BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I would make a better world dictator

This is a troll debate. I am bored and I can never find any good debate topics for me to debate. Though it is troll, give your real views(do not accept if your real views involve aliens or unicorns, please)Thus, here it is. I would make a better world dictator than my future opponent. Society-People of all races and genders will have equal rights. Impoverished people will be enslaved for a set amount of time and will be freed after said time with a large amount of money to act as a start up capital(the money will be collected by the slave owner). This will help with poverty and resolve labor issues. As you can tell, rights will be given by monetary status. Furthermore, as far as demographic distribution goes, upon taking over the world, I would take people from all the locations and move them by force so that all ethnicities are evenly distributed. The only language that is accepted is English. All people must speak English within two years of my domination. All cultural artifacts, including buildings and such, would be destroyed so that no one can have pride in their previous country in future generations and want to revolt. Political-I would have naval ports scattered around the world so that I can handle revolts. I would act as king and I would appoint kings to different states throughtout the world. There would be about a thousand states. I, as head king, would control currency, interstate conflicts or agreements, military, taxes, and exploration. The states control everything else, from gay rights to guns. The economy will be market and any king that tries to change this will be impeached by me. Any king that tries to secede or revolt will be executed on national tv. Religion-national religion will be protestant Christianity. Other religions will be allowed but Christianity would be taught in the schools and used to settle legal matters if religion can apply. Intelligence-My world puts much emphasis on philosophy and critical thinking. Common sense is the basis of much of my lower level education. Colleges will teach the facts according to the interests of the students. Technology-My world does not have much techonolgy except in the military. People will have phones, not smart phones, and will have computers which are primarily for research and word processing. Education-The schools teach primarily common sense, debate, politics, critical thinking, basic math, heavy writing, and research. Colleges will teach whatever interests the students. Upper level grade school education would also offer college classes that colleges would offer to increase interest. One science class of the students choice will be required to finish grade school. If you have policy questions, ask me, do not assume my policy without my clarification please. I will do the same for you.
I would make a better world dictator

1. The forced slavery is simply a solution for poverty and a useful method to handle prisoners. The slavery is just temporary and the people will be freed with plenty of money for them to rejoin the world with. Consider it an indentured slavery. 2. History shows that a good economy often overwhelms pride in one's country. There will be tolerance for everyone so they would not be as likely to revolt. If they do, the military will silence it quickly. 3. I never stated that I would not allow them to speak freely. It is your opinion that my country would be bad, and all you continue to repeat is your opinion with little evidence. 4. I never said I would restrict individual values. I would keep families together, just not countries or cities. 5. Again, an organized revolt would be virtually impossible since it would be too difficult for everyone to rally together. 6. It is your opnion that my leaders would not allow religious freedom. 7. What you fail to understand is, yes, one generation faces some short term sacrifices, however, the world would be a better place for all future generations. Psycoanalism 1. I am not crazy, I am just different. People everyday seem to think I am crazy because my logic is significantly different from theirs. 2. If you continue to insist that I do have some sort of mental issue, I will say this: George S. Patton thought he was the reincarnation of not one, but several famous generals. Ulysses S. Grant was an "angry drunk" Stonewall Jackson had multiple disabilities. Sherman was chronically depressed. It looks to me like many famous generals with problems were amazing leaders. Why would I be any different? Were Patton and Grant disregarded because of their problems? No. Were they successful? Very. Too conclude: My opponent has been repetitive and has consistently repeated the same points that I have continously defeated. My leadership would change the world forever and for the better.
National Debt isn't as bad as we make it out to be

1. National security issue. First off I would like to note that our deficit and the national debt aren't exactly the same thing. A government doesn't normally want to be in a deficit, but it is when the economy is down in order to save it. Cutting the military budget is part of the cutting that is brought along with the eventual turn back to an even budget, or a much smaller deficit. It is not a question of national security. Also my opponents assertion it will lead us to the size of our military pre-WW1 is certainly untrue. Seeing as our technology is much farther advanced we would certainly have a stronger military. Also let's not forget that this $500 billion cut is not like taking $500 billion out right here and now. Rather it is over an entire decade. Plus let's say that we did cut our budget by $500 billion, right now. That would STILL put us at the number one spot in largest defense budget. Our budget is so large that we should probably cut it to put money in other more useful budgets. 2. Currency. I would like to say first that our dollar being the world's reserve currency has little effect on our economy as a whole. World currency is meant to make trade easier by using a common, and singular unit of monetary value. Right now it's the U. S. dollar. Also if the dollar becomes obsolete that does not mean people will not turn to us for money. We will still hold prominence as one of the most reliable sources of money. Also the national debt has little to do with it, and more the increasing economy of China, and use of the euro. 3. Debt won't be easy to pay back. No one said it would be easy. Except we don't need to pay it back very fast either. Because we only need to pay interest back, because of how the U. S. sells treasury bonds, we only have to pay interest. We could keep that debt there for as long as we want. This is obviously not sound policy, but the government does not need to rush into paying it back. We can take it slow, and chip away at our debts. And if we are cutting 500 billion dollars, then we might be able to use that money. I believe I have countered most of my opponents points. I look forward to the next round.
National Debt isn't as bad as we make it out to be

