BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Redistribution of Wealth

Thank you for accepting! I'm looking forward to a great debate. In response to your question, I'm talking about this from a global perspective. After all, some of the most impoverished people in the world are living outside of the United States. I have already provided my points as to why I feel that the redistribution of wealth is justified, so I am just going to give a rebuttal to each of your contentions. Rebuttal to Contention 1 (Philanthropy) You argued that many of the richest people in the world already give away quite a bit of money to charity. I'm not going to try and deny this. However, these billionaire philanthropists only give away money in the millions. Bill Gates is an exception among billionaires, having actually donated $28 Billion to his charity foundation (1). Michael Bloomberg and Warren Buffet are also quite generous with their wealth. However, the majority of billionaires give away only tiny percentages of their total fortunes and call it a day, continuing to keep billions of dollars to themselves while the world suffers. Rebuttal to Contention 2 (Work Ethic) You argued that the rich worked hard to earn their money. I agree with this point. However, as I said, with just 1 billion dollars, you can comfortably spend $10,000 a day for 275 years. That still allows for roughly 4 generations of the billionaire's family to live indescribably luxurious lifestyles, and that isn't even counting the profit that the company would still be continuing to generate. In other words, just 1 billion dollars a plenty of a reward for all the hard work the billionaire has done. The rest of the money should be going towards global welfare, rather than getting stashed up in their bank accounts. Rebuttal to Contention 3 (Harm to the poor) Notice that I did not actually state what should be done with the money. I simply said that it should go towards global welfare. What would actually be done with all the hundreds of billions of dollars sounds like a topic of a separate debate. I personally wouldn't advocate handing out free money directly to the impoverished, for the reasons that you stated. However, there are many organizations who can put the money to good use without "giving them fish". Perhaps titling the debate "Redistribution of Wealth" was a bit misleading, as that generally implies giving money directly to the poor. But what I had more in mind was giving the money to organizations who can strategically "teach them how to fish". There are already some programs in place that do this through things like micro-loans (2) and free education (3), and they are able to quite a bit with just a couple million dollars. Imagine what they could do with funding in the billions. I'm looking forward to hearing your argument! SOURCES: (1) http://www.businessinsider.com... (2) http://www.thp.org... (3) http://web.worldbank.org...
Redistribution of Wealth

I think that it is okay to take wealth from the really, really rich and give it to the people who are actually in need of the money. And when I say "the really, really, rich", I'm talking about BILLIONAIRES. According to Forbes, there are currently 1332 people who have more than 1 billion dollars in personal savings (1), so there is lots of money to be made from this sort of wealth redistribution, and its benefit to humanity would be enormous. Think about it this way: if you had a billion dollars, and you spent $10,000 EVERY DAY, then it would still take you almost 275 YEARS to finally run out of money. Do the math yourself. You will find that it is true. There is NO excuse for one human being to have more than a billion dollars to themselves when there are so many impoverished people out there. I look forward to your argument. SOURCES: (1) http://www.forbes.com...
Redistribution of Wealth

Wow, re-reading my argument, it does sound somewhat like sarcasm, but no, I really meant every word of it. You have convinced me that greed unfortunately prevents us from taking measures that would truly allow for equality among human beings. You are correct in assuming that I am rather passionate on the subject, and I certainly hope that I can eventually actually do something to help the world become a better. I don't think I ever will understand why someone could possibly need so much money for themselves. I believe that if every "really, really, rich" person in the world could experience what it is like to be in poverty for a single day, they would do this voluntarily. Perhaps, as you say, time and knowledge really are the only things that can help.
Redistribution of Wealth

I'm unable to tell if your latest argument is sarcasm or genuine regret. A year ago - for that matter, eight months ago - I thought the same as you did. Even when I accepted this debate, I held a passionate distaste for those who possessed more money than they and their children would ever need and yet continued to accumulate more without assisting people who truly needed that money. But no matter how ethically or morally bankrupt I might consider them, I reluctantly acknowledge that they have rights as well. You're obviously very passionate on the subject, and I hope you retain that passion and go on to help make the world a better place. I really do. If more people thought that way, if more people practised philanthropy on their own (though I have demonstrated that some do, and I have demonstrated how US private aid is higher than US governmental aid), the world would certainly be much improved. The remedy, I believe, is more time and knowledge than force. My opponent concedes all my arguments and the debate.
Redistribution of Wealth

