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

Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Well for one when you have capitalism you have a bigger economic growth. Capitalism allows the economy to grow faster then if you are in a socialist nation. In a capitalist nation the country makes a bigger profit. That allows for a better bigger economy and in turn it helps the nation. The nation would have more wealth do to there being more business. Pus when you are in a socialist nation it is the government who controls the economy. Most people in America are making a good amount of money. Now you might not know it but most people around the world make less then 34,000 a year. So in America people are making a good amount of money each year. Also when you are a socialist nation the amount of work that your employes do goes down. For example in France and in Germany they used to work more then Americans yet now that is no longer the case. That means that there is less money going into those nations. The whole thing that people are upset about with capitalism is the balance of power. Yet look at it from this case you should have to work harder to get a better paying job. Also you should ave to work harder to get a nice home.Also helping the poor is good and all but you know where that money comes from? That is right the government and you know where they get there money that is right taxes. So you are paying for someone else healthcare, and their needs. Now some people may be able to put up with that, but it hurts the people who are not poor. It hurts the people who are trying, they have to make money. But the poor are getting free money from the goverment. Also in a capitalism nation the way they make products is based off of the demand for said product, this helps reduce a mass amount of said product. In a capitalist nation growth and expansion increases the nations GDP which increases the stranded of living. *http://www.businessinsider.com... *http://study.com....
Socialism is better than Capitilism

I will be arguing that socialism is a better form of economy than Capitilism. Here are my terms: 1st. Round: Acceptance of Terms 2nd Round: Opening arguements 3rd Round: Counter Arguements 4th Round: Conclusive arguements/Rebuttals My opponent cannot use any Communist/Communistic economy's in their debate since communism isn't Socialism. If you have any objections, state them in the comments, and we can work out fair terms
Socialism is better than Capitilism

Yeah but Spain is still a socialist nation, so it still holds true. Yeah but usually free healthcare is not as good as private. IT also hurts the private heath cares. So some private heath cares start falling which in turn hurts the economy. If you work harder here then you get paid more. If you are not happy with your job then go back to collage and get a new degree. Capitalism allows the country to make more money, that money can go to a number of things, military spending, money for the poor, aid to other nation ex ex. My point is your nation usually more powerful when it has capitalism. Socialism does more bad then it does good. I can would rather pay more private healthcare, but if you want free public heath care fine. But I think capitalism is the way to go.
Socialism is better than Capitilism

First of all, with Spain, thier problems occurred due to inflation and stagnant economic growth. Now with unemployment, I will use the U.S. with welfare. I will be using the study of Harvard economist Martin Feldstein. Let's say someone had to choose between a job that pays $10 per hour, or welfare benefits that pays $8 per hour. If he were working, he would pay 18% income tax and 7.5% in social security contributions, leaving a salary of $7.5 per hour. In welfare, you would pay 18% in taxes, leaving a welfare benefit of $6.56 per hour. Someone might see a day of leisure worth more than working for the extra 89 cents. In Socialism, the government will always be there to give you the benefits (Unless the government collapses, is conquered, goes bankrupt, etc.). You misread my point on the German auto companies. They pay their workers more, for more, offer benefits, and yet are still more profitable than most American auto companies. Socialism is also a better work environment since you don't have to keep looking for potential jobs since your afraid another corporation is going to drown yours. In Socialism, it's more cooperation than competition, since the government tries to make the distribution of wealth as even as possible. It's not that Socialist workers are getting more for doing less. France and the UK have some of the highest income tax rates in the world. So, Socialism isn't all that bad, it's even better than Capitilism in some ways. I hope those of you who are following this debate will vote for me. Thank you, and good luck to Stargate, you made a good debate, wether or not you win. This was fun.
Socialism is better than Capitilism

Well let me start of with saying that capitalism provides us with certain skills. For example we are for the most part still a hard working nation. We try our best to make the most that we can. Some people fail to understand that if you work you get more money. You should be rewarded based on how much work you put in. For example would you really want to make the same amount of money as someone who does nothing in his job, yet you work hard every day? I bet you would want more money then that guy. Capitalism is good for us to learn how to live in life. Someone is not always going to be their for you, and capitalism helps you learn that. Now lets use spain as a example. They are more socialit then capitalit, they have a unemployment rate of 22.7. In spain your average person would make only 27.477 k each year. That is less then the average american. Also free heathcare is not as good as private healthcare. One major bad thing with public healthcare is all that money comes from the tax payers. Also it hurts the economy (at least in the usa more) due to it being even more expensive to have workers. Most people hate public healthcare. Also at least here in the USA most employees got heathcare from their company. Also we still can not treat our workers badly. We have so follow rules, along with other things. Our workers are treated well, now yeah there are sometimes those bad companies. But there are more good then bad. Capitalism helps the nations economy more the it hurts it. Also we do ship a lot of cars, I mean we do you see a Mustang outsilde of North America?
Socialism is better than Capitilism

