BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Would a Correct Form of Socialism Work in The United States of America

I am a fan of good, correct, democratic socialist governments. This liberal style of governance has worked in many countries in Europe including Sweden, Finland and China. However, these countries all have one thing in common. In all of these countries, most of the citizens share a Liberal viewpoint in government. Since Socialism is an extremely liberal form of governance, this makes since. However, in the United States of America, a majority of voters are conservative and support the basic ideas of the republican party. The main reasons socialism wouldn't work here is that 1. People would go power crazy and 2. There is too much opposition on the Conservative front. I believe it is quite obvious that if the United States declared being a socialist republic, the conservatives would move with swift action, repeal the bill and if push comes to shove, take up arms and fight their government. I wish the best of luck to my fellow debater. Let's keep this civil :)
I will win this debate without any rational reason.

No you can't win any debates without any reason. Skills required to win debates1. Topic - A debate should have a valid topic. 2. Arguments - You need to present arguments for any topic you are debating. 3. Refutation - One should rebut or refute arguments made by their opponents and try to expose their opponent weakness in arguments made or which is false presentation.4. Organisation - One should organise a debate's arguments which make easy for readers and voters to understand and readable path to follow.5. Conduct - One should have a good conduct. i.e. You should not make any personal attacks on your opponent and should not forfeit debates.6. Spelling & Grammar - One should have better "Spelling", "Grammar" and "Punctuation" which make a debate well presented and easy to understand.7. Source - Arguments which is backed by sources shows the research made on a particular debate. Also it serves as an interpretation of evidence.Conclusion Since you did not show any of these qualities or skills, it is not possible for you to win neither this nor any debates without having any rational reason.
Europeans should not be singled out; conquest, fighting, exploitation and slavery are inevitable.

The title says it all. This debate is about why Europeans should not be taking so much blame for tragedy in the past because almost all other major cultures have done similar things. I am also stating my opinion that if the tides were turned, Africans would of enslaved Europeans or Native Americans would of pushed out and decimated Europeans. Waiting for contender. First round is acceptance, second is argument, third is rebuttal, and fourth is rebuttal and conclusion. Good luck.
Health care should be provided by the state.

When the state provides "free" healthcare, it inevitably has to "ration" care. The fact of the matter is that people cannot have free and unlimited healthcare at no cost -- someone has to pay for it. If this is achieved through taxation, instead of by the consumer of the healthcare, then there is no incentive to economize in any way. Why not run every possible test for every possible ailment once a month? Once a week? This is unacceptable, so all state-provided healthcare systems instead "ration" care. Otherwise, costs would quickly get out of hand. However, rationing is not a good distribution method either, and many sick people have to wait in long lines, etc. Other times, care is denied by the state -- this is way too much power for a government to have. Finally, in the absence of private enterprise, the incentive to develop new cures is greatly hampered. Right now, pharma companies invest millions into research and development in the HOPE that they will get a return on their investment in the future. If government also took over R&D, then this would be just another opportunity for abuse. Big programs could go forward without much chance of success, because the people working on them would not care about future profitability. Free enterprise saves people's lives by providing a financial incentive for life-saving cures.
Prohibition of Abortion

Fine if I need to spell it out, no I don't think fetuses are people or that abortion is murder. As for your argument that it's not the baby's fault if it was because of a rape the mother became pregent. Why is human life so special. For this argument I will say that a fetuses are humans. They aren't but let's say they where. Why are humans special. We kill cancer cells that could also cause a women to die. Cancer is life it's not cancers fault for being cancer but I bet you have no problem killing it so why are humans so special? If you're going to argue that it's because we have a higher level of awareness a fetus doesn't it's about as aware as cancer is. I don't agree abortion is murder so the entire premise of your argument is invalid because you assumed I agree please start over.
Prohibition of Abortion

