BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Unregulated Capitalism is a moral system, and is perfect as it is

hello! I accept your debate. When it comes down to economy, you have to be careful because the majority of economic forms only benefit the rich and elite, not excluding capitalism. But fortunate as time progressed, we've morphed capitalism into a working class and middle class benefit. An economic form where what you gain you can either keep or profit of it . You are stating that capitalism should be unregulated. Like its counter part communism; it can easily be just as bad as communism. Without regulation capitalism becomes an unethical and in the long run not progressive. In the late 1800's sure it was good but as you can see, it drove many small business owners to bankruptcy; while people like Rockafeller prosper. There was no regulation but it treated workers horribly and in the end of the day only the top really benefited. Without regulations, owning a business would be suicide! Capitalism can easily be as worse as communism. And being a moral system is not right. Capitalism thrives on inequality and workers. And unregulated capitalism will destroy small business and in the long run destroy competitions and establish ruthless monopolies, and interventions diminishes . like steel monopolies, there will be secret trust and also international competitors will destroy any domestic businesses in the U.S In the end. Capitalism will never be perfect because it establishes more money for bigger companies such as McDonald's, Google, and Walmart. No morals when greed is a major issue. It doesn't establish a good government because the government it self will be influenced by corporate lobbyist and the people will become expendable . How can there be any inalienable rights if in the end of the day, only the person with the most money will have the most rights.
Unregulated Capitalism is a moral system, and is perfect as it is

Many people support are pro capitalism with the proviso "it's not perfect but it works", and that it should be regulated. I claim on the contrary that laissez-faire capitalism, unregulated capitalism, is perfect, and is the best political system. And that there should be no regulation whatsoever. No ECC, FDA, FED etc. And no anti-trust laws. There should be only three things that are responsibilities of the government: the army, the police, and a judicial system. My argument is simple: capitalism is not an economic system, but a moral system, of which economic aspects are a necessary consequence. This moral political system respects inalienable rights by drawing borders between private property of one man, and private property of another. All dealings between citizens are _voluntary_. As such, the common criticism against capitalism that it is exploitation is impossible, just from the definition of the terms. One can't be exploited if he engages voluntarily.
Nicki Minaj vs Cardi B

1. There is a way to determine who is better. These are facts. How is one music artist (Cardi) better than the other when they just came in the game whereas the other music artist (Nicki) is a vet and been in the game 10+ years and has worked with almost every big music artist such as Beyonce, Jay Z, Kanye West, Rihanna, Keyshia Cole, Cierra, Eminem, Tyga, Drake, Lil Wayne, Justin Bieber, The list goes on and on. It would make more sense for someone to say Cardi B is better perhaps 10 years from now, She is still new to the game. Cardi has a lot of songs and even albums even so, At this moment she is not better than Nicki. Nicki is an extremely talented lyricist. She's one of the best female rappers in the world. She surpassed all over female rappers before her, And she is the queen. She won't get off of her throne any time soon. 2. I don't care about religion, That isn't what this debate is about. 3. Yeah, Why did you take this challenge? You clearly broke the rule in Round 1 when I stated "2. ) Person who accepts must know a considerable amount of information about both artists. " You will never need to know about either? If that's the case, Then why take the debate explaining your side on Cardi B if you don't know about her (as you say) and you don't need to know about her? Yet you briefly said a few things about Cardi B that you seem to know. 4. Again, I like Cardi as well, I'm not being 100% bias but I'm saying that Nicki is simply much better. I wrote an essay because this is a debate website, What did you expect? In one of my rules, If you paid attention -- I did set it to 10, 000 characters meaning me and my opponent may write however much they like. 99% of the debates on this website are very long. It's a debate, You are proving your point. That's what serious debaters do, It's called elaborating. Yet you're only typing 4 to 5 sentences. That won't get you anywhere in a debate depending on what the topic is. This happens to be a controversial topic so this is the reason why I said so much, And had you cared about this debate + accurately knowing about both artists you would have reached my standards, But you haven't unfortunately.
Nicki Minaj vs Cardi B

Like I said, There's no way to determine who's better because it's an opinion. You said you can prove religion if you bring good arguments. If that's so, Why is there still religion? Those who practice it have no proof it exists. Why tf did I take this challenge, I don't know about either, And I will never need to know about either. Why are you writing essays to prove your favored artist is better?
Nicki Minaj vs Cardi B

Carti B is a transitional artist, She shows a linear progression in positive attitude. Nicki represents gang violence and promotes illegal activities in search of easy money. Carti B did live through gang intervention, And is now on a positive road. If you're debating who's better, It's in style. That's like asking someone to debate against your religion. There is no way for them to win, It's a 100% biased topic, And it's good that it is.
Nicki Minaj vs Cardi B