In this round, I will be discussing unemployment rates and salary differences between socialistic and capitalist nations, among other things. To prove The benefits work. Let's use Greece, a Eastern European nation who is Capitilist. In past years, they have been successful, but now they are on a downward slide. Over the course of 5 years, Greece's unemployment rate has risen by 14.8%. Now for the salaries. Let's do the automobile industry, U.S.A vs Germany. German auto workers produced 5.5 million automobiles in 2010. America produced 2.7 million the same year. A German auto worker made $67.14 per hour with benefits. The U.S worker made $33.7 for the same amount of work (BTW, this is measured in U.S dollars). And yet, these German auto companies are very profitable. How is this? In the words of Kevin C. Brown, "the salient difference is that, in Germany, the automakers operate within an environment that precludes a race to the bottom; in the U.S., they operate within an environment that encourages such a race." In German auto companies, there are 2 institutions that ensure higher wages and good working conditions. The first is IG Metall, which is basically a labor union. According to Horst Mund, an IG executive, "though they have the right to strike, they hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties." The second is where the workers have managers to discuss floor conditions and work life in a Work Council. Another thing is Socialistic economies don't need to worry about overproduction since most of the population is employed in government sponsored service jobs. But don't be mistaken, their are several other options for work. And the government doesn't control the economy, just takes an active part in it. Just because some jobs are controlled by the government doesn't mean the government is the economy.
War Scenario: United States of America vs. Islamic Republic of Iran

I apologize for not citing the source of the rules. I did not intentionally mean to plagiarize. I am brand new to this website and was just excited to get into a debate so I admit I kinda just skimmed through the rules before posting my argument (won't let that happen again). But as my opponent already stated, I apparently disqualified myself so I guess this debate is over. The Pro told me to start in the war but then stated that he wins anyways so if that is the case, why would I start the war? I apologize again about the rules and I will concede to Pro and wish Pro good luck in future debates.
War Scenario: United States of America vs. Islamic Republic of Iran

I would like to point out a couple of MAJOR inaccuracies in my opponent's round.According to rule 5, I (the person who is your opponent) may choose to defend or invade, yet you say that you are defending. Under no circumstances is this allowed! This is a warning and this action of yours is noted as voided. One more breach of rules will result in your IMMEDIATE FORFEITURE.My opponent has also plagiarised the rules that he made. The original source of these rules may be found here [1], and he has passed this off as his own work. Voters, I urge you to dock my opponent conduct points for illegally distributing intellectual property without the explicit consent of its owner.How I find this DDO rule breach is violating rule 14, which is the Code of Conduct part A. It says that 'any violation of appropriate conduct WILL BE REPORTED to DDO authorities', and I find that plagiarism is a violation of conduct.Voters, this is up to you to decide if this is the second rule that my opponent has broken. It is never explicitly said in the rules that we shall not plagiarise, but I think we can infer that this was meant in the evolving document that the rules are. Thank you.As per rule 15, I have a 0% winning rate of winning war-debates, but this is only due to the fact that I have had one and have lost. My opponent has not followed this rule, so this is my second real warning to my opponent.Rule 16 says that if you have two warnings then you automatically have an immediate loss of the debate, so voters, please note this disobedience for the rules.I repeat to the voters, my opponent has automatically lost the debate due to lack of care to the rules he stole. I will choose the WMD of SARIN, at 15 ppm [2].Here are my GFP statistics [3]. (I don't want to take up too much room with this round, so please consult my link).[1]. https://docs.google.com...;[2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...;[3]. http://www.globalfirepower.com...;Opponent, you technically have the right to begin the war, but you have AUTOMATICALLY FORFEITED, so please just concede in the following rounds.
Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the United States.

