BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism is a better than capitalism

This is a short response to your argument. The faults brought forth in your argument are not false, but they are not sufficient evidence that Communism is bad. The examples you used were from the Soviet Union and China while they were under "Communist" regimes. But that is not applicable, the leaders in both of these countries acted more like dictators, have whatever they wanted done. They are not pure communist societies, which I what I am arguing for. That being said, points containing evidence relating to former "Communist" countries fail. To add to this, we can examine why did atrocious examples of communism fail? The answer is simple, capitalism. Capitalism is the sole root of why it failed. Capitalism took off in the 19th century, but it ended in catastrophe. The great depression was a result of capitalism, because the government could not intervene and it was left to the private sector in the beginning, like before and as it was beginning. Then the government took a play from the books of communism, and started providing aid for civilians. Much more humanitarian than capitalism... Starvation was brought up when refuting communism, but we all know that this happens in Africa and other third world continents/countries/states etc. People are in fact given more rights by communism. When communism is practiced, everyone is given purpose, they are given jobs, supplies and assurance in life. No one is left behind. Communism in its purest form is the best political ideology that can be used. Capitalism permits only a small margin of people to make out okay in the end. It permits discrimination, class division, sexism, and other forms of bigotry and unfairness. There are some fruits within it, but those fruits do not go to the people. For these reasons, I Affirm that Communism, in its purest form, is the best form of government that can be used.
Communism is a better than capitalism

My first point is Communism Destroys Health Care. Ambulances are joke under Communism. They are no staff, no emergency equipment of any kind, and arrived not just hours later but days. There are drivers who would stop on the way to the hospital to pick up hitchhikers in order to make extra money. Often the ambulance drove straight to the morgue. My second point is that under Communism the people have no incentive to work. Under communism people make the same no matter your job. Doctors make about the same as a McDonald's cashier. It is also bad for farmers. So, there are no crops because the farmers do not want to work hard due to the fact that they receive little payment. My third point is the examples of the countries that used communism- The Soviet Union and China. You can just look at the results of these countries and see that communism is not better than capitalism. The people in these countries starved to death and many innocent children died. The people are also mistreated under Communism. This does not happen with countries with capitalism. My fourth point is The communist system fails judicially. The justice system only favors the people in power. One man from Romania said "We had no due process, we were guilty until proven innocent. And the police was not there to protect us but to harass us. The communist system did not allow us to pray to God, believe in God, own a Bible, or have Bible studies in the home. It was against the law! Only in marriage, baptism, and death were we allowed to go to church. Funeral homes did not exist so churches were the logical places for last rites." As one can see communism is not better than capitalism. There is little to no freedom at all. Communism also fails economically. This same man from Romania also said "There were chronic shortages of everything because planning was done centrally by the communist apparatchiks who pretended to know what economics was. I remember being six years old and standing in line with my mom at 4 a.m. in frigid weather to buy one liter of milk, butter, and sour cream. Sometimes, when the store opened at 6 a.m., we were told that only 30 people in line would be lucky enough to buy that day because that is all the truck had brought in that morning. The rest of us had to go home empty-handed." So, as one can see communism fails economically. With communism in most cases people do not have the right to vote, and if they do there is only one candidate to vote for. There is also usually only one political party. So, the people have no say. This is completely different with capitalism. The people actually have a say in their government. I think I have made my point that communism is a disaster on every societal level and a failure in every country that has tried it. Even the few remaining communist countries are now beginning to move away from this failed model, yet the United States is charging full steam ahead. So, as one can see communism is a total disaster and is not better than capitalism. Source: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org...
Honda is the best atv on the market

First off, clarify your topic please. Honda is a company, a last name, and skating rink. I will assume that you intend Honda to be recognized as the automobile manufacturing company. ALso, please provide the definition of "best". Continuing on, Honda most certainly is not the best ATV on the market. For example, an issue of the Economist states that Honda motorcycles or ATV has the highest percentage of fatalities in accidents. This, in itself, should be a strong signal that Honda does not make the "best" ATV's on the market. Of course, we can conclude that the average human being, would consider safety first. SO, if you would like to have a high percentage of possible death, don't listen to me, commit suicide by buying the "best" ATV on the market: made by Honda.* * Notice that my sarcasm leaks through my brain to my fingers, spills all over my keyboard, and possibly, even leak into your brain.
Honda is the best atv on the market

