BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anarcho-capitalism would turn into anarcho-communism or socialism given enough time

As I stated, this round will be used for conclusion and reasons why you won. We can restate arguments here but no new arguments.To restate what I have stated:1) Business owners will not have people protecting their private property rights under an anarchist society, which can lead to people taking it by force.2) The state has done things to make it worthwhile for business owners to maintain a state, such as bail them out when they fail. They have also done things worthwhile for the poor, such as minimum wage, safety regulations, evironmental regulations, etc. Without it, it's more likely the poor will revolt.3) Robots will not replace all jobs like my opponent stated, and I provided facts showing this4) I attacked my opponent for using a cherry-picking fallacy, as well as their article for using it as well. 5) I refuted the claim that my opponent made that the industrial revolution resulted in the loss of jobs6) I refuted the claim that my opponent made that wages will go up under capitalism, since they were generally terrible in the 1800s and didn't really start going up until the government stepped in7) I argued that the points in round 2 which my opponent offered would actually result in the destruction of capitalism because if technology did replace all jobs, then there would be no one to buy the products of the rich(as they no longer have jobs) and the rich would have their businesses go out of business. I believe that I have won this debate because I brought up logical points because right now, the only thing protecting private property rights is the state, and if we removed it, there would be no one to protect them. I also refuted all of the claims my opponent made in round 2, which my opponent didn't counter most of these points in round 3. The basis of my opponent's argument in round 2 would still result in the destruction of capitalism as I pointed out. My opponent claims that money and jobs were irrelevant in round 3, even though they brought it up to begin with in round 2, so according to them, their points in round 2 were irrelevant. My opponent claimed that there would be no resources that the poor own, but this is simply a weak argument since there are resources the poor gets today. Even if they didn't have resources, they can steal them(there's no way to guarantee that they won't be stolen)
Anarcho-capitalism would turn into anarcho-communism or socialism given enough time

Pro offers an interesting point concerning the so called creation of jobs. However his point ignores the idea that (i) money is totally irrelevant, (ii) wealth concentrates, (iii) new "jobs" are irrelevant for our debate and (iv) technology assures both wealth and security for the rich. In the end power created by technology and resources prevents any Marxist revolution. I.Money is irrelevant Pro states that the rich will "need" the poor to sell them goods so they can in turn obtain money. This is a basic misconception about money: that they are good to have per se. Actually it is important what you can buy with the said money. 1000 Botswana Pula is only 92.54 $. In the extreme, if one person has the last bowl of rice and the rest of the world has all the money, the money is worthless and the price for the last bowl of rice is infinity. Therefore, having all/almost all the resources, the rich don't need to sell anything to the poor because their money will become worthless. II.Wealth concentrates We both agreed that wealth concentrates and that people will tend to live miserably (this being at the core of Pros argument for revolt). By accepting that wealth concentrates in the long run Pro is accepting that resources and not money (see argument above) go mainly to the rich. The supposed revolt of the poor can't take place with total lack of resources. If Pro were right, all failed states would be egalitarian. In fact, failed states have few rich people and a majority that have nothing. This shows that once a certain level of resources is reached, it is self sufficient and can be protected. III.New "jobs" are irrelevant for our discussion While it is true that technology creates new jobs, they are not relevant for our discussion. Facebook needs fewer skilled workers to create wealth than a car factory. The so called "new jobs" like social media expert or blogger do not involve transfer of wealth to workers. Any money received by a "new job" is less than what traditional direct jobs receive and will not offset the concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich. IV.Technology assures both wealth and security for the rich Theoretically speaking you would need 1000 spear-men to guard your domain. Then 100 archers would be sufficient. 10 men with machine-guns would then be sufficient to guard an estate. In the end, with surveillance and some drones, no humans would be needed. The same goes for the factory, for the finances and for storing the resources. Automation first reduces the number of people needed and then it eliminates them altogether. Any other jobs created are not relevant for the creation of wealth and will not prevent its concentration. Robots don't have unions and don't rebel. They only break down and they can be repaired by other robots or replaced. No workers needed. Maybe the robots would raise against their masters, but this is a topic for another debate. The motion should be dismissed.
Anarcho-capitalism would turn into anarcho-communism or socialism given enough time

