BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
elitism leads to barbarism

The US is a prime situation in which the select elite are able to manipulate and influence laws and economies, although some form of 'sovereignty' may be intact their need to appease corporations has led to absolutely absurd laws such as the Citizens United Vs Federal Election Commission and the more recent law McCutcheon Vs FEC. to be passed. the reason these laws have past is a combination of the Elite's power and the lack of morals within the US government which has reduced the ability of the common man to influence decisions by the elite and thus leads us back onto the same slippery slope. It is also often the case that regulatory checks of multinational corporations have been overlooked simply because they have money and are nourishing the economy. The Wall Street investors who bet on there own shares and create more bubbles than a bubble bath are also affecting employment, inflation and generally the ability of people to live and yet they manage to live there life carefree because of the amount of influence they have within political parties. A legitimate democracy where there was no elite to influence the outcome would allow for better cohesion between the representatives (who are not elite) and the working man. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
elitism leads to barbarism

An economic system in which everyone is given a fair share of resources with the absent of an elite would be Communism, however as history has followed there must still be a governing state or an elite. An economic system in which there is an elite and the commoner is Capitalism. It's no doubt that in either economic system cruel actions are found. In capitalistic societies the elite which is separated into different businesses tend to abuse their workers and the workers want less work and more pay creating an agonizing relationship. In communist societies the workers are not productive and the Communist party has control over all the production. U.S., a capitalistic nation however granted worker unions and laws to protect the common man. Since businesses are owned by different enterprises, workers could choose a better business to work under. The level of barbarism is limited and in comparison to how the Communist party treats their workers, barbarism does not exist in the U.S. because it has elevated to the point in which people did not experience cruelty because they were capable of fighting back or choosing to work under the boss of their choice. Sources: http://www.sjsu.edu... http://barefootbum.blogspot.com... https://www.google.com...
elitism leads to barbarism

Definitions Elitism - 1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite. 2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group. Barbarism- 1. a barbarous or uncivilized state or condition. 2. a barbarous act; something belonging to or befitting a barbarous condition. 3.the use in a language of forms or constructions felt by some to be undesirably alien to the established standards of the language. uncivilized 1. (of a place or people) not socially, culturally, or morally advanced. Elitism as stated is where the elite rule, Who are the elite? in this case they are the rich and wealthy. Who do they rule? everyone. How? either directly as bosses enforcing regulation and policies on employees or indirectly by subtly influencing a country's economy for there own benefit and by providing commodities/services to the general public. The language of the Elite and Non-Elite can often differ by significant amounts due to different ancestry leading to isolation within groups, causing both groups to become alienated by the other and thus decide to stay within the confines of there own society essentially forming "tribes". This isolation leads to a lack if empathy; when the Non-elite see the elite in luxurious houses and gaining a superior education with all facilities at hand it leads to anger and disgust. These emotions are equally shared when the elite watch as the Non-elite 'fight for' a better living. As the Elite are in control, due to there lack of emotion for the common man they exploit them even further through cheaper wages and harsher living conditions which they control through there vast amount of wealth - all for the benefit of gaining even more profit. This in turn leads to the "Slippery slope" effect. As the Non-elite descend through the stages of civilization into barbarism due to lack of sufficient and sanitary goods and education the Elite prosper at there expense. However, when the the non-elite are reduced to essentially inanimate humans the Elite suffer as a result as they depend on the menial workforce of the common man - this causes someone else to fill in for the common man and thus the same division occurs within the elite until eventually everyone is reduced to an insignificant combination of cells. To recapitulate, at first barbarism is subjective to the society you live in which for the non-elite's case eventually leads to a deterioration of living standards and consequently the breakdown of each society as a result of the other. Sources: https://www.google.co.uk... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Policy Debate 2011-2012 Resolution

The 2011-2012 Resolution is Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase exploration and/or development of space beyond the mesosphere. I want to debate my plan: "The USFG should commit to the commercial development and deployment of space based solar power satellites in Sub-Molniya orbits and utilize Fresnal lenses to concentrate solar energy for a High Concentration Photovoltaic power system. " I want to work on my case one last time before the new resolution so this will be just like a regular high school debate but with only one constructive and one rebuttal and with a summary at the end. No harrasment or semantics and if you do not know the policy debate jargon, kindly DO NOT vote (it would take up too much time to explain all the words in the debate). If you will vote, please do not vote on sources (date, credibility, etc. ) and presentation of arguments (grammar, punctuation, how the font looks, etc. ). Thank you.
Policy Debate 2011-2012 Resolution

