BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tom Brady is the Greatest Quarterback of all time

Unlike most football fans, I am willing to argue your viewpoint of Tom Brady being the greatest quarterback to ever play in the NFL. While Tom Brady is, by all means, a great quarterback, stating that he is the "greatest ever" is absurd. I would consider him ONE of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, but certainly not THE best quarterback of all time. Here's why I say that: - You can take Brady out of the picture, and whoever becomes the starter still has success. - Too many scandals attached to his name. Let's go back to the 2008 season: Kansas City travels to Foxborough to take on the Pats. Bernard Pollard hits Brady in the leg, Brady goes down for the season. Patriots fans panic, and out comes Matt Cassel. Many fans were skeptical and were already removing New England from playoff-contender talk. Shockingly, Cassel goes 11-5 for the season. Granted they failed to make the playoffs, 11-5 is 11-5. Then you fast forward to the beginning of the 2016 season when Brady began to serve his four-game suspension, something we will talk about a little later. Without Brady, the Patriots went 3-1, and, if I'm not mistaken, that one loss came to Houston after both of the Patriots' backup quarterbacks went down. Either way you want to look at it, 3-1 is 3-1. The way I see it is this: With or without Brady, the Patriot's offense will still be explosive; they have shown that to us in the past. Am I saying shove a quarterback like Colt McCoy or Blaine Gabbert behind center and you have a Super Bowl team? No! But somebody like Blake Bortles? I could see him doing great as a Patriot thanks to the weapons he would have given to him. I'm sure we have all seen teams totally collapse after their star-QB goes down. Look at the Packers for instance: Rodgers goes down, they go down. Tom Brady is a system quarterback. Period. Secondly, Tom Brady has a lot of dirt on his name. Sure, we can all agree that Brady will be in Canton, probably even first ballot, but when you mention his name, one can't help but recall all of the scandals he has had to face. Spygate, Deflategate, you name it. When you say the name "Tom Brady," you can talk about his five Super Bowls and you can talk about his stats, but the one thing that will always get brought up is that Tom Brady is and was a cheater. Now, do I personally believe he is a cheater? That's another debate, but I'll avoid that for this debate. Overall, I'll say that Brady is ONE of the greatest quarterbacks of all time., not THE greatest. Sure, when you add up stats, one can make a claim that he is the greatest, but when you look at the bigger picture of things, his stock really does... deflate.
Socialism

Public school (and even a voucher system for private schools) is socialism - it redistributes wealth. Social Security is socialism - it redistributes wealth from workers to the living elderly. Medicare is Social Security. It subsidizes health care costs paid for by other tax payers. All of these are examples are socialism. To be completely against socialism means to remove all of these things completely. My position has always been that a mixed economy is best. Both capitalism and socialist programs are good. Both work well together. For example, if I open a business and make profits, that's a capitalistic element. Then, if some of my profits are sent into a government program to help poor people eat and go to Kindergarten, that is socialistic element. I profit, and some wealth is distributed. I win, society wins. You further prove my point (with your own sources) by saying that socialist Europe is enjoying more economic freedom than the United States itself. Your very first sentence was that socialism is impossible, yet you provided examples of successful countries which have socialism. The countries you mentioned have universal health care. The wealthy people in those countries are taxed for half or more of their income. And they're still successful. The argument against socialism is that you can't have a successful society with a heavy tax burden. Those countries do have heavy tax burdens, and you said they are successful. So, why not tax the rich then? Since you're absolutely 0% socialist, I ask that you name me a couple of financially well countries which have absolutely zero socialistic elements.
Socialism

First of all, socialism and communism are essentially the same. Communism is the more radical version of it. Secondly, socialism and capitalism aren't compatible in the slightest bit. I am not even .000001 socialist. I have none of those tendencies whatsoever. I believe that there needs to be limited government intervention in the economy. Just a little. This is not socialism. This intervention's purpose is to be the "umpire" over the economy, to enforce private contracts, to prosecute theft, extortion, and so on. Pure capitalism doesn't mean anarchy - it means that the government plays the umpire role. Real socialist economies reject the principles of private property, free markets, voluntary contracts and cooperation. But you say that countries like Sweden have good socialism? It must work, no? The truth of the matter is that Sweden, Finland, Norway and their ilk are successful because they have integrated capitalistic principles into their economy. Consider this: (http://www.libsdebunked.com...) Denmark: Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption. Finland: Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, fiscal freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption. Iceland: Iceland ranks a little lower than the US in most of these key indicators. It"s close, though. Remember also that Iceland has a smaller total population (320,000) than Wichita, KS. Norway: Ranks higher than the US in trade freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption. Sweden: Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption. Sources: http://www.heritage.org...|unitedstates&src=ranking http://www.heritage.org...|unitedstates&src=ranking http://www.heritage.org...|unitedstates&src=ranking http://www.heritage.org...|unitedstates&src=ranking As you can see, these countries' success stem for the fact that they integrate the free market into their economy, not because of socialism as you have stated. That said, you still have not yet debunked my refutation of socialism/communism (call it whatever you want), in regards to the price system and economic calculation.
Socialism