I agree with the following parts so they are taken out of the debate: Some people will accumulate more. There will be private armies. Some people will have almost nothing/will live in terrible conditions. What pro fails to consider is that wealth will need lees people to generate and protect with the development of technology. Robots will help the wealthy create more wealth and to protect it. Two consequences arise from this: (i) there will be few and highly specialized workers that could rebel, (ii) there would be 0 interest to attack people who have nothing. From these consequences, it follows that: there would be few people to rebel or they would have little real power. 1. Few and highly specialized workers To run all the technology, the wealthy will need highly specialized workers that will be relatively well paid. They have 3 reasons not to rebel: (i) small numbers, (ii) small chances of success and (iii) a lot to lose. First, it was established that few workers would be needed because of the advancement of technology. This happened with the industrial revolution and it is happening again at a larger scale now [1]. Second, because of small numbers and well guarded wealth, any rebellion will have minuscule chances of success. This is why even with a strong state we have fewer unions and the CEOs reign supreme. The rich have nothing to fear from the workers (military or otherwise). Third, by computing success rate with what they stand to lose (well paid job) the workers will not want to rebel. 2. Poor people no longer have any power Because of brute force, scarcity, disease and disinformation, poor people will have neither the will, nor the means to rebel. 3. Rich people have no interest to create a strong state The rich have sufficient workers and technology to guard their wealth. They would have no interest to create a strong state. From (i), (ii) and (iii), it follows that in anarcho-capitalism nobody has the will or the means to create a strong state. The motion is rejected. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com...
Who will make a better fake letter? (1,000 char 1 round troll debate)

Dear, E-Harmony applicant Your application to join the site was disapproved because some of the answers you gave were unsatisfactory. Below are some of the examples for which we disqualified your application: 1) When asked "What do you want to see the most in a woman?" your answer was "My dick" 2) When asked "Looking back on your life, of what are you most proud?" your answer was "Potty training. It was a hard road, but I do pretty good now, usually" 3) When asked "What is the one dream for your life you most look forward to having come true?" your answer was "Shopping for groceries and then realizing im naked" 4) When asked "What is the most adventuresome thing you've done in the past year" your answer was "masturbating in a public bathroom" It is for these reasons that your application to join e-Harmony has been rejected. You may not take the test again under this account for a week. Sincerely, e-Harmony IT center
Who will make a better fake letter? (1,000 char 1 round troll debate)

Pro (me) will make better fake letter, Con (you) will make a better fake letter.*read out loud*Dear Mr. Willy Wonka,The snozberries tasted like a guy that rolled out of some bums asswhole. WHY did I hire you crackers? All i asked from you was your fresh sement, snot, and dingleberries and THIS is what I get? These snozberries you made taste WAY too much like my mom. I wanted them to taste like my dad, Mike Hunt, and Rosie O'Donnel. Now that is nasty good stuff! I was trying to get the taste off of my tongue all day!By the way I took back my Uncle Sanchez. He was posing as an Oompa Loompa. Bass-turd.Sincerely, Miley Cyrus
Why Sasori is hoter then Dedara

Well you have made very fine points so next lets more on from the body and go to there personality's. This will be kinda short. But Sasori has always treasured and loved eternal beauty there for he strives for it and now he has made himself an eternal body in-which to stay hot forever. And well hay would only want one flash of hotness compared to an eternal beauty? Sasori thinks along the lines of a lasting hotness one that will never fade away.
Why Sasori is hoter then Dedara

Dedara is obviously hotter. why? because hes tall and blond. tall blond guys are outrageously hot you throw water at them and it evaporates. all joking aside Dedara is hotter because hes actually flesh and blood sure Sasori will probably live longer but Dedara can actually show emotion and unlike Sasori he can actually get aroused where as I'm pretty sure Sasori has nothing down there and if he did it would give you splinters. and lets not forget that Dedara has three extra mouths meaning he has three extra ways to give pleasure. i rest my case.
Why Sasori is hoter then Dedara

Well this is more of my personal opinion but I think Sasori is Hotter because he is a red head and almost all red heads are sexy. One example is Axel ya know, the flurry of dancing flames. Another is his eyes. The looks they give you when he is about to kill you it is amazing. next I come to his body since I'm working my way down. His chest is like Tamaki from OHSHC ya know what I mean. he h no nipples or body hair. sure this is because he is a puppet but still sexy. Next his lower body aka his hips and legs. For this I can not say much since they are never seen. Come to think of it I do not think that Dedara's are shown ether? Oh well. last would be his feet ... he wears shoes. This is the end of my first part remember this is all for fun :)
drug addiction

