BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capital Punishment is wrong!!!

I'd like to preface this by saying that I don't personally have a strong opinion either way on the death penalty, but I'm willing to defend one side or the other for the sake of debate. You said: "Capitalism is wrong because we are hurting or killing the murderer who we accuse so harshly. Therefore we deserve to be killed ourselves." This depends on the assumption that killing someone as punishment for a crime is morally equivalent to killing someone for another reason. There is a difference between killing and murdering - murder is killing unjustly. Executing someone for their crimes is a just killing. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect society from dangerous individuals, and ensure that the public is safe from them. For crimes as heinous as first degree murder, there are two ways to do this: imprison the individual for life, or execute him or her. Either way, we are condemning someone to die. The only relevant moral difference between the two is whether or not they died at the hands of the state. How can it be morally wrong to execute someone for their crimes when it is morally permissible to confine that person until they die of natural causes? We are simply prolonging a life in order to avoid being the agents of death, but there really is no difference between a state execution and a death of natural causes within a prison after being sentenced to life without parole. The act of killing itself is not wrong - there are plenty of situations where it is morally permissible (self defense, the defense of others, war situations, etc.) I argue that state execution is an area where it is morally permissible to kill, because it is not relevantly different than allowing someone to die of natural causes in prison.
Capital Punishment is wrong!!!

You said: "But if we are to punish them through death, then shouldn't we AT LEAST make it equal to how they killed the victim." Ah but THAT would be equivalent to stooping to the level of the criminal. The point of execution isn't to "get even," it's to eliminate a threat to public safety. So the method of execution is irrelevant - we're not trying to give the criminal his or her just desserts, we're simply removing a dangerous individual from the population permanently in the interest of public safety. You said: "Also, what more can a killer do in jail to bea threat to society?" Again, you're correct that if we put a killer in jail for life that ALSO eliminates the threat posed to society. But your argument is that it's not just for us to execute those criminals. I'm saying that we can choose to do either one - it doesn't matter. We can choose to eliminate a threat to society by locking him or her up for life, or we can execute that person. They achieve the same result, so I'm arguing that they are morally equivalent, and that the death penalty is not impermissible, as you're arguing it is.
Capitalism as an economic system functions better than Socialism.

Poverty is a natural occuring phenomenom. there are over 7 billion people on the planet and over 300 million in the United states I just sent 3 links to 3 different articles documenting capitalism lifting millions out of poverty. people are always unequual in any society regardless of system. You just said government would have all power that makes the people in government all powerful.which rules and regulations are inherent in a capitalistic system that lock you into abject poverty?ideal communist society is not the same as a fairy tale land were we just inequity and scarcity because we feel like it.
Capitalism as an economic system functions better than Socialism.

Ha, ha. I like how you say poverty is a "NATURAL THING" and people who are in poverty are destined to be there, and rich people deserve everything they have. Hee hee hee. Capitalism does not eliminate poverty, because in a capitalist society one person will always have more than another person. This is undeniable. People in a capitalist society are always unequal. Why not completely abolish inequality? That seems better than keeping it around. I also like how you talk about those garbage "rags to riches" stories. those are capitalist propaganda. Once you're poor, you're stuck there, and stuck good. the rules and regulations that we have set up prevent any social mobility. In my new utopia, Apple would not have to worry about making 200 million new iphones, because they would not have to pay for the resources used to make those iphones. Remember, money is not a thing. And a good amount of jail time will prevent crime.
Capitalism as an economic system functions better than Socialism.

I am fine with that. and would agree with the comparison to sissies are all rich people Monsters? I would guess by the fact that you can read and write english fairly well that you are in the United states and by virtue of that fact you are in the top 1 percent of world's wealth distribution. If that is the case then aren't you a monster? This is why I don't like the monster arguement. There are good people and bad people that can exist in both systems. Barack Obama lived in the United states which I would argue is a good real world example of capitalism. (for the most part) He is consider a very nice guy by most standards and he said he was against evil greedy people. Does this mean Barack Obama is the spawn of Hell? I would consider him wealthy by most standards. Question, who is going to take the money from the rich and give it to the poor? how do we know they won't keep some for themselves? Even if you abolished currency how would you value goods? How would you make sure that no one is being evil by producing low quality goods that is being distributed by the government I would presume? Do you value life? or your own life for that matter? are you a bad rich person? should stalin kill you? I ask you all of these but recognize that you are nowhere near the boundaries for this debate. you have provided no logical reasoning for how the system functions well or benefits people other than saying poverty is bad and you want to end it. You made no comment on scarcity or how it effects a communist society. and you completely ignored the request for me not have to listen to you about evil people or governments.
Capitalism as an economic system functions better than Socialism.

