BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism is, on paper, the only good form of government

I would like to argue that a democratic republic with a capitalist economy is a great form of government. 1: Class Struggle/ Economy I would agree that class struggle has been a problem throughout history. The question always is how do you end this struggle between the classes. Communism gives the idea that you circle the wealth around, the rich will be kept down while the poor will be kept up causing a whole nation in a middle class, but there is a problem with this idea. The problem is greed; greed is very much apart of human nature. Humans always want to get more and be better and communism tries to end this by just ending it. That can't just happen saying something that makes humanity can't just end by a piece of paper. This is my analogy I use when comparing a communist economy to a capitalist economy. Lets say if in a class room we have a capitalist grading system, the people who listen the best and study the hardest will get a good grade while those who don't listen or study will in turn get a bad grade, so the people who want to get a better grade will work harder and become better. Than compare that to a communist grading system, there are still those who work hard and still those who don't, but instead of rewarding the hardest working with the best grade you take the average and give it to all of the people. Would is not be reasonable to believe that the hardest workers in the communist system stop working as hard because they don't get rewarded more for more work. While those in the capitalist system will continue with the hard work. The best way to end a class struggle is to have the government not treat any class better or worse, but allow the lower class to work hard and try to gain ground on the rich. Why many of the past class revolutions occurred was because the government was treating the rich better and causing the poor to do much work without any reward. In a true capitalist free market no government involvement would equal better class relations. 2: Checks and Balances The great thing about a democratic republic government is the checks and balances it has. The people check the government by voting who is in office. While the government checks its self by the three branches of power that all have a check on the other. The problem with communism is that true communism is supposed to end with a peaceful anarchy. The people control everything and this will cause a classless society. The problem is that people naturally want structure. Democratic republic does this by having checks on its structure. A Democratic republic is a great government on paper and even in true practice. So the idea that communism is the only good form of government on paper is wrong.
Communism is, on paper, the only good form of government

The Communist Manifesto can be broken down into multiple key points: 1: History can be viewed as a constant class struggle Marx and Engel argued that history has always been the same, from living standards to revolutions and that often classes divide us more than nationality, and I will begin my analyzing this. Living standards: Not so much to do with living standard but desire, want, it is these emotions like greed that have the potential to drive us apart, and ultimately separate us. Revolutions: While this is not true for all revolutions it is for a great deal, France was divided in-half ultimely by Aristocracy and the very poor. In the case of France the very poor were starving, while the wealth were eating bread and other rarities, this wealth class was truly thriving off the fact that they were able to get away with exploiting the working class. 2. Society is splitting into the bourgeoisie and the Proletariat For those of you who don’t know Bourgeoisie: Capitalist Proletariat: Average worker So basically this point is summing up the fact that the capitalists have the ability to take control of means of production, transportation, and ultimate domination of the market. Huge problem here is that when a ruling elite has control of the whole of the country there power is limitless and they basically, become dictators. 3. In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i. e. capital, is developed, in the same proportion in the proletariat, the modern working class, developed- a class of laborers, who only live so long as they find work, and who fine work only so long as their labor increases capital Ultimately stating that so long as the capitalists have control of, the capital, i. e. money, they control the working class and overall development of the proletariats as a whole class. 4. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletariat parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeoisie supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat Removes ultimate power from the social elite and places it in the hands of the working class. 5. Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation Removes the ability of one man to hold control of another, creating equality among all people, and what else can I say but… Small note: due the approach of finals I had to cut this short, meaning I never mentioned industrial armies or the such.
Communism is, on paper, the only good form of government

1. The BOP is shared2. Any arguments pertaining to either, the USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, or North Korea are invalid, due to the fact that they have never been communist and never will be.3. This is the only thing you may try and attack: . http://www.marxists.org...But I warn you, it has tons of Bullet proof logic.
which car is hotter...the Porsche 911 or the Ferrari laferrari? pro=Porsche con=Ferrari.

The 911 is a better looking car, if that's what you mean by "hotter". It is a graceful evolution of the original car and its proportions are just "right". I find some of the LaFerrari's angles to be rather awkward, especially the active aerodynamic pieces on the hood and the car's rear. Please do not vote, as this is a purely subjective debate. I also did not realize that the debate was only one round. @Kinger3040 - If you want a longer debate challenge me.
Gay marriage is sinful.