Socialism is an economic impossibility. The basic problem of economics is scarcity - limited resources and unlimited desires for those resources. Every economy must thus answer these 3 questions: What goods to produce? How to produce them? Whom shall receive them? Since socialism doesn't have a price system, it is impossible to effectively address these issues. Without a price system, how do you answer the problem of scarcity, and the "3 W's"? By a government survey? Since capitalism works based on a market based on private property, a price system, and incentive for profit, resources will be used most efficiently since the producers, consumers etc. themselves decide the answer to these questions. It is impossible for the government to know the answers. Historical experience clearly demonstrates that price-fixing in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Cuba and Venezuela created massive shortages of all goods and services, even essential ones like food and water. And the reason is obvious - because there's high demand but little supply to satisfy all those wants. Working on a for-profit basis with free market principles is vital in this regard. Every individual person wants to maximize the use of their private property. Once a good or service's price is reduced below market level or is free, there is no longer any incentive to maximize its use - in fact, people will use more of it without regard to its scarcity, or dispose of it altogether. Accordingly, when governments take this course, lines and lines of people can be found in all stores and so on. If gas is [artificially] only $1.50 (fixed price) down from $3.00 (market price), why not buy as much as gas as possible? An inevitable shortage is the result. The only way to address a shortage is by rationing, further exacerbating the problem. In the free market, there was never a shortage of anything that consumers wanted and producers were able to sell. It only occurred when the government stepped in, like in the 70's with the oil embargo. Even Germany, more dependent on oil than we are, didn't have massive waiting lines. Thus, Socialism is an economic impossibility.
Socialism

In a system with both capitalistic and socialistic elements, you can't isolate either one of them and say "That's the only one doing the work". If someone takes two different medications, you can't say Medication A is doing all the work and Medication B isn't because you didn't isolate it. I'm arguing that mixed economies are best. We've gone over examples of current successful mixed economies. You're arguing pure capitalism is best. You've provided zero examples of current successful pure-capitalism economies. I can wax poetic all day about prices and controls, and how it should theoretically be a problem. You're saying if we raise taxes and re-distribute the wealth, there will be severe shortages. Plenty of countries have done that without consequence. The reason why socialism doesn't generate wealth is because it's not an economic system. It's purely an add-on to the capitalism system, like I've been saying the whole time. Adding a computer chip to your PC isn't supposed to power it ; it's supposed to change some of its functionalities. You can view it as an helpful upgrade, or a toxic virus. But nonetheless, it's an add-on that most developed countries have adopted. If a country in the world decides it wants to completely forgo socialism, become totally capitalistic, more power to them. If it's an immense success, I'll change my mind. But as of now, I haven't seen pure communism (on the extreme left) work. I haven't seen pure capitalism (on the extreme right) work either. And lastly, every source you have posted was purely from conservative/libertarian biased thinktanks. I think you'd have a more balanced comprehensive understanding of the economy and economic systems as a whole if you explore other sources rather than only ones which advocate a particular point of view. But anyway, thanks for the debate and your time. I appreciate the discussion. See you around.
Socialism

I have clearly and lucidly demonstrated that those countries are successful economically because of capitalism not because of socialism, yet you keep on insisting that "I have proved your point". How?! Again, they are successful because of capitalism not socialism. I have brought you evidence and sources to that effect. Therefore, though they have higher taxes, free education, free healthcare and so on - socialistic policies - they are successful DESPITE those factors, not because of them. And redistribution of wealth doesn't make people richer. It makes everyone poorer. Socialism doesn't have a wealth creating mechanism - it merely redistributes it; capitalism does. Redistribution has never made a society rich - economic growth has. (And there are countries, by the way, that have high taxes and lower economic growth. You have no solid proof for this. Still, in round #3, you haven't refuted any of my original arguments from round #1. Please respond to my original post. Look at Ludwig von Mises, "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth", for an excellent analyses of this issue. His book is exactly my point in my opening argument. (Mises was one of the foremost economic scholars of the 20th century, and has been endorsed and / or supported by other prominent economists, like Fredrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, Leonard Read and others.) Sources: https://mises.org... http://www.brookings.edu... http://taxfoundation.org...
Idealism Is More Rational Than Realism

