BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
About Trump and Canada

Canada is highly unlikely to make any kind of stance that will actually effect America as a result of the election of Donald Trump? If so. What exactly is Canada going to do? That the US produces a large majority of its own oil and has untapped oil fields? Do you deny that if the US were to stop the flow of oil from Canada they would ramp up their own oil production capacity and therefore create jobs in the US? Is Canada a member of NATO? Do you agree that the purpose of NATO is the mutual defense of member nations? Do you agree that if a NATO nation is attacked that all members of NATO, having signed an agreement to do so, should be responsible for the defense of the country in danger?
Socialism is a viable solution to the failure of US social programs.

It should be of no surprise that the United States is ideology opposed to Socialism, and has taken measures to ensure its alienation. The existence of free-market capitalism rests upon this fact. However, this is not the current dispute. The implications of this dismissal, however, is where I find myself stranded. In the United States the worst consequence of free-market capitalism and its associated "personal responsibility" philosophy is the lack of social programs available to those who are structurally disadvantaged my the system itself. Under a socialist system, and let me remind you that most of Western Europe has implemented very successful DEMOCRATIC socialist governments, those who find themselves on the economic margins of society can still have access to basic functions of modern society (such as education and health care). We have seen the "red scare" attitude time and time again. Most recently it is in the conservative assault on universal health care. Despite the fact that the free market is entirely inadequate for insurance, as has been empirically shown, we see Republican politicians equate the faux-universal proposals of the Democrats with socialized medicine and dismissing them. We even have George Bush vetoing the S-CHIP bill twice for this reason. By simply invoking the term "socialism" itself, the Right has successfully alienated any chance for universal care. My grievance lies in this fact. In specific regards to social programs, from your point of view, yet-to-be-determined opponent, why is socialism NOT the answer to the the current failed state of American social programs? In other words, why should we stick with the private sector when it has routinely failed us in the past? I am anxious to see where this takes us.
Socialism is a viable solution to the failure of US social programs.

Because there was no argument made against my own, I will limit my closing comments to the following: Socialism is the only way to prevent the private sector's endless pursuit of capital accumulation from infringing upon the viability of social programs. Given the fact that the corporation cares only about profit, it is illogical to allow it to make decisions regarding welfare, health care, education, etc. because it looks only towards profit, rather than towards the well-being of the individual. I look forward to my opponent's response to my previous two arguments.
Socialism is a viable solution to the failure of US social programs.

A sort of democratic socialism, the difference lying in the philosophically different attitude towards social programs, would work just fine. In fact, it would work better than our current system. Given it would require a broad acceptance of the fact that simply working hard and exhibiting "personal responsibility" (by far my favorite phrase of the American political arena) DOES NOT always result in positive results. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the welfare reforms provide a perfect example of this. The ethnographic data shows single mothers, for example, who WANT to work, yet are forced to stay home because of a lack of access to child care during the fluctuating hours of their service job. A more socialist philosophy would work here. Once there was an acknowledgment of the structural obstacles the poor and minorities face, and society was willing to address to problems, socialism would work. A more comprehensive welfare would help reduce poverty, without question. You see, it is not just the case that socialism would work for our problems, it is also the case that it is the best solution to them. You spoke of competition in your first argument, stating that it is the spirit which keeps the US on top. However, if you compare American institutions with those of the socialist Western European countries, the US lags behind every one of them (except, as you point out, upper-level education, which will be discussed in a minute). The power of competition is a great fallacy within capitalism. In the global arena, competition no longer drives economic prosperity. The corporation has grown too large, the world too interconnected. And given "agreements" such as the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., the transnational corporation is given access to new markets for the fact that it has the most amount of money. The "opening up" of markets does not provide equal access, as the capitalist suggests, but instead the opportunity for the wealthy to outsource in search of higher profits. There is no competition between the developed world and the underdeveloped world, just the exploitation of the latter. In terms of college education, the top universities you mentioned receive funding directly from the state. You may have some sort of a case if they were exclusively privately funded (following the neoliberal idea of school vouchers). However, these are state-funded institutions which actually make a case for socialism rather than one against it, in my opinion. A tiered system of education is not negative to the socialist. However, the lack of access to it is. The fact is, globalization has changed world politics. The US is no longer economically dominant (e.g. the Euro is roughly $1.40). A socialist philosophy would work for the US as it would no longer marginalize MOST of its people--those who the system feels cannot or are somehow unwilling to work. Through a philosophy informing us that the rich do not deserve access to services any more than the minority born into a ghetto, wealth redistribution would work wonders for this country.
Socialism is a viable solution to the failure of US social programs.

