BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitalism VS. Communism

Companies' Outsource manufacturing for the right reasons as well. It gives companies to be able to focus and prioritize on the important activities rather than the back office operations that consumes resources at the expense of the core activities.By outsourcing ,the companies can use the expense on the foremost urgent tasks rather than the secondary .Another reason for outsources is to hire staff members outside their internal staff that possess knowledge and skills the internal staff may not possess.By doing that it also gives job opportunities for the people outside the companies to polish their skills and to earn income depending on the level of skills and education they possess. http://operationstech.about.com...
Capitalism VS. Communism

P1: There is progress without competition. P2: Because of capitalism, most companies manufacture their products outside of the U.S for cheap labor rather than paying workers here in the states. P3: According to Louis Ryan from Listverse.com, Ryan states, " in a society where resources are not distributed, there is always going to be wealthy who have an excess of resources". http://listverse.com... P4: That excess of resources could have been used for the poor who neither have shelter nor food. P5: Louis Ryan from listverse goes on to say that other disadvantages of Capitalism is that, people in a capitalistic society become anti-social, and cut safety and health restrictions to save money.
Capitalism VS. Communism

There is no progress without competition.Without competition,nations stagnate with no opportunities and growth.And to be equal without competition exist as an ideology but not in actuality.It can never be achieved due to the fundamental reason of survival of the fittest,where there will always be discrepancy,the strong and the weak.If equality was achieved then there wouldn't be any struggles or problems among people,it would be a nation of utopia.However,there is no utopia and that being said,communism holds the idea of equality yet can not practice it.Nations like North Korea where the government holds authority with more power and control over citizens and it's resources,already shows disparity and stagnant conditions the nation is in.
Capitalism VS. Communism

P1: Communism has the superiority and far more advantages than Capitalism. P2: According to Benefitof.net on Benefits of Communism, people are treated equal no matter what there occupation, or type of higher education that they have gained. http://benefitof.net... P3: Benefitof.net on Benefits of communism also states that every citizen in a communist regime, can keep a job. http://benefitof.net... P4: In Capitalism, everyone is treated differently by class and there are many who lose their jobs due to various reasons such as competition. P5: In Communism, there is no competition. This means that there is less of a daily struggle between people in society for jobs and raises, as all are equal.
Capitalism VS. Communism

The economic ideology of Capitalism and Communism are distinct from one another that it can never be joined.Out of the two ideologies,I believe that Capitalism has the superiority and has far more advantages over Communism due to the generated economic growth it has on its nations. Such as by means of production,communist nation such as North Korea, the society(government)as a whole has the ownership to its resources,meaning the nation does not have the capacity for individual growth that does not generate economic growth.Where else in capitalist nation such as United States, an individual has the rights to a private ownership to its resources,therefore has the capacity for individual growth that generates the nation to its economic growth.
Blacks are awesome. Nubs

Race does not exist; it is nothing more than a social construct that humans created in order to satisfy their selfish desires. According to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program, "DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other."Source: http://www.nowpublic.com...Professor Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences at Washington University continues, ""Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences," says Templeton. "Evolutionary history is the key to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so much on recent evolutionary history. I wanted to bring some objectivity to the topic. This very objective analysis shows the outcome is not even a close call: There's nothing even like a really distinct subdivision of humanity." Why is this important? My opponent makes the claim that a specific race is better than another race. However, if race does not exist, then clearly this is not possible because both of the two things that he is discussing are nonexistent. Neither can be objectively better than the other. This means that you can negate.
there should have ever been a goku vs superman debate in the first place or death battle

Superman and Goku are equal yes there should there power is easily matched up and its legendary. You can compare them and there is competition. There powers are able to go pass limits. Drath battle shows the skills the benifit of the death battle was 1. to let kids stop debating over who would win 2. Answer the question 3. Even tthough all is not correct there needs to be a death battle. Goku vs superman debate is really quite awsome with animations and list all the facts so you could learn something The debate showed who wins Your turn
there should have ever been a goku vs superman debate in the first place or death battle

Sorry for my forfeit My argument is basically simple and is just a paragraph ' It causes a big fight' If the commenters want to fight they could fight about it. it is not your choice to choose how people act during debates ' Its no contest There is a contest as you can see I can show you that Goku and Superman are both at the same level ' How does it trick kids??' If you want to voice your thought post a poll or opinion not acting like your worrying about others ' if those guys want to rant they can rant all they want it cannot change basically anything Your argument was dismantled and invalid and your just voicing opinion about what you think. And how do you know its not official? Wheres the proof My opponent fails and fails cant even refute right
Dark Souls vs. a game of your choice

