BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rural people should be banned from using the London Underground during peak hours

Turnip-munching farmers and other inbred clod-hoppers often whinge when city-dwellers visit the countryside and they say things like "'em blasted townies dun't understand the ways of the cuntrysoide" and "get orf moy laand afore oy blows yer blinkin' ‘ead orf." However, during the months of November and December, many wealthy farmers and aristocratic country landowners visit London to spend some of the billions of Pounds in agricultural subsidies they rake in from the taxpayer every year, buying expensive Christmas presents from upmarket stores such as Harrods, Harvey Nicholls and Fortnum & Mason's. Now, those well-heeled hicks that do not clog the already crowded city streets with their brand new Range Rovers travel to London by overland train and then attempt to use the Underground. However, these bungling bumpkins don't understand how to use the ticket machines because you don't get touch-screen devices in ploughed fields and they are also unable to grasp the concept of electronic tickets so they can't get through the barriers. Neither do they know how to get on and off the escalators properly and they hold on to both sides in abject terror rather than standing on the right, as instructed, so that other people can get past. Furthermore, they don't let passengers off the train before trying to get on themselves and, once on board, they don't move down inside the carriage to allow other people on. The upshot of all this is that decent, hardworking commuters' journeys to and from work are seriously hampered. Now, since farmers and country landowners are always keen to put up "Private Property – Keep Out" and "Trespassers will be Shot" signs and the Country Landowners Association are bitterly opposed to increased public access to rural areas and are even actively seeking to remove existing public rights of way (1) it seems wholly justifiable to impose limited restrictions on moneyed yokels' lavish shopping trips to the capital. Therefore, since these wealthy worzels can easily afford to take taxis, I propose that those people who cannot prove that they: either live in London; commute to the capital regularly or are overseas visitors should be banned from using the Tube between 0700-0930 and 1630-1900 on weekdays. Thank you. (1) http://www.cla.org.uk...
Star Trek (pro) vs. Star Wars(con) ship-to-ship battle

In a ship-to-ship battle which would win? The U.S.S Enterprise-E (Movies and TNG series), or the Imperial I class Star Destroyer (base specs) in the reference of the star wars original trilogy (no books, tv shows, comics, fan fictions, video games) The location of this battle would be empty space, no planets, no asteroid fields, nothing. No extra ships or people like Tie Fighters, Tie Bombers, Khan, Shuttlecraft, Bombs that you can transport on to another ship (because then the U.S.S Enterprise would win) The ships crew would be that of what is necessary for each ship to run at full battle capacity (gunners and officers only) USS Enterprise E: 750 Imperial Star Destroyer: 9,235 Armarment and Defenses: USS Enterprise-E: 18 Type XII phaser arrays 6 Photon Torpedo Launchers (150 warheads; 18.9 isotons* of force) 6 Quantum Torpedo Launchers (150 warheads; 58.7 isotons* of force) 7 shield generators 2 tractor beam projectors *25 isotons is the theoretical amount of energy created by an anti-matter-matter reaction. Imperial I Class Star Destroyer: 6 Dual Turbolasers 2 Ion Cannons 3 triple Turbolasers 2 medium Turbolasers 10 tractor beam projectors 60 anti-fighter Turbolasers (irrelevant, we have no fighters) 60 anti-fighter Ion cannons (irrelevant, we have no fighters) 2 ISD 72x deflector shield generators One given: Proton torpedos and Photon torpedos are of similar sizes (I couldn't find any data on this) Source: http://starwars.wikia.com... (as well as some links from that page) Souce: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com... Source: http://www.ussenterprise.co.uk... Source: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com...(NCC-1701-E) Debate Rules: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: First argument Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Sum up your case Sources must be provided, if source is not in reference to your specific class of ship it is deemed void. All armaments and defenses are in reference of the base specs for that ship, if something was added to the ship and was not base, then it is void. No people using the force... If you do that, then Q will magically appear and slaughter you crew, then bombs will be beamed aboard your ship and blow you to peaces.
Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship to the undocumented currently living in US

