BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitolism

Hello, Phil, and thank you for accepting my challenge. First, I would like to applaud your opening debate, which I can see was carefully constructed. I can see that I have a formidable opponent. Your technique of starting off the debate by criticizing my rationality of thought was very impressive. I learned a lot of things this previous summer while staying in a kibbutz in Israel. It was a fantastic little community. It had dairy cows, fields of crop, fish, goats, a plastics factory, and a dining hall. Everyone was content. People had certain jobs in the kibbutz, and they all worked together. My dad's girlfriend had grown up in this Kibbutz, and she showed us a lot. She has lived in America for nine years, and visits Israel once a year. Everywhere we went with her in the Kibbutz, people would greet her; everyone knew each other. The kibbutz was incredibly self-sustaining. If you would like to look it up, it was kibbutz hazorea. They would probably survive for a long time, if they were shut off from the outside world. And I can assure you, it worked. It was not a government, it was just a society. It looked to be a very nice way of life. There were many benefits to staying in the kibbutz. You did not have to buy a car (the kibbutz lent you one). You got food for next to free. You get to go to very good schools and preschools, for free. The kids even stay, eat breakfast, and sleep in these schools sometimes. The kibbutz had bought an apartment in Jerusalem, to which any member could stay, if they were on vacation, or something. We drove a Kibbutz car to Jerusalem where we stayed in a Kibbutz Apartment room.
Capitolism

Hello Harlan, I'm very impressed with your debates thus far. Although misguided, you do write very well and it's clear you do a lot of thinking about the world around you. It is my hope that as you get older, you will start to think less with your emotions, and more with the intelligence with which God has blessed you. We have a long debate here, so instead of just go after all of your points at first, I'm going to explain why capitalism is the approach which leads to a higher standard of living to more people than any other approach regarding the economy and government. I use the "standard of living" because it is the clearest way to identify which economic approach works the best (apples to apples). Before we as individuals begin to make broad statements, we should always look to the lessons of history. Our ancestors learned things the hard way, and we owe it to them to remember their successes and failures. In the case of capitalism versus other market approaches. It's a scary world when history is ignored and ideas like socialism and communism are still advocated. As I will prove during this debate, socialism does not work. The fact is that in socialism there is no room for advancement, and that is why crops die, bread goes unprepared, and people starve. In a socialistic society people have no incentive to work hard, no reason to innovate and create new products and services, because it won't improve their living standards. While the concept sounds nice (ie: everyone working for everyone else), it just does and cannot work. Please don't misinterpret my argument against socialism as a statement that capitalism is perfect. Capitalism is certainly not perfect, but so far it's advantages far outweigh socialism and communism. In a capitalistic society like the USA, every man and woman has the same opportunity to succeed. More often than not a person's measure of success is the result of their hard work and innovation. Capitalistic societies are constantly creating new and better ways to do things, and this constantly elevates every person's standard of living. Isn't that the goal, to constantly improve the standard of living for all people, so we can all live better, happier lives? I for one think so. Yes, there are advertisements all around us. Yes, some corporations break the laws (although not nearly as many as Hollywood would have us believe). But the good far outweighs the bad. When comparing capitalism to socialism, it's not even a fight.
Capitolism

Capitolism creates a tense society where everyone is working for self-promotion. All of our (American) society is based on someone trying to outdo someone else; someone trying to sell something to you; Someone trying to use you for a profit. They see you as a way to make money. Next time your outside in a city, take a look around. Theres billboards trying to use you to make a profit. Theres prople walking around with T-shirts that encourage you to give your money to certain large corporations. Why can't we all just break this tension and work together. When people hear "socialism" they think communists and Stalin and people waiting in line for bread. I am not a communist. I do not believe inmaking this a way of government, but instead a way of society. Big corporations do not have a sense of morality. They do not stop at making you give them your money. But what is money? its just imagined. At the beginning, we would just trade the goods that we wanted. eventually they made gold represent those goods. Eventually people just wanted gold. Eventually they made paper bills to represent gold. They took away the gold part so it was just paper bills. Everyone wanted paper bills. Now they have started using one's and zero's to represent paper bills, and the inevitable next step is to eliminate the paper bill part or at least make it vice versa. What then? Everyone will keep killing eachother over money except then it won't even be tangible; just one's and zero's.
Capitolism

