BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free market capitalism makes people more materialistic

The resolution is as follows: Free market capitalism makes people more materialistic. The resolution needs additional explanation and definition. "Free market capitalism" refers to a market of property rights voluntarily exchanged by the mutual consent of buyers and sellers, which is ultimately independent of third-party subsidization, taxation, regulation, or imposition of a single monetary system. The term "materialistic" refers to treatment of material possessions and wealth as higher values than non-material possessions. For the purposes of discussion, "material possessions" and "wealth" shall be termed "exchangeable goods", which lies in contrast to "nonexchangeable goods" that are intangible and not capable of being traded. Examples of exchangeable goods include my microwave oven, my radio, and my furniture. Examples of non-exchangeable goods include my knowledge, my time, and my love. The crystallization point for the discussion as a whole revolves around the relationship between economic conditions and the psychological drives that produce actions valuing exchangeable goods to the exclusion of nonexchangeable goods. In order to win, he or she who stands in favor of the resolution must prove that free market capitalism provides the conditions such that exchangeable goods are categorically of a higher value than nonexchangeable goods. He who stands opposed to the resolution must prove that free market capitalism does not provide the conditions under which individuals will naturally pursue exchangeable goods as ends in themselves, as that is the proposed definition of materialism.
Free market capitalism makes people more materialistic

First and foremost, I want to truly express my gratitude to my opponent for allowing my missed round 3 to be inconsequential. Secondly, I want to thank my opponent for starting a very compelling debate topic. Lastly, my last argument will be brief as a thank you to my opponent for not placing me at a significant disadvantage. "However, I fail to see how a trader is compelled to increase supply simply because the demand has increased. The only way a supplier can be compelled to provide a service is if a government forces the supplier to do so under threat of force." My opponent asks you to believe, in this instance, that a government policy is the only thing that can force you into increasing or decreasing your supply. That is simply untrue. If demand is increased supply can increase for a variety of reasons within this free market capitalism island that we have invented, namely the following: 1) the supplier is greedy, 2) the supplier wants more exchangeable goods, 3) he has been forced into making more supply through some sort of threat of violence. I especially want to deal with this last suggestion. On this lawless island there is no government to protect you from your neighbor. Therefore if your neighbor wants more food, and you produce food, he might demand that you provide it. If not he might kill you. This, as my opponent apparently suggests, is not government, it is a contract between two people. You must do something or else something will happen. In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that in the state of nature, "we will compete, violently compete, to secure the basic necessities of life and perhaps to make other material gains. (ii) we will challenge others and fight out of fear, so as to ensure our personal safety. (iii) we will seek reputation, both for its own sake and for its protective effects."(1) The state of nature, as demonstrated by our discussion here of the lawless island, is the best method for philosophizing about this perfect version of free market capitalism. As Thomas Hobbes points out, in this situation we will do whatever is necessary to obtain the exchangeable goods we all need and desire. As I bring my argument to a conclusion, I ask you the voter to remember the opening argument. My opponent and I agreed that the crystallization point for this argument is whether Free Market Capitalism categorically values exchangeable goods or nonexchangeable goods with more value. I submit to you that without exchangeable goods in this Free Market Capitalism state of nature, survival is in question. Therefore, for a Free Market Capitalist entity to exist, it must inherently value the commodoties that keep us alive higher than those that do not. As a result of that conclusion I urge you to vote PRO. I would like to sincerely thank my opponent for starting this debate. I would like to further take the time to thank the voters who have read this rather lengthy debate. 1. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Simple Debate: The Bible says nothing about homosexuality

Leviticus 18:22'Some people have suggested what is condemned in this verse is pagan rituals, which involved homosexual acts'if that is your take, fine, I win the debate. This debate is not about is homosexuality immoral or moral, this debate is not about does the church teach the bible to be taken literally, this debate is not about gay marriage, and this debate is not about do Christians do bad things."B. "Using the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is not in keeping with any Christian directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians." "Irrelevant to the debate at hand.A. "The Bible isn't a rulebook, and Christians cannot lift out of its context any passage from it, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of that passage." Irrelevant to the debate at hand, I do not care if the bible is or is not a rulebook, the text I posted is clear and simple in one very simple task 'saying something about homosexuality."E. "Because there was no concept of gay marriage when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts within the context of gay marriage."Irrelevant, the verse is talking about actions of homosexuality, I do not care about gay marriage for this debate."F. "Being personally repelled by homosexual sex doesn't make homosexual sex a sin.""Irrelevant.This is what is relevant, by BOP on the topic "The Bible says nothing about homosexuality" I need to show the bible does say something about homosexuality, that is all I have to do. Leviticus 18:22New International Version"'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. New Living Translation"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin. American King James VersionYou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. King James BibleThou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.Four different versions, four different interpretations, all saying SOMETHING about homosexuality. I do not care if you agree with the verse, I don't care you don't agree with the verse, it is all simply irrelevant! All that I need to prove is that this statement 'The bible says nothing about homosexuality' is false. I have done it, the bible does say something about homosexuality, and for that reason we can conclude the pro position 'The bibles says nothing about homosexuality' is wrong.Sources. http://biblehub.com...
rapping battle

