BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pros & Cons: Communism as a Government

First off, I tip my hat to my opponent! The idea of communism is that the Government owns ALL property whether private or domestic. Now this sounds quite awful when you think about it because you might say, "I bought this farm, so I can keep this farm, and work on this darn farm too." but the communist regime would tell you otherwise, "We can keep this farm, and you can work that farm and say no more of it. Sounds bad right? Yes, and no. With the government maintaining ownership of all private property it can maintain economic equality among the people and possibly the region surrounding it. You can also see that a communist government normally is installed during times of depression or recession. This is because the original governments economy is not doing well and the communist regime is put into effect to repair the economy. A communist government normally tends to industrialize rather than become an agriculture based state. This can be very good for the said governments economy but very poor for the choices between goods and services among the people because the government is most likely only focusing on a small group of goods to produce. But focusing on the small group of production will most likely increase the GDP among the state. But once again a communist regime is only meant to be a temporary government, meant to repair and restore the economy to a more stable, greater, place. However, these governments normally find a way to maintain power whether by violence, Secret Police, rigged voting, or by way of influence from the media. But sometimes, specifically in times of influence, a government that is communist that maintained power will return to its previous or new government. A perfect example of this is Cuba, this government was once a communist regime and is now a Peoples Democratic Republic. So in closing once more if the government is temporary and the original government is returned after the economy is restored, YES. If the Communist regime maintains power, which is likely, then NO.
absolute

We are animals. We react, and at times our reaction precedes our awareness. We cannot help but react to snakes. Even people who think they are not afraid have a strong neural reaction to snakes, no doubt as a result of an ancient evolutionary relationship (1). That is why snakes feature in so much art throughout history, are feared and revered as gods, are symbols for evil and temptation (as I mentioned before). If there was a snake in front of me, I might reel back in horror. Why? What is the essence of snakiness that my brain recognizes even before I'm conscious of what i've seen? I trust and distrust my unconscious mind. It keeps me alive, it's true, but also leads me to want and do things that are not supported by my aesthetic values or by the laws of reason. That is why, however the brain responds to snakes, it's unlikely to be anything as reasonable and conscious as head mid tail. (1)http://www.sciencedirect.com...
absolute

It seems at first a truism that it takes resistance to resist something. Just as it takes acceptance to accept something, or it takes love to love something. However, in this case it is not a truism because although resistance and resist are similar words, that have distinct meanings in the current context:resistance: the capacity to withstand something, esp the body's natural capacity towithstand disease (1) resist: to refrain or abstain from, especially with difficulty or reluctance (2)The snake represents temptation, as it does in the story in Genesis (3). To resist the snake is to refuse to give in to temptation. Resistance, on the other hand, refers to a physiological toughness. As we know, psychological traits and therefore human choices and behaviors are a function of physiology (4). Resisting temptation, then, may require a sort of resilience (or resistance) analogous to the resilience the body might display to protect itself from disease.Pro has argued that it takes resistance to resist the snake in front of him. It does not. The snake is mental representation and has not absolute existence. We can know this because snakes are not like pyramids, and only two-dimensional pyramids have three sides. Two dimensional pyramids do not exist in the real world, which is three dimensional.A feather would be unaffected by the snake. This is not because the feather has resistance, but because it is unable to form a mental representation of the sort of snake that Pro describes, or indeed of any snake. Resistance is not essential for resisting the snake.(1) http://www.dictionary.com...(2) http://www.dictionary.com...(3) https://www.biblegateway.com...;(4) http://www.sciencedirect.com...;
I Suck.

Yes indeed,Con concedes,he never sucks,he never bleeds,he never needs,he doesn't suck! My name might as well be chuck,because I really really suck,my opponent does not,I collect snot. Vote for me or smell like pee,or take an arrow to the knee,or eat a bee,or don't do any of that stuff and vote for me. My opponent has a life, and probably a wife,all I have is a knife,and my home, a cardboard box.
I Suck.

First we shall have to ask the question: what is sucking? Sucking, as defined by the KingDebater offline dictionary is the act of doing the opposite of blowing [1]. Blowing, as defined by the KingDebater offline dictionary is the act of extracting air from one's self [2]. So for example, you suck when you drink via a straw. The closest thing we, the DDO community, have to a picture of the real AmericanPsycho is his avatar, in which he does not suck. We must therefore come to the conclusion that AmericanPsycho does not in fact suck.Sources[1] The KingDebater offline dictionary, page 487.[2] The KingDebater offline dictionary, page 73.
I Suck.

