BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is socialism a half measure and thus unequal to the challenge of freeing the poltrariut.

Well, you could have tried to argue how money and private property enslaves us, rather than just claiming it does(claims need reason/logic or facts to back it up). Perhaps the character limit you set on this debate made it so that you couldn't really argue for it properly, but I think there was sufficient room for a reason or two. If you provided reasons formoney and private property enslaving us, I may have agreed with you and conceded the debate. It would certainly be easier to convince a socialist to turn communist than a capitalist to turn communist. We could make a debate specifically on how money and private property enslave us, if you want. I would be up for that. If the claim is "Money and private property enslave us" you would take the pro position and I would take the con position. Feel free to challenge me again if you think you have good reasons for believing money and property enslave us.
Is socialism a half measure and thus unequal to the challenge of freeing the poltrariut.

You are a socialist thus you are in agreement that capitalism is bad. The entire concept of communism is based on this idea, but I cannot make you a communist, thus I cannot prove this to the audience of capitalist oppressors. Thus I cannot prove this as it is a matter of how you as a individual look at the world, only you can decide your opinions on this and other issues like it or be in bad faith.
Is socialism a half measure and thus unequal to the challenge of freeing the poltrariut.

As long as there is money people will hoard it, because people are lazy selfish a---s. Crime is caused either directly or indirectly by poverty, direct cases are petty thief and small miggings, indirect cases are all forms of organised crime as they use the poor to gain money (the poor are paid) and as they need poverty and desperation to both racketeer and enforce there operations, they are dependent on capitalism.
Is socialism a half measure and thus unequal to the challenge of freeing the poltrariut.

I agree that probably most people want less government involvement, as do I. I'm a libertarian socialist. I'll explain more about libertarian socialism in a comment to save space here.As for money being "the cause of all crime, all poverty, and the worsening of all famines since the development of the global economy."This is a claim that needs evidence. The existence of money doesn't cause poverty. Money that is horded by the wealthy, and prevented from going to the poor, is what causes poverty. Getting rid of the bourgeosie would solve the poverty problem, as workers would then be able to split among themselves the money that would have normally gone to the capitalist.As for it being the cause of all crime, I think crime is often caused by poverty or a lack of money, at least theft would be. So, rather it's the lack of money that causes crime. If someone has money, why would they steal? If someone has plenty of money, why would they kill someone for money?
Is socialism a half measure and thus unequal to the challenge of freeing the poltrariut.

If people want moderation then you would be the ideological norm, but what people want and what they get are different, people want less government involvement (because the feds have gotten more into the world's problems [refugees] then the nation's economy, thus are selfish gits) and more national economic programs. But I want to give people what they need if they work, if you've a hobo you will eat until there is a shortage. Money is the cause of all crime, all poverty, and the worsening of all famines since the development of the global economy. Thus it should be destroyed, to put this in metaphorical terms all people should understand, think of the myth of St.George and the dragon, the princess is the proletariat, we communists are st George and the dragon is the bourgeois.
Is socialism a half measure and thus unequal to the challenge of freeing the poltrariut.

I for one believe most people are never going to get the idea of personal property out of their heads. With communism, if I'm not mistaken, there is no personal property and everything is shared communally. Communism would also abolish the state, as well as monetary systems, which can still exist under socialism.I believe there's a reason why monetary systems developed, it's an easy way to do trade. It's a measure of labor spent, or at least labor vouchers would be, which is essentially just another form of money. It just doesn't seem plausible that after hundreds of years people would be in favor of ending all personal property, getting rid of the state, and also ending monetary systems, which all would be necessary to achieve communism. It's never been done on a wide scale either, at most, we've had maybe a dozen countries do it at once.I challenge the idea that people want extremes, since pure capitalism doesn't even exist anymore and nearly every country has a mixed economy.
know=physical experience, to contrast

I can lie, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exists. This is sort of like me saying "This chair is ugly", even though I don't actually think it is, and someone saying that my comment never existed because I lied. If imagination didn't exist, anyone viewing this wouldn't be able to reflect and create new ideas. For example, I just thought of a vacuum toaster, that vacuums and toasts at the same time.
Land ownership, property and farms(large land owners)

