BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitalism benefits an economy

I will give my point of view and remark on my opponents claims. ==Against Capitalism== One problem I have with capitalism is that it promotes marketing yourself (or your product), which promotes consumerism, which promotes the sense of "I need it" entitlement that is prevalent in western society, which degrades living in balance with the natural world. Capitalism is a great system, very crafty and clever. However, people in power tend to abuse their power in almost every situation imaginable. There is no market mechanism to make sure that things like Enron don't happen, there is no market mechanism to stop factories from blatently polluting entire cities. Capitalism is a philosophy, and like all philosophies, it isn't perfect, so you need to mix it in with other things to make it really work. In short, PURE capitalism promotes greed at all costs. Who cares if you destroy the environment, make people work 15 hour days w/ no benefits, or pay workers 15 cents an hour as long as you make $1 more in profits right? ? There are serious flaws with unrestricted capitalism. So who should control this Humanity aspect? The corporations? The fact is they cant! Not because they "cant" but becuase they wont, Money drives the bottom line, not Humanity. If you dont have a frame work in place internationaly that stops expolitation then buisness will expolit, its simple really. This is a problem with Capitalism. I also beleive that with Captilalism consumer choice is not as great, because with this market structure you end up with a Monopoly (in the long run) and a oligopoly in the short term. Look at the IT Sector and you will see this happening already. What do you want Goverment or Big buisness? This leads to a selffisn nature as less are concerned about thier nation and more about themselves. Why should they? They can move out of thier country and move into a country more stable for them leaving thier country in ruin. ==Rebuttal== My oppoent himself admits to there being major flaws in capitalism. It is true that if you are not prepared with a plan then you can be destroyed in the capitalisits world. My oppoenet then claimed that your are able to pick yourself back you after you fall, can you not do this in many other systems? Can you not build a strong life in many other systems? There is age-old saying,"It takes money to make money. " This saying is part of the capitalist world. This is proof that you need money to suceed in the capitalist world. To Close I say thanks to my opponent and await is next round.
Capitalism benefits an economy

This is my first debate on this site and I hope I can do well on it. First off, I'd like to give the basic definitions of both Capitalism and Socialism to prevent any bias and have the two of us start on an equal ground. Capitalism is defined as an economic system which consists of private property and private ownership over the means of production and distribution of goods and resources, voluntary exchange by individuals, and the prohibition of force, fraud or coercion. Socialism is as an economic system which consists of public (or government) or common ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and resources and the prohibition of force, fraud, or coercion. I'm for a Capitalist-dominated mixed economy. Now I feel inclined to admit that Capitalism has a massive flaw in its overall plan where if you make one mistakes you could end up ruining yourself ten-fold. Yet Capitalism is probably the only, if not one of the very few, economic system where you are able to pick yourself back up, so to speak. There have been many instances where a person has joined the ranks of the jobless and homeless and used available opportunities and abilities to build their lives together, even more so than it was before. People who are generally opposed to Capitalism usually claim that the rich are the real ones in charge, that they make all the decisions. But as someone who sees the pro in Capitalism, I have to deny that claim. In my eyes it's the people who are in charge because they control the money flow of a business (i. e. if a number of people simply stop supporting a corporation, that corporation could see a potential downfall without the customer buying their product. The loss of money eventually leads to the end of big business. Easy as that! ). Now how does this all tie in with the economic benefits of Capitalism? Well if you look in the past, Capitalism has benefited a number of countries like the United States. We may have a large deficit, but we have the largest economy in the world and the U. S. Dollar still holds top spot among other currencies in other nations, and its been that way since the 1920s. Capitalism provides free, fair competition between businesses -- both big and small -- which in turn can benefit society because the people can look towards better and more efficient products; lower prices; and better deals that come with such promotions as sales. The money that goes to manufacturing firms which make these products can be used to build more Manufacturing jobs in a country and in turn, not only reduce the rate of unemployment, but also expand the tax base so a government can be able to pay for benefits like Social Security and Medicare. And jobs will always because of that.
Capitalism benefits an economy

Thanks to my opponent! Now I will just go over the discussion a little. Capitalism for its unequal flow of wealth, creates a serious decreases in the quality of life for those who doesn't have a equal flow of wealth. All nations that have been introduced to Capitalism has seen an increased growth in quality of life but also a long run collapse which is happening today. With all the competition seen in a Capitalist society, you need to be known in order to actually get people to buy what you have to offer which makes it harder on the less fortunate and even harder on the middle class because they must provide for both. My opponent mentions nations like China and India, two nations that have already begun implenting Capitalism in their lives, but as he says they are beginning as we once did. As us they will ride high for a period and then collapse because Capitalism is hurtful to a society in the long run. My opponent also talked about being able to learn as much as possible but seem's not to though considering he is supporting a proven failed system. I doubt that the United States will actually see Capitalism suceed ever again in the future. As I see it much of the economy is currently controlled of the private owners, and this has effectively turned America into a kleptocracy. I think I have shown that though signs show that capitialism provides benefit to society it hurts it in the long-run. It should not be implemented. I thank Patriot again!
Capitalism benefits an economy

