BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Institution of Socialism

Many Thanks to My Opponent, Judges and all others who may read this debate! "In different places over the years I have had to prove that socialism, which to many western thinkers is a sort of kingdom of justice, was in fact full of coercion, of bureaucratic greed and corruption and avarice, and consistent within itself that socialism cannot be implemented without the aid of coercion." -ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN, Author of Gulag ArchipelagoBefore we begin, some technical stuff...Pursuant to PRO's stipulated structure, I will use this round to state precisely what negating this debate requires of me to win. I must only argue against the resolution, meaning that (1) I do not need to argue a counter plan -i.e. in favor of something other than socialism, (2) my burden is only argue against socialism and (3) similarly, if my opponent fails to meet his BOP (i.e. affirm socialism), then I have also won.ATTN. Judges: I will not use MLA citations, which PRO has agreed to in comments prior to my accepting this debate. Therefore, I should not be penalized in any way for not using MLA citation format. PRO's participation in this debate from this point on indicates his acknowledgement and acceptance of these terms.Right, then! Let's begin!
The Institution of Socialism

Socialism is an institution I support for the most part. In this debate, I will argue in favor it, while my opponent will argue against it. I hope for a rational, mature, logical debate. I do not want propaganda to be involved in here. I want facts. This debate will follow a specific structure:Round One: My opponent will accept this debate and will state his or her stance. Round Two: My opponent and I will state our main arguments. We will explain our reasoning in depth and we will use plenty of sources to prove our claims. Round Three: My opponent and I will offer rebuttals and we will strengthen our previous argument by stating supporting arguments. Round Four: My opponent and I will offer final arguments and further rebuttal. Round Five: Final rebuttals will be made and my opponent and I wll offer conclusion paragraphs. The rules of the debate are the following:1. All sources will be cited using the MLA format. 2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.3. There will be no forfeiting. I now allow this debate to commence.
Beards are sexy

This round i will further solidify my claims by providing examples and explaining why those beards are in fact sexy. example 1: http://shechive.files.wordpress.com... Please notice how the beard illuminates her perfect facial features, making her more desirable. example 2: http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk... The beard accents his boyish look to give him a rugged complexion, creating a very handsome face.
Create new words for the dictionary that people might actually use.

Cubicily: Job Interview that takes place in an enclosed room Wiki-sense: Tries to be smart but backed up by inaccurate sources Telerunning: Track & Field, Long Jumps, Marathons ,or generally anything that requires extensive running Contralose: A situaton in which one accepts a lost but desires a rematch Hellyo: A greeting that implies a generally negative mood Barlala: A bar that put emphasize on female service rather than alcoholic drinks Gameopal: Seeing it as only happening in video game
Create new words for the dictionary that people might actually use.

ok then. gug: can be used to replace the F word or H word when people say, "Who the ____ is that guy?" Kay: for those atheists who say, "h my God!" can say this instead (pronounced same as Que? in spanish) whadaheyjushapin: abbreviated for when people would use when they say, "What the hell just happened?" I cannot really think of much that are actually useful. This is all I can think of right now.
We need to reduce our corn intake

I can start by saying we are using too much corn in the U.S. and it is hurting the economy. I think it would be better to use corn for biofuel so we don't use up all of the natural oils in the U.S. because then we'd be in deeper having to start relying more on other countries like Saudi Arabia, and have to pay them to get the oils for the gas. If we start using corn for more things it may be gone faster and we might not have it to use though, but if we use the corn for more items we won't need to rely on those other countries for oil. If all of us in the country used biofuel from corn, we could help to, "go green" or help not have as much smoke in the atmosphere and stop global warming from happening. I think it is a good alternative plan, just incase. The companies shouldn't be making more, I agree with that, but don't you think that the companies would deserve some of it? Also I'm sure the companies would still have to pay a decent amount of money if the companies have to buy the corn from them. The E coli issue is a serious thing but they should just stop feeding them the corn. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You make many good points that I agree with but corn can still be an alternative as a back up.
We need to reduce our corn intake

Hello, this is my first debate here on Debate.org, so I hope I do well. The world is currently using too much corn for everything we can think of, and it is hurting the economy. First, farmers grow massive amounts of corn, more than we could possibly need. Then the government gives them subsidies for when they grow more corn, when the government isn't even buying the corn in the first place. They feel the need to do this because that means that the farmers are able to sell there corn to the food companies for less, so that food companies can sell there food for very low prices. This makes things that use corn, like cheeseburgers and soda, seem cheaper than they actually are, so people buy them, and food companies get larger profits than the farmers, when they aren't doing as much work. Also, it is responsible for the Escherichia coli outbreak, because cattle are now mass-fed corn, which they do not naturally eat. They usually eat grass, which their stomachs are designed for. When fed corn, it increases the acidity of the cattle's stomach, allowing the E coli to live, and from there spread to people. It used to kill off the E coli, allowing people to eat it without harm. http://www.usnews.com...
We need to reduce our corn intake

