BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Free Market

By assuming this planet of Nova is one, single "superstate," we assume there are no national borders. As such, it would be no different if national borders WERE recognized, but that there was absolute free trade between nations, free trade being a cornerstone of the free market. This was precisely my point in making Nova a single country. Now, it is indeed a fact that capitalism depends upon cheap markets, but two things need to be kept in mind: (1) "cheap markets" is not limited to exploitation of human individuals, nor does it exclude that which is domestic, and (2) the free market's dependence on cheap markets is precisely why the system works so well and drives down prices. Forgive me for distracting away from my hypothetical example of the planet of Nova, but let's examine how capitalism arose in the real world. About two hundred years ago, before the rise of Capitalism, an individual's status was fixed from the beginning to the end of his or her life. If he was born poor, he died poor, and that was just it. However, as the population of poor grew in the countryside of England, there was really nothing for them to do. So they began making products and producing services that were affordable to more than just those within the aristocracy. This, meaning the exploitation of "cheap markets," is how the free market began, and its a system that has brought every developed country in the world to the standard of living it has today. (Mises, Ludwig von. Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow. Auburn, AL: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1979. 1-3. Print.) The same thing is happening currently in countries like India, as well as China, where the private sectors are being allowed to flourish. The U.S. does employ many Asian countries to produce its goods, but this is precisely due to the lack of the free market to even EXIST. The "cheap markets" being used in these Asian countries could easily be found domestically were prices not driven so high by taxes, minimum wage laws, and regulation, all three of which are not found in these Asian countries to the extent that they are at home. A constitutional republic, if set up correctly, is the system that guarantees the protection of private property rights far better than any other, and property is of course another cornerstone of the free market system. A nation with a purely democratic government run by majority rule is not a good idea. In pure democracy, the individual is disregarded for the "greater good of the greater number," where 51% imposes tyranny over 49% of the population. An example would be if the majority voted to have all people over the age of 65 to be put to sleep because they were considered to much of a burden. These sorts of systems don't last long anyway, since demagogues can easily whip up the passions of a mob. As for dictatorships, a capitalist system would only work as long as the dictator recognized property rights. Putting that much trust in anyone is very risky.
The Free Market

Fair enough. I thank the Pro for expediency and thoughtfulness. I'd like to frame the majority of my case around two ideas: that Capitalism depends upon cheap markets and, therefore, cannot survive under a global superstate and that the combination of a free market and a republic leads, inexorably, to corruption. 1. Capitalism cannot survive under a global superstate. According the the philosophers Karl Marx and Friederich Engels, capitalism depends upon the perpetual finding of cheap markets; a brief recall of history can pay testament to this. At the beginning of colonial America, it was America itself that was the cheap market. After the death of mercantilism, slavery was the cheap market in the States, followed by China after the Civil War. The US further invested in cheap markets in Asia while Europe used Africa. Two powerhouses quite literally carved up the world worse than two world wars had. Currently, the US employs any number of small Asian countries to produce its goods (just consult Nike). What this means is that, if the entire world of Nova operated under a solitary government (which, assumingly, provides adequate resources to its citizens), there would be no cheap markets to exploit. This would cause prices to skyrocket exponentially, as labor costs rise to meet product costs, and vice versa. Clearly, it cannot work. 2. A republic cannot remain intact under a free market. The philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau knew that isolated power led to increased chance for corruption (John Locke must have missed that particular memo). A republic is essentially a glorified oligarchy, whereby all the power in the country is concentrated in a small group of people. To use the US example again, 535 people are a whole lot easier to bribe than over 300 million, such as in a direct democracy as Rousseau advocated for, or one supreme dictator as Hobbes posited. Especially in a global superstate, a republic is a bad idea when mixed with capitalism. Bribery is the ultimate downfall of capitalism. It led to the Great Depression of the 30s and will lead to further corruption in the US because of the potential for fortunes to be had. There are two solutions to this problem: a capitalist leviathan or a socialist democracy; take your pick. One thing is for sure, though: the solution cannot be the lethal combination of a republic and capitalism, especially in a superstate where capitalism is doomed to fail to begin with.
The Free Market

It's okay. You've not "wasted" a round, considering the only manner in which I knew how to begin was that of being vague. You're questions were indeed legitimate. What style of government are we to assume relevant? Is this country part of a global economy or isolationist? To answer BOTH these questions, let us suppose it is one nation that spans across an entirely fictional planet, which, for the sake of discussion, we shall call the planet of Nova. That nation will have a constitutional Republic like that of the United States. Does the "free market" that the Pro speaks of have any government regulation at all? If so, how much? I personally wouldn't call it regulation, but if one sees government enforcement of private property rights, rule of law, and freedom of contract, as well as the protection of individual life and liberty from violence and coercion count as regulation, then yes, but only to that extent, since those are the standard conditions of a free market.
The Free Market