Off-note: I'm liking this debate. It's actually a great way for me to help kick-start my life as an political/social activist and I thank my opponent for this opportunity. Now, let's see how I can counter his statements. I see my opponents statement about their needing to be a mechanism to make sure things don't go haywire, but in my first round, I said I was for a Capitalist-dominated mixed economy where Capitalism has more of a voice in society but not enough to actually call it PURE CAPITALISM (which is just a form of Anarchy, right?). The government's role in such an economy is to be an innovator and provide a framework where monopolies are prevented to preserve the nature of competition that is predominant in Capitalism but also still keeping the system intact. Too much government restriction, on the other hand, ends up being a horrible outcome because they become more and more corrupt through kleptocracy. Remember the worst ten words a single person can say: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." (In my honest opinion, I can't actually consider PURE CAPITALISM to be the actual Capitalism that we all know because since the rich ultimately control everything, so has to be considered a type of Corporatist plutocracy. There's no real economic freedom, and no real political freedom, and no real social freedom, and no competition; all four of which are seen in the old-style - 20th Century - Western Capitalism. Maybe I should've rephrased the topic more before we started. Shame on me.) Anyway, I would like to go back to my opponent's previous statement: "It takes money to make money". Necessarily this is true to some aspect but that is not all you need to succeed in the Capitalist world. You are hired based on your skill and education in the field you're hired at, regardless of your social status. You coould be down-right poor and living on the streets with nowhere to go, and someone could still offer you a well-paying job, as seen with Mr. Chris Gardner and detailed in his memoir, the Pursuit of Happyness. After all, no business hires someone who ends up making the place worse off than it started. To close, I say that I have to idea how to end things and I await my opponent's next argument.
human right concept is a fallacy

The rules are in place to make sure nobody decides to go on a murder spree and gets away with it. I'm guessing you're just a teen who got in trouble with the law for doing something and is being prissy about it. Area 51 is a goverment base, just like the Pentagon. You can't walk into the Pentagon without permissions, right? Same goes for Area 51. The only difference is theory idiots claiming there's aliens there. And yes, I do.
human right concept is a fallacy

Like I've said it in my last lines , the only right granted to the society is the irony of living under the rules . Anybody going against the system is quickly arrested or called the "enemy of the society". Let take the example of those places in our societies that the government didn't allow us to step : zone 51 in USA , Prypiat city in Ukrain and so many places if you as a citizen decide to experience on the sites , might be eliminated or in-jail. I hope that you know what human right concept is in and out?
human right concept is a fallacy

The corruption of the world system is blatantly obvious in the idea of 'human rights'.The question is this: Allowed by whom ? Who is it that grants these 'rights' ? From whence comes the permission ? Whom is the giver ? The answer is obvious; the state, the corrupted system which has been fabricated by irrational man.The masses are being told that they have a 'right' to: shelter, food, medical aid, water, free speech, education, transport, information, shop, property, walk, ride a bicycle, smile ....... etc. 'Rights' are now allocated to: children, parents, animals, prisoners, producers, consumers, homeowners, street people, criminals, drivers, pedestrians, companies, employers, employees, men, women, families, smokers, drinkers, fanatics ....., etc. It is astonishing that natural man is so gullible that he accepts all this nonsense without question. The concept of 'rights', can be classified as Orwellian, despotic. The key element in this kind of discourse is control. 'Rights' and 'duties' go hand in hand. For every 'right' there is a 'duty'. The 'duty' is now called a 'responsibility'. The 'duty' is to be a 'good' citizen, to conform to that which is dictated. ' Human rights ' are concessions 'granted' by the state, to those whom conform to the system. Those who do not conform to the system, lose their 'rights' in the twinkling of an eye. They become enemies of the state, criminals. This is why the Son of man was crucified more than two thousand years ago. However they did not count on him being resurrected, nor did they count on him returning some day. They do not know that they will now be held accountable. I give the example of the Ethnicity case , there are many tribal societies where one group is excluded. In Rwanda you have the Hutus and the Tutsis.
Stephen Hawking is intelligent