I will start off by stating some common problems people believe about national debt.1. $16 Trillion is an insane amount of cash. When talking about national debt people will often cite that $16 trillion dollars is too much debt, because of how mind-boggiling large a number like that is. But this number is not so bad when we compare it to our GDP. Using the above numbers our national debt divided by our GDP comes out to 1.06, or 106%. This makes us better than Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Therefore our national debt is not bad because of the size of our economy. In history economy has always trumped debt. For example in World War 2 we accumulated a lot of debt, but because of the booming economy afterward it was irrelevant.2. It will take forever to pay it back $16 trillion is still going to take a while to pay back. Right? Well, not really. Because we actually only pay back interest, not the debt itself. The government could start to pay back that debt, and it has in the past, but it doesn't have to. Looking at what we pay back on interest it would be $220 billion. Our national revenue from taxes is around $2.7 trillion on the federal level. 3. What if China wants it's money back? There is a common fear that China owns so much of our debt that we should be terrified. What if they want that debt back and we don't have the money to give it back? Well, China only owns about 8% of our debt. That's pretty insignificant. Also they buy treasury bonds, which you wouldn't be able to call back anyway. They buy them to keep currency low, which is good for trade. Also we pour a lot of money into China itself. Plus let's say they could call back that debt. That would be economic suicide for them, as they make a good deal buying treasuring bonds. Also easy to forget is that for every dollar we owe, other countries owe us 89 cents. I will leave it at that for now, and eagerly await my opponents responses.
National Debt isn't as bad as we make it out to be

My argument will be that our national debt (U.S.A.) is not in a crisis situation, and is in fact very manageable. Let's lay out some definitions, at least the ones I am using for my arguments.National Debt- The total amount of money the government has borrowed, by various means.GDP- Gross Domestic Product, or the monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period, though GDP is usually calculated on an annual basis.The exact U.S. national debt can be found in [1]the link below, but for purposes of simplifying the debate we will use $16 trillion dollars.If we round it then our GDP is about $15 trillion dollars.[2] A source for this will be provided below.[1] http://www.brillig.com...[2] http://data.worldbank.org... Apologies to the fact that source 2 also includes all other countries. Remember that we are using the most recent GDP, listed under 2012. My opponent may start his argument when he accepts, but I will be starting in R2 with my points. BoP is shared, as I must provide evidence to why it isn't in crisis, and con must provide evidence to why it is. Thank you, and I look forward to a great debate.
National Debt isn't as bad as we make it out to be

In the opening of this debate my opponent asked the question whether or not the national debt should be considered a crisis, and the correct answer for everyone is yes. The debt is at $16 trillion dollars, this a gigantic number that is equivalent to over $50,000 per person, it cannot be underestimated. By 2016, the debt will be over $20 trillion according to CBO estimates. And there is absolutely no reason to believe things are going to improve in time to save future generations of Americans from having to pay this debt, especially with how weak the market has been to recover and how unreliable Washington is going to be when it comes to either raising additional revenue through tax increases, or finding future spending cuts through social security, Medicare, and entitlement reform. Through Washington's continual bickering over what to do, we have already narrowly missed two government shutdowns in the last three years where the only agreeable solution has been is to raise the debt ceiling even higher. This is fiscal responsibility at its best. In my points I have proven that the debt greatly impacts the stability of the economy through jeopardizing our credit rating and the value of our dollars; while also harming national security, which of course is effected through the lack of procurable funding for our military. My opponent of course has tried to dismiss the merit of these points by stating in his opening three points that in history "economy has always trumped debt," believing that the worlds largest economy will carry us through. Yet this logic must fail when my opponent himself admits that the national debt is now over 100% of GDP - the debt, my friends, trumps the largest economy. The debt is a huge national crisis where it is painstakingly clear from all mathematical standpoints that the only viable longterm solution to fixing our spending problem is to commit to great sacrifices - which of course will test the average citizen's courage and might like none other.
National Debt isn't as bad as we make it out to be