Although Socialism seems like a very appealing alternative it wouldn't work, with the health care system as the only exception. America's GDP is just barely over thirteen trillion dollars. Our closest competator Japan's GDP is four trillion. That is possible only because America's market is so free. Competition just thrives in it. It produces better technology and better schools. It is a given in the united states that college is expensive. A benifit from this is that the US has seven of the top ten universities. How do you think the US could remain econoically and educationally domminant in a socalized system? What programs would your new system take over, and how would it be paid for?
A Ba'athist State is Superior to a Islamic Sharia Theocracy

AS STATED IN THE RULES, FORFEITS (INCLUDING HALF-FFs) WILL LEAD TO A 7-POINT CONCESSION. SINCE I AM A NICE MAN, I WILL GIVE THE OPPONENT UP TO ROUND 4 TO PRESENT HIS POINTS. UNTIL THEN, THIS ROUND WILL BE BA'ATHIST PROPAGANDA TO THE MAX. WE WILL GIVE OUR BLOOD TO YOU Al-ASSAD!Guardians of the homeland, upon you be peace,[our] proud spirits refuse to be humiliated.The den of Arabism is a sacred sanctuary,and the throne of the suns is a preserve that will not be subjugated.The quarters of Syria are towers in height,which are in dialogue with the zenith of the skies.A land resplendent with brilliant suns,becoming another sky or almost a sky. Let the enemies of the Ba'ath come, one by one. We are ready! Let who he fights the Ba'ath face the guns of Justice!
A Ba'athist State is Superior to a Islamic Sharia Theocracy

Welcome, everyone, to this debate!By accepting this debate, you accept that the following terms and the following rules. General Rules:1. No profanity, unless you're insulting anarchism.2. Absolutely NO FORFEITS. Forfeits WILL lead to a 7-point concession3. Unfortunately, I'm up for abit of a challenge on this one so this debate is open for anyone who is rated with a higher elo than me.4. No Ad Hominems. I beg of you!5. This debate is currently IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT. Please do not accept it until I march home triumphantly from Singapore. This debate is now OPEN!Ba'athism:Ba'athism is a Secular Arab Nationalist Ideology that promotes the creation of a "United Arab Republic" via "socialism, liberty and unity"Sharia:Sharia law is defined as a moral code of the Islamic Religion; a Sharia State is a nationwide implementing of this moral code; Sharia in this case is defined as something implemented Iran or Afghanistan.Superior:Better than, preferable toDebate DetailsBoP will be shared.BoP of Pro: The Ba'athist state is superior to the Sharia TheocracyBop of Con: The Ba'athisst state is inferior to the Sharia Theocracy10,000 character limit72 hours to argueOpen voting for people with elo score of more than 1,500. Voting period goes on for 10 days.7 pointsDebate Format:Rnd 1. Affirmative (THIS ROUND): IntroRnd 1. Negative: AcceptanceRnd 2. Affirmative: Debate Arguments (No Rebuttals)Rnd 2. Negative: Debate Arguments (No Rebuttals)Rnd 3. Affirmative: Rebuttals+New ArgumentsRnd 3. Negative: RebuttalsRnd. 4. Affirmative: Rebuttals and Counter RebuttalsRnd. 4. Negative: Rebuttals and Counter RebuttalsRnd. 5. Affirmative: Rebuttals and ConclusionRnd. 5. Negative: will state "No round as consented" "Arab youth, raise and march to fight your enemies,Raise your voice: "Long live the Arab Ba'ath!" Good luck and have fun!
Social Networking sites are a boon

Social Networking sites are boon as I know from100% people in world 85% of people uses social networking sits It may affect to many people . CHILDREN ARE USING MORE THAN ADULT As we know childrens having more interest in this type of work.They are using more social networking account and some are also below 18 years some people talk in bad language also,about sex f they listen this there mind goes to the bad things. It is affected also by skin diseases,hacking,blackmailing etc
Belief/Faith as a concept, poses a fatal flaw to veracity of Christianity