Socialism is far better than capitalism. In fact, I like communism better than socialism. Socialism is communism for sissies. So, from now on, I will refer to the system as "Communism". Communism was invented by the greatest revolutionary genius of all time, Karl Marx. If Karl Marx was still alive today, I would be his biggest fan. I still am his biggest fan. He's a great guy. He was a nice, German Jewish guy, and he realized that rich people were monsters and they needed to go to hell. That's why he's very nice. I want to talk about why communism is good, then we can talk about other stuff. Communism is good because it takes money away from rich people and gives money to poor people. This makes a lot of sense. RICH people don't need money, and poor people do. In extreme communism, currency is abolished entirely, and the society functions on goods instead of money. This may be hard for an idiot mind to grasp, but easy for one with a high intellect to grasp. I like this system because rich people are the spawn of Hell, and poor people deserve things that they need. Communism rules! If you don't like communism, then you're a bad rich person. I also like Stalin. He's a nice guy to implement communism in Russia. Keep going.
Capitalism as an economic system functions better than Socialism.

Do your best to maintain focus on the logical reasoning for how each system functions. I know it will be tempting to talk about unfairness and unjust societies oppressing the working class and such but we are not here to debate your feelings about how people are treated. If you want to take a logical position of the negative externalities created by a working or oppressed class that is acceptable, I have no interest in hearing about evil corporations or the ruthless people of the national socialist party. Argue as close to the point of what the system is in an ideal world and in principle why the way it function produce a benefit and how that benefit is translated to people. I will ask, if the ideal world is attainable? Principles and logical progressions may require some real life examples and that's fine. I am not here to defend or argue that evil doesn't exist on either side because both sides have had their share of atrocities. let it begin: I think Capitalism functions most accurately from theory to reality and has been built over time through the barter and trade system. I think it is ultimately a unifying system as there can be many steps to a complicated process and a lot of people involved to the process which may benefit and are willing to trade their time and effort for their labor to receive benefit. I think this is the main reason why socialism fails. I think that at the individual level socialism makes the worker think why should I spend my time and effort to have the benefit removed and spread out to everyone. I do not think socialism addresses the issue of scarcity in a productive manner. I think the fundamental difference between socialism and Capitalism is one values people equally and one values production variably. I think each can be applied at different level to different degrees of success. And it is both of these points that make it such a challenging subject. Although both are economic systems it borders debating apple and oranges because of the different fundamental beliefs. If you disagree with my presupposition of eith system let me know how best you would describe it. I also think the in a larger sense capitalism is actually less rigid than socialism which allows it greater flexibility. It can be more strict in times that call for it, it can loosen the reigns if needed as well. I think socialism requires tight controls and creates a torrid rigid system that attempts to maintain controls for nature which is inherently chaotic.
Government Should not Issue Marriage Licenses or Regulate Marriage in any way

Throughout history governments have been involved in the contract of marriage. In the early 1200s marriage was a matter for the church to regulate and starting in the 16th century European governments became involved.(1) Original concepts of marriage regulation revolved around health reasons and the prevention of interracial marriages. Other reasons for government marriages include, the need to distribute or maintain and possibly regulate government benefits. In this forum, I intend to show that government regulation of marriage is unnecessary and that the reasons for such are antiquated or can be reorganized. I will also argue that marriage should not be controlled by government, as it places undue limits on freedom of contract, freedom of association, and freedom of religious practice. I would expect my opponent would not disagree that freedom of contract, association, and religion are good things but if so, we can discuss that. Definitions: Marriage: by marriage I mean socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. Freedom of association: The freedom of a person or group of people to choose whom one wishes to converse, or associate with in business or personal relationships. Freedom of religion: The right of a person or group of people to practice any type of religious practice that they choose without violating the non-aggression principle. (1) http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org...
RH Bill

I assume by the RH bill you mean the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health act of 2012 in the Philippines, as that was the first thing that came up in my Google search, as you failed to make it clear what you meant. You are taking the con side and since you are making the claim, you must provide the burden of proof. Since I am not 100% sure what bill you mean, I shall wait for round 2 to make any arguments.
Circumstances make the man

= Disambiguation = The resolution will refer to the value placed on a person. It is not a discussion of gender. = First round = This round is acceptance and clarity only. If you the as the contender decide to accept this debate, you may only post the phrase 'I Accept.' in the your first round. Anything else will constitute a full forfeiture of all 7 points of the debate. If there is a need for clarity, is should be inquired about in the comments prior to accepting the debate. = Rules = 1. This will be a public debate. The emphasis will be one clear communication and effective on-case arguments. There should be no discussion of framework, or use of debate jargon in the round. 2. The BOP will be balanced between the Pro and the Con. Neither side will maintain presumption so if at the end you believe the debate to be a tie no vote should be cast. 3. No semantics! = Definitions = [1]Circumstance: a condition that accompanies or influences some event or activity [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
I'm the only real person on earth. everyone else is just a robot.