For the good of this debate, I shall end this without introducing anymore arguments.A citizenship is given, not earned. A nation is an institution of citizens, and immigrants should never be given the same rights as real citizens. In my first argument, I said that American institutions, values and virtues, aka freedom, equality and liberty, were threatened by the mass migrations from many places whose economic situation was not as good as the US, and I highlighted how they tried to change American culture and how they do not understand it. I also stated that the economic costs were too high and would damage US's economy rather than improving it, because of increasing inflation and the economic situation of the US. In my second argument, I stated that opposing/denying illegal migrant citizenship is not a violation of human rights because the opponent has cited Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but that article stated something immensely different: we should give amnesty to those who escape their country because of persecution, not because of economic factors. I also highlighted the opponent's usage of Pew Hispanic Center, and that Pew Hispanic Research Center is not a center of migration research, but purely Hispanic based research. I also stated that such reform would be a dream, as fees for citizenship and naturalization are only $680, which is not much to pay if you truly want to be a citizen, and the opponent states that "they do not have enough money to do so". The only way such a reform would be achievable was to tax the American Middle Class more, and especially when these illegal migrants are living on one month of an average American worker's wages, there would be massive opposition to such a reform.It is for these reasons, and many more that I am unable to present today, that I urge you to vote con in the following ballot as America as we know it today is threatened. The opponent's absence means that we cannot have a full debate, and I would like to apologize for that inconvenience, although I wasn't able to influence the opponent's choices. I would like to thank the host for hosting this debate, and I would like to thank you for reading the half filled debate and my arguments.Thank You and have a nice day
Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship to the undocumented currently living in US

So. My opponent on,y responded to two of my sub points so what I'll first do is rebut those attacks and then re affirm my other sub points and contentions. 1:A) he opens by saying potential is a lie. Okay so let's look at this logically, he is doing his own calculations and that's fine if they were anywhere near correct which they are not. However I can still work with his numbers, even if it costs $210 billion that's not on net. So on net it's still the 1.4 trillion dollar number from the COB study I linked in my original round southeast point still stands. My opponent then states that these people do not deserve a path to citizenship? He doesn't say why they don't deserve an earned path to citizenship I can't really respond to that. He said that we would lose these traditions and yet I'm waiting to hear how, and what traditions are going to be lost in the process. My opponent stated in his rebuttal that these people do not want to assimilate in our country, and thus should not be made citizens. We can see that this is actually not true, at all. In fact 92% of the undocumented do want to become US citizens! This shows a want to assimilate and progress our economy. My opponent is probably going to say something along the lines of "well why aren't they applying for citizenship now?" Well the main reason is because they are unable to pay the fees in order to become a legalized person while working towards citizenship. A path to citizenship will immensely help them, in fact Pew Hispanic Research Center estimates over 90% will take advantage of a path to citizenship at that point. Since much of my case went unaddressed I will close by simply saying we can simply put all economic benefits aside, we know that the United States government values morality over everything else. Now if people are not citizens they will be deported of caught. Even those who are just legalized can be deported under circumstances, and the threat of deportation, separation of families, human trafficking, and death for 11.7 million undocumented people is something that must be addressed throughout this debate. Thus I strongly urge a Pro ballot in the round. Thank you.
The Jedi Council should be Disbanded

Only material from Star Wars Movies 1-7 should be used. No expanded universe or stuff from the animation. Please use only general arguments and refrain from using too remote examples that regular Star Wars fans do not know. In other words, this is not a debate about who is more of a Star Wars nerd and knows one or two examples to just strike off the other person's arguments. The premise here is the Jedi Council in Star Wars 1-3 since there is no Jedi Council in Star Wars 4-7. But you can use arguments from all the movies. I will be arguing Pro; ie that the Jedi Council should be disbanded.
The Jedi Council should be Disbanded

Rebuttals My opponent says (yet again) that the order provided by the Jedi Council is integral to ensure the Jedi do not misinterpret their teachings thus misrepresenting the Jedi. Only this time, he ensures us that they just "guide" and not dictate. Firstly, if the Jedi Council's role is merely to "guide" as my opponent is saying, there wouldn't be any need for Qui-Gon to seek their approval before taking Anakin as his apprentice. Clearly, they are not there just to be gurus. They are an executive authority and if you go against them it would be treason or at the very least, you would be expelled. Secondly, just because you have your own interpretation of your code doesn't necessarily mean you are a lost cause. As I have said, you can have your own Jedi advisors who do not dictate your actions. In this way, you would still be adhering to the Code. There is no need for an authority to both INTERPRET and DECIDE what you can or cannot do. After all, what good is it for you to be a Jedi if you cannot even think for yourselves good or bad? What good is it to be a Jedi if you are just a lightsaber-wielding warrior sent here and there to fight other people's battles? Ironically, my opponent is making it sound like Jedi are bounty hunters themselves. I am sure also, that on the Council itself you have people with different opinions. Difference of opinions does noe equate to disunity nor does it necessarily mean you are turning bad. My opponent challenges me to cite one example of how the Council decided on something which was against the Code. They did when they asked Anakin to spy on the Chancellor. Clearly, that was ok according to their interpretation at the time. My opponent's challenge has been dismissed easily. My opponent makes a comment on how he is religious and that is not how they do things. The problem I have with this is "religiousness" is entirely subjective. To you, maybe you are religious. But to others, you may not be so religious as you think. Also, who's to say your interpretation of your faith is right or wrong? I think even you would find it uncomfortable if someone tells you you are wrong and you have been sinning all this while. What's worse is when they actually DICTATE what you must or must not do. Sadly, I am on holiday and these points are all I can manage. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. Happy new year everyone!
Capitalism doesn't work.

