BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Capitalism an Inherently Exploitative System

I would like to state that my opponents arguments do not address Capitalism's exploitative nature but none the less I shall rebuke them. "One significant pro of capitalism is the fact that economic freedom helps political freedom. If the government owns the means of production and set prices, it invariably leads to a powerful state and creates a large bureaucracy which extends into other large areas of life." Economic freedom for whom? I consider, like other Socialist, creativity an essential aspect of human nature and so I define freedom as the state of individuals are able to express their creative without hindrance of the constraints of material scarcity or the coercion of social institutions . I stress the importance of freeing individuals from the coercive, exploitative and alienating relationship of capitalist production and the appropriation of that labor to support state apparatus where there is enough for each individual to express their genuine creative interest. "Firms in a capitalist based society face incentives to be ...... innovative working practices." Capitalism efficient? We can do so much better! What's efficiency got to do with capitalism? The short answer is nothing. Socioeconomic collapses in Detroit and Cleveland did not happen because of inefficient production,capitalist corporations decided to relocate production to serve the interest of share holder and directors. Profit, growth and increase of market share drive those decisions not efficiency. The factories, offices and stores abandoned by departing corporations increase the waste of resources and of workers' lives. In the surrounding communities, tax bases are eroded by capitalists' departures meaning reduced social services, public space, and qualities of life. Those vast wastes of resources and damage to lives offset whatever small efficiency gains corporate relocation claims to achieve. "Other Alternatives Have Failed One only has to study socialist/communist politics and economics to conclude that they are an inferior alternative. They have created less wealth (thus less opportunity and more poverty for the working class) and have resulted in oppressive, bureaucratic political systems." I am so sick and tired of reading comments like this written by people who have never read anything by Marx or Engels (or Goldman ,Kropotkin or Luxembourg) claiming that socialism doesn't work You, as you would if you read Marx, should all realize that we cannot know that socialism doesn't work since it's never been tried in the industrialized world. Now I am an anarcho-syndicalist so i am not 100% crazy about Marxism
Is Capitalism an Inherently Exploitative System

Rebuttal "If you work a job I'm sure it wouldn't take you very long to think of times that your employer has taken liberties-trimmed down break and lunch times, asked you to do unpaid overtime etc;etc". Invariably the same can be said for any system. If one wants to something (the case here being money) then one has to work for it, and occasionally this may require extra hours. The trimming of down of breaks and lunch times is not the case in every job, as is not unpaid time. One of the basis of a job is to earn money and get paid, and this one of the requirements an employer must meet. Additionally there's also laws put in place to protect the rights of employees and prevent exploitation. Such As -maximum of 48 hour weeks. Under employment law, an employer cannot compel an employee to work over this period. An employee can choose to, but the number of hours worked must not exceed 48 hours (a week) over a 17 week period. -the right to be paid at least the national minimum wage. If a company or employer do not comply, they are breaking the law and therefore face legal repercussion(s). -the right not to have illegal deductions made from pay. Starting from the day employee starts work. -the right to paid holiday. Full time employees are entitled to at least 28 days per year (small variations on as to where you are) Part time employees are entitled to a pro rata amount. -the right to time off to look for work if being made redundant. This applies once the employee has worked for two years for that employer. -the right to time off for study and training for 16-17 year olds. -the right to paid maternity leave. -the right to paid paternity leave. -the right to ask for flexible working. -the right to paid adoption leave. -the right under the health and safety law to weekly and daily rest breaks. -the right not to be discriminated against. If an employer does discriminate, he/she is breaking the law and the employee is protected by anti discrimination law(s). The same is said for harassment. -the right to claim compensation if unfairly dismissed. -the right to claim redundancy pay if made redundant. -the right of a part-time worker to same contractual rights (pro rata) as a comparable full time worker. All of these are examples of employee protection, and not exploitation.
Is Capitalism an Inherently Exploitative System

Accepted. I'll begin by outlining the pros of capitalism, and why (I believe) that it is not an exploitative system. Benefits of Capitalism One significant pro of capitalism is the fact that economic freedom helps political freedom. If the government owns the means of production and set prices, it invariably leads to a powerful state and creates a large bureaucracy which extends into other large areas of life. Efficiency Firms in a capitalist based society face incentives to be efficient and produce goods which are in demand. These incentives create the pressures to cut costs and avoid waste. State owned firms have historically been known to be more inefficient, for example by being less willing to get rid of surplus workers and less incentives to try new innovative working practices. Economic Growth With firms and individuals facing incentives to be innovative and work hard this creates a climate of invention and economic expansion. This helps to increase real GDP and lead to improved living standards. Thus meaning that everyone can benefit from this increased wealth and there is an improved standard of living for the general population. Other Alternatives Have Failed One only has to study socialist/communist politics and economics to conclude that they are an inferior alternative. They have created less wealth (thus less opportunity and more poverty for the working class) and have resulted in oppressive, bureaucratic political systems. (1.) http://listverse.com... (2.) http://www.capitalismcenter.org...
Aisha was married at six years old.