If this isn't a joke.....I cannot debate you until you show me your reasoning on why we are robots. Answer these questions so I can get a better understanding of this. 1)What made you think we were robots? 2)Who is the creator of the robots? 3)What does it matter if we are robots? 4)How can we be sure that YOU aren't the robot? 5)Do you have any proof of us being robots? 6)Are you a scientologist? 7)What would you do if we were robots?
I'm the only real person on earth. everyone else is just a robot.

Interesting decision, you choose to not give me a shred of evidence that I am a robot, you tell me to give you proof. Why would you start the debate then. Alright, here are some FACTS for you to enjoy. Un-number for your satisfaction. *You are currently in another debate about gun control where you refer to the population as citizens not robots. *Electric currents kill people, while robots should need to charge from these. *People enjoy water, while it should kill robots. *When do robots charge then? *Who are your parents then? Are they robots? Where did you come from then? *Why would anyone have a motive to make over 8 billion robots? *People have surgery performed on them, showing no bolts. *People are 70-80% water. *People have organs. It is even possible to say that everyone is an organed robot, no? Organed robots that reproduce and have an all-knowing force who made them? Is that your point? For me to show how god exists? He made us all? I don't think so, but that's what I came to.
I'm the only real person on earth. everyone else is just a robot.

Obviously you are one of those second-rate robots whose reading software isn't up to date. Look at the einstein quote. It said "ALMOST all people", not all people. How about you prove to me that the majority of people aren't robots? I have a right to this opinion, and if you cant provide good evidence as to why everyone except me aren't robots, then I will continue to believe that you are a robot.
Minecraft is better than Fortnite

Minecraft is better than Fortnite because with Minecraft there's options to disable violence, Such as peaceful mode, Or on a server or multiplayer p-v-e instead of p-v-p. Also it has more building options than in Fortnite, And there is different biomes and landscape every new game. There's mining, And crafting, And trying to SURVIVE, Instead of running around trying to MURDER your friends and opponents. And with Minecraft there is more than just battle modes. All of the mini-games are battle modes, But there are servers and mods for build modes, And you can play creative, Survival, And adventure. Change my mind.
frozen vs. family guy

Precisely, that is also one of the reasons why it is actually uninteresting. The flow of the story is pretty much predictable. The people are not being challenged to delve deeper and explore their literary analysis. And by that, it may possibly result to people's weak ability to perceive things in their surroundings. In spite of the beauty of its animations and special effects, Frozen is nothing but a piece of trite in terms of plotting. Thank you.
frozen vs. family guy

Of course, I presume that family guy has a plot too or else it won't be able to appeal to the civic taste. It could be that its plot is presented in a trickier form and that's what makes it interesting. Every thing about it pretty much requires analysis to be able to get the humor behind. On the other hand, what makes Frozen uninteresting is basically its plot- too shallow and well, common to a point that it pissed other people off especially matured once. Thank you.
frozen vs. family guy

I don't really get what you are trying to debate. It could be either you want to know which of the two is the best or you want to debate whether the two movies are comparable or not. Either way, I'm going to try to tackle both sides. To address the former, I'm into family guy because it's full of humor. On the other hand, I don't think these two should be compared. After all, they're not even under the same genre and family guy is a bit mature and rated X.
Nepotism Can Often Be Good

Nepotism is defined as favoring someone who is part of your family or is your friend, especially by giving them a job. So, how can Nepotism be good? Well, what if you give a job to someone who you know and you know them to be qualified? I mean, if you know them personally, you know their qualifications. You know whether or not they'd be up to a task. In contrast, if a stranger walks in, hands you a resume, and asks for a job, you still don't know whether this guy would be up to whatever job you're offering. So as you can see, sometimes Nepotism can be a good thing.
Should The US Keep Net Neutrality

