BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are no compelling objections to anarchism

First, I'd like to point out that Con is trolling this debate, this being the second one of my own which he has done so to. Therefore I won't be putting as much effort into this debate as I am in my other on the same subject. Readers looking for an actual debate on the subject see here: http://www.debate.org...On Con's actual points though, I won't bother getting into each point since they all make basically the same point. He argues that under anarchism, some outcome X would happen and that outcome is bad. There are two problems with his point though. The first being that Con ignores to answer why state would fare better in these situations. The second being that Con fails to actually respond to my arguments for why an anarchist social system would be able to handle these difficulties.As stated before, Con makes the mistake of failing to show why states are immune to these problems Con brings up. Obviously survival of the fittest, torture for fun, slavery, etc. are all unfavorable situations. However, haven't we seen these happen under the governance of states? Con can't simply attribute the worst atrocities imaginable to anarchism but ignore the reality of states.Secondly, Con has completely ignored my constructive case in favor of polycentric law. Anarchism does not mean lawlessness or law of the jungle. It simply refers to a socio-political system without monocentric control over the provision of defense and legal services. If Con sees problems with polycentric legal systems as such, he is free to bring those issues to light. But mere conjecture doesn't serve well in debate.
brawn over brains

If you dropped a public school into a forest with nothing but their clothes, most likely only the smartest will survive. Employing essential survival skills into a situation like that would greatly increase your chances of surviving over brute strength. Sure the more physically above average ones would be better equipped to deal with survival of a more direct nature but their stupidity will eventually bring them down. A smart person doesn't need above average strength to start a fire or get food. They can identify plants and berries to find a suitable food source and create small, sustainable farms. The others could easily eat a poisonous berry and die overnight. In the long run being smart is much more beneficial than being brawny. There is nearly no limit to the capabilities of the human mind but the human body can only do so much.
brawn over brains

I believe that brawn over brains is the smart way to go. If you go to a public school take all of the kids and drop them in the forest with nothing but the clothes on their back THEY WILL DIE!! Without the modern society to hold their hands they are nothing! Last time I remember Arithmetic won't get you any where in the wild unless counting the days away. I believe that spending some time learning to build a fire or to fight back is a bit more important than modern education. Because truly all the modern world is going to give you is greed obesity and disappointment.
Soda Tax

You did not make a coherent argument. It was mainly just a paragraph that you took from someone else's writing. One great lesson in economics is that taxation lowers demand. If you tax something that is used so frequently, such as sugary foods, people will consume less. There are two implications of a soda tax: 1. Lowering Obesity 2. Raising Revenue I will argue against both. The soda tax will lower the need for soda. Since you are arguing solely for the soda tax, then I will do as well. People can switch to other sugary foods. After all, only 36% of the American sugar consumption comes from soda and other sugary beverages. This is relative to the British tax on tea. Tea was a commodity, and the tax resulted in the Boston Tea Party. I am sure that if we tax soda, we won't have a bunch of obese people raiding 7-11's, (considering they are obese, and obese people do not primarily enjoy physical activity). Soda tax will also make less money for the government. Let's say that a bottle of Coca-Cola costs $2.00. (I will use just this in my calculation for relative purposes. This is just an example) Let's say that we have 1,000,000 people who buy a bottle of Coca-Cola every day. A tax usually is between 2-20%. USUALLY. So let's assume that we get a hefty tax of 15% on soda, with the additional sales tax. I will now get the average for the sales taxes in the entire country. If you were to take the state sales tax of each state in 2014, and then divide by 50, you would get a sales tax of 5.1865%. I will round this down to 5% to make this easier. I will add room for incorrect measurement later on. So we get $2 bottle of soda, and 1 million sales each day, with a 15% soda tax and 5% sales tax. So that amounts of 20% tax. Lets say that we take just the $2 of soda, and then use sales tax only, with the 1 mil people. This would be $2.10 per soda. So each day, 1 mil people buy soda, sales tax makes 10 cents per soda, meaning that is 1 million dollars of revenue for the country each day. The stores usually keep 30% of the sales, and the rest goes to the company. With a corporate tax of 35% federally, we would get 70 cents per coke bottle sold. That would be 7 million dollars extra. In total, we would make around 10 million dollars tax revenue each day just from soda, or 3.6 billion a year. Quite a lot of money. Then let's take the projected amount of incentive lost, which is 31% less sales. I will lower this to 30% for mathematical purposes. So it would be eventually 30% less on everything. This amounts to 2.5 billion each year. Then let's take into account the fact that prices would need to be lowered, which means the incentive comes back, but we still will make less money on tax revenue. This is a prime example of government shielding you from your own stupidity, which it should not. I am fit and healthy, and I drink soda on occasion, that should not mean that I have to pay extra just because some obese people are going to the store every day to buy loads of soda. That is not my problem, certainly not my concern, and I should not have to be burdened because of it. Sources: http://taxfoundation.org... http://www.takepart.com...
Soda Tax

