BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The earth can look after itself

If it's "not a very good debate topic then why did you accept"? Anyway just to clarify, I am arguing that the earth does not need us humans to look after it. You are quite ignorant I can tell that by the way you said all the earth does is spin pfffftttt... The earth would get on quite fine if it wasn't for us humans, we pollute, we take, we use, we need, we want, we ruin, we spoil, we break, we try to fix... Argument 1) There would be no pollution if it wasn't for the human race.Therefore the earth would not need to recover from pollution and so on. Argument 2) The earth is perfectly capable of caring and looking after its self, you gave the example of a giant meteor hitting earth. So what? The only thing it would affect is us, not earth, the land in that articular area would grow around and over it, problem solve, no man needed. Argument 3) Erosion, pollution, destruction, all caused by us. Rivers would not erode and be polluted if it were't for our chemicals and heavy duty machinery. I rest my case...
Hardly Fair: A Silly School Dress Code Debate

"If the school is going to make a dress code, than they should make a better effort to enforce it, shouldn't they? No one should be able to slip through the cracks." I assume this statement is the "resolution" of this debate. And if so, then I disagree. Completely. Why SHOULD schools uniformly enforce their dress code? I'm personally against dress codes. They might be better than school uniforms, but still, if there's no law against it, I feel students should have the right to wear what they want. And look how they want. Heck, if a boy wants to come into school in a dress, all the power to him. And so if you (the readers) are also against dress codes, then you would also be against the enforcement of dress codes, for the same reasons you are against dress codes. Therefore, regardless if the school has a dress code or not, it shouldn't be enforced. If you (the other readers)are FOR dress codes, then here's why schools should not "make a better effort" to enforce their dress codes anyway: The School's dress code, and enforcement policy, were designed to be as effective as possible. While we might like to think that Schools are all powerful, let's face it, it's just not the case. The best enforcement policy is one that curtails some clothing styles while incurring the least level of resistance. A rigid enforcement of a strict school dress code could stir up unwanted controversy which distracts from teaching. It could also stir up enough controversy and resistance to render the code useless if too many students flaunt the dress code. So let schools enforce their dress codes as they see fit in order to make the dress code effective and respectable. -Hear me Roar!
Hardly Fair: A Silly School Dress Code Debate

Just a short while ago, I was innocently sitting in the cafeteria eating the excruciating and sorry excuse for a burger, when out of nowhere I expirienced a heat wave course through me. So in response, I took off my jacket for a moment and continued ingesting the disgusting meal. I wore beneath my jacket a light-blue shirt, which barely showed my, ehem, bra straps. But it was only a minute afterwards that one of the supervisors patrolling the cafeteria was on my back, demanding that I put my jacket back on. I did so with no argument, but as the supervisor walked away, a thought occured to me. What makes it justified for most girls to wear these short-shorts and very mini-mini skirts that barely conceal what so desperately should be concealed, but if another girl's bra-strap shows a little, it's to be rebuked? Why can some girls go through the day unprovoked about their wild dyed-black hair with pink and red and blue streaks throughout but a boy with slight facial hair is given a crappy disposable razor and a helping of shame and sent to the restroom to take care of that problem? Why doesn't anyone get onto the boys wearing hats with marajuana(sp?) leaves on the front and alchohol references all over a black t-shirt? If the school is going to make a dress code, than they should make a better effort to enforce it, shouldn't they? No one should be able to slip through the cracks.
If music piracy is not eliminated, the music industry will come to an end

If nothing stops piracy websites, piracy will grow. Eventually, such a large amount of people will steal music that record companies will give up on trying to sell it. There are no signs of piracy slowing down. And I don't think there's always going to be people who are just going to continue to buy music when free downloading it is easier. Why should people buy what they can get for free? They'll turn to piracy. There's a chance that a few people will stick to buying music, but it won't be enough. Yes, it exists now, and the industry is fine, but piracy will grow. If piracy didn't grow, there wouldn't be a huge problem and everything would continue the way it is today. But with nothing stopping it, almost no one will purchase music in the future causing a downfall in the music industry.
If music piracy is not eliminated, the music industry will come to an end

Rebuttals "Let's assume everyone listened to free music and musicians' only true money-making opportunity was performing. At first, the most popular artists would not suffer because of funding for their shows from the label. However, independent artists would disappear. ... (not copying whole thing because of character limit)"But the point is, NOT EVERYONE participates in piracy! Contention 1Not everyone participates in piracy. They still make money with the people who are not pirates.Contention 2 Piracy exists now, and the music industry is doing just fine.Conclusion This debate is such an epic fail that I do not feel like writing a conclusion.
If music piracy is not eliminated, the music industry will come to an end