i just wanted to start this to get this out, not really to debate, just for people to post comments on but i ride atv's all the time, unless i'm working or its on blocks and in my opinion honda is the best atv on the market my community does atv poker runs at least once a year to raise money for charity, i've seen almost every brand of atv and i will address them all, for the record out biggest ride was about 300 bikes honda: their not the most powerful or fastest but their quality is by far the best, i've seen one break down polaris: laughing stock, i don't even know why people buy them, they do have power, but in a few years you will rebuild the whole bike yamaha: a close second, they have very few problems, but its probably because most people don't keep them stock and try to modify them to much kawasaki: i don't see many of them, but what i do see are impressive, a tie for second can-am: i've only seen a few and they may beat honda on quality , but the price for a decent bike is ridiculous, their to pricey, but seeing less than a dozen, i can't say suzuki: i use to like them, but they'd be in third now, i've seen one give up after 400 miles on it, the store said it was to much to repair and they gave her a new bike arctic cat: i see them as much as kawasaki, and i'd put them in third with suzuki, they tend to have a lot of small problems that gets irritating and makes riding difficult i know their are die-hard brand fans, and i will say, i am too but i go by what i've seen and what i hear from other people and i do say bikes a lot, its out of habit, but i'm referring to atv's, but some people know them as quads, or four wheelers
Natural Selection's Limitations

Quite simply, natural selection describes the process by which organisms' traits are "selected" for their survival benefit. If a trait happens to be advantageous in its particular environment, the trait will remain in the future generations of offspring. If a trait is disadvantageous, then the trait will be "selected" against, thus removing it from the gene pool (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...). My point of contention arises when evolutionists claim that natural selection somehow contributes to their grand Darwinian theory of evolution. Natural selection in no way supports the idea that all organisms share a common ancestor, nor does it support the "tree of life" model. In order for an original simplified "blueprint" of an organism to evolve into the vast array of "blueprints" of varying complexity and diversity, novel structures derived from new genetic information must be created by some natural mechanism. No mechanism has yet been discovered which can conclusively satisfy this requirement. Natural selection, in fact, works against the evolution hypothesis in that it ultimately works to remove genetic information from a gene pool, not add to it. Natural selection is not a creative process nor does it produce anything new; it merely selects from pre-existing genes (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...). Through sexual reproduction, we observe a loss of genetic information in that the offspring only inherits half of the genes from mom and half of the genes from dad. For example, consider a human couple with only one child, where the mother had the AB blood group (meaning that she has both A and B alleles) and the father had the O blood group (both alleles are O and recessive). So the child would have either AO or BO alleles, so either the A or the B allele must be missing from the child’s genetic information. Thus, the child could not have the AB blood group, but would have either the A or the B blood group respectively. Consider the following simplistic example: In the above illustration we see that the genes for short and medium fur have been lost. In order for these traits to be once again exhibited in a population, they must be reintroduced through dogs which have these genes; the population of dogs cannot recreate these traits on their own. Herein lies the limitations to natural selection: as an unintelligent natural process, it cannot create new genetic information; it only works to select from already existing genes. I await your opening argument. . .
Natural Selection's Limitations

I'll argue that natural selection is completely capable of exhibiting changes on large a large scale and creating completely new traits within species. The notion that "traits" are selected is a misunderstanding of the nature of evolution. 'Novel structures' - My opponent has clarified this refers to a previously non-existent trait. His example of such being "scales to feathers". I wish the best of luck to my opponent and assume good faith on his part. Good luck!
THW ban space exploration

The debate will be in an Asian Parliamentary Debate style. The debate will have a total of 5 rounds. The 1st round will be a friendly introduction. In the 2nd round, each team will present main arguments. In the 3rd round, each team will provide rebuttals and several minor arguments. In the 4th round, each team will provide clashes in the debate and tell why they won. In the 5th round, each team will summarize the main points in the debate and tell why they won. Good luck, brianjustin3709!
THW ban space exploration

