BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Market Socialism

Now, I'll make my argument. CAPITALISM Despite in increase in quality of life, there are growing problems with capitalism. Forced evictions in third world countries involve corporations kicking people out of their homes to develop land. About 3 million people have been the victims of this since 2000 in Africa alone. [1] Capitalism is largely to blame for global warming, because there is no incentive for sustainable business practices when pollution is virtually free. [2] Some companies even exploit forced labor with the help of oppressive governments, such as Nevsun in Eritrea and Nokia in the Congo. [3,4] One company even lead to the deaths of thousands of infants by deception related to baby food. [4] If you really want a horrible abuse from capitalism, look at factory farming. The point is that capitalist corporations show little regard for the well-being of other people. We need an economic system that strong and stable but has more respect for ethics and positive and negative impacts, and I think we can find that in market socialism. MARKET SOCIALISM I propose that democratically run worker cooperatives take over the majority of the market. The government can act as a catalyst for this action, but it will not take total control of the economy, contrary to what my opponent believes. The economy will be controlled by the people, not the government or private companies. This system counts as market socialism. [5] Worker cooperatives are characterized by a one-member, one-vote basis. Employees both own and manage a cooperative. While they may have management officials like CEOs, they should be elected. A cooperative does not have to have an egalitarian salary, though it may be economically beneficial to do so. ECONOMICS Worker cooperatives are at least as efficient, if not more efficient, than capitalist firms. [5] Workers tend to be more productive. But the best part is that wages and benefits appear to be higher, the jobs are more desirable, and during recessions, cooperatives thrive, relieving unemployment. [6] The evidence is overwhelming the cooperatives are superior to corporations. In third world countries, cooperatives have the potential to be an important factor in poverty reduction. [7] ETHICS The nature of worker cooperatives indicate that they are more responsible organizations than corporations [5]. They tend to be more beneficial to the community they originate in and develop the economy in general. This is because they are controlled not by wealthy capitalists but by the workers who are affected by "externalities," the dark side of production. [6] It is time to reject corporate aristocracy and move toward a more democratic system. SOURCES 1. Amnesty International 2. The Nation 3. Human Rights Watch 4. The Value of Nothing - Raj Patel 5. Economic Democracy - David Schweickart 6. Iowa State Universiy 7. Encountering the Evidence. .. - Wanyama et al
Market Socialism

Capitalism was born in the industrial revolution of England when the countries in Europe were in tight competition for being the leading power. England was the first to industrialize or take on capitalism. This change quickly gave them an edge over other countries and soon England became the superpower of Europe. At the height of their revolution they produced more, brought in more money, and had a stronger military than any other country on Earth at that time. The countries who maintained socialism or other systems similar where the government had much or some control quickly fall behind. One of the dominating forces of capitalism is Laissez Faire. This means that economy will be regulated by the forces of supply and demand. When the consumers want something they invest their money into buying it. Then other companies begin to make the goods to make sure that they make money. When you allow the government to control the economic system you disrupt this cycle that keeps the economy going. Instead of allowing people who have spent their life learning about their profession to regulate how their job works you have another person who has gone to school to gain an entirely different skill set to make those decisions. An instance of this happening is Solyndra. This company made solar panels and the U.S. government gave them $529 million. Even with $529 million worth of subsidies this company failed to succeed. Logically this should not happen. We would think that with that money how could they fail? What it comes down to is the consumers did not find this a product that was worth spending money on. The product did not work well enough to interest the minds of the American people meaning that it was doomed to fail. This shows that when the government tries to take control of the economy they will not perform as well as the people as a whole. When taxpayer money given to the government to improve our lives gets thrown away because the government leaders are not entirely focused on business. They have to divide their attention among people's rights, national security, military decisions and as many would say increasing their chance of getting another term. How can we expect a group with that many responsibility to back the right businesses? We can't. We have to put the power of the economy in the hands of the people who can excel at their own areas of expertise and who will succeed or fail based on what the people want rather than who the government favors.
Market Socialism

This is my first debate.org round! I will do my best to make this work, based on reading previous debates. RESOLUTION Market socialism should replace capitalism in countries with a free market economy. Capitalism: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" (Merriam-Webster) Market socialism: "Market socialism refers to various economic systems where the means of production are publicly owned, managed, and administered and the market is utilized to distribute resources and economic output." (Princeton) Free market economy: "a capitalistic economic system in which there is free competition and prices are determined by the interaction of supply and demand" (dictionary.com) RULES 1. There is 1 round for acceptance and 3 rounds for debate. 2. New arguments may not be made in the last round. 3. You have 72 hours (3 days) to reply. 4. Arguments must be <3,001 characters. 5. Pro has burden of proof. 6. This is the last rule. Exited for my first debate here! Capitalism: http://www.merriam-webster.com... Market Socialism: http://www.princeton.edu... Free market economy: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Abortion should be made illegal, except in cases of severe deformities and to save the mother's life