Thanks Harlan. I understand from where you're coming. I was young once too. The world can be a scary place, but I would tell you to rise to the challenge rather than give up and join a commune, or worse yet, be an advocate for government social programs. Any American with even a decent work ethic and good morals can do well in capitalism. For those Americans that are willing to risk much, work hard, and innovate, then the success (and their money) they have belongs to them, and not to those people who didn't take the risk and work hard. I heard this story on Dr. Laura, and I will close with it because it does a great job of explaining why it is socialism and communism that isn't fair. A young girl comes home from school one day and tells her mom, "the government should give all of the poor people money so they can buy nicer homes." The mom thinks about it for a moment and then tells the child, "perhaps you should offer to share you A+ in math with the students that only got D's and F's." The daughter replies, "but I worked hard for my A+. Instead of watching tv, or playing all afternoon, I studied and did my homework. I worked really hard for my A+, and it wouldn't be fair to give it to the other students because they chose to play instead of study and work hard." As the girl's final words left her mouth, she realized why it wouldn't be fair to take money from those who had earned it, and give it to those who chose not to earn it.
Capitolism

I'm absolutely shocked that you think things are more efficient in a socialistic society. I suppose you're assuming that statement to be true only if the people in the socialistic community are there of their own free will. The whole socialistic community inside a capitalistic nation is such a silly concept. If you want to live in a socialistic community, then move to any on of the dozens of socialist countries. Of course, most socialist driven people would never do that because they don't want to leave the US for reasons that are directly tied to capitalism. A thought about small socialistic communities, they don't always work. In fact, the real story of Thanksgiving, that is the story we aren't taught in school, explains why we have a capitalistic society. You can read the whole story from the link below, but to paraphrase... The pilgrims tried socialism, all of the crops died, and so they implemented capitalism, and everyone thrived. The story is very good, an I recommend you all read it. http://www.nbizz.com...
Capitolism

Hello, it probably is good to clear this up if we will continue this debate. The nature of my argument is not that of suggesting any course of action at all. It is merely that of pure speculation. I was merely speculating on which of these systems creates a better society. I was talking purely hypothetically, like: "wouldn't it be great if more people lead a socialistic lifestyle". I can understand that you probably don't understand the use of this speculation, for in your eyes, the only way this could actually happen is if the government made people. My reply to this is: What does it look like I'm doing right now? I am making my small difference (or no difference, I'm doing my best) by trying to encourage other people that they should lead a more socialistic lifestyle. If you are looking for some kind of course of action to doing this, then that is the only thing I can do, morally. I'm sorry if you were intending a more realistic debate, about action. I agree with you fully that we cannot force people to live in a socialist world. I think that there is no argument (or not) that in a society with people wanting to live socialistically, things get done more efficiently, and people live happier lives, than in a capitalist society (if you can even call this battle a society) where every is killing each other for money. I don't see how conflict can be more efficient than cooperation, but please share your own opinion.
Capitolism

Hello Harlan, In fairness you're referencing one half of a sentence you made in your opening argument. For the most part you tore capitalism a new one, so I'm trying to explain why you wouldn't want anything but capitalism. I don't understand what you mean by "a way of society". If you mean, should groups of people be allowed to form socialistic communities within the borders of their capitalistic nation? I don't see why not, just as long as they pay their fair share (ie: property taxes, income taxes, etc). If you're talking about replacing the current economic system with a socialistic system, then of course the government is going to be involved. You can't separate the two because like I pointed out, a vast majority of the people will not participate unless they're forced to do so. If I'm way off base, please do a better job of explaining exactly what this argument it about. ~ Phil
Abortion is wrong, but it should be soften in the case of a rape victim.

I congratulate you on a great first argument, and as this is my first debate, I am very excited. Abortion is definitely not murder. Often, abortion is performed within the first few months of pregnancy. I agree on your statement on rape victims getting privileged to this treatment, but we can't make other people give birth just because of opinions on moral rights. Abortion is often linked with murder, due to the fact that, yes, it is stopping a living organism. But you make it sound as if the baby knows he is being "betrayed" by his parents. The growing baby does not have enough knowledge to think complexly like this, since that kind of thinking does not come until the baby, obviously, is some years older. Another thing I would like to point out is that some couples try not to get pregnant in the first place. For example, the male may try to get a vasectomy. This is the cutting of the Vans Deferens tube that carries the sperm to the prostate gland. In certain cases, the sperm still find their way, and impregnate the woman. If you were trying to avoid the child in the first place, I believe that you should be able to get rid of a baby and not have to deal with giving the child to adoption, or even give birth in the first place.
Abortion is wrong, but it should be soften in the case of a rape victim.

