BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism doesn't work? Nor does Capitalism!

Capitalism fails as a system....In capitalism there must be an imbalance. This imbalance is often too great. The fact that the richest 1% own about 2/3 of the wealth is a staggering fact. Such disparity is proof of its failure. Although individual nations may be relatively succesful, other nations may fail. There is extreme disparity in the system. The reason communist nations fail so fast is because of the size of the system. Individual nations which prefer not to trade, collapse real fast. The capitalist system is large and international, taking much longer to fail. I was intending on posting more but I ran out of time....
Communism doesn't work? Nor does Capitalism!

First off, I just wanted to be clear on word usage. I interchange the free market and capitalism, since the free market is the philosophical foundation upon which capitalism was founded. The free market is ultimately unable to be attained, but the closest we can do is capitalism. Capitalism only works within special parameters though. There needs to be an enforcement of private property rights and there also has to be the upholding of contracts. These are the two main pillars for capitalism to work. Capitalism works only when both of these prerequisites are upheld. In many countries where we claim that capitalism does not work, it is because of the prior statements. One or both of those prerequisites are not sustained. If both of these are in place, capitalism works. Trade works. Prosperity will start to appear, but very slowly. Capitalism is not an n-sum game. If there is to be peace, we agree that it cannot only be for us, but for others too. For there to be prosperity, it must be prosperity for all. They both are general. It may take a long time to gain peace and prosperity, but prosperity for one means prosperity for another. That is why capitalism must work. People have to find their niche in the economy and by making mistakes, they learn. We learn that we are not good at things and that we are goods at other things. We focus and do what makes us the most profit. And when I say profit, I'm not just referring to money. We don't always have to have examples. We know things that we know because we know them. Nihilism collapses on itself. There are things that are absolute truths and we can know these certain things. We know that men will always do what is in their best interest. They may not always make the right decisions, but they always think that they are. If we follow the logic from certain truths, we are inevitably led to certain ends. My point is that there is nothing less than capitalism, free market, or communism. Systems will always lead to their ends. We are slowly leading to communism or else we are being led to capitalism. So, it is almost a mute point to argue that both systems fail. Just as a random sidebar, the word perfect is relative. There are several meanings behind ‘perfect' and it is a totally other debate. But I would agree that capitalism is not perfect, but it is the best we have to work with.
Communism doesn't work? Nor does Capitalism!

Often times when I discuss communism I hear the argument "communism doesn't work!" I find that concept very interesting and in fact I think I agree with it but I want to present to you another interesting idea. Capitalism does not work. Then they go on to say, "name one successful communist country." "There are none." Recently when I got the idea and presented it to some friends. They repeated some things. "Look at the US." "The US is successful as well as Europe." "But capitalism still works better"..... My point is that although communist nations fail, the capitalist SYSTEM also fails. Let me explain. The US is an example of a successful capitalist nation, it has accomplished amazing things. It's economic success is at the price of other nations which have a large struggling population. The topic to debate is whether capitalism fails not whether capitalism or communism is better then the other. I will bring up other points in another round after seeing where the debate is heading. Let's have fun! Also, by fail I do not mean it is imperfect because perfection is impossible....
What God made in Gensis is entirely accurate to what actually exists

The Water AboveI thought I'd end up dismissing this contention after Pros initial rebuttal, but I figured it could wait another round. At this point, I'd be flat-out lying if I said Pro's interpretation were not consistent with reality. But I agree that it's reasonable to infer the creation of other planets. As such, while I remain unconvinced that this interpretation is reflective of what the writers meant, I dismiss this contention. I also dismiss the contention concerning the Sun, Moon, and stars being in the Earth's atmosphere, as it is strongly tied to this contention.MoonlightI realize my analogy wasn't completely applicable, as no one (to my knowledge) can make a basketball materialize in their hand. Regardless, it was only meant to be relatable. In the context it's related to, if the ball is a ray of light, the floor is the Moon, and the shooter is Sun, then yes, the shooter would be the source.But, I'll try again and give you a much more applicable analogy. There's a lamp on an end table in my living room. Light reflects off of the table the same way it does with Moon. But if I were to turn off the lamp, without doing anything to the table, there would be no more light. So I ask you, is my end table a source of light as well?No light comes from the Moon. The light is simply redirected because the Moon is in it's path. But, if the Sun didn't exist (and somehow the rest of our galaxy did) then there would be no light reaching us because of the Moon, as the Moon is not a source of light. If it we were to consider the Moon a source of light because it's reflecting light, then we must also consider everything that's visible to be a light source as well, for that is how we see objects. Simply put, light reflects off of them, and registers within our eyes. So, according to Pro, everything anyone has ever seen is, or at least was, a light source. I very much disagree with that.
What God made in Gensis is entirely accurate to what actually exists

