BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism is better, in general, than Capitalism

I will be defending the resolution that "Communism is, in general, better than Capitalism." Both me and my opponent will have to attack and negate eachothers arguments.Rounds:1st round: Acceptence2nd round: ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE.3rd round: Rebuttal of opponents arguments and evidence.4th round: May defend 1 attack and present resolution.Definitions (As taken from LordKnuckles earlier debate) Communism:"A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. "-http://www.google.ca...Capitalism:"An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit." -http://www.google.ca...I urge my opponent to procede with caution, and wish us both Happy Debating!
Communism is better, in general, than Capitalism

I would like to point out, however, that my opponent said "Please provide your BOP next round. " Now, this is very loosely worded, but if it insinuating that the BOP is not shared, my opponent is mistaken. Capitalism is not defined as a better, or the best, form of economics. Thus, the BOP is shared. In the following paragraphs, I will be defending these points:Communism is better for the people as a wholeCommunism is better for maintaining healthCommunism would be the best form of economics in a united worldCommunism is better for the people as a whole Communism, by definition, is a form of government that calls for a stateless and classless society, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. (1) Since communism favors the people as a whole economically, it is less likely to favor certain groups or parties, such as capitalism does in the modern democracy America. (2) Therefore, since Communism both aids economic needs and is better a better setting for democracy than Capitalism, Communism is better for the people as a whole than Capitalism. Communism is better for maintaining health Capitalism, since private business has no need to answer to government regulations, can practically do anything they desire in or to their businesses. (3) Since no restrictions are placed on these companies, they are free to claim to be selling whatever they desire, such as inside of a can, when an entirely different substance can be found within. (4) Therefore, since consumers cannot truly know what they are buying in a Capitalist economy, Communism is better for the product quality, and thus better for the health of the society. Communism would be the best form of economics in a united world Capitalism encourages private ownership and survival of the fittest economics. (3) In a united world, where all countries are collaborating as one, survival of the fittest economics would most defiantly encourage separation of the poor and the rich. (5) As the poor increase, and the rich demand more, war will eventually happen, thus uniting the world. (6) Therefore, since no such economic classes exist in a Communist economy, Communism would be the best form of economics in a united world. So far, since my opponent has not yet been able to post his arguments, I am obviously winning. VOTE PRO! ______________Sources:(1) Can be logically deduced via the definition of Communism provided in round 1. (2) The existence of the dominance of the Republic and Democratic political parties, . http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) Can be logically deduced via the definition of Capitalism provided in round 1. (4) . http://www.online-literature.com...(5) The existence of different social classes in the United States, . http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu...(6) . http://americanhistory.about.com...
We live only once.

What is life? What's our sole purpose of life? We live only once, a debate for centuries to come. I've had a constant battle with myself, and i just can't seem to find a answer? only to end up asking myself more questions and answer my own questions.I look forward to debating anyone. This debate is about logic base thinking. This is debate is a burden of proof on both of us for one cannot prove or give any evidence that we live only once. But this debate is to go in depth, to deep down deeper, in a search for answer. For we as human will never be at peace until our questions are answer.Rules1. Introduction2. Argument (rebuttal)3. Argument (rebuttal)4. Argument (rebuttal)5. Conclusion (argument or appreciation)P.S: Please no cussing. And no personal attacks. Let's have fun.Debate setting: Category:Philosophyrounds: 5voting periods: 1 weekTime to Argue: 72 hrsArgument Max: 8,000 characters
belief is a blind man seeing

Physical experience can be a lie, for it is merely a stimulation of electrical impulses. Who is to say dreams are unreal and life is not, without the advantage of hindsight and the cold light of day? Seeing is not knowing, but seeing is believing. Belief is incorporated into everything we do. You claim to believe is to do something without the physical evidence of such, if I interpreted it correctly. Well, naught that we do has concrete evidence. Prove to me that life is true, for that was merely an unfounded claim on your part.
belief is a blind man seeing