Thank you to whoever accepts this debate. Rules below: 1. ) For clarification, I am Pro (meaning Nicki Minaj side) and whoever accepts this is Con (meaning Cardi B side) 2. ) Person who accepts must know a considerable amount of information about both artists. 3. ) Con will effectively explain how Cardi B is a better music artist. I then will rebuttal. I give the floor to my opponent. You have the first word. May we have a good debate. Thank you.
Nuclear Fusion is the only way to produce enough energy for the human race survive

Pro claims that energy from fusion would be cheap, safe, and abundant. While I don't deny this, none of it is relevant. The resolution clearly states "Nuclear Fusion is the only way to produce enough energy for the human race survive. " This is demonstrably false. Humans can live without electricity, albeit with some difficulty. Pro has not addressed this point, and consequently has failed to uphold his burden of proof.
Nuclear Fusion is the only way to produce enough energy for the human race survive

First of all, I would like say sorry to all voting and especially you, J. Kenyon for wasting an important round. .. Nuclear fusion is very safe since it is not a chain reaction and the elements needed are basically lithium (which is abundant, one can find it in sea shore pebbles) and deuterium which is as abundant (in the sea water). It is also very cheap on a large scale, so most of the world will be able to afford electricity and the ones who wouldn't be able to. .. well the number will be minimal, a condition much better than what it is now; so the government can take are of them.
Nuclear Fusion is the only way to produce enough energy for the human race survive

Essentially, Pro's point is that electricity shortages would be inconvenient and could possibly lead to war. I don't dispute these facts, however none of this is relevant. My point stands that the human race could survive without electricity. "Can you live without a mobile phone or a computer these days?" Yes. "If there is no electricity,there'll be another world war, just with knives and forks!" Better than with tanks, planes, and machine guns. "Would anyone in their right minds want that?" Nope.
Nuclear Fusion is the only way to produce enough energy for the human race survive

750 character limit... Con claims we will need to develop nuclear fusion in order for the human race to survive. This is clearly false. The human race lived for over ~500,000 years without electricity. Even today, over 1.5 billion people have no access to electricity.[1] Electricity is a modern convenience that makes life easier, but is by no means necessary to the continued survival of our species. References: 1. http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Islam and Islamic culture are immoral

Immoral = Evil/violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics (e. g. human rights). Islamic culture = The cultural practices common to historically Islamic people. Rules: 1. Provide evidence for your counter-arguments. 2. Please refrain from using ad hominem arguments and/or logical fallacies 3. The first round is for the rules/agreeing to the debate. 4. The fourth round is to be used for rebuttals and conclusions only; no new arguments. 5. Do not forfeit.
Drug Legalization

Source for the Colorado point, which also points out that traffic fatalities involving marijuana increased by 44 percent in the first year of legalization, marijuana use increased by 5% after legalization, and the rate of marijuana use of 18-25 year olds increased by 5%.(1) The difference between drugs and guns are that guns have a purpose besides murder, defense and sport, while recreational drugs have one purpose, recreation. This is not about the medical qualities of things like marijuana so aside from that what purpose do drugs serve? And the vast majority of drug users misuse the drugs and cause damage to themselves, and while this may not be their fault, we should try helping them not giving them more drugs to try. "Might as well make it safer for them to do so. It is obvious that education is key in preventing drug use, not illegalization" You have not made this obvious with any evidence so I am not going to accept that it is obvious. While making the drugs illegal does not fully stop users, it makes it illegal so that we can stop the people that are using it. If we make drugs legal, we will have no way to stop someone from taking them. If meth is legal how are we supposed to make a meth addict stop using? "Furthermore,, the problem is, having drugs like marijuana being illegal makes drugs like meth look less harmful than they really are. If all drugs were legal except for meth, crack, and heroin, people might actually take legality seriously when considering whether or not to do a drug." You change your argument completely here, as before you were advocating for those drugs to be legal. Also you do not realize how many other drugs there are out there that do worse things than even those 3 common drugs, PCP for example. "As it is now, if marijuana is illegal just like meth, and then some high school kid uses marijuana and goes oh that's really not that bad, the government mislead me etc., why wouldn't they think the government is misleading them with drugs such as meth as well?" I smoked a lot of pot in high school and I never thought this so I do not know where you got this idea from, people know how dangerous meth is and still do it anyways, and once they start it is very hard to stop them, but we need to stop them because drug addicts are rarely productive members of society. In conclusion, I have established that under the current classifications the drugs that are illegal should be, (R1), and that people abuse drugs (R1), that drug legalization will lead to more crime (R2) that drug legalization will create more polydrug users, who commit more crimes than monodrug users, and that drug addicts are rarely productive members of society. (R2) I feel that this is enough evidence to state that most drugs should not be legal, as was the topic of this debate. Burden of proof was on pro and i do not feel that he has provided sufficent evidence to be determined the winner. Vote con. 1. (http://www.usnews.com...)
Drug Legalization