If you wanted an intelligent debate you should have gone for at least 3 rounds, I would've chosen 5 rounds though. First thing is first, 160 may be genius, but it is far from the title "super-genius," Nikola Tesla's IQ was 200+, further supporting the fact that Nikola Tesla was smarter than Steven Hawking. Furthermore, Steven Hawking theories cannot be proven, if you were to ask him how he proved his theories, he would say "mathematically," the more you think about it the less it makes sense. Nikola Tesla has a quote about this: "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." It would be like if a group of anthropologists went out to Mexico to find out where the Mayans went, then one of the anthropologists goes up to a chalk board, writes up some complicated equation then says "That's it! They've all moved to Atlantis!" So his fellow anthropologists say " Did that guy pass the 3rd grade? Doesn't he know that the scientific process is 'Question, research, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion,' not 'question, equation, conclusion?' Maybe we should not have brought him on this expedition with us." Say that guy goes into the Washington Post and tries to get his "theory" published, what do you think they are going to do? Take him seriously, or say "this guy's nuts, call security." Finally, Seven Hawking's most impressive achievement was the discovery of Hawking radiation from black holes, how did he prove this? Nikola Tesla proved his theories, Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity, that can be proven, in fact it was, by Tesla himself. He didn't just scribble on a chalk board, he developed this theory by countless years of experiment that finally led him to this theory. Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity has its basis in hard science, repetitive experiment, and the consistency of his experiments yealding this solid conclusion. Let's assume for a second that Steven Hawking DID prove his theory of Hawking radiation from black holes, Nikola Tesla still out did anything Steven Hawking could do over 100 lifetimes, take a look at Nikola Tesla's achievements to science and technology: 1). Wireless communication. 2). Wireless electricity 3). AC current 4). The particle beam 5). Florescent Lighting 6). Tesla Coil 7). Induction motor 8). Three phase electric power 9). Remote Control 10). Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity 11). Many Many more, for a more extensive list of Nikola Tesla's 600 inventions, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Stephen Hawking is intelligent

I can't message you, so I would like to point out that despite what your angry profile desc says, Hawking isn't an idiot. He has an IQ of 160 (average is between 90-110 generally) , has a Bachelors degree (Honours) from Oxford University and a PhD from Cambridge University. He has also wrote a book and made ground breaking discoveries (Hawking radiation being of the most interest to me). If an idiot can do all that....Why can't you? You can accept this for the easy win if you want, I just wanted to call you out on your bull.
there are circumstances where the use of nuclear weapons is acceptable

Sorry you didnt deny my circumtance if god was real a asked this from us for what ever reason it would be appropiate to use the nuke.And god works in misterius ways.Okay here's the real reason why it's invalid: because this was supposed to be about circumstances where nuclear weapons being used as WEAPONS are acceptable but that is not a use as a weapon. Therefore you used the irrelevant conclusion fallacy.CONCLUSIONThis was meant to be a debate about realistic scenarios where nuclear weapons being used as weapons is acceptable. All pro has done is provide unrealistic scenarios and some where the nuclear weapon isn't being used as a weapon. Therefore pro has not given a valid circumstance/scenario.
there are circumstances where the use of nuclear weapons is acceptable

Scenario: Alien war no pity we survive or them bombing there ship with nukes is a good response . We wouldn't have to deal with radiation.However; if there is some other alien planet near there, because of space being a vacuum all the radiation and waste products would move away unimpeded at relativistic speeds. So any planet within a few light years would be irradiated.Scenario: Nuclear weapon attached to a comet 1000 light years away not a single living speacis around blowing the comet up for the sake of science .Nuclear weapon is supposed to mean it being used as a weapon, so this scenario isn't applicable.Scenario the humans grows imune the radiation , fire and other things that make the explosion harmless to humans .NOTHING can survive the heat of a nuclear explosion; not even diamond.Lets make it even better human need radiation to survive in this scenario.There are other ways to get radiation without annihilating everything within 30 km.
there are circumstances where the use of nuclear weapons is acceptable

Scenario: Alien war no pity we survive or them bombing there ship with nukes is a good response . We wouldn't have to deal with radiation. Scenario: Nuclear weapon attached to a comet 1000 light years away not a single living speacis around blowing the comet up for the sake of science . Scenario the humans grows imune the radiation , fire and other things that make the explosion harmless to humans . Lets make it even better human need radiation to survive in this scenario. This are circumstances were the use of a nuclear weapon would be justified.
Poetry Contest

Thank you for accepting my challenge, and what a wonderful poem. My next poem is a sonnet: What we cannot achieve, we strive for: A car, a home, luxurious items to display We constantly wish for more, To pretend we live the rich way. But why must we live in illusion, Of what we cannot achieve To only deprive us of our fun Lost in our own ridiculous belief. But when we dream as big as we must Sometimes we can overcome And look at the important things past lust: Our family, friends, and our love. Because without them there is no ecstasy Just trapped in our own fantasy.
Poetry Contest