I gladly accept this debate, however I must ask several questions to the Pro before a legitimate debate can be made: What style of government are we to assume relevant? Is this country part of a global economy or isolationist? Does the "free market" that the Pro speaks of have any government regulation at all? If so, how much? While I understand that a full round of this debate has been mitigated because of this CX, I feel that it is necessary to get a feel for the parameters.
The Free Market

The Free Market is simply the sum total of voluntary exchanges bounded by private property rights. Socialism, therefore, is the sum total of coerced exchanges bounded by the will of the government. I think those two sentences speak for themselves as to which one is better, the better one being, of course, the Free Market. This is a simplistic start, but it's my first debate on here, so whoever may choose to challenge me, step forth, and good luck.
The Free Market

My opponent has obviously ceded the round to me, but let me make out some quick points which prove why the Con has won the round: 1. My opponent provided no ground to debate because he lacks philosophy. 2. The debate did not grow, as the Pro focused solely on refuting my attacks and not progressing the round with new evidence. 3. The Con side has philosophical backing which proves that a capitalist republic cannot survive on this planet "Nova. "
Flag Burning should not be a crime.

Blond Guy, The reason that burning the American Flag should be illegal is because of the liberties and freedoms that we now have today. You requested that I address these issues now here is my thought on the subject. Our founding fathers fought through rain , sleet ,floods and all kinds of weather to deserve the rights and liberties that we now take for granted. Next please . Freedom was not based on Racism freedom was based on people fighting side by side . The same goes for liberty . This country was founded on freedom not people being white or black or any of the other types . To say that someone is racist is to be stereotypical and ignorant. That is the reason that the American Flag should never be burned so that ends my thought on that subject. To reiterate what I spoke about previously , I still feel that that as Americans we should be more respectful of the American Flag, and what it stands for. Here is a logical question for you and all Americans "Do you Respect the American Flag, and our freedoms?"
Flag Burning should not be a crime.

Blond Guy I don't think that we should burn the American flag due to the fact that it would show pure hate of our country and rebellion against it.That would be an atrocity.The American Flag stands proudly for freedom and the symbolism of why it is there anyway.That is why it should be illegal to burn it. Burning the American Flag would show pure disdain for your rights as an American Citizen. Our fore fathers fought to give us the liberties and freedoms that the flag stands for so why try to squash them like they mean nothing at all . In response to your previous statement about burning the flag on your own property. You would not have the rights to the property if it was not for our founding fathers and the American Flag . Did you know that there was other countries who hate us that has burn our flag, like iran.This flag has been through hell but still stands for our freedoms.This is a great country and you would know if you ever been overseas.This is the land of opportunity and the freedom of rights.Maybe you should understand what your country stands for.
Flag Burning should not be a crime.

Flag Burning should not be illegal for the following reasons: 1)If you own a United States flag and some matches and a piece of land safe enough to burn a flag in, then it is constitutional for you to have the right to do whatever you want with your own flag! Making it a crime also diminishes our freedom of speech. 2)It is discriminatory that it is illegal to burn a United States flag and not another country's flag. With so many immigrants and a constitution promoting equality, the law wouldn't be a promoter of patriotism any longer, but a promoter of racism. Good Luck!
Wars have been, and will continue to be, generally necessary; with good results common.

Ok, so both me and my opponent pretty much stopped debating this, which is all good, but whatever. Anyway, I'll just make some closing comments to finish this up. While wars, in some cases, may be necessary, on the whole, they are far from it. In many recent cases where military intervention has taken place, diplomacy could have solved the problem much more efficiently, and with a significant decrease in human and economic cost. In addition, they also have not had a great deal of good results on the whole, with a major problem being not only the massive economic and human cost with the war itself, but the victor will have to build all it has destroyed once the war is over, so there is really no incentive in the first place. Thank you very much.
Wars have been, and will continue to be, generally necessary; with good results common.

