BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism(Con) v Capitalism(Pro)

I would like to begin with rebuttals, and finish by exposing my arguments. Rebuttals : "The systematic failures of Communism" Pro states in his argument that Lenin is personally responsible for "the mess we refer today as Russia", this is wrong. In contrast, one could argue that the application of Capitalism in Russia worsened the conditions for its citizens; the Russian economy sank, and shockingly enough, according to Russian government officials, the switch to Capitalism dragged the country into a deep depression, far greater than the American depression during the 1930's [1]. Secondly, Pro argues that a major issue with communism is its corruption, I would like to say in response that, according to a study by Transparency International, 14 out of the 15 most corrupted nations in the world are capitalist [2], that is, following Pro's own logic, a classic example of the rampant corruption of the Capitalism system. "Recognition of Individualism" Pro argues that Communism does not work because 'people tend to be greedy', again that is not true. The Soviet Union, for instance, could be considered a success : over a lifespan of almost 70 years,it quickly developed from an agricultural nation to a major superpower. "Why communism will fail" Again, Pro argues that Communism has never worked, but his claim is unsubstantiated : Economically speaking, The Soviet Union never once stumbled into recession [3] and even grew at a faster rate the United States [4]. Pro also says that if the entirety of the world was communist, we would be far behind. That is extremely wrong, the USSR was leading the Space Race for years and were far ahead of any capitalist nation. Militarily speaking the USSR also had outstanding planes, tanks, and armored vehicles. But this was due to the military-industrial complex promince when it came to picking engineers, had the Soviet Union never been involved in the Cold War, technology in the Soviet Union would've been more civilian-oriented.
QUESTION debate Round 2

1. who is more WHITE? Obama or former secretary of Defense Colin Powell?It all depends on the tanning bed.2. How much HP does Hewlet Packard have?All of it.3. why did u accept this debate?It made me LAUGH OUT LOUD. And a little on the inside as well.4. did your dad tell you about your which girlfriend he used to date?I think he just did, Dad.5. when did you stop becoming a Bucanners fan?When they stopped bucking.6. can non life produce life?http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk...7. why when i try to donate plasma they ask about sex orientation is that discrimination that cant donate if been with same sex or does this prove same sex is not natural since doctors wonteven allow you to donate because of it?The moral of this story is: Plasma is evil. And AWESOME.8. define yourselfYourself -you personally (used to emphasize the person being addressed).9. Why?Because.10.Poppie?Sometimes. Only when the cats are squeaking though.
QUESTION debate Round 2

H....E....L....L...O Hawthorn Effect Existentialism responsibility Likert Scale Libido Opponent-Process Theory How much macaroni is in the pan? The same amount of proof in the pudding Is the walrus sweet or heavy? http://www.kulfoto.com... 4. Do you like to eat a taco? yes but I don't like to toss salad 5. Who is really in control of America? The younger generation destined to surpass us 6. Where do bugs come from? from your bedroom, better get that taken care of Son 7. WHAAAAAAA? I told you not taste that bacon flavored coffee, now you screaming saying whaaaaaaa? 8. Did you answer this one yet? no 9. What does the fox say? it said fox news has a special report stating that Con is playing Diablo 3 10. Is this really a question or more of a statement or is it really a question after all???!!!?!??? Is this really answer? or is this really a question?
QUESTION debate Round 2

1. Hello? 2. How much macaroni is in the pan? 3. Is the walrus sweet or heavy? 4. Do you like to eat a taco? 5. Who is really in control of America? 6. Where do bugs come from? 7. WHAAAAAAA? 8. Did you answer this one yet? 9. What does the fox say? 10. Is this really a question or more of a statement or is it really a question after all???!!!?!???
QUESTION debate Round 2

For rules please View Round 1 http://www.debate.org... ask random questions and answer them creatively winning conditions based on creative responses not based on the question or if it was specifically answered 1. who is more WHITE? Obama or former secretary of Defense Colin Powell? 2. How much HP does Hewlet Packard have? 3. why did u accept this debate? 4. did your dad tell you about your which girlfriend he used to date? 5. when did you stop becoming a Bucanners fan? 6. can non life produce life? 7. why when i try to donate plasma they ask about sex orientation is that discrimination that cant donate if been with same sex or does this prove same sex is not natural since doctors wonteven allow you to donate because of it? 8. define yourself 9. why? 10. poopie?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument

AveResolution/Burden of Proof This debate will be centered around the Kalam Cosmological argument. I will be taking the Con position, and argue that the KCA is not logically valid and the premises are not sound. Pro will demonstrate that the KCA is logically valid and sound. The winner of the debate will be the person who proves their case with a preponderance (a majority) of the evidence.(Logical validity is when the truth of the premises logically entail the conclusion. An argument is sound if all of its premises are true.) ArgumentThe KCA we will be debating is formulated like this: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.4. If the universe has a cause, there exists an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful.5. Therefore, there exists an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful. Rules/FormatGeneral expectations of DDO conduct should be followed. No forfeiting, cheating, trolling, etc.The first round is for acceptance. The subsequent rounds will be for debating.Vale
The earth is a sphere. Best of 2 format.

