BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitalism is better than Socialism

History: During the Industrial Revolution governments practiced Laissez Faire economic policies. Laissez Faire can be defined as [1]. During this period there were people starving in the streets because there were too many people working and not enough jobs. As a result of this supply on demand of workers, wages were incredibly low. Also, the people who had jobs often faced extremely dangerous conditions because there was no government interference. Child Labor was also a huge problem, and at one time in Britain 1/5th of workers in the textile industry were under 15 [2]. Many people resorted to stealing in order to survive. People were starving in the streets and there were tens of thousands of homeless children [3]. Problems: Due to things like child labor and poor pay with bad working conditions, capitalism cannot survive on its own. We need socialist programs like welfare, minimum wages, and working regulations to stop these from occurring. Capitalism is self destructive. Without government intervention a few people become hyper-rich while a majority of the population is living in poverty. While the Industrial Revolution increased the standard of living for many people, that number is dwarfed by the amount of people that ended up in poverty as a result of it. Socialism: There would be huge problems in the world without socialism because taxes are are a socialist construct. Without socialism there would be ... [4] -No police force -No fire department -No taxpayer funded ambulances or public hospitals -No subsidized education -No military -No social security -No Welfare for those in need -No food stamps for those in need -No foreign aid for countries suffering from natural disasters -Nobody to protect you from your employers making you work 100 hours a week every week with no weekends or holidays -No postal service -No infrastructure -No garbage collection -Nobody to protect the environment -No court system -No NPR -No PBS -No FDA I can only imagine the capitalist paradise where these don't exist. One may say "well a community could all chip in for these things, there doesn't need to be taxes" but a society working together to achieve a goal is in fact socialism. Capitalism cannot exist without socialism too. Whether or not socialism can exist without capitalism is debatable, but if they cannot exist independently, then capitalism is not better. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.history.com... [3] http://www.hiddenlives.org.uk... [4] http://www.dailykos.com...
Capitalism is better than Socialism

Argument 1: Incentive and Competitiveness Capitalism works next to perfectly with human nature. Throughout history, most individuals work hard to furnish their own needs. This is extremely important since it leads to innovation, encourages entrepreneurship and instigates competition which is crucial for advancing the human race. Take America for example, it"s vast technological improvement and influence was not created by public sacrifices to the "common good" but it was through the productivity of the free men who were intent on making their own private fortunes. Adam Smith said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. " People will work much harder for the good of themselves than for the state, which will also waste most of it before redistributing it to others; while capitalism encourages entrepreneurs to setup new business and amass their personal wealth and at the same time improving the overall economy, socialism discourages people to work hard and drag down the economy. With the introduction of Globalization in the 21 Century, competitiveness has risen to sky-high levels, capitalism is a good system to encourage others to work hard and encourage others to be competitive, while socialism discourages. There can thus be no doubt that capitalism triumphs over socialism when it encourages people to make a better life and overall create a better economy. Argument 2: History In the past there have been examples of socialism and capitalism, West Germany and East Germany etc. , inevitably history shows that capitalism triumphs over socialism. Korea is the prime example; currently there is a significant gap between capitalist South and socialist North, after World War II they were of the same nation but now South Korea if significantly economically able than North Korea. According to Professor Niall Ferguson who wrote Civilization, even the most powerful socialist country the Soviet Union, did not reach to half the economic output of US at its peak. History has proven may a time at capitalism triumphs over socialism. . http://townhall.com... . http://www.marxists.org... . http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk... . http://www.thecommentator.com...
The Catholic Church is harmful to society