Silence is compliance. Since you have conceded most of my case, you agree that 1) fetuses are persons, thus 2) abortion is murder because it ends the life a fetus. The only point you have attacked is the following, "in all circumstances...with no exceptions."On your first point: While this is a difficult situation, we must look to the fact that abortion is murder, as you have conceded by not attacking that portion of my case. Your unhappiness, your step-father's unhappiness, and the health of your mother are not valid justifications for murder. Let's assume it's a healthy, safe delivery, and there is never a threat to the mother's health. After the child is born, and he or she is an infant, and the mother develops a psychiatric condition that makes her so worried she will harm the child in some way that she tries to kill herself. In this situation, a human being (just like the baby in the womb), through no fault of his or her own, is causing the mother to die. Should this child be killed? Assuming you answer no, you must provide a specific analysis of what makes that child different from the child in the womb, and why it is morally acceptable to kill the pre-born child, but is is morally unacceptable to kill the born child.On your second point: Assuming a child was conceived through rape, you argue that the mother of that child should be able to abort him or her. Since you have conceded/agreed that abortion is murder, you agree that, even in the case of rape, abortion is murder. What differentiates this child from any other child to the extent that he or she can be murdered? The fact that the child is unwanted does not make him or her a candidate for execution. Were that the case, any child who is unwanted could be aborted, and we would not be having a debate right now. Why would you punish the child for the crimes of his or her father? Why would you punish the child for something that is completely out of his or her control?
Prohibition of Abortion

My Believe abortion should be legal for a few reasons. One there are many cases where child birth would be highly dangerous for the mother. Sometimes it would put the mothers life at risk. My mom is currently pregent. She should be fine but what if next week the doctor says that she is likely to die if she tries to give birth to the baby. Should she have to have the baby anyway? How does that affect me or my step father if she dies and even more if the baby does to and she dies for nothing. Should she still keep the child? Or someone who is too young or to old to safely give birth. What about a mother that got pregent from rape should she keep the kid. I don't think abortion should be taken lightly and other options should be explored first, however I believe in some cases it's the best option.
Prohibition of Abortion

I hope it will be a good one! For the purposes of this debate, contraception will not be considered abortion. Condoms are a non-issue; they do not kill a fetus as they prevent a fetus from being created in the first place. For your last question, you may look to the second mandate of my plan. It reads that we should adopt, "The Right to Life Amendment to the Constitution of the United States," which is described as, "a) induced abortion is murder, thus b) It shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as first-degree homicide".
Prohibition of Abortion

Resolution: Induced abortion should be completely banned in all circumstances in the United States with no exceptions through:1) Repealing the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision2) The "Right to Life" amendment to the Constitution of the United Statesa) Induced abortion is murder thus,b) It shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as first-degree homicideThe main contention will be:1) Abortion is murder2) Murder is wrong because human life is sacredDefinition: "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus" -Merriam WebsterContention One: Abortion is MurderA. The SLED test proves that fetuses are persons:S-Size: The typical argument is, "That is the size of a dot, how can you call it a human being?" Response: Are larger people more human than smaller people? Are adults more human that children? Men are typically larger than women. Do men deserve more rights? The answer to all of these questions is no, and we can clearly see here that size is not a factor in personhood.L-Level of Development: The typical argument is, "Fetuses are not self-aware or intelligent, thus they are not persons" Response: I was not self-aware at 3 A.M. this morning, I certainly hope that doesn't mean I stopped being human, and you could have killed me. Additionally, this argument claims that we are all on a giant curve. We start out with no rights to personhood, and as we become smarter and reach our peak level of intelligence, we have full rights to personhood, and as we become older, we lose rights of personhood. Also, it claims that the more intelligent have greater rights to personhood. Thus, in this system, the more intelligent should just be able to exploit the less intelligent because they are more so persons. These are accurate conclusions about the world if evaluated from that perspective, yet they are obviously false, thus that perspective must be false.E-Environment or location: The typical argument is "Birth makes a fetus human". Response: When you got out of bed to get your computer and accept this debate, you changed location; you changed environment. Did you stop being a person then? If not, then how can a simple journey of eight inches from inside the womb to outside the womb magically change a tissue blob into a person?D-Degree of Dependency: Typical argument: "Until it's viable it's not a person". Response: What about people who are dependent upon insulin or pacemakers? Are they all of sudden not human, and we can just kill them? If we have to not depend on anything or anyone to be human, then a lot of people on this planet are going to have some serious problems because they will no longer be human, and anyone can kill them at will with nor moral ramifications.B. Reference the above definition of abortion. Since the fetus is a person, as shown above, causing death to the fetus cause death to a person, and murder can be defined as "The premeditated killing of one human being by another" -Oxford Dictionary Thus, abortion is murder.
Prohibition of Abortion