He is a skilled debater, so I look forward to the challenge. We will be debating the resolution, "Gay marriage is sinful. " For the sake of this debate, we have agreed on the definition of "sinful". Sinful: Anything that goes against God's will. We've also have agreed that for the purposes of this debate, we shall consider the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant word of God. I wish my friend the best of luck! I know this will be a charitable, thoughtful discussion.
Morals are biased and heavily influenced by the opinion of the majority.

Debate Accepted. -->>As there's only three rounds, I will begin my outlining my opening argument in this round--then proceed with rebuttals and closing arguments within the next two. As Con, I will be arguing against the resolution: that morals are biased and heavily influenced by the opinions of the majority. ==Opening Case==In order to offer some clarification, the definition(s) of 'morals' is as follows: 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. 2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. 3. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong. 4. a particular system of values and principles of conduct.Firstly, it's important to establish where 'morals' actually come from--#4 specifically states that there is a correlation between morals and the conscience of a human being; and their sense of right and wrong. In addition to that, morals extend beyond the personal feelings of the individual. For example, just because someone has chosen to ignore certain moral standards, it doesn't necessarily mean that these standards are subjective and dependant on what the perception of the said individual is. If someone commits a crime (in Pros case, a robbery.), just because they are not following a widely accepted moral (that stealing is wrong) it does not automatically devalue that moral or indeed suggest that it is 'biased' in some way--essentially, morals are not based on ones own definition of what is 'good' and 'bad', but are a specific set of principles that cannot be done or undone by personal opinion. The point is to demonstrate that people cannot objectively determine what their own morals are and how they apply them; these morals are established, and a person can either follow them or not. In terms of how morals are influenced by the opinions of the majority--again, this is largely incorrect; as opinion is a different thing to morality. Opinions vary all the time are not based on or in adherence to any one set of rules or standards. Whereas morality is, as #4 states, a particular system of values and principles; values and principles that are to be applied to the benefit of society and interest of the human race: they are not simply interchangeable opinions, but ethics that people can accept or reject--however, cannot alter.
Morals are biased and heavily influenced by the opinion of the majority.

I wish the contender good luck. (This is more of a debate on philosophical standpoints rather than raw facts and evidence.)I believe that morals are biased and are based completely on a person's own definition of good and bad. Let's say that I am a robber who has recently stolen another's personal property. If I were to have stolen something famous, such as the mona lisa, and were to have escaped, I would label said situation as favorable. According to the Merriam Webster defintion of good, "a (1) : of a favorable character or tendency <good news> (2) : bountiful, fertile <good land>(3) : handsome, attractive <good looks>" this situation would be "good" for the robber. However, based on society's views on said robbery, it would seem unfavorable to the majority, thereby defining it as the opposite of good, also known as bad. Using this example, the idea of morals would be based on the viewpoint, the robber's defintion of "right" or good being different than that of the majority's.
<< Determinism >>

Premise 1: The rules of the universe are set in place (Be it physics or religion -- the rules don't change -- they just are.) Everybody, mind included, operates by these preset rules. Premise 2: Given that the rules are set in place, everything that falls under these preset rules (everything) is determined by said rules. Like a Rube Goldberg machine -- as long as you have set items (matter) that fall under the same rules (physics, religion... you name it) then there is only one possible outcome. All outcomes were already determined -- reality simply set them in motion. Conclusion: Free will is an illusion -- our actions were determined ever since the rules that govern everything, including our mind, were determined. Anything we won't do we never were going to do, and anything that was going to happen was always going to happen given these underlying rules.
if god existed we would know

I can believe in God. I don't really understand what believing=not knowing means, though. I mean, I believe in God, which therefore makes me sure he exists in one form or another. If matter is eternal, then where did it come from? How was it made? I am not "Complicating the obvious" I am simply arguing my point, which is what a debate is. Yes, a God can hide or not exist. Just because he can hide, however, does not mean he cannot exist. If God was "Walking around mountain high" and didn't want us to know he existed, then he could do so. No idea what you mean by "No belief involved." as I am involving belief to a minimal in my argument. I don't know your mother. Does that she doesn't exist? Just because we don't know something exists doesn't instantly mean it doesn't exist. I didn't know you existed until this debate, does that mean that you didn't exist until I accepted this debate?
if god existed we would know