This comes from a very credible source."Bukhari's collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet(pbuh)." [1]"Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). " [2]As you can see the source of my information is the Bukhari's collection. Which is recognized by the overwhelming majority of Muslims to be authentic. Thanks for the debate. Sources1. http://sahih-bukhari.com...2. http://www.usc.edu...
Aisha was married at six years old.

"'Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (May peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old." [0] I'm still not sure who she was married to, but seems pretty clear Aisha was married to someone at six years old. 0. http://hadithcollection.com...
In genrals zero hour tanks is better then nukes in almost everyway.

China Nuke General is the most balanced general in the whole Generals Zero Hour game. This has been proven. He has the fastest/strongest tank combination, and is even stronger when he has the propaganda center upgrades. His infantry, although not often used, are more affordable than tank general's infantry, especially in the case of the hacker ($625 for Nuke General, $725-800 for Tank General). Nuke General is Better More affordable infantry More affordable aircraft ($1400 MiG and $1600 Helix) (TANK gen: $1600 MiG and $2000 Helix) Most balanced faction in game = can use balanced attack groups to overwhelm More efficient tank forces Strong Artillery, veteran and cheaper The tank general also has no artillery, which, in combination of slow attack forces that are cumbersome and expensive resource-collection units and barely any aircraft to support shows that the nuke general could easily out maneuver tank general's forces. http://strategywiki.org... http://strategywiki.org...
In genrals zero hour tanks is better then nukes in almost everyway.

People Nuke can not use many people because his radiation. Also if nuke wants to use battelmastes he would have to most likely get the pgrade wich makes it so they don't exlode. Planes Ok I will say th truth tanks, his planes cost a ton, but nukes suck unless if he gets he upgrade wich he would need a nuke and the upgrade wich cot a lot.
In genrals zero hour tanks is better then nukes in almost everyway.

It is undeniable that nuke general has faster tanks. Especially at the beginning of the game, nuke general's tanks (battlemasters) are much faster than tank general's ones. Without a nuke, tank general has moderately strong tanks, but they are very slow, and are also cumbersome. Also, if you want to stronger tank general uprade and faster tank upgrade for tank general, you NEED a nuclear missle that costs $5000, plus $4500 for the two uprades - $9,500 total.For nuke general, to get the STRONG nuke MiGs you need the nuke (price is less for nuke general) and have a total of $6500 in those costs. However, the beginning of the game we know mainly shapes the game. If a general secures the early supplies, they are more likely to win. So, since nuke has fast tanks at the beginning of the game, and has much more flexible forces and most balanced forces in the game at this time of the game, Nuke general is more likely to gain more supplies and win. Also, "renewable" money sources such as hackers are much cheaper for nuke general, in fact $125 less for nuke general. This is critical cash.The rapid troop movements claim is false. Tank general has absolutely no fast units unless you count the MiG which is still $200 more expensive with tank general than with nuke general.The propaganda center does not take to long to get. You can get it in about 4 minutes after the game started if you secure enough supplies, and get the upgrade to prevent large splash damage to ally tanks. Plus, if you think it is unfeasible to get the propaganda center, you are also hurting tank general's firepower by a major amount by preventing him from getting critical upgrades.
In genrals zero hour tanks is better then nukes in almost everyway.

I do not agree with what my oppent said about More affordable aircraft ($1400 MiG and $1600 Helix) (TANK Gen: $1600 MiG and $2000 Helix) and More efficient tank forces I disagree because if you think about it nuke his planes suck with out the 'nuke mig' upgrade, and t get that you need to build a nuke- $5,000 and the upgrade. He has cheaper and more powerful tanks. Strategies involving reliance on heavy vehicle assaults and rapid troop movements are suited to General Kwai's forces. All tanks start at Veteran Level. Tanks cost less, but the construction time is unchanged Nukes tanks will cause a nuclear explosion when destroyed (at least until you get the isotope stability upgrade), causing serious damage to any nearby units. One tactic is to use to battlemasters as nuclear truck bombs by driving right up to enemy formations. Tank Drop Drop Battlemaster Tanks from a plane at any location on the map. Battlemaster Tank Training All Battlemaster tanks are built at Elite Veterancy. This replaces the Red Guard Training General Power.Sources: http://cnc.wikia.com... http://strategywiki.org... Thank you
you pick the topic.