Thank You for accepting. I hope I fair well in my first debate.A report on the effectiveness of soda tax really brought the point home. Iowa State University said that the consumers should not have to pay for the tax, but the manufacturers should have to pay.The article from TIMES magazine reads and I quote, "The study, which was published in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy, was based in large measure on the fact that the sweetness you taste in a high-calorie soda can be produced from a lot of different ingredients, including high-fructose corn syrup, more benign cane sugar and artificial sweetener. How you formulate the drink can affect not only the calorie content but also the way the body metabolizes those calories. Applying a tax that encourages manufacturers to choose the healthiest possible recipe can have a powerful downstream effect."[1] By taxing the manufacturers for the soda they produce in turn be healthier for the individuals who drink it.[1] http://healthland.time.com...
Animal Cruelty

Thank you con for hosting this debate. There's perfectly good reasons to subject animal's to torture. Factory farming is essentially legalized animal torture[1].If factory farming were eradicated the cost of certain meats would jump by 40% or more [2]. Factory farms are large operations that employ upwards of 700,000 people annually[3]. If we strop torturing animals 700,000 people are out of work and due to increased food prices most likely starving to death. I support people being able to feed themselves and have a job. So I support factory farming. Sources, [1] http://www.peta.org... [2] http://cornellsun.com... [3] http://www.thepeoplehistory.com...
Rap Battle

Everybody always forfeits They know that I've got more wit Guess they're scared and not prepared For all the wins I've been awarded This happens all the time - That's why I don't even bother trying People talk all kinds of smack Well take it back cuz I'm not buying You're lying - subsiding and residing My talent's multiplying Increasing, while you're dividing I'll keep on riding - keep on cruising through this battle I'm OG, to me you're a ba-by so here's a rattle Well maybe that'll - at most propel you to post But I've already killed you so it's no wonder you're ghost
Rap Battle

------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm about to show you how rapping is supposed to be I've got this battle in the bag like it was groceries I won't even try in this round - I'll give you a head start Better get a doctor around - You'll flatline, dead heart Cuz they wanna watch her like a proctor They know I'm gonna stomp ya This monster's always winning - From the beginning I conquer And if you're gonna rap about juices - deuces I'll clean up after you like disposable douches No excuses for the usage of my verbal abuses Now I'm on the loose in this battle, gerbil - no truces ----------------------------------------------------------------
Rap Battle

The rap battle starts here yes, my dear. I intend to spread fear so I would advise to not stay near I dont know where to go from here Stear clear Cause when I get goin The juices will start flowin The confidence starts growing Thats bad news for you Like Germany's Jews Locked in Auschwitz Saying "Oh Sh*t" There was no future for you Theres nothing you can do Its Only Round Two! Im gunna knock youout like Ali Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee!
Finish my Story!!

This is all you got? A story is more than one line. It shows you did not try at all. For this reason the vote should go to me. But I have to finish his story, so here it is. Then I got AIDS. I was rushed to the hospital to get treated. All my gang showed up thinking I was a goner. I recovered from this painful experience. That was the last time I ever did that again. Then my least favorite teacher came in to the hospital room that I was staying at, and holy shlt she smelled to high heavens. I thought I was going to die. All my friends ran out of the room. I held my breath, trying to"I dono what I was doing, I was going to either die or pretended like I"m going to die, so she can leave this room. She started to talk, the oxygen mask wasn't giving me enough oxygen, I was seriously needing more air. I started to choke and suffocate. I need breath, I need air. She finally realized what was happening, she ran out of the room to get the nurse. After she left I finally took a deep breath and was relieved. The oxygen mask agreed with me. The nurse arrived" Please do try to write an actual story, thank you. :)
Finish my Story!!