I am the devil on your shoulders I can give you the power crush boulders I am the king of kings I am the queen of queens As the alpha As the omega I am your lord I am your savior The one you pray to The one you despise And above all the one who shall lead to your demise Another one falls Another one rises I am forever I am the emperor I am the one that is in your mind The one you fear The one in your ear Another one rises Another one falls All hail the king The ruler The fuhrer The master The SRW
Racist people are not cool or fun to hang around!!!!

i dont like racist people u know what i say to u if ur for racism.... SCREW U TO HELL AND MAY GOD HAVE NO MERCY ON YOUR SOUL I HOPE U DIE OF GOHNARRIA AND ROTT IN THR F*** BRAINFIRES OF MOTHERF***ING HELL U BAST*** U ARE A DESCRACE TO UR FAMILY AND UR NATION UR CAPITAL UR COUNTY UR SCHOOOL UR PETS UR WHOLE MOTHERF** WORLD MOTHERF***ER SO DONT BE RACIST OR GO TO HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
we should use E-book

looks like you forfeited round 2, but I will still give other 5 point 6)It is compact, everything in one place (books, newspapers, blogs). Today"s world is all about consolidating, making every gadget do more. So being able to consolidate and get all your reading material in one place makes it invaluable. 7) You can also zoom in on text and different sizes. Sometimes the text on those old paperbacks is just too small to read easily, being able to change the font size at least means you can probably use it longer than some of your old books. 8)And with dedicated services, you can have thousands of books available virtually at your fingertips. Just the concept is enough to get us excited. Any book we can think of is available and we can get it whenever we feel like it. 9)And you can get the book you want instantly. 10)On top of that,of cause,it save the environment. thank you,and wish you a good debate.
we should use E-book

well....thanks for accepting this debate,let me start of by 10 main point why should we use E-book.I will give the 5 first point ,then the other 5 in the next round. 1) we Don"t have to pack 10 or so books for one trip. It's probably the most compelling reason, especially with rising costs to bring baggage on planes, it makes it easier to keep bags light. 2)It also supports multiple document formats. You can even do homework/work on it. Not that you"d want to, but the option is available. 3)It also saves money for buying new books. Many New York Times Bestsellers are available for $9.99 and some of the old books (like the Nancy Drew Files) are available for less than $1. 4) And of cause it's portable. Just like a book, you can take it anywhere. Compared to some of the big reference book I"ve read or even textbooks, these eBook readers are a piece of cake to carry around. 5)Ergonomic. Admit it, your wrists hurt when you hold the book open for hours on end. thank you
All feminist should be MRAs

I strongly endorse and believe that it would be incredibly hypocritical to be a feminist and not be an MRA. I define feminist and MRA as anyone who openly supports and is a activist for the respective gender. 1) Feminist ideology stands for the equal treatment of women and men , however, we are currently seeing an strong political movement of feminist who propose the idea of patriarchy or male dominance of society. Whilst not all feminist address or believe in the patriarchy, it is pivotal to mention that all feminist believe that there is some sort of bias against females in society. Feminist need to realise that men have just as many standards abdicated to them as women do. Even the very idea that women are seen as less then men give men a standard to achieve. They need to achieve complete dominance. In society, we encourage and celebrate women's achievements and rightfully so, however, we never address the ideas that men should not need to fulfil the roles of masculinity imposes on them. Men cannot be intellectual or they will be seen as frail or cowardly. Feminist ideology supports equality for the different genders yet feminist constantly shrug of the idea that men have problems too. I am discrediting the intensity of female issues but merely asking for attention towards the neglected problems men face as well. The definition of a feminist encompasses the definition of MRA activism, hence, it would be a blatant hypocrisy for a feminist to not be a MRA.
religion is not needed in society

I THE_INFO_WARRIOR believe that religion is not needed in our society, my reason for this is the fact that we as people are becoming divided for we can not find the true answers to who is our savior. I continue to believe that we have no savior for we don't need a savior. Everything that happens in life happens for a reason, that reason being something that we may have done or someone else may have done. No matter the cause, we should not look for inner peace within someone who we may not know exists. We should instead come to terms with what happens and move on, as all people are taught to do.
Burqas should not be banned in Western countries