Please excuse the shortness of the following paragraph - we're in the middle of a heatwave, and I feel the Heat Exhaustion kicking in. Point One - The reason I brought up the price of water is that it is unreasonable to charge a consumer for how they use an item or service, though charging for the service or item is completely reasonable. Besides, in countries like Portugal, where Net Neutrality is nonexistent, the fast lane is actually speeds that would be considered standard. This would just be a method for corporations to make money for cutting corners. You want faster internet? Switch to a provider who has faster service, or fiber optics. Point Two- the problem with Miller's argument is that he is looking at the benefit to large corporations. If someone has a startup, they will have to beg for the ISP to notice and support their service. Besides, there are already many ways to speed up your site. Use a more efficient code, take out unnecessary assets, don't track consumer's cookies. Make it so the code can compile faster, instead of punishing the consumer. Point Three - Corporations don't always know what is and isn't a scam, or in many areas, ISPs have a complete monopoly on the area. If you live in a small town where you only have AT&T, and AT&T is being anti-free speech, blocking whatever sites don't align with their agenda, what are you going to do? Switch providers? No chance. This isn't about what may happen, it's about making it so it can't happen nonetheless. Besides, the free market tends to suck at deciding who stays afloat. We all hate cable companies, we all hate phone companies (especially Comcast in the states, Bell where I'm from), we all hate some corporation that continues to sell a garbage product, but buy it because it's necessary. Using Bell as an example, they're one of Canada's most hated companies - but they continue to make millions of dollars. That's because they offer a service that is pertinent to live in the 21st Century. If you, for example, hated GMOs (Monsanto style GMOs), but all food was GMOs, would you starve, or just eat it so you could live? Thank you.
Should The US Keep Net Neutrality

So you make some really interesting points. I'm just gonna refute what you said in each paragraph separately. Paragraph #1: So you used an example of, "paying more for water." But here is the thing. It really isn't that. A common misconception is that the price of basic internet will be raised. No. Everyone will have internet at the same price as it was during Net Neutrality, but you can pay for faster internet if you want it, similar to if you want to upgrade your hotel room. You can upgrade if you have the money, but if you don't have the money, it doesn't mean that you don't have a good hotel room. You still do! So it beneficial to people who have a few extra dollars. Paragraph #2: So you said that it would be hard to make businesses it completely backwards. As I said in my second point, "Net Neutrality is a Red Herring that Hurts Innovation," FCC plan (pg 249.): businesses need legal/financial freedom in order to spur innovation and creativity. By encouraging network investment, consumers benefit. According to Economic Analyst Ainsley Miller, "a world w/out NN would actually provide better service b/c companies would have more leeway to create faster content for everyone." Paragraph #3 and 4: You were talking about a violation of free speech, but according to Fox News: no internet provider wants to be known for "slow service," or being, "anti-free speech," so the consumer has nothing 2 worry about. So, here is what I just said hopefully simplified. If the Internet Service Provider slows down certain websites, the ISPs will actually lose money because they don't want to be thought of as 'anti-free speech.' And if they are, then people will move to a new ISP. So it is actually in the best interest of the ISPs to not slow down content. Instead, they can slow down bad things, like scams, hackers, and things that people don't want to see online. They won't push their personal agenda because then they will lose money, something that they don't want to do. Thank you!
Should The US Keep Net Neutrality

Thank you for your acceptance. Playing Devil's Advocate isn't quite something I'm ready to do yet, so I applaud you. The problem with repealing Net Neutrality is that the internet is now an important utility for many people in industrialized nations, including the US. Repealing this would be like if you were charged different rates on what you use your water for. Your pipe to the internet shouldn't be watered down by corporation who historically, have ripped people off again and again. If you're a start up business, like an e-commerce makeup company, or a social media platform, crippling Net Neutrality cripples your ability to grow as a business. You'll be locked behind a pay wall, at the mercy of larger corporations. Your competition is either stamped out along with you, or unbeatable. As a business owner, is that what you want? No, of course not. Then there's repression of freedom of speech. At the snap of their fingers, depending on your telecom company's CEO, your news sites, blogs, or any high profile political entities could be locked - simply for being too liberal, or too conservative. As a liberal, would you want to be restricted to the dumpster fire that is Fox News? No, you want what you feel is the most reliable source at your disposal. Then there's the nickeling and dimeing of consumers. Imagine this: you're watching some YouTube, and you get this message. "Your free trial of YouTube has ended. Upgrade to our premium plan at [insane price] per month! Have a nice day!" Who the hell wants to pay extra for something they're already paying for? Nobody, they already get more than enough money to keep the servers 100% open with the lowest level plan! I get that you need to make a profit, but part of that is having consumers like you. If you throttle websites, expect yourself to be despised. That's the opposite of what you want as a company.