BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitalism: part II

Thank you for this second round of this debate. If I don't answer during the Friday- Sunday it's because I'm at state in Kansas City for Debate. dp1. Proove it. The depression was caused by the stock exchange and in the last debate you said the stock exchange was Capitolism. So therefore, Capitolism leeds to Depression. Depressions leed to war. Europe was a peaceful place in the 20s, but the depression poiseed German public opion that helped bring Hitler to power. Source Meede 2009 Dp2. He is explaining how it works Dp3. also in my response to dp1. dp4. You said putting money in Americans pockets is a good way to boost the economy. When these jobs are made the government pays for it leeding into defiset spending. Just look what happend to France. You may say the U.S. is a superpower they can get away with anything. Well your wrong. the big countries get the hamer the most. dp5. 99% get poorer and the 1% gets richer in Capitolism. ap1. true socialist countries have a 75% tax rate ap2. Hobbes says the people are cruel and should be ruled by a strong leeder. ap3. government leaves the people with 25% so in realidy 25% is middle and 75% is the Government. ap4. They get raises when there is an inflation. ap5. The government has power to stop the buissness from going bankrupt to going over board. my attack. Hegemoty. The U.S. dollar is key to the U.S.'s hegemoty in the world and the dollar has been effected by inflation.
Stem Cell Research is Moral and should be legal

Despite Con forfeiting her round, i will continue to make my argument. The following is a list of just a very small handful ailments, diseases, and disorders that have the potential to be treated with stem cells. Parkinsons Diabetes Kidney failure Heart Failure Vision problems (though this is still uncertain) And my personal favorites: Cancer and paralysis. Imagine, a cancer patient being able to replace lost organs with their own, grown from stem cells. Or being cured in just a fraction of the average time. Think of a paraplegic, regaining full motor function via stem cells, through growing new nerve cells. The possibilites are near endless. The amount of lives that could be changed for the better, even saved, are well worth the time taken to perfect such procedures. Is it reasonable to prevent millions of people from being treated and cured more accurately to their specific needs, simply because those not within the scientific/medical community believe a single celled zygote is a person? If this is the case, then you also believe fertilization clinics are immoral. But we'll leave that for another time.
Stem Cell Research is Moral and should be legal

Unfortunately Pro has forfeited this round, but instead of leaving it I'll list a couple disadvantages of stem cell research. First of all because embryonic stem cell research requires the subsequent destruction of the embryos used, it is a form of abortion. Creating embryos for the sole purpose of commercial use, followed by their disposal is morally unacceptable. Secondly this research may discover new technology and treatments. However, these may not be an effective solution to all ailments or diseases. The severity of long term side effects is also unknown so patients health could quite easily deteriorate over time.
There is a God

I accept your definition of God, which you take to refer to an entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, and the creator of the universe. You do not state whether or not this God is a personal one who interferes with the affairs of those in the universe, so at the least you can affirm a deistic God. Furthermore, for your sake I should note that your burden is at the very least to show that your conception of God is likely to exist - it's a much harder to task to affirm the certainty of God's existence. Following the rules ascribed by my opponent, I will say nothing more and await his first argument.
There is a God

Affirm the resolution: "There is a God." I will be arguing that there is a God; you will be arguing that there is no God. I will not be arguing any God in particular, though I believe in the Christian God. This first round in just clarification, I will begin my points in round two. If you have anything else to add to the resolution, or any observations, you can state them on your half of the first round. But please don't start your arguments in the second round. My basic definition of God is Someone who is all knowing, all powerful, Creator of the universe.
Foreign direct investment

Hello everyone. I agree with the fact that FDI(foreign direct investment) is a useful scheme for the growth of a country but, we must also not forget that this scheme only does the job as statistics. FDI will be a scheme where the foreign companies will be able to sell their products directly in the country without using any intermediaries and will be most probably taxed. For instance....The footwear company Power uses BATA as a medium to sell their products in India and bata as a private firm takes the profit but here the government will gain.FDI will only give the foreign companies the right to use our resources and produce goods and then sell it to the country but it will never guarantee it. The foreign companies might make products out of cheap and useless materials and sell them in our country at high prices which will not of course increase our economy in the real sense but only see to that our PCI(per capita income) increases which is of no use when problems like poverty , malnutrition and bad hygiene and CORRUPTION dominate the country. That's the word corruption. Friends, believe it or not, Rs. 10000 crores were sent to a state for development but no development was seen as all the money was going into the pockets of the administrators. If such situation is present in a country how can one guarantee of development and prosperity through any scheme. I would like to oppose my worthy opponent's views by saying that problems like poverty, malnutrition and corruption should be fought against and only then will our country be able to take up schemes like FDI to increase our economy as they require strict laws and rules...
Guns are good

