BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Left wing socialism is better than right wing extreme capitalism

"Steal from the rich and give to the poor, does more have to be said? " Yes. I would like you to justify the act of stealing from the rich. "It is no wonder Robin Hood is a hero, he's a socialist. " Robin Hood is known as a thief. Some may call him a hero, but that is completely subjective. When you come down to it, Robin Hood is a thief who broke the law. "Socialism is about equality. it stands against the rich poor divide created by the right wing Darwinian attitude. " Prove it. If you are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, but not likewise stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, then how does your ideal of "socialism" promote equality? Your idea of socialism involves harming one class in an attempt to benefit the other. That is not equality. "indeed Hitler was a socialist, and he creaated 0% unemployment. " I'd like you to prove that Hitler was a socialist. How did he create 0% unemployment? I think you have been misguided. "If he wasn't such a madman we would admire his post war efforts, but lets not forget that his madness has nothing to do with the 0% unemployment he created, that is attributed to socialism" Once again, you have really said nothing. I won't associate Hitler's "madness" with his social and economic policy. You haven't proven that Hitler created 0% unemployment, and even if you did, it wouldn't support the idea that Hitler is a socialist. One aspect of "socialism" that one follows does not make one a "socialist. " "Tax brakes to the rich while the U. S. A still has to pay for 3rd level education andmedical care. " I'd like for you to prove that the US had to pay for third level education and medical care. You can't make such a broad statement and expect us to believe you when you have provided no sources or support. "France is a primarily socialist country and they have free education and health care. " This doesn't do too much to your argument. You haven't proven that France is a socialist country, and you have provided me with nothing to affirm that France provides free education and health care. Besides, if what you quote is true, it just means that many of the French have to pay a lot more in taxes and receive a much lower income. This doesn't prove that socialism is better than capitalism. I just realized that this is only a one round debate. Nevertheless, my opponent's arguments are either illogical or unsubstantiated. I urge a Con vote. Thank you.
Left wing socialism is better than right wing extreme capitalism

Steal from the rich and give to the poor, does more have to be said? It is no wonder Robin Hood is a hero, he's a socialist. Socialism is about equality. it stands against the rich poor divide created by the right wing Darwinian attitude. indeed Hitler was a socialist, and he creaated 0% unemployment. If he wasn't such a madman we would admire his post war efforts, but lets not forget that his madness has nothing to do with the 0% unemployment he created, that is attributed to socialism. Lets examine the right wing George Bush. Tax brakes to the rich while the U.S.A still has to pay for 3rd level education andmedical care. France is a primarily socialist country and they have free education and health care.
Eric Cartman (Pro) is superior to Spongebob (Con)

Because the burden of proof is on my opponent, and he has not yet posted an argument, it is not necessary for me to make any arguments in order to win the debate. I will show 1 argument. SpongeBob is great because he has won many awards. This can be seen from the following clip: http://media.tumblr.com... Thank you, and I urge a Con vote.
Eric Cartman (Pro) is superior to Spongebob (Con)

I accept the challenge. Since my opponent did not provide a framework I will do so myself. Definition (from Webster's Dictionary): 1superior adjective su"pe"ri"or \suM5;-G2;pir-ē-ər: of high quality : high or higher in quality : great or greater in amount, number, or degree : better than other people I assume my opponent is referring to the television show characters and therefore any canonical episodes can be applied for evidence in the debate. The burden of proof will be on my opponent as the pro to prove that Eric Cartman is of a higher quality, a greater amount, or is better than SpongeBob. If I can prove that any of these things are untrue, then it would be true to say that, "SpongeBob is superior to Eric Cartman," and the resolution is false. Likewise, if I can prove that SpongeBob is equal to Eric Cartman, then the resolution is false and I should win. Good luck Debate_King1475 http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Juveniles Should Be Tried Like Adults For The Crimes They Commit

As you might have noticed, my opponent started with "TREAT 5 YEAR OLD CHILDREN AS ADULTS!", then he mellowed down to "NO, DON'T PUNISH 5 YEAR OLD CHILDREN, DO IT TO 13 YEAR OLD TEENAGERS INSTEAD!" and consequently "I HAVE A BETTER IDEA! DON'T TREAT TEENAGERS AS ADULTS, BUT DO SEND THEM TO COURT AND SHOW THEM AROUND!".Since my opponent refuses to stick with a particular idea, I can only interpret this situation as his attempt at humor.Thank you.
Juveniles Should Be Tried Like Adults For The Crimes They Commit