You know what? You're right. The foul, greedy, selfish, evil nature of human behavior would ensure that this redistribution would never happen. Now that I think about it, most billionaires WOULDN'T be satisfied with a mere billion dollars. They probably WOULD be greedy enough to want all the money to themselves rather than see it being used for the good of humanity. They probably WOULD be stubborn enough to "go on strike" if the government were to force them to use their money in a way that doesn't serve their own personal gain. I still believe that a redistribution SHOULD happen, since I don't give a crap about billionaires' rights when half the world has virtually no money, but you are right in saying that such a thing is not realistically possible. due to how twisted human nature is. I suppose this means I automatically lose the debate, since I got convinced by my opponents arguments.
Churches Are Slaughtering America's Children for not believing in christmas, Churches Will Be Bombed

Against the child's will? Honoring them and loving them is against your will because you may say that they are loving and graceful to them, but, surely you can't prove that love is not against the child's will. If you honor them, you traumatized them to feel like monsters out of some kind of horror movie, waiting to die. If it is against the child's will It is, it is love.
Churches Are Slaughtering America's Children for not believing in christmas, Churches Will Be Bombed

"How come you never said it, it's in your argument. Also, what about the funds of military?" You are completely idiotic, When I Said I never said that truth traumatized children, I meant it, not take it for granted and made a completely ignorant statement Also, the military would be funded by our government, about it, is that whenever every single missile that drops off, the military is funded millions of dollars so they can make a difference. It is clearly not in my argument, you refused to look at my argument, only assumed that "I said it" and you failed to refute my arguments
Churches Are Slaughtering America's Children for not believing in christmas, Churches Will Be Bombed

Every church in America should be bombed because according to the fact that 56,000,000 people die every year, 19% of children since 1998 have been senselessly slaughtered for not believing in Christmas. If it's about the lives and safety of America's children, Every church in America should be bombed. If 19% percent of children in America have been senselessly slaughtered, Every church in America should be bombed. If not believing in Christmas gets you slaughtered, Every church in America should be bombed and Christmas should be banned because Children should have a right to have his or her own beliefs and feelings than others. If you, a parent, pastor, priest, or a church-goer tells your child "You should be ashamed of yourself" you are a bad influence in their life, also you are against their will. If you don't allow your child to have his or her feelings or beliefs, you are against the child's will. The Transgender Lites song link:
is humanity a good thing

I don't think humanity is a good thing,we have caused more destruction environmentally than any other species and we are the only species who have exhibited shows of large scale destruction on a possibly planetary level,we have killed off many species,almost drained the world of its resources we fight and kill,and our capacity for good is heavily overshadowed by our increasing capacity for 'evil' ,our innovation is rarely helpful to anyone but us,and if you looked at it like this,humanity sounds like a plague something that needs to end for the world to thrive,as it is obviously not thriving with us here.
LeBron James, at this point in his career, is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

On the day he turns 29 years old, it"s pretty good to be LeBron James. He"s coming off two straight NBA championships, two straight Finals MVPs and two straight regular season MVPs. But how do his numbers stack up to the two players he"s most compared to, Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan? Pretty favorably. In only 10 more games than Bryant, he"s totaled 2,523 more points, 1,681 more rebounds, 1,930 more assists, 193 more steals and 191 more blocks. The comparisons between the cumulative numbers Jordan racked up through his 29th birthday and those of James and Bryant aren"t fair " Kobe and LeBron turned pro straight out of high school, at age 18. Jordan, meanwhile, played three seasons in college at the University of North Carolina and didn"t make his NBA debut until age 20. Jordan also played in just 18 games in his second season, missing most of the year with a broken foot. Bryant had never played in fewer than 65 games through his age-29 season, and James has never missed more than seven in one year.
LeBron James, at this point in his career, is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

