BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
which society functions smoother: one of equality or one of inequality

Well in reality, everyone is not equal, so to treat everyone equally is not logical. In other words this kind of government, weather it's communism, or socialism, it does get rid of many crisis In the country, such as starvation. In an ideal thought people would chose job occupations that they enjoy, and would work hard for their own incentives. But there are a lot of lazy people, and in common knowledge, a doctor does do a lot more work, then a dishwasher. So to say it would function smoother then a capitalism country, is not to far from reality. With many capitalism countries, the middles classes are dieing, and the rich just gt richer, and they are the ones who control the government(ex Donald Trump). But as an example of a communism country, when I was in ne the last time, I went to a restaurant, and all the tables had a sign on them saying reservation. Even if there were only three people in the whole restaurant, the waiter would say that they were full, and you would have to bribe them to see if they could "misplace" a "reservation", so they could pocket a little cash, and if you didn't bribe them, they didn't care, cause they don't want to work anyways.
All drugs should be made legal or be provided on the NHS

Im the foolish one..? Your the one throwing insults around like your in the 3rd grade and you just found out the words STUPID and IDIOT and can't wait to use them on someone. Smoking tabaco is legal, drinking alchohol is legal, do you see how well those benefit our community? Not so great what makes you think that allowing everyone the freedom to smoke and snort and inject anything they want is going to benefit the community. The only argument you have presented that has any value to me would be allowing children to see what happens when you become a drug addict. However, I dont think the parents would sign the concent form to allow their children to go visit the hospitals where all these addicts lay in their own filth. They can do the same now with images in the classroom. Awareness is prevention, and the more that are aware the less that will be involved in the drug scene. Also if drugs were given out for free as you say, they wouldn't be administered at the hospitals, they would be given prescriptions and allowed to take their drugs home. So thats another faulty idea you've proposed. Who's to say they can't just take their prescribed drugs and sell them to someone who either is embarassed to go to one of those places and get free drugs or it could affect their job if someone were to find out. SO they just buy the drugs from the person who is getting the prescriptions, thus starting an entirely new industry which is more wide spread, than what is already happening today. Like in California where medical marijuana is free and prescribed and then sold by the people who were suppose to use them for personal health reasons. Lets keep the name calling to a minimum. I know your craving a fix for some cocaine or something, and maybe you are so cracked out you think that starting this debate will actually amount to anything so you can get yourself some free drugs. Maybe even to sell to a friend.. who knows
All drugs should be made legal or be provided on the NHS

You are an idiot do you know that ? you critsise my idea ? tell me whats wrong with takign drug dealers and addicts off the streets and letting them have fun in a room by themselves instead of snatchign an old ladys handbag or breakign into your house ? i will continue this debate , as it is you who are the fool and have failed to read the idea nor have you presneted any real argument , you also said for your first post " i win by default " even though the poitn i made was valid you idiot.
All drugs should be made legal or be provided on the NHS

This debate was ruined before i even step foot here. If you want we can continue with it. I certainly havn't given up yet. Have you given up on your faulty idea yet? I'm hoping you end this debate now, but part of me wants you to continue to make yourself look even more foolish. So lets go on. I live in America, atm handing out drugs for free as though it was some sort of amazing holiday is just a pathetic idea at best. Why dont we give terrorists funding for building weapons of mass destruction while we're at it. It seems thats the only way your idea would turn out, is mass destruction. I give you points on originality but the execution of it could be handled a lot differently than you have proposed.
All drugs should be made legal or be provided on the NHS