Alright thanks Ethan. I think that the definitions are blatantly obvious. We all know what abortion is. Illegal... against the law Except... illegal, but these cases are acceptable Severe deformities- Meaning what, like a genetic disease, such as down syndrome. This is the only question I have. Save the mother's life.. I get it, if the mommy's going to die then the baby can be aborted by licensed physicians. No semantics in this debate I presume. The topic is what it is. I will wait for my opponents argument and then post my argument. Your turn...
Abortion should be made illegal, except in cases of severe deformities and to save the mother's life

Here we go- 1. "My opponent dropped my defense of both of my contentions." "Contention 2: Abortion is unnecessary--except in the cases listed in the title." I have argued that there are necessary cases that aren't listed in the title, such as rape. 2."My opponent basically argued MY side with the deformities issue." It is not just PROs side of the argument but also my side as well. 3. "He is completely off-base with the rape argument." "If someone randomly stuffs a baby in my arms... I have the obligation to take the baby to an orphanage or a police station" No you do not have any obligation. You did not choose to take in the baby. There is no obligation to do anything for the baby. It is not you baby to take care of, because you did not take the actions to acquire that child. "The fetus is innocent, and it can't be punished for its father's sins." Even though the fetus is innocent it doesn't mean that the mother should have to carry the child. The mother did not choose to have the child and is innocent. So the mother... Should not be punished for the rappers sins, in having to be pregnant. She did not make a choice, so then she should be given a choice on whether or not she has an abortion. Thank you to Ethan for the debate and I hope to debate again in the future. That is why you vote CON. -Kk
Abortion should be made illegal, except in cases of severe deformities and to save the mother's life

Overview time! ! You vote Pro because: 1. My opponent dropped my defense of both of my contentions. So, right there, I have two contentions flowed accross, so you consider the round that way. 2. My opponent basically argued MY side with the deformities issue. He said that ". .. they still have a life that they can live and have a interaction with others who will care for them and show them affection. So yes their lives do have value, 'and therefore, I cannot get rid of it. '" So, he argued for my side. 3. He is completely off-base with the rape argument. If someone randomly stuffs a baby in my arms, I can't just throw it to the ground because I don't want it. No, of course not. I have the obligation to take the baby to an orphanage or a police station. It's the same with a rape-induced pregnancy. The woman must carry the fetus to term, and then she can get rid of it. The fetus is innocent, and it can't be punished for its father's sins.
Abortion should be made illegal, except in cases of severe deformities and to save the mother's life

Rebuttal- "its life has value, and therefore, I cannot get rid of it." Does a baby with deformities not have value? Yes their lives do have value. Even though they might not look or talk or understand life like us they still have a life that they can live and have a interaction with others who will care for them and show them affection. So yes their lives do have value, "and therefore, I cannot get rid of it." "if a rape fetus has a FLO, it is immoral to abort it." No. It does not matter if there is a question of morality. Rape, as I have said before is a case where there is a victim who has not chosen to have sexual intercourse. The woman then has a chose to keep or abort the baby. There is no question of it being right or wrong. To my opponent- Kk
Abortion should be made illegal, except in cases of severe deformities and to save the mother's life

His argument boils down to my disclusion of rape in the topic. He says that ". .. the victim of the horrendous crime of rape has not chosen to have sexual intercourse and should not incur the consequences of that action. " While rape is traumatizing and horrible, it does not mean that the fetus has no FLO. The FLO still matters. For example, if someone tells me that I have to take care of a random baby for nine months, or else the baby will die, I did not choose to take in the baby, but that does not make it moral for me to let the baby die. I would much rather ot have to take care of it, but, nonetheless, its life has value, and therefore, I cannot get rid of it. My opponent dropped my arguments about the FLO, and therefore, you FLOw them across. That means that if a rape fetus has a FLO, it is immoral to abort it.
Abortion should be made illegal, except in cases of severe deformities and to save the mother's life