I think there are a few important things to touch on here. First, I lazily didn"t capitalize the B in LeBron because I was tired and figured that spellcheck would suffice. After posting my argument, I realized that I must have pushed the wrong button in spellcheck" My bad. Here are the major points: The supporting cast. Both players have had great teams: Jordan with the Bulls and LeBron with the Heat. I don"t see how this relates to the main topic. I was using this as an argument against the next point: LeBron left Cleveland to chase a title in Miami. This is where my primary argument is. LeBron was able to get his titles in Cleveland, so instead of trying his hardest to win he opted for the easy route. This is not how pro sports should be. As you know, the Lakers have been terrible this year. No matter what you blame, the Lakers probably don"t have a chance at the finals for a while. Enter Kobe. Kobe desperately wants a sixth ring to compete with Jordan. He only needs one more. Kobe could have chosen to sign with OKC, the Pacers, or any other team that offers a real chance at a title. But Kobe chose the Lakers. He chose the difficult option. That is what real athletes do: overcome the odds. LeBron didn"t do this. The impact of this argument is that many of LeBron"s statistics come from him going to a stacked team. That is why I chose negative: I believe that Jordan has earned his stats while LeBron took the easy route to achieve his successes. As a quick note, most people think that Cleveland wasn"t a good enough team for LeBron to spend his career with. However, I think that if a team can make it to the finals (which is what Cleveland did) then that team can win a title. One more thing: LeBron potentially killed a franchise. I"m sure that you watch a lot of NBA so you know how bad Cleveland is. In fact, the city of Cleveland was polled and asked which team was the least favorite: They chose the Cavaliers. (Let"s remember that Cleveland also is home to he Browns. The fans chose the Browns over the Cavs!) It is likely that the Cavalier franchise might leave Cleveland and go to another city. Had LeBron chose to stay with Cleveland, I can assure you that there wouldn"t be talks of moving a franchise. These things will stay with LeBron forever. On the other hand, Jordan helped the Bulls become a world famous franchise. For all these reasons, I believe that at this point in his career, Jordan was better than LeBron is today.
LeBron James, at this point in his career, is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

First of all I would like to point out that LeBron has a capital B in his name. Since this season is still in progress im going to count LeBron as 28yrs of age. At age 28 LeBron has 4 League MVP's (and working on a fifth), 2 Finals MVP's, 2 NBA Championships, 9 All-Star appearances, and 4 USA Olympic Basketball appearances. Jordan at age 28: 2 League MVP's, 1 Finals MVP, 1 NBA Championship, 6 All-Star appearances, and only 1 USA Olympic Basketball appearances. Now to refute your argument of LeBron taking the easy way out. Jordan had Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman for most of his career in Chicago. Tell me that is not a better big three than what Miami has now. Second, it was time for LeBron to leave Cleveland because after 7 yrs he still couldn't win with the guys he had.
LeBron James, at this point in his career, is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

Hello! This debate really comes down to how you judge a great basketball player. Here's how I judge them, in importance of order: 1. Titles 2. Individual Stats 3. Team stats 4. Personal life 5. Legacy Lebron James excels at individual stats. He also is great with team stats. His personal life (as far as I know) is admirable. However, the number of titles that he has is an issue to me. But first, why are titles so important? Titles are important because titles bring big money. I often forget that the NBA is a business. Sure, it's entertaining, but the end goal of the NBA is to make money. Titles bring lots of money. They publicize the team, they sell jerseys and merchandise and they make a city famous for its sports. Just look at L.A., Chicago and Boston: These cities have experienced fame because their basketball teams are exceptional. In the end, I think we can both agree that titles are the most important thing for a team. Titles are also the most important thing to a player because having championship ring tells people that you worked hard for years to win the NBA finals. Now, coming back to this topic, it isn't the number of titles that Lebron has but how he got the titles that makes me negative in this debate. Lebron left Cleveland because he seemingly couldn't win a championship with the team. People said that he had "no supporting cast". This is half true. While the Cavaliers didn't have the best team, they were still able to go to the NBA finals. I'm sure that with more hard work, Lebron could have brought a title to cleveland. Instead, Lebron opted for the easy and somewhat cheesy route and decided to go to South Beach alongside a stacked team. Sure, Lebron has two titles and is bound to get more but he has those titles because he ditched Cleveland and took the easy route. What I'm saying is that his two titles weren't as hard earned as Kobe's or MJ's. That's my opinion. What Lebron didn't know is that he started a trend. As we know, Ray Allen wanted another title so he went to Miami to join Lebron and friends. Sure, he has another title but now all of Boston hates him. On the flip side, we both know that Kobe desperately wants another title but decided to stay with my Lakers and earn a championship the hard way. The last thing on my list is legacy. Lebron ditched Cleveland and abandoned the entire city. His example sent a chain reaction through the NBA. That reaction has already hit some players like Ray Allen. Lebron hasn't left a great legacy thus far in his career. He also took the easy route to get both of his titles. It is for those reasons that I say that at this point in his career, MJ was better than Lebron.
LeBron James, at this point in his career, is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