"My resolution was that capitalism doesn't work. I did not have to prove that there is a better system and, if for third world people and for 5% of western people capitalism does not work then therefore my opponent and I are agreed that my resolution is true. "I would like to say that I have not agreed on my opponent's resolutions. I would like to quote myself from a previous round:"Also, it's clear that Capitalism doesn't work for some people. No matter how hard they try. However, from a Utilitarian viewpoint, a 5% unemployment rate is amazing because 95% of the people are employed."The main word here is Utilitarian. Utilitarianism: "The doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority."(1)http://www.google.ca...This debate is not about whether capitalism will work for everybody. Any proposed system will not work for everybody. The key here is that it works for the majority of people. "I don't know why my opponent points out that the unemployed get benefits as he is against welfare and has no opinion on social security. "Just because I argued against welfare doesn't mean anything. Debaters know that often they will purposely argue against their own views just to gain a broader understand of the subject.ConclusionI believe it is obvious that capitalism works. It has worked in our world for nearly a millenium(2), and will continue to work for many more. I have demostrated that it is the best system possibly available. It reduces poverty, decreases wars, and gives everybody an equal chance in the working world. I urge you to vote CONI thank my opponent for a wonderful debate and await many more.(1)http://www.google.ca...(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Capitalism doesn't work.

It's obvious that a system can't work for everybody. There is no system for which 100% of the people will benefit. A 5% unemployment rate is quite good. Also consider that the people that are unemployed get welfare and unemployment benefits (unique to capitalism.There is absolutely nothing bad about wanted cheap oil. This is not a debate about morals and ethics. Money in many cases, especially with the government , is more important than third world people.My resolution was that capitalism doesn't work. I did not have to prove that there is a better system and, if for third world people and for 5% of western people capitalism does not work then therefore my opponent and I are agreed that my resolution is true. I don't know why my opponent points out that the unemployed get benefits as he is against welfare and has no opinion on social security.As it is clear that my opponent has agreed with my resolution there is no need for me to draw any conclusions other than that Capitalism doesn't work.
Socialism impossible to implement on a large scale.

The center of my argument is a specific definition of socialism. In my version, The worker is entitled to the goods and services he or she produces. This is in contrast with the capitalistic model, In which the owner is entitled to those products. Capitalism is really two seperate markets: one for goods and services; another for labor (the job market). Capitalists corner the market through puchasing power (buying the "means of production"), And act as middle-men between those two markets. The goal is to arrange for the largest gap in value possible between those markets, Because that difference is the capitalist's share. The goal of socialism is to eliminate that middle-man. There is still private property. It's still a competitive market economy. There's still business management (managers are hired by the employees). It's true that there's a lot of overlap between this socialism and our capitalism, But that's my point. I would counter that the capitalist system is tantilizingly close to a socialist one (publicly traded companies allready collectively owned -- yet another model of socialism that could be imagined). When the investment class is the working class -- that's socialism.
Socialism impossible to implement on a large scale.

Reversion to a pseudo-Private property model instead of a Central or truly Social/Communal ownership of property means your system seems much closer to being capitalist than socialist. There is still a property owning class, Although you could argue that their ownership of the property is somehow "justified" as opposed to the property owning class in a Capitalist system. If the companies are to be run democratically the likelihood is that most of the employees will not be bothered to engage in a democratic process for every single decision that needs to be made and will thus delegate decision making power to more qualified workers, Thus leading to a system that is progressively similar in operation to a Capitalist enterprise. Either way the system represents a capitulation that the Capitalist system is the only one that can be expected to be sustainable in the long run but shows a preference for having a different group of people as the property owning class. What role does the entrepreneur play in such a system? Most companies are started by single individuals or small groups of people who put their own assets and credit rating at risk to start a business and between 50% and 80% of these fail in the first 5 years. For engaging in such risky ventures, Is the entrepreneur not entitled to ownership of a company that wouldn't exist without him? If not, Where then do the incentives for starting companies come from? Fewer companies started means one of two things in the long run. Either higher unemployment and thus more disenfranchised people and/or the emergence of more monopolistic markets due to less competition.
Socialism impossible to implement on a large scale.

