stigma of racism from the CSA” My opponents argument broken down is as follows…1. Slavery is blind to race.2. Natural death vs killing slavery3. The whole nation was racist. It is worth noting even if I grant the above, this has no impact on the resolution. The above could all be true and the CSA flag could still be a racist symbol, which it is.1: Slavery is blind to raceMy opponent is correct that the issue of Slavery as a whole does not inherently contain racism. However, it is clear that U. S. Slavery was based on and heavily impacted by racism. 2: The “Natural death” of slaveryMy opponent claims that “With non-slave states joining the Union, it was a matter of time until enough public sentiment would kill off slavery rather than allowing its natural death… and that’s when the problems began. Slavery may very well have been on the path of a natural death. How long should a people wait for justice. As Con stated “. .whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. ” So while a natural death might have been possible, it was/ the right of the People to abolish it. This happened in the form of a civil war. 3: The whole nation was racistCon provides a quote from Abraham Lincoln that shows President Lincolns racist beliefs. I don’t contend this. Racist beliefs were very common at the time. Overview of Debate:Con says that “To reasonably construe the CSA flag to be a symbol of racism, I would expect to see ratification and statute that denotes “Negro” as inferior or “White” as superior”I have filled this burden via the quote from the last round. "The foundations of our new government are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, ubordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. "This was stated by an elected leader of the CSA. The Confederacy choose their flag to represent their identity and principles. The Confederacy was founded upon the principle that “the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. ” This is obviously and indisputably a racist principle. The Confederate Flag is reasonable construed as a symbol of Racism.
The Confederate Flag is reasonably construed as a symbol of racism.

A:Historical Backround and the Civil War“The secession of the Southern states (in chronological order, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina) in 1860–61 and the ensuing outbreak of armed hostilities were the culmination of decades of growing sectional friction over slavery. ”(1)The south seceded from the North for a number of reasons. Slavery was perhaps the biggest reason. The South became “Confederate States of America. ” Jefferson Davis was elected as the President of the Confederacy. His Vice President was Alexander Stephens. “in 1861, Stephens explained to a cheering audience that the Confederacy was founded to expressly reject the proposition that men of all races were equal. Instead, Stephens stated, "The foundations of our new government are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. "(2)B: Which FlagCon is correct I am referring to this flag. This is the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia. “It was used in battle beginning in December 1861 until the fall of the Confederacy…. The flag's stars represented the number of states in the Confederacy. ” (3) Thus it is indisputable that this flag was intended to identify the CSA. “The flag… eventually became the battle flag and, ultimately, the most popular flag of the Confederacy. ”(3) C: The purpose of a flag“Flags are an extremely easy way to identify a country or area immediately, language is not a barrier. The colors and emblems chosen by each country for its flag are deeply symbolic. ” (4) The Confederate Flag (Virginia Battle Flag) was used as a way to identify the confederacy and therefore the principles of the confederacy. Conclusion:The Confederacy choose their flag to represent their identity and principles. The Confederacy was founded upon the principle that “the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. ” This is obviously and indisputably a racist principle. The Confederate Flag is a symbol of Racism. Sources:(1) . http://www.britannica.com...(2) . http://www.cnn.com...(3) . https://en.wikipedia.org...(4) . http://www.signology.org...
The Confederate Flag is reasonably construed as a symbol of racism.

I accept this challenge.I have no issue with the given definitions, however would like to point out that as was mentioned in the comments, the (assumed) flag in question (the "Confederate Flag") is actually one design element added to later incarnations of a flag for the CSA. For purposes of this debate, I will be working under the assumpt that this: is what is being construed as a symbol of racism as opposed to the slightly more esoteric: With that, I return it to my opposition for opening arguments.
The Confederate Flag is reasonably construed as a symbol of racism.

The Confederate Flag is reasonably construed as a symbol of racism. Definitions: reasonably: “fair and sensible” (1) construed: “to understand in a particular way”(2) symbol: “an action, object, event, etc., that expresses or represents a particular idea or quality” (3) Full resolution: The Confederate flag is an object that can in a fair and sensible way be understood as expressing and/or representing the concept of racism. Format: 3 rounds/6000 characters/72 hrs. Round 1: defining terms and acceptance Round 2: arguments Round 3: rebuttals and closing statements (no new arguments) (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
teaching creationism in public schools should be illegal

I accept your challenge. We shall argue until the end or a concession is assumed. Here we go:Teaching Creationism in school is legal in those states because of a choice by the majority. You point out that the public dollar is paying for the school. Well that public dollar comes from the tax-paying citizens of that area. If a majority of those particular citizens think that Creationism should be taught at the school they are paying for and win the vote, what is the problem? Over to you Pro.
teaching creationism in public schools should be illegal

It is legal in 14 states in the United States to teach creationism in schools that the public pays for. Creationism will never be proved and evolution has allot of evidence and 95% of all scientists accept it as truth. There are Atheists, Jews, Muslims and many others paying taxes for children to learn a religion they don't believe in. Evolution is not a religion it is fact. In numerous court cases judges have ruled that teaching creationism goes against the first amendment, and it does.