If God doesn't exist we would know. The same argument can be used to invalidate your argument, which in turn makes it a rather bad argument. However, you cannot prove to me that God does not exist. While, at the same time, I cannot for definite prove that God does exist. That does not mean, of course, that either statement is true or false. However, consider the following. Think of how big time is. We cannot even start to comprehend how time works, nor can we pinpoint exactly when "Time" started to exist. Is it not logical, therefore, that it's a very real possibility that life came before us? And that that life that came before us come hold such power that we cannot comprehend? And if this being did exist, and indeed created us, would he not have the ability to hide his presence from us? To put this into perspective, lets consider an Ant. Now, an ant might believe that the entire world, comparable to our earth, contains a couple of miles of farmland. Now if that's the case, that would make us gigantic living beings that can do Godly things with little effort. To them, we are Gods. This can be applied to our God. We may be the ants, and he may be a simple being, like us. He could easily manipulate and create life via science, just like we can. His world could be the entire galaxy, his house could be a planet. This, of course, may seem extremely silly. How can someone survive in space? However, the matter still stands. We cannot prove that God does or doesn't exist, either until he decides to reveal himself or we get to a level where we can literally disprove him 100% with science.
All people are Created Equal

I will propose the argument that All People are Not created Equal. There are inherent and fundamental differences between people of different ethnic backgrounds. There are traits and racial tendencies which characterize races differently from each other. There are exceptions and great variety in all races of people, however the argument that all are equal is an Exception rather than a Rule, and it is untenable to base law on the exception rather than the rule. The majority of people of a certain ethnicity are predisposed to behavior characteristic of that ethnicity.
All people are Created Equal

As stated in the opening commentaries- this debate is not about creation or how we are created, it is rather about whether all people are inherently equals. The title is used because it is a famous statement of the Declaration of Independence- that "all men are created equal." Your central argument is that people are all equal because we are all made of egg and sperm, and we are all equally helpless at birth, we all have a capacity to learn, and that we all ultimately die. Your points boil down all human experience to the lowest common denominator. This broad generalization does not strongly support the claim of human equality. By your argument we humans would also be perfectly equal to many thousands of other mammal species on earth. In fact, your argument shows that there are only very few fleeting examples of equality among humans: Conception. Birth. And Death. If these are the only ways in which humans are equal, I am not convinced, because it leaves out more than 99% of our lifetimes. I've shown 3 examples of how races of people tend to be inequal. The first example of Health shows that races have different tendencies toward disease and illness. Your response is that all humans get sick. Once again, this coarse argument would liken humans to nearly every other animal on earth that can get sick or diseased. My second argument shows that different races have different tendencies in crime and violence. This has been noted all across the globe. Not only do statistics show more criminality and violence among certain people- it shows predictably where more crime and violence will occur. And it is this level of predictability which makes it all the more powerful an argument.The third argument- athletics- takes a single sport- basketball- and shows how one racial group out of many possible, consistently dominates that sport. Whatever the particular skills and ability required of that sport, one racial group seems to have an inherent advantage over others. This holds true to more than one sport. I think it is clear that statistics back the conclusion that in fact, "all people are not created equal". Individual traits vary within the same race, but each race has certain overall tendencies in behavior, health, intelligence, ability, criminality, violence, etc.... All factors which define humans throughout their lives.
All people are Created Equal

Argument:If all races were equal, we would all be the same.We would all look the same, and have the same thoughts, and act exactly the same way in every situation. The reality is there is great variety in appearance, intelligence, culture, behavior of people. I argue that we are created inherently different as individuals and among different races of peoples- not everybody is created equal. for example, in Health: Some races are prone to heart disease and diabetes- and not others. Some races are immune to malaria and not others. Some races are resistant to certain virus and flu- while others are decimated by same illness.www.patientnavigatortraining.orgCrime in the US:"Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic."-www.colorofcrime.comwww.cga.ct.govScholastic achievement/ intelligence:average SAT verbal scores: Whites- 535Asians- 520Hispanics- 450Blacks- 430www.dartblog.comAthletic Ability:According to racial equality activist Richard Lapchick, the NBA in 2011 was composed of 83 percent non-white players, including 78 percent black, four percent Latino, and one percent Asian; 17 percent of the players were white.[2] The league had the highest percentage of black players of any major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada.[3]
My pen is better than yours (this is what most debates really boil down to)