Let me begin this argument by stating that life begins at conception. Murder is the act of taking another human"s life and abortion is nothing less than that. Abortion has become a commonly accepted idea that it is okay to take another person"s life. In my opinion, abortion can and will never be justified, except in the case of a rape victim. Think about this: by law, no other form of harm done by one person towards another person ever go unpunished. Why should the act of killing an innocent child be treated any different? Abortion can never be justified as another form of contraception. There are many other forms of contraception, if any is needed, but to deprive a child from its right to live should not be one of them. There is no valid reason for abortion and there are alternatives, such as adoption. There are more than enough families who"d love to adopt children, because they can"t have any children of their own. Abortion is a selfish deed, because you take away life from life. You kill an innocent child and withhold someone (who"d love to be a mother/father), from having a child that they can take care of (if you are not ready to do so yourself). I do think there should be mitigation when it comes to victims who were raped. Rape is an act of force and if a woman should get pregnant in this case, it would be understandable for her to have an abortion, because she did not ask for it to happen, but his cannot be the argument that justifies an abortion caused by two people"s negligence to take the right precautions. In conclusion; abortion is not just a wrong and cruel deed, but can also be extremely harmful to woman. Abortion frequently causes intense psychological pain and stress and it can also cause medical complications later in life such as the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory diseases. In many cases those who choose abortions are minors or young woman with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterwards.
There is no Biblical evidence for Young Earth Creationism (YEC)

Now when you say "The first day was roughly 4,000 years ago" is that impending the short day theory (6 periods of 24 hours) or the long day theory (6 periods of hundreds of years) was used, because it doesn't say how long the earth was void, dark and formless, the man could have survived, we would be able to see, we could find a way to survived the cold its possible. yes it is at least 4000 years of 24 hours, but there could be thousands more. the world could have been like Narni in the Lion, which and the wardrobe where the white which (devil) took over and and than Aslan (God) came and fixed everything and made it how we are, and than he made light.
There is no Biblical evidence for Young Earth Creationism (YEC)

I will first address my opponent's claim, and then move on to the evidence. My opponent offers a single verse, and says we could have mis-interpreted it. This is not the case. When reading the Bible, you must read everything in context. What my opponent fails to present to you is the preceding verse: Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." http://www.biblegateway.com... Key words in there? Beginning, and created. These contradict everything my opponent has said. First, his idea of post-Armageddon is thrown off, since it explicitly states that God created the heavens and the Earth, IN THE BEGINNING. Second, God CREATED them. They were not already there, but rather were formed new. Now, on to the cold, hard evidence that is easily found in the Bible. Man was created four days after the first day. The first day was roughly 4,000 years ago. "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth...God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." -Genesis 1:1, and 1:5. How do we know the Earth has been around for about 4,000 years you ask? Simple. The Bible tells us. There are many genealogies throughout the Bible. Here are a few: Genesis 5 Adam – Noah Gensis 11 Noah – Abraham Abraham to Moses is then counted Moses to Judges then Judges to Kings then Historical timelines. Here is a website that details it out for you if you want to read it. http://www.abiblestudy.com...... So, if you count, this totals to be around 4,000 years, allowing for different calendar translations. Here are the facts so far, and correct me if I'm wrong: 1-We both agree that the Bible is true 2-The Bible gives us evidence for YEC 3-YEC is true, since it is proven in the Bible Taking all this into account, one can only see YEC as the only option regarding the Bible. Thank you.
There is no Biblical evidence for Young Earth Creationism (YEC)

I was under the influence during the last post of round one, so scratch that. Genesis 1:2 says that the earth was formless and void. That can be interpreted that this is post Armageddon, and we really are in old heaven, but Satan got in, and now God had to start over. God than began again and moved Adam over because he was the only one who didn't sin in the last world and God saw he was lonely and put him in a sleep ad made a woman. and so on from there.
There is no Biblical evidence for Young Earth Creationism (YEC)

No where in the Bible does it say that Satan possessed the woman, who was made separately at the time according to some religions, and bore Adam a demon that made God scrap the whole thing and start over. Genesis 1:1-2 says "1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." This simply means that the earth was there, but without form, Like when you dig clay out of the ground, it doesn't come out as a nice bowl, or a perfect sphere with a magnetic field, but it is there. there is no mentioning of light before Genesis 1:2 so there was no way this could of happened, and if someone just got rid of everything be fore that, how can we trust the Bible? How do we know we didn't come form some nonsensical process of natural selection? We know so because of faith. if You don't have faith in the bible than why aren't we debating evolution? The bible says to have faith in God, who wrote the Bible through the apostle, so if we cant trust the Bible, than we cant trust that there is a God? In the end it is just a theory that can be accepted or rejected.
No Fault Divorce means there are no legal Marriages