I am against the topic of Abortion should be made illegal, except in cases of severe deformities and to save the mother's life, for the following reason which is also in direct negation of PRO contention 2 that states "Abortion is unnecessary--except in the cases listed in the title" and the reason is. .. Abortion should be made illegal, except in cases of severe deformities, to save the mother's life, AND FOR VICTIMS OF RAPE. The reason for this is because the victim of the horrendous crime of rape has not chosen to have sexual intercourse and should not incur the consequences of that action. Therefore the mother should not have to keep the child. For this reason I am in the negation for this topic. To my opponent- Kk
Abortion should be made illegal, except in cases of severe deformities and to save the mother's life

Okay, here we go... Contention 1: The FLO argument of Don Marquis shows that abortion is immoral. The FLO argument says that killing a person is wrong because it deprives the person of a future of value. This can be extended to fetuses. Fetuses, if left unaborted, will almost certainly have a future of value or future like ours (FLO). While the fetus has no rights, it does have a future that you, I, and it will surely value. To put this in perspective, imagine this. You are in a forest, and there are 15 shrubberies. 14 of them have men in them. One has none. A man has offered you a lifetime supply of Kit-Kat bars if you shoot one of the shrubberies. While the shrubberies alone have no value, no rights, et cetera, the shrubberies have a potential person. By shooting we likely deprive that person of a FLO.0 Contention 2: Abortion is unnecessary--except in the cases listed in the title. If the fetus is normal, healthy, et cetera, there is no reason to abort it. The mother is in no danger. If she doesn't want the fetus, she can carry it to term, and then put it up for adoption. While you may say that adoption is implausible because there isn't enough demand, then how do you explain surrogate mothers that are paid to have children, and many foreign adoptions with long waiting lines. If we make the US adoption market efficient and desirable, we will have no problem. For these reasons I affirm.
This house believes that capital punishment is wrong.

Wrongful executions may have happened in the past, but as I have said; they will not happen in the future. Forensic science is just too concrete. Juries have become almost spoiled and preconditioned to the CSI mentality that they will not accept anything short of DNA evidence to convict someone of a capital crime. Sure, people have been wrongly convicted in the past and I absolutely agree that that was a problem, but we must acknowledge that the problem has been corrected. It appears as though my opponent has become so desperate to win this debate that he has exploited my typo. Shame. As for his advocation of life imprisonment; what of this so-called 'new evidence'? If it was not found during the investigation, I would argue that it is, more often than not, questionable. The idea of 'new evidence' is, more often than not, non-existent. For one to be sentenced to death, the case needs to be air-tight. Where does this vague, undefined illusion of 'new evidence' come from? What would have changed between the commission of the crimes, subsequent investigation and trial and the execution 10 years later? Assuming there is evidence that was missed the first time, a decade should be sufficient time for it to come forward, so that point unequivocally falls. My opponent has a tendency to further his debate by using emotional arguments to cloud one's judgment. The fact of the matter is that 'doubling the death toll' is a misleading statement. First of all, most of those subject to capital punishment have killed more than one person. I would say that rather than merely adding to the death toll, we are preventing further deaths; be they the live of reformable inmates, prison guards or the lives of innocent civilians. And I would hardly consider the personal life of a murderer to be of any importance. The killer made the conscious decision to renounce their relationships in the name for violence, therefore no such consideration should be made. But as long as we're talking about family and friends; what of the victims? Why should the families of the deceased not have their chance for their well-deserved revenge? Why must they be made to suffer knowing that their tax dollars are being used to pay for the meals of the one who killed their daughter, wife, brother, father, mother, best friend, etc? To say we are 'killing' the killer is disingenuous in the context you are using it. We are not shooting them, we are not stabbing them and we are certainly not raping them. We are painlessly removing them from the gene pool. What has this debate boiled down to? It has come down to some very simple ideas; given that one has defied the most fundamental principal of our society, why should they enjoy the luxuries we provide? Should they be treated in the same fashion as those who have proven their willingness to reform? Should they have the right, given their violent tendencies, to endanger the lives of those trying to make this world a better place by operating within these laws? No, absolutely not, and that's why side opposition has won this debate without question. Thank you.
This house believes that capital punishment is wrong.