First of all, I musts correct an error on your part: "One key example that comes to mind is the Vietnam War. America invaded the communist nation, in hopes turning into a capitalistic society." This is a dead wrong claim. The United States went to war with Northern Vietnam, because we were enforcing a foreign policy of containment, which had been established many years before the Vietnam War (in 1947 by Harry S. Truman). The northern half of the country, which was communist, was INVADING the southern half, our allies. The northern half of the country was the aggressor, not the United States; which you claim. I'd also like to point out that you somewhat take shot at my arguement by pointing out the fact that the last official "war" that the United States had was WW2, I am not reffering to the definition set by a 231 year old country to establish a precedent of war that will encompass EVERY war in history. You also state: "Ask any politician or foreign advisor, and they will almost all say the same thing, that war as a diplomatic option must only be considered when absolutely EVERYTHING else has been tried and failed." Thank you, you have basically just affirmed my side. All the "pro" side has to do is prove that the times that war has been employed, they were necessary. Not that out of all the diplomatic options that have ever been considered, war is a must. By admiting that politicians and diplomats agree that war is only to be considered after all other options have failed, you affirmed my position that wars are necessary when they have employed. If they were not employed, it is impossible to conclude that they were or were not necessary. YOua entire arguement rests on 3 examples of "conflicts". The Bay of Pigs, the CONTRA affair, and Vietnam. Your statements about Vietnam are extremely one sided and present little to no facts. This is a historical fact, the North invaded the South, not the other way around. Here are a few examples of wars that were necessary: The Revolutionary War (I don't think I need to say why it was necessary) The War of 1812 (To stop the British invasion of America) The Civil War (To hold the Union together) The Gulf War (To stop Saddam from taking over another country) I am sure if I did more research, I could name more, but I think I hae proved my point: when wars are employed, they are employed because they are necessary. To affirm my position about the results being generally good, every action strives for a good, even wars.
Wars have been, and will continue to be, generally necessary; with good results common.

You state that all throughout history, and even into the future that "Wars have been, and will continue to be, generally necessary; with good results common." However, I believe that this cannot be farther from the truth, and I am going to break down the question to first prove why war has not always been necessary, and why they do not have "common good results." (For the rest of my argument I am going to use conflict as a synonym for war, as the last "true" war according to American law was WWII.) While war is certainly a valid diplomatic tool that has had success in the past, it is almost never completely neccesary, which is defined in the Princeton dictionary as "absolutely essential." Ask any politician or foreign advisor, and they will almost all say the same thing, that war as a diplomatic option must only be considered when absolutely EVERYTHING else has been tried and failed. When a conflict is undertaken before other diplomatic options are taken, disaster usually occurs. An example of this was the CONTRA affair, or the Bay of Pigs. Reagan and Kennedy, respectively, felt that war was essential and the best option, and invaded both Nicaragua and Cuba, respectively. These two conflicts ended in disaster which could have been averted if diplomatic efforts were taken before. And while some wars have been ultimately necessary, an example being WWII, there have been at least two wars which would have been averted with diplomacy for every neccesary and just war. My second point is that wars do not often have, and on the contrary rarely do have, "common good results." One key example that comes to mind is the Vietnam War. America invaded the communist nation, in hopes turning into a capitalistic society. WHat occurred there became forever known as a synonym for a barbaric and atrocious crusade for faux democracy, and for a failed war. Thousands of American deaths occurred there, not to mention the tens of thousands of innocent Vietnamese lives that were lost, and to tell me these were good results would be an utter lie. This occurs in a great deal of wars, and while some of the deaths may be neccesary, a great deal of other effects occur. As earlier stated, many wars are started for improper reasons, with likely ulterior motives, which may not benefit either nation as a whole. To say that many wars have "good results" is not only ignorant, but also completely false.
Wars have been, and will continue to be, generally necessary; with good results common.

Throughout history, cultures and countries have been forced to declare war in order to stop various situations that were immoral and wrong from continuing. Just in recent history, several examples can be found: World War 1, World War 2, Korea, War on Terror, etc. Because of this fact, I affirm that wars have been, and will continue to be, generally necessary; with good results common.
Homosexuals

OK. So God DID make man and woman to be together LMONEY. But, it is your own choice. YOU choose who you fall in love with, not God. God can only do so much, but sometimes, you can do so much more, like choose your own fate. Or choosing your own love, man or woman. Love is love, no matter if it's the same sex. If you're married, then you have felt the feelings of love. Homo's can feel that too. Wow. I'm just getting mushy today. Ew. Back to the point, Homo's are still humans and people just have to accept that.
Religion is the main cause of evil in humanity.