Killing isn't always bad. If someone was coming at you to kill you and the only way you could was to shoot them in the head, would you do it? And wars. I know that some are bad, but there are some that are good. America was able to be a country because of a war. If The Revolutionary war hadn't happened, America would not be here and both of us would either not exist, or pretty much be a slave to Great Britten.
Guns are good

Yes guns were created to kill people, but so were a lot of things. Does that mean they are bad? So we should just get rid of everything that kills people. No we shouldn't then every other country in the world would come in and kill us. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"-Sean Spencer "Psych". I know it is kind of a joking show, but even children say brilliant things. A gun sitting on a desk all alone will not kill someone. Someone holding a gun and pulling the trigger will kill someone. A gun is just a tool like a hammer made to make a something easier. In a way, guns are more merciful. If someone is killed by a broad sword, they aren't killed instantly. They have to sit there and die knowing that there is nothing they can do about it. But guns are quick. You are more likely to die quickly with a gun than with a sword.
You are a Chinese

Flaw in your argument buddy, you did not define the statement "you are chinese", but simply stated the definition of chinese and applied it to my name. The meaning of the statement "you are chinese" typically means that the person, not the name, is of chinese origin. furthermore, when your definitions are applied, the appropriate words cannot be substituted out of the sentence: "you", and "xiaotian-Z" are both referring to a person, so when you use proper substitution, the sentence would say something like, a person is a word or a statement written or spoken mostly in the Chinese language. while your mathematical technique of substitution is a smart comparison, it's not right. anytime you make a substitution in math, it's to make the equation more solvable; however, the substituted terms must be put back into the equation for a final answer (see u substitution; Calculus). also, you violated the definition part of the english language by substituting "you" (a person) and "xiaotian-Z" (also referring to a person) and turned "xiaotian-z" into a definition that is referring to a group of words or statement. substitution of two words in one sentence must mean that the definitions of the two words have similar meanings and still make sense when put back into the original sentence or used interchangeably with old terms. your substitution changes the meaning of the original topic, thus violating rules of a set debate. Good luck to you in your reply, my friend.
You are a Chinese

Dude, look at my profile. I'm black. I study chinese at the university and am interested in asian culture. but i'm from good old chicago, man. you pretty much lost when you didn't provide any prof, but just said: "ur a chinese." Let's see some prof bro. back up your stuff. check yo sources before you lose. By the way, i got the name from a combination of the chinese wuxia guo xiaotian and dragonball Z. show yo stuff environomist.
If This House had a time machine it would kill Emily Bronte

Full resolution: If This House had a time machine it would go back in time and kill Emily Bronte before she wrote Wuthering Heights Format of the debate: Round One is for acceptance only, or querying of definitions. Round Two is for opening substantives and rebuttal. Round Three is for closing substantives and rebuttal. Round Four is for rebuttal and summing up with no new substantives.Ground rules:This is a semi-troll debate No semantics about the fact I haven't put the diaeresis on Bronte's name NO FORFEITING. Only take this debate if you're committed 48 hour response time with 1 month voting period 6,000 characters maximum per round Definitions: Emily Bronte: The English novellist and poet who lived between 1818 and 1848. Wuthering Heights: The single worst book ever written, published in 1847.This debate assumes the existence of the time machine and mankind's willingness / ability to use it.I look forward to a pleasant, engaging debate.
There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence

So if something is viewed as right, will a moral consequence follow? Again, we must make the distinction from what we think is right and what is actually right. My main argument is that there is a possibility for human action without a moral consequence. Saying there is no possibility seems as if blinking an eye would result in a moral consequence. How can something that needs to happen have a negative outcome. Saying there is a possibility for human action without a moral consequence also agrees to the fact that some human action leads to moral consequence.
There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence

Yes, for there are many humans in this world and what i see pleasurable can be wrong in the eyes of not some but all. To add on to your example of the murderer. I said before all moral actions is just a matter of knowing. He/She knew what they were doing which led to a moral consequence. Like you said Morals are viewed as right or wrong. Every action we do is either right or wrong to the eyes of everybody.
There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence

But would a vegetarian eat a sandwich that contains meat? What moral consequences would follow from a vegetarian eating meat? A vegetarian takes it upon themselves to no longer consume meat from animals. But one must question if killing animals for food is a question of morality. And is eating a sandwich something that deals with morals? If eating a sandwich deals nothing with morals then it is safe to say that there is a possibility that there can be human action without moral consequence. Adding to this, when you argue "no one knowingly does evil" are you taking into account murders? Say you have someone admit to premeditated murder, are they not knowingly doing evil? Even if you favor the argument of relativism, one must realize that there certain moral codes that are universal. For example, murder. If murder was not viewed as morally wrong then a society wouldn't be able to function. When you say a pleasure to you can be a moral consequence to someone else, have you taken into account everything that you find pleasurable?
There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence

You argue that pain and pleasure is something we as humans live for. When examining pleasure, one can find pleasure in eating a sandwich. Referring to the definition previously mentioned, no moral consequence should follow from this human action. A human action in dealing with pain could be taking pain medicine. This could result in feeling pleasure. Consequences mostly refer to negative outcomes. If someone is experiencing pleasure for a human action, could it be a consequence? Even more so, a moral consequence? When addressing morals, we must also address the distinction from what we think things to be and what they actually are. Thinking something is right or wrong, does not make it right or wrong. In addition to this, thinking about an action we do does not necessarily mean a moral consequence. We must consider all the actions that do no involve morals.
There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence

I disagree with your statement, there is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence. Pain and pleasure is what we live for. Every action we do, we think about it afterwards and if it seems right based on our beliefs we continue, and if it doesn't we stop. Using Betham's essay on the principle of utility. Utility means the principle that approves or disapproves the action towards the party whose interest in question. Example he uses is the Government 1)Government may dictated the principle of utility but too augment happiness of the community is greater than to diminish it.(128-129.7-1.1) 2)Utility is any object that produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, to prevent pain, or unhappiness.(128.4.1) 3)It is vain to know the interest of the community without knowledge of interest of the individual(128.6.1) 4)Thus principle of utility uses reason and of law to tear the fabric of felicity and identify the subjection.(128.1.6) A community may do things that some will disagree or agree with based on their morals. Thinking if it is right or wrong is a moral consequence
There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence

I am arguing that there is possibility for human action without moral consequence. Human action can range from a blink of an eye to committing murder. With such a huge range, it"s hard to justify that all these actions result in a moral consequence. Before moving forward, moral consequence refers to a negative outcome that follows an action that is based on morals. Morals refer to things that are viewed as right or wrong. Reflecting on the previous statement of having a large variety of human action, one will realize that a moral consequence following each action would be impossible. If this was the case, batting your eyelashes could be seen as incorrect and followed by a consequence. This, of course, would make no sense. Having someone face consequences for batting an eyelash incorrectly seems laughable. Adding to this, cause is always thought to be followed by effect. In this case, human action would be the cause and moral consequence would be the effect. Is it necessarily the case that all human action produces moral consequence? There are, in fact, human actions that produce outcomes that are seemed are desirable. Some may even go on to say that it produces pleasure. Now if this is the case, would these too be considered moral consequences? When speaking of pleasure, we can refer to the Hedonistic Calculus. This analysis determines the value of pain, and more importantly, pleasure. One of the questions posed is "does it affect anyone". Posing this question implies that there is a possibility that no one can be affected. If no one is affected from a certain human action, does it necessarily follow that there will be a moral consequence? What if this human action does not even deal with a moral issue? There is possibility of human action without moral consequence is as follows: 1.There are many considerations for human action 2.Not all human actions are negative (Not all " Some not) 3.If not all human actions are negative, then some are positive 4.Therefore, there is possibility of human action without moral consequence
Under the given conditions, Sosuke Aizen could defeat Zaraki Kenpachi in battle.