I want this to be fun as possible. I will start with the story, and my opponent needs to finish it, after he posts his added story I shall add from his and so on. I want to thank everybody who took the time to read this debate. I had fun writing this story. I hope my opponent will enjoy it as I am. Once Again thank you voters for your fair vote and taking the time to read this. Well here it goes, I was in middle school at this time. I hated this one teacher so much. It was just horrible. I started a little gang in my school. Me and my gang friends, to tell you I was a trouble maker in middle school. We had this festival going on early in the summer. This was before school was out. My gang and I fallowed this teacher everywhere and did things to her to make her look like an idiot. Well, she had to go to the port a potty to go do her business. My gang and I grabbed a can of pop, bungee cords, some jars of spiders, and a bag full of weed. We fallowed her; I was the gang leader, so it was my responsibility to do stuff. So, I shook up a can of pop, took out the bag of weed, and the jars of spiders; I opened the port a potty where she was at and threw everything in. Then, we bungeed up the port a potty with her in it. She flipped out. She stood up, knocking down the port a potty with herself in there. We ran always laughing our heads off. The next day….
Canada is not a democracy

Ladies and gentleman, my opponent has absolutely failed to prove that Canada is not a democracy. He criticizes me for using the word 'dictatorship', yet he was the first to use it. His argument rests solely on technicalities and conspiracy theories (I sincerely doubt Canada is run by a team of undercover Masons.) My argument needs no reiteration, yet I will do so briefly; in 1949 Canada was given political sovereignty and in 1982 it was given legal sovereignty. It has since exercised this power on countless occasions. If Canada is not a democracy, why am I able to participate in the democratic process? Why am I able to choose from four (or more) fundamentally different parties? How else could the majority of the provinces ratify a constitution giving us political freedom and civil liberties almost unparalleled in the Western world? No democratic system is perfect, but we're damn close. My opponent's arguments are misleading. He says that politicians must swear to the Queen and 'her laws', yet Canada's legal system is entirely its own. In Quebec, they were free to adopt a Napoleonic code of laws, flying in the face of English rule. No voter is casting his or her ballot for a constitution, as Canada has one that all of us can (more or less) agree on and have done so in the past (democratically.) If the people were to want a change in the constitution (an unlikely event) then they would be well in their democratic right to do so. What's more, my opponent seems to suggest that the British created our constitution, which was only true before the advent of the Constitution Act of 1982 (which I have been tirelessly saying, though my opponent ignores it.) The debate boils down to this; are you permitted to vote? May you go to a fair trial? Is your leader the one who garnered the plurality of votes, or a British Mason working for the IMF? The case is clear, thank you.
Canada is not a democracy

The answer to this is simple, clear-cut and factual; Canada was a dominion; a subsidy of the British Empire, before 1949 for all practical purposes. While Canada had a fairly large clout in terms of its own fate, England still had the final say. After 1949, Canada was given full political sovereignty and the right to have the people of Canada determine what is best for Canada. In 1982, all the legal brush was cut away by means of the Canada Act and Canada, on paper, was given full independence rather than just in practice. Yes, England determined Canada's sovereignty, but the Canadian people took it the rest of the way. Of course a country can be 'given' democracy and its disingenuous to say otherwise. Most of the countries in the world were given democracy either by means of military intervention or legislative action. Apparently you think that the only countries in the world that are 'democracies' are those born out of revolution, such as the United States (or are they run by Masons too?) The fact of the matter is that you can produce as many laws as possible, but they're all irrelevant. Canada could have become a democracy by means of divine intervention and, as long as its people own the right to participate actively in the governmental process, it is a democracy. This debate suffers from a serious crisis of definition in that you have not followed your original presentation of a Democracy. Let me present it once again; "The legal definition of a democracy is that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of E R E E citizens directly or indirectly" You have no proven anything to the contrary, only that you believe that the form of government was created under faulty pretenses, which does not constitute a dictatorship.
Canada is not a democracy

What did the free sovereign people do in 1949 as reported in hansard to become a democracy. Did you vote in a referendum in 1942 to adopt a constitution as created by the people of Canada or was it just a government bill. Their is nothing in hansard record showing the people of Canada voted by a referendum to adopt a constitution giving the government any power to govern. You keep making statements of what you were indoctrinated to believe but have not produced any hansard record to back up your claim. You defeat your own argument by your statement ," Canada was not a democracy in a legal way until 1949 ". Post what you think Canada was before 1949; and what has changed to make it a democracy. The same B.N.A.Act is use as the governments source of power before 1949 and after 1949? And The B.N.A.Act is still the source of government power ; which you stated was not a democracy . Their is a difference between what you believe and what you can prove; as your post has demonstrated. Your argument is only based on your belief and not on any documented hansard record. The people of Canada were never free from colonial rule; which is the bases for a democracy as defined by Blacks Law Dictionary as defined earlier. In order to have a democracy you first have to have free sovereign people and you have not produced any hansard record as to when the colonial government resigned, allowing for a democracy to be formed. No country can pas a bill giving another country a democracy; and you have not produced one document to support your position. Do you know the difference between indoctrination and education?
Canada is not a democracy