Opening:I'd like to extend greetings to readers, voters, and Con. Con and I agreed to debate this with each other. Definitions:For the debate, evil is going to be defined as: "Pain and suffering"Religion shall be defined as: "(1) an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods (2) The Belief in a God or group of Gods"Debate Layout: We are allowed to have 5 rounds of arguing:1: Acceptance of the rules. 2: Pro gives opening arguments, con makes rebuttals and opening contentions.3: New arguments and rebuttals by both sides.4: Rebuttals. No new arguments. 5: Conclusion/Rebuttals. Closing Information:I'd like to ask for Con to contact me with any questions he has. This debate is meant to be respectful. Though I admit, this is a highly touchy subject. I do not wish to offend people. Send all hate mail to me in a PM. With that, I pass over our newborn debate to Con. Make good choices.
I am gayer than you

My opponents demeanor during this debate has been at the very best indifference to gayness. "So what, you had a good time" This sounds snarky with a hint of jealousy, Not a characteristic response of a gay person responding to another persons description of gay events. From my opponents rebuttals so far, one must conclude that his gayness is dependent on this web site as he has mentioned nothing else in the way of what brings gayness to his life. It is as if he is mimicking a heroin addict chasing the dragon. In this case the heroin being his ELO number. As I stated before he is disappointed by his experience on this web site so far. His ELO number is unacceptable and makes him feel not gay and disappointed. If we look at his debate record he has a total of 77 debates. Of these he has won 36, tied 18 and lost 23. He has won close to half of all his debates and is still disappointed. This is a record many would love to have on this website, including me. I would have a great sense of gayness if my record was as good as my opponents. I have shown that my gayness comes from many sources. They must come from many sources as man can not survive on bread alone. My opponent has demonstrated through his rebuttals that all he eats is bread. His gayness is an illusion. He is dependent on one and only one thing to make him feel gay based on his rebuttals. He is like I stated before, exhibiting all the traits of a heroin addict chasing the dragon for his gayness, when we all know in this context, the dragon is an illusion of gayness.
I am gayer than you

"I'm kind of disappointed!! " My opponent openly admits he is disappointed and not gay. From what I can tell from my opponents rebuttal, the only thing that will make him gay is a ELO number but doesn't give any indication of what would be sufficient number. If the number must be the highest ELO number my opponent may never achieve gayness. I was recently able to take a trip to Arizona with my son to se my sister be married. Everyone there was feeling gay including me. It was a gala event for all. While in Arizona, I was able to meet with friends I hadn't seen since high school. We all met at a local bar and had a gay old time reminiscing about the good old days. I also visited the Grand Canyon while I was there. I had seen it before but my son had not, so it was really cool to see the look on his face when he looked upon it. We had a gay time while we were there.
I am gayer than you

Gay: suggests gladness, happiness, rejoicing. I am married to a beautiful,caring and loving wife. I have two well mannered children who require little supervision and get good grades in school. Our combined family income allows our family to want for nothing but not get everything we wish for. I have a good job that I like to go to and do what I love to do. I have many hobbies that I have both the time and money to partake in and even make a profit sometimes. I don't have a lot of friends but the ones I do have are loyal and trust worthy. I have a demented sense of humor and can laugh at anything and offended by virtually nothing. My life is good and I can complain about nothing other than losing my glasses or keys.
Removing certain advertisements from public schools (unhealthy drinks and snacks)

I do see in your argument that you are stating that kids need healthier choices, but when have kids ever wanted a healthy snack. If you gave a child the choice of an apple or a candy bar, which one do you think that they would choose? You could take all of the junk food out of public schools, but they would just bring their own from home. I understand that you want kids at school to have healthier choices, but I don't think that school is the place to start.
Removing certain advertisements from public schools (unhealthy drinks and snacks)

My argument is to replace all unhealthy food advertisements in public schools. Students can make whatever food decisions they want outside of school, but while in school the students are the school's responsibility. It is the school's responsibility to help students make healthy choices throughout their life. If the students are encouraged to make healthy decisions in school, they may also make healthy choices outside of school. You're arguing that these unhealthy food advertisements in schools bring money into schools, which they do. But healthy food advertisements can have the same affect of bringing money in to the schools. We are not telling students to not balance healthy foods with unhealthy foods, but while they're in school we can make sure that they're making healthier food choices. According to the University of Massachusetts Boston, "Healthy eating improves academic achievement and leads to students getting better grades and functioning at a higher level both inside and outside of school. Good nutrition supports alertness, cognition, memory, problem solving, speed and overall achievement.". http://www.umb.edu... It has been proven that students do better in school, when they have a healthier diet. By replacing unhealthy foods and advertisements from schools, students will do better in school and be much healthier. A high school in Wisconsin replaced unhealthy lunches with healthy ones and the results were amazing. Healthier foods can give you more energy than greasy, fatty foods. It also changed the overall behavior of the students at this high school. http://abcnews.go.com... The statistics show amazing results from replacing unhealthy foods and advertisements in schools, with healthy choices.