A worm describing a rainbow is belief? Ignorance is but a matter of scale, not an absolute. We can know nothing, not truly, only come close to it. You cannot know anything you see is true, by simple fact that our senses lie. To define "See": verb (used with object), saw, seen, seeing. 1. to perceive with the eyes; look at. 2. to view; visit or attend as a spectator: to see a play. 3. to perceive by means of computer vision. 4. to scan or view, especially by electronic means: The satellite can see the entire southern half of the country. 5. to perceive (things) mentally; discern; understand: to see the point of an argument. 6. to construct a mental image of; visualize: He still saw his father as he was 25 years ago. 7. to accept or imagine or suppose as acceptable: I can't see him as president. "I see", says the blind man, with his optic nerves deadened and useless. His mind's eye still perceives. The blind man touches a computer screen and in his mind he views a flat surface. We see a computer screen and information lays upon it. The true sight of the computer screen includes viewing the entire spectrum of electromagnetic waves coming off of it. Ladies and gentlemen, I argue that there is more to sight than light rays. The blind man is not blind by the other meaning of "see", for he can perceive our world. More blind, less blind? We all only perceive so much, and the rest is our belief. We all believe what we think we know, even with some evidence to support it. There is nothing beyond belief, for nothing is concretely true.
Online prisons with sentences to program versus free download of information.

Sorry been away for some days. First of all is there no argument in statement? The scare of modernist net is a mainstream understanding of aquired information. Many scientists today assume internet will be very personal in a while. Personal threads linking to relevant information. However the issue in this case is weather someone attends information to control its relevancy? What I've heard of China and other nations filtering and adjusting information to better serve the interest of society. Currently our nation ratified a law concerning the internet where they claim rights to confiscate domains sharing illicit information. My question then is where do deleted files go? In a part of a democratic environment we shouldn't loose our modest ways regarding information treasureable? The law might be an attempt to further value information. I would say commercialist acclaimed internet is less considerate in relevancy and sincerity of information; in other words: How much of internet contains reliable and trusted information? I consider certain market interests using political means in an internet flooded by commercial brokers and bankers attempt to consider it some sort of land-ownery. Further on. As no information may be considered trusted if not carrying weight of either reliability in source or personal knowledge internet provides little or no such statement and is certainly not meant to be bound by national, local or otherwise administered borders. And it needs to be regulated in an attempt to better serve market interests. Should we make this frontier an harbor for criminals spreading false and vicious information or a privilege for an elite journalist fraction maintaining no political opinions? My conclusion as follows: Some sort of state appointed governors of information may not succeed in an attempt to confine folk for making speeches or potentially dangerous speculative information an interest of the public good alone. Consider merging law into what is acceptable to say in any communicative domain? Law should not be the proprietor of information.
It is a fair method of competing for a prostitute to seduce another prostitute to hire them.

"One style and one size does not fit all."One style does fit all, it's called humping!"You single contention that all people are equally good at sex and that it can't be taught to a high level is ridiculous."People are not "equally good" at sex, that's like saying people are "equally good" at chewing food, THERE IS NOTHING TO BE GOOD AT!"here are industries which are highly competitive and will easily turn you down if you are bad, or even mediocre at sexual pleasing."Sexual pleasing is pleasing someone in a sexual manner, not necessarily sex, mildo nose."That is my rebuttal to your only contention."Well, then you fail to withhold your stance in the debate! And you have not shown how it's not a fair method, all you have said is there is "sexual energy" being blocked which you also fail to provide evidence for or how it is possible.I concede there is nothing unfair about a contest where prostitutes try to attract powerfully in order to get hired for their talents. If they succeed they succeed, fair and simple.
It is a fair method of competing for a prostitute to seduce another prostitute to hire them.

There are several positions, moves and methods to decipher exactly your partner's individual style and preference for orgasm. One style and one size does not fit all. This is why prostitution is so highly competitive. Why would men cheat on wives with prostitutes or wives cheat on husbands with younger, less fat, men if sex was equally achievable by all? You single contention that all people are equally good at sex and that it can't be taught to a high level is ridiculous. There are industries which are highly competitive and will easily turn you down if you are bad, or even mediocre at sexual pleasing. That is my rebuttal to your only contention.
It is a fair method of competing for a prostitute to seduce another prostitute to hire them.