Well my opponent has not post 3 rounds which means that he should lose this debate and I win. He could not make any rebuttals, so I couldn't make clashes. Therefore I will tell you my 3 arguments.1. So my first argument is that it just takes a lot of time. For example lets see how far mars is. You have to go there in about 260 days!!! also this is just a lot of time and also there isn't many things to look at for astronauts. Only the rovers are doing this, so people aren't doing this. Also why do we need to know about other planets. We should just take care of OUR planet earth and should just make global warming exist. Also it takes about 9.5 years to go to Pluto. I think the earth and the economy will just find information and help Earth then just going to these discoveries of other Planets. For example when New Horizon it says that they went to Pluto at 2006 and came at 2015! Also with those information it will take 16 months to even send all the information back. So basically it is 10.4 months because 9.6 months and 16 months equal to 10.4 months. 2. My second argument is that It just takes a lot of money for these space discoveries.It says that the trip it self takes $25000 dollars and the space shuttle is about 450 million dollars. Also a space suit is 12 million dollars. All together it is about 462,025,000 dollars. That is a lot of money. And also we do not get 462,025,000 points of information from these missions. ( This is the average of the space shuttle, suit, and whole trip.)3. We didn't even explore all of Earth- We didn't even explore all of Antartica or some other places. We didn't even explore our planet, but why do we need to explore others?Also when Con made his arguments I rebutted them by saying that solar energy is expensive and we can use battery powered cars. Also I said that it is not for the economy because you pay for the explorations.
THW ban space exploration

I am very annoyed that My opponent has forfeited his round. Therefore, this is my rebuttalRebuttal1. First, Con did not rebut any of my arguments which make my arguements dropped.2. Now I will go on my rebuttals, First In Con's first argument which was that investment in space exploration leads to innovative technological development. Yes this is true, but also it costs a lot of money to have those things even if it has solar energy. Also many people don't have solar energy because it is very expensive, so this is just tons of money used for some good things which people don't really use. Also with the money you can help other ways to develop the environment. Also we have battery powered cars!!! They are much more cheaper and better than solar cars in many different ways.3. I Con's second argument which was that investment in space exploration leads to a good economy. How is it good for the economy when we are spending tremendous amounts of money? I strongly believe that countries should focus more on current problems on the Earth, such as pollution and poverty. They should invest to solve these problems, not try to find aliens or other planets in the Earth. Also they can find other jobs.Now I will make my minor argumentsArguments1. We didn't even explore all of Earth- We didn't even explore all of Antartica or some other places. We didn't even explore our planet, but why do we need to explore others?Now I will invite Con to the podium.
THW ban space exploration

Thanks for Con to make his first two arguments. First I will make my own argument then say my rebuttals.1. So my first argument is that it just takes a lot of time. For example lets see how far mars is. You have to go there in about 260 days!!! also this is just a lot of time and also there isn't many things to look at for astronauts. Only the rovers are doing this, so people aren't doing this. Also why do we need to know about other planets. We should just take care of OUR planet earth and should just make global warming exist. This is what Professor Crain Patten says, "How long does it take? It takes the Earth one year to orbit the Sun and it takes Mars about 1.9 years ( say 2 years for easy calculation ) to orbit the Sun. The elliptical orbit which carries you from Earth to Mars is longer than Earth's orbit, but shorter than Mars' orbit. Accordingly, we can estimate the time it would take to complete this orbit by averaging the lengths of Earth's orbit and Mars' orbit. Therefore, it would take about one and a half years to complete the elliptical orbit above ( solid and dashed parts! ). Since it would be nice to spend some time at Mars, we are only interested in the one way trip ( solid line ) which is half of the orbit, and would take half the time of the full orbit, or about nine months. So it takes nine months to get to Mars. It is possible to get to Mars in less time, but this would require you to burn your rocket engines longer, using more fuel. With current rocket technology, this isn't really feasible."Also it takes about 9.5 years to go to Pluto. I think the earth and the economy will just find information and help Earth then just going to these discoveries of other Planets. For example when New Horizon it says that they went to Pluto at 2006 and came at 2015! Also with those information it will take 16 months to even send all the information back. So basically it is 10.4 months because 9.6 months and 16 months equal to 10.4 months. 2. My second argument is that It just takes a lot of money for these space discoveries.It says that the trip it self takes $25000 dollars and the space shuttle is about 450 million dollars. Also a space suit is 12 million dollars. All together it is about 462,025,000 dollars. That is a lot of money. And also we do not get 462,025,000 points of information from these missions. ( This is the average of the space shuttle, suit, and whole trip.)Sources Used http://pluto.jhuapl.edu...http://www.space.com...https://www.nasa.gov... http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov... Now I would like to invite CON to the podium.
The following arguments against the existence of God are valid.

Existence - state of existing God - the Christian God valid - so constructed that all of the premises are properly sourced to be true, and all conclusions follow the premises so that they cannot be denied without contradiction All characteristics of the Christian God are to be up for debate. My opponent will present one to four separate arguments against the existence of God in this round, and they will be debated over in the next three rounds. I'm looking forward to a good debate here.
The following arguments against the existence of God are valid.