I understand that I contradicted myself, purposely, I agreed, but it was just a small statement and I countered my agreement by saying that we could still use a little more as biofuel instead of not using it. I agreed that because we are using quite a bit of corn. I think we should still use "more than the desirable amount" it will help ecosystems and the pollution level go down over time. Even if we took oils from the soil we would run out in a small amount of time. Even if the Saudi Arabians hurt their environment, it doesn't mean we should hurt ours just because it won't hurt ours "as much."
We need to reduce our corn intake

If you are using too much of something, you need to reduce it, by definition of too much: beyond the desirable amount. You didn't post any further arguments, so I can't debate anything. By using corn ethanol, we don't reduce our carbon emissions. It would increase it, because it requires extra transportation, and uses more land. If we used our own oil on American soil, we wouldn't hurt the environment nearly as much as the Saudi Arabians do. If you are against the reducing of corn intake, you think we don't use too much corn. But you said "We should stop using so much corn...," so you contradicted yourself.
We need to reduce our corn intake

Actually you are the For (pro), "Reducing our corn," intake so I didn't concede as much as you say. I was simply agreeing with you when I said "we are using too much corn in the U.S. and it is hurting the economy." You should say things like: "We should stop using so much corn..." or " We should reduce our corn intake because..." If you wanted to say we should use it you should have been Con or against reducing corn intake. Do you understand this? Your first argument also said "The world is currently using too much corn for everything we can think of, and it is hurting the economy. First, farmers grow massive amounts of corn, more than we could possibly need. Then the government gives them subsidies for when they grow more corn, when the government isn't even buying the corn in the first place." and that is for reducing corn intake. I said,"I think it would be better to use corn for biofuel so we don't use up all of the natural oils in the U.S. because then we'd be in deeper having to start relying more on other countries like Saudi Arabia, and have to pay them to get the oils for the gas." because I am against reducing the corn intake.
We need to reduce our corn intake

I can start by saying we are using too much corn in the U.S. and it is hurting the economy." That was my point. You are CON. I am PRO. You need to argue the other side, not mine. You conceded my point. "I think it would be better to use corn for biofuel so we don't use up all of the natural oils in the U.S. because then we'd be in deeper having to start relying more on other countries like Saudi Arabia, and have to pay them to get the oils for the gas. If we start using corn for more things it may be gone faster and we might not have it to use though, but if we use the corn for more items we won't need to rely on those other countries for oil. If all of us in the country used biofuel from corn, we could help to, "go green" or help not have as much smoke in the atmosphere and stop global warming from happening. I think it is a good alternative plan, just incase." http://www.grist.org... Ethanol causes more problems that it fixes. It uses tremendous amounts of antibiotics, which in turn over time increases the bacterium's resistance to that antibiotic, causing outbreaks of disease. It also involves even more government subsidies. Also, it takes almost a gallon of fossil fuels to create a gallon of corn ethanol. "The companies shouldn't be making more, I agree with that, but don't you think that the companies would deserve some of it?" You conceded again. They deserve some of it, but they don't deserve any of what the government subsidizes. "Also I'm sure the companies would still have to pay a decent amount of money if the companies have to buy the corn from them." Your use of the word "still" confuses me. They would have to pay more, not less. Only if they would have to pay less the word "still" would be used in this context. "The E coli issue is a serious thing but they should just stop feeding them the corn." My point exactly; you conceded again. "You make many good points that I agree with but corn can still be an alternative as a back up." Thank you. Keeping it as an alternative would still be reducing the corn intake.
Discrimination can sometimes be correct.