The CrusadesMy opponent argues the Crusades were harmful to society. This is not true. In 1095 the Byzantine emperor asked Pope Urban II for military assistance against Muslim aggression. (1) Jerusalem had been overrun by Turks and 3,000 Christians had been massacred. (2) The Crusades were initiated in response. There is nothing wrong with being granted indulgences in exchange for sacrificing your life for a just cause; in this case, reclaiming land stolen by the Saracens. ContraceptionMy opponent falsely claims that "The Church continues to maintain that not only is all abortion wrong [...]" In reality, the Catholic Church permits abortion if the mother's life requires it, and the death of the baby is not intended as an ends or means. Pro makes another false claim by saying the Catholic Church "rules that all birth control is wrong." The Catholic Church permits birth control based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods. (3) This natural form of birth control, permitted by the Church, is equally effective as artificial forms of birth control. (4)Child AbuseMy opponent puts the spotlight on cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests so as to portray the Catholic Church as harmful. This is misleading and deceptive. According to Thomas Plante, PhD, Catholic priests are no more likely to molest children than the rest of the population. (5) Allow me to quote Dr. Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State:"My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic [...] clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than [..] nonclergy." (7) (emphasis mine)The Catholic Church is not harmful to society. Thank you for this debate.(1) http://www.fordham.edu...(2) http://www.middle-ages.org.uk...(3) http://www.vatican.va...(4) European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. "Natural Family Planning Method As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds." ScienceDaily, 21 Feb. 2007. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.(5) http://www.psychologytoday.com...(6) http://www.jjay.cuny.edu...(7) http://old.post-gazette.com...
The Catholic Church is harmful to society

Catholic treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany You say that the Church "aided many Jews during the Holocaust". In reality, even the Catholic Church itself acknowledges its part in the Holocaust. In 1998 (about time) the Vatican finally officially apologized "for not doing more to challenge the Nazi extermination of more than 6 million Jews". Given that at the time 40% of Germans were Catholic, it's difficult to over-state the impact the Churches intervention could have had.Hitler himself was brought up in a Catholic family, and remained a member of the Church until his death. The teachings of the Church clearly influenced him greatly. In Mein Kampf he stated "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord". Previously in a speech in Munich, he stated "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them, and who was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison". CharityWhile the Church does do some good work, it is primarily a business. Its senior members live in extreme opulence in Vatican City. Within Italy alone the Church owns over 110,000 buildings (about 20% of all buildings in Italy), many commercial, including hotels, restaurants and sports centers. In addition, the vast majority of the Churches resources go to spreading its message, not to providing charity.EducationYou say that "the Catholic Church is the biggest operator of private schools in the United States". Incidentally, these schools just happen to be where much of the child abuse takes place (ironic given that they teach abstinence only). Since the government subsidizes these schools, and the rest is paid for through public donations, these children could instead go to a public school at no greater cost, and probably be better off.In summary I believe that the Catholic Church is detrimental to society, and I would urge you to vote Pro if you agree. Thank you. Sourceshttp://tech.mit.edu...http://www.bbc.co.uk...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Catholic Church is harmful to society

Aid to persecuted Jews during the Holocaust:The Catholic Church in Poland aided many Jews during the Holocaust, in spite of the fact that harboring Jews was punishable by death. (1)(2) Thousands of Jews were "hidden, fed, clothed, and bedded in the 180 known places of refuge in Vatican City, churches and basilicas, Church administrative buildings, and parish houses." (3) The Pope himself personally took care of misplaced Jews. According to Jewish theologian and Israeli historian, Rabbi Lapide, "No less than 3,000 Jews found refuge at one time at the Pope’s summer residence at Castel Gandolfo [...]" (4)Charity:The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the entire world. (12)(13) It placed in the top 10 of Chronicles of Philanthropy's 2010 Philanthropy 400 ranking. (5)Healthcare:The Catholic, charity health-care system is responsible for 637 hospitals, fulfilling 17% of total U.S. hospital admissions. (6)Education:The very idea of Universities was derived directly from Catholic monasticism. (7)According to Bloomberg Businessweek magazine, the Catholic Church is the biggest operator of private schools in the United States, with more than 2.6 million students enrolled in its 6,900 elementary schools and roughly 1,200 high schools. The Church has 230 colleges and universities which, together, have a grand total of 670,000 students. (6)Science:Modern science owes much of its history to Catholicism. Galileo, the physicist, mathematician, astronomer, philosopher, and devout Catholic, (10) is credited as being the father of the scientific method, (9) along with Roger Bacon, a Catholic monk.And last, but not least, the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest. (8)The Catholic Church is beneficial to society.(1) Tadeusz Piotrowski (1997). "Assistance to Jews". Poland's Holocaust. McFarland & Company. p. 117. ISBN 0-7864-0371-3.(2) Delegatura. The Polish government-in-exile underground representation in Poland. Shoah Resource Center, The International School for Holocaust Studies. PDF direct download, 45.2 KB. Retrieved October 2, 2012.(3) Joseph Lichten, "A Question of Moral Judgement: Pius XII and the Jews," in Graham, 126.(4) Pinchas E. Lapide, Three Popes and the Jews (New York: Hawthorn, 1967), 133.(5) http://cnsblog.wordpress.com...(6) http://www.businessweek.com...(7) http://www.newoxfordreview.org...(8) http://www.pbs.org...(9) http://scientificmethod.com...(10) Sharratt (1994, pp. 17, 213)(11) http://www.westerncultureglobal.org...(12) http://www.forbes.com...(13) http://www.zenit.org...
The Catholic Church is harmful to society

