BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If true Socialism can be implemented properly throughout the world, it is better than Capitalism

I already explained why the housing market crash was due to a socialist related program. Let me define socialism properly rather than how pro has defined it. Socialism is: The means of production are controlled by the state. This can be applied to varying degrees; from programs to the entire economy. Socialism causes a loss of freedom because the government ends up in control of the supply of food, housing, clothing, and also medicine. Taking resources from one person in an excessive manner with out due process of law is the same as theft. The government becomes no different than a thug sanctioned by a portion of the population to mug another portion of the population. It's based on petty jealousy and conspiratorial thinking. If you read some of what pro says; socialism is based on thinking the worst of our neighbors all in the name of justifying our theft of their property by means of the government. Socialism doesn't work because it circumvents the mechanism of price. Price serves as a natural mechanism to coordinate and balance all the sectors of the market and supply and demand. Price fixing throws this balance off and is usually a disaster. The fixing of the price of gas in the 1970's by President Nixon is an excellent example of this. Central planning doesn't work because it's impossible for people to have sufficient knowledge to properly coordinate the economy's supply and demand and to know just what the producers can and can't actually do. The farmer knows best what grows in his field and what doesn't. When a socialist planner tells him what to grow in order to fix an imbalance in the market it might not work because the farmers land or knowledge might night support the order. Profit motive is what drives a market. People don't do things for the benefit of everyone else. They do it for themselves and their family. The more a person stands to gain the better his performance is likely to be. While in theory socialism might be possible without tyranny in reality it comes out as a tyranny. It requires government interference because socialism is by definition control of the economy by the government. I wonder if pro fully understands what socialism is? As far as the negative things pro mentioned about the US for instance; we ended up bombing Japan because it was a tyranny not because we were. It would have cost vastly more lives to not use the bombs and we dropped leaflets on the areas and tried to warn people ahead of time what was coming. Further more, by way of comparison, capitalist societies will not have anywhere near the record of atrocities that socialist countries have. One of the reasons is simple. The capitalist countries can't. The people control much of the wealth and means of production. In socialism the government controls much of wealth and means of production which makes it easy for it to commit atrocities. It's easy, just take away the peoples food.
language is entirely relation based

Tea? What are you babbling about now you filthy whore? Just get it over with and bleach your insides. The world will be bettered by one less moronic cunt. I pity your children, that is, if that hole between your legs actually allowed admittance to a human member. I'd imagine your overused clit would simply chew up anything that came its way by now. Just stick to the streets you dirty bitch, they're much more accepting of a deficient IQ and a mouth that spits out more semen than logic. Kill yourself.
Declarations of war should be passed by the military, and only proposed by government, if necessary.

In my opponents rebuttal, he negated all of my points. However, I feel that he took them differently than I had meant. I am going to revamp my ideals and post them more specifically. I said that a military declaration of war would benefit the american people, while my opponent said otherwise since they were going to be the fighting the war. My point was to be that the military accepted the fight and possibility of death for the bettering of the country. Besides, they'd be the ones fighting it anyway, so saying it won't benefit them is false. It is a benefit by putting the choice in there hands. To unessesarily quote a game I once played, " Now is the time to choose. Die and live free of consequence, or live and fight your sorrow". FFX. This example may be a little bit out there, but I suppose it meets my point. They can choose, instead of having rich men who won't have to fight choosing for them. They have to fight either way, and we might as well give them the choice. Also, how I said that congress benefits from war, I meant with strengthened relations with foreign governments, not money for themselves. The everyday american has to pay for the war in taxes. If the cause is needed enough, they can make the sacrifice themselves. I also included in my explanation that this would help end wars just for the sake of politics. Lets look at Vietnam. We had no direct threat from them, but we chose to fight to help France and South Vietnam. Now lets look at WW2. We were attacked by Japan and then threatened by Germany. War should only be used to defend ourselves, not to help others. With the military deciding, they know what will come so they can make a clear choice when Congress can be biased. My last point was that this act would put war in the hands of the people. My opponent stated that this was absurd on the basis of such a small percentage of US citizens in the military. However, the military is not a tight group of people with the same thought frame, but a group formed by several people of different views. My brother for example is a navy seal. He is an everyday american. Congress, however, are an extremely small elite group of rich people that don't see the opinions of the american often, and when they do they take them differently it seems like. I have restated my points, I hope they are clearer. Peace, B***HES
Declarations of war should be passed by the military, and only proposed by government, if necessary.