Ah, always do enjoy a fun fiction based debate to practice~ I understand and accept the conditions of the fight to take place between the two fictional characters. I also understand and accept the five (really four though, but you know what I mean) rules that are stated by the PRO. Though I do find the favor tipped towards the PRO since logically the PRO has four chances to bring up any formulated arguments/perspectives while the CON only has three allowed chances. Though given that I have the capability to refute any arguments and get the last word of the debate I guess it balances out somewhere. Thus, I hope I can refute your arguments adequately, and I hope you present a very challenging argument to get me thinking. So indeed, here's to a fun debate. Let's dance~
Under the given conditions, Sosuke Aizen could defeat Zaraki Kenpachi in battle.

Hey, guys. My first serious debate in a while. Here's to a good one. Resolved: Under the given conditions, Sosuke Aizen [1] could defeat Zaraki Kenpachi [2] in battle. The "Given Conditions": - Aizen and Kenpachi are both in their peak canonical physical condition, free of injury. Aizen is freed from all physical restrictions. - The combatants possess all of their standard equipment. Yes, this includes Aizen's Zanpakutou and the Hogyoku [3], the latter in the developmental state as of Ichigo's hitting him with Getsuga Tensho. - Kenpachi is immune to Aizen's Shikai, Kyoka Suigetsu. Both combatants are aware of this. - Both combatants are fully aware of the fact that they are there to kill each other. Their mental states correspond to that of their most recent appearance in the series. However, Aizen's Hogyoku has regressed to its aforementioned state. Let's just say a wizard did it. - Yes, I realize that the Hogyoku makes Aizen "immortal". However, severe brain damage should be able to take him out, or at least render him incapacitated. As such, for the purposes of this debate, severe head trauma is considered to be the one way to kill Aizen. Basically, if you cave in Aizen's skull or chop his head into itty bitty pieces, you win. If Kenpachi can find another way to render him unable to continue fighting, then go ahead. - Both combatants are fully aware of the aforementioned conditions. Rules: - The battle takes place in the Fake Karakura Town mentioned here: [4] ( the "abandoned facsimile") - Kenpachi and Aizen are the only two combatants. No others may enter the battle. - No semantics. I'm not going to submit a formal definition of "defeat", but you know what it means. Kill. Incapacitate. You're smart people. - R1 is simply for acceptance of the debate. R2, 3, and 4 are free of restrictions. However, in R5, Con may not present any new arguments. PRO wouldn't be able to refute those, and that wouldn't be very fair, now would it? - If you have any ideas for more rules that might make this more fair, message me and I'll add them either here or in R2. Here's to a fun debate. [1] http://bleach.wikia.com... [2] http://bleach.wikia.com... [3] http://bleach.wikia.com... [4] http://bleach.wikia.com...
Gay Marriage

Your only argument is it has been that way for along time and you think it is sacred. I will now provide a list of a few things that would have stayed the same. Slavery Woman can't vote Blacks can't vote Segregation I would also like to point out that Gallup polling in 2011 showed 53% of Americans support gay marriage clearly a majority of Americans do not define marriage as a sacred relation ship between a man and a woman. http://www.gallup.com... I will now provide a list of 5 reasons why it should be legal. It is a violation of religious freedom Minority discrimination Love matters It does not hurt anyone or society Increased child adoptions http://www.gaymarriagehq.com... Check this website out for the explanation of the list. Just so we are clear, to make a law in the U.S. it is not supposed to be based on religion's beliefs of sacredness. I send this back to Con to make a real argument not from ignorance.
Should Papa John put Bluetooth speakers on pizzas? Because this sh*t gay.

Hey dare. Papa John he doan like dem ding dong nor dem gay sh*t. He eat dem pizzas for sure but dem Bluetooth he not lickin. Shirleze she got dat cancer sh*t, buh she allus suckin dat weed. She allus eatin dem pizzas buh she en got dem Blueteeth. Wadya tink bwoy?
Should we pay more attention to coding or reading? Pro is coding, con is reading.

My opponent has not said anything new or that is relevant to the motion in the last round- they have not tried to justify that we should *pay more attention* to reading than to coding- only that reading is beneficial. They have not even tried to contrast this to coding. As such, I see no reason to elaborate on my previous comments- I feel my case has already been made sufficiently to win the debate.