BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
MOST evil is started by man kinds

"This is the argument that my opponent gives. He says that man is responsible for most problems in this world. Man is responsible for starvation. Actually many other species starve as well. This is not an example of a man made problem. In addition, my opponent has not shown what is so "evil" about starvation". This is the argument Stalin puts forward. Firstly animals do starve. But that is because either they are made to handle long periods of time without food or they chose a poor place to live. My opponent has given examples of problems such as starvation and atomic bombs that were created by man. My opponent says nothing about how these problems are evil. There was actually some good in the atomic bomb since it helped save lives in WWII. An atomic bomb is an example of warfare. Is warfare evil? Well ants fight just as much, if not more, than humans among themselves. Humans, like other species, compete with each other for resources. This does not mean that they cause evil. My opponent did do a good job responding to my arguments but he does not really explain how man causes evil. I don't understand what is so evil in starvation. Anyway, I can not say anything for now. I await more arguments. This is what you said. By the way you do not understand that there is enough food in the world to feed all seven billion of us comfortably, obviously this won't be the case in a couple of decades but the point is that we (In MEDC countries) are consuming way more than we need too. The atomic bomb at least in my eye's are evil. Lets list the positives of it. 1. It somehow saved lives of people who were in WWII 2. It further increased our scientific knowledge Now lets list the negatives 1. We can wipe out the whole entire human race with it. 2. Exposure to an atomic bomb can cause nasty diseases 3. The use of the atomic bomb had rendered thousands dead, injured or dirt poor. 4. The creator of of the atomic bomb said that the atomic bomb is the most evil object humans can produce. I agree that ants do have fights. But there battles have been motivated for the queens survival that keeps alive the whole colony. But the Japanese didn't bomb pearl harbor just to survive. Stalin didn't start his ruthless dictatorship because he had to survive.
MOST evil is started by man kinds

"Most evil is started by man kind. If you gather all the natural problems that effects people's lives negatively physically or emotionally and do the same for man made problems such as starvation." This is the argument that my opponent gives. He says that man is responsible for most problems in this world. Man is responsible for starvation. Actually many other species starve as well. This is not an example of a man made problem. In addition, my opponent has not shown what is so "evil" about starvation. "The list of man made caused problems will outnumber the natural problems that man has had no participation." Pro has not provided any such list. These are empty words. Conclusion: My opponent has given examples of problems such as starvation and atomic bombs that were created by man. My opponent says nothing about how these problems are evil. There was actually some good in the atomic bomb since it helped save lives in WWII. An atomic bomb is an example of warfare. Is warfare evil? Well ants fight just as much, if not more, than humans among themselves. Humans, like other species, compete with each other for resources. This does not mean that they cause evil. My opponent did do a good job responding to my arguments but he does not really explain how man causes evil. I don't understand what is so evil in starvation. Anyway, I can not say anything for now. I await more arguments.
MOST evil is started by man kinds

Firstly I mean by man kind as yard stick. Anything is done or made by man or man him or herself. For example the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and a person robbing a bank both fit the definition that I put forward. I will subvert your argument in order. A) The three main religions Jew,Islam and Christianity both agree that god did not make evil but the devil did. The devil then sub-consciously persuades the victim to do sin. God has nothing to do with this. B) I have never seen a fish or a cow rob a bank or create a planet destroying nuclear device that mimics the sun. In addition animals such as cows and fishes do not have the social abilities to determine right from wrong unless right from wrong is a survival or breeding situation. Only certain animals such as chimps or gorillas have this ability and even though it pales in comparison to what social abilities we have implanted into society and our brains. C) profoundly immoral and wicked this is what google says. Even if you view evil in different perspectives a human most probably is the center of the evil as I can't see a person isolating himself from every single human being and then has the brain power to define evil Back to my point all your "corrections" are only a smoke screen to the real question. Most evil is started by man kind. If you gather all the natural problems that effects people's lives negatively physically or emotionally and do the same for man made problems such as starvation. The list of man made caused problems will outnumber the natural problems that man has had no participation.
MOST evil is started by man kinds

1. Your sexy. 2. Agreed. 3. OK I will. Lets begin. I would like to start off by pointing out that Pro does not make his resolution clear. He states that most evil is started by "man kinds". First of all, Pro does not explain what "most" means in this debate. Second, Pro does not say what "man kinds" is. I will assume that this debate translates to "most evil is started by man kind". Reasons this is untrue: A) Many people believe that god created people. This means that god created people and made them evil in the process. This shows that god is the one who first started evil[1], not man. B) Humans are animals. Do we ever ask which animal is the most responsible for evil existing? Are fish more responsible for starting evil than cows are? I am simply showing that this resolution does not make any sense. C) Different people define evil in different ways. A person may be evil but he may not view himself as evil. Pro presented no definition of evil. D) My opponent will need to present an example of the evil that humans cause. Otherwise I have nothing else to say. Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Coach Gender

