BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Speed Debate: Communism

Thank you. This debate is more or less of an experiment. I suppose I should give a definition for Communism. In this debate, communism refers to an economic system where the government has total control over how businesses run and how workers get paid. The businesses are run by the government and the workers are paid the same amount. In Communism, the limitations of businesses are very strict. They only can be owned by the government in most cases. Production is controlled by the government, and all the workers are allotted the same amount of money. This creates a class-less society. The downfall is that there is very little room for individuality. And if some people want to receive more recognition for their work, such as for engineering something life-changing, they won't really be able to. The fact of always getting the same amount of money means that many people may be lazy at their job, and they will still be paid. This was a tragic case in Europe during the Cold War. Granted, every communist country is different and this will not necessarily always happen. However, there is less work incentive for the workers. The entrepreneurship spirit is largely diminished, almost nonexistent, in communist states. The entrepreneurship spirit is important on a vital level for building a government's economy. Basically, my main point here is that businesses don't tend to run very well in communist governments. I have more to say on the matter, but I will wait for you to post an argument. Like I said, this is mostly an experiment, and I am not extremely knowledgeable on the matter, but I don't like the communist system. On the other hand, I also am not entirely sure I like capitalism either.
Speed Debate: Communism

I am starting my own thing called speed debating (yes, a parody of speed dating.) We will each only have fifteen minutes to post an argument for each round. If you forfeit any round without a good excuse, you will lose. Voters, please keep this rule in mind. Contender, you may put your excuse in the comments. If I accept it, I will say so in my argument, or the comments if the debate has finished. Here is how the rounds will go down: Round 1: Opening Statements Only (No Arguments) Round 2: Opening Arguments Only (No Rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Arguments (No Rebuttals) Round 5: Rebuttals and Closing Statements Please, accept this challenge today before 4:00 pm EST. Violation of this rule is also subject to loss of the debate. If no one answers today, I will update this tomorrow. If you have any questions, please ask them in the first round. This debate is on whether or not communism is a good economics system. I believe that communism is detrimental to the citizens of countries where communism is implemented.
Best Japanese Song

I never thought that I would enjoy a song about a toilet goddess...http://www.youtube.com...The song I will use for this debate will be a fairly old one by the name of either Ue o Muite Arukō or Sukiyaki.Lyrics: http://www.jpopasia.com...I'll follow the same path my opponent has taken and break down the lyrics step by step. I look up when I walkSo the tears won't fallRemembering those happy spring daysBut tonight I'm all aloneThis section tells you that the singer has just had something bad happen to him (presumably a breakup from the last line). I believe that the first two lines are a metaphor for the ways that he copes with this. Maybe he doesn't want to show the world that he is in so much grief (hence the second line). Perhaps he doesn't want to give up hope and tears hitting the ground is a metaphor for giving up and moving on. It's really up to you to find your own meaning in this.I look up when I walkCounting the stars with tearful eyesRemembering those happy summer daysBut tonight I'm all aloneThis verse is the same as the last except for the second line. To me, it makes me think that he is trying to take his mind off of her in order to forget and move on but he can't due to him reliving the old memories. Happiness lies beyond the cloudsHappiness lies above the skyThis is a reference to him staring up while he walks in order for his tears not to fall. This ties in with my other theories stated before. I look up when I walkSo the tears won't fallThough my heart is filled with sorrowFor tonight I'm all alone(whistling)Remembering those happy autumn daysBut tonight I'm all aloneSee above.Sadness is in the shadow of the starsSadness is in the shadow of the moonThis could mean a few different things. It could be reffering to the shadows being on the ground, so he doesn't want to look down (in a metaphorical sense). "Shadow" could be enterpreted as the area below the stars and moon. It could mean that looking at the stars and the moon while looking up just worsens the pain. I look up when I walkSo the tears won't fallThough my heart is filled with sorrowFor tonight I'm all aloneSee above. This song can be enterpreted a couple of different ways, but the way I see it is that it is the tale of a lovesick man and how he copes with the pain. It has an extremely catchy tune and might even bring a tear to your eye.
Best Japanese Song

Sup everyone. Want to have a competition to see who has a better song. The ways in which the song can be judged are based on the following points:- There are emotions that can be felt throughout the song - There is a meaning to the song - There can be something learnt from the song *NOTE* It is a SONG meaning there is a singer. Please ensure you can find the roomaji and English translations for the song you are providing. Please give a link to where you we can listen to the song. As this is only a 2-round debate, there will be no refutations and/or comparisons. On the second round, you will provide the song, the roomaji and English translations, and then elaborate on why you think the song is good. I hope I've made myself clear, but meh, just see what happens then lol. Any questions and/or queries, please post in comments section. First round acceptance only. AND, this debate in only available to members who have no debated me before. If someone who has already debated me before accepts this debate, it will result in an automatic win on my side. And no trolling or semantics.
Modern Day Jews are not the real Jews