I'll start with something slightly off topic, Just because your claim reminds me of the old canard that "socialism has never worked anywhere. " To that I say, Neither has unregulated capitalism. Like "socialist" societies, Unregulated capitalism exist only in conditions of extreme poverty and oppression. People forget this which is why I bring it up. Now back to your point. First, Your definition of socialism is generally accepted, But it's not that inclusive. Marx understood socialism to mean the worker was entitled to the market value of their labor. Any employee-owned business, Or startup where the owners do all the work, Are socialist in structure. I would not call this "socialism, " however, Unless this was a economy-wide standard. So then make it a standard. Under this model, The employees are the shareholders, And they vote for their own CEO and board of directors just as shareholders do. So this is one way socialism could be adopted. But here's another way: Many employees have 401k or pension plans that entitle them to the profits of the companies in their investment portfolios. If this concept were expanded to include all people, Wouldn't that be a form of collective ownership of the means of production and distribution? The government wouldn't own anything, But would insure that such assets be available as an entitlement rather than a privilege.
Socialism impossible to implement on a large scale.

Conflating the position of the boss with that of the worker is a sloppy comparison. The laborer/entrepreneur arrangement you describe is closest to what the IRS refers to as contract employment. But there are specific rules about that relationship. The employer cannot tell the contractor how to do their job or where to sit. Same goes for the customer who pays for a service. Unfortunately most of our waking hours are determined on a more intimate level for most of us. Marx had a lot to say about 'alienation' and the effects of capitalist domination on our personal freedom. The reason you can't attribute a specific share of output to a specific worker is that business enterprise is a collaboration in which all players are necessary. Socialism acknowledges this at a structural level by entitling everyone to a share of the product. I don't understand your point about profit and greed -- wanting more is not a problem. It's a question of entitlement and deserving. The way I see this working is that every fully vested employee has an equal number of shares in the company. This entitles them to voting power and a pro-rata share of profit. They vote for their leadership, Which might be a board of directors, Who appoints a CEO and sets salaries, Etc. Capitalism and market economies are not the same thing. Any functioning economy will be a market system, And not a planned economy. Capitalism is a market economy that simulates landed aristocracy. Socialism is a market system based on democracy. Instead of having workers vs investors, Participants in socialism are both. The democratization of the economy is as big a deal as it is in politics. Not just shuffling entitlements around -- just like democracy isn't shuffling political power around. Your point about entrepreneurship is a good one. There are different types of corporate structures -- one could imagine that requirements kick in based on the size of the company. Of course it's always possible for the founder to be 'voted off the island' but wouldn't this be a reflection of that person's real value in the role? One the problems of our current system is that it over-privileges company founders and investors at the expense of boring old workers. In reality, The head and the hands are the same body. On the other hand, Since leaving a job means a buyout of their stock, Everyone has cash to start their own company, So the potential for entrepreneurship is more robust based on numbers.
There Never Should Have Been An Iraq War

Henry David Throeau, Mohandas Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, and Martin Luther King Jr. all thought non-violence could achieve their means and it did. For Mohandas Gandhi once said: "And eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Meaning, whenever violence is used vengeful feelings will soon follow, Now we have to be careful that a whole country isn't going to exact revenge on us. Why should we resort to violence to respond to violence? Since that whole culture over there is used to violence maybe some compassion will give them a change of heart. Bad relations between the Islamic world and the West have existed since the Crusades, and this recent "crusade" has only made relations worse, isn't time it this stopped and we made an effort for peace? - As for "there were more reasons for invading Iraq than (WMD's)... He also massacred his own people" Well bulls@*&%, There were genocides in Rwanda and Guatemala and the U.S.A. did not lift a finger! It is not fair that we invaded Iraq for reasons he was massacring his own people when we did not even pay any mind to the two above-mentioned genocides. besides, do you really believe in your heart that the U.S. goes to war for honest reasons? You don't believe crooked politics play a part in it? - As for other countries that thought he was a tyrant, the U.S. and other western nations gave him a huge stockpile of weapons (which he later used on his own people) to keep Iran's power from expanding into the middle east, So we obviously din't think he was a tyrant when we were loaning him weapons. -Lastly, I brought up the whole reporter incident to illustrate a point: They don't want us over there, and I will point out that when Osama Bin Laden died nobody cheered for his death (info courtesy of FOX news) this shows they respected a stauchly anti-western extremeist. They see us as imposing a set of values and traditions foreign to them (and in some cases forbiddened by the Koran.) We should just let sleeping dogs lie.