1: Let's take a look at the comments section..."can't tell if dumbass or idiot.. o wait.. on closer inspection it's both."* I can't tell if you're a dumb(donkey?) or an idiot... Oh wait... On closer inspection, it's both.I wonder who wrote this...2: What? You want a 1 mile long pen that's barely usable? Of course not.3: Except gays don't count as women (Transsexuals might count, but that's for another time. They are technically biologically men, but legally women... Well this is going to get complicated), and "My pen drives all the girsl crazy" means gays and transsexuals don't count.4: Except I use a fountain pen. Lubrication is not necessary on such a fine tip. Oh and..."My pen drives all the girsl crazy"*My pen drives all the girls crazy 5: Because I can. If you have a problem with my preference of writing tool, I'm sorry but there's not much you can do about it. 6: So, it happens to be "born this way". However, we can conclude that it can only make your pen's grip a vanity grip, as it is just as special as a grip you can attach onto a pen. Also, note that pen grips and breast implants are different issues. The more comparable situation is to get a computer. There is a computer that came with a USB mouse. Then there's the same computer, which is cheaper, but doesn't come with a free USB mouse. Except you can buy that USB mouse at a retail price, no problem. 7: It is a fountain pen. My fountain pen is better than your vanity ball-point pen for the following reasons:A: Because fountain pens naturally deposit different amounts of ink and are able to create strokes of differing widths depending on the speed/direction of the strokes, it can give variety to your strokes, making them look much better than what a ball-point pen can achieve.B: Studies show that ball-point pens can make your handwriting poor. [1] This makes fountain pens even more better than ball-point pens. C: The shape of the fountain pen makes grips unnessecary. The fountain pen doesn't comfortable grip, the entire pen is literally a smooth grip of sorts.8: I've never been to pen college before, but do you mean Pennsylvania College of Technology? If that's so, I decided to just go for MIT. My fountain pen followed along though.Hopefully you will re-evaluate the quality of your pen and go for a superior fountain pen. Sources:[1]http://johntranter.net...
My pen is better than yours (this is what most debates really boil down to)

1. Please provide an example of a grammatical error that I made. 2. "It's all about functionality." This is the most common excuse used by those with small pens. 3. There is nothing wrong with being gay or transexual. So what if the girls have "bumps"? 4. If you had any experience with proper pen usage you would know that grip and lubrication go hand-in-hand. A well-lubricated ball-point for instance, makes for an enjoyable pen- using experience, Mr. "Contractict". (Yeah, my grammar is what we should be concerned about.) 5. It's 2013, why are you still writing your essays with a pen? 6. You could certainly install a comfort grip on any pen. You could install silicon breasts in your chest cavity too. My pen, however, had a comfort-grip built-in. It was born this way. 7. You did not point out any way in which your pen is superior to mine. Good luck doing so in the next round. 8. Of course you think pens can't graduate from college. This is because yours failed so miserably. You can't believe that there could be a pen as intelligent as mine.
My pen is better than yours (this is what most debates really boil down to)

It seems that your pen does not improve your grammar whatsoever. 1. Longer does not always mean better. It's about functionality.2. Hardness doesn't matter here: Again, it's about functionality. And you could add a fine grip onto any pen.3. If your pen can't fit through a tunnel made for cars to go through, you're going to have a terrible time writing.4. This argument is subjective. Define what "clean and nice" smells like.5. A pen that is well-lubricated? Well, that totally doesn't contractict this: "...a soft comfort grip for ease of use..." 6. Does that make the cast of The Expendables gay? The last time I checked I'm pretty sure they were all straight.7. A pen can't get a degree of any sort or attend school.8. This argument is subjective, because 1: Not everyone watches The Game of Thrones and 2: Some people like Joffrey. 9. Objection. I just finished writing an essay with my pen. Last time I checked it had enough ink to write a couple more.10. Except you find out that these girls all have eager bumps near their crotch. *wink wink*I await your argument. In the meantime, I will go write some more research papers.