My opponent apparently has total contempt for the system on debate.org, but so be it. The proposition side today has suggested that Canada is not a democracy merely because there is nothing to suggest it is as such, despite fitting every definition of the world and being internationally ranked as one. My opponent has further charged me to prove that Iraq, or rather; 'Iraque' (the Canadian spelling, I presume) is a democracy. While it may be plagued by corruption and instability, the government was democratically elected by the people to enact laws on behalf of the people. In 2005, almost 80% of eligible voters came out to exercise their political clout. Unless my understand of democracy is different than my opponent's, I believe this constitutes a democratic government. The proposition side has taken my arguments out of context in a purely shameless way. Of course I was not suggesting that gay marriage is a precipitate for a democratic government, instead I was illustrated that public opinion and grass roots movements can affect federal decisions in a very real way. My opponent is furthermore trying to create some misdirection in his use of The Statue of Westminster of 1931 but he ignores that Canada was not a democracy in a legal way until 1949 thereby making the statue more or less void. If one wishes to get even more technical, it could be argued that Canada did not become a fully independent state until 1982 and the passing of the Constitution Act. The fact of the matter is that this is a game of semantics. My opponent may plug as many books as he pleases, but it boils down to this; if I am a Canadian citizen who is at least 18 years of age, I can chose candidates in my riding to represent me on federal, provincial and municipal levels. These candidates, assuming they become MPs, MLAs, councilors, mayors, etc. based on a plurality of votes, must represent me and my constituents by enacting legislature based on his or her party affiliation and/or stated platform. If any citizen are not satisfied that their representative is doing so, or for any other reason, they are open to; A. Contact their representative and express their concerns B. Not vote for said person/encourage others to do the same C. Run in the next election in opposition. Until you can prove any of this untrue, you side unequivocally fails.
Canada is not a democracy

Apparently my opponent has confused the wonderful, sovereign state of Canada with the 'People's Republic' of China. Canada is the world's 9th most democratic country, beating out our neighbors to the South and our former colonial rulers. The main attack against our democracy is that it's too boring, it does not contain the same thrills and romanticism as the American system. I would say that this is a vital sign that we are a robust, vibrant and patient democracy. Our system of parliamentary democracy has proven time and time again that accountability is not impossible in modern governments. When Paul Martin was tied up in the sponsorship scandal, the voters reacted accordingly. Mulroney's poor negotiation of the NAFTA agreements led to his party's decimation. Beyond simply party politics, major progressive advancements have happened due solely to the voters. Because of a grass roots push, Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. We've also recognize a woman's right to choose and experimented with decriminalizing marijuana and banning handguns. Perhaps the largest display of self-determination and direct democracy was the sovereignty referendum in Quebec, where the French population of Canada chose to stay with Canadian democracy, knowing full well its shortcomings. Why did the Quebecois decide to stay with us? Because they know that despite feeling underrepresented at the time, they could use the system to their advantage rather than just divorcing themselves from it. The most obvious illustration is of their progress is in the (largely symbolic, probably misguided but well intentioned) recognition of Quebec as a 'nation within Canada.' My opponent must prove in this debate that Canada represents a "a government in which a single leader or party exercises absolute control over all citizens and every aspect of their lives" and furthermore he must produce actual instances in the recent history of Canada where the government has actually done so. I anticipate his response, in itself dripping in irony because it is due to the fact that Canada is an open democracy that he is allowed to make such outlandish statements.
Canada is not a democracy

The legal definition of a democracy is that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of E R E E citizens directly or indirectly... When were you free to create and ratify a constitution to your liking; giving the government any power to do anything? The B.N.A.Act was a British bill as to how the British wanted to govern their united collony they called Canada. In 1931 the Statute of Westminster was passed to allow for the people and provinces to become free from colonial rule if they wanted; but the colonial government never resigned allowing for this to happen, they just became a dictatorship..
god does not exist

My opponent joined 3 days ago and that was also the last time he was online. I doubt he'll finish this debate seeing as he joined, started this debate and hasn't been online since. Since he forfeited the last round though without providing an argument for the non-existence of God I will provide a rudimentary argument for his existence. (1)Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. -Premise (2)The universe began to exist. -Premise (3)The universe has a cause. -Conclusion (4)The cause of the universe must have been personal so as to decide at time X to 'create' the universe. -Premise (5)The cause of the universe is what we call God. -Conclusion The resolution is negated. My opponent has not upheld his BOP in showing that God does not exist.