Except when we do those things; we are doing it for the good of those individual well-being or we are defending ourselves. That is not what discriminination is. According to the Oxford Dictionary, discrimination is defined as "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex" For clarification, unjust's definition is listed as: not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. The majority of the statements you gave below are morally just. In terms of the advertisements, they are not discrimination, if not clearly stated in the application information, then that is NOT discriminative. When we stop children from being molested, we purely do it for their well being as it is not safe for their age group. When we stop children drinking alcohol, they are not mature enough to be able to sensibly judge the amount of alcohol they drink. When we stop a boy/girl from fingering/blowing us, we are protecting our moral well-being which, if we are stopping, we clearly are doing to make sure our well-being remains intact. When we stop Nazis from killing Jews by killing them, that is purely for saving another race. Nazis did an unjust act and so killing them to prevent further unjust acts is not discrimination. Ending WW2 was to save a larger amount of lives than killing, and doing it for the good of their own country - again, not unjust. When we stop people allergic to peanuts coming to parties, we are clearly doing it to protect them from getting a reaction from the peanuts. So, to put into summary, your points are incorrect as they are not discrimination. Discrimination is ALWAYS unjust; your points are just.
Discrimination can sometimes be correct.

When we stop children from being molested purely due to their age, by point-blank banning any sexual contact between those above and below the age of majority discrimination can be correct (DCBC).When we stop children drinking alcohol due to age, DCBC.When we stop any average height or tall people form performing the midget role in a play, circus act or music video, DCBC.When we stop a dude who doesn't appear to be our boyfriend from fingering us, DCBC.When we stop a girl who doesn't appear to be our girlfriend from blowing us, DCBC.When we stop Nazis from killing Jews by killing them into submission, DCBC.When we end world war 2 by bombing a huge chunk of a nation for the sake of sending out one last almighty roar to prevent almost twice as many lives of our own people having been taken, DCBC.When we ensure that our hair dying company puts a model on the cover of the right hair color for the right packet and ban any non brunettes [or people who would look ugly being brunette] from auditioning to be the brunette model, DCBC.When we discriminate against those allergic to peanuts from being invited to a party where peanuts are being readily eaten and the shells tossed around, DCBC.Want more examples? Okay... Just ask.
Discrimination can sometimes be correct.

Discrimination is never correct due to the fact, that it pointlessly hurts people for no apparent reason. How can judging someone on their sex, skin colour, or even hair colour ever benefit our society in any way, shape or form? It makes no sense. People using discriminative terms for no logical reason are emphatically wrong. Think about it this way: The person who is being insulted at with your discriminative statement could go onto self harm or even commit suicide. There have been many cases where this has happened. Surely this is enough to stop any discriminative terms, but, yet, people continue. Why?
Illegal Immigration

You say that illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers will not, this is simply not true. American workers are passed over in favor of illegal immigrants who can be paid an extremely low wage your exactly right that illegal immigrants compose 5 percent of our labour force. This is bad for our employment rate here in the U.S. just think of how many Americans could find jobs if there were not 11 million law breakers competing for their jobs at a lower wage level. But that's not the end of it, were these 11 million to be granted amnesty they would then petition for their entire families to be brought over as well and the number could blossom into 30 million, without accounting for the millions more that would come pouring in when they heard that they could get in legally. You cannot expect a nation as indebted as ours to be able to support a flood of that size especially when an estimated 57 percent of all immigrants use at least one form of welfare.
Illegal Immigration

Immigration does help http://teacher.scholastic.com... Illegal immigrants contribute to our economy as workers, taxpayers, and consumers. They account for 5 percent of the total U.S. labor force, and at least a quarter of the workers in industries like construction, agriculture, groundskeeping, meat processing, and textile production. Undocumented immigration is a symptom of an immigration system that is broken. Lawmakers should revamp our immigration system so that it works with our economy, not against it. Even if what you say is right we could simply grant immigrants citizenship for (just an example) 100 hours of community service each year for 10 years so they would all be contributing to society.
Illegal Immigration

Comprehensive immigration would create no jobs, unless you count the cops you'll have to hire to crack down on the increase in crime. Instead it would take jobs away from U.S. natives. You have to loo at the fact that we have very high unemployment and that opening the floodgates for million of immigrants will not help that. Furthermore these poor will not be able to pay for themselves and will be placed in the welfare system , thus increasing debt. As for the rest of the argument[all but the last paragraph] that was copy pasted, which I do not appreciate.
Resolved: Euthanasia is Immoral.