I've found this is a fun topic to get serious about. --Summary-- I'm looking for a serious debate on this topic, so trolls need not apply. We'll be shooting for an evidence-based inquiry into the shape of our planet. In the past, I've seen that it can be trying to find the time (or in this case, space) to present all possible arguments on the issue, so we're going to be doing a "best two" format here. See below. --Rules-- 1. This is a "Best Two", traditional format. "Best Two" indicates that both sides will be presenting at most two arguments for their position. (Ideally, the "best two" arguments for your position.) When your position is critiqued it is sometimes necessary to bring in more evidence or explain a related phenomenon. This is fine -- just ensure that your entire argument can be largely separated into no more than two points. 2. Burden of Proof is shared. Regardless of how "silly" this topic is interpreted by most people, both the claim "The world is flat," and the claim "The world is round," are positive claims and so both sides have a burden to prove their claims. Voters are instructed to choose the winner based upon whichever debater presents a more compelling set of arguments (or argument). 3. Semantics arguments need not apply. While arguments based on semantics are important in some areas, particularly philosophy, this is a science-based discussion and arguments which rest entirely upon "defining ones way to victory" are not allowed here. It is difficult to define exactly what one of these arguments looks like, but when you see one, you know what it is. 4. 10k character limit. A debater should post a minimum of 4,000 characters in rounds 2-4. The purpose of this is to ensure that both debaters are actively involved in the conversation. --Round Structure-- R1: Intro / Con Opening Arguments R2-4: Normal Debate R5: Wrap It Up. The only important thing to note here is that Con will be leading with their opening arguments in their acceptance. No reason to waste space or time with a purely introductory round. --Last Minute Clarifications-- Even though I said that no semantics based arguments should be made, I will clarify this anyway. When I say "The earth is a sphere," I mean "The planet on which we live is spheroid in shape." Thanks in advance to my opponent. Let's have fun!
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

this shows that revenue has gone down with tax cuts and up with tax increases http://www.factandmyth.com... it's a very simple idea, cut taxes, get less tax revenue. apparently con beleives in voodoo economics where that kind of common sense doesn't make sense. thus con just ignores that while tax cuts might spur the economy it's at the cost of long term fiscal health cause most of it needs paid back. reagan doubled the debt or tripled it, and bush doubled it too with their voodoo economics. i'm not sayng obama is clean but he's not trying to claim fiscal superiority either and he's not innocent there either. taxing the rich more is moral. it's not fair that a regular person should have to pay for poor people when the rich have excess. i realize the government only spends like ten percent on the working poor, and the rich more than pay for that with current progressive taxes. but social security and medicare involve a lot of subsidizing the poor so i can see rich taxes going higher. plus when the top one percent are getting fifty percent of new income, and everyone else is seeing stagnate or decreasing income, i would focus on the excess. con is just mistaken that we'd have to tax the rich at a hundred percent. the top one percent pay a trilion a year in taxes. so if we cut spending by ten percent and raised their taxes by fifty, when the deficit soon doubles to a tirllion, we'll be about where we should be. and that's for those making i think three hundred and fifty and more so there's room to tax more than the one percent. i'm not adamentaly opposed to not increasing taxes on people who are jsut above average but not rich, but it's not my first priority. con acts as if social security and mediare are abused. it's not. it just goes to people who have paid into the system who are old. you can't find enough fraud to make a meaningful dent on that. cutting health spending amounts to cutting essential health care. con just lives in a fantasy world where there's always some magic way to cut spending on essential programs. even if you wanted to privatize it all you still got to pay for current and near retirees and that's going to take a long time to tackle. it's not a short term fix and it's probably not responsible either to make people fend for themselves in a bloated health system or nonsecure financial health.
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