Looking at the history of Dictatorships one cannot help but see that repression is a theme. 1 The Dictator represses freedom. 2 The Dictator represses the freedom of movement. 3 The Dictator represses the freedom of movement from one marriage to another marriage. The Product of all these No Fault divorces are not obligated to continue the farce because the Product has rights. The Product of all these No Fault divorces has the right to remove the form of Government that enforces contracts that have no foundation. The Product has the right to do this through the installation of the Dictator.
No Fault Divorce means there are no legal Marriages

I think perhaps you have mis-defined or mis-understood the point we are debating in the title upon reading your statements. The point being debated is "No Fault Divorce means there are no legal Marriages". In your opening statement you spoke of the meaning of marriage in the event of no fault divorce, not the legality, then concluded (irrelevantly) that marriage is " the basic building block on which government is based" and that the Constitution of the US was invalidated if there is no fault divorce. This argument was not related at all to the legality of no fault divorce and marriage, but I argued in my opening statement against it, thinking perhaps you had mis-defined the point. Upon reading your rebuttal I am forced to question what it is you want to debate about here, given the lack of connection between your title point, opening statement and rebuttal. Please redefine the question more clearly and try to actually make relevant points, as I have now wasted my rebuttal outlining the irrelevance of both of your statements. Are you talking about legality, value or something else entirely?
No Fault Divorce means there are no legal Marriages

In the 'No Fault' situation it can be said simply that the marriage contract is voidable. The only difficulty in voiding the marriage contract would be the division of property, (here property means financial assets as well as human assets, with human assets meaning children if any). You see, Con can pretend that marriage is not the foundation upon which all and every society everywhere is built but when human assets are involved, i.e. children, then Con's position is nonsense. Children are the building blocks of the future. The union between a man and a woman is the way children are procreated. The union of the man and the woman that leads to the procreation of children is by definition- Marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman that leads to children. If by chance there are no children produced that does not void the marriage contract in and of itself. Homosexual marriage is a lie. It cannot lead to children, therefore it is not a marriage. (But if someone wishes to believe in a lie that is no big deal. It happens all the time. Entire societies have been built on lies. It is no big deal.)
No Fault Divorce means there are no legal Marriages

I would posit that the contract is not meaningless if it has value to those who sign it. Marriage is still viewed as a big commitment by society, regardless of the actual ramifications of the contract signed. It also signifies a level of effort put towards a relationship, and a point of progression in a relationship. A useful analogy is when a person swears to God that they will/won't do something. To an atheist, this means nothing, as they don't believe God to be real, but to a religious community this means a lot, as they do believe God to be real. I am unsure as to how you reached the conclusion that the marriage contract is the basic building block on which government is based (and further how that invalidates the entire constitution), however that is not relevant to the question being debated, and there is no point addressing it until it is actually applicable.
No Fault Divorce means there are no legal Marriages

The Pro position, (mine) is that if a contract entered into by two parties can be nullified at anytime for any reason or for no reason at all by either party at anytime- That contract is meaningless. It is not worth the paper it is written on. Furthermore, since the marriage contract is the basic building block on which government is based then there are no contracts of any real value. Even the Constitution of the United States is a worthless contract if there is No Fault Divorce.
The death penalty is moraly wrong and should be ileagal.

Tell me why you think that you have the right to take another persons life if they take another or otherwise why do we get to take the life with chemicals and drugs that we inject to their body. studys show that it could take hours to kill that person or seconds. now in my book and in most that is not humane to do i think that it is wrong to kill any one exept for serial killers they should suffer. and then i can already tell that you are one of those people who say that it is wrong to keep someone in jail because it wastes the tax payers money but i would rather keep them there than kill them it will take more money to kill them than it would to keep them in jail and why do we put people who drugs in there who cares if they do that its their choice not ours!
The death penalty is moraly wrong and should be ileagal.

Now some of this argument is going to be on the fact that we have a comment on saying that we should kill them all and der it over with! you and the rest of your family and the world when we find out that the "killer" is innocent!!! i should refute your points i know this but i do not agree that they are worth the time that it takes to type it to argue your points. you do not and never will understand my ethics... i argue that there is no point that you can vote "con" it is the right choice to vote "PRO!!!!!!"