Let's assume everyone listened to free music and musicians' only true money-making opportunity was performing. At first, the most popular artists would not suffer because of funding for their shows from the label. However, independent artists would disappear. Hypothetically, if a person wanted to make a living off of performing music with a limited budget, where would he get his money from? He can't record a song and sell it because no one will buy it. Yes, he can use a recorded song for "promotion," but he will have no money for equipment and other costs necessary for on-the-road performances. He can try to gain fans by performing in clubs, but it is very unlikely his career will go beyond the local music scene. Major labels only sign musicians who SELL a substantial amount of records, so after this generation of popular artists passes on, they will have nothing to look for. Labels will turn to using any random, talentless person and turning them into a star. This will upset listeners
If music piracy is not eliminated, the music industry will come to an end

I accept. You have the Burden of Proof. I will be arguing that music piracy will not end the entire music industry.Rebuttals "However, recorded music arguably generates the most revenue for popular and independent musical acts. It is estimated that 12.5 billion dollars are lost every year due to music piracy (1)."Will it end the entire music industry? No."One might argue that although music piracy eliminates profit made from recorded music, it supposedly helps generate "buzz" about a new artist causing live-show-revenue to increase. However, while major-label artists may easily make money from touring, most independent musicians don't have financial support from a record label. This eliminates their american dream and forces them to accept a different occupation to make a living (2)."But it will not end the ENTIRE music industry.ConclusionIf piracy is not eliminated, the music industry will continue.
If music piracy is not eliminated, the music industry will come to an end

Many musicians presently earn a living through many activities including performing, merchandising, and copyright royalties. However, recorded music arguably generates the most revenue for popular and independent musical acts. It is estimated that 12.5 billion dollars are lost every year due to music piracy (1). One might argue that although music piracy eliminates profit made from recorded music, it supposedly helps generate "buzz" about a new artist causing live-show-revenue to increase. However, while major-label artists may easily make money from touring, most independent musicians don't have financial support from a record label. This eliminates their american dream and forces them to accept a different occupation to make a living (2). (1) http://www.riaa.com... (2) http://riaa.com...
There is no such thing as a bad or good person in the moral sense.

What Con did in Round One Opened with an argument. What Con states Someone can be a good or bad person since come people genuinely think that they are bad or do bad at any given opportunity. The flaws in Con’s case1. Con only states that someone can think that they are bad but doesn’t state that they can also think they are good, why Con specifies only that they can think they are bad is left obscure.2. Con states that some people do bad whenever they can but hasn’t proven how this makes them a bad person. A person who does bad frequently is still fully capable of choosing to do good at any opportunity as well and that potential alone is why they can never be concluded to be bad or good.3. Con fails to ever explain how someone thinking they are good or bad makes them good or bad rather than mistaken. My case supporting the resolution Even if all actions and/or motives or a person were good or bad up to their death the only thing we conclude is that they died before they were able to do something that was the other thing. A person who did all-good in their life never had the opportunity after their death to then do all-bad from that point on and so it could be concluded that the only conclusion that we can ever draw about someone is his/her likelihood to enable good or bad things to happen rather than themselves be good or bad. Thus, if we want a safer bet for someone to help us to be doing the good thing, we would prefer to select someone who in the past seemed to do good more often than bad and the reverse is also true. Nonetheless, the is always the potential of the person to unpleasantly surprising us by either being a hero when we wanted them to do bad or being malicious when we expected them to do good. My alternate angle of reversed burden of proof Con has yet to prove that good or bad even exist or that there is even a valid system for distinguishing the two at all. This is necessary for them to win the debate.
There is no such thing as a bad or good person in the moral sense.

Three rounds of debating. First round solely for creation (on my part) and acceptance on Con's. In this debate, "Good" means morally correct and "Bad" means morally incorrect. The moral system at play is not clear as I believe this to be true for all moral systems of ethical reasoning. My outlook is that good and bad are applicable either to the actions or the motives of the actions of people that themselves are morally neutral and are merely catalysts in the moral equations at play. Con's outlook is that people themselves can be morally correct or incorrect based on either the actions they do or the motives behind them. If Con tries to take the approach that the person can have done more good or bad things and is therefore more good than bad or the opposite they are not disproving the resolution as they are agreeing that there is always the possibility of any human to do a bad or good act regardless of how high a proportion of their previous acts or motives were good or bad and this is actually my outlook as Pro.
You should not be given points for using sources on DDO