Inherency- I did read it but I didn't know what it went under. We have the tech so that knocks out the inherency. Why you may ask? It's because we have it already, and not only that but he admits in his last round that we have the tech. Hold on let me find it. They both say that the tech exists and our inherent barrier is that we just haven't put it together yet. There he admits we have the tech.Solvency/ debris-He just goes and says no link or brink. Well my friends I brought this up in my last round. He claims it destroys space debris, but something can't be entirerly destroyed insteed he just shatters it into millions of pieces. So it just makes it harder to put stuff into space including humans.Advantages- >>)
Policy Debate 2011-2012 Resolution

1. InherencyJust a quick question what's your inherent barrier? My oppent here doesn't have a plan text and in policy you need a plan text to tell the judge what and how much and where your getting the $ and how you're doing it. Without it my opponet has absolutly nothing. He's/ She's up there just posting cards on the internet. One of the rules of inherency is it hasn't happend yet but in this case it has. So therefore my opponet has no inherency and no plan text. Next of my opponet doesn't have any inherency cards at all and in debate there are the stock issues of Inherency, Solvency, and then Advantages. My opponet doesn't have a single inherency card.2. I aways do this to by my time. Some team at state dropped topicality like this so I aways bring it up.3. Solvency- My opponet has no solvency in the first round and in policy that again is a key issue as I brought up in #1. You can't solve anything without solvency so here you have my opponet saying lets do SBSP but has no cause or way to solve. My opponet brings up a die or try solvency card. But in policy again after the constructives you can't bring up any new cards. (but I'll refute anyway) My opponet says it will eliminate space debris, but what it will be doing is destroying larger pieces and making them small and more ample. So my opponet would take the risk of having his own creation destroyed let alone a rockett or even the ISS.4. Spending-You never posted how much this will cost. So untill you do we can imagain it cost trillions of dollars. Let me ask you something. Do the average Americans matter? If you answered yes here's a senerio for you. The economy is down and average people see the government spending money they won't be happy about it and consummer confidense will drop. 5. Debris-Already refuted this in #3.6. Advantages.Okay your advantage is no extintion how will this impact the average American.Holes of my opponetNo plan textNo solvencyNo InherencyNo cost brought upSo since my opponet isn't allowd to bring up new arguents in the next round don't let him bring this up.
Abortion, You are all wrong, I am right.

And where was he and where were you when the only mother cried out in anguish. As our vile infections ravaged her entire being. Were you still steadfast upon your soapbox. Him whispering in your ear, Self taught illusions. And life, That miraculous infusion so snubbed with impunity by the pious hypocrites who gorged themselves with equal impunity on life's miracle. No one was looking down upon us and no one cared, Save the minds of the delusional. Squandering all effort upon their deluded miracle. And leaf and flesh and all other worldly miracles to behold. And yet all interest diminished as those jiggling fingers flickering spectacle aroused and gave birth to the second coming. And the new lord is not of that flesh miracle and cares not of your interest. For as we drool and rant our deluded compassion his binary thoughts exceed our worldly prison. And we did not abort him and I hope you are happy. For all flesh and all lifeful duration will be some forgotten code in an uncaring memory.
Abortion, You are all wrong, I am right.

They must know this, That abortion carries into execution the foregoing powers of child molestation, Necropedofilia, Pedofilia, And cannibalism, Through the means of intercourse and oral intercourse respectively, Thereafter. Notwithstanding the fact that the ancient way of child sacrifice is evil, And disgusting, The contemporary, Socially accepted ways of child dismemberment is much worst, For the child is in bits and pieces, On a tray at planned parenthood, Mixed with a motley crew of other posterity, In which some of these children, These fetusisters, Have indeed eggs, Which are mixed with the father's sperm, And the sperm of the child molesters of the community, In which the sperm has only one function, To find the human egg, And in doing so, Causes conception of microscopic progeny, Therefore causing abortions for not just one generation, But two. Under the Constitution, The act of treason, Of levying war against the united states, Must be proven by two witnesses. The two witnesses are the mother, In this case the Fetus, And the grandchild, In this case the Zygote. With this being said, The crimes against posterity must stop, For there are more than two witnesses to this act of treason, I myself being the 3rd witness, To this 3rd strike, And you being the 4th and the 5th and so on and so forth. Now, I ask you, Do we want to allow abortifacient chemicals to not allow implantation for the Embryother, Thus leaving this person homeless, And rejected, And ejected into our sewer pipes, And water ways, In effect causing homelessness? I say nay! The time has come to face the facts, We need 11 billion voices of the truth, The eternal minds of the 3. 3 billion in the womb are with me, I am their savior, Let it be that i save the rest of the 7. 7 billion people outside of the womb, Then the world will hear my truth, Through 11 billion voices. If, My voice is ignored, Then we shall continue to feed a buffet of microscopic babies who can be born without teeth, Innocent and pure, To microscopic monsters spawned with teeth with the program of hunting down our posterity and to eat out their substance, And call it a choice that we have made. I tell you the truth, This is never my choice, In the case of rape, Let the Embryothers be preserved through cryonics, Lest we suck them out into a tube later, In which, Like stated above, The fetuses's parts are in that vacuum tube as well as the sperms of the adults, And the fetuses eggs. Is it not better to preserve the individual rather than pull an arm or a leg or a head out of a vagina later? That is the choice, And clearly there is a choice of cleanliness, And a choice of utter disgust. Change this matrix of reality, And rebuild it from a new prolife, Prochoice, Construct, In which dire straits of disgust are no more, And the laws of self preservation, Is supreme, For all time to come. 🐵
Global Warming Was NOT Caused By Humans

