BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialism Is A Very Bad Idea

Let try to see what points you are trying to make 1. people have pride in land 2. i am right about energy 3. live like crap 4. there is unemployment 5. long medicine wait I think the answer is obvious, but what is better Land utilized to the fullest extent to have your food needs met You have pride in land Pride has never and never will be considered a need in any philosophy discussion. Why? Because the notion is absurd. Pride does not outweigh management of land. Good, so we agree we could save our planet by being socialist. I think that makes it a GOOD idea, don't you? You never give an reason why your life would be crap. Go to work. Get paid. Buy stuff. Have government provide your needs. The definition we have used for this round of socialism does not apply a decrease in quality of life. You just randomly bring that point up. I'm sorry this is the last round, but you have no warrant to that claim. There is unemployment. Um, no. Have you bothered an attempt to understand a socialist work center? The government will give you a job. Unemployment is limited only to those mentally or physically handicapped. So your argument, which is little more than a simple claim, falls short of any meaning. Where is your evidence for this? And don't say Canada. Because Canada is not an idea. We agreed to this. You want to break it? Look to China, very very low unemployment. Look to Socialist Germany (WWII) where unemployment dropped from 6 million to to somewhere in the thousands. Do not bring up examples we agreed not to use. So this is the what we have coming from this round. 1. Socialism utilizes land to the fullest 2. Makes people have no pride in land 3. Saves the energy crisis 4. Little unemployment 5. Medicine supplied All the other arguments in this round either relied on Socialism not simply being an idea, or made no sense, or had no reason why. As you can see, 4 out of the 5 show why Socialism is a good idea. And all 4 of them alone outweigh his argument. It is clear from this that Socialism is a good idea.
Socialism Is A Very Bad Idea

Sometimes, people take pride in something that is THEIR'S and no one else's, including land. The answer to the energy crisis... Could be, but WOULD YOU LIKE TO LIVE LIKE CRAP? I don't THINK SO!!! Unemployment. There is unemployment, AND LOW QUALITY OF LIFE WHILE BEING EMPLOYED!!! And back to the medicine problem. I'm tired of repeating myself, but YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOREVER TO GET IT!!! Your rebuttal?
Socialism Is A Very Bad Idea

So we are strictly talking ideas here? that's fine. So no examples of real-world countries private property "People should have a right to own and do anything that isn't illegal on their property. Otherwise, people would feel deprived." Not true. 1. John Locke, the real founder of our unalienable rights described life, liberty, and property. But Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers disagreed with property and changed it to pursuit of happiness. Why? Because we do not NEED property. 2. People wouldn't feel deprived. http://two.not2.org... Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Property is no where on there. We do not need it. We do not feel deprived means of production "The government telling other companies what to do would plunge them in to the ground." Why? Where is your logic. They could operate at a loss and the government would still support them. The government would supply materials they need. Tell me why they would be hurt. Socialism is bad "But would you like severely reduced rights? Yes or No? China is a fascist-state capitalist country. They just say their Communist. Otherwise, why would their economy be booming?" Which rights are severely reduced? Property. Like I said, property is not a right. Describe to me why we need property. China China China. Like you said up above, we are debating ideas. So please no use of countries. If you want to debate in actuality that is fine. But so far we have only used ideas. So I will ignore my China and Germany examples. SOCIALISM IS A GOOD IDEA This are all the things my opponent ignored 1. Land is not wasted, because it is used where needed. 2. answer to an energy crisis 3. help unemployment 4. supplies medicine Like I said, these were all ignored. My opponent has no real reason why socialism is a bad idea. I prove why socialism is a good idea
Socialism Is A Very Bad Idea

Socialism is a bad idea: Private Property: People should have a right to own and do anything that isn't illegal on their property. Otherwise, people would feel deprived. Means of Production: The government telling other companies what to do would plunge them in to the ground. Distribution of goods: The distribution of goods. You might get it, but the problem is you have to wait FOREVER to get the services or goods. For example, I have a friend in England that had a broken jaw from a bar fight and he had to drive from hospital to hospital waiting to get surgery. Is that how you want it? Socialism is Bad: Prosperity is good, I admit it. But would you like severely reduced rights? Yes or No? China is a fascist-state capitalist country. They just say their Communist. Otherwise, why would their economy be booming? Your rebuttal?
Socialism Is A Very Bad Idea