Modern Day Jews in Israel today, are not the real Jews, according to the Bible. Using the Bible, I will prove that the individuals calling themselves Jews in Israel today, are not the Jews that the Bible makes reference to.Rules:1. CON must believe in The Most High God, Jesus (if you don't believe in Jesus, that's fine, I can use the Old Covenant to prove my case), and believe in the Bible2. CON must be either a Jew-ish or Christian/Catholic in order to accept this debate3. CON must only use the Bible as evidence/reference4. CON cannot change the topic of the debate; must stay on topicIf CON does not follow any of the statues stated, he or she will automatically lose this debate.R1 - Acceptance and agreement to rules statedR2- Arguments/RefuteR3 - Arguments/RefuteR4 - Arguments/RefuteR5- Conclusion
Modern Day Jews are not the real Jews

To conclude this debate, the individuals calling themselves "Jew-ish" in Israel today are not the real Jews because they do not fit the curses in the Bible -Deutereonomy 28:15-68, nor is the world at peace, nation is rising against nation and the Bible says when the Kingdom of Christ is on earth, which is Israel, we will not learn of war anymore, yet today, the world is at war. Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Those "Jews" in modern day Israel are Khazar "Jews" from the European nation. To all who are reviewing this debate, this is just one of the many videos, that show an "Israeli" confessing that he is not the real Jew, that the "negroe blacks" in America are. Please show me the verse that says none of the twelve tribes of Israel were white. Jeremiah 14:2 Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up. Who is the "they"? It's the Southern Kingdom of Israel led by the tribe of Judah and they are black. CON said, "show me the verse that says none of the twelve tribes of Israel were white. " That is the verse. CON didn't really refute to many of my points, he/she refuted some, but not all, nor did he/she provide much evidence from the Bible. He/she asked questions and argued what he/she thinks, but didn't really refute all the points I made. In R4, CON metions that David is not black, that he was "ruddy", yet CON never refuted my argument explaining that "ruddy" does not mean that Adam means red or Edom. I thank CON for the opportunity to debate this topic and good luck to you CON in the rest of your debates.
Modern Day Jews are not the real Jews

Please show me the verse that says none of the twelve tribes of Israel were white. "The God is not going to give you the answers as you please. HE wants you to do the work and search the scriptures (John 5:39)." Nevermind. Quoting a bunch of Bible verses out of context, and posting a bunch of words from the dictionary to say, Adam can't possibly mean the same thing as adam are bad enough; but avoiding a direct question by telling me and the readers/judges of this debate to... "Ask God," is too much. I'm not even about to do another line by line to point out all of your other mistakes; but look up, Slaves in Israel in a search engine. Here's a link to a bunch of flags with eagles on them ( http://commons.m.wikimedia.org... ); and the link provided by Ragnar points out how Jews in Israel can be related to Isaac, the same way you claim Native Americans might be. Oh yeah, if Solomon was black... he got it from his mom... because David wasn't black, 1 Sa. 16:12, 17:42, Song 5:10, & Lam. 4:7. I'm outta here. Aloha
Lionel Messi is better than Cristiano Ronaldo

Even though I am a big fan of both, Cristiano is the best footballer in this era. There are three main points why he is BETTER than Messi. Physically, Ronaldo has perfect body. It is true that both have agility, cleverness, technique in the top level. However, in terms of Strength of the body, Ronaldo outweighs Messi in this point. While Messi usually dribbles with only agility, Ronaldo is able to do so not only with just agility but also with balance of the body and strength in tackling with defenders. Moreover, the strength of body also plays an essential role in maintaining condition when footballers are older. It is inevitable that footballers with agility will be much more slower when they are more than 33 years old. As we can see in the case of Shevchenko, Owen and Ronaldo (Brazilian Footballer), they were well-known in agility. Although, they were regarded as the top performer in his ages, their performance were significantly drop once they get older due to decease in speed. I would like you guys to imagine Messi without his speed and pace in the upcomming future. He could be just an ordinary football. On the other hand, Ronaldo, with his ideal body, could still remain in the top role by his strength in body together with his technique, finishing instinct, and determinations. You can see that this year that he is 33, he still play in the top performance. To sum up, both of them are the best when there were 20-30 years old. But later on, I don't believe that Messi will keep his performance in track, but Ronaldo will. So, that's why he is the best of best.
Lionel Messi is better than Cristiano Ronaldo

The argument that I present is simple, Lionel Messi is the best player in the world. Even better than Ronaldo. Ronaldo is a very good player, no doubt in that but he cant touch Messi's level of playing. The things that Messi has achieved is something that no player is in history has ever done, and most likely, ever will. All kinds of views are welcome P.S - no noobs please.
Circumcision, unless used for medical or religious reasons, ought to be banned.