Increased a LITTLE? The economy boomed! Millions of jobs were created, many areas of government spending was reduced dramatically, and more wealth was created. And you're wrong, revenues increased. One think you have to understand is that congress decides the spending. During Reagan's presidency, the majority of congress consisted of Democrats. They refused to lower the spending as much as Reagan wanted to. America was also battling the Cold War, and so Reagan spent a lot more on defense. It's also important to remember that Reagan had inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. The stock market also boomed after he cut taxes. Taxing the wealthy will not work. Unless we tax everyone who makes at least 250,000 a year at 100%, it still would not balance the budget. People will always try to make money in order to put food on the table, but when taxes, regulation, and government spending are the lowest, it creates more opportunities for everyone. Countries like Venezuela, which have incredibly high taxes have fallen apart due to the opposite. I did not say we should cut the programs entirely. No, it's irresponsible to be wasting American citizen's money on a system that so many take advantage of, and is already going bankrupt. So, explain to me how it's not immoral to be taking someone's hard-earned money and spending it on something they have no say in. That's the very definition of theft. Haha it's funny how you tried so hard to turn my moral argument around, because the truth is, you know you can't. If you're going to take someone's income away from them, at least acknowledge you're doing it for your own self-interest and face the facts.
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

you say the economy soared with reagan and bush tax cuts. maybe it increased a little but that was at the expense of going into debt, meaning it's bad for the long term health of the country. eventually the bills will come due. just look at revenues too and see that they went down with those tax cuts. you say taxes discourage working. if we tax just high income it's not about working it's about wealth building businesses. it's beyond wage labor. even when we had taxes in the sixty percent people still tried to make money they always have and always iwll. they ust wont make as much money. cutting healthcare spending is not responsible and it's immoral. as well as social security income. people depend on those programs. i can see cutting benefits for the rich but that wont be enough to pay for current spending. taxes are necessary. not raising taxes is not only irresponsible, it's immoral
raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

Taxing American citizens is the opposite of the "responsible" thing to do. First, raising taxes has been proven in the past to fail. When Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush lowered taxes, the economy soared and millions of lives were improved. Second, when you reward something, you get more of it. When you punish something, you get less of it. Why should we penalize hard-working citizens because Obama went crazy with spending? When small businesses are taxed, they have to make changes that they can afford, which will result in many lost jobs. And when they can't afford to pay the taxes, they close, and even more jobs are lost. Taxes are already relatively high, and you want to put additional burden on people who are trying to provide for their families? And basic economics and math proves that simply taxing the wealthy will not solve anything. Where do we draw the line? How much is too much? How much is too little? How much of the hard-working citizen's money will suffice? And of course we can make cuts for social security and medicaid. They are already going bankrupt. We shouldn't be enlarging these imploding programs. Freedom is a zero-sum system, power given to the government is freedom taken away from its citizens. The government has to cease its endless spending, which is the real problem. The government has gotten too big and it's ruining our economy and putting it on the backs of the next generation. Raising taxes is not only irresponsible, it's immoral.
homework

Homework is a way for your miniscule brain to expand and you should be grateful for that opportunity. In other countries, school can cost. You are allowed to have it for free, and you should not take that opportunity for granted. It may seem as if you don't need homework, but it allows you to consider the material without instruction, which can come in handy. The speed with which you complete it depends on how much effort you put into it. It's well written and very thought provoking. If you don't do homework, you get bad grades, and then you become a hobo. You may think you don't need it, and you might not, but if you don't do it, you will miss out on a valuable educational opportunity. The feeling of a straight a report card is quite gratifying.
Perfect Symmetry in Honeycombs is Proof of God

Bees are actually programmed complex robots planted on Earth by an Alien civilization. While it could be argued that bees are organic, not all robots are made of metal. The aliens clearly have a complex understanding of organic biology, so they easily synthesize the molecules and components needed to create self-replicating bee drones. The ancient aliens that visited Earth took note of the insects, which were dominant at the time and they planted several variations of their information transmitting bee robots. The spy drones were made using organic material so they could easily replicate on Earth without the need of mining or introducing new forms of life to the planet, which would be a dead giveaway that they were spy drones. Now, obviously, since bee spy drones are very intelligent and are controlled at the Alien's forward outpost on Saturn. It is quite clear that the bees create hexagonal honeycombs because the Aliens appreciate look of the shape and the fact that structures can easily be made using the shape. It is why the poles of Saturn are hexagons. The aliens artificially altered the atmosphere to make it look hexagonal, possibly as a sign to show that they had a base there for any future intelligent explorers that discover the secret of the bees. The reason why bees sting is not because they are doing it out of defense, but instead they are collecting DNA samples and transmitting them back to the forward base on Saturn. However, most models are only good for one transmission because they are made of weaker organic technology. This is why most bees die after using their information collection device, as they have no more use. The reason why humans have not discovered the secret of these bee spy drones is because the technology used by the aliens is far more complex than anything under human understanding. But eventually, we will develop the technology and find out exactly what the bees have been doing this whole time.
2 equals 3