I request my opponent not to make acquisitions on my beliefs I do have a belief that when a teen commits a crime he/she might be doing it willingly or under peer pressure so it also leads to case of bullying and i also want to say that the child/teen should be given a punishment less than that of an adult but should be tried in court so the he/she understands the meaning of a crime and incorporate better idias into him/her self Thank You
Juveniles Should Be Tried Like Adults For The Crimes They Commit

My opponent claims that his "strong belief" should be enough of a motivation to upheave legislations based upon the judgement of countless individuals.His rationale?Because 13 year old children "think" they are adults, their status should automatically be raised to adulthood, perhaps "to teach them a lesson". This, I believe, is the moral justification that my opponent has taken pains to come up with.Thank you.
Juveniles Should Be Tried Like Adults For The Crimes They Commit

I Just want to clear with my opponent that 5 year old was an example and i meant to say was that when a child reaches 13 he/she party/drink alcohol,etc so they think they are the masters of their minds and that is why they do not listen to their parents and come under peer pressure and to cope up with that peer pressure they commit crimes such as forgery now that is grievous and I strongly think they should me punished for the grievous crimes they commit
Juveniles Should Be Tried Like Adults For The Crimes They Commit

I will not be debataing on the said subject just about now, rather, I will give a loose understanding that I have gathered from what my opponent is attempting to suggest. My opponent wants juveniles to be legally treated in the manner of adults- although, he only assers this statement with respect to crime, I will take the liberty of extending it to all legal matters such as contracts, agreements, bank accounts, what have you. Why? Well, it is only rational that since they have to bear the brunt of law enforcement for committing a crime, they should also be allowed to enjoy the privilidges of adulthood. Essentially, my opponent wants to lower the bar of legal adulthood from 18, to perhaps, 5. Now, how he decided that this age is the correct one is unfathomable to me, however I am willing to play along. In such a hypothetical world, we will have 5 year old children demanding employment, right to marriage, coitus and what not. I hope the absurdity of such a situation is apparent and therefore, I will digress. I wait for my opponent to at least make a sensible argument. Thank you.
Juveniles Should Be Tried Like Adults For The Crimes They Commit

Yes I think children should be treated the same as adults if the commit a crime because when a a country's constitution allots the rights to all its citizens then laws should also apply to the citizens of all ages. So If A 5 year old creates a crime then he/she should be treated in a court just like an adult so that those values can be incorporated into the child and he/she does not commit the crime again
Mitt Romney would be a better president (for the Republican Party) than John McCain.

Yeah sorry bout that my high school debate team has been prepping for states so ive been busy until now so don't vote me down please 1. Being endorsed by the New York slimes, what kind of an argument is that being endorsed by someone that is no reason why we should vote down mccain. 2. This second point like the first one has no merits in the debate we are trying to conclude 3a Amnesty is a value supported by some of our greatest presidents like Ronald regean who was a great republican president 3b At the point Guantanamo Bay hardly produces results it would be an idea to close the facility's 3c Republicans have endorsed global warming as real so I fail to see how this destroys McCain's credibility 4. For the economy McCain does support the Bush tax cuts i really don't know what your saying..... 5. Yeah they both would do well with the military but McCain would do better because of his experience and his family ties in the military 6. So for socially you basically concede that Romney has flip flop and that we should take his word that it wont happen again. If you can learn anything from life its that once people do something they do it again. McCain is the best Republican candidate
Mitt Romney would be a better president (for the Republican Party) than John McCain.

Somebody here please tell me that they watched the debate tonight in California. That 90 minute debate is all I need to prove that Romney would be a better president than McCain. -McCain was endorsed by The New York Slimes -McCain was very close to teaming up with John Kerry for the 2004 presidential election (as his VP) -McCain supports amnesty, closing Guantanomo Bay, and global warming hysteria.
Mitt Romney would be a better president (for the Republican Party) than John McCain.

John McCain was endorsed by the New York Slimes, which honestly should say enough about his "coservativism" (or lack there of.) Economy: I find it odd that Senator McCain was only one of two Republicans in the Senate to oppose the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 (his excuse was that there were no cuts in spending). But what do you know, here comes McCain pandering to the right and saying in the Florida debate that he would make the Bush tax cuts (the ones he voted against) permanent. Let's not forget that McCain himself has said that the economy is not a strong point in his arsenal and that he is rather green on the subject. The economy is one of the most important issues in the United States and Mitt Romney (aka business and economy guru) is far better suited to fix this volatile economy than Senator McCain. Militarily, Romney supported the invasion of Iraq from the start and has supported the surge since the beginning, along with Senator McCain. Romney has called for increased military spending to "at least 4% of the United States GDP" and wants to increase the size of the military by at least 100,000 troops. Both McCain and Romney would do great things militarily. Internationally, Romney believes we should expand our trade around the world, creating more jobs and surplus. He believes strongly in the free market and letting the traders decide rates and prices, not Washington. JOHN MCCAIN SUPPORTS AMNESTY. He teamed up with Ted Kennedy, an icon of the extreme left, to draft a bill giving illegals amnesty. What kind of conservative view is that? And how about his disastrous McCain-Feingold bill that was an attack on the First Amendment. His record is a disgrace to the conservative movement. Socially, Romney is a strong advocate of family values and conservative views regarding abortion and gay marriage. He has changed positions in the past, but if you listen to him speak, you can tell his is an authentic and genuine person when talking about his flip-flop on social issues. The bottom line is that I think he is a moral person and I can trust him. Again, this debate is about Mitt Romney being a better Republican (conservative) candidate than John McCain, not who can pander and get more votes in the national election.
Mitt Romney would be a better president (for the Republican Party) than John McCain.