Wow. You are so off base I don"t think this is worth my time anymore so I"ll make this quick. Basically, you just said the only reason slaves didn"t kill themselves was because of belief in God and that got them through all the atrocities they faced. This is way off base from the premise of this debate. This gibberish does nothing to prove that their belief was a choice. Your argument can be reduced to: "they chose to". Like I said, I chose Christianity because it"s the religion I grew up in. I have not defended any other religion or practice. But Christianity is based off belief so it naturally makes sense that it"s the one I"d debate about anyway. You say that if you didn"t believe in God you"d be basically an ahole in every single way. I doubt this is true, but if so, the only reason you are not an ahole is that you are following God as a means to a reward only. You would be nothing but a fraud. Why don"t all atheists behave in these ways if you are supposing that anyone not religious behaves in a similar fashion? This is ignorance at its finest. I"m done with this debate. I will find someone else to have an intellectual discussion with because your just throwing garbage around and displaying your foolishness.
Belief/Faith as a concept, poses a fatal flaw to veracity of Christianity

we have a choice to follow God and we have a choice to follow the prince of principality. There is no gray. We have a choice to accept to accept God based on his track record. An individual can be happy in a chaotic environment. Happiness is when a person is content with the simplicity of life. You mention external happiness(school and a job) Happiness is internal. There have been alt of Millionaires who have taken their lives because the external happiness could not fill their hearts and souls with purpose and joy. Christianity is based on choice. Adam had a choice to eat the apple that God forbid him to eat. We have a choice to pray to God and ask for forgiveness. We believe Jesus 1st and Christianity(religion) 2nd. I have seen and heard stories of ex drug users and atheist stricken with cancer who found Jesus without even looking for his presence, and they were humbled, left in awe by the presence of God. The problem I have with you argument is that you're approaching this matter with man made intelligence and totally disregarding the element of wisdom needed to understand Christianity. Love is the symbol of Christianity god sending his son down to earth to die for our sins the principles of Christianity are practiced and copied by other religions faith and belief are not concepts, they're attributes needed to follow God. This religion does not promote vanity or selfishness. THIS RELIGION PROMOTES LOVING PEOPLE WHO HATE YOU, this religion transforms non believers into disciples. Paul in the bible had no belief in God and he killed Christians, but God Changed his name and brought light in his dark world and made him a prophet he was against God and God used him to spread the gospel.
Belief/Faith as a concept, poses a fatal flaw to veracity of Christianity

Christianity's biggest weak point for me lays in the fact that it assumes we can make a choice to believe in and have faith in God. But I contend that belief is not a choice: it is a result. We can only take action to reach such a result, but that result is not guaranteed. Perhaps I can clarify what I mean by pointing out another example of a result we see in our experiences. Happiness, is a good example. Despite what we might think, we cannot just decide to be happy. We can only take some action to achieve it as a result. One such action might be working hard in school to get a good job we love, etc. By doing this action, we may achieve happiness, but it"s not until we take action that we get it as a result. It"s important to note that doing this action doesn"t guarantee the desired result. We might work hard in school, get a good degree, and find a terrible economy that prevents us from getting that job and thus fail to be fulfilled with happiness. Belief works in the same way. We cannot simply decide to believe in something, we can only take action with the intent on reaching belief. The result is not a choice. The result is also not a guarantee. Therein lies the problem. In order for Christianity to have any possible basis, we must all have the ability to believe in it. And quite frankly not everyone has this ability. The only way to actually attain belief is to look at the evidence (take action) and hope that there"s enough to convince you enough to at least have faith. Remember, we're only talking about faith so PROOF is not required, but evidence is. For the most part, this consists of the Bible, scholarly research and interpretations from religious leaders. But this evidence must also be weighed with evidence from the null that goes against the credibility of Christianity (other religion lineages, contrary scientific evidence, etc.). For me, I've tried intellectually finding enough evidence to force my mind to cross into belief but have been convinced of the null in the process. I cannot accept the evidence as convincing enough to facilitate the desired result of obtaining belief. If God were real, he would not set this up as a possibility because everyone is said to have the opportunity to follow God. This poses a problem that is fundamentally damning to Christianity"s veracity. This is why belief/faith as a concept, poses a fatal flaw to veracity of Christianity.
Belief/Faith as a concept, poses a fatal flaw to veracity of Christianity