Once again, I feel as though my words and points are being manipulated by my opponent. Please do not purposefully try to make what I say sound as though I am arguing something else. There are FAR too many inconsistencies between what I said and what Pro manipulated it to mean. I cannot waste the space to address them all. I will go over some of the main points: 1) "Homosexuals are cheating outside of wedlock -- who is to say that they would necessarily cheat in marriage? " (Pro) Gay MARRIAGE, which is what Pro is arguing in favor of, is a sham in The Netherlands, according to an unbiased study by the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service. The AVERAGE GAY PARTNER in these marriages is sexually involved with 8 other people in a YEAR. Not most; average. The higher end was 14. This is not a civil union, or a "spiritual marriage"; this is exactly what Pro is arguing for; gay marriage. WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZE A UNION THAT IS BARELY EVEN RECOGNIZED (LET ALONE RESPECTED) BY THOSE IN IT? This is NOT, once again, a biased study. Show me a heterosexual married couple with this track record, and try to claim that it is the norm. 2) My connection of polygamy/polyamory to gay marriage is not "slippery slope fallacy", as this exact thing is now happening in The Netherlands. This is not a hypothetical scenario; it is something that has been happening and advancing in a country that has already legalized gay marriage. 3) Pro needed to show that my statistics on gay marriage were false. Instead, she purposefully misread it to "assume" I was talking about those in cohabitation. 4) Pro did not give ANY citations to any of the "facts" she made, after I asked her to do so multiple times. I can only assume then that her "facts" are, in fact, made up. 5) Pro states that, "Mormons are allowed to spiritually marry more than one individual; however, only receive the legal benefits of having one partner. I would be perfectly okay with this being offered to homosexual couples as well. " First of all, I once again see no citation for this claim. Secondly, this is NOT (in accordance to Pro's own previously stated views) equal rights in marriage, and is therefore discrimination, at least by her judgment. The "others" in the marriage are not given the legal benefits of that marriage, making it unsatisfactory (as she is against civil unions due to the fact that they do not give full marriage rights). If full rights in gay marriage are to be given for the sake of "equal rights", one can easily argue for full marriage rights for polygamy/polyamory, as was done in The Netherlands. I feel as though I am mostly rehashing the points that I have already made. I have nothing new to add. We now enter the voting period.
Just for fun! 1+1=2

I would like to point out that it is the fault of my opponent for not specifying that she was arguing that the value of 1 plus the value of 1 equals the value of 2. Therefore, since I first introduced the number as a numerical number rather than a number with value, it is her fault for not specifying, so I shall stick to my conclusion. My opponent says: "Using the commutative property of addition, we know that a+b=c, and therefore b+a=c. Let's try out this property with my opponent's theory that numbers are added by putting numbers next to each other. Let a represent 4, and b represent 9. So 4+9= 49, according to my opponent. But since b+a must also equal c, 9+4= 94. So mathematically, c must equal c. But 49 does not equal 94. Therefore, adding numbers by putting them side-by-side is wrong." Since I am arguing that the idea that 1+1=2 is wrong, I am also opposed to the idea that a+b=c. a+b does not equal c because a+b= ab just as rain+bow = rainbow. bow+rain does not equal rainbow because it would equal bowrain. It all depends on the arrangement of the terms,silly. Conclusion: The numerical number 1 added to the numerical number 1 produces the numerical number 11
Just for fun! 1+1=2

I must refute, however, the notion that one word plus another word makes one compound word, and therefore 1+1=11 because the two numbers are next to each other. Using the commutative property of addition, we know that a+b=c, and therefore b+a=c. Let's try out this property with my opponent's theory that numbers are added by putting numbers next to each other. Let a represent 4, and b represent 9. So 4+9= 49, according to my opponent. But since b+a must also equal c, 9+4= 94. So mathematically, c must equal c. But 49 does not equal 94. Therefore, adding numbers by putting them side-by-side is wrong. The commutative property has no limitations or exceptions, so even though switching around 1 and 1 will still get you 11 if you go by my opponent's addition rule, other examples do not follow the commutative property, hence making 1+1 not 11. Also, my opponent seems to have mixed up their place values. When I say 1+1, I mean the value of one plus the value of one (2), not the place value of one in the tens place value plus one in the ones place value (11). Sources: Algebra 1 Class
Just for fun! 1+1=2

I firmly believe that 1.0+1.0=2.0, or, 1+1=2. There is much physical proof of this. One example: Put all your fingers down. Now hold up one of your fingers (just not your middle, because that's rude, although it doesn't matter in the mathematical sense). That is one finger. Now hold up another finger. If you know how to count, the next number should be two. You are holding up two fingers. Bravo! For more proof of this, check your calculator. Whether it be your phone calculator or Googor your fancy algebraic calculator you used for calculus last year, you will get the same answer when you type in "1+1" and "=" (or "equals" or "ans" or "answer" or "go" or whatever other synonym for the answer of the equation): 2. Sources: http://www.google.com... Elementary School My fine, healthy fingers
Adding the line "one state under God" to the Texas Pledge

Well, it's been added. And since there isn't really anything you can do about it (unless you plan to boycott school), would just accepting it be an option for those people? The Texas Pledge is just like the Pledge of Alligiance in how you are pledging alligiance to your state or to your country. If you don't want anything to do with God, don't pledge to Him. The new phrase in the pledge isn't meant to hurt anyone's beliefs. I'm not sure what your school's motivation is for adding said line, but it definately can't be to offend anyone. But as to how strongly you or your friends are against the admission of the new line in the pledge is directly proportional to how much you LET yourself care about it. I'm not necessarily IN FAVOR for it. I'm one of those people who doesn't really care and says it anyway because it's a form of respect for your state and country. I'm just arguing because it's fun. Sorry that my argument at this time is, well, poorly constructed. I'm currently trying to type this argument and listen to my 3rd period teacher at the same time. Not the greatest multitasker.
Adding the line "one state under God" to the Texas Pledge