First of all you are misusing Occam's Razor, it is not just about simplest explanation, but also best explanation. The correct question should be which is the best explanation of "reality", idealism or realism. In simple terms, realism means there are things which exists, and they are neither minds nor ideas in minds.[1]If we assume the "reality" is just a part of mind (or ideas in mind) then one should be in control of the "reality". However it does not work that way. Very essence of reality is that we assume material world exists, in every day life and in everything we do. The distinction between mind and material world, in your mind you can do anything, you can even imagine yourself as a king (or queen) of the planet, but in real world you would be in asylum. And if the "reality" is the Grand Network of Brains and everything is the part of the program, my answer would be you watched "Matrix" to many times and you need to see psychologist. There is no ontological justification for such reasoning.And I read "An Experimental Test Of Non-Local Realism" where it says "In the experiment, we meansuse previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories. Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned."[2] It does not disprove Realism, it just shows that we were not looking good enough. And it is also known as there are some rules that work for big objects and also does not work for very small objects, and vice versa. For example, it is known as an object cannot be in two different places at the same time, but this statement does not work in subatomic level.[3][4] Quantum mechanics doesn't just work in the world of atoms and molecules.[3]Idealism leads to solipsism (I call it, extreme idealism) which is irrational by itself. Only thesis against it is theism, if you prefer idealism."Interactions between the immaterial mind and material body cannot occur."Here I would like to ask some questions. Can immaterial mind exist without material body? If yes, how? Taste of strawberry is just stream of electrons, through neurons. And it can be explained by Bio-Chemistry.[5][6]And Happy New Year[1] - http://bit.ly...[2] - http://bit.ly...[3] - http://dailym.ai...[4] - http://bit.ly...[5] - http://1.usa.gov/1da7Udv[6] - http://1.usa.gov/1gncGbT
Idealism Is More Rational Than Realism

What I will Be Arguing I will be arguing that Idealism is a more rational ontology to adhere to than Realism. Description of Idealism "[R]eality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial" [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Definition of Realism "Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc." [http://en.wikipedia.org...] --- First round for acceptance (no arguments). Failure to abide by the rules will result in an automatic forfeit.
Idealism Is More Rational Than Realism

The doctrine of idealism holds that "whatever can be known to exist, must be in some sense mental."[1] Idealists will argue that an object exists, because, someone perceives it. But what if no one perceives that object, will it continue to exist or will it expire. The relation between material object and mind is that the thought or idea of object is in mind but not the object itself. It is not the external world is in mind, but the thought of external world is in mind. Learning and becoming acquainted with something involves a relation between a mind and something, anything, other than that mind.[1] Idealists will also assume that " It is not the case that it is conceivable for material objects to exist without any mind thinking of them." But it is also wrong. Can material object exist without any mind thinking of them. We can do little experiment, if we kill all minds (human beings and aliens), will universe expire or will it continue to exist. Common sense answer is it will go on, independent from minds. Does Dark Matter exist? Was it existing before it was perceived by us? Or did Pluto existed before it was perceived? In order for mind to perceive something it needs an external object, or it needs a previous experience of an external object. But I can agree on one thing, and that is no physical object can directly be observed. The sight is combination of chemical reactions and stream of electrons, which is initiated by photons. PS. Quotations from scientists is not proof, history tells us scientists are most time get things wrong (ancient cliché). [1] - http://bit.ly/1bJF82w
Idealism Is More Rational Than Realism