Socialism, defined by Webster's as: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. So I guess my question isn't going to be answered soon, so I will defend both sides and you can choose. SOCIALISM IS A VERY GOOD IDEA Socialism is very good for many reasons. One, all the bad examples you used don't apply. Why? Because this would be debated as an idea, and the effects it could have. As an idea, we simply argue if it makes sense or not. So lets take socialism apart piece by piece "collective or governmental ownership" This means that land is used however is need. If 100 people live in a socialist society, only room for 100 or so houses or built. Land is not wasted, because it is used where needed. "administration of the means of production" this is the answer to an energy crisis. The government can dictate to companies, Hey you need to use alternative energy for this. Or hey, you need to employ more people and less robotics. This idea allows the government to more effectively help unemployment and energy consumption. "distribution of goods" This is the best part for the people. You need medicine. The government will get it to you. You need a transplant, the government will give it to you. You need surgery, the government will give it to you. SOCIALISM IS GOOD first, apply all my arguments above. Now for evidence Nazi Germany was mainly socialist. When Hitler controlled the companies, unemployment decreased from 6 million to 302,000 http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... China is socialist These numbers are amazing. https://www.cia.gov... Basically, it says China has low unemployment, low percentage of poor people, high GDP, and low debts. A lot of exports. Amazing economy China is the world's economic powerhouse. Why wouldn't people want to live under a socialist economy?
should children under 12 have mobile phones.

It is not my point that mobile phones will make kids inactive or reluctant to do other things. It is my point that certain things can be found on a phone that are harming to the innocence and mindset of a child. Although it is true that children can get distracted by certain technologies in which time they could be doing other beneficial things. It is true that a phone would be handy or maybe more in a situation such as an emergency or if there is something important that needs to be discussed. However, the fact of the matter is that the chance of a serious accident happening is minuscule especially in the environment of a 12 year old or YOUNGER child, in which these children would either be at school, at home, or at the park being supervised by parents or a guardian. It is quite often the case that it is necessary for important things to be discussed over a mobile phone. However for a child 12 or younger the amount of IMPORTANT things that are to be discussed are miniscule. Children that age will not usually be given too many responsibilities in which case there will be nothing to discuss about. Because of the aforementioned statements, a 12 year old or younger child's possession of a phone and sim would be a waste of money. As to your point about kids learning about phones. Please clarify.
should children under 12 have mobile phones.

The latest studies, led by sir william stewart, will urge parents to take precautionary measures although there is proof that kids can be entertained by either playing games or studying and another fact is that 87% of Australian children would want to excersize while doing something fun. All kids should have phones incase of emergency's or accsedents or if there is something is important or you have forgoten something all kids would be able to call or text parents or gardians to help and what makes you think that kids wont learn from phones?
should children under 12 have mobile phones.

Thanks for this debate. My first and main point against this topic is that the use of mobile phones, especially ones that have internet connectivity, are extremely detrimental to a childs developement. There are many unsavory things that can be found through a phone such as pornography, violence and various forms of popular culture, all of which could corrupt a childs innocence and how they live their life from then on. Children as young as 12 are also usually irresponsible and may not value their possessions as much as their elders would. They would lose their phone, throw it around and drop it as they may be unable to comprehend its value. Phones are powerful tools in the way that they can cause mental harm to others, the act of doing so is called "Cyber Bullying." Quote from Wikipedia: Cyberbullying is the use of the Internet and related technologies to harm other people, in a deliberate, repeated, and hostile manner Children will not know the're effect on other people as they are relatively lacking in social sensitivity.
Guys thinking they can do things better than girls

So you think that girls can get beaten by guys be your small amount of examples?? The onlt reason people think guys are better at girls at basketball is because the people on NBA have had plenty of practice. No one really gives girls a chance because they think they are going to suck. See if it was the other way around and guys wouldn't be given a chance you would probably be as pissed off as us girls. And every other guy too. Its not fair that everyone thinks guys can do everything better. We can do everything just as well. And any girl could beat a male in martial arts if they tried. In your last argument you spoke about Marion Jones. If males were caught doing steroids I'm pretty sure that alot more of them would be sent to jail then females. I'm sure almost every wrestler on tv has taken steroids. Just go on Google and search for men who have taken steroids in sports. I bet you will find many. And as for the evidence for soccer and figure skating, its called watching tv! O o my gosh.
Guys thinking they can do things better than girls