That's fine however.. Number 1 is a bit useless. I said except for medical and religious reasons, so that point is useless. For number 2, I have never heard of non-religious reasons. For your third reason, this is mostly for children. Now onto me. Reason 1 - Unitary Track Infections According to a study by the AAP, circumcised babies are less likely to get unitary track infections. Reason 2 - Pain Circumcision has been shown to cause bleeding, intense pain and swelling of the penis. Reason 3 - The child might not want it This debate is about children being circumcised (I forgot to add that). The child didn't want it and most cases didn't need it, so I ban until the age of 18 should be reasonable. Reason 4 - Needing to do it for medical reasons is rare According to one study, only 1 child out of 250 needs circumcision for medical reasons. Reason 5 - The reason why it became so popular (for non medical and religious reasons was because of Kellogg. Yep. The cereal. Kellogg was.. A weird guy. He made circumcision popular because it made youth less sexual and it "prevented masturbation." They were lies (he also believed cereal prevented masturbation, if my memory serves me correctly.) Reason 6 - We have foreskin for a reason Here are a few reasons why (copy and pasted off the daily mail): - Providing bacteriostatic action around the head (inhibits bacterial growth) - Protecting the nerves to keep the penis sensitive during sex (where the foreskin also acts as a rolling device " otherwise thrusting would hurt more and feel a bit pinched), - Distributing natural lubricants - Storing pheromones for releases on arousal " making us more attractive to our other halves on a chemical level And - Acting as a sleeping bag for the shaft, keeping it safe and warm Sources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Circumcision, unless used for medical or religious reasons, ought to be banned.

I will be arguing that circumcision should be allowed in all scenarios unless it presents a risk to the subject. Until the age of medical consent, the decision can be made by the parent, but after the age of medical consent only the person being circumcised can make the decision. I will argue that: 1. Circumcision has the medical benefit of reducing the chances of contracting HIV and other STDs, and is therefore a justifiable decision for a parent to make for a child. 2. If we allow it for religious reasons, there is no reason we should not allow it for other, non-religious beliefs. 3. Adults should be able to make decisions about what to do to their genitalia, and it is not the job of the government to prevent them. I look forward to your arguments.
Circumcision, unless used for medical or religious reasons, ought to be banned.

I will be arguing that circumcision ought to be banned with the exceptions of religion or medical reasons. Rules: [1] No trolling [2] Be civil [3] Try not to use logical fallacies [4] If you need extra time or want to continue this debate, message me. [5] You have to answer in 72 hours in order to prevent bugs. [6] You have a max of 10,000 characters. If you need more, put your argument on a Google document and submit that as your argument. Format: Round 1 - Opening statements Round 2 - Opening arguments are rebuttals Round 3 - Rebuttals Round 4 - Closing Arguments/Statements
FOX News isn't reliable news anymore

Though my opponent was late in responding to the debate, they have posted an argument in the comments. This is what I will be responding to.Response"I never said necessarily said that other news networks (MSNBC) aren't bias, or isn't reliable news source. To win, all I need to do is prove Fox News is."No, you didn't, but you did say that Fox News was not a reliable source of news. This opens the door for me to point out that the kind of bias on Fox is widespread across all news networks. NBC, which is usually viewed as more credible than MSNBC and Fox, flat out edited George Zimmerman for political reasons. [1]Also, you have to do more than prove that Fox is biased to show that it is not a credible source of news. ConclusionDuring the course of this debate, I believe I have shown that Fox, while biased, is still a credible source of information, especially when considering the biases of other networks. I have also disproven what appeared to be my opponent's resolution-"Fox news isn't really news."Essentially, my opponent conceded when they said this-"Ok, there is news."For all of these reasons, please vote Con.[1] http://reliablesources.blogs.cnn.com...
FOX News isn't reliable news anymore