Con merely states some statistics about drug addiction rates. Con provides no reason why drug addiction is bad. Hence, there is no impact on any of Con’s arguments. In America during 2012, alcohol taxation generated $6.5 billion [1]. If the American gov’t were to encourage alcohol addiction, instead of discouraging it with institutions like the NCADD [2], alcohol addiction would increase taxation revenue. Drinking alcohol has positive effects on people, such as: reduction in coronary heart disease and stroke [3]. Alcohol is a depressant, meaning that it can help you relax after a stressful day [4]. Therefore, it is clear people would benefit from alcohol addiction. Alcohol/drug addiction (1) generates more taxation revenue and (2) makes the addicted healthier and relaxed. My opponent provides no rebuttal or negative case with any impact. Resolution affirmed. References [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com...
drug addiction

the story is same throughout the world. drug addiction has spared neither a progressive nation nor a backward one. it is rather strange the more backward a nation is the more sad are the experiences of drug addiction .according to melvyn lestitsky US assistant srecretary of state for international narcotics matters there were at least seven lakh drug addicts in India on august 1,1989.by the end of the century they would be more than doublew.it is rather,strange that more than 50% of these are either students of colleges,the seats of knowledge and learning or young men in the 10-25 age group.the group includes people of all shades ranging from engineers and advocates to that of rag collectors and road side hotels boys. the government can just aid the efforts or initiate the efforts-the management is with society.
What makes one think that Trump is a good choice for president

Hello, control orientated individual... I will not pick a side because you said so I have already chosen a side. As my title states I am looking for logical reasoning for why Trump would be elected as president. I am looking for someone to enlighten me on why anyone would want him as president. I am against Trump. One may say they admire his capitalist techniques, however his failure in business is not a just cause to give him the right to run our country. Our country needs more than just bankruptcy techniques.
InfraRedEd pisses me off

My opponent has asserted that, according to the dictionary definition he supplied, I urinate him off. The definition makes no mention of anger." The dictionary definition I supplied stated that piss off means to anger. The slang version was utilized. If you look to the page I gave the link to, the slang definition is given. I shall paste it word for word right now. 4.piss off, Slang. a.to anger. http://dictionary.reference.com... My opponent did not argue this definition, which was the one used for this debate, therefore my opponent has conceded the debate. I shall reflect on his stupid "urination" definition in a few moments. "If I urinate him off then where is the urine? That would seem to be essential. Further evidence that I urinate him off would be welcome also. What are the symptoms of being urinated off? Can my opponent exhibit them? Is he still being urinated off or was this at some time in the past?" To piss off can also be taken as to make someone urinate. Although this is irrelevant to the topic at hand (my opponent has conceded the debate by ignoring the definition actually used for the debate) I shall respond to it. As a matter of fact, InfraRedEd does make me urinate. Every time I read one of his debates, I have to go to the bathroom and urinate. So, point rebuttled. "My opponent has submitted no evidence that "to urinate off" means to anger. How could I urinate him off without trying? If I urinate my opponent off without trying then I can do even better now that I at least know he exists. It is terribly difficult to urinate off people who don't exist but I am getting better at it." This is a ridiculous argument. Urinate off does not mean to anger, to piss off means to anger, in the slang version, which is the actual definition used for the debate. The rest of the argument is irrelevant. I have proven that in fact InfraRedEd actually makes me urinate. The rest of the argument is irrelevant and he is simply ranting. That has also pissed me off, because it is just a waste of space. Henceforth, InfraRedEd indeed pisses me off. He really did not rebuttal my argument at all, so I urge a Pro vote.
InfraRedEd pisses me off

My opponent has asserted that, according to the dictionary definition he supplied, I urinate him off. The definition makes no mention of anger. If I urinate him off then where is the urine? That would seem to be essential. Further evidence that I urinate him off would be welcome also. What are the symptoms of being urinated off? Can my opponent exhibit them? Is he still being urinated off or was this at some time in the past? My opponent has submitted no evidence that "to urinate off" means to anger. How could I urinate him off without trying? If I urinate my opponent off without trying then I can do even better now that I at least know he exists. It is terribly difficult to urinate off people who don't exist but I am getting better at it. Ask any juvenile delinquent. http://www.debate.org... My least favorite opponent ever. Ask her about being urinated off and you will count your blessings. http://www.debate.org... Especially after she vote bombs you out of the water. http://www.debate.org... One wonders what she is up to this time with all her flattery. Wait till she sees http://www.debate.org...
InfraRedEd pisses me off

InfraRedEd does piss me off. When I refer to InfraRedEd, I am strictly referring to the debater on this website. http://www.debate.org... The definition of piss off for this debate shall be: piss off- to anger. http://dictionary.reference.com... Reading throughout InfraRedEd's debates, I can tell he pisses me off/angers me. He tends to rant and has created ridiculous debates that piss me off; such as: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... Although my opponent has taken the Con side in these debates,I believe he made the debates just to fool around and either get an easy win/make himself feel even more foolish than he already is. Conclusively, InfraRedEd certainly does piss me off. I shall await my opponent's response.
Gun control