It's really hard to respond to you when you shoot off a bunch of irrelevant things. I think basically where we are is that you claim belief is a choice because of your experiences. I countered with the fact that a much more reasonable explanation for these "miracles" is that it's just luck. With 7 billion people in the world it is statistically a given that freak near death experiences are going to happen. There will be a fair amount of those that die or get lucky in accidents, etc. But at the end of the day, as you said, you still believe in God because you think it is a choice. If this is so, then you would have the CHOICE to DECIDE not to believe. But you dodged my question related to this, so I"ll ask again. Can you, yourself, choose to not believe in God. Do it for five minutes if you can. Two possible things will happen here. One: you say yes and you can make the choice to not believe God exists. In this case, you didn't really believe at all and are just fooling yourself. Here's an example that parallels this situation. Most everyone has someone that they trust greatly in their life. A parent, a friend, whatever. They have faith in that person that they will do the right thing and keep your best interest in mind. Think about who that would be for you and imagine being in a situation where you needed their help. Try to make a conscious decision to not believe they will help you out. IF you are able to do this, then it shows that this supposed BELIEF was really nothing more than a HOPE. Two: You say no, you can't make the choice to not belief in God. This is because you have taken the evidence and that evidence has convinced you that God is more likely to exist than not exist - notice I'm not being one of those annoying atheists requiring the unattainable proof. In this case, it proves that belief is not a choice, but a result. It appears to me you would fall in this category based on your experiences which are unconvincing to me, but that doesn't matter for you because they are able to convince you. In this case, my point is made. (Side note not directly related to the argument at hand: If God is truly real and divine, he would not provide evidence with the ability to literally disallow others to believe in him no matter how hard they try. ) You see Con, you are only thinking of yourself in the grand scheme of things. This is a big world. To think that God exists on the sole basis of YOUR experiences points out a selfishness that is truly perplexing to me. I can't picture a reality where good people go to hell because they never heard of Jesus and people like you go to heaven who blatantly admit that the only reason they don't steal, lie and commit atrocities is because they don't want to go to hell. How virtuous of you. .. You have done nothing but explain that you do believe but have said nothing to convince that belief is a UNIVERSAL choice as this debate was about. I hope you can think critically about the points I'm making.
The elderly need an Age of Consent for sexual activity

The fool: -yeah many things are possible. Next;) -identical,similar is synonymous with the ignorance of difference .. good luck with that. Therefore, you cannot argue for the absence of an Age of Consent for one particular group. I already did because I pointed out the difference loss of integrity in the dismissal of freedoms to make such decision. Were children have never had them to be taken away. That is a big significant difference. These studies blow: Here is a riddle for you. If a 70 your old man has sex with a 14 year or less(I just don’t want to be murdered for thought experiments... We may think it wrong or gross or may illegal or unrighteous. But it still doesn’t follow that there is Harm. I don’t think it would get past undemonstratively metaphorical or spiritual harm. That no-one can know about. Obviously aside birth control and std’s etc. The greatest harm would be society telling the girl that she has been harmed and act alarmed like some REAL existing evil has happened, or that she did something bad. That is, is it the freak out of others that hurts her, family’s society, don’t think there is evidence to show some non-self-fulfilling prophecy of none forced sex. My prediction is if something did happens I think the best way to not cause pain would be to ease in and help prevention in the future. But not treat is an evil and natural wrong and this would prevent the suffering. Because I don’t think a sexual act in itself has inherent evil, which doesn’t’ depend on some nonexistent entity. I don’t think animals that get jumped in the forest have permanent life traumas. That is without the social frame work from which we derive its wrongness. I have a hard time believing it would be recognized. Of course we would have to delete negative relation to such think when they grow up as well. The fool; dude I don't even care about the vote., I know what and arguement is dead.. and this is dead. you were never able to refute the argument of the first section secondly to say we can't argue some thing is just like say that you can't be right.. lala .. that thats a great argumentanyways it and appeal to ingorance (to argue in favour for something by the ground that we dont' know what there experencing. its a hard sell to say that such an older person would get harmfull brain damage by being having a younger woman pleasure themthis is TKO>..
The elderly need an Age of Consent for sexual activity

It is possible for relationships involving the elderly to have power-dynamics that are virtually identical with relationships involving children. This is evident in the physical and psychological power imbalance these two groups share when paired with young and middle-aged adults. Therefore, you cannot argue for the absence of an Age of Consent for one particular group. If studies show harm in one group as a result of sexual activity, then because of the similarities, such harm is likely to occur in the other group under similar circumstances.To illustrate, many studies have documented child sexual abuse, and determined that it usually causes permanent damage to the brain. Study participants are typically selected irrespective of whether they were the victim of sexual assault or a defacto participant in sexual activity. This is logical, because the definition of child sexual abuse is a legal construction originating from the political paradigm. Such constructions are permitted to set a precedent for scientific studies, because lawmakers know what is best for society.Consequently, the principle behind this precedent should be applied in equal regard to the elderly. It is likely that if future studies documentedï¿½'elderly sexual abuse', without differentiating between coercion and defacto consent, the resulting bottleneck effects would produce the conclusion that elderly sexual abuse usually caused permanent damage to the brain. Therefore, it is clear that an Age of Consent is necessary to protect the majority of elderly people from permanent brain damage. No argument can attempt to distinguish the typical experience of either group, since experience is the product of individual subjectivity. For example, it is possible that the essential characteristics of an elderly person's perception is the same as a minor's perception, and vice versa. Scientific studies, on the other hand, objectively measure symptoms of harm derived from this experience.