"The argument my opponent makes is simple, people will do it whether or not they are illegal so let's legalize them. First of all we need to prove that illegality reduces drug use, which I think is obvious when we look at Colorado, there are far more people who use it now than did before it was legal. So if we saw this happen with hard drugs, (cocaine, meth, heroin) then we would have more people that use them." Really? How do you know this is true of Colorado? Proof? "Well yes, but should the United States sell assault weapons to gang members? That will stop them from buying those illegally from the cartels as well. No it is the responsibility of government to protect it's citizens, not sell them drugs that they know will cause serious negative effects, including brain damage and death." Strawman argument. It is clear that selling drugs to drug users is NOT the same to selling assault weapons to gang members. A non-strawman argument would be that the US should legalize and sell guns legally...which, guess what, they do. Are the VAST majority of people going around killing people? No "Ok but we shouldn't be giving drug addicts more drugs, that is damaging for them, we need to help them recover from their addictions and make them productive members of society again." Obviously, but drug addicts are going to be getting more drugs regardless. Might as well make it safer for them to do so. It is obvious that education is key in preventing drug use, not illegalization. Which brings me to the final point... ""Education is the key to preventing drug use" There is plenty of education now on it, and that is clearly not working, I do not know how my opponent can claim that making the drugs legal will reduce use, I am waiting for evidence or reason for why that works." There may be "plenty" of education on it now, but it's not good education, nor is it sufficient education. Furthermore,, the problem is, having drugs like marijuana being illegal makes drugs like meth look less harmful than they really are. If all drugs were legal except for meth, crack, and heroin, people might actually take legality seriously when considering whether or not to do a drug. As it is now, if marijuana is illegal just like meth, and then some high school kid uses marijuana and goes oh that's really not that bad, the government mislead me etc., why wouldn't they think the government is misleading them with drugs such as meth as well?
Drug Legalization

The argument my opponent makes is simple, people will do it whether or not they are illegal so let's legalize them. First of all we need to prove that illegality reduces drug use, which I think is obvious when we look at Colorado, there are far more people who use it now than did before it was legal. So if we saw this happen with hard drugs, (cocaine, meth, heroin) then we would have more people that use them. "Instead of Mexican Cartels making money the US will be making money" Well yes, but should the United States sell assault weapons to gang members? That will stop them from buying those illegally from the cartels as well. No it is the responsibility of government to protect it's citizens, not sell them drugs that they know will cause serious negative effects, including brain damage and death. "Making drugs legal makes it safer for the addict" Ok but we shouldn't be giving drug addicts more drugs, that is damaging for them, we need to help them recover from their addictions and make them productive members of society again. "Education is the key to preventing drug use" There is plenty of education now on it, and that is clearly not working, I do not know how my opponent can claim that making the drugs legal will reduce use, I am waiting for evidence or reason for why that works.
Drug Legalization

No one is claiming that drugs are not bad for society. That is not the claim. The claim is whether or not legalizing drugs benefits society more than making them illegal. In other words, drugs exist. Making drugs illegal does not make them not exist; it simply makes them go underground. All of the "crime statistics" you cite are irrelevant because people will do drugs in both scenarios (illegal and legal). Instead, what you should be focusing on is whether or not having drugs be illegal is more beneficial to society than making them legal. Making drugs legal has a couple of MAJOR benefits over making them illegal. #1 Instead of the mexican cartels etc. making the $, the US will be making all of the $ from drug sales. More money is ALWAYS a good thing. Furthermore, this $ made can be invested in education and rehabilitation of addicts. #2 Making drugs legal also makes it safer for the addict; there won't be any impurities or bait and switches, e.g. thinking you are taking one drug but taking another one instead. Since people will do drugs regardless of legality, EDUCATION is the key to preventing drug use, not whether or not substance is illegal.
Drug Legalization