you're so crazy! I know that beauty is more than skin deep, and in that department I think I'm alright. I have an amazing personality (call me conceted, but it's true), and I am liked by alot of people, I make friends easily, and I'm always there if someone needs help. But in the beauty department I can name at least 5 things wrong with me. But like you said last night, most girls don't think that they are pretty, and you have to look at the whole picture instead of picking out all the little flaws. Do I think that I am pretty? Sometimes. And then sometimes I look in the mirror and don't even want to walk out of the house. But I do have to say that when I'm around you, I can't help but feel beautiful. You tell me I am gorgeous without makeup, and that my smile is the most amazing thing that you have ever seen. With you I can go to Target in my pajamas and feel like the most beautiful person in the room. By myself, I don't think I'm as good looking as you say I am, but you are slowly changing my outlook on myself. I find that I am not so critical of myself, and I have you...my wonderful husband, to thank for that. I love you more than anything, and this is one of the many reasons why. Oh! And anyone who "doesn't think that we should be debating these matters here" can back off! This was just for fun, you know, for kicks and giggles? So any negative comments, please keep them to yourself. Thanks!
you pick the topic.

Okay the topic of this debate is that you are BEAUTFUL!!! ...no matter what you think! I have never met anyone with eyes like yours. You see, when I look into your eyes, I see everything about you. Your whole soul comes beaming out. Thats why they are so beautiful...because they are the embodiment of your soul. They just shine and sparkle...and i just melt. Then there is that beautiful smile that compliments your eyes so well. Its so big, so full, so genuine, so happy. There is not a person in the world who could not smile back at you... its incredible. When I see you smile, its like my heart is just bursting with warmth and incandescent happiness. Im certain that im not the only one who notices... Then there is the way you carry yourself. Your so sure of yourself. So comfortable with who you are. You are Angel and you want everyone to know it. You can tell just from looking at you that you are so caring...so selfless...so real. Thats why everyone loves you so much, especially me. There is a beauty that just emanates from you... its so contageous, soo indescribable! Ive never met a woman in my entire life who is anywhere close to as beautiful as you baby... ...never
Wrestling vs basketball

That was my acceptance round. I will now present my contentions EnduranceBasketball requires far more endurance than wrestling. It requires non stop movement up and down a court to finish the game. A general game lasts anywhere from 40 mins to 1 hour [1]. In addition the length of the court is 94 feet [1]. "In the 2012 season, the player that ran the farthest per game was Luol Deng of the Chicago Bulls, who averaged 2.72 miles per game. That's no where near the five mile myth, but considering how much of that is sprinting, it's still very impressive."[2]So when we compare this to normal players, probably an average starting roster runs around 2 - 3 miles again. When we put this in comparison with wrestling the amount of time the actual match lasts is nearly 1/4 probably less than that actually. A match can last only 2-3 mins sometimes compared to a match in basketball that can go on for up to an hour. Body TrainingBoth sports require a great amount of devotion and body training. Basketball players have to work out to keep there cardio and endurance up, along with doing a bunch of leg and chest workouts to help them sustain the length and pressure of the game. TechnicalThe ability to be good at basketball is much harder. It is something that takes copious amounts of practice. Where as wrestling depends directly on your individual strength. Basketball requires the same amount of strength in the gym, along with the ability to be able to shoot, dribble, and have excessive amounts of team work. The entire game is much more complex and lengthy than a wrestling match. ConclussionThe resolution is not upheld. [1] http://www.usab.com...[2] http://gizmodo.com...
Gay marriage should be legal nationwide in the US!!!

Gay marriage should be legal nationwide here in the United States. Having illegal marriage is discrimination. Everyone is equal. People should be allowed to marry anyone they want to. If straight people can marry who ever they want, then gays should be able to marry who ever they want. The reason why so many people don't want gay marriage legalized is because it is against God. People get offended when they see same sex couples for that reason. Truth is, if you don't like it then don't be near them. There is nothing wrong with being gay. There isnt proof of god anyways and If someone doesn't want to follow god's rules then they shouldn't have to. People have the freedom of any religion/belief they want. Many teens are gay and get bullied all the time and legalizing it across the nation will show teens that homosexuality is accepted in society and its okay to be gay. This is my honest opinion on why gay marriage should be legal nationwide.
The US should legalize drugs.