I will presenting examples that should illustrate the damage the Catholic Church has done to society. The Crusades In 1095 Pope Urban II announced that the Church would be going to war with the Muslim world, with the goal of gaining access to Jerusalem. He called on French and Italian Christians to fight for the Church, in return for indulgences. Over the next 200 years the Catholic Church continued one of the bloodiest wars in history, leading to the deaths of around two million people, as well as the destruction of countless others' homes, and a rift between the Western and Eastern worlds. ContraceptionThe Church continues to maintain that not only is all abortion wrong, even in cases of rape; but also that all birth control is wrong. It goes to the most overcrowded countries in the world; many riddled with Aids, and tells the people there that condoms are immoral. With over a billion members worldwide, the Catholic Church is hugely influential. While aid organisations are trying to distribute birth control, and so give women control over their bodies, the Church undoes all this on the basis of an archaic doctrine. Child abuseGiven the number of countries the Catholic Church operates in, it is difficult to quantify, but we know of over 3,000 victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic priests. This of course does not take into account the victims who have been too frightened to come forward, or the undocumented cases that happen in the developing world. So far the Church has paid over two billion dollars to these victims, although this doesn't come close to compensating. There is also evidence that there has been a concerted effort by the Church, right up to and including Pope Ratzinger, to hide this abuse. These examples should illustrate that far from being a "force for good", the Roman Catholic Church has done huge harm to society. Sources. http://www.guardian.co.uk...http://fallibleblogma.com...http://www.telegraph.co.uk...http://en.wikipedia.org...
He/she who thrusts the first strike is at an inherent advantage in the end.

Core Arguments: 1, 2, 3, & 4: You wrote that the person doesn't have an advantage if they strike first. As Pro, all I need to do is prove that they do. I don't need to argue against possible disadvantages. I shall prove that they do have an advantage now. Since they strike first, they do harm and possibly decrease the harm the enemy might do to you. 5: Your chess argument is flawed as it impossible to attack the other person on your first move. You wrote strike, and on the first move, all you can do is move, not attack. Side Arguments: 1 & 2: I already wrote how I don't need to argue this. 3: There absolutely is a gain to attacking first, as I already proved, but in that case, the defender receives more sympathy than the attacker. Also, if there was no benefit to attacking first, the dictator wouldn't have attacked first.
He/she who thrusts the first strike is at an inherent advantage in the end.

Con Outlook: He/she that strikes first is not at an inherent advantage in a matter of conflict be it physical, mental or social.Core Arguments:1. If they are the victor, it is attributed to the fact that they sprung on the other as opposed to being superior in skill.2. If they are the defeated, it is even more of an embarrassment as they struck first.3. To strike first reveals both the fighting style they use as well as how fast and powerful they are to the opponent giving the opponent the sole ability to prepare tactical counter strikes.4. In the majority of one-sided wars, the victor is evermore viewed upon with disdain in retrospect.5. There is little statistical evidence to prove that going first makes one stand more chance of winning, rather they prove that more experienced duelists in any martial art or walk of life (such as chess) choose to go first as they are more confident that the defense of the opponent will not outdo their offense.Side Arguments:1. Striking first in a legal sense is suicide if the fight is not authorized. If you win to any degree you look legally worse the better you did in that fight. If you lose, you still get a criminal record and also bear the shame of having lost despite being the aggressor.2. Striking first may display confidence but letting one strike you first and then thrashing them despite it is a common technique many rap battlers use. Rap battling is one of the most humiliation-oriented forms of combat whereby the entire concept of victory is how efficiently one decimated their opponent's ego and it is the most common form of combat where one would opt the other to go first.3. Any efficient dictator with a well-utilized propagandist made out that they were the defender in the scenarios where they have conflict. There has never been a gain in seeming to be the aggressor when persuading people because that lacks any need for motivation and drive to win the fight.
He/she who thrusts the first strike is at an inherent advantage in the end.