But this also goes along with "prayer in school". People have the choice to say it, but then afterwards people are accused of not saying it and it starts a debate in class. It also goes along with religion in school. Teachers are considerably not supposed to teach about the gospel. Anyways, that is who I am referring to. Non-believers or Atheists of some sort. From what I remember we were never taught about the Texas pledge, but we were taught about the Pledge of Allegiance. If we are not taught about something how can we know that believers of God founded this "state"? Considering it's already added to the pledge, they're not going to start a rally to take it out. I just disagree with the fact that it was added in the first place.
Adding the line "one state under God" to the Texas Pledge

Allow me to make something clear. When I said something about "you having a problem with it" I wasn't necissarily referring to YOU specifically. It was more of a generaliztion term. I didn't mean for it to sound so personal, I apologize. Now then, on to the argurment. We have been saying the "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge for as long as I can remember, (with some debate as to whether or not it should be removed). So, what exactly is your point about the dollar? We are not necessarily pledging to God. We are pledging to the nation that was founded by believers of God. If you don't believe in the same God as the founding fathers, then don't pledge your loyalty to Him. But at least pledge your loyalty to America. Unless the people you are referring to are "Anti-Americans" as well as Atheists or non-believers of the Christian faith.
Adding the line "one state under God" to the Texas Pledge

I never said that I had a problem with it I said multiple students had a problem with it. Yes, our school could be taking it into consideration but WITHOUT taking the students beliefs into consideration. The "In God We Trust" on the back of our dollar has been there since before we were born, and kids these days don't exactly look on those dollars and say oh well this mentions God so I'm not going to use it. But when its about having to place your hand over your heart and saying One State Under God, you're saying that you pledge to your state under God. If a student chooses to stand there quietly, sometimes they get scolded for not doing what they're supposed to do. But how can they get in trouble for something they don't believe in?
Adding the line "one state under God" to the Texas Pledge

I don't believe that your school system is attempting to force a religion on any of the students. Take into consideration the founding of this country; America. Our "founding fathers" have left Great Britain for many reasons, but one of the main reasons being to escape religious persecution. Not to mention, they made this voyage to the New World in the name of God. Just take a look at any number of historical documents, including the Constitution or even the Mayflower Compact. All of the above mention "God" because they believed in Him. I suppose you could say that your school is just taking that into consideration. If you just accept this change and just say the pledge as a part of your daily ritual, than it probably won't bother you so much. Besides, I don't see you posting a complaint against the "In God We Trust" on the backs of the One Dollar Bill. It was great arguing with you about this topic. I'm curious as to your response. ^_^
Official Tier Tournament Upper Tier Finale - Targeted Killing

Resolution/BOPThe full resolution for this debate is "Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool". Burden of proof is shared. Debate structure1) The first round is for acceptance.2) The second round is for opening statements only. 3) The third round is for rebuttals, but new arguments are allowed.4) The fourth round is for rebuttals and closing statements only; no new arguments are allowed.5) Voting is select-winner; you must have a minimum ELO of 2,500 to vote. Rules1. No forfeiting.2. No plagiarism.3. All citations must be presented in the text of the debate.4. Violation of any of these rules, or of the debate structure, results in an instant loss for the violator. Good luck to us both, and I look forward to an excellent debate!
MCDCBC will win this debate

To answer your question according to DDO rules to lose I have to get less votes but sense I am arguing that I will lose this debate getting less votes would mean I would win. So I would be both winning and losing at the same time, even if I get more votes and win by DDO rules I will have lost this debate and won it at the same time. I am very well aware of the DDO rules. In order for you to fulfill the resolution taht MCDCBC will not win this debate, you all need to vote pro. I am arguing that MCDCBC will win this debate. Therefore, if I get more points than she does, I will have won the debate in accordance to the DDO rules along with fulfilling my resolution that she will win this debate. If she looses this debate, she really won this debate. Therefore, it is only logical to vote pro! Just so you are aware unlogical is not a word. The correct word would be illogical. To answer your question sense this entire debate is based off of an illogical statement then of course the resulting debate would be illogical. I am well aware that unlogical is not a word. I used it to show how illogical this debate is. I used it as a pun, nonetheless. I also find it quite funny that she never refuted any of my rebuttals to her argument. Also, that she wants members to vote con. That is a contradiction! She is assirting that she will lose this debate, yet wants people to vote for her. Vote pro! It's the only logical person you can vote for! Thank you for reading.