I suppose this was unfair. In any normal debate I'd expect my opponent to read the rules and then if transgressions are made, it is his/her own fault. However, as this was a continuation, it would be reasonable for fire_wings to have assumed all rules were the same so no need to re-read them. Therefore, I propose an augmented end to this debate. Fire_wings can make new rebuttals, but no new offensive arguments, in this last round. Rebuttals only. This will make the debate even in that we each had constructives and rebuttals only. From thererhe voters can decide the winner. I apologize, I should've called your attention to the new rule via PM or some other means.
The US should legalize drugs.

RulesYou know what? I don't care. If you just want to be lame, then do it. I didn't want the debate to be stuck in the forfeit glitch before, so I tried my best on my first argument. It even actually says "tejretics" in there, and no source, which clearly show I didn't have any time. And, my opponent said to me in the messages that he made the debate, and I could accept. I just skimmed his round 1, and never I saw rule 8. I wanted an actual debate here, with better arguments that my first one.I will let my opponent advance, and be bronze.
The US should legalize drugs.

This debate is the bronze medal match of Bsh1's individual debate tournament for his DDO Olympics. Congratulations to my opponent for making it so far in the tournament, he is an excellent debater and I look forward to the challenge.We previously started this debate but ran into an unforseen issue. As such, I have added rule #8.Full text of resolution: The USFG should legalize consumption of all drugs for recreational purposes.Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Constructive (No rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Case Defense/Closing ArgumentsDefinitions:USFG- United States Federal Governmentshould- compelled to do something as it is the best path of actionlegalize- to make legaldrugs- often illegal substance that can cause addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousnessrecreational purposes- essentially any reason Rules: 1. No new arguments in the final round.2. No kritiks of the resolution.3. No counterplans.4. No trolling.5. No semantics.6. No forfeits.7. BoP is shared, resolution must be looked at on balance.8. Pro (Me) must copy-paste rounds 2 & 3 from the previous debate. No new arguments are allowed to be made. Con (fire_wings) must do the same for round 2.If any of these rules are violated the offender loses the debate.fire_wings already accepted the rules and definitions of the debate in the previously started one. Therefore, no changes to rules or definitions may be made.Thank you and good luck, may the best debater win!
a responsible thing to do for the USA is to increase taxes

i applaud con for his willingness to engage the sacred cow of military spending. unfortuatebly too many republicans won't touch a penny of it. but let's see here. cut general governance in half, and cut the military in half, and we might be on to something. id estiamte that we are only balancing the budget though, not paying it back. but that could be a step in teh right direction of growing our way out of so much debt. cutting general governance in half though is unrealistic. cutting military in half is probably too. i give con mixed reviews but props for being willing to touch military spending.
a responsible thing to do for the USA is to increase taxes

Thanks for the challenge, I think this will be a good debate.Now I'm going to launch right into it. First of all, the figures presented in your opening arguments are innacurate, especially due to the fact that you are saying all of them are equal amounts.we spend about a fifth on healthcare, a fifth on defense, another on social security, another on interest, and the rest on general governance.Being that (according to you) we spend about 1/5 on each of the four you list, general governance is also a fifth. Now, in order to provide an accurate picture of our situation, I am going to provide the correct figures.The following are some to pie charts on the budget- http://thepoliticizer.com... https://www.nationalpriorities.org...Now first of all, the best plan is not for us take more money, its to stop spending so much of it. Now, obviously cutting only general governance in half isn't going to cut it. However, if we cut general governance, defense spending, ect. by alot, then, we will take a huge chunk out of our budget. I think that we should not only cut completely federal agencies such as the department of housing and the department of education, but cut majorly the other overblown areas of spending.On the subject of defense, it is the largest percent, coming in at more than half (57%) it is 16 billion dollars more than the next 14 countries combined. Now many who think we should either not cut the military or even advance military spending say things like "the suggested cuts will cut our military down to 'pre-World War II' levels.". This kind of argument however is not applicable because we now have better trained and better equipped soldiers than ever before. Not only does raising taxes hurt the everyday persons wallet, it hurts the economy as a whole. Whenever the government takes money, much of that money is not ever going back into the economy (many research funds, military spending, foreign aid, ect.) and that hurts our economy. Not to mention things such as funding for organizations that hurt the economy with more regulations.Thanks, and back to you Pro.
A severely Totalitarian leader/parent is a better person than a severely Libertarian one.

Libertarian leaders do not teach/counsel or anything. The entire concept of their leadership is to be a non-leader-like as possible and do as little as one possibly can.They will let you put your hand in thefire and burn and not want to ask for tax to give you healthcare to survive the burn. The Totalitarian leader will scare you to even dare putting your hand in fire in first place.I win,thanks and goodbye.