OK so drugs , hot topic ever since , well ever since they have been proven to be bad for you , increase crime , make people do stupid things , be used as money to supply weapons etc .... I have an idea that is , Drugs should be provided free , it would reduce everything wrong with drugs greatly , think about it , you want to take drugs ? be my guest I couldnt care less about you ( no offence ) however you start to become my problem when , you try to rob me for drugs money , cause problems in my area m give drugs to kids you know .. then i care . So to eliminate drugs ? i propose a new system , very radical your job is to critise this system and prove me wrong etc that drugs should remain 100% illegal except when perscribed . My idea is a NHS liek system , were almost all drugs are provided free , drug addicts recive however much drugs they want , given a hit in a room or something similar by a nurse , and left in this room with some cuddley toys and bright pictures for their amusment. Now , you say hold on a minute why should we pay for drugs for drug addicts ? think about it , the cost of trying to stop drugs flows and dealign with drug realted crimes , would probably cost more than providing them free drugs. It costs millions of pounds in the U.K if not hundreds of millions to try stop drugs and deal with offenders etc. If we provide them for free all we need to do is pay a smallamount of staff and open a few clinics and by the drugs for them , all probably at the cost of a couple of million pounds sure , but would cost millions of pounds less them trying to stopo it with the police etc. So now you are probably saying , ok sounds like a good system , drug addicts of the street , police can use there hours more wisley and help the community , gangsters go bust , prostitution is down , But you think , if these drugs are avliable to anybody , wont that mean an increase in drugs addicts ? Some how i dont think it would , I think people would be put off by this , and we could take schoolchildren on tours of these clinics and show the drug addicts lying around in these rooms in there own filith pretty much , because the majority of people start taking drugs because of peer pressure and so on , this way it removes all peer pressure and kids will not even have the chance to start takign drugs , as nobody will be willing to pay for them as its free and everybody would be put off going to these clinics , as they are jsut a palce for the drug addicts and no more , nothing great , infact make them look run-down and dirty from the outside to stop people wondering in thinking it will be great. So now you have to argue agaisnt me , prove to me my system is crap and will not work and make problems worse , as i think the only way to tackle a radical problem , is with a radical soultion.
Finish the story.

...Everybody went to Anywhere told Somebody Everybody thought he was unique. Anybody (living about Anywhere) overheard, went to Nowhere and told Nobody, and Nobody couldn't have cared less. Nobody thought Everybody being unique was quite a stretch."Everybody think he's unique and told Somebody. What makes him think Somebody in Anywhere cares? Or Somewhere? Or Everywhere? Nowhere, maybe," thought Nobody. "But nowhere outside of Nowhere would Somebody or Anybody care. Everybody knows Nobody couldn't care in Anywhere or anywhere."It is about this time you should know Nobody was the boss of Nobody Cares, Inc. Everybody, Somebody, and Anybody worked there."Nobody can try to care," said Somebody, who came from Anywhere to Nowhere (as they all worked in Nowhere at Nobody Cares, Inc.). "After all, this is Nobody Cares. If Nobody couldn't care less, Nobody Cares means nothing. You should care.""Leave me out of this," You responded."Yeah, what he said," said Me."No, Me, me. Not you," You replied."Oh." Me. "Oh, my.""You and Me, we'll talk later!" Nobody exclaimed. "Only Anybody and Somebody can talk now.""And Nobody," Somebody interjected. You and Me walked away, but You came back briefly."Can Anybody find Me Somebody to love?""Somebody doesn't roll that way," Somebody said, then, to Nobody in particular: "You, shouldn't ask Anybody to do that. That would make Anybody uncomfortable." "Anybody and Everybody," Anybody confirmed."Everybody especially.""Did Somebody say my name?" Everybody finally got to work."Hello, Everybody. How are you?" Somebody asked."I'm good," You replied. Everybody shouted, "You, shut up." Everybody disliked You. Frankly, he was sick of You. You finally left.Nobody calmly stated, "Everybody and I need to talk. Somebody and Anybody, leave my office now." Somebody and Anybody left. "Now, Everybody, we can begin."
Finish the story.

Once upon a time, there was a thing. The thing's name was called Everybody. He lived in a place called Everywhere. Everybody was friends with Nobody, Anybody, and Somebody. Nobody lived in a place called Nowhere, Anybody lived in a place called Anywhere, and Somebody lived in a place called Somewhere. Everybody was different from each other. Everybody was not like Nobody, and Anybody was not like Somebody. Everybody was unique. One day,...
Finish the story.

"What is it?" Everybody asked. "I have a special assignment for you." Nobody said. "What is it?" Nobody replied, "I want you to destroy Anybody and Somebody." Everybody asked, "But why?" "Because, I. HATE. THEM!" Everybody thought, "Maybe Nobody is crazy. He's probably nuts! But if I don't do it, he'll probably come after me. Then I'd be seriously screwed. I guess I have to say yes." Everybody said, "No." Nobody replied, "Ok, then." He pressed through a button and spoke through the intercom, "Everyone, get Everybody!" Everybody started to run. He smashed through the walls and out of the building. He ran and ran. He ended up Somewhere. Just when he lost Everyone, he saw Somebody with Anybody. Everybody called, "What are you doing?" They replied, "Hiding." "Why?" Everybody asked. "Why do you think!" Somebody replied. "Nobody has gone crazy!" "He's a complete psychopath!" Anybody added. Everybody said, "We use to be friends. What happened?" "I think I know the reason why." Anybody said, "It's because we farted Nowhere." "WHAT!?!?" Everybody exclaimed. "Yes, Nowhere smells like a pile of butts now, thanks to us." "Wow, this sucks." Then, they were spotted by Everyone. Everyone yelled, "I founded them!" Nobody and Everyone started to chase after Everybody, Somebody, and Anybody. So the three started to run away. But Somebody tripped. "Ouch!" "Take my hand!" Everybody called. But it was too late. Nobody captured Somebody. Everybody and Anybody couldn't do anything, so they took off. They eventually got to Anywhere. "So, what should we do?" Anybody asked. "I don't know."
Mafia Debate: Behavioral Analysis On D1