My opponent has conceded his first point. Now, my opponent made an assertion that I haven’t provided any reason as to why objective morality exists. First of all, I’d like to point out that the burden of proof rests on both of us. If I claim that objective morality exists, his counterclaim must be that ethical relativism or ethical subjectivism exists. He has yet to meet his burden of proof. Now on to my argument. I noticed that Con has dropped a lot of my arguments. He hasn’t replied to the modus tollens, where I refute moral subjectivism. He hasn’t given specific arguments against the intuition argument, for another. As I stated in my previous argument, if I can provide even a single case which is objectively wrong, moral objectivity does exist. He would have to provide a society, a timeline, where roasting live babies for fun was ‘OK’ to effectively rebut it. He has completely dropped the Kant’s theory, stating that he has ‘no real reason to bother with it’. He hasn’t pointed out why he thinks it’s wrong, or Why it isn’t applicable in the society. Untill he does that, I really have nothing more to say. I would urge my opponent to address these in the next round.
Resolved: Euthanasia is Immoral.

~~Defense~~I will concede my first point. However, I will be defending my second. There is no real evidence to suggest that Objective moral facts actually exist. My opponent states that intuition is proof for objective morality when this isn't sufficient enough. What one percieves to completely repulsive another may be completely OK with. We see this in a lot of issues. Intuition is merely a subjective opinion. There is no scientific or logical proof that suggests that there is right and wrong. ~~Rebuttel~~My opponent has given no real reason as to why Kant's theory should be accepted or why it is Objective. Therefore, there is no real reason for me to really bother with it. She merely assumes that it is correct without reason nor warrants. ConclusionMy opponent has not provided any evidence for Objective morality, and has given a theory without stating why it should be accepted. Until she provides evidence for Objective Morality and reason as to why Kant's ethics should be accepted or rather why it is Objective we can assume that there is no objective morality and that Euthanasia is not immoral.I will await my opponent's response.Thank You.i
Resolved: Euthanasia is Immoral.

I will basically be negating the resolution and ultimately proving that the practice of Euthanasia is not in the slightest bit immoral. However, I will be doing this in an uncommon way. I will be proving my case by also proving that Objective moral facts do not exist. I will start out my case with the following syllogism:P1: In order for Euthanasia to be immoral Objective moral facts must exist. P2: Objective moral facts do not exist. C: Euthanasia is not immoral. I am going to assume that the majority of my opponent's reputtel of my case will be centered at my second premise, so I will focus on it more then the first. 'P2: I will sum this up with two sub-premises. Sub-premise 1: DisagreementEach culture throughout the world has it's own conception of right and wrong. While Atheists may fined gay marriage ok, the christians do not. So, if there were objective moral facts then there would be less disagreement on what is right and what is wrong. Sub-Premise 2: Lack of Evidence. There is no real evidence to suggest that Objective moral facts actually exist in the first place. If there is no evidence to suggest that they do exist then they can't be fact. Many religions say their way is the true basis for morality however, they have no proof that their religion is true. So, it is up to my opponent to state evidence for whether morality actually exists. ConclusionSince there is a lack of evidence of whether objective morality exists and a huge dispute on whether what is right and wrong to begin with it is fair to say that objective morals do not exist. And since they do not exist it is impossible to say that Euthanasia is actually immoral. I will now await my opponent's reply. Thank You for reading.
Resolved: Euthanasia is Immoral.

~~Definitions~~Euthanasia- Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to deathpainlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extrememedical measures, a person or animal suffering from anincurable, especially a painful, disease or condition. Immoral- Not moral. (Morality will defined below)~~Rules~~1. First round for acceptance.2. No Plagarisms.3. No new arguments at the last round.Good Luck. :)1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
There are no valid arguments for creationism

If we're using quantum mechanics than the omnipotence paradox goes right out the window. The omnipotence paradox is that an omnipotent being cannot create a mountain so heavy they cannot move it and then be able to move it. These are opposing actions where one must mean the other is not true. However since you have introduced quantum mechanics into the argument then the omnipotence paradox disappears. Schr"dinger's cat (a criticism but also an example of quantum mechanics) shows that two opposing actions are possible ( the cat being both alive and dead). Now since in a universe with quantum mechanics the omnipotence paradox is gone, it becomes possible for one to exist physically. That means it's also a possibility that they are responsible for creation. With the multiverse theory where every possible outcome can be found then somewhere there is an omnipotent being that physically is not a paradox and is responsible for the creation of life. However the assumption of quantum mechanics truthfulness, it is still only theory it is not a scientific law and the majority of this debate was the rambling a of two people with too much time on their hands. According to the terms of the debate (providing a valid argument for creationism) I proved pro wrong in the first round. I provided a valid deductive argument for creationism. However I know that what I provided was not pro's intention in this debate which I'm assuming he wanted to take place relying on empirical evidence and not technicalities. To be fair I wouldn't have taken up the side of con if the argument terms were more thoroughly articulated.