Thanks to Con for a polite rebuttal. Waters Above “There is still the question of why there are parts of of these objects that are not water, as Genesis makes no mention of anything other than water.” Well Con, that's not entirely true. Genesis describes planet earth being made out of water. Remember how God made a bunch of water, then separated it into 2 bodies of water by making a vault between them? “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” (4) Then, he created earth by turning one of the bodies of water into dry land: “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”(5) Note that God obviously didn't turn all of the “water under the sky” into dry land... he left some of it to be oceans. How much of earth was left as water to be oceans? 70%: The same percentage as Neptune that is H20. So you see, even though Genesis doesn't explicitly describe God creating planets and comets out of the “waters above”, it's very reasonable to assume he did. Interestingly, your source (which you're aware supports my position!) begins by saying, “Water really is everywhere.”(6) So that should solve your original dilemma, which was basically “where the heck is all this water now?” =D Moonlight Con disagrees that the moon is a source of light. According to his basketball analogy, a rebound doesn't mean that the goal is the source of the shot, and the person shooting is actually the source. However, Con accidentally misrepresents his own analogy! :O We are comparing light to the basketball, not light to a basketall shot! This means that, in the case of a rebound, the backboard actually is the source of the basketball, since, in accord with Google's definition, the basketball came from the backboard. I challenge Con to argue that the basketball doesn't come from the backboard in a rebound ;) Now, Con may still try to argue that the source of the ball is the person shooting it, even in this case. Were Con to argue that perspective, I would have to point out that Con is partly right: the person shooting is also a source of the ball. However, if you want to trace the ball's history even further back, the store where the person bought the basketball is the source, too! You could even go further, and explain that the company which produced the ball is the source. So you see, the moon truly is a source of light. Atmosphere Con doesn't seem to actually be arguing that Genesis is inconsistent with reality here, so I'll leave this point for him to clarify. (4) Genesis 1:6 (5) Genesis 1:9 (6) http://www.universetoday.com...
What God made in Gensis is entirely accurate to what actually exists

My commendations to Pro for a very well thought out and interesting response. The Water AboveI must say, my contentions concerning the "water above" have been greatly diminished. When I said space, I was actually referring to the vacuum, but that does separate the Earth from comets, asteroids, other planets and whatever else may be considered "the water above". I admit, this interpretation is closer to an accurate description of reality than I expected to receive. However, As Pro says, these things are made mostly of water. There is still the question of why there are parts of of these objects that are not water, as Genesis makes no mention of anything other than water. (Interestingly, I did find several articles about a MASSIVE body of water found in outer space. Apparently, it's at least 140 trillion times the amount of water on Earth. Here's a link to one if you're curious about it: ( http://www.universetoday.com... ) As to radioactive materials decaying faster, I would think higher levels of radiation would cause them to decay slower if anything, much like a wet towel would dry out slower due to an increase in humidity. Admittedly, this assertion is nothing more than my own thoughts, as I've never studied radioactive decay, but I felt like mentioning it none-the-less. The Greater and Lesser LightsI very much disagree with Pro concerning the Moon as a source of light, as it doesn't really come from the Moon at all, but simply bounces off of it. Similarly, in Pros analogy, he doesn't really come from his bed or his bedroom, but instead continues on from them, as they are simply a stopping point on his path.I would relate this to playing basketball, and attempting a bounce shot, throwing it at the floor to bounce it into the basket. But we wouldn't say the floor is attempting to make the shot, that the floor is the source of the shot, would we? Of course not! The shooter would still be the source of shot, much like the Sun would still be the source of the light after it bounces off of the Moon. "That's not really true. The sun, moon, and stars do not appear to be in earth's atmosphere regardless of what you believe! This is because clouds obviously get between us and them." - ProWhile it's true the clouds are between us and them, this just means the Sun, Moon, and stars are further from us than the clouds. This alone is not enough to know that the moon is really hundreds of thousands of miles further than the clouds, or that Sun is ~800 times further than that. Nor is observation alone enough to determine how far past the clouds the Earth's atmosphere extends. So I must disagree that the clouds being closer to us than the Sun, Moon, and stars would prevent one from thinking they were all within the Earth's atmosphere without additional knowledge to the contrary.
Ronald McDonald is a Bad mascot for McDonalds