I thank you for your argument, and now I will present my own. 1. National security You bring up the point that the need for our military has been increased. And certainly cutting the budget will produce a definite decrease in our role as a military superpower. But a good question to ask is how much of that defense do we truly need? Terrorism is down, we have very little hostile countries with an intention of attacking us. And the ones that do have laughably weak militaries. Our biggest threat is perhaps North Korea, but their spending amounts to 9 billion dollars, which is miniscule compared to the budget we'd have as a result of cuts. Plus you are mistaking the power of strong allies. While the world may not like us as much as we do, we are certainly vital, and are of their interest to keep going. We should be able to use diplomatic means as well. They do not always work, but are certainly better than going to war. Most of our militarry engagements are generally frowned upon. 2. Global currency There is no question that replacing our currency would be dramatic to the United States. However it is still not realistic. Let's take the chinese yuan for example. First off the yuan is not freely convertable. That is a major roadblock. Second China's currency is not easily accessible outside of China. The U.S. dollar is. Plus investors still find the U.S. government very safe. Our rate being dropped was a result of politicians holding the economy hostage. They could've EASILY raised the debt ceiling with no problem. But they didn't, so that is why we got dropped. The debt ceiling is a way to keep our government checking to make sure that we are not spending too much when we don't have to. But during an economic recession we definitely need to spend more. We could and should cut in areas that are worthless. Or where we waste money. But we lost credit because of political reasons. 3. Slow payback is not an option You bring up that the U.S. cannot not pay back our debt. It sounds insane, because you know that everyone pays back their debt. But this is wrong, because it compares our current debt with personal debt. At a personal levelunpaid debt leaves consequences. But at the international level people are paying the government for the interest you get paid back for it. It is not a loan, andyou cannot tell thegovernment to give you your money back. Another issue is that paying back slowly is too little too late. But the government needs to continue spending to keep the economy afloat until it gets back on its feet. Cutting spending right now is like drilling a hole in that ship you talked about. The debt is aresult of the economy, not the other way around. Therefore we shoupd focus less on debt and more on our economy as a whole. Thank you.
Skepticism is bullcrap

one of the claims of skepticism is that our senses are unreliable to the point where we cannot be guaranteed the truth, however this is a complete contradiction. It is only applied to people who claim to see ghosts, aliens, etc. But when it comes to a human being or a scientific observation, it then becomes reliable. Next point is that anything outside of your mind is uncertain (like senses) of existing or being. Again, this is contradicting because in order for you to realize you have a mind is to rely on your senses. Another claim is that there are degrees of certainty and no absolute truth. It makes no sense for there to be 90% certain of something when classical physics, either you are certain or your not. finally, there are many claims that we can dismiss claims of aliens, etc. by simply going with what is most likely to happen. The reasoning is that because we have never seen aliens, there's more reason to doubt their existence. The same logic is used on God. This fails because in science, it is very dangerous to base it on what you think is the most likely explanation.for example, it would be entirely ignorant and ridiculous for someone to claim that most scholars conclude the Bible is mythical when the according to statistics, this is completely wrong. many skeptics lack expertise when trying to find explanations to phenomenon. it then becomes impractical for us to even use this kind of skepticism. It's all based on what you feel is "Most likely or least likely to happen " unless you have strict mathematical principles to aid you.
it is a must to wear a seatbelt

Passengers in a vehicle who are not wearing a seat belt can become projectiles during an accident. Unbuckled passengers can very easily be ejected through the front, rear or side windows, resulting in death.Passengers in the rear seat of an automobile who use both lap and should safety belts are 44% more likely to survive in crash. The percentage increases to 73% for rear seat passengers in Vans or SUV vehicles.
When people say "you don't give yourself enough credit", they are all lying.

thats not true. When I say that You Dont Give Yourself Enugh Credit, I always mean it. Otherwise, I would say it. Telling the truth is very important and most people try to do it. Some people to underestimate themselves, and these words are true when said to them. If Winston Churchill thought he was terrible, when someone said this to him, it would be true. <3
Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legalized