"Both Prostitution and Pornographic industries are evidently displaying that sex is a skill one can get better at with training. Thus, your concept of sex being an innate ability at which all humans are equally adept is not only ignorant, but actually factually incorrect."Just what is skilled about a membrum virile entering and exiting a vagina? That is really a sum of what sexual intercourse is!Copulation is something humans naturally have the capacity to do! There is no skill level in copulating, at most sexual intercourse is an underlying attribute to a skill! Skill denotes techniques, composite abilities, and knowledge that are aimed at achieving a goal! Sex is just an event between two or more organisms. It only takes one of the organisms actions between sexual intercourse for both to be having sex.That is why sexual intercourse is not a skill, because people aren't professionals at getting their vulvar orifice penetrated."your concept of sex being an innate ability at which all humans are equally adept is not only ignorant, but actually factually incorrect."Okay, first off, when did I say humans are equally adept at copulation? I would have to assume it is a SKILL as adept is a SKILL level!Therefore this is a strawman!"Anyway, prostitutes are trained to both dress provocatively, act seductively and are trained to please in a way that will ensure a 'regular' client as opposed to a one-off one. Think about it, prostitution is no different to any other industry in the fact that the better the worker, the happier the client, the better competition gets destroyed."You are assuming all prostitutes are sexual prostitutes. "MY contentions still stand true. Your rebuttals apart from this were ridiculously flawed in that they stated unjustified things such as having sex with my mother."Yet you didn't even address any of the rebuttals about the resolution, all you did was address sex being a skill or not. That's was the least relevant rebuttal. Even if sex was a skill, you still have yet to prove there is such a thing as "sexual energy" and that it is blocked out, or that you gain resistance to orgasm. You have also still failed to show that it is an unfair method of competing for a prostitute to seduce another prostitute to hire them under the definitions that you said I must supply.You have not withheld your position and MY rebutts still stand true... especially in your mom."I really was expecting a far more courteous response."That's what she said.
It is a fair method of competing for a prostitute to seduce another prostitute to hire them.

I really was expecting a far more courteous response.Nonetheless, you raise two important rebuttals, which I shall happily address, the rest is ridiculous nonsense about my Mother for which you can neither provide evidence, nor did it happen (I am almost 100% sure).Both Prostitution and Pornographic industries are evidently displaying that sex is a skill one can get better at with training. Thus, your concept of sex being an innate ability at which all humans are equally adept is not only ignorant, but actually factually incorrect. Anyway, prostitutes are trained to both dress provocatively, act seductively and are trained to please in a way that will ensure a 'regular' client as opposed to a one-off one. Think about it, prostitution is no different to any other industry in the fact that the better the worker, the happier the client, the better competition gets destroyed.MY contentions still stand true. Your rebuttals apart from this were ridiculously flawed in that they stated unjustified things such as having sex with my mother.
It is a fair method of competing for a prostitute to seduce another prostitute to hire them.

My opponent fails to understand the concept of sex. Sex is not a a special natural ability! Everyone can have sex! I can have sex with my opponent, it is not a talent.There is also nothing to be more "far capable" than average with sex! For all intensive purpose, I could very well give my opponent an orgasm like a prostitute, with really little to no effort.Also, support your claim:"If one prostitute is seducing another to get money out of them it not only forces the other to use up energy in the sexual act, that they could have used to get money that night/day, but also makes the prostitute getting the money get extreme pleasure as well, far more pleasure than if they were to have sex with average Joe on the street (because the partner is a professional at sex)."Says who? says you!Also there is no "professional" sex, sex is not a "skill" that you get better at! All it is, is a membrum virile entering and exiting (and possibly ejaculating in) the masticating apparatus, opening of the alimentary canal's base, or vas muliebre. It's nothing exciting!POOP AND FOOD GIVE BETTER PLEASURE EVEN!Your mom.Prostitute also don't have pimps... sooooo... shudda fugga!Also prostitute don't even get money from just having sex! Prostitutes can do any number of things for money, for example:Juggling, taste testing, bark throwing, spitting in buckets, poop slinging, wood chucking, dancing, flying, getting high, trolling, et cetera."Besides, prostitutes probably have had so much sex that they have increased their resistance to orgasm, thus increasing the energy required for the sex to be over"Prove it, since when does having more SEX increase resistance to orgasm, I have SEX with my friends and have orgasms when ever I want. (even in sleep) In fact I have an anorextion right now!"While I agree it is fair in that they both will get extreme pleasure, I believe the one getting hate payment has unfairly blocked out the ability of the other to get as much out of their sexual energy"That's ludicrous, you need to get your facts gay! "Sexual energy" is not a thing, you don't get "sexual energy" or use "sexual energy", You can only use your energy you get from carbohydrates in a sexual manner! there is not such a thing as a energy that is sexual! You can also not "block out" carbohydrates for another person by giving them an orgasm! Stop talking spiritual-pseudo-science trash!None of your tomfoolery has upheld your claims, go back to baby school!"My theory is based on the following concept"That's what your mom said in bed last night.FTW
It is a fair method of competing for a prostitute to seduce another prostitute to hire them.