I thank Con for the clarification. 1 & 2: Just because one has an advantage, doesn't mean they win. 3: Striking first prevents the enemy from defending with a thought out defense, since the enemy would have to use quick responses. 4: I don't think I can refute this. 5: Your chess argument is still flawed, since it only threatens, not damages, the other person's forces. Side arguments: 1: This is a good argument and I can't refute that. 2. You imply in this argument that in rap battles, people strike each other. The definition of strike is: to aim and usually deliver a blow, stroke, or thrust (as with the hand, a weapon, or a tool). http://www.merriam-webster.com... Unless this is a new thing that I am unaware of, people do not hit each other in rap battles. They don't even come into physical contact. 3. If there wasn't any advantage to striking first, a dictator wouldn't have done so in the first place. You responded that the reason that sympathy goes to the defender. A distinction must be made here. There is a advantage to striking first. There is also an advantage to appearing to be the defender. The case you give implies that the dictator is lying. This debate is only about if the first striker has an inherent advantage, not about an attacker who pretends to be the defender.
He/she who thrusts the first strike is at an inherent advantage in the end.

The resolution reads 'is at an inherent advantage in the end' but Pro reads it as 'has an advantage (at all)'. This is misusing the resolution and twisting it to fit his/her needs.Pro explains that they strike the enemy, Pro has to first prove that harming an enemy is an advantage at all and must then prove that in the end this is inherently advantageous to have done before the other struck them.All moves in chess are related to the strike, the closer any pawn or knight moves towards the king, the threat to the king's safety is immediately 'struck' on the enemy. Regardless, the point stands as most experienced players will attack first and with confidence whereas less experienced ones will be more nervous but have no plan to counter it in place. Similarly if the other strikes first, the experienced player is already prepared and has a strong counter attack planned ahead.The sympathy to the defender is the very reason why in the end being the one to strike first is never inherently advantageous and doesn't put one in a position of advantage whatsoever.Please read the resolution you are upholding before accepting a debate challenge where you will be upholding it.All other arguments that I raised have thus gone unrefuted by Pro's misrepresentation of the resolution as this is regarding the endgame and aftermath, not the beginning or duration of the fight itself.
Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK.

ï¿½ The right to vote is one of the most important human rights. It gives men and women the chance to have a say in the way they are governed. It allows them to get rid of bad governments and makes sure that any government listens to its people, for fear of being thrown out at the next election. It is one of the most important ways in which other rights (e.g. free speech, the right to a fair trial) are protected. Not every country in the world is a democracy, with free elections giving citizens a fair political choice. But the right to vote is spreading and outright dictatorships are increasingly few on every continent. Yet what should that right to vote mean? A century or so ago almost no countries allowed women to vote, and it took decades of struggle for them to win political rights.
Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK.

Pro doesnt give a single coherent reason of why the voting age should be lowered. However there are quite a few reasons why the voting age of the UK should not be lowered.1) Young people dont care about politics, and numbers show this2) Young people know far less about the politics involved than older voters3) There really isnt a dire need to expand the voting rights4) Lets face it, who knows what they can do to the UK. .. - 1 - Why should the voting age be lowered if young people dont even vote? . http://www.theticker.org...http://voices.yahoo.com...http://trace.tennessee.edu...http://mypolitikal.com...Point is, young people dont give a damn about voting, and the younger they are the more apathetic they are. - 2 - Young people naturally are more misinformed about politics and politicians. http://www.policymic.com...http://www.appeal-democrat.com...Simply put one of the reasons why young people dont vote is that they dont know anything about the politics or politicians. - 3 - There is no dire need to expand the number of potential voters in UK. UK Voter turnout is still at 76% while the US is still below 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org...Point is, UK doesnt need a larger voting population because the number of registered voters in the UK who actually vote is rather impressive - 4 - this one is really my own opinion, and I know that there are some intelligent 16 year old UK political nuts on this site right now, but a majority of UK 16 year olds are,How do I put this. .. . Would you trust this person to decide who serves in government? . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I'd sh*t my pants tooTo summarize my argument, the voting age should not be lowered in the UK because the UK already has a stunning voter turnout, young people dont want to vote, young people dont know much about politics or politicians they are voting for, and trusting all 16 year olds to vote scares the sh*t out of some people.