Firstly, I would like to clarify few things.1. "...my answer would be you watched The Matrix to many times and you need to see psychologist." - by "you" I do not mean Pro per say, but it was a general statement for each person who thinks in that way, and it was ridicule (every idea is open to ridicule). And by "G.N.B." I meant all similar ideas, such as brain in the vat, matrix (spoon does not exist), and etc.2. "Idealism leads to solipsism (I call it, extreme idealism)..." I did not mean if you are idealist, then you become solipsist, I meant it as subcategory to Idealism.3. "Theistic Idealism is what I am arguing for,"- Pro. Are you theist? (Just out of curiosity)You did not answer my question. Can immaterial mind exist without material body? If yes, how? And if immaterial mind cannot exist without material body, therefore immaterial mind is subjected to material body, which is medium (between weak and strong) argument for realism.The Introspective ArgumenttThe premises of the Introspective Argument are begging the question and argument from ignorance.P1. - Mind exists.P2. - The properties of the mind are not that which matter can have.P3. - Substance dualism is false.C. - Mind is all.The problem with idealism is that idealists generalize quantum mechanics to whole reality, by ignoring that quantum mechanics does not work for anything which are bigger than atom.Pro uses Occam's razor and says "Idealism is ontologically cleaner". And only way to defend it is theism. By saying God, Creator, or The Software Developer exists. And my answer would be using only rationality and logic (philosophy also) prove that God exists and secondly prove to me that the God you are talking about made/created the reality in a way you say he did (i.e.. just mental exists). If you cannot, then your argument is (very) weak.
Theist Vs Atheist Vote Bombing Contest

"I do not adhere to the idea that you can simply lack a belief in God once being presented with the arguments." Funny, because people do that all the time, whether you "adhere to the idea" or not. I believethere is no way to conclusively prove the existence of a god. There are zero convincing arguments for such an idea. The only view that makes sense, ESPECIALLY after hearing the arguments, is agnosticism, but atheism is also fair, for the "Go Big or Go Home" type among us.
Theist Vs Atheist Vote Bombing Contest

This debate is to discover what the users on debate.org prefer between atheism and theism and gives them to opportunity to vote bomb either one or the other, which is all in the name of good fun. I am a theist who believes God exists and also that there are good reasons and good arguments that strengthen that belief, I do not adhere to the idea that you can simply lack a belief in God once being presented with arguments, Especially as many arguments are unresolved. I believe the default position should be agnosticism and after further inquiry one should reach theism, not atheism. Bombs away folks.
Americans should be forced to wear name tags that say their name and weight.

This debate has gone by quickly. "They are humiliated, sure. But if they become humiliated by not only their peers, but the government, that will surely make them want to lose weight. Not to mention, they are having their weight beingg revealed to everyone around them, which I am sure will cause even more ridicule." Some people might not be motivated, and they would just become depressed or end up with eating disorders. We'd end up with just as many health problems as before the name tags. "Con, you have enlightened me. I had never realized that people in the overweight category could surpass those in both normal, obese, and underweight. I would like to amend one more statement of mine. The font in which their weight is displayed will be green if they are in normal or overweight, or red, if they are obese, morbidly obese, or underweight." What kind of debate is it if you just change all of your previous statements? "In conclusion, I believe that these name tags will save money in the long run, reduce overcrowding in trauma centers and hospitals, save lives, and create countless jobs. Yes, it may be harsh, but it's proven to be effective." If new weight centers are made, they wouldn't be able to make money unless tons of people were getting $500 fines for not going there. The government can't afford to pay all those workers. Name tags with people's name and weight is an unnecessary step to improve health. People deserve their privacy.
Americans should be forced to wear name tags that say their name and weight.

Wow, round three is upon us. "Not everyone can get the message. There are so many homeless people that cannot get mail and wouldn't be able to get appointments. " Con, you made a great point there. Unfortunately, homeless people would have to rely on word of mouth. I now would like to amend my previous statement and say that the first two time you're arrested, you get off free and are referred to the nearest weight center. Then the $500 penalties fall into place. "Aren't they already humiliated enough just by being overweight? " They are humiliated, sure. But if they become humiliated by not only their peers, but the government, that will surely make them want to lose weight. Not to mention, they are having their weight beingg revealed to everyone around them, which I am sure will cause even more ridicule. "The people who are just a bit overweight and "unhealthy" might not even be at risk according to a very recent study. " Con, you have enlightened me. I had never realized that people in the overweight category could surpass those in both normal, obese, and underweight. I would like to amend one more statement of mine. The font in which their weight is displayed will be green if they are in normal or overweight, or red, if they are obese, morbidly obese, or underweight. "Many obese people don't ever go out in public anyways, and if they do go out, they are already under enough pressure to lose weight. " I disagree, the more we pressure them, the more they are going to want to lose weight. In conclusion, I believe that these name tags will save money in the long run, reduce overcrowding in trauma centers and hospitals, save lives, and create countless jobs. Yes, it may be harsh, but it's proven to be effective.