I looked into the sled test and I don't think it's relevant. It's a good argument as to why we shouldn't kill toddlers, but it doesn't help with if a fetuses are alive or not. Lets look into your arguments. Size: I've never seen anyone argue that. If they do that's a stupid reason Level of Development: I think that the argument is if you aren't self aware at any one point you can be killed. It's that fetuses aren't self aware, at all period. Plus I advocate abortion only in extreme cases, such as serious health risks to the mother or serious birth defects to the baby when born that will likely lead to it's quick death. Environment: I get what your saying although the comparison you used makes no sense. I think the fetuses becomes a human in the third trimester personally because that's when it has all of it's functions. Degree of Dependency: Again I've never seen that argued and it's a stupid argument. A cancer cell can't be a human but it's alive none of the less. You seem to imply here you only think humans matter. I don't think that's what your saying though. Yes I agree murder is bad and deserves to be punished. However I don't think fetuses are humans so that's completely irrelevant. What do I think a fetus is. I think a fetus is a fetus no more no less. I think as stated above a fetus becomes a human in the third trimester. However I still think abortion is acceptable if needed because I think born humans get priority over unborn humans. The reason abortion is a lot to think about for a person that people get attached to the fetus. If they didn't then it would take the same level of thought as getting a tooth pulled. In your final argument I would like to see you talk about your thoughts on if born humans should be a priority over unborn babies.
There is no God

if you are not comparing god to humans, then why say god learnt? if i was to say that a baby was born knowing everything in this world.. eventhe whole galaxies .you would think i am insane. this imagination is unbelievable right? but then if god wasn't unimaganable, if god at one stage knew nothing, then what is the point of him being god? i would not have really become a muslim if god not knew in one stage. and how can you say god did not know one stage, then you are refering and saying that god was born in one stage. if god was born then why is he god. See there is a limit of what we see. imagine an everlasting world. that is impossible right? you think it is because the amount our brain is capable of carrying is little. You say that if god is able to prevent but is not willinghow is god god. you most certainly have did somethiing evil, you could have prevent it but you didn't then you are not a human, you have free will but you still chose the wrong path, then you are not human. what is the point of being born when there is only evil and death in this world? was everything in coincidence/ dont you think it is a little sad saying themost beautiful creatures were not created? aha. you have said that i am making so much grammer mistakes. See i am not perfect. How can someone likeme that does have some knowledge about the world make a very simple mistake. But saying that humans, animals and nature all happen in coincidence and are all perfect.. dont you think that is bizzare. (by the way i am very excited about teaching someone tthe right religion that i cant type poperlt.. sorry :)) directors choose something like us because we are too perfect. create something that looks better then humans.. i dare you. actually we are the one that is ruining the ecosystem. in your religion what happens when you die? just wondering. God does exicts. god helps us in all are needs. I want ot just tell you that i amonly 13 and am sorry that i couldn't persuade you to the right religion. I am truly sad and am about to burst out intears for not showing you the real world and from not saving you from the wrong path. Sorry for everything. May god show you the right path... I will pray for you my friend every prayer i do for you to actually became a true believer. May god forgive you from all the sins you have comitted. :)
There is no God

//God is willingto prevent evil that is why he gave us freewill// How does this work at all? But let's run with it. So he is able to but there is still evil hence he is not all loving. I am not comparing god to humans, I am comparing him to his definition! He is supposed to be all powerful thus my paradox has gone unanswered. Please extend the omnipotence paradox since my opponent has not answered it. What are you talking about? I am not comparing god to humans, I'm going by the bloody definition of god! His definition is that he is all knowing thus he must know what it is like to have learned, (logical) and if he knows what learning is like that means he must have learned at some time thus he was not all knowing at a time ergo your god does not exist. Let it be known that my opponent has not actually answered my arguments, she is just accusing me of comparing god to humans which I am not. Also, before I get to the last comment may I request that you proof read your writing? It's quite hard to understand your arguments with so many grammatical errors. Thank you. Last comment: //You say that we happen in coincident then why do all alien movies that are famous has a stucture like us// ummmm because the directors chose a familiar figure so we would not dislike them. If you look at all the alien movies where the aliens are the bad guys they look nothing like humans. Also, you are aware alien movies aren't real right? //if we happen to be cincident, then why is there such a strong food cycle that if one animal is out of it it all brakesdown.// It is because our ecosystems are interconnected and we developed via coevolution. If anything this disproves god because why would god make such a fragile ecosystem? ALSO, my opponent has given no arguments for god's existence, she is just trying to refute mine which will not cut it. My opponent also dropped my argument that a universe can come from nothing thus I win.
There is no God