Well there are a lot of better alternatives than using a clown as a mascot. My opponent suggested a frog and I think a frog is great idea. Three alternatives to a clown like Ronald McDonald I now know are: 1.A frog 2.An elephant 3.A star Again I will mention that SavioDSilva asked over 10 Thousand people in over 20 different countries about what they fear most and these are their answers. The people that took part in this massive survey came from all over the world and fear of frogs, elephants and stars did not appear as phobias at all. [1] Very good thinking MitchyMill It's unknown why McDonalds still use Ronald McDonald. Possible reasons could be because they haven't noticed how bad he is or that they can't be bothered to remove him, we may never know for sure. If McDonalds see this debate they may change Ronald McDonald to a frog after all. However judging from my opponent's last round it appears he conceded defeat in this debate, so I ask voters to vote PRO. I thank you very much MitchyMill for being part of this debate, it's been nice to meet you and maybe soon we will see the end of Ronald McDonald. There is just one question I would like to ask you MitchyMill, out of Ronald McDonald, The King and Colonel Sanders which one would you prefer to have as your mascot if you had to choose one of them? Sources: [1] http://www.saviodsilva.net...
Ronald McDonald is a Bad mascot for McDonalds

Oh wow, i wasn't aware that Ronald's image was used so infrequently. I should have researched. I was just arguing from the point of view of the company. So i could guess why they wouldn't change it if he's such a bad mascot. I assumed that the benefit from changing the mascot wasn't worth the cost of modifying all of their products, since they haven't changed him at all. I can't think of any excuse why they wouldn't change him if it actually is more profitable (both in respect and money). Since McDonald's is so successful, i assumed they had a crack team of advisers who've talked about this issue before. From what you're telling me they seem to be shutting Ronald out instead of changing him. I completely agree that's not better than modifying him to try to hinder anymore Ronald publicity. I haven't even been to a McDonald's in over a year since i started eating more carefully, if i was aware of these facts i probably wouldn't have taken the debate. Oh well, my mistake. Good arguments, i really enjoyed this! Maybe they'll change Ronald to a Frog or something.
Ronald McDonald is a Bad mascot for McDonalds

Sorry about my mistake Anyway, I agree for the most part about number 1, McDonald's could have picked a mascot that doesn't spark any known phobias when they first opened. However, I'm assuming that McDonald's influences for keeping the Clown mascot despite the evidence of phobia, is that they must think that the money is would cost to change a mascot for a multi-billion dollar company, far outweighs appealing to people who fear clowns. What Ronald represents to the company (again, I'm guessing the company's motives) is their original idea of an affordable family-friendly restaurant, rather than what it is today. Even if the Coulrophobic crowd thinks otherwise. To put in my own opinion, i am going to trust that if McDonald's knew that Ronald was so unfavored by customers that it was costing it profits to the point where changing their mascot, they would. McDonald's probably has the best financial advisers in the world. To move on to number 2, considering that McDonald's is a Global company. Known for supposedly causing obesity, trashing lands, killing cows, and even has documentaries criticizing it (i.e. Morgan Spurlock's "Super-size Me"). So i feel that Ronald's role in McDonald's reputation is small compared to what a listed. "It's true he is the most well known mascot in the world but that doesn't make him an ideal choice at all. The truth is Ronald McDonald is arguable the most ridiculed mascot in the world because of his clown, childish, silly and immature characteristics and this is bad for the company's reputation." I feel that he is the most ridiculed mascot in the world not only what i listed above but because he is the "most well known mascot in the world". The criticisms of McDonald's are due to it's actions, Ronald (since he represents McDonald's) is inevitably going to be the symbol of this. Changing him does not seem likely to change consequences of McDonald's past actions, it would probably just cost them more money, and effort.
Ronald McDonald is a Bad mascot for McDonalds

Well, I'm not sure what's so bad about him. Clowns are associated with being fun, silly, and friendly. Which are all things that children enjoy. His costume is bright and inviting, and he is typically plying with kids in his commercials. All of these seem to be good. I don't know what else would be better, most mascots that appeal to younger audiences tend to be what i listed above. Either the company won't replace Ronald McDonald because he's been identified with the company since it first opened, or they feel he is a successful mascot. I think it is both.
Ronald McDonald is a Bad mascot for McDonalds

This debate is about the fast food restaurant McDonald's, well known mascot Ronald McDonald. Pictured here: . http://www.bemagazine.org... I will argue that Ronald McDonald is unsatisfactory and a bad choice of a mascot for McDonald's and could be replaced with something better. However my opponent will have to do the opposite, and argue that Ronald McDonald is satisfactory and a good choice of a mascot for McDonald's to have. I am going to make 1 simple rule in this debate which is that Round 1 is JUST for introductions. I and my opponent will start arguing in the second round.
Should the government Lower the age of people able to obtain their drivers permit / license