1. Catherine WARNING EXPLICIT CONTENT! Catherine was originally released in Japan, but because of it's increased popularity, Atlas decided they wanted the game released in the U.S.A. In the summer of 2011, Catherine was released! (1) Atlas sold 200,000 copies in the first week! (2) Catherine is a deep game, that walks you through a man named Vincent hardest decision. Does he marry his long time girlfriend, or does he go with a blond he just woke up next to! In Catherine, your choices do matter! Your choices effect Vincent's thoughts, actions, and your overall ending! (3) In the game, you are brought to a puzzle based hell, where you have to scale a tower of blocks! While this may sound easy, it keeps getting tougher and tougher! Your choices are represented on a bar. After you complete a puzzle, you will be asked a question. The way you respond determines which way the bar will lean. (4) Overall, Catherine's diversity and overall uniqueness is better than dark souls. 1. http://catherinethegame.wikia.com...(game) 2. http://www.ign.com... 3. http://www.youtube.com... 4. http://www.youtube.com...
Dark Souls vs. a game of your choice

Hmmm okay. Well, as far as commerical success, Dark Souls was a breakout hit. It sold 1.9 million units in North America and Europe. This was surprising, considering that From Software is quite the niche company, and the fact that a hardcore JRPG is sol popular among westerners proves its' success. The graphics, quite honestly can be very impressive, and very faulty. In areas like Royal Wood, the graphics are fantasic, with great lighting. In areas like Blighttown, the graphics may look dark, but the framerate takes a massive hit. In enviroment, there is no denying that dark souls excels in many areas. The areas are rich and detailed, and it is quite refreshing to see a snowy mountaintop and a swamp, a church and a magma filled wasteland. In gameplay... ah, here we go. The game is known for fantasic, difficult gameplay. The gameplay features weapons with their own distinct moveset. The combat breaks from traditional RPGs, because instead of a 1 button basic attack and a group of special abilities, their is normal comboes, combined with strong attacks that really seperate the weapons from each other. Thank you for debating. I will now accept new arguments and rebuttals. http://www.ign.com... http://darksouls.wiki.fextralife.com... http://blogs.mercurynews.com...
Dark Souls vs. a game of your choice

Again, a lot of your arguments stem from opinion. "It is both anime and regular graphics!" Please define 'regular'. "Voice acting is fantastic!" Again, it's an opinion. Now if you gave me reviews or other peoples opinions, that would be okay. "High replay value!" An opinion. And yet, you still haven't argued against Dark Souls. The reviews on Catherine range from fantastic to downright awful, but average scores are in the 7 or 8 range. Metcritic says that Catherine gets a 79/100 on PS3. Dark Souls reviews, however, are fantastic. I haven't seen an official score under 9. If you don't believe me, check Dark Souls wikipedia page. Metacritic gave it an 89/100. GameSpot gave it a 9.5 out of 10. The great scores go on. I look forward to rebuttals. No new arguments may be added. http://www.giantbomb.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...(video_game)#Sales http://en.wikipedia.org...
Dark Souls vs. a game of your choice

Pros for Catherine: It is not only a choice game, but also a puzzle game! You need to earn your way through the game! Your choices matter! It determines who lives and dies, and your ending! High replay value! Many save points! It is both anime and regular graphics! Voice acting is fantastic! Many different endings! Here are all of the endings! http://www.youtube.com... These are just some of the pro's of Catherine Cons: Well, maybe rage quit if you put the difficulty too high. Those are the pro's and cons of Catherine. Thank you for reading.
Dark Souls vs. a game of your choice

The problem with your arguments is that they are mostly opinion based. Not to mention, 200,000 copies doesn't hold a candle to 1.9 million. Catherine ended up selling about 500,000 copies by the end of 2011, while Dark Souls sold about 900,500 by the end of 2011. This is funny, considering Catherine came out many months before Dark Souls. Catherine came in late July, Dark Souls came out in mid October. A major issue with your arguments is that you aren't even telling me pros and cons. You're telling me about the gameplay and expecting me to go "wow! What a great game!" I await further arguments and rebuttals. http://www.ign.com...
From a debate judging standpoint, LM should win the "Cousins and beer nuts" debate.