I am a socialist. You are a liberal.We have a fundamental opposition in our philosophies of politics.You believe the individual's happiness matters more than the happiness of the leaders.I do not.Firstly... What exactly is 'our country'? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? If you mean this, you are in deep trouble. Your profile has no location specified and it's a very assumptive conclusion to reach that our opponent on a free-for-all online debating site is in the same country as you.Secondly, I think we have to realise that even within USA (you mentioned 'congress') there are many EXTREMELY religion-dominated states, such as Texas and California where allowing gay marriage would in fact ANGER more people than it would appease. In any politician's eye would you think the legalisation of it would be a wise idea? I think what you are trying to do is say because one region of our planet works well with this policy, the rest of it will too... Sorry but that is just plain ignorance.You mention " There are hundreds of thousands of gays in our country." Assuming 'congress' indicates that you live in USA may I mention the MILLIONS of HETEROSEXUAL CHRISTIANS? Oh... Suddenly hundreds of thousands isn't such a significant number to be backing your debate with. If you want to use numbers in any shape or form, you will lose.The conclusive statement amused me. You state that "There are people out there that are too stereotypical and ignorant to grow up and deal with the fact that there will be people with different sexual preferences than them in their lives." Well. Let's see now. Is it always advisable to accept variation? Is allowing freedom of individual preferences even possible? Think of it like this. I can use your form of logic and say this in return:There are people out there who would riot, violently protest, throw grenades at the white house, burn gays alive and kidnap members of congress if we were to legalise it ESPECIALLY in a state such as Texas. Arguably Gay rights activists are also ignorant and need to grow up and deal with the fact that there will be people with different degrees of chaotic outbursts and religious devotion that the government must take largely into account since a major role of any law or policy is to maintain peace and serenity as well as social harmony.
Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legalized

I believe same-sex marriage should be legalized for these reasons. Reason one, congress should not be allowed to make and pass laws telling people who they can and cannot marry. You should never be able to limit one's happiness. Reason two, take a look at our country. There are hundreds of thousands of gays in our country. There are people out there that are too stereotypical and ignorant to grow up and deal with the fact that there will be people with different sexual preferences than them in their lives.
Capitalism in practice does more good than harm

I will let Pro go first, although I will provide definitions and burdens that are to be preferred. Burden of the affirmative (pro): To win the affirmative must prove that in practice (in the real world) (as opposed to 'in principle') capitalism does more good for people than it harms them. In other words, there are more advantages than disadvantages. NO ALTERNATIVE HAS TO BE GIVEN THIS IS SIMPLY ABOUT CAPITALISM (i.e. the argument "there is no good alternative" is not valid). I will be giving definitions, and I politely ask that my opponent does not drag me into any stupid semantic debates. I also ask that any claims made by either side be backed up by evidence from a credible source. Capitalism: an economic system based on private ownership of capital (Princeton Wordnet) In Practice: really, in effect. Not hypothetically (wiktionary) Good: having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified (Princeton Wordnet) Harm: physical or mental damage (Merriam Webster) The debate should go as follows: R1 Aff - Capitalism Advantages R2 Neg - Refutation of Advantages, list of Disadvantages Aff - Refutation of disadvantages, defence of advantages R2 Neg - Refutation of defence of advantages, defence of disadvantages Aff - Refutation of defence of disadvantages, defence of advantages R3 Neg - Impact Calculus Aff - Impact Calculus Impact calculus means comparing the aff advantages to the neg disadvantages, and determining which are more important/relevant/etc. No new advantages or disadvantages should be brought up after the first round. I assume the right to clarify rules if they should come into dispute (if you have a question about the rules before we begin simply ask them in the comments, don't take the debate and after I clarify the rules claim abuse...) OVERVIEW FOR VOTERS: *All claims without evidence from credible sources are assumed to be invalid. *All advantages/disadvantges claimed after each side's first speech are assumed to be invalid. *No alternative for capitalism will come into play in this debate. Providing/asking for/advocating for or against an alternative is a non-voting issue.
the US should preemptively attack north korea

the US should preemptively attack north korea it's inevitable that they will eventually perfect their rocket technology and get more nukes. we should strike sooner than later because it's better than waiting till they have more power and leverage, as they are not fit to have hundreds of nukes and be able to take the world hostage. it would cause one of the worst humanitarian problems ever, but it's better than losing LA and NY to nukes.
the US should preemptively attack north korea

well i should have said we will probably have to attack them preemptively. note i didn't say when but i concede it sounded like i meant now. we have to see how far they are progressing. but you seem intent that no matter how far, if they dont attack us we shouldn't attack them. i think it's fair to value your own countries lives more and anyone who says otherwise is grandstanding. we don't provide a social safety net to the world and we dont try to solve the world's problems. we do that for us alone, which means this is an example of why shouldn't we just extend that logic to casualties of war. youd have a point that there's a limit to how much we can value US lives more, but i see no reason to get into how far exactly it needs to go, because the danger is close enough that millions of Us lives are at risk. so i take it you think kim is just bluffing when he says to do what he says or else? and that he will continue to do so even when he has hundreds of nukes? you're so confident in that assessment that you're willing to sacrifice millions of americans' lives if you're wrong? to place your trust in an unstable madman is nothing short of crazy.