Libraries are cool and are a no-sucker zone.The fact that Americanpsycho has not the time or money to fix or buy another computer obviously means that he does lots of exercise and has a job and uses his money for important things, like purchasing products by John Deere. Those are the moves of a winner, not someone who 'sucks'.Also, my opponent is right in that I'm on the computer 24/7. I do suck a bit if I'm honest.All arguments extended.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

=====Counterarguments===== "First homosexuals already have the right to be together and have relationships and basically all the same rights as heterosexuals anyway. " ----> Quite untrue. Civil unions and marriages have the same rights, but only STATE-wise. This gives around 600 rights for participants in the civil union/marriage. Federally speaking, the government gives about 1,138 rights[1] also. HOWEVER, in 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act[2] was passed by Bill Clinton, and effectively a marriage was defined between a man and a woman in the federal court. This means that for the majority of states who grant homosexuals civil union, there is an imbalance in rights. Basically, gays in a civil union get LESS rights (about a 1000 of them) than if they were in a marriage or if DOMA wasn't passed. =====Conclusion===== My opponent's main argument is that the rights are the same. A simple research shows this is untrue, and thus my opponent's argument fails. ---References--- 1. . http://www.gao.gov... 2. . http://www.domawatch.org...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

First off i dont neccissarily think being gay is wrong but i think the marriage idea is a little overboard. First homosexuals already have the right to be together and have relationships and basically all the same rights as heterosexuals anyway. One thing I dont understand is why marriage is so important to them let alone any sexual preference group because you can do anything you could before you were married. The only thing i can think of is biblical issues about sex(even though most have it premeridally anyway) and that shouldnt even affect gay marriage because the bible is already against them being gay so that shouldnt affect their debating over it.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

I've been trying to challenge some few individuals on this topic, but none of them seem to accept for whatever reasons. So I guess I'll just make another open debate. I intend to argue that any LGBT marriage should be legalized, and thus when I say "gay", I am referring to LGBT. My sole argument is that gay people have the same rights to marry as do heterosexual people. The word "marriage" does not need to be a definite prerequisite - the only thing that should happen is for gays to have the same rights as heterosexuals. Civil unions can be an appropriate alternative, but only until it has the exact same rights as marriage (of which it currently does not). I will allow my opponent to go first and I will refute his/her arguments accordingly.
There is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the easter Bunny.

It is a simple, yet common mistake. The theory of gravity is not as to whether or not there is gravity, but as to "why." We already know 100% that there is gravity with no doubt, since we have defined the force that is experienced to be gravity. We are only trying to find out "why" it there. So it is, in fact, very possibly to know something 100% does exist, and so it would also be possible to know that something 0% exists (meaning 100% does not exist). The Easter Bunny is much like Santa Claus. We can prove that the Santa of Legend does not exist. Since the legend is that he lives at the North Pole, which we have been to (and even been under) and we know he is not there. Now maybe he is somewhere else, but then he is not the Santa of Legend, because the Legend specifically says that he lives in the North Pole (so if he lives somewhere else, he is a different Santa). We can also know his actions (per legend) are physically impossible, including his flying transgender reindeer (only female reindeer keep their antlers in winter). We can apply the same principle to the, so called Easter Bunny. All we have to do is prove that the Easter Bunny of lore is not physically possible, and so the lore would have to be changed to allow for his existence. But since we are specifically arguing for that particular Easter Bunny, the lore is not allowed to be changed. So looking at the actual story of the Easter Bunny [1], the Easter Bunny was a bird that broke it's wing and so couldn't fly. The goddess of fertility then (out of pity) then turned the bird into a bunny (hare) that could run really fast. She also granted it the ability to lay colorful eggs (in remembrance of its bird heritage), but only once a year. The bunny was given NO OTHER POWERS. According to folklore this was only a bunny with a few gifts, not some kind of demi-god. So that brings up a few issues. 1) She did not give him any kind of intelligence that would allow him to use a computer or even speak (or type or read). and (mort important) 2) She did not grant him immortality, nor any extended life. So he would be dead long by now as he was a normal bunny with only a few powers. As you are alive and able to write and read english, you cannot physically be the Easter Bunny of traditional folklore. [1] http://www.professorshouse.com...
There is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the easter Bunny.