Yea..... I believe that all wars should be declared by a vote in the branches of the military. With this being said, it can still be proposed by the president or congress. If 3/5 of the military votes for war, then war will be declared. This will ensure that the war is for the direct benefit of the american people instead of congress. If we look back, since WW2 most wars have been political instead of for the preservation of our lands. Votes in the military symbolize and ideolize the power of the everyday american to make decisions that Congress only has the power to now. Challenge if you want. This is a friendly debate, so don't insult me or things like that. I had an experience with that once. So yea, lets do this.
Moles are the greatest chefs in al of the land

My position is that moles are, at best, the third-to-fifth greatest chefs in all the land. My rationale for taking this position is primarily based on the well-known inconsistencies among mole who are chefs. A cursory survey of consumers of mole-prepared cuisine reveals an overall dissatisfaction with the quality of prepared dishes; many will report greatly enjoying a meal prepared by moles, only to be disappointed with subsequent meals prepared by the same moles. Complicated Italian dishes and courses requiring savory herbs, such as rosemary, are known to be particularly difficult for mole chefs to prepare consistently well. Additionally, though it cannot be denied that most mole chefs are quite adept at preparing cranberry pies (as my opponent has duly noted), the significance of this dish should be questioned when evaluating the import of the mole chef's ouvre. Most consumers surveyed greatly prefer the crab fritters of the tortoise chef to cranberry pie; a recent AP op-ed piece referenced a 2008 survey in which participants favored crab fritters to cranberry pie by a margin of almost 4.2 to 1. In brief, though the expertise and acumen of mole chefs is not to be dismissed, it is hardly sufficient support for the notion that they ae the greatest chefs in all the land.
Is World War 3 going to happen.

No, I do not think world War Three will happen, or at least anytime soon. The reasons for this are as follows: Different Times Nuclear weapons UN Starting off this debate with my argument against WW3 about how politics is much different to the early 20th century. With the knowledge of how terrible war can be, with more knowledge about the atrocities committed. Those who participated in the wars now would never just jump in to another one as it bankrupts countries and destroys their alliances. Secondly, nuclear weapons are a huge discouragement as if you declare war on someone they might just spark a nuclear conflict to destroy the world. So, any county worth their salt won't risk the world for a mere few kilometers of land or resources. The purpose of the UN is to prevent world conflicts and to this extent it has been successful. Unless a country is trying to go for absolute world domination, starting a global conflict would be a huge waste of time and resources as you would just be cut off by the outside world as shown by Germany in WW1 and Japan in WW2. In conclusion, anyone looking to start WW3 will not be successful as almost every country is not stupid. This is evident from modern politics, technology and alliances. That is why WW3 is not going to happen anytime soon.
should how to train your dragon have a fourth movie

httyd may be boring but that's just your opinion, There are lot's of people that find httyd a very interesting series, I remember for me, I was addicted to httyd a few years ago. Thinking on the director's side, It would be a good money-making opportunity since httyd is a very popular series no matter if it's good or bad. So please don't take my opponent's arguments seriously since they are all opinions(not to mention that it's not even a popular opinion), On my side, I have provided you with logic. Please consider carefully. . .
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

Ok in my opponents hypocritical statement she says I didn't acknowledge her arguments. However she did not respond to my last arguments either and they went unrebutted. For this reason vote con for my opponent was terribly hard for me to understand. Also she never correctly rebuted my arguments. This was very disappointing as I expected a great debate filled with sources. In conclusion my name is Brian N Johnson and this debate has hit a sad ending.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

What even? Just extend literally everything that I said.If you don't believe that books exist by some of the most famous philosophers of the 20th century, google it I guess? Your own ignorance of the facts doesn't mean that they are inherently false or something.Adolescents might be subject to influence, but this exists to attack the nuclear family ... rebel against power structures, and so on and so on.Deleuze and Guattari are not just people I made up. It'd be illegal for me to give their entire works for you to see on the internet, so I can't do that ... Vote aff since literally everything I said of worth was dropped from the get-go...
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