My opponent is correct in identifying the fact that there are differences between town and scum. The problem is that, if town is uninformed, all of their actions are baseless and random – as such, there is no way to distinguish town from scum, since scum-sided actions are just as likely to come from town as they are to come from scum. If town tries to read people or do anything but end the DP ASAP, they are liable to being misread as scum. Since you can’t distinguish between town and scum, most of DP1 is clutter. The fact of the matter is that reactions can only be evaluated as reactions to something; some event is needed for there to be legitimate reactions that have motives behind them. My opponent claims that the differences between what town and scum have to do to win the game is enough to induce differences in behavior – the behavioral differences that can be seen on DP1 come from the fact that reads must be fabricated. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that any reads on DP1 can be justified to begin with. If scum are caught because their reads are groundless and they cannot judge the degree of certainty to put behind them, these reads must have less of a rational basis than the reads of town. This begs the question – it assumes that reads can be given on DP1 by town that are grounded in anything but thin air. If town cannot give rational reads, then there is no reason for assuming that the certainty they put behind their irrational reads are anything but arbitrary. If that is so, then there are no distinctions between scum and town reads, and, as such, this is not a valid foundation for behavioral analysis. My opponent’s arguments regarding the success rates of behavioral analysis on DP1 do not help his case – they assume a causal link between town wins and behavioral analysis simply from correlation, rather than any rational justification for such a relationship.
should america apologize to egypt for supporting the hosni mubarak regime

Egypt has been under this mans rule for 30 years he has embezzled and cheated these egyptian people most eqyptians make about $2 a day and he was making billions of dollars a day he used his power to murder people and you should vote in aff for these three reasons 1) Equality We need to take the stand and appologize for something we supported and allow all people to be created equal "a person is a person no matter how small" 2) human rights all humans should be given these rights we are all people and they desere an apology because we destroyed their lives by paying and supporting his reign 3) family he killed captured and stole peoples family members and tortured them stole billions and were imprisoned and killed for no reason so for these three reasons i urge you to vote in affirmation
AP Human Geography is harder than AP US History

RebuttalAlthough my opponent presented two pieces of evidence, he did not draw a conclusion based upon them. He merely provided a description of the course of AP Human Geography (hereafter referred to as APHG) and a description of the course of AP United States History (hereafter referred to as APUSH). I will assume my opponent is using these descriptions as evidence that one curriculum is more difficult than the other. This is a faulty claim; no course can be objectively defined as more challenging because of the many factors and variables in determining a student's success in the course. I will define many of the factors invovled and explain how they can vary from student to student in terms of their success. TeacherDifferent students have different learning methods. [1] Teachers are often much harder than other teachers; for example, one teacher may give lots of extra credit while another is strict in their grading. [2] Thus, a very lenient teacher for APHG may allow for an easy course, while a very strict, serious teacher of APUSH may cause a lazy student to fail the course. The effectiveness of the course depends on the teacher's style. [3]CourseworkWhat one student may find an easy course that takes no work, another student may find challenging. [4] So, although the teacher may have a great style that really captures the students' attention, his/her coursework may also affect the student's success in that course. Again, if a student excels in APHG with little to no coursework, the student may feel extremely stressed with lots of APUSH homework, not even taking into account the teacher. Student himselfWork ethic, responsibility, intelligence, efficiency, etc. , are all factors that the student himself can alter. [5] Again, using the example of APHG and APUSH, one student may pass both courses with ease and laziness, whereas one student may fail both courses with good work ethic and responsibility. ConclusionYou cannot objectively state that one course is easier or harder than another, because of all the variables involved in a learning environment. The teacher, the amount of coursework, and the student's abilities are all factors invovled in success at a course. Sources1. . http://www.ndt-ed.org...;2. . http://internationalcollegecounselors.com...3. . http://teaching.berkeley.edu...4. . http://www.ndsu.edu...;5. . http://www.savvysugar.com...;
AP Human Geography is harder than AP US History