As this is the end of the debate, I should post nothing this round.But it should be noted that opponent justifies his R2 rebuttals of my R1 as "I broke the rules first" which is false. HE broke the rules first. Opponent seems to be doing nothing but finding everything wrong about my argument instead of noticing the flawed logic in his. I should note some other things:I fully capitalize my words to emphasize them. This isn't a s/g issue.Opponent makes spelling mistakes in R3 as well. "asources" and "shouw" to name two. Opponent also uses the incorrect form of "their", and states "I meant that they would use sources that may not be as reliable as there opponents." We both have had s/g issues. But what I can't stand is opponent's blind assumption that he is absolutely right and his arguments aren't flawed whatsoever.He spends the last round trying to woo over the voters and continues to state about my rules of breaking the debate structure, when I have shown that had I followed opponent's structure I would've been behind a whole round, giving him an unfair advantage. As well, he searches out my argument for my flaws, and fails to acknowledge his.Overall, this is a poor debate from both sides of the argument. This could've been done better by both parties. Conduct especially.I've nothing else to say. Voters, take every round into consideration and vote as you will.Thank you for the debate.
You should not be given points for using sources on DDO

As pro I believe that when voting on debate. org (using a 7 point system) no points should be given for the usage of sources. Just so my opponent is aware. I am not against the usage of sources. I just don't believe that a point should be awarded for this. Round 1 - Con may start his / her debate Round 2 - Main points and justifications Round 3 - Rebuttals Round 4 - Conclusion (con must leave this space blank - ie. forfeiture) Rules - No trolling - No forfeiture - Con must follow the debate structure All other basic, self explanatory rules apply (e. g no swearing).
Revisited: Communists and Nazis are polar opposites

Con is correct in saying that Communism does have the government loan land, money and other items to the people, so that it IS technically the government. But this is kind of like when a teacher gives a group of students a project, and then walks out the door and the students do whatever they want, isn't it? Fascism is the polar opposite of communism. I don't think it's off topic because clearly Hitler believed and supported a fascist government. And if Fascism is opposite to Communism, so would Nazism. The principles are same, aside from beliefs, such as Anti-Semitism and the master race. If the Communist governments are kind enough to loan people land, money and other items, then what would Nazism be? They grip wealth with an iron fist, and to be honest, only the rich can buy their way into the land. Any way you look at it, any angle, any direction, any side, the message is clear. Communism is like chalk and cheese to Nazism. No way would you ever have a world where BOTH could exist, with strong power, at the same time. One will and did kill off the other.
Revisited: Communists and Nazis are polar opposites

My opponent points to the fact that power is (seemingly) in opposite places with these two systems. It is true that in Nazism, power is centralized, usually lying with a chancellor, but with communism, it is a little bit more complicated. The power appears to be with the people, but that is not really the case. In communism, the government forcibly distributes land, power, and money to all citizens, thus meaning that the land and profit is not actually owned by the people, it is owned by the government and loaned to the people. In both systems, power is just a centralized. In both communism and Nazism, the main group of citizens has no say in their own government. Since the government unilaterally controls all of it's assets, there is no participation in the election or government process by the people. There isn't free market either, since markets are all controlled by the government. Fascism also, is not the polar opposite of communism, but that is getting off topic. Since this is the last round, I will finish everything up. Communism and extreme nationalized socialism do have several key differences, but there are not enough differences to consider them polar opposites. In fact, they can even be considered closer to the same thing than many other systems. Thank you to WorldWar2Debator for accepting this. It was a pleasure debating, and I look forward to our future encounters.
Revisited: Communists and Nazis are polar opposites

Both sides actually were pretty much chalk and cheese, aside from those obligatory statements posted by Con. What revolutionary political advancements have been made wait hot being aimed at frustration at something? Or risen from a time of apocalypse and need? These are necessary components, for which Communism and National Socialism would not be born without either. I'm going to focus on power. In communism, there was generally supposed to be power to the people, the peasants to the farmers to the proletariats and bourgeoise, the power was to the people. National Socialism, on the other hand, revolved around one man, a leader, an iron fist: Adolf Hitler. Also, one thing to remember: What previous political power did National Socialism build on? From the raised hand with, "Viva Il Duce" being shouted? That's right. Italian Fascism. And if Communism and Fascism aren't polar opposites, I don't know what is. Communism in Lenin's eyes were also not like that of Stalin. Stalin sought to make himself supreme leader of the Soviet Union, EXACTLY what Lenin wanted to avoid. LENIN wanted power toe people.
Revisited: Communists and Nazis are polar opposites