Okay you have no sources. You claim that because adolescents have personal liberty or freedom of choices (which is true for every living thing) that they should make their own medical choices. Your source is a book which I haven't read so I have no idea if such a book exists! Therfore that is an unaccurate and unsupported source. I have stated why it is up to the adults to make a desicision. If you want I could add some science in also. Adolescents are particularly sensitive and responsive to influence by friends, desires and emotions, researchers say. It"s one of the hallmarks of this stage in life. Teenagers often don't make the right choices. "A major reason why teenagers often respond to influences with irrational decisions is the presence of a brain chemical known as dopamine. The brain releases dopamine when something makes us feel good, whether it"s receiving a teacher"s compliment or finding a $20 bill. Dopamine levels in general peak during adolescence. In teenagers, the strength of this "feel good" response helps explain why they often give in to impulsive desires." https://student.societyforscience.org... If you want to talk Bible talk, "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord." https://www.biblegateway.com... In conclusion to this round it should be clear why adolescents shouldn't be allowed to independently make medical desicions. I look forward to my opponents response again.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

I concede your needless definitions. As for your question -- yes, but payment for them is specified in my 1AC.You don't have any framework (values/criterion), so you should just accept mine as the ultimate value for looking at today's round. Standford in the philosophy department defines ethical egoism, and I defined and explained nomadism through my Heckman 02 card. Free action upholds ethical egoism, and nomadism upholds free choice -- nomadism links directly to my dropped value.Basically, my case is using the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari in their books about the nature of the family and the individual. If we allow free choice to make decisions, we can rebel against the power structure and so on. Society in the status quo of not allowing free choice views individuals as devaints, and has forced cooperation - this is where Oedipus comes in.Defying parents through this free will is entirely good, I claim. Negation means affirming conformity and exploitation/hierarchies. This fascism, as Guattari coins in his books, will lead to us all dying.Okay, so your entire case is basically that it is good for parents to decide. But look to my case, you see that this power struggle is inherently flawed - this is the rule of exception through the use of Oedipus. All people (adolescents and adults alike) have personal liberty and can make personal choices to attack these power struggles, so while they may not know the entirety of their decisions' implications, this is the only way to attack the nuclear family! The parent does not know best -- they exist to attack the adolescent and continue the hierarchy that is inherently flawed.Thanks.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

Ok let's get on the right page than. You offered no definitions no round rules in the beginning round so I will do it my way. By your only claim in the debate that encouraged me to join. Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices. First I will start with definitions. Adolescents: "(of a young person) in the process of developing from a child into an adult."https://www.google.ca... Autonomous:"acting or able to act in accordance with rules and principles of one's own choosing." http://www.collinsdictionary.com... Medical:"Medical means relating to illness and injuries and to their treatment or prevention." http://www.collinsdictionary.com... So should all minors have the right to choose their own medical choices in all scenarios? The answer should be an obvious no for many reasons. 1. Not all children thoroughly understand how desicions may affect them later in life. https://depts.washington.edu... 2. It is a team effort for adolescents, between parents, doctors. Not just adolescents. https://depts.washington.edu... 3. The end decision is usually made by the legal guardian because they should understand what's best for their child. https://depts.washington.edu... I don't understand what exactly your are saying. I will have to ask you to stay on topic for this debate. I will rebute when your debate stance makes sense. I look forward to your response.
Life is not worth living, when you fear it more than death.

There is no reason to think with your heart, friend - use it to color your words, that are composed by your brain. Your heart is a personality, not a practical tool that analyzes, assesses and assimilates the encompassing variants of dispersed realities between us all, while advocated by one consequential ultimatum of realities. We live in different minds, experiences and states of moments, however we share the same absolute world where in our feelings and our thoughts do not align with the rules and physics of this Universe, itself. Use your brain - by feeling, you are not thinking; you are reacting. We are here to discuss points, not be disgusted by them. Let go, listen, lean in, and life will speak. As long as you are angry, personal, regressed towards your feelings, rather than practical focus points, this discussion will erode towards your heart, rather than the sea of stars of this cosmic totality. Your ego does not debate; it deconstructs to protect itself, your feelings and your own interests. You react to my debate, like you react to your enemies, your fears and your own defeats, weaknesses and hypocrisies. This is never a good sign of thinking, friend. Step into the darkness - let it define you; do not define it. You cannot change the other side of this world, where in death, evil, hatred and unnecessary despair thrives. Now, that being said, if you're going to oppose my points - do it with your brain, not your heart; do it with practical statements, not personal statements; do it with facts, not feelings. Alright, friend? This is a debate between you and I - let go of God, when you are here to work with reality. Make a reality out of your dreams; do not make dreams out of your reality. You cannot prove a personal God's existence; but for the sake of connectivity, let's just say your God, is my Universe. It is not being; it is not living; it is not thinking; it is becoming, just like us and bacteria. We are naive, not alive. We are benign, not being. "It" is the result of "everything that is". We will leave it at that; there's no reason for you to anthropomorphize this "God". There's not reason for you to argue with this "God". You have a brain, a voice and a system of collective consciousness... use it.
Life is not worth living, when you fear it more than death.