Being that I know did-squat about math, I'll be taking a different approach. Obviously I already win, because 2 doesn't equal 3. They are empirically different numbers. But that's unimportant to me. You see, 1, by the Greek Philosopher Plotinus, represents everything. As in, reality and existence. 2, on the other hand represents the duality of everything. 2 represents good and evil. In the bible, the ten commandments came on two tablets. God commanded two of every animal to come on the ark. 2 is a number of luck and prosperity in Chinese culture. 3 is by far the most important number here. Christians will know the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit, or Peter's triple denial and resulting triple affirmation in Christ, the Magi's three gifts, or devils temptation three times. There is the Hindu Trimurt and Tridevi, the triple Bodhi... the list is endless. So, thereby I argue that 2 is not 3 mathematically or philosophically. Two, the duality, three the trinity form separate entities in religion and in philosophy.
2 equals 3

Thanks for accepting. I do not genuinely believe that 2=3, but it's fun to play around with the numbers. We start with the following equation: (2-(5/2))^2 = (3-(5/2))^2 (Yes, those do equal each other, type it into a calculator if you don't believe me) Now that we've established the validity of the above equation, you take the square root of both sides (removing the ^2) and the negative 5/2 "cancel out" on either side. You are left with 2=3.
DDO Member Themed Rap Battle R2: Airmax vs Geo

Sorry I'm late, but I've been busy. Thanks to Larz for rapping against me, and may the best man win. [BEGIN] Hello ladies and gentlemen, Geo here About to give the prez a kick in the rear I'm like a shadow, and I can sense his fear The only worry I have is that the NSA will hear Oh he's got a video! I'm so effing scared. But don't worry my homies, I came prepared I'm like gum 'cause you can't get me outta your hair You can FF if you want or it's too much to bear I've got lyrical explosives, so call me Osama Here to diss the only leader worse than Obama I'm the real MC, so fight me if you wanna, But don't cross me as I reach rapping Nirvana You're the POTUS who doesn't give a fvck! You couldn't even tell Juggle the new layout sucks! Are my rhymes going over your head? You better duck. So go lie in the road and get hit with a truck With any other rapper you could've passed But now that Geo's on the job I'll kick your @ss You're only one more obstacle that I must surpass But at least it"s entertaining, I'm having a blast Honestly, I'm sad that you accepted this test You could've won, could've been the best But you chose the dissident rapper the gov oppressed So sit down motherfvcker, and give it a rest And for real, as prez, what have you done, You've only made forum posts and b!tched a ton Votebombs on every debate you ever won I'm on my way to greatness, step aside son Your raps are Vitamin C? Mine are Vitamin D So go take a supplement and get back to me I'm complete, got that ABC You're dragging out this battle so long it's a crime It's obvious your raps are inferior to mine Beating you is a hobby and I do it all the time I'm like a hundred dollar bill, you're like a dime. Now on to rapping with my boy Alex Jones I watch his program from a shack in my home He's here to warn me about every gov't drone And to be honest he"s a guy I'd like to bone Yeah that's right Airmax I rap about infowars And I've said it once and I"ll say it before I find every other news station to be a lying bore So I'm hooked on conspiracies like never before They supply me the facts to keep me paranoid Illuminati, Freemasons, Aliens, Droids All hazards of the NWO that I must avoid You're part of the elite so I must hate you It may be baseless and stupid that much is true But with the amount of spin on the facts I accrue I could tell you that the sky is red when you know it is blue I admire you Airmax, not gonna lie Unlike RationalMadman, you actually try But while I'm ascending, up into the sky You'll be on the ground, starting to cry You can just ban me until all the threat is evaded But among my fans you'll become the most hated I'm like land mines and once you think my words have abated I'll hit you again and you"ll be lyrically castrated Honestly my rhymes are too good to waste on you Mine are Gold, yours are dog poo So let's admit what we all know is true You"re done Maxxy, this battle is through You couldn't hold a candle to me I'm a Buddhist with a mission and my raps are OG So please go away and leave me be, I'm off to meditate under my @ss-kicking tree