I have seen the rampant hypocrisy in your argument. I will elaborate on my argument further on, but let me start off by stating that your argument is entirely referrable to Communism, which is a socio-economic ideology that prohibits the ownership of private property. What you say, is that instead of a population forming around the successful, they should instead form around the unsuccessful. Instead of everyone having lots of land and wealth, everyone should lack wealth and land, as to create equality. Communism sets to create synthetic equality by eliminating the need for more, which in turn creates inequality. A Democratic Republic, or anything of the latter, sets to create equal opportunity, rather then equality altogether. If you look at the human population, there is nothing but inequality. Different race, religion, gender, size, strength, intelligence, etc. Instead of creating equality altogether, which you cannot do without a complete racially motivated genocide, you should create equal rights and equal freedoms. By looking at your statement, you should give up your own home, your own computer, and your own belongings, because others lack some thereof. Do you now understand the hypocrisy in your statement? "Most people cannot grow their own food" - this is untrue. Everyone, by definition, has the ability to grow food. They, however, lack the will to do so, because that service is provided for them by people who are entrusted to grow food, and then sell it at a price. This is called a profession, and that profession provides a type of service or a type of product, which in this case, is food. Without private property, which you seek to abolish, we get rid of all industry altogether. We get rid of competition, which gets rid of incentive. When we get rid of incentive, we state that harder or smarter work means you will gain the same amount as one who works poorly. You cannot support a nation in this way. As Winston Churchill stated "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Also, upon analyzing your statement once more, I come to see that you have denied your own claim. At the start you say "Most people cannot grow their own food", and then you begin to say "Everyone can grow their own food." I await your response.
Land ownership, property and farms(large land owners)

Land inequality is power. Property controls where you live and how we get our food. Most people cannot grow their own food and rely on a system of competition(money) for survival. Land ownership makes freedom and equality impossible. Why should one man live in an apartment while another owns enough land to feed thousands? Farmers and giant farm corporations sells fuel(food) to the industry for money. The industry gives the worker a job to pay for food he 'cannot' grow, making him easily exploited and controlled. Everyone can grow their own food. Money is only necessary for wants, just like industry. Technology only helps to live, it is not essential. We all live from the earth. Those that do not live directly from the earth are controlled by means of survival.
should schools start later

Schools should start later in the day for many reasons. For starters your brain isn't ready to learn right away. From 7am to 9 am the brain wants to have sex. From 9am to 11am your creativity is activated. Then from 11am to 2 pm the brain is ready for some mental tasks. However, it is ready for a break after that.As for the argument of seeing friends, I hate seeing my friends first thing in the morning. I'm still tired and it's to early to deal with that many people all at once. They tend to react the same way, it's to early for that crap. Breakfast is the first meal of the day, and it is the most important meal of the day. However most kids don't eat breakfast in school, they go straight to whatever classroom they have first and then lay their heads down and try to get more sleep.Should we put our sources in the comments?
I will lose

My opponent suffers from a fatal flaw in the understanding of my duty as con. As con, I must negate the affirmative position. If the negative side at least is proven to be exactly as reliably correct as the affirmative (as was just proven by my opponent) then negative wins because affirmative has been negated. My burden is not to prove the negative side. I just have to entirely disprove the affirmative side. Thank you for reading. And when you start troll debates, expect a troll to accept.
I will lose

Since there were no specifications provided, I'm going to provide some clarifications of the resolution. "I will lose" is a vague resolution that cannot be proven. There is no object that my opponent can lose under the resolution. So either the resolution is moot by simple analysis of terms, or we have an object. Now, since my opponent has not specified an object, I'll provide an object. I'm going to say my opponent is talking about his video game that he's going to play in four weeks. Even if he doesn't play video games, that is now the object to be lost. So either the resolution has no substance (negated), or my opponent is wrong/has no way to substantiate his position because it's four weeks from now (negated). Thank you.
I will lose

My opponent is not proven. I have proven that my opponent is not proven. This means he is disproven. I'm going to explain the burden of proof of my opponent using math. He must support his position at any number greater than zero. Let's say an assertion/opinion is equal to y Supporting evidence is the variable x whereas x is greater than zero. My side is the same. To determine the winner mathematically, you must figure out whether pro has been negated. So if an assertion y is pitted against an assertion y, then we take y-y. No matter what number y is y-y=0 Since 0 is not greater than 0, my opponent has been negated by me simply disagreeing with him.
muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity

The same still applies. Only Christians go to heaven, not even all Christians go. Muslims do not fit any criteria. "The only way to Heaven is through me." - Jesus Christ Muslims do not go through Him they go through Muhammad's teachings and the full 100% worship to none other but Allah. They do not posses the Holy Spirit and will not be saved. "If you are not for me you are against me." - Jesus Christ
muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity

Muslims do not believe Jesus Christ was the messiah, Muhammad is their main prophet and they believe he was the last messenger. Wrong! According to the teachings of Jesus, no more prophets shall come after me, and several references as such beware of false prophets. Muhammad is directly related to Abraham because he is an offshoot of Ishmael. The wedlock child born of a whore. Cast to dessert to create most of the once multiple extreme pagan/sexualistic religions of the Arabian peninsula. God told Abraham He would take the holy line through Isaac. Muhammad was a false, murderous, polygamy, slave inducer, evil man that claims having virgins for eternity is a good thing. Jesus is one of the five prophets of Islam but He drank wine? They believe Jesus escaped death but that is the only thing the most skeptical Atheists and crazed Evangelicals agree on. Muhammad has caused many to stray away and create chaos, through high taxes of non-believers and slaughter of those who refuse is not a loving God. A god that says you will cast Jews and Christians into hell personal to save yourself is not a loving merciful God. Muhammad was a sinner, evil man that has manipulated many and caused millions possibly billions of deaths. "muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity" No, they do not believe is the one and true messiah that will come again to establish a New Heaven and New Earth along with a New Jerusalem.
muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity

according to con's last magic formula, they could be said to be saved. they loved god and others, and spread the good news as they see it, which includes many teachings of Jesus. con gave one of the longest laundry lists of any one ive seen about what one has to do to be saved. the bible makes it much easier "whosoever shall call on the name of the lord shall be saved" "if you confess with your lips that Jesus is lord and believe in your heart that he was raised up you will be saved". it even has verses like "if you persevere till the end you will be saved" and things like loving others. muslims fulfill most of these easier criteria. therefore, according to christianity, they can be saved through it.
muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity

Required Tenants to be saved according to the Christian: You first must admit that the love and mercy from God is more than we deserve and greater than we can imagine. You must then admit you are a sinner and a follower of Adam and Eve's mistake. Accept and acknowledge that Jesus was born from the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit. He was sinless through His entire life and never lost approval from His Father. Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan by John the Baptist, suffered 40 days in the Arabian Dessert tempted by Satan but eventually crushed the serpent. Jesus performed miracles, healed many and provided the greatest wisdom to mankind ever. Was wrongly beaten, killed and suffered for all of our sins under the ruling of the Jews. Spent three days in Hell for our sins to rise again walk on this Earth for forty days then to ascend to Heaven where He sits of the right hand of the Father until it is time to come back and rapture the true believers. Jesus is the one true son of the one and only living God. You must be saved and have companionship with the Holy Spirit which lives in all Christians that tells us when we do wrong and keep on the right path to righteousness. Why Muslims do not qualify: They believe the only recognized entity to be worship or acknowledge is Allah and only Allah. Jesus was merely one the five prophets of Islam. Jesus was taking by Allah before he was crucified.(Even Atheists believe Jesus was crucified because there are official Roman and Jewish records proving this) Muslims consider Christians polytheistic because we believe in the Holy Trinity. Muslims also believe when you die you will be asked Who is your God? And who is his prophet? If the the answer is not Allah and Muhammad then you are not in good shape. Muslims believe in the crusader ship to establish a caliphate to correctly worship Allah. They also believe that Muhammad is the last messenger of God which if you ask and any Christian they would tell you he was false prophet the eluded many. If Christianity is the true faith my God would agree. Magic formula: Love God with all your heart, body, mind, and soul. Love your neighbor like yourself. Spread the Gospel at all costs.
muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity

muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity they believe he was a messiah, born of a virgin, some believe he died and all believe he was raised up to God. they believe he performed miracles, they beiieve he will come again. ===================== here is a debate where i say the required threshhold of faith to be saved as chistians is not clear. but we often say there has to be a 'holistic' approach, which could be said to save muslims. unless you go without reason to require things like "jesus is my savior" as a required tenant. the requirements are either too vague, or too listy/dogmatic. the bible says if you confess with your mouth jesus is lord, and beleive in your heart that he was raised from the dead you will be saved. it also say if you believe in the lord you will be saved. it also has all kinds of other statements. i'm sure if you do these, that is sufficient. but what about various other scenarios, like the content of 'sinner's prayers' that dont include those things? what or where exactly is the threshhold? if you believe he existed or is God is that enough? probably not cause the bible says demons do likewise. what about a list of of common beleifs? that you rely on him generally, that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, that you believe you are saved (plenty of christians say you must believe you are saved, or you aren't saved), substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc. ask different christians, get a different answer, almost every time. they just have 'gut feelings' but dont have firm answers. see past debates from me on this topic, and you'll note a different answer pretty much every time. some say you have to admit you're a sinner and that he is your savior. what if you believed all the other things and not these? or what if you believe you're a sinner, and that he's a savior, but not that he's God, or a various type of atonement belief. eg, chrsitaus victor v substitutionary. some say that he is God is required, some say legal substitution is mandatory. and how do you demarcate the requirements for those who are new to the faith, and those who are really knowledgeable? it might be seen a okay for a newbie to miss a thing or two, but less understandable for the expreinced etc. does this come into play? so what's the magical formula?
morality=right+intent

Well, this is a debate. It's suppose to center on something; though we have shifted around quite a bit. I suppose I need to address what you have written in round 3 so people can vote. Introducing a complex equation to prove what math is is unnecessary? On the contrary, that sounds like the definition of a mathematical proof. I didn't make anything more complex than it needed to be. Morality is as complex a subject as one exists. I would say, and I would guess anyone reading a debate on the subject would also say, that it is definitely more complex than "morality= right+intent." Based off my previous rounds, I think I've demonstrated that. "Lies are complicated by separation and true is simple now as one" I'm not quite sure how this statement addresses anything in this debate. "You don't make sense." I don't think you've shown that this statement is valid here. "Abortion is moral because human nature is complicated by the machine." I'd say this statement, irrespective of the morality of abortion, is probably as sound as it is clear in its message. Though, I'm still not sure entirely what it is your original position was, I think having made an attempt to clarify your position as well as address its flaws still stands.
morality=right+intent

No, my argument is more centered on how morality is not simply a right to do something plus the intention to do it. However, your question in round 2 I could take some issue. There are absolutely rights that an argument could be made for being immoral. Obviously, abortion is a heavily debated right. However, the point even behind that argument that I'm trying to demonstrate as showing that morality is more complex than right plus intent is that rights are subjective to begin with. Morality can not be simply right plus intent because rights are determined through moral reasoning. They are only inherent insomuch as the right is based in moral absolutism.
morality=right+intent

Morality equals right plus intent. It's a simple statement that I'm assuming can be expanded to say, "The morality of an action is based in the right to do so plus the intent to do so." This sounds like quite the subjective view on morality whereas morality is not subjective. Morality is objective. Morality can not be subjective without logically progressing to the nonexistence of any true morality. So, with Morality equals right plus intent. I'd say this is a false statement because it starts with a few "rights" I don't feel exist outside the confines of a social contract or a religion. There are no rights that exist that are not given unless they are based in an absolute morality understanding. If it's a right, it must be based on something objective. As far as intent goes, I would put that more towards ethics. Here I define morality as determining whether an action is right or wrong. I define ethics as the conflict between two moral absolutes.
The Patriots are underachieving in the second half of the season.

I would also like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a happy holiday season. I just got done watching the Patriots cruise to their 15th win this season they also tied the NFL record that they ppreviously owned for most consecutive regular season games of 18. With Moss 1 shy of Rice's record and Brady 1 shy of Manning's record. If you read the NFL rule book their is nothing illegal about "running the score up". This is the NFL they are professionals. It isn't evil and it is kind of sad that teams and fans will complain. I am sorry when a team you dislike continues to win they are demonized. There is nothing I can say to change your mind you have such a love fo your team that you will not accept the fact that your rival is going to break your records and also win the most games in a single season record. They have only had a handful of close games and you cannot say they underachieve thank you take care