I tend to give words special definitions to make the debate's purpose more understandable. To go by my opponent's example, I would challenge somebody to a boxing match, but before anything else, I'd clarify that it would be with knives instead of gloves. If the person I challenge thinks a boxing match with knives would be cool, we'd carry on, but otherwise, he'd decline. Such can be applied to this debate. Although, I probably would not define Logic as "Tasting of cotton candy," and nobody would accept a debate if I did. I use the correct definition of "valid" elsewhere, but to prevent cheap arguments in this debate, a new definition of "valid" was necessary. As for the Bible as a source, it is naturally the most accurate source on the Christian God for this debate, being the Christian holy text. My opponent's confusion from "Almighty" assumes "mighty" to relate to being able to do something. However, "mighty" would more accurately be "strong." Therefore, the word would more accurately be "all strong" or "stronger than anything," as implied by the Omnipotent Type 5, Almighty [1]. The speculation on the implications of the Bible are actually part of the debate. My opponent's argument about free will centers, again, on the idea that the Almighty has no limits. However, this goes about the wrong implications of "Almighty." It does not assume limitless power, but simply more power than anything else. Additionally, one meaning of omnipotence specifically restricts a deity's capabilities by the rules that it sets for itself. Therefore, God is Almighty, but still restricts himself, and continues to follow the definitions of "omnipotent" and "Almighty." "So again, I say that the Christian God cannot exist as laid forth in the Bible. His powers are either too limited to grant him the title "Almighty" or his promise of free will is as empty and useless as an incorrect definition of valid. ;)" Both pieces of this contradiction are false. "Almighty" does not require a complete lack of limits on what God can do. A promise of free will is still free if given away freely. Just because my opponent claims that God may have the power to take back free will, does not mean that it isn't currently free will. Therefore, no contradiction, and no reason not to exist. As this was the only argument that my opponent carried over from Round 1, I have nothing more to address. There is no contradiction. Vote CON. And thank you, Ninjamommy, for your first debate on DDO. Good luck on your future debates. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The following arguments against the existence of God are valid.

I will first say that yes, I did construct the definition of "valid." However, it was only to ensure a debate with an actual purpose. If my opponent did not like my definition of "valid," and is unwilling to debate under such a definition, then she should not have accepted this debate. If she did, then she should not be complaining. She made the choice to accept the resolution and the definition used to describe the resolution. My opponent's definitions of "valid" are not relevant to this debate. We are debating about valid arguments, with valid meaning "so constructed that all of the premises are properly sourced to be true, and all conclusions follow the premises so that they cannot be denied without contradiction." The point was to ensure that arguments that would ordinarily be considered valid, but not sound, such as the unicorn argument, would have no place here, which they still don't, both violating this debate's definition of "valid" and the requirement for the arguments to be posted in Round 1. My opponent then asks for empirical evidence. However, sources do not have to be empirical. The first source used would likely be the Bible. Then, if one could put together an argument from pure logic, that's fine, but if the statement "The definition of this-or-this is that-or-that" is ever needed, an appropriate source would be used. "My opponent is correct- by their definition of valid, no one will be able to formulate a valid argument disproving the existence of the Christian God." I agree with this statement. However, there are many people who disagree, even with my own definition, as shown in this debate: http://www.debate.org... My opponent thinks that the debate is more aptly titled, "Disprove the existence of God empirically, or I win." It would be more appropriately named, "Sourcing all premises, logically conclude that the Christian God does not exist, or I win." People have attempted this, and will always attempt this. "This is an empty debate, which was what I hoped to illustrate at the very beginning. I think that if my opponent wins, since we are really debating nothing at all, it will be a very empty victory." Actually, my opponent was doing perfectly fine just a round ago. She merely had to defend her own arguments. The only thing that came in conflict with my own definition of "valid" was stating that the Bible has contradictions without actually sourcing such contradictions. So, a victory in this debate would not have been empty had my opponent chosen not to drop this debate like a rock. We can still continue this debate, which would be best.
The Christianity is a unique religion

so when I show you that your god has appeared THOUSANDS of times before Christ you simply say there is no proof they were written Before Christ...Or in essence you discredit the ENTIRE GREEK AND ROMAN history and religion...how typical...you have shown 0 I repeat 0 concrete evidences of god existing. This is a waste of time. You predicate you belief and Pre-predicated on unfalsifiable ideologies and ideas with a mixture of vague proofs like vague interpretations of the biblical predictions...That's legitimately all you do in this match and that's the truth