The fact that some males take steroids is not a factor the adjustment of which will have consequences for our argument. After all, some females take steroids too (see Marion Jones), and the documented differences predate the steroid era. I don't know who gets "humongous muscles" in "two days," so you have an anecdote without even anecdotal evidence, double fallacy :D. Tennis: The last time top pros in tennis for each gender squared off, the male was really really old. Bring whoever ya want for a few matches against Roger Federer, I dare ya :D. swimming: I'm not familiar with the sport, any evidence that males and females of comparable tiers within their respective leagues have swam against one another with the females consistently coming out on top? Ice skating: Now I know that at least in the olympics, those are entirely separate events, so they haven't been compared. And unless you are talking about speed skating or hockey, the sport (figure skating) is entirely subjective in rating players (it relies upon judge's aesthetic opinions rather than achievement of a predetermined objective). "Grace" is not meaningful to me. If you think females are better at x sport in its totality, prove it. I don't know about badminton, but show me one woman who can beat one professional male fighter in any of the martial arts you mention. Just one. Pretty please. And then try and find the averages. All one has to do is watch the quality of play in NBA vs. WNBA to laugh at your basketball claims. Soccer I'm sure is more even, but there is still no evidence that girls would be "much better" than guys at it on the average. There is a trick in debating that I'm sure you'd find useful. It's called providing evidence. If you cannot deduce x from accepted premises, and you cannot get it by induction from evidence, you need not be making an argument about it.
Guys thinking they can do things better than girls

Just because you guys can play football better doesn't mean anything. And some of you take steriods which happens to be illegal but people still do it to get better at sports. And don't try to tell me that people get those humongous muscles from working out. It's impossible! Especially in two days. And many girls have been beating guys at sports like tennis, swimming, pro ice skating, which I am involved in myself and can say that girls are more graceful and have better balance at many sports and can play better. And our small figures let us do many more sports without being weighed down my huge muscles. Girls have also started beating guys at tae kwondo, judo, badmitten, and martial arts. The only other reason guys are beating us is because many girls are too afraid to join what may be called a "male sport" because people think they couldn't be good even though they could be much better at guys at it, for example, soccer and basketball. Even baseball, and if you consider this as a sport, archery.
Guys thinking they can do things better than girls

Girls are faster now? The mens world record for the 100 metre is 9.74s. The womens' is 10.49. For the mile: Men's is 3:43 (minutes and seconds), womens' is 4:12. Marathon: men's 2:04 (hours and minutes, womens is 2:15. You seem to want to limit the argument to physical capability (considering your "dodge" statement a fight perhaps... Overall in most categories men are on average and at the heights athletically superior. This says little about individuals of course.
Nelson Mandela is not as great as people make him up to be

I'll refrain from piling on additional accounts of Mandela's remarkable achievement. Pro has argued that Nelson Mandela's public achievements were less than admirable and that he is not the great man that his international reputation acclaims. To support the argument, Pro has offered a criticism from Winnie Mandela. However, Ms Mandela denies ever making such statements. Con argues that Nelson Mandela's achievements compare favorably with those of the American Founding Fathers and is well deserving of many heroic accolades. Thanks, voters, for your consideration.
Nelson Mandela is not as great as people make him up to be

I accept the challenge. I am new to DDO and this will be my first debate. I am somewhat hesitant, since the terms of the debate are subjective and relative. "Not much of a hero," for example, could apply to just about any person depending on how high you set the bar for 'hero'. Nevertheless, I'll trust Emmo to stick to rational, popular definitions of heroism, greatness, and the well-being of South Africans. It takes chutzpah to fly in the face of the popular, historic view of Mandela's contributions, especially in this time of international celebration for Mandela's legacy. I look forward to a fact-based and fair-minded debate.
All schools should have a dance for Jr. High/High school students

Loook mate, you are young so I don't expect you to understand the true art that is dance. Dance is a true art, it is the movement of the body to musical systems. It is philosophical. Pythagoras told us this. Our soul is musical, so to dance is to engaged in a soul act.Allowing kids to dance in high school degrades the art. Young people now a days aren't interested in furthering the Pythagorian soul art of dance, but just want to grind up on the man parts to express repressed sexual sexuality. This isn't soul art, it's an extension of soul art online. The kids and their stupid anime. They read their anime and go and grind against the soul. It degrades the soul and degrades dance.
All schools should have a dance for Jr. High/High school students

All students need to have a time to have fun with other students from their school. Why not start with charter schools? Charter schools, such as the one I am currently enrolled in, as no school dances. I would like to have some dances with my classmates to have a good time with them rather than just seeing them at school. This would help with friends. Personally, I know everyone in my grade, but other schools are bigger, and everyone doesn't know everyone. Why would a school not want the students not to have a good time when they are not learning? Students want that time to dance and have fun with their crushes, friends, and peers.
Transgenders who identify as Boys be allowed to join a Boy Scout Troop