Economy- John McCain will keep the tax cuts which is already benefiting most Americans. As well as simplifying the tax system to help every American finish taxes easier and with greater ease. Military- McCain has so much more experience in the military than Romney. He has the best plans for the future of the military. And finally his positions in the military like the new plans in Iraq, those were his original ideas. Internationally- McCain supports free trade which the US needs to bounce back from its recession. He has called for strong action to end genocide in Darfur which aside from Iraq is a major international issue. As for Iraq he supports it because we need to support the troops and not destroy our credibility. Socially- He is against abortion, which is the right position to take. And over all he has the best social policies. Other reasons- John McCain is the most honest politician and we need some one like that in todays society. Also he can spur the most diplomatic action amongst both parties. "He said that John McCain is a phony and not a real conservative. " John McCain does have his differences from the republican party but that is what makes him the best candidate for the job, he can gather even more votes and support than Romney. Vote McCain
You Do Not Exist

(A) Nothing more than tactile illusions (http://www.newscientist.com...). "You" believe you are being touched because you believe you exist and therefore as a pawn in the universe are granted the same falsehoods as all others including "touch" however you never actually touch anything (http://www.liveleak.com...) particularly because "You" are a collection of particles manipulated to produce a phenomena. (B) You do not "Think" but instead react (http://io9.com...) which means in essence that your belief that you think and function is false as you are just a phenomena produced and reacting as a phenomena should; "You" exist only in the sense of being a collection of atoms playing out what a collection of atoms would play out if they were in "Your" circumstances no different than an ice cube melting from being near a high temperature. As such you do not have complete thoughts and your functionality is nothing more than the prolonged standard reaction of such a phenomenon as you. (C) There is no reason to believe that a collection of atoms produces an "individual" versus a proposed standard for natural progression. Atoms exist. The Universe exists. All things contained of both exist. However the concept of a "Higher Brain" or "Sentience" do not exist, "You" do not exist, "You" are the natural progression of atoms in a deterministic universe; what "You" consider life is nothing more than just another standard phenomenon and all that "You" do is a deductive standard for the universe's progression.
You Do Not Exist

Your objective if you choose to accept is to reason that you exist. My objective if you choose to except is to reason that you do not exist. Rules: 1. You are allowed 3 points for your evidence of existence. (I.E., I exist because A, B, and C) and you may not add more points, you must stick to the points you choose. 2. You may use quotes and citations however you may not chop up paragraphs. If you choose to use a citation you must use the entire paragraph so that people do not have to factcheck your interpretation. It makes it easier for judging. If for some reason the paragraph is too long or the context is not clear you must at least incorporate four sentences so it's not a guessing game. Format: R1P: Your Opening Argument R2C: My Rebuttal R2P: Your Defense and/or Rebuttal R3C: My Rebuttal and Close R3P: Your Rebuttal and Close Yes, you get an extra round to lay the framework for your three points. This is intentional. This is for fun so don't get to frustrated if you take it on. :D
Their is no difference to the teletubbies and rick and morty

My opponent ignores the fact that the sun has visible teeth while the pictures of babies do not. My opponent also posts pictures of mature looking babies, but none of them look like the sun in the picture. My Opponent also states that the Teletubbies have a car which is like a portal gun. This however does not matter. My opponents claim was that there is no difference between Rick and Morty and Teletubbies. Because a portal gun is not a car, your claim is false, and argument invalid. Pleasure debating with you.
The Supreme Court Rightly Decided That Section 4 of the VRA Violated the Constitution