god is able toprevent evil..... so are we God is willingto prevent evil that is why he gave us freewill one thing you should know is that everything has pairs, is there suck thing as cold. no. it is the absence of hot is there such thing as dark. no. it is just the term used to tell the absence of light. what we call the absence of good is evil. god created good but we cerated the absence of good. evil. i think first you should find out the meaningof god. god is allpowerful he can do anything he wants. right now you are comparing god to humans. if god was like humans then why call him god? just because we, weak humans learn something that doens't mean good has to. you 'explanation' does not make sense. it has another side to it. you say that god what noy knowing at one stage then who tought him. no one. just because we humans are weak and is not able to do amny things that doesnt mean everything has to be just like us. no. Stop comparing god to humans.. You say that we happen in coincident then why do all alien movies that are famous has a stucture like us. hands eyes nose and so on. if we happen to be cincident, then why is there such a strong food cycle that if one animal is out of it it all brakesdown.
There is no God

I assert that god does not exist since there is no credible evidence for a being such as he. Arguments against god: Logical: First off I will propose the simple "Problem of Evil" set fourth by Epicurus. 1: Is God able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he is not all loving ergo the god that is commonly described is false. 2: Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not all powerful ergo the god that is commonly described is false. 3: Is God able and willing? Then why is there evil? This cannot be an option since there is evil thus god is either 1,2 or 4. 4: Is God neither willing nor able? Then why call him god? ~~Epicurus (adapted by me) As we can see with the above argument god is either no all powerful thus your god is wrong, god is either not all loving thus your god is wrong again or your god simply isn't a god. QED. Next is the "Omnipotence Paradox". Can god create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it? 1: If yes, he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift said rock. 2: If no, he is not omnipotent because there is something god cannot do. 3: God does not exist. This is why omnipotent beings can never exist. The third and final logical argument is the "Omniscience and Learning argument". (The formal argument is complex and thus I will make it simpler but I will still link to the full one) 1: An all knowing being, God, exists. 2: God is and always has been all knowing. 3: Being all knowing means you have all experimental knowledge. 4: Having all experimental knowledge means one knows what it's like to learn something. 5: 'Thus God knows and has always known what it's like to learn.' 6: Know what learning is like obviously means you have learned something! 7: Learning means that you went from not knowing to knowing. 8: Thus God went from a state of not knowing to one of knowing. 9: 'Thus God was once in a state of not knowing...' 10: Meaning God has not always been all knowing. 11: "God has always been omniscient and has not always been omniscient." 12: Thus your god does not exist. [1] I could provide more logical ones but I shall move onto the evidential arguments. The main thing here is that there is simply no dire need for a god. The universe can come from nothing! This may sound like a shocking notion to one who still clings to classical physics but in the quantum world things come from nothing, uncaused all the time. Here is a video by theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss regarding "A Universe From Nothing"! http://www.youtube.com... Again I could provide more but for times sake and the sake of the readers I shall not but I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ADD MORE EVIDENCE. I await my opponent's response :) [1] http://www.infidels.org...
Ontological arguments make God's existence at least slightly more likely

The topic of this debate: Ontological arguments make God's existence at least slightly more likelyI've presented this debate before, but no one accepted it. So I'll try again. The Burden of Proof is on me. I must prove that either one of the premises is not sound or not necessary or that the logic doesn't follow (non-sequitur). Pro has up to 3 OA's to present. I must refute all of them or show that the arguments are not sound. Definitions God – An intelligent, omnipotence and omniscience supernatural being that created the universe(s) or is the universe itself, existed before all things and was not created. [No citation – My definition] Rules 4 rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 characters 1. No forfeits. 2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be in an external link or within the debate. 3. No new arguments in the final round. 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere. 5. No trolling. 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution). 7. No deconstructional semantics. 8. The BoP is on Con 9. Pro must present their case in round one and waive the final round. 10. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.I look forward for an exciting debate.