I accept this Challenge. I'll explain my stance against having biologically born females joining the Boy Scouts of America. I hope this debate won't involve any insults, although your last post really doesn't put me at ease. I am a man of Science and fact. I believe that feelings will never trump science, which is what the large majority of any LGBTQ+ and SJW communities have been trying to do. When in reality there are only 2 genders, Male and Female. This being said, people are wanting to force an organization made for boys and young men and completely change it to fit around a group of girls who feel like they're men. They aren't unless they have that an XY chromosomes and a natural penis. People who have actual deformities are understandable but people who believe they are the opposite gender than what science has shown and proved are not right mentally. Why aren't girls wanting to change The Girl Scout of America rather than forcing another organization to change its members and doctrine?
Transgenders who identify as Boys be allowed to join a Boy Scout Troop

Transgender children who identify as males should DEFINITELY be let into a Boy Scout Troop. It is a boy scout troop not a biologically born boys troop. Many children who change genders do it because they aren't interested in what their original gender does or is classified as. If a biological girl wants to become a boy and join a boy scout troop, let him/her. They probably aren't interested in selling cookies and doing crafts (although that isn't all girl scouts do) should be able to join a BS Troop. Society is extremely messed up if they think that a male identified child should not join a BS Troop. Who cares what feces extruder part they were born with. So if anyone thinks that they shouldn't, you are a moldy chicken nugget stuffed in a wet sock that was made in an easy-bake oven!
Creation vs religion

Everyone chooses their own system of beliefs and rules that determine right from wrong. Some choose to follow the law of the land, some believe the Bible tells them right from wrong, some people believe that there is no right and wrong. It is our task to determine which (if any) combination of beliefs influence how we conduct ourselves in the world. A belief in the words of Jesus may imply a belief in His greatest commandment: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Taken as an axiom, the golden rule is an enormously powerful moral compass. You are free to read the Bible, the (similar) words of Buddha, the Constitution, numerous alternatives, and arrive at your own conclusions. Or you can choose accept another person's interpretation of what is written. It is valid to question your beliefs, for example, to examine your personal views on The Young Earth, The Ark, and Jesus' Sacrifice on the Cross. Prioritize the beliefs that are the most important, and decide how important Goliath and pork are to you personally. You can choose to Love God, Love your neighbor, and if you believe in Heaven and Hell--or even that there is a chance that there is a Heaven and Hell--you can consider prioritizing a belief that reduces the probability of you ending up in the one you'd rather not end up in. If you believe in the Fall of Man, then you believe that everything God created was good at one point in time, and at some time thereafter humans made a choice that resulted in the introduction of death into the world. Another alternative is to believe (as I do) that God created the cosmos and all of the mechanics that govern it, including the environment for life and death, and that all things came from God's intelligent design. God didn't appear to give us complete control over death, but it is something that we can influence. We can choose to follow the teachings of Jesus, we can choose to not trash this world He has left us in charge of, and we can choose what we do with our short life. God is good, not because He failed to create a world without death, but because He gave us our entire existence, a way to know Him, and the freedom to choose. I won't be able to argue with you on gay marriage, since I'm fairly confident I know what Jesus would do: love them, unconditionally. If we (heterosexuals) would do unto them as we would have them do unto us, we would fight for their rights as equals.
Creation vs religion

That's a good point if there was evidence there would be no test of faith, What I don't understand is how can you follow such strict rules and have un questionable faith in your religion when the world around us is so tragic, I no the bible claims god gave us free will but how do you explain natural disasters the kill thousands of poeple or disease and famon, if god was truly watching and is presumably A good creator why would he let it all happen, why wouldn't you choose to believe in a much more logical explanation that sience offers. Not to mention the bible constantly contridicks it's self for example "You shal not kill" but then there's the tale of David and galiaf ? So in a modern day senario if a small kid was getting bullied by a big kid at school would it be ok if the small kid climbed up to the roof and droppe a big rock on the bullies head and killed him? Or you shall be loyal to your master, even if your master wants you to commit sin? Also if the bible really is gods will, how was it allowed to be changed from the old testermant to the new one, everything in the bible has been sculpted around what is social excepted I.e the old testermant says you can't eat pork because it was belived to be dirty, but the science proved it was safe to eat, and suddenly they change the rules, I'm shore in X many years time gay marradge will be allowed because socity will except it and they will change the "rules" again It all seem so man mad there is both god like about any religion