"The economic model of crime suggests the likelihood of engaging in crime, especially property crime, increases with the increased frequency of substance abuse or addiction (White & Gorman 2000), probably due to the need for income to support illicit drug purchases." (1) This quote from an Australian journal explains why drugs are bad for society, it leads to more crime. People have to commit petty crimes like larceny in order to feed their addictions, so if you make addictive drugs legal, and people need to pay for them, they will do whatever they can even if it is illegal to get their fix. A study done showed that 18% of people who inject drugs had committed a property offense and 3% had committed a violent crime within the month before being interviewed. (2) Also if you make all drugs legal then you will have more polydrug users, a user that uses more than one hard drug, who have higher offender rates than normal drug addicts. (1) Also in the same article we can see that 88% of methamphetamine addicts are unemployed and have to borrow money from either the government or their friends and family, making them a burden of the state and their families. (1) 1. (http://proxy-edinboro.klnpa.org...) 2. (http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy-edinboro.klnpa.org...)
Drug Legalization

First of all most drugs are legal and regulated (controlled) and must be prescribed by a doctor. But I assume you are talking about recreational drugs, like marijuna, lsd, cocaine, etc. These drugs are classified into schedules I-V with I being the highest and are evaluated based on potential for abuse and whether it is used in accepted medical treatments.(1) Therefore something like marijuana which I enjoy partaking in should be illegal. It has a potential for abuse as 9% of users are addicted and over 30% have a marijuana use disorder. (2) This is the only recreational drug that has medical value outside of mushrooms which are allegedly able to help with cluster headaches but the research on that is being done now, so this is not yet an accepted medical treatment. 1. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) 2. (https://www.drugabuse.gov...)
The Worst Way to Die

This 'debate' is over the worst realistic way to die in one hour. In this debate I will present the worst way to die that I can imagine. The con in this debate will present the worst way to die that they can imagine. Realistic is defined as something that could happen in reality. So, basically, positing a Gene who resurrects you back to full health right before dieing so that you could be tortured more is not realistic. The audience then decides between the two ways and determines which out of the two of them is the worst way to die.
Homosexuality is Morally Equivalent to Heterosexuality

Though Pro does not seem to understand how this works (I am supposed to be analyzing him), it doesn't matter. Good morning/afternoon/evening/night, debate.org users. Today, my honorable opponent and I are going to be debating whether or not homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Because of the vague terms, and because the pro didn't specify WHO'S morals, I will squirrel a bit, and alter the terms to my own fittingness- be it resolved that homosexuality is morally equivalent (based on Christian morals) to heterosexuality. My first point is that in the bible, homosexuality is wrong. "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." —Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV) This passage among many others, prove that homosexuality is clearly NOT morally equivalent (based on Christian morals). IF the book of god says its wrong, how can it be otherwise in the eyes of a Christian?
Is Matt Smith better than David Tennant? (Doctor Who)

Here's a bio of Tennant: Early Life- David Tennant was born on April 18, 1971, in the Bathgate section of West Lothian, Scotland, David John McDonald grew up loving television with his older siblings, brother Blair and sister Karen. As a child, his favorite program was the British sci-fi hit Doctor Who. He appeared in school plays and was noticed by actress Edith MacArthur in his first role at age 11. At 16 the young actor auditioned, and was accepted, at the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, one of the youngest students to be admitted. There was already another David McDonald in the Actors' Equity union, so he changed his last name to Tennant. The choice was inspired by the name of Neil Tennant, lead singer of Brit dance-pop act Pet Shop Boys, after the actor read an issue of a British music magazine. Tennant appeared in advertisements as a young actor; his early professional work included a staging of The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui by the 7:84 Theatre Company, and a role as a manic-depressive in the Scottish TV drama series Takin' Over the Asylum (1994). Acting Career- Tennant gained wide acclaim as a talented classical actor, performing often with the Royal Shakespeare Company; his first role for the RSC was Touchstone in a 1996 production of As You Like It. Increasing roles on television (on popular programs like Blackpool and Casanova) and in films (Stephen Fry's Bright Young Things and Mike Newell's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) raised his popularity and level of recognition, both in the United Kingdom and around the world. A long-held dream came true in 2005, when Tennant was cast as the 10th incarnation of the lead character the Doctor in Doctor Who, his beloved TV program from childhood. The BBC-produced show also has a worldwide audience and is listed on the Guinness World Records site as the longest-running science-fiction television show in the world. As a piece of British pop-culture iconography, the show cemented Tennant's popularity. In addition to playing the lead role, the actor was given the opportunity to direct episodes. In 2009, Tennant won a Critics Choice Award for Best Shakespearean Performance for his portrayal of Hamlet for the RSC. A busy voice-over artist, Tennant provided all of the character voices for the audio book of the Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III stories by Cressida Cowell (How to Train Your Dragon). He has also appeared in additional advertisements, including a massive Virgin Media campaign, and in political commercials. So just a brief summary David Tennant was inspired to be an actor when we saw Doctor Who. Also he changed his last name to Tennant because their was already a David McDonald. Besides David was a Scottish actor while Matt was an American actor. Source: http://www.biography.com...