I am starting a poetry contest against anyone who wishes to challenge me. The poems can be in any style and topic. The poems must be original and can only be up to 1,000 characters. I will leave my opponent with this: The one who Cowards Is the one who Fails The person who Complains Is the person who Trails The man who Destroys Is the man who Dies But the soul that Embraces Is the soul that Thrives
a pregnant woman shouldn't always have the right to an abortion

con asks me to explain the basis for the infants rights. basic reason. is it a baby two seconds outside of the womb with rights? then it is a baby inside of the womb with rights. also, you didn't respond to the analogy, which is also based on reason. someone causes an accident and we cannot separate the victim and the wrong doer. no one would think it's okay for the wrong doer to kill the victim, yet that's what con is suggesting. and, the assumption of risk point which you have not addressed also gives basis for infant rights. on the assumption of risk point, it's a philosophical debate. that means all the evidence i need is based on logic. you have not and cannot cogently respond to it, cause your position defies logic. please see previous posts for a more detailed argument about it. the only point in the smoker analogy is to say how your point about rights is ridiculous itself. you say that the infants rights cannot trump the mothers sometimes cause everyone has the same rights. this is just quibbling about what it means to have rights, and missing the points, and the smoker analogy showed that. plus according to your logic if they have equal rights, that doesn't mean the woman can kill it given the consideration mentioned. the only thing i mentioned about prematue births is that i didn't understand what you meant. people usually dont call pregnancies 'terminated' if they are pre mature births. they call abortions terminations of pregnancy. of course i dont view c sections and having the baby as immoral. con does add the non sequeter of " And having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean the child dies. " by definition, an abortion necessarily means the child dies. that's what an abortion is. i dont have to provide specific dates for when it is too late to have an abortion. my only contention is that sometimes the woman shouldn't be able to abort. many other debaters understand this and debate against me, even as extreme as most people view it. these are the people i'm looking for. the burden is on you then, to show that her rights to abort at all points are absolute. you haven't conceded that a woman should be able to abort a week before her due date, just because she wants to, and not for a commonly thought of exception. is that because you've agreed with me all along and didnt have a clear reason why you took this debate as is the case with most who take this debate? or do you agree she should have that right, and if so, how do you make a meaningful distinction especially given the anaology and simple logic that the baby is still a baby regardless of if it is in the womb or outside the womb?
a pregnant woman shouldn't always have the right to an abortion

It is clear that Pro does not understand they have the burden of proof for this debate. Case and point, Pro begins by asking about the rights of the infant but then never addresses those rights. Pro is committing the formal logical fallacy of Begging the Question. If Pro believes the infant has some rights that are being trespassed upon then Pro needs to address exactly what those rights are and how they are being trespassed upon. Simply asking "what about the infant's rights?" is not a premise for an argument. So I will begin my second round by throwing the question right back at them: what about the infant's rights? Pro then tries to compare terminating a pregnancy with smoking in a public place. This is a ridiculous comparison. A smoker can remove them self to a private setting where they can smoke - a pregnant woman can NOT remove herself to a private setting where she can stop being pregnant. Second hand smoke causes health risks to the public - terminating a pregnancy does NOT cause health risks to the public. To the contrary, studies have consistently shown that when women have abortion rights there is a reduction in infanticide, teen age drug use, teen age arrest rates, and teen age childbearing. However, the biggest problem with this ridiculous comparison is it in no way address early pregnancy terminations vs. later terminations. If Pros comparison were valid (which its not) it would invalidate ALL abortions. Most annoying of all, Pro once again assets that mothers "assume risk." As I already addressed this in the previous round I will simply quote the late Christopher Hitchens: "Anything that can be asserted without evidence . . . can be dismissed without evidence." Burden of proof is on Pro. And just when I thought Pro couldn't get any more ridiculous they start arguing against premature births. Clearly Pro doesn't understand that many woman schedule C sections (which is termination of the pregnancy) before their due dates for either health or convenience factors. Terminating a pregnancy a week before a woman's due date isn't some absurd hypothetical. Its a reality that happens every single day. And having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean the child dies. Once again, after the 20 week mark the child can usually be removed from the mothers womb and continue living on assisted support. Is Pro against all C sections? Pro has failed every single burden of proof. They have not defined when it is too late to have an abortion and what the difference is. They have not shown that the mother has a reasonable expectation to continue with a pregnancy beyond a certain point. And they have not shown that an infants rights should trump the mothers rights. This is hardly a debate. Pro has not cited a single statistic nor scientific fact to support their position. It is all conjecture and their personal opinion.