"Have you considered that Obama isn't the cause of all your problems or that he isn't bad?" In fact, I am a Libertarian, not a Conservative, but I live in a strongly Conservative household. I commonly find myself defending Obama. I don't necessarily agree with everything that Fox stands for (I can't stand Bill O'Reilly, for instance) but that doesn't mean you can write it off as being in unreliable source of news. There is a time for commentary, and a time for reporting. You can tell when one ends and the other one starts. Sure, they have had reporting mistakes, but who hasn't? Though they report with a slant, it is hard to have completely unbiased news. You can find plenty of bias on the other news networks as well, it just you wouldn't notice as much because the bias is in your favor. I am not attacking you, just stating a fact. I know, because I used to be a flat out Conservative Republican and I saw no problems with Fox. As I became I Libertarian (Keeping my Republican status because of Ron Paul mainly, and the fact that Third Parties have almost no traction in the United States) I began to realize that Fox news wasn't as great as I thought it was. Finally my actual point- It is very difficult to report with no slant. People form opinions, its only natural. Fox News gets flak for being biased, which it probably is, but no more biased than all of the other networks. Fox just gets more because its bias is to the right, not the left. Back to you Pro.
FOX News isn't reliable news anymore

I'll agree with you that the maker of these videos does have some other videos that are bias and is against what Fox is for, but he is exposing Fox's misleading and bias news reports. Even if the video is bias, it isn't considered news. I am in favor of Obama and the Democrats, but the voters of this debate are the ones to look at the videos without bias. To the voters, when you are watching them, please put aside your own personal bias when you watch the video. To answer your question, yes. I have considered Obama isn't all that great. I'm not for abortion, and he hasn't done a good job of spread his message. Although it's hard to when you have Fox News constantly and desperately trying to attack Obama. I have a question for you though. Have you considered that Obama isn't the cause of all your problems or that he isn't bad? To the part about how it use to be reliable, around it's founding, fox had been bias then still, it's just that they weren't as bias and they were truthful more often. I put a video down below It talks about the guy that directed Outfoxed, a movie that showed flaws in Fox News. There is a part in which the director is handed an envelop. There are memos that go around Fox that tell the reporters to use certain words or focus on certain things to make it they way they want it. The vast majority of time you can tell when Fox is trying to report it as if to blame someone or to make someone look good. It becomes hard to differentiate news from bias when there is bias in news. Then within the news reports, they often throw in incorrect facts to throw of the viewer, as seen in the earlier videos. Ok, you found a few times they weren't bias, Though, this is rare on Fox. This is why it isn't reliable anymore. They don't show this stuff as often. www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2i_HH54BPk
FOX News isn't reliable news anymore

I would like to say that while your video's appear to bring up valid points, they also seem to be extremely biased, which is interesting because that is the very thing you accused Fox News of. Also, you expect to watch Fox as someone who is unbiased, but I see from your profile you are Liberal in favor of Obama. Have you ever considered that maybe Obama isn't as good at you thought? Also, according to your resolution, "Fox News isn't reliable news anymore", you will also have to prove that it was at some time reliable, if it is true that it is now not reliable. For example, Bill O'Reilly, who is a main topic of your videos, has been with Fox News since the very start. However, you will also have to prove, using unbiased sources, that Fox News is unreliable. However, I believe that Fox is reliable because their News and Commentary can be taken separately. The vast majority of times you can tell where the commentary is and where the news is. You can choose whether to believe the commentary, but the news is facts. Furthermore, a spin being put on the news is almost unavoidable. To show further how Fox is devoted to fair reporting, read this- "The showdown came hours before air time when John Moody, Fox's vice president for news, told Drudge he could not show a National Enquirer photo of a 21-week-old fetus. Drudge, an ardent opponent of abortion, wanted to brandish the picture of a tiny hand reaching out from the womb to dramatize a baby's development at that stage. But Moody decided that would be misleading because the tabloid photo dealt not with abortion but with an emergency operation on the fetus for spina bifida." [1] This is Fox News standing up against a Conservative viewpoint in order to be fair and unbiased. Back to you Con [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
FOX News isn't reliable news anymore

Ok, there is news. I say that in the resolved up there. The problem is that it isn't reliable. Often times, anyone who watches this with a straight, unbiassed mind, you see that all they are doing are attacking on the "weak" points of anything liberal. They don't care if it makes sense, they just go with their gut and sometimes make stuff up. They present what happened for a minute or two, then have a whole bunch of angry people rant about how "well" someone else could do it and yadda yadda yadda. You don't get the actual news; it's constantly twist. Here are a couple of links. I'll hold you accountable for watching all of these. and more if you want to: https://www.youtube.com...
FOX News isn't reliable news anymore

Your argument contradicts itself. Your first sentence and resolution: Fox News isn't really news. However, you yourself admit that they cover news. Then it is really news isn't it? Sure, they have Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. but the majority of the day is actual news. Primetime is mostly opinionated people, but the rest of the day is mostly actual reporting. Also, even if they put their own personal spin on it, the news on those primetime shows still fits your definition of news.