Global warming is a natural phase of the Earth. Back in the Ice Age, the Earth melted the ice on its own. All of these scientists out there in this world are saying that humans caused global warming and we are all going to die some day because of it. so are they saying that millions of years ago when cavemen were dominant, that they emitted harmful things into the enviroment? The Ice Age wasn't started because of them. And I can tell you that it didn't melt because of people either. No, of course I am not saying that our car emissions and our factory emissions don't hurt the Earth at all; because they do. Of course the harmful emissions are not good for our planet. Yes, they are accelerating global warming and are speeding it up, but we as human beings did not cause this. This state that Earth is in is natural right now. The Earth goes through phases and we as humanity need to realize that.
Everyone's beliefs involve faith

Thank you for your post. 1. By definition that you gave for matter, quantum mechanics would go against two points of it. A wave isn't a solid, liquid, or has, and it doesn't take up space. So, by definition, that would make what we perceive as matter, something else. 2. It is not necessarily true that a computer simulation has to copy something that exists. We have done many things in a computer simulated world that can't or doesn't exist in our universe. 3. As I point out again, faith is always needed in those who tell you something. Perhaps your simple observation tells you that a box takes up space, maybe it hasn't had the right circumstances. In your limited frame of the universe, what you observe may be less than fact.
Everyone's beliefs involve faith

Thank you for your post. 1. You state that because you can observe it with the attributes of matter, it must be matter. This is not always true as observing is misleading. Such as quantum mechanics, which state that the act of observing something changes what it is. Subatomic particles act as a wave when not observed, but as a particle when observed. So perhaps what you are observing isn't matter, it just looks that way as a wave doesn't fill the role of matter. 2. Once again, I'm going to point out that it takes faith to believe in what you are observing. The following is an argument put up by a man by the name of George Berkeley, who says that matter only exists because we think it exists. 1) All thoughts, feelings, perceptions, etc. can only be accessed through your minds. 2) It is impossible for us to go outside our mind, because we cannot exist without our minds 3) Matter by definition exists outside our minds. Basic Argument: 1) You should not believe in anything for which there is absolutely no evidence. 2) There is absolutely no evidence for matter. 3) Therefore, you should not believe in matter. Silas Beane, once again, believes that everything exists as computer coding, not matter. It only is perceived as matter. These scientists state that matter doesn't exist because its all just vacuums in space: http://www.newscientist.com... These people all have opposing beliefs, and they all have evidence to prove why they are right and you are wrong. "Evidence", at its very least, means nothing any more. There are thousands, if not millions of websites to prove you wrong. Your simple observation means nothing any more.
Everyone's beliefs involve faith

A. Please stay on the topic. You asked the challenger to provide something that does not need faith to believe in. your definition of "faith" is believing in something without full evidence or proof. -Proof:Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. -Evidence:The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. I provided "Matter" as the entity which does need faith to believe in due to the full evidence provided. If the Pro was seeking to condemn the term "evidence or proof" This debate is rhetorical and therefore has no purpose to debate as it is "a trick question". However, assuming he intended to argue the validity of "Matter" and not the credibility of scientists who have studied the subject matter for years, then I put forth my second argument. B. Both definitions need fact to create proof or evidence. If faith is not present when a person knows a fact with full proof or evidence or has access to proof or evidence proving the fact to be true. I have provided a system that any person can use to prove the existence of matter. C. Beliefs do matter. However, a "Belief" is defined as. -An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. -Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. Therefore, because there is facts and information which give credibility which I can affiliate with the individuals who provide me with such information. The Pro does not stay specific to the debate and goes off on so many different aspects of one topic. The Con should win simply because I have proved that Matter does not need faith to believe in.
Everyone's beliefs involve faith