One question. What is your debate question? Does coach gender matter? If this is you debate question then no it doesn't matter because either way a person is a person. Genders don't matter because i have seen both genders taking a team to basketball, football, baseball, track and soccer championships. Also it doesn't depend on gender but it depends on the team. Players need to work together to go to the championship. The coach can convince them and help them get better but it is all on the team effort.
Rape Culture in the United States Improperly blames Women for their Sexual Violation

So lets start off on what rape culture is in the connotation that I am using it. Rape culture is the treatment as rape or sexual exploitation of a female by courts and media as at least partially the victims fault based on the clothes they wear or the way they were acting. This type of blame is really not seen in any other sort of crime and to be quite honest disgusts me. The idea of blaming a victim for a horrendous crime committed against them in any other case such as murder or mugging would be ridiculous. This I believe helps foster misogyny which is slowly going away in America but is still unfortunately a part of American society that still makes it into mainstream news reporting and politics. I am not saying that ever person in America agrees with this rape culture or even a majority of Americans but their is a vocal minority that blames women for crimes of unquestionable horror on them because "they were asking for it". To add insult to injury the use of the word rape is often used interchangeable with exploitation thus making a slang word out of the word rape.This is what rape culture is in my connotation. Here are a variety of news articles and videos were women are being blamed for rape (between 19 seconds and 1 minute 10 seconds) (the rest is comedy) http://sandiegofreepress.org... These are just a few examples of rape culture in american that is frankly disturbing In your counter argument you must disagree with this evidence that rape culture is in Americas media and politics good luck to your counter argument.
Rape Culture in the United States Improperly blames Women for their Sexual Violation

Alright let's do this.Before I begin, let's go over a couple things.You have to prove (or give evidence that supports the idea) that rape culture exists in the first place - a handful of people being rude is not a valid representation of a society, or in your words, a "culture." Considering it intelligent to ensure your own safety instead of relying on others not to be dangerous is reasonable. You need to dispute this, as people who fall into this "rape culture" you believe in think this.I don't want to bring up too much, as you did say first round is acceptance. I'm just clarifying the rules.So I accept! Good luck!
God Loves You

A child says no to doing wrong because it knows it will be punished, this is healthy fear.......the kind God wants us to have toward Him. He loves us and He does not want to punish us but He will if it is the only way He can show He is good and He loves us and cares enough to correct us when we are wrong.Everybody has the same chance to be learn about God. Any person who honestly seeks God's mercy will find it if they seek Him with all of their hearts. God will reveal His Son Jesus Christ to anybody who wholeheartedly seeks salvation from God.Some, like babies and severely mentaally handicapped people, do not have reaoning power to seek God. They are always under God's mercy and will not be held accounable to where they have to ask for mercy when they are not capable of understanding. Anybody who is capable of understanding has the same chance to seek God's mercy. We are all guilty before God and noby has an exxuse for not finding God's mercy.
God Loves You

Thank you for precise questions.Of course no government is more powerful than God. He tolerates corrupt and oppressive governments for now, but He will not tolerate them for long.....it may seem long when life is hard for a person, but time is short and eternity is forever.Here in Psalm 2 God is showing Jesus will rule the world and end corrupt governments:I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me,Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings:be instructed, ye judges of the earth.11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry,and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.Blessed are all they that put their trust in him
God Loves You

"There are many oppressive governments in the world which make it difficult if not impossible for people to survive in some places of their counties." Are you suggesting that governments can sometimes be more powerful than God himself? If God loved us all equally then why would he make life harder for some people rather than for others? Finally, since "God loves everybody and wants to give everbody eternal life in heaven", then why such a big percentage of the world population dies before having any contact with Christianity? As you stated "He can't save us if we won't trust Him"; how can someone trust a god that he never even heard of? If the Christian God loved each human being equally, then he would give everyone the same chance to learn about Christianity.
God Loves You