Adults have to multitask while driving because they are driving. However, adults have more experience and can multitask way better than kids do. We also seem to have a contradiction between statistics, however my source was from the Center for Disease Control. Also you say teens contribute 8% of motor vehicle deaths. However, the injuries contributed is, like I said before, 30% for male teens and 28% for female teens. The reason why 16 year olds have the largest crash rate is because that is the first year you are permitted to drive, so they are inexperienced. If the first year you are permitted to drive is 15, the 15 year old crash rate would surpass the 16 year olds because the 15 year olds would be even less experienced.
Should the government Lower the age of people able to obtain their drivers permit / license

Also good luck... But its not just teens that causes accidents and not all children are irresponsible. But teens only accounted for 8 percent of motor vehicle deaths, As a behind the wheel driver, and 10 percent of deaths in the passenger seat. Now there isn't a large gap in between these two statistics. But parents driving also have to multi task. Leaving kids in more danger. Quoted from www.do something.org "16 year olds have the highest crash rates than any other age"so that means the first year 16 year olds drive they are more likely to crash in New York than a 15 year old driving in Virginia. Quoted from www.drowsydriving.org it states that a little more than 1 third of adult drivers had a collision or came close to one. Which is 103m
Should the government Lower the age of people able to obtain their drivers permit / license

Even with "proper training" they get into a lot more fatal accidents than adults. According to cdc. gov male teens make up 30% of total costs in motor vehicle injuries among males, and females make up 28% motor vehicle injuries among females. These kids get the proper education, however once they are thrown into a real world situation they are young and make unreasonable choices. 14+ kids would be even worse considering that these kids just finished (or are in) middle school and they don't have much experience compared to adults.
Should the government Lower the age of people able to obtain their drivers permit / license

I think younger kids should be able to drive. 1. Special test should be giving out to younger teens that are of age 14+ to obtain a drivers permit and 17+ to obtain a license. Now I say this because kids always wanted to drive. With the right help we may be able to get them onto the streets learning how to properly drive. Any person(s) that has a good IQ level and vision should be valid. 2. Children break the law everyday just to drive. And driving without proper training will be fatal. Teens should be more responsible and active. If a child can hold a gun with a permit why shouldn't they be able to drive to and from school.
Republicans are not "racist" as the left claims them to be.

Many thanks to CON for challenging me in a debate. I wish him the absolute best of luck. This debate, as I stated above will be about debunking the stereotypes of the Republican party being the party of racists. ArgumentsLet's take a look back at history shall we? The Republican party was founded on anti-slavery activists in 1854, in the Northern states opposing slavery. The Republican party's ideology and slogan was: Free man, free labor, and free land. The Republican party is indeed, the party that ended slavery, segregation, and made it so African-Americans had rights to vote. Our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, elected in 1860, opposed slavery and as a lawyer before his presidency, fought in the North to defend African -Americans from being slaves. Yes, this may be a long time ago, but it is always important to remember what history is in the Republican Party in a debate about this. We must realize, racism unfortunately, is still around, and yes you do not have to be a Republican to be racist. In fact, I know a few more Democrats who are indeed racist than Republicans. You have people who are racist in every party, but I am stating that the Republican party is far from racist and disliking minorities. It seems that the party gets wrongly stereotyped as being racist, but if so, how come the Republican party has African-Americans, Mexicans, Asians, Indians, and Native Americans members and voters? I am prepared to debunk your statements and arguments on what you have said in the last debate. As a Conservative Republican, I can tell you and anyone watching this debate that the Republican Party is far from what is being stereotyped, and as a Native American non white, I get treated by people in my own party the way they do anyone else and no different. As to your statement saying "The Republican Party targets minority voters" Is false. What they dislike is illegal immigrants voting. Because, they are not a United States citizen. The law is you must be a U. S. citizen. The law is the law, and they are expected to be follow the law. With illegal immigrant voting, is voter fraud. Closing ArgumentsThe Republican party, is very mislead. Often times people stereotype them as "old", "rich", "white", "racist", and "hates minorities". Let's look at people who who are non white, who claim to be Republicans, and are not Democratic. The Republican party does not have racist leaderships, because of the fact that many members of their party are non whites and is getting more diverse. I will save my other arguments for my next debate round and debunk what CON arguments on the Republican Party's "racist leaderships" and targets minorities.