This is my second debate since I have joined this website and I am really looking forward to debating with you! I must agree that your comment "It depends on the teacher above all" is fairly accurate, but not in some cases. While the teacher may make it seem easier by making it fun so you will push yourself to do your best for the teacher, It still remains that the material is still harder. The teacher can make the subject fun or boring, but they cant take material away so it will be easier to learn. My first piece of evidence on my part is as follows, In AP Human Geography, you will be assigned map tests on each continent and be asked to be able to label every country accurately (depending on your teacher, but most will.) You must also study various topics pertaining to regions around the world. There will be folk culture talking about regions on the other side of the world that preserve traditions while they will also include the whole world in popular culture. My second piece of evidence is as follows, In AP US History, The name is explaining itself. The study of US History is just learning about the US History and with some occasional ties to other countries because they were tied into the US History. AP US History will explain about past battles, presidents and ther speeches, the constitution and the amendments and so on.
Wisdom is the single most important trait of humanity

Your argument is based on regressive ideology. Regression is not a virtue when progression is the goal. If we are to move forward true wisdom is of the utmost importance, much more so than our basic survival needs. We will always be able to hunt and gather like our ancestors have for millennia to ensure our survival which at it's root is purely an individualistic necessity. We will not always be able to fix deeper societal issues unless we learn to be wise in the truest sense of the word.
Wisdom is the single most important trait of humanity

Maybe, for one person to rule over others and to advance in life, wisdom was needed. However, it was not needed to our survival at all. What we needed for our survival isn't the tactics on how to hunt more, or live more comfortably. But, the ability to hunt to begin with, in order to eat. The ability to protect oneself and loved ones to procreate and protect our young. So that will have a newer generation.
Wisdom is the single most important trait of humanity

Hopefully others will learn something from our discourse. Secondly I would like to remind you that the term "race" is strictly a categorization of and does not replace the term humanity. The "survival of the fittest" mentality is archaic and nondescript; it has no place in modern society. That being said, wisdom takes that mentality and expands on it to include a broader spectrum of benefit to humanity. Including love, etc.
Existence

My opponent says, "Since other worlds can not affect this one, there is no way it can be proven true, and if we believed other worlds do not exist, nothing would change." This suggests that even if there are other worlds, as long as we can't prove them, they don't exist. This is almost like saying, "Sure, that might exist, but we're going to say it doesn't because we can't see it." Not a bad idea, but consider this: For thousands of years, humanity didn't know what electricity was. Did that mean electricity didn't exist? No. It was just that humans didn't discover and utilize the function of electricity and until some scientists investigated it. Until then, they could only speculate on the lightening in the sky. My definition is all inclusive. It includes everything that exists, whether we can prove it's "real" or not. My definition understands there are mysterious facets of reality that mankind currently doesn't know about. I thank my opponent as well. This debate was a lot of fun!
Existence

Firstly, I would like to apologize for not using "existing" in my first argument. I made an honest mistake there. To be clear, I will define anything that has objective reality as anything that takes form in the cosmos. "Reality" is the cosmos. In your original definition, you state "existing" is anything that can possibly be processed by human senses. This discounts anything that humans have no chance of sensing as nonexistent. There is something known as the Many Worlds Theory in quantum physics. It suggests that there may be an infinite number of alternate realities "existing" among us, though we are not capable of sensing them. Let's assume alternate realities are real. By your definition, they are discounted as not real because humans can't sense them. By my definition, they exist simply because they have an objective reality (or take form in the cosmos). This is just one of the many possibilities of existing your definition negates because of the limits of human senses.
Existence

First I will list two advantages of using my definition: - People who are making up stuff will have a hard time proving something exists. - People can easily agree upon what can be registered by human senses. Note that "existence" can not be adjective, it can only be a noun. Resolution clearly says "existing". Problems with my opponent's definition: - "Being" can not be adjective. People can not easily agree upon what is "being"(as noun). Also, unicorn(for example) is a being, but he probably does not exist. - If everything that exists has objective reality, as my opponent's definition suggests, then either there exists only one thing or there are multiple objective realities. Or "having" is not the right word. - Now we need definition for reality, that does not include words like existence, existing, etc - Assuming we resolved 2 problems above this one, how can we know if something has or hasn't objective reality?