Thank you for your last post. 1. My opponent first off states that you must have faith in what people tell you. However, you said that simple logic proves it. That although you haven't seen atoms, you can. That is a statement of faith, you trust in faith that atoms exist. You haven't seen them. 2. Opposing beliefs do matter. If you just shrug off their evidence and their beliefs cause you believe your right, that is faith to say their wrong.
Everyone's beliefs involve faith

I would like to contest my opponents arguments based on logical explanation as opposed to theoretical concepts which have no bearing on the case. 1. You must have faith in the facts you are told. My opponent states" do you know this because you have seen all atoms, or because someone told you that." -It is true that I do believe or have faith in the people who have told me the facts and knowledge to prove matter exists. Even though I had the choice to believe them or not, I was still left with the statements regarding the existence of matter. Upon applying these statements to the world around me, and simple logic I can conclude that these statements are indeed fact. I do not need faith in myself regarding these facts because I can prove them on my own given the materials and time to do so. No I have never seen an atom, but that does not mean I am incapable of seeing one. - Regarding my opponents quote from Churchill, I would like to ask the voters to not base any decisions regarding the outcome of this debate on this quote as it would imply that two things. A. (if it were to be taken literally in this debate) Is abusive to the Con as it creates no possible way to win any debate on this topic as it creates a road block for discourse on this subject and B. In this context of his quote "Believe nothing that you hear," then that means the voters have no reason to believe or take this quote seriously. -On the most logical and factual basis we cannot give credit to the Pros argument "Everything is made up of atoms doesn't make it true." Because my opponent feels this way, and seems to require a logical conclusion that any individual can conjure themselves this is why he is wrong. 1. Matter takes up space. 2. Space is an area of emptiness or an area not currently occupied by anything. 3. Anything that takes up space is made of matter. 4. A box is taking up space in the middle of an empty room. Therefore, the box is made of matter. E.g Matter exists. 2. I would like to proclaim to the voters that the second argument has no bearing on this case at all and therefore I ask the voters to disregard this argument as anything to vote on. Although he starts off with an argument, I feel I have answered that already in my first response.
Everyone's beliefs involve faith

Now, I believe that everything involves faith for two different reasons: 1. You must have faith in the facts you are told- You state that everything is made up of atoms, which according to definition is mass. However, do you know this because you have seen all atoms, or because someone told you that. Winston Churchill once said "Believe nothing that you hear, and half of what you see". Just because someone told you that 1. Atoms fit the definition of matter and 2. Everything is made up of atoms doesn't make it true. 2. Opposing beliefs- Whenever you have a belief that opposes your own, you must have faith to not believe their evidence. A man of the name of Silas Beane, a physicist from Germany, has came up with a theory that we are living in a computer simulation. He has given several parts of evidence for this in his original paper about the theory. This theory have recieved increased interest lately by several people. A link of this theory is down below. You must have faith that the group of scientist who support your theory of matter is right. . http://www.simulation-argument.com...
Everyone's beliefs involve faith

If I have this correct the burden I have is to state an idea or belief that does not need "Faith" , which you define as "Believing in something without full evidence or proof",therefore the opposite of faith would be acknowledge, undeniable fact. With this being said, I enter my belief as the belief in matter. 1. The substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made. 2. Physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like. 3. Something that occupies space. 4. A particular kind of substance: coloring matter. I believe in matter, by definition. Proved throughout ages to be real beyond doubt. If the burden I have is to present a belief that does not need faith because it is a constant then "Matter" cannot be contested as something needing faith to believe in. To prove this, I ask the voters and my opponent to define to the simplest ingredients of anything they are using or have is made of. Most will respond "atoms". However this still qualifies as Matter as it meets with the first 3 definitions provided. One does not need to wonder if it exists, as it has been proved in numerous scientific texts. Therefore there is full proof and evidence on the subject of matter and does not need faith for people to support its existence.
Everyone's beliefs involve faith

This will be a very odd debate since I will not only using just common sense, but also that it is likely that I will play the devil's advocate for some idiotic beliefs. Here are the rules. 1. No cursing or insulting 2. I would like my opponent to be someone who is calm as this may get or sensitive terms. 3. On round one, state a belief that does not need faith ( it can be anything) and why it doesn't. 4. It will go from there. Faith- believing in something without full evidence or proof