Since my opponent states "no word tricks" I will interpret any word tricks as a forfeit. Pro says that there is not enough evidence to prove that he is not the Easter Bunny (given that Easter Bunny is capitalized, we can assume it to be a proper noun). some definitions Easter Bunny[1] - "The Easter Bunny (or Easter Hare) is a character depicted as an anthropomorphic rabbit. In legend, the creature brings baskets filled with colored eggs, candy and toys to the homes of children on the night before Easter." Anthropomorphic[2] - suggesting human characteristics for animals (non-human)* or inanimate things So in order for Pro to be the Easter Bunny, he must be an animal (non-human) with human characteristics. Who gives eggs, candies, and toys to good children and is almost 400 years old. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.google.com... * - my addition to the definition, to avoid "word tricks" I will await Pro to show his side. All he really needs to do is show that there is the possibility that he is the Easter Bunny, and I will attempt to refute those possibilities. The ball is in your court, Mr. Bunny.
There is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the easter Bunny.

It looks like this may very well turn into a debate upon semantics. Pro states in the resolve (and in the comment section before the debate was accepted) that there is not enough evidence to prove that he is not THE Easter Bunny. He did not say "an" easter bunny. So we must go on debating in regards to him being THE Easter Bunny. And in order to do that we must first know what THE Easter Bunny is. That is why I brought up the folklore, the original folklore. Which I have shown that the original Easter Bunny he could not be as it is not possible by the laws of nature or physics for that original bunny to be on a computer typing (in a reasoning fashion) or to even still be alive. I still fully believe that because he is referring to "THE" bunny, that he must be "THE" original, not "A" knock off easter bunny. One, might claim that this is the use of "word tricks" (which would deem an auto forfeit on my part), but before that claim is made, allow me to justify my reasoning. 1) In order to do a debate such as this, trying to prove or dis-prove something, that thing must be something solid and as concrete as possible to prevent confusion. We can see the importance in making sure we are talking about solid concept and not something so vague as it has ruined debates here in the past [1]. 2) The purpose of this debate was to see if it is truly possible to prove a negative. And while I am solidifying the definitions to make it possible to argue them, I am not changing from the original intent of the debate. I am trying to prove the negative of something tangible, instead of the negative of something vague, but I'm still attempting to prove a negative. [1] http://www.debate.org... I have no further arguments on this and I highly doubt that I can fill the last 2 rounds with anything of meaning, and so request that my opponent, take his turn as if it was the last round and allow us to end it here, unless he, in fact, has enough to say to fill all 5 rounds. If he agrees, then after his final post, we will both forfeit together to end this. If he wishes to continue, then we will continue and honorable fight.
Golden Goose Outlet skating

Miu Miu: Miu Miu is a shoe brand that is a sister concern of the luxury clothing brand Prada. The designs and styles of Miu Miu shoes are very trendy and they mainly cater to a younger clientle. You can find a wide variety of shoe designs and styles in a Miu Miu store. Yes, You are indeed right. These shoes are meant for ballet dancers. Ballet shoes are tight fitting, Flexible, Flats which are extremely comfortable. Pad it. According to William A. Even if this doesn't happen, The attempt should be to pitch it as close to the stake as possible. [b]http://www. Goldengoosesite. Com/ [/b] Before the early part of the nineteenth century, The Ottoman state never accepted responsibility for the basic education of its citizens or subjects. Hence no formal system of public education then existed. The state trained some of its military and bureaucratic officials; the clergy instructed some of its own future members; but the education of [b][url=http://www. Goldengoosesite. Com/]Golden Goose Outlet[/url][/b] nonofficial, Nonclerical subjects was not seen as a public responsibility. Aerobic exercise comprise aerobic dance, Bicycling, Crosscountry skiing, Inline skating, Fitness walking, Jumping rope, Running and jogging, Stair climbing and swimming. The same pair of shoes cannot be used for performing each of these activities. Different aerobic sports have different physical demands, And accordingly the shoes are also designed. Keep this in mind when keeping the hall and bath safe. Railings are great, But easy to grab handles, Even small ledges can help give a person's balance back. They have suction cup handles, Lights that can be added economically for safety.
Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled

We need to Weigh the Cost the Child Receiving a Possible "Illness" from remaining unvaccinated, against the Premise that they would be denied a Basic education. CONTENTION 1. Children Being Denied a Basic Education Vaccination is no prerequisite to anything. Regardless of Age, ethnicity, social and economic background, children should have the right to attend School. According to many Constitutional and Laws Globally, this would infringe on the Act of Liberty, and Free will, in accordance with the First Amendment of the US constitution.(1) CONTENTION 2. Denial of Free will As stated Above, this would infringe on the act of Free will, a Basic right that all Humans should have, regardless. REFUTATIONS "Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk." What Social Contract do you speak of, I've never heard of it. For whatever reasons an individual has, be it religious or Moral, they have the right to NOT have there children vaccinated. "Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard." No Schools require children to be vaccinated, as of saying this. Vaccinations are very effective, and carry little side effects, but as stated, people have the right to not vaccinate there child. "This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases." What Studies do you have the Say not vaccinating your child "Reverses" our progress against nearly eradicated diseases? That sounds completely made up. You make another Statement based on opinion, rather then fact. " "Those children should not be intergrated with others" That's not for you to decide. You may or may not Vaccinate your child, if you have one, but Making decisions for others is Unjust, and Unconstitutional. (1)(http://www.google.ca...)
Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled

Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk. Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard. This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases.
the federal income tax should be abolished

High cost of labor sends jobs overseas. Employers don't pay income taxes. Sales taxes are in fact regressive (1) whether or not you exempt products like food. Low spending does result in low GDP. That's just basic economics. GDP= NX+consumer spending+g+i. You can't just say correlation=/=causation and wave that away. Low spending=low gdp. That is a fact. What calculations do you have to prove that that particular tax rate yields the same revenue as our current system? None.
the federal income tax should be abolished

i didn't say taxes would make people not work. i said they would go overseas and they have. that's where manufacturing jobs have gone. a sales tax is not regressive because there is a prebate that ensures that poor people are untaxed and many goods, like food, are exempted. spending does not mean bad economy. that is correlation not causation. to produce something it must be made. the tax is revenue-neutral so we can still pay for roads
the federal income tax should be abolished

My opponents argument simply doesn't make sense. He argues that income taxes discourage the earning of income. Would you really think to yourself There's no point to working because I'm only getting paid 40k annually, instead of 45k anually!No!Pro proposes a very high sales tax. This is completely asanine. For starters, the sales tax is the only form of regressive tax. Furthermore, high sales tax does discourage spending. Low spending=low GDP=shite economy. Also, taxes pay for roads and such.
the federal income tax should be abolished

when you tax something, you discourage it. you discourage productivity, savings and innovation and ship jobs overseas. we pay taxes on everything we do and the government has an exclusive privilege to our property. we want to encourage production, so we should not tax it. rather, we should tax consumption through a 23% national sales tax. we'd have more jobs and more opportunities with this. businesses right now are already suffering because of obamacare and excessive regulations.
In science, a theory is a weaker explanation of a phenomenon than a law.

Round 1: Definitions and acceptance. Round 2: Opening arguments from each side. Rounds 3 and 4: Rebuttals and new arguments. Round 5: Rebuttals and recap of each side's arguments. No new arguments. For this debate, the following definitions will be used: Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.[1] 1. http://ncse.com...
9/11 was an inside job

Just because there are discrepancies about the official story of 9/11, it doesnt mean a mass conspiracy exists. I'll give you this, no it doesn't mean a mass conspiracy exists but it does mean that the official story should be questioned and if the official story or the facts can't be explained by something ordinary then the only explanation is something extraordinary. I would like to see what you think happened on 9/11 please. You speak of us knowing more about what happened i don't understand what you mean. Now as for an entity being powerful enough to organize such a cover up not being possible to exist i think you underestimate governments power, secondly you forget that if an official story is placed and people accept it they start doing the defending against problems in the story themselves. I'm sure many conspiracy theories are more ludicrous i'm sure there are theories outlining how the lizard people are behind it all but this conversation isn't dealing well in my view with the outlandish ones. All i'm trying to prove is that the us government orchestrated the attacks. I think you are confused by the shock factor of such a statement. It seems unlikely that a government would do something like that to its own people but why? It's happened before in history why not here?
9/11 was an inside job

Ill give this a whirl.... Just because there are discrepancies about the official story of 9/11, it doesnt mean a mass conspiracy exists. We know much more about how and why 9/11 happened then we did when the 9/11 commission report first came out, and many conspiracy theories are far, FAR more ludicrous then the official story of what actually happened. There is no entity that could have pulled off such an elaborate cover-up who has the motive and resources to do so either.