The burqa may hide signs of domestic abuse but ultimately, can't long sleeves conceal scars and bruises? As for the face, can't makeup? If you were to ban burqas for that reason, then you should as well ban anything else that could conceal the violence. We are talking about Western countries, not Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Afghanistan. Yes, there may be violence and women are oppressed in those counties because they have no choice but in Western culture, you should have a choice Taking away the freedom of being able to wear what you want to express your feelings and religion should be your choice. The burqa is meant to protect a woman from the elements and perverted eyes. Not to hide abuse. People may have brought that on in Islamic countries but that is not it's true purpose. Abuse can be hidden in many ways. The burqa was not proposed to hide away abuse, it was meant to conceal and protect. And some women find that empowering in Western countries. Yes, women are oppressed and hurt in other countries but that is not the topic of this debate. I will completely agree with you that it can be oppressing and used to hide abuse but in Western countries, a woman should have the choice. As for Islam condoning abuse, if you read the Qur'an then you would know that Muslims are extremely against abuse and hurt. People who try to say that women are nothing in Islam are ignorant. Islam gave women the right to vote thousands of year before Western civilizations did. Islam understands a woman, as well as all human beings deserve to be treated kindly and peacefully no matter what. people who try to pass of as true Muslims and kill in the name of Allah are not living by Islam. Burqas should not be banned in Western civilizations.
Burqas should not be banned in Western countries

France and Belgium have already banned the Islamic covering called a burqa. Now other Western countries are considering doing the same. But if they were to be banned, it would mean many women would not have the freedom to wear what they please for religious purposes. Many say the burqa is oppressive, but frankly, in these countries a women has a choice whether or not to wear it. She is not forced by law to wear it. But when you ban the burqa, you then actually end up oppressing women more. Now a Muslim woman cannot wear the covering she wants. You've taken away her freedom to do so. Women wearing burqas often do not mind showing their face to a female officer, bank teller, etc. to confirm her identity. Anything you can hide in a burqa you can hide in baggy clothing. The burqa puts the woman in no harm, it actually protects her. She is protected from the elements, ridicule and harassment. The burqa is seen as empowering to some women in Western culture. The number of women who actually wore the burqa in France was in the 300's. With such a small number, how is that a threat that needs so much effort? The burqa is not oppressive or unsafe. It should not be banned.
Burqas should not be banned in Western countries

My opponent has made these debate about freedom. It is not about freedom. I say this debate is about Muslims and domestic violence. Muslims do have a tendency to ignore domestic violence. My opponent has not refuted that once in this debate. He knows he can't either. Instead he keeps saying what happens in Muslims countries is irrelevant to this debate. But this is simply not true. The Muslim countries are representatives of Muslim majorities. The Muslim communities in the West would engage in the same actions. The burqa allows domestic violence to prevail. "Yes, Muslim women are beaten by Muslim men but the burqa is not there to hide it in all cases. Yes, it may hide it but ultimately, if a woman is abused she should come out and say it"How can a woman who lives in fear come out and say anything? Women who suffer from domestic violence often attempt to keep it to themselves out of fear of retirbution. How does the Muslim community handle domestic violence? As I have shown, they don't handle it. They ignore it. "Many women are beaten and hide it for fear or being ridiculed or shunned and they're not Muslim. Some Orthodox Jewish women shave their heads and wear a wig when they get married. I would see that in a way oppressing and making the man have more power but why don't we ban that action? Because it's one's own choice in belief and action. "This is a deflection tactic. We are discussing Muslims, not anyone else. It is Muslims who ignore domestic violence. This is a strong tendency that can not be denied no matter how much my opponent wishes to ignore it. notice, how he clearly states, Orthodox Jewish women shave their own heads. How is that relavent to the topic at hand? We are talking about situations where abusive husbands attack their weak wives. "Your personal beliefs or fears should not dictate the lives of others. If you face it, men have been controlling over women for thousands of years. Men have beat women for years and hidden it, why are we focusing on it now? "Why are we focusing on it now? Simply put, it is unacceptable in the West to beat women now. It would seem my opponent is intent on rationalizing domestic violence or ignoring it. It is not a matter of my beliefs, it is the tendency of Muslim men to beat women and get away with it. In the West, we find this unacceptable. "Because of Islamophobia and people being too scared and blind. People just want to make up excuses to get rid of what they fear. We all do it. If it's such a big issue, why address it now? Because people are scared. Not being able to see the woman's face makes them uncomfortable and they want to ban something that is of no harm to anyone. A burqa hiding a abuse is not the fault of the burqa but of the man beating a woman. "My opponent is attempting to throw more petty distractions. We are attempting to address it now because Muslims are migrating more to the West. How can we deal with a problem that before that was non-existent and inconsequential?
Burqas should not be banned in Western countries