Yes I beleive God loves every individual person the same way, individually. I believe He wants the best for everybody and He wants to fix everything for good for all. There are many oppressive governments in the world which make it difficult if not impossible for people to survive in some places of their counties. The problems in the world are not forever. God loves everybody and wants to give everbody eternal life in heaven where He can freely give them unlimited and unimaginably good blessings where He can enjoy them forever unhindered by anything that could hurt anybody. God loves everybody the same and wants to save everybody from death. Some people have an easier time in the world than others, some suffer terribly, but God loves all the same and all are under the same death penalty and all need to be saved from death. God loves us and wants to save us all. He can't save us if we won't trust Him. .
God Loves You

The Con postion for this debate is "God does not love me". "God is not there", or "there is no proof that God is there" are unacceptable arguments for this debate and will be automatic forfeiture. If you cannot argue that God does not love you without saying "there is no God" or "there is no proof of God", Please do not accetpt this challenge. If Con, in the debate or in the comments, says "you can't know God is there" or "God is not there" or "there is no proof of God" or any such denial or negative statement about the existence of God, Con agrees to forfeit the debate and Pro will not be required to supply any further arguments. Con may ask questions, but a rhetorical question that allows only for denial of God's existence is disqualiying and forfeits the debate. Con must argue how he knows God does not love him or her, and not argue that God is not there.
Communism

'Sorry I was gone, but communism will never work it has failed every time it has been used. Which proves it will never be truly successful. 'This is the most naive statement I have ever heard. Communism has by no means failed every time is has been used. On the contrary, communism (by modern standards) has never once been used. The USSR wasn't communist, it was a socialist state giving the false promise of communism down the road. China isn't communist, and they are only socialist in name. North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, the list goes on. All of these countries are NOT communist. If you read the definition that I provided, then you could have concluded that their were practicing various systems of Marxist-Leninism, but failed to get past the first stage of the system, that being a socialist state. State Atrophy never occurred, thereby never creating a classless, stateless, moneyless society, that being a communist society. Since i'm unimpressed by your final argument, I will go back to your opening argument. 'You may want to be a poet or a painter, but these jobs certainly don"t pay the bills"and"Communism"views them as unnecessary and ridiculous. All that matters is building a super-powerful nation"'This is possibly the most ignorant argument I have ever heard, one you copied of your source aswell. If anything, communism as described by Marx and Kropotkin is DESIGNED to help the writer, the painter, the poet and the playwright, the artist and the critic. Communism emphasizes that these people are having to take jobs that disinterest them, which is an astounding tragedy in this post-industrialist world. If anything, these people shouldn't have to get jobs that apply a trade that disinterests them. All in a melancholy effort to conquer bread. The writer shouldn't have to be reduced to the options of becoming a lawyer, businessman, etc. or having to sell his talent to manufacture sappy greeting cards and pathetic slogans. They should be free to use culture as the catalyst of their designs, without having to fear starvation and exploitation. Capitalism and fascism are the killers of culture, not communism.
Communism

2nd Round Argument:'These are things that communism does not have which makes it sucks.' 'The redistribution of land'In a communist society, there is no state to 'redistribute' the land. In fact, in a communist society, all land would be equally owned by all people of the Earth. Nothing like land would be privatized and then cut up and distributed to everyone. You haven't explained as to why this 'redistribution' would be helpful for communism.'Equalizing wealth through a heavy progressive or graduated income tax'Why should people be 'taxed' in a communist society when there is no such thing as money?'Abolishing all rights of inheritance'Define 'rights of inheritance'. I'm not quite sure as to what you mean.'Confiscating property from emigrants and rebels'If by property you mean personal property, then no. Nothing would even be 'confiscated', things like factories and farms (aka, things that produce for a collective) would be collectivized, not confiscated. Personal property (aka, things that have a personal/material use) would still be respected. I don't see why confiscating property would make communism better.'Factories and instruments of production should be owned by the State' Really? Having things owned by the state would make communism 'not suck'? So, by that logic, the USSR did 'not suck'? Maoist China did 'non suck'? Marxist-Leninism and it's counterparts don't work for the simple reason that factories and such are owned by the State, when in reality they should be owned by the workers. Having them owned by the state is no better than capitalism, since you will still have a boss who enslaves and exploits you for your labor.'All people are equally obliged to work'People are obliged to work in a communist society, it is in their best interests. If they don't work, and they are lazy, then others in the commune in which they live can refuse to give their service and knowledge to them. Therefore, by being lazy, you are only hurting yourself. 'All children should receive free education in public schools'I'm sorry to break it to you, but this is in communism. It is capitalism (at least, free-market capitalism) that promotes having all schools privatized, effectively cutting off education to the poor and needy, for the benefit of the rich.
Communism