I would like to start by asking any voters to simply vote on oringinal plan and rebuttle, as we will not have a round for summaries. Now, my opponents first cotention states that Sec 4 of the VRA violates amenments 10, 14, and 15. First of all, Amendment 10 does not apply to this debate, as this amendment states that only powers not delegated to Congress are delegated to the people, and the reverse of this would also be true, being that powers delegated to Congress are not delegated to the people. But, by the 14th and 15th amendments, Congress is given power over states in terms of voting. Now, to explain why amendments 14 and 15 do not violate the constitution, Section 4 of the VRA makes it so that States must get preclearance from Congress before enacting any test or device pertaining to voting. The two previously stated amendments both back this up. My opponents second contention states that Section 4 promotes centralism and demotes federalism. I feel as though the collapse of our government due to riots is highly unlikely to result from the VRA. Also, I feel as though the term "communism" has been used improperly. According to Websters dictionary, communism is defined as a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property. Privatley owned property is not effected by the VRA, voting being the main subject of this act. All in all, I feel as though this contention is highly over exaggerated and mostly based on speculation. In the years Sec 4 was up, our government was not effected negatively.
The issue of Slavery was the main cause of the Civil War

Rebuttals "The south broke away because of state rights were being violated. Slavery was the main one but that's not the cause." Take note of two things : 1. My opponent conceeded that slavery was the main violation of states rights. 2. My opponent didn't find any other violation of states rights. "We went to war because because we were not going to let the south break away." This was a factor, but remember, the Confederacy fired the first shots, at Fort Sumter. Question to Redsoxfan010: Can you find any violation of states rights other than slavery? If not, then the ballot is more clearly Pro then you described it to be Con in Round 1. Arguments: Remember, the Confederates went to war with the Union, not visa versa. Their reason was because the Confederates felt their states rights would be violated on the SLAVE question, under Lincoln's administration. Sectional Divide between North and South was on the SLAVE question. There was already deep divide on the issue of slavery, the nation came close to civil war in 1850, and it was the Missouri Compromise of 1850 that united the nation until 1861. Slavery was an intense, emotional issue for most of the first half of the 19th century. Joseph Smith predicted the Civil War in the 1830's. It seems as if the nation was headed for a collision on slavery for most of the first half of the 19th century. Slavery was the main issue of the Civil War, partly because all of the other issues were caused by divide of slavery. My opponent tries to counter this with the "cause of the cause of the..." argument. What he doesn't seem to understand is that slavery was the common thread, just like addiction to oil is the main thread to problems including Energy, Environment, and Economy. My opponent seems to assert that it is more like those Russian Babushka dolls that open and have a replica inside of it.
The issue of Slavery was the main cause of the Civil War

First, The reason the North was so apt to fight against the south is because they broke away. Not because of slavery. The south broke away because of state rights were being violated. Slavery was the main one but thats not the cause. Its the cause of the cause of the cause. Even though abolitionists wanted slavery abolished thats not why we went to war. We went to war because we were not going to let the south break away.
The issue of Slavery was the main cause of the Civil War

"The problem with Pros arguments is that he forgets that slavery was the cause of the cause of the cause of the civil war. " The way my opponent tries to put it slavery was the cause of sectional divide which was the cause of states rights which was the cause of the civil war. Actually slavery was the cause of sectional divide, and states rights issues, at the same time, and the three combined caused states to suceede the Union, and then Abraham Lincoln's responsibility was to reunite the Union, thus causing the civil war. If the States hadn't suceeded, there wouldn't have been a war. The main cause of the sucession of southern states was slavery, because the issues of sectional divide, and states rights were interwoven with the issue of slavery, the question of slavery was the common thread of the other issues. It should also be noted that it was the Confederate South that fired the first shots of the civil war at Fort Sumter. They wanted the Union troops out of an American Naval base at Charrelstown. They fired for the reasons stated above. After they took Fort Sumter, fighting back was a necessary retaliation. So even if you were to say slavery was the reason the south suceeded, and the north tried to win the south by going to war you would be wrong. We went to war because of mainly because of slavery. "The reason the South left was because the restriction of state rights. One of them happened to be slavery. " ALL of them happened to be slavery. If there are any others, my opponent should put them in the next round, or if he can't some where in this debate. If redsoxfreak010 couldn't find another reason state rights are being violated, than I am not "exagerating" about slavery being the main cause. "We have to look at the fact that slavery was a major resource. " Exactly! Slavery was a major economic resource, unfourtunately, and when the Southern States felt this resource was being threatened, they protested their states rights by seceeding the Union. My opponent admitted it: "But that was the fuse that lit the states rights explosion. "
The issue of Slavery was the main cause of the Civil War

The problem with Pros arguments is that he forgets that slavery was the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the civil war. THe reason South left was because the restriction of state rights. One of them happened to be slavery. Slavery has been exagerated as the main cause of the civil war. We have to look at the fact that slavery was a major resource. I don't agree that is right at all. But that was the fuse that started the states rights explosion. For these reasons I can only see a negative ballot.