Opponent: I would also strongly disagree with your myth of the 'innocent execution.' The fact of the matter is that it is incredibly hard to convict an innocent person for a capital crime. Myth? So you suppose it never happens? There are actually several well documented cases in which other were convicted for a capital crime in which the wrongly accused person had already been executed. Is it our right as human beings to kill other human beings on insufficient evidence? And all evidence is insufficient, all 100% of it. We can never be 100% that Person A committed Crime A. Opponent: And if you truley believe that this is worse than death, would you not therefore agree that it would be more humane to give them a lethal injection and spare them? Nice job on spelling truly. And the reason I think that way is because death is permanent. Once you die, they're no bringing you back. You're dead forever. On the other hand, with life imprisonment if new evidence comes along you can always be released. Opponent: I should not have to pay for this monster's food and lodging. Well, you certainly shouldn't send a potentially innocent person to death row. And you can't put a dollar amount on the value of human life, not even the murders life. That "murderer" still has a daughter, a wife, a brother, a father, a mother, a best friend, etc. Simply killing the killer only doubles the death toll. I understand that if a murder escapes today he could kill other people, but our prisons are so secure that this is a statistical anomaly. You've already acknowledged that. Opponent: And if they are, I would argue that the lives saved by using the death penalty as a deterrent outweighs this. Sir, what you are suggesting is that an innocent person die to serve as a deterant for future crime. Do you consider yourself a principled person? More questions: I just can't get my head around how killing the killer doesn't bring him down to our level.
This house believes that capital punishment is wrong.

Yes, there is a chance of a breakout with every criminal, but of course the danger of violence occurring as a result is significantly higher assuming the escapee is charged with first degree murder. I would also strongly disagree with your myth of the 'innocent execution.' The fact of the matter is that it is incredibly hard to convict an innocent person for a capital crime. A life sentence may be more punishing than death, but it costs me more. I should not have to pay for this monster's food and lodging. And if you truely believe that this is worse than death, would you not therefore agree that it would be more humane to give them a lethal injection and spare them? You have given us the mournful plight of the poor prisoner's rights; they have the right to die with dignity, if nothing else. I'm surprised 4 in 4 prisoners don't profess their innocence. The fact remains that they were held on a fair trial and convicted by a jury of their peers. You can skew the stats as you like, but the fact remains that very very few innocent prisoners are executed. And if they are, I would argue that the lives saved by using the death penalty as a deterrent outweighs this. And I have answered your questions. The government has every right to put down cockroaches. Our constitution does not ensure rights to one who has betrayed the fundamental moral obligation bestowed upon him. That is; they have breached the social contract. By committing the most heinous crime imaginable in a country that practices capital punishment is an acknowledgment that they do not wish to be treated with the same standards as anyone else. The government does have an obligation to protect the rest of its law abiding citizens and to spend their money reasonably. They cannot ensure either of these conditions so long as these deplorable people sit comfortably in their state-of-the-art prisons. I have a few questions of my own; what makes one who has defied the one sacred and universal law of society above one who has abide by it? Why should a law-abiding citizen have pay for this murderer? Why is it morally acceptable for a soldier to kill Nazis, but it is not okay for our government to remove equally evil people from society? And finally; why should risk the lives of any innocent person in the name of preserving a hardened criminal who has shown no willingness to be a part of this world?
This house believes that capital punishment is wrong.

My opponent's world view is simplistic and naive. Of course some people deserve to die, especially if their death could preserve the lives of others. Sure, our maximum security prisoners are rather secure, but is it really our right to take the risk of a break out? According to my opponent, 'two wrongs don't make a right', but what about three wrongs? Will we stand up and stop this cycle of violence after one death, or will we allow more to happen? My opponent is also trying to skew the statistics for his own benefit. Yes, India has the most murders per year, but it also has the second highest population. The more accurate statistics I gave (murders in relation to population) paint a much more accurate picture. Furthermore, public opinion is absolutely in favor of capital punishment. 52% of the world-wide population (so including countries where capital punishment is abolished) support the death penalty and 64% of Americans support capital punishment. I would not say that public opinion should dictate morality of trump human rights, but this is not relevant; these criminals have no rights. They forfeited them the moment they decided to betray a fundamental human right. This makes them lower than a cockroach or a speck of dust. Yes, occasionally people are wrongly convicted, but you defeat your own point when you say that they were released -from death row.- This speaks volumes to the American judicial sector; they generally get the right guy. This is also why 'death row' can last as long as 33 years. While I would agree that some innocent people have been executed, I would actually suggest that capital punishment has freed some prisoners. Being on death row means your case is increasingly scrutinized and looked over. Furthermore, with our new forensic technology, being falsely convicted is becoming increasingly rare. It is also vindicating older criminals that have been on death row for decades. What we have is a system that has many checks and balances but stills allow the justice system to deal with these deplorable beings. A study by Isaac Ehrlich which found that the murder rate responded to changes in the likelihood of execution. He concluded that 7 or 8 murders were prevented by each execution from 1933 to 1967. A study by Kenneth Wolpin which showed that each execution, on average, reduced the number of murders in England by 4