Good day to you, kenicks. Let us begin. Neglecting the fact that mynameisjonas never took the postion CON is making, his reasoning is still flawed. My opponent argues that we should value the short term before the long term. However, taking this alone into consideration, his case falls apart. Simply because if we value the long term over the short term, most of our species can have the benefits he brought up for potentially an astronomical amount of years (before our species is wiped out by something we cannot control) rather than merely having those benefits for another century or two (CON doesn't point out any error in the reasoning concerning the realism of overpopulation, thus it ought to be considered conceded to). I believe this addresses CON's case. Furthermore, my opponent makes a mistake similar to mynameisjonas in that he is directly associating cousins and bear nuts as being what causes happiness, however, this is a fallacious conclusion as not only are cousins and bear nuts not often the cause of happiness, but often serve to bring about the opposite of happiness. Heck, mynameisjonas even went so far as to assocaite cousins and bear nuts with death (which leads me to my next point). Second, I must regretfully inform you that my opponent's case contradicts that of mynameisjonas. As you can see in his R2 response, he advocates the cousins and bear nuts are better than death since they cause it. This has nothing to do with having a good time as my opponent is suggesting. Third, I never state my case is superior without backing up such a notion.My reasons for winning are shown here: "At any rate, my opponent concedes to the benefits which I insinuated as being linked to death in round 1. This is shown in that he did not address my analysis and that he attempted to suggest that cousins and beer nuts were superior since they could produce a quick and painless deaths. In round one, he advocated that the evil of death itself was what made bear nuts and cousins superior to colon cancer. Clearly, he conceded to his own argument being faulty. Nevertheless, his new argument is faulty as well (as I've shown above)." . . . and here: "My opponent has forfeited his round. Therefore, you can extend all of my arguments made in the previous round. Since the pro has raised no objections to my arguments, the contender automatically wins this debate. Thus, I urge the audience to vote on my case for these very reasons (and for no reasons that concern personal opinion towards the topic)." Fourth, we must consider that my opponent forfeited his final round, thus essentially raised no objection to my arguments. For these reasons, it is quite clear that LM (Logical-Master) won the "Cousins and Bear nuts" debate from a judging standpoint. Back to you, kenicks.
From a debate judging standpoint, LM should win the "Cousins and beer nuts" debate.

Logical-Master, It gives me great pleasure to accept this difficult debate. It clearly will be hard for me to support an argument of such odd stature, but I am up for the challenge. I also enjoyed debating you in our "High School Musical" debate, showing that you are a worthy opponent. I will now begin my opening argument. The topic of this argument is that the concept of "Cousins" and "Beer nuts" are "Better" than "colon cancer". mynameisjonas illustrated that his concept was true in the sense that partying with your cousins and eating beer nuts was "better" than colon cancer, and viewed the disease of colon cancer as a negative concept. In your opening argument, you exploited the positives of colon cancer to the reader, showing that fatalities caused by colon cancer keeps the population in check. However, after the chart you displayed, you made the claim that "Since Colon Cancer is beneficial to keeping the population in check, it's good (gotta love Utilitarianism during these debates :D ) outweighs the good which my opponent brought up in his opening argument." In layman's terms, you claim that keeping the overall population in a figurative homeostasis is better than creating memories and experiencing elation with one's relatives. But is it? One can argue this claim, in the views of long-term vs. short-term. While in the long run, keeping the population at a reasonable amount benefits others, in the short run, having fun outweights any situation around one. Let's say you're in an ice cream parlor with a group of friends, sharing stories and slurping frappes. I'd bet my soul you're not thinking about global warming right then and there. No, you're much too preoccupied hanging out, relaxing, and getting to know each other better. Now, eventually dies. Everyone takes their part in keeping the population in check. It's inevitable. Making happy memories is something one must go out and do on their own, and once they've made them, they have them for the rest of their life. Lamenting over death wont prevent you from dying, and lamenting over a lack of friends wont raise your social status. The only difference is that you can change the latter, and your efforts to change that will provide you with a special skid mark in the road of life after you die. Everyone dies, but not everyone has happy memories. In a battle of importance, the commonness of death vs. the less common, effort-necessary concept of having friends gives edge to the latter in its uniqueness, therefore it is better. Since you simply stated that your side was superior, I believe that you do not have enough evidence to prove that point, and that your debate is incomplete. Therefore, LM should not win. I await your rebuttal.
From a debate judging standpoint, LM should win the "Cousins and beer nuts" debate.

Here is the debate: http://www.debate.org... LM is none other than me, Logical-Master. I challenge someone here to show me why my opponent should win this debate. Offer me reasons and I will rebut them either by showing that mynameisjonas didn't say the points you put forward or by showing why your analysis is contrary to ethical debate principles. (Or any other option I can think of.) I stand in firm affirmation that I should win that debate.
From a debate judging standpoint, LM should win the "Cousins and beer nuts" debate.