LeBron James now has two NBA titles over the first 10 years of his career, with four NBA Finals appearances over that span. Jordan won three championships in as many Finals appearances over that same span.James started his career right out of high school, so there was an inherent learning curve right out of the gate. The Cleveland Cavaliers missed the playoffs in James" first two pro seasons. He also didn"t have much talent around him at the time. The Cavs went 35-47 in his rookie season with Carlos Boozer and Ricky Davis playing major roles along with Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Drew Gooden and Jeff McInnis. Boozer and Davis left, and the latter three were the only others to average double figures in scoring in James" 2004-2005 season, when Cleveland managed to go 42-40. James finally reached the playoffs in his third season after the team added a new coach in Mike Brown and complementary players Larry Hughes, Flip Murray and Donyell Marshall.Jordan entered the NBA after his junior season at North Carolina. The Bulls made the playoffs in his rookie season at age 21 despite a 38-44 record and Orlando Woolridge and Quintin Dailey being the team"s second and third offensive options.The next season, the Bulls got a rookie bruiser named Charles Oakley and a breakout season from Sidney Green, but went 30-52 because Jordan played just 18 games due to a broken foot. This was somehow good enough to reach the playoffs anyway, but the team was quickly swept by the Celtics despite Jordan averaging nearly 44 points per game.A Michael Jordan team did not clear .500 in the regular season until his fourth season in the league, 1987-1988, when Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant came aboard and Doug Collins was coach..So it could be argued that James" early seasons were more successful right away despite being younger, especially after the Cavs reached the NBA Finals in just his fourth season. James was just 22 at the time. After being ousted from the playoffs by the Detroit Pistons "Bad Boys" in three straight seasons, Chicago finally got over the hump and reached the Finals in 1990-1991, Jordan"s seventh season.After seven seasons, things appeared pretty even. James and Jordan both had just one Finals appearance each, with LeBron losing to Boston twice and Orlando once.In his eighth and ninth seasons, Jordan won two more NBA titles and Finals MVPs before announcing his first retirement. His 10th year was the truncated 1994-1995 season, during which he announced a comeback in March.After his seventh season, James left Cleveland for Miami and has reached the Finals in all three years, winning twice. Through 10 years, Jordan holds a 3-2 edge in championships and Finals MVPs. James has a 4-3 edge in Finals appearances and regular-season MVPs.The numbers for these two all-time greats are through Jordan"s age-31 year and James" age-28 year.
California Prop 8 supreme court should repeal

My position Prop 8 is that it would fundamentally alter our state constitution's provisions of equality. If the Supreme Court were to allow Prop 8 to remain then it would mark a tragic day in history when seven people took away the rights of a group of people because of their sexual preference. In the case that the supreme court rules that it is constitutional then i would change my view to be that Prop 8 is purely based on religious views and not what is right.
California Prop 8 supreme court should repeal

While I am absolutely in favor of gay marriage and gay rights and was very disheartened when prop 8 passed, your argument is completely wrong. You cannot declare a constitutional amendment to the California constitution unconstitutional. By definition prop 8 is constitutional as it was added (by proposition) to the California constitution. In a few days or so there could well be a ruling on a legal matter as to whether the passing of Prop 8 was constitutional, but that argument could easily fail and by your opening statement is not addressed. That cited bit of text is the reason why gay marriage in California was struck down in the first place, but if you add it to the constitution it's constitutional... even if it's nothing more than simple minded bigotry.
California Prop 8 supreme court should repeal

I believe that California Proposition 8 should be repealed by the supreme court on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. My evidence is the following excerpt from the California State Constitution: "CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."
California Prop 8 supreme court should repeal

It does. It writes bigotry into the constitution. However, one part of the constitution isn't declared unconstitutional by another part. If an amendment is passed the new amendment either repeals or forces allowances of the old language. In this case Prop 8, partially nullifies the fundamental provisions of equality. I'm not saying that's a good thing or making judgments, rather I'm pointing out that it is what it is. Prop 8 is still constitutional by virtue of being in the constitution. The provisions of equality must make way for bigotry if passed later. The only thing which could nullify Prop 8 is if it violated the US Constitution or the proposition was passed in ways no allowed by the California constitution. The provisions of equality do neither. Further, at this time I would like to add another inherent objection to the topic. The supreme court of either the US or California does not repeal laws. That is done by the houses of the various bodies. Rather the courts strike down and declare laws unconstitutional. This isn't repealing. It's like saying you think the Congress should pardon inmates or the president should levy a few taxes. It simply isn't something that that branch of government does.