People do understand pressure, i understand the pressure of life. I know disobedience because i have disobeyed God, government rules, and parental authority, however i stand my ground that i shouldn't have because order brings goodness and well-being. Fearing a pitbull? Why should i fear an animal when it can bleed and die off just as i can? I'd say it's best if you make your own nature true from the start. I prefer danger that i can overcome in the worst circumstances, seeing or not seeing it is irrelevant. I agree, this world will forever be a thorn in our sides as many people, politicians, trolls, people who deserve punishment to the fullest aren't punished, but it all depends on your perspective. I wait a day when God will make all things right and execute absolute justice. Forget the gender roles, i accept my humanity. I've been hurt by alot of people, but temporary destruction brings new beginnings constantly. I understand that we humans fall short of our own standards and God's as i experienced myself. I committed so much wrong even though i said i wouldn't, that's why God is the only one worthy to judge man. There are things we can't change and there are things we can change. Let us change what we can and let God do the rest. This world is a hell, but at least we can allow God to put everything in place. We will face alot of hardships and circumstances that will seemingly hold us down, but it won't. We lie when we say "I will never do this or that again!.." Fear brings an illusion. Fear causes you to think of the worse case scenarios, but what do you do? What does any successful person do? Dive in..practice faith and courage. We take pain and become stronger. Strength builds character and character brings destiny. I would rather live overcoming circumstances and perfecting myself, fearing neither life or death because in the end, i will become what God called me to be...
Life is not worth living, when you fear it more than death.

The heart is reactive, hence it's consisted of electromagnetic waves greater than any area of the human body - the heart is where information is truly received, but how it is received depends on how the brain was built. You listen to your heart, while your brain is feared by you and neglected because it brings you grief; the brain tells us the truth about the reality we live in. You do not want to accept that truth, which is why you only use your heart, which is like only using paint, but having no picture made. It's a mess of colors that constantly overlap each other providing you nowhere. You only react - you don't create. You only become emotional, without any true sense of embrace. You only know how to hold on, not let go. You're still using the primitive part of your brain by not heeding the practical part; where in facts, evidence, objectivity, analysis, assessments, sensibility, duality, unbiased, inconsequential, and so on, exist. All of the above can be validated by simply going back to the point that you took my wall of thoughts and turned it into a premature session with your anger and emotional drama, which has nothing to do with how we live in fear in life more than death. This is not about you or your God - this is about actual life, and only life. So do not think that you can get away with debating with your heart, not your brain. It doesn't work with me; I was raised by a mother that is as angry and god-riddled as you are... I know your issues through and through. You will not taint the work, passion and effort I'd put into this debate with your irrelevant feelings. Drop the god. Drop the feelings. Drop the angst. Drop the reactions. Use your brain, and go back to my first post. Look at the points I made with your brain, not your heart that is guided very little by a brain that hasn't made it to adulthood due to being subjected to a lifetime of dwelling and emotional reactions that lead it nowhere. Frankly, nobody cares about your transient feelings. We're big brains on here - we are here to fight for a real cause and point out the real massive issues in the world. We're not here to throw tantrums about trivial matters, like what you are doing in my debate I put a lot of time and years to write as coherently as I did. Until you write a cohesive response, I shall pin this on you: "Can't make sense? Make noise." When you finally use your brain to draw real analysis based on the entirety of this Universe, not this small world of consciousness that exists solely because of the entirety of this Universe, I will remove the pin. Until then, I will not be tolerating another human being that doesn't understand how life works as the ocean as per the air pockets in the sea. Life is all about popping air pockets and reuniting the entire sea. Your own air pocket of a reality is only a weakness, friend. Learn how to bring the whole world in, not just this and that.