Again, we are talking about Western countries here, my opponent is persistent to include things that happen in Eastern countries when that is irrelevant to the topic. People should have the choice to express their own beliefs and not be judged or assume the purpose is terrible. Yes, Muslim women are beaten by Muslim men but the burqa is not there to hide it in all cases. Yes, it may hide it but ultimately, if a woman is abused she should come out and say it. Many women are beaten and hide it for fear or being ridiculed or shunned and they're not Muslim. Being Muslim doesn't mean it's automatically happening. Some Orthodox Jewish women shave their heads and wear a wig when they get married. I would see that in a way oppressing and making the man have more power but why don't we ban that action? Because it's one's own choice in belief and action. Your personal beliefs or fears should not dictate the lives of others. If you face it, men have been controlling over women for thousands of years. Men have beat women for years and hidden it, why are we focusing on it now? Because of Islamophobia and people being too scared and blind. People just want to make up excuses to get rid of what they fear. We all do it. If it's such a big issue, why address it now? Because people are scared. Not being able to see the woman's face makes them uncomfortable and they want to ban something that is of no harm to anyone. A burqa hiding a abuse is not the fault of the burqa but of the man beating a woman.
I am a goat.

I accept. It seems from Pro's debate structure that the BoP is equally shared. Since Pro has not offered any definitions for this debate, I will do so first.I - my opponent, as he or she exists in real life.Goat - a hardy domesticated ruminant animal that has backward curving horns and (in the male) a beard. It is kept for its milk and meat and is noted for its lively and frisky behavior[1].[1] Google definition.Pro stated in the first round that he or she must advance their own argument that they are a goat "in some form or another". I object to this criterion as it should be dependent upon what I, Con, argue because I am putting forth my contentions first. I am doing so because Pro has asserted this by saying that Con must make arguments, then Pro will refute them, then Pro will make their own arguments. Thus, a goat "in some form or another" shall be restricted to the form I choose, since I am the one starting the actual debate.Con's CaseA1. TypingMy argument follows this syllogism:P1. My opponent must be able to type.P2. Goats cannot type.C. My opponent is not a goat.It is extremely improbable that my opponent is a goat because goats are known to be unable to type. There is no evidence existing that even suggests that goats can type, for if my opponent was a goat, he or she would be able to type this argument. Nor have any goats demonstrated their ability to perform this task.A2. IntelligenceEven if my opponent is a goat and is able to type, there are no goats in the world who understand English and are able to comprehend a sentence. If Pro is indeed a goat, then he or she must be able to show that they, as their animal self, are able to type English and comprehend a sentence. While Pro has been able to do that, they haven't shown to do so in animal form, thus rendering their strong unlikelihood that they are in fact a goat.A3. ProbabilityThere are over two billion human Internet users in the world today [http://www.thecultureist.com...]. Given the assumption that goats can type and can understand English, the probability that my opponent out of all these two billion human Internet users in the world is in fact a goat is extremely unlikely. If animals could use the Internet like humans, they don't, so the chance that my opponent is unique in this regard is very improbable.Thus, I negate the claim that Pro is indeed a goat.
Rap Battle

Alright, time to put this grade thing to rest, And end this stupid slugfest, You think my grades aren't the best? Well then, we'll see who's resume ends up on who's desk Man, you're to obsessed with chimps, I bet if you say a real one, you'd turn into a wimp, I'd say your chimp hankerin' goes too far Since you two are twerkin' at the bar You think I'm holdin' myself back? You're the one whose on crack I'm a Spade, you quack, You're just a weak little Jack. So I've done a successful hijack, Of the plane fueled by your rhymes that are whack, While Bill f**ks Loretta on the Tarmac, It's hereby time for you to HIT THE SACK.
Rap Battle

Always defending your grades I feel like you have Aids Saying my rhymes are weak I know your rhymes are very week lemma tell you the truth your freind was right Callin you a loser, stepping on his sand castle even though your weak as a sprite So stop with the writing Cuz my rhymes are colliding Your ideology is holding you back You hold it cuz u can't have a free thought, something you lack Believing in it cuz of the propaganda Now let me write my last stanza Cuz your rhymes are nothing Mine is something So stop it with the weak jokes Cuz right now your rhymes are choking.
Rap Battle

So you thought that line would nail me like a pitchfork? Turns out I've never lived in New York, So I guess that "lie" thing was amiss, But why would you care? You"re ignorance is bliss. Calling me an ugly boar? Man, you're sore Your rhymes are so weak, you can't get in the Marine Corps I swore I'd use you to wipe the floor, And bangin' your whore sister is a chore, she's as fat as MICHAEL MOORE! And you're assertions on my grades are pure folklore, You're lies the people won't fall for They'll probably just ignore, Your rhymes suck man, I should be your mentor! So you're fallin' in the abyss, Because your rhymes are easy to dis-miss, Your brain juices are just piss, And when I diss, you're chances face the DEATH KISS.