Logical-Master, Your statement that I and trying to defend what cannot be defended is a bold statement. While it is true that the argument I support in this debate, given by mynameisjonas, is a difficult one to defend indeed. However, in a last-ditch effort, I seem to have found a loophole in your arguments. I have looked over the previous 2.5 rounds to find that you use the term "bear nuts" in your supporting arguments. Thirteen times, as a matter of fact. Now, as we can all see, "bear nuts" are quite different from their companion "beer nuts", a term you only use in your supporting arguments once. You even state in the closing sentence of your second round argument that "For these reasons, it is quite clear that LM (Logical-Master) won the "Cousins and Bear nuts" debate from a judging standpoint." However, the topic of the debate was one of "Cousins and BEER nuts", rather than "Cousins and BEAR nuts". While some of you may scoff, stating that it is a mere typo, let me point out the difference the spelling of a word can make. Let's say a debate is held with the topic "Baking a Cake", with the instigator taking the Pro view. He illustrates the benefits of baking a cake, the joys of eating it when the final product is taken out of the oven, etc. The contender takes the Con view, but replaces the "B" in his argument with a "T", and he debates the negatives standpoint of "Taking a Cake", and how it is bad to steal one from a neighbor's window. As the contender has strayed from the topic, he should theoretically lose the argument. Even in the actual "Cousins and Beer nuts" debate, LM said "bear nuts" four times in his essentially closing second round argument, to the one time he said BEER nuts. As you have strayed from the topic of "Beer nuts" and detailed the negative views of "Bear nuts" he should lose the debate. Thank you.
From a debate judging standpoint, LM should win the "Cousins and beer nuts" debate.

Logical-Master, Based on the fact that I am tight on time and on the verge of exhaustion, I will attempt to make my case in this argument clear, and expand on it in the following. "At any rate, my opponent concedes to the benefits which I insinuated as being linked to death in round 1. This is shown in that he did not address my analysis and that he attempted to suggest that cousins and beer nuts were superior since they could produce a quick and painless deaths. In round one, he advocated that the evil of death itself was what made bear nuts and cousins superior to colon cancer. Clearly, he conceded to his own argument being faulty. Nevertheless, his new argument is faulty as well (as I've shown above)." Not necessarily. mynameisjonas opened this debate with the thesis that "cousins" and "beer nuts" were better than "colon cancer". You brought up the theory that death actually proved to be superior in that situation, and that his thesis was wrong. mynameisjonas responds to your argument with the thesis that while cousins and beer nuts can be an untimely cause of death, their methods of extermination are ones quicker and more painless than the methods of colon cancer. This statement, although it relates to the dark subject of death, illustrates that the methods of death caused by colon cancer are worse than the methods of death caused by cousins and beer nuts. Therefore, he still rebuts the fact that "cousins and beer nuts are better than colon cancer". You state that he "conceded tohis own argument being faulty" where he was simply rebutting a point rather than falling victim to your previous argument. ""My opponent has forfeited his round. Therefore, you can extend all of my arguments made in the previous round. Since the pro has raised no objections to my arguments, the contender automatically wins this debate. Thus, I urge the audience to vote on my case for these very reasons (and for no reasons that concern personal opinion towards the topic)." This was your closing argument of the debate, responding to mynameisjonas' forfeit. Although mynameisjonas' closing argument was an empty one, yours was empty as well, for you only urged the voters to vote for CON over PRO. You did nothing to tie up the debate by restating your objectives, therefore, your closing argument was just as faulty as the instigator's. Therefore, you should not win the debate. Onto you, LM.
Hitler IS not a criminal

Rebuttals & Defensea) Progressive Consumption TaxPro has *DROPPED* all my arguments against a progressive consumption tax. I extend all my arguments from the previous round, thus if voters assume Rule 8, I win the debate. b) Is Hitler Criminal? This contradicts the definition of the adjective "criminal", which means "relating to crime", which was the definition provided by Pro. Therefore, if I can show that Hitler is even *related* to crime, I win the debate. Pro concedes that Hitler was a criminal, and, therefore, Hitler is criminal for being related to crime. Since Hitler *did* commit "illegal activity", Hitler IS criminal. == Conclusion ==As seen, I have negated *both* possible resolutions, while Pro has dropped one entire possible resolution. The resolution is resoundingly negated.
Hitler IS not a criminal

Now the definition of a criminal is criminal adjective crim"i"nal \G2;kri-mə-nəl, G2;krim-nəl : involving illegal activity : relating to crime Everything Adolf Hitler did was purely legal, so technically he is not a criminal. Even though he killed 6 million people. (If you consider jews as people) He was not involved in criminal activity. So he is not a criminal. done.