"The average person, as George Carlin once observed, is not particularly good at anything. The perfect job for such a person is on the assembly line. But regardless of the governments under which we live, we all have different aspirations. Some people are perfectly happy sweeping floors, but most of us"justly"want more out of life. Not only money, but fame, glory, and a sense of accomplishment. All of these require at least some creative thought. You may want to be a poet or a painter, but these jobs certainly don"t pay the bills"and"Communism"views them as unnecessary and ridiculous. All that matters is building a super-powerful nation"and one of the first obstacles that must be removed is what Jefferson called "the pursuit of happiness." The most notorious example of forced collectivization is the land reform carried out by Soviets between 1928 and 1933. It was thought that collectivization would maximize the use and potential of the countryside for urban and industrial needs. Russian industry was just taking off, and enormous quantities of food would be required for the workers. The relative success of the free market economy is a real-world refutation of Marxist economics. The latter never has sufficient information on the market prices of commodities, and therefore cannot properly ration the distribution of a nation"s resources. The only reasonable criticism of the free market economy is the presence of monopolies, which can raise the prices of their products with little fear of reprisal. But monopolies are just like the central control a"Communist"government exercises on its whole economy; a true free market ensures that there be checks and balances on the price of goods and services.R32;R32;R32;R32; Masses of resisting landowners"many of them small-scale farmers who worked their own land"died at the hands of executioners. The state"s requisition of crops, livestock, and farmland was paid for by the farmers and by the lower class in general, some ten million of whom starved to death in five years.R32;R32; Exactly the same atrocity took place in Communist China, between 1958 and 1961. During this time, private farming was outlawed as it had been in Stalin"s Russia, and about 33 million people starved to death in possibly the single most destructive famine in human history. Several of these entries are related, and the absence of citizens" rights is at the heart of more than one. In keeping with the last entry, Marx advocated ten rules in his Communist Manifesto for the forced redistribution of all land and property for the good of the national community.R32;R32; This is theft, from the citizens" point of view. They are forced to join the new"Communist"government"whether they like it or not. This, of course, must be done with a "might is right" frame of mind: lots of men with guns show up and take everything you have "for the glory of the motherland," as the Soviets might have said". These are why I say communism is bad, and now I say I'm ready for your turn. Source: http://listverse.com... http://www.ask.com...
Communism

I accept the challenge.Opening Statement:To begin, I will define the term communism[1]:Communism: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.Thus, all forms of communism have this goal in mind, and are designed to achieve this goal.However, and even more basic definition of communism would be a classless, stateless, moneyless society, where private property, with the exception of personal property, is collectivized.Now, we must acknowledge that communism is split into two main camps, based on their implementation, those being:Engelian-Marxian/Indirect Communism: Creation of a socialist (socialist, not communist) state through revolution, this revolution eventually expanding across the globe. This state has usually been totalitarian (USSR, Cuba, DPRK) however it has the ability to be democratic. This state would eventually go through a period of atrophy to the point of nonexistence, when it reaches this point, communism has been achieved.Kropotkinian/Direct Communism: Kropotkin argued for a more direct theory of installment, simple mass revolution that would expand across the globe, then would directly overthrow and abolish government, creating a state of anarchy that would cause the people to organize horizontally, thereby achieving communist without the possibility of dictatorship.Now, Con has stated that I must provide evidence for why I support communism. I will assume that he means as to why I view communism as a legitimate and worthwhile socio-economic system.For evidence, I will show that a primitive form of the Kropotkinian system was use by hunter-gatherer societies[2], whereas more modern uses include Anarchist Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War[3], and The Freed Territory in Ukraine after WW1[4]. The Engelian-Marxian system has yet to be actually used in a pure sense. This is due to Lenin advocating for the idea of a vanguard party[5], which is a system ripe for exploitation by the power-hungry, such as Stalin. Although Lenin was one of the few who actually wanted to institute the idea of State Atrophy, most of the other Soviet Premiers simply wanted to maintain the power of the Communist Party's oligarchy.However, the Engelian-Marxian system could be used in a directly democratic fashion, wohich would be much more effective. With the absence of the vanguard party, and only the presence of the people, then a true dictatorship of the proletariat, as Marx defined it, could occur. The state would wither away since the people would eventually have less and less of a need for a state. Therefore leading into communism.However, I will make my main argument once my opponent has made theirs. To my opponent, good luck, and let's please keep this debate civil, and enjoyable.Sources:1- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2- http://en.wikipedia.org...3- http://en.wikipedia.org...4- http://en.wikipedia.org...5- http://en.wikipedia.org...