Happy to think with you today. Now, first of all we need to accept the difference between 1. Gun Control - The regulations a government uses to limit what guns, addons to guns, ammunition, rules for, et cetera that their civilians have access to and have to follow. and 2. Gun Elimination - Government stopping all of its civilians from having access to any sort of gun for any sort of reason in any sort of what by any sort of rules. Most governments operate under rules that allow for guns but don't fully eliminate them from the civilian population. In the United States, we have differing regulations on weapons in every state, however, to be anti-gun control one has to say that any civilian in society may obtain any firearm they wish, any ammo they wish at any time, under any sort of circumstances, with any sort of ammunition and addons et cetea. So you have to say any civilian, mentally disturbed and documented, at any age, should be able to walk into a store and buy a machine gun with no background check so the distributor knows if they are mentally disturbed or not, and as much ammunition as they'd like. In order words, to fully conclude this round, in order to vote for my opponent's position you have to say that this scenario is OK: 13 year old with known and documented mental disturbance, after having stated his intention to kill all of his classmates on twitter, and being warned by federal agencies and perhaps even interviewed, may walk into a store, buy a fully automatic weapon and as many rounds as he'd like with no background check and the distributor would not be required to call the police or warn anyone about this. You have to say this scenario is OK in your view to say you're entirely against gun control. Here is a resource you can read as far as automatic weaponry is concerned with links to the actual law: http://thefederalist.com... If my opponent would like to change the topic of this debate, you will probably have to open up a new debate, but I'm willing to continue this debate if you would like to argue certain points of gun control, however gun control as a concept is mandatory for all societies with our current weaponry, and even more important as we gain access to more deadly weapons in the future.
Ronald Reagan was a better President than FDR

For clarity, the resolution is intended to be as follows:Resolved: In terms of public policy, Ronald Reagan was on balance a better president than FDRPro can confirm that this captures the full intent of his challenge. I only offer this clarification since Pro mentions "policy" in his R1 but the debate title does not include it. I ask that voters refrain from voting on criteria other than "argument" unless there is a flagrant in round violation of the other criteria.Formalities out of the way, I accept this debate with one of my favorite FDR quotes:"These Republican leaders have not been content with attacks on me, or my wife, or on my sons...Well, of course, I don't resent attacks, and my family don't resent attacks, but Fala does resent them... I am accustomed to hearing malicious falsehoods about myself ... But I think I have a right to resent, to object, to libelous statements about my dog!"
Science is based on rational thought, while belief in God is based on irrational thought.

Point 1: You are arguing that the laws of physics are not true.. it is common knowledge that these laws exist so it can actually be assumed to be true, but here's a source just for the heck of it. http://en.wikipedia.org... Point 2: "Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on." http://en.wikipedia.org... Your reference stipulates that ". The creation of a particle-antiparticle pair out of the vacuum violates the law of conservation of energy" which I assume is the basis for that particular point.. but the sentence continues "but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows such violations for a very short time." It later states that the inflationary model of the universe accounts for the expansion of the universe. http://machineslikeus.com... I did not post sources because this debate is not asking if the big bang theory or the laws of physics are rational. It is irrelevant if it rational or irrational to believe in the big bang theory (point 2) and it is ridiculous to refute the laws of physics (point 1). To elaborate, even if we could disprove the big bang theory, that is in no way evidence for other possibilities unless you assume that there are only two possible methods the universe could have been created. On a side note outside of the debate (speaking as a moderator), as you have stated that you are an atheist, please at least research some of the common arguments made by theists and try to empathize with those arguments. I have had many debates with theists on this topic as I am primarily interested in the psychological mechanisms of genuine theism. No intelligent theist would argue against basic natural laws (and yes, I realize that's an opinion.) Once again, this paragraph is meant to be outside of the debate and not as a point for rebuttal. Please just humor me.
Science is based on rational thought, while belief in God is based on irrational thought.

Pro has not provided any sources to refute point 1, but I posted sources for my claims in my footnotes last round.As he has not used sources to refute that point, and has no reasoning provided, so his rebuttal to point one cannot just be assumed to be true.Pro again did not use any sources to back up his claims in point two, and did not refute my point that quantum fluctuations cannot result in the big bang. Instead, he posted a bunch of statements with no sources to back them up.For point 3, see my arguments on point 1.