My theory is based on the following concept: One prostitute is competing with another to gain money from sex. Each is far more capable than the average person, if their pimp trained them correctly, at sexual pleasure and allurement and thus knows EXACTLY how to get money out of people with no regard for the moral obligations behind it (hence it being illegal in many nations). If one prostitute is seducing another to get money out of them it not only forces the other to use up energy in the sexual act, that they could have used to get money that night/day, but also makes the prostitute getting the money get extreme pleasure as well, far more pleasure than if they were to have sex with average Joe on the street (because the partner is a professional at sex).So: While I agree it is fair in that they both will get extreme pleasure, I believe the one getting hate payment has unfairly blocked out the ability of the other to get as much out of their sexual energy that day that they could have done (in terms of money). Thus, it's unfair. Besides, prostitutes probably have had so much sex that they have increased their resistance to orgasm, thus increasing the energy required for the sex to be over (hence exhausting the partner further than usual).
It is a fair method of competing for a prostitute to seduce another prostitute to hire them.

Fair:In accordance with the rules, free from injusticeMethod:Procedure, an established or official way of doing somethingCompete:Engageinacontest Prostitute:A person who misuses their talents or who sacrifices their self-respect for the sake of personal or financial gainSeduce:To win over, attract powerfullyHire:to engage the services of (a person or persons) forwages or other payment.http://dictionary.reference.com...http://www.thefreedictionary.com...http://oxforddictionaries.com...I will basically argue, there is no injustice committed when a person (regardless of occupation) engages in a contest to see if they can allure another, in order to get hired.There is no prejudice in such a contest, since it is based on actual experience (does the prostitute seduce, or does the prostitute not seduce)There is no violating rules in such a contest, seducing is not a crime, neither is there any rule against it in a competition involving it.There is no injustice, it is based on the prostitutes ability to seduce. In the case of the prostitute, doing what they do best; misusing their skills for financial gain.So I have yet to see why it is unfair
America is a Christian Nation

I apologize for any confusion. For the popularity of Christianity in the 18th century in the United States, I don't see how it affects what's written in the Constitution. Also, the "original pledge" was as follows:"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. " (. http://www.ushistory.org...)I don't see any Christian influence there. My opponent has failed to present any new arguments or refute any points I have made. I await either of these.
America is a Christian Nation

Dictionary.com defines nation as follows. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax. 2. the territory or country itself: the nations of Central America. 3. a member tribe of an American Indian confederation. 4. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages. Dictionary.com defines government as follows. noun 1. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society. 2. the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government. 3. the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration. 4. a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole: a dam built by the government. 5. a. the particular group of persons forming the cabinet at any given time: The prime minister has formed a new government. b. the parliament along with the cabinet: The government has fallen. It is reasonable to suggest that you are confusing the two as one. While yes, they are inter-related, one is dependant and the other is co-dependant. For example, I will agree halfway and say "We do not have a Christian government". But A nation is not made up of governments, a nation exists only because of it's people. A nation can exist (though I'm not sure how well) with out a government, but a government cannot exist without a nation, and a nation is a collection of people. By reading a sensus, conducted Finke and Starke https://en.wikipedia.org... We can observe that Christianity was extremely popular among the people during the founding america and some would even say today. We can even observe the Christian influence had in the early US government simply by reciting the origianl pledge of allegiance http://www.ushistory.org... though it does not specify which "god" because that woudl be illeagle for the government to do. But not the nation as the nation is the people.