My opponent's argument has pointed out a few differences about the beginnings of these two political systems, but he has failed to give enough evidence to support that these two systems are polar opposites, as this is the topic of the debate. In fact, some of his own evidence can be used to refute his claims. He goes over a brief history of both Nazism and communism in order to show their differences, but in reality, he has shown how similar they are. Both started from the ashes of a near-totalitarian government, both were formed with a total reformation of government ideology, and both were formed to combat a recent injustice. (The treaty of Versailles for Germany, the tyranny of the Czars for Russia. My opponent has used the dislike between the Russian Communists and the German Nazis as evidence that these parties are opposites. Unfortunately, this is irrelevant to how different the parties are. At the time of the Chinese Communist Revolution, Russia had no interest in supporting Communist forces. [1] The Chinese communists and the Russian communists were only slightly different, and yet they could not get along. Thus, stating that two parties do not like each other has nothing to do with how different they are. The evidence in history still supports that, though different, communism and Nazism are not polar opposites. Sources: [1] https://www.marxists.org...
Revisited: Communists and Nazis are polar opposites

To first argue, let's revisit the definitions of the two political powers: Nazism/National Socialism: A political system which originated in Germany after World War 1 through a small group of nationalists, who seeked revenge using Anti-Semitism and the theory of a supreme Blue Eyes, Blonde haired Aryan Race. Popularised by Adolf Hitler. Communism: A political system which originated in Russia during World War 1 through a large group of people who seeked war on the Tsars. Popularised by Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. Now, we argue about the political stances and what they stood for. The Nazi party was a group of nationalists, seeking to better Germany, whose economy and unemployment situations were completely unacceptable. With over 6 million unemployed Germans by 1932, Adolf Hitler accepted the chancellery of Germany on January 30th, 1933. Meanwhile in Russia, the Communists, led by Lenin, had seeked to overthrow the Tsars, up communism as the new political power in Russia by force, and wanted to drag Russia out of the war the Communist's felt were pushed into by the Tsar, Nicholas II. So already, the early steps of both totalitarian dictatorships were, at that stage, completely opposite and seemingly never crossed. On the 23rd of August, Joachim Von Ribbentrop, then German Foreign Minister, flew to the then Soviet Union to make a pact. The pact would mean both sides promised, for the majority, two things: 1. The collaboration of German/Russian forces alike, meaning Russia and Germany would not attack each other, the thing Hitler most sought out. 2. To carve Poland into 2, with the Germans taking the west and Warsaw, the Russians with the East. So how was the pact seen by the two sides? German: A success. No longer will there be a Bolshevik chance of attack, and Poland will be ours. Russian: Confused. We get Poland, but Germany may or may not attack, and we don't get why Hitler wants a pact with us. Anyways, back to the ideologies. Hitler had despised Communism, as shown in the book he wrote in 1923, the famous Mein Kampf. Stalin noticed this, and underlined key passages in which Hitler would insult and put down communism, with quotes such as "Never forget the rulers of modern day Russia are barbarians, and they are the scum of humanity." So clearly, both sides despised each other very much. The National Socialists had wanted to claw Germany out of depression. The Communists wanted Russia out of the war and power to the people (Oh the irony *cough* Stalin *cough*). Did both sides want different goals? Yes. Did both sides despise each other? Yes. Did both sides have completely different beliefs of how to run their governments? YES! The evidence is clear, everything from ideals, goals and relations, the National Socialist party and Communists were like chalk and cheese. Completely opposite. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.differencebetween.net... http://www.economist.com... http://beforeitsnews.com... http://andersfloderus.com...
Revisited: Communists and Nazis are polar opposites

To start off, I would like to establish that political parties and economic systems are not arranged in a straight line as supposed by many. In stead, It can more be demonstrated with a circle or an oval. To the far left you have liberalism, and the right, conservatism. The top of the spectrum would represent anarchy, or the lack of government, and the bottom being totalitarianism with absolute rule of one ruler. Communism would fall just to the left of totalitarianism, while Nazism, or extreme socialism, can be found just to the right of totalitarianism. [1]* This model does put communism and Nazism at different sides of the spectrum, but not at polar opposites. Both have shown a strong tendency to collapse into totalitarianism because of the fact that all power within both of these systems is controlled and regulated by the government. In fact, the only things that separate communism and socialism is the presence of a head figure (such as a chancellor) in Nazism, and the presence of a share-all policy in communism. Many people assume the presence of a dictator in communism because their only knowledge of communism is Stalin's fake communism. (A perfect example of communism deteriorating into totalitarianism.) The world has barely seen true communism in its raw form. Pure Nazism has only been experienced by the world for a couple of decades, but like communism was tainted by totalitarianism. Therefore, while communism and Nazism have key differences, they cannot be considered polar opposites. Sources: [1] http://www.thoughtsaloud.com... * note - the diagram shown within my source is not perfect - it is not specific enough - but I hope it can help visualize what I am saying.