BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communists should be considered criminals just as neo-nazis

Hello again,I'd like to point out that my primary assertion (Communists should be considered criminals just as neo-nazis) was extreme and not much seriously intended :)Though I enjoyed how it went on from that, appreciate your conduct. Now: “It has always been accomplished through coercion, though whether or not said coercion would be ultimately for the benefit of the greater good would introduce issues of the ethical sort, where we attempt to appreciate teleological values and if they can be warranted here. Also, because Communism requires a strong authoritarian style to government it can be somewhat susceptible to corruption, and completely destroys the inherent socialist values that come with a Communist state” Teleology is definitely a good subject for another debate. Anyway, partially agree. It does require an authoritarian style and is very susceptible to corruption, although I disagree when you say that “it destroys the inherent socialist values that come with a communist state” I say that because these “socialist values” are not that much incompatible with what really happens in practice, they’re both terrible. All those socialist/Marxist’s goals start from a wrong premise, that everyone is equal and aspire the same in life. But anyway this is leaning towards a philosophical matter, so I’ll step out. As for your remarks on China, you’ve committed a few mistakes 1) Mao Zedong’s is considered one of the darkest periods in China’s history. 2) “China's rapid growth over the last 50 years to where they are today, which is due largely to the kind of political system they have.” Not quite. It’s due to many economic reasons, if anything Tse-Tung just delayed its potential growth due to his communist regime. 3) China today is more capitalist than many so-called capitalist nations. But these are all regular misconceptions people have, that I’d take a while to get into, which is why I’m leaving a piece of a great article I’d recommend you to read that demystifies a few common misconceptions towards this matter (links at the bottom). “While the WTO is a flawed organization that in no way represents "free trade," China's willingness to accept its requirements to abolish tariffs restrictions and provide a more friendly foreign investment atmosphere demonstrates a marked shift in the thinking of the Communist Party. Indeed, just this summer the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) opened its membership to capitalists, a move that angered those who still cling to the socialist model as outlined by Mao Zedung." "[...] In terms of free political expression and state indoctrination, China resembles the world of George Orwell's 1984. In the area of economic reform and growth, however, China is in the midst of an economic boom that will continue if the government stays the course of increased economic freedom.” Links:- Welcome to Capitalist China - https://mises.org... - China and the Development Myth - http://mises.org...
Communists should be considered criminals just as neo-nazis

Hello again, Hope your days is going as well as mine is! You said: "Sure, on the legal side someone obviously can not be considered criminal just for adhering to an ideology or have certain ideas, that was an obvious argument that I was already expecting my contender to make, since I wrote the title of the topic to be intentionally provocative. Sorry for the misguidance." Well, most of my disagreement stemmed from this point, but I will still humor you by playing the devil's advocate in regards to your other remarks here. :) You stated: "My contender argues that communism is not built on theft and coercion, but on the idea of creating a classless society by publicly owning the means of production. And this sounds like a great idea if it wasn't utterly authoritarian. In order to do those things like redistribute the wealth, even out the differences of classes and all those communist goals, you NECESSARILY need to use coercion and a dictator orchestrating it, because if people don't want to be part of it they either get exiled or killed (tens of millions just in maoist's China)." I will concede this point, as it is irrefutable if we are to look at how Communism has been inaugurated throughout it's brief history. It has always been accomplished through coercion, though whether or not said coercion would be ultimately for the benefit of the greater good would introduce issues of the ethical sort, where we attempt to appreciate teleological values and if they can be warranted here. Also, because Communism requires a strong authoritarian style to government it can be somewhat susceptible to corruption, and completely destroys the inherent socialist values that come with a Communist state. However, in more recent years particularly with China (granting it's initial truly terrible period of history) we have seen Communism flourish in ways many thought were not possible. China is projected to in the next 20 years become the leading economic super power in the world surpassing the USA. Here are some statistics about present day China, and their relation to the rest of the world and to where they have been. GDP: 2nd US$8.277 Trillion Overall Rank for Life Expectancy: 49th (a huge increase considering where they came from at 43 years old in 1960 to 74 in 2010) Literacy: 95% (up from 20% in 1950) These are just a few indicators that demonstrate China's rapid growth over the last 50 years to where they are today, which is due largely to the kind of political system they have. Now I will say this, Communism will only work in certain countries and not others. China has done quite well with being a Communist nation, but if Communism were to be established as the government in America it could never work. This is because of the kinds of values our two countries differ in. We should recognize that Democracy might not be for everyone, just as Communism might not be for everyone and we should not demonize or criminalize those who disagree with us
Communists should be considered criminals just as neo-nazis

Hello, Sure, on the legal side someone obviously can not be considered criminal just for adhering to an ideology or have certain ideas, that was an obvious argument that I was already expecting my contender to make, since I wrote the title of the topic to be intentionally provocative. Sorry for the misguidance. Now to the matter. My contender argues that communism is not built on theft and coercion, but on the idea of creating a classless society by publicly owning the means of production. And this sounds like a great idea if it wasn't utterly authoritarian. In order to do those things like redistribute the wealth, even out the differences of classes and all those communist goals, you NECESSARILY need to use coercion and a dictator orchestrating it, because if people don't want to be part of it they either get exiled or killed (tens of millions just in maoist's China). Nazis in WWII also thought their motives were just and right. Their premises were beautiful to them, doesn't make them right nor justify their actions. But this isn't a topic to debunk communism since it's already been done massively. It's simply to reinforce that those ideas DO require theft and coercion. And somebody who's morally okay with those things isn't the type of person anyone would like in a society. The same way Neo-nazis today are looked at with contempt, so I hope will happen to communists in the future. I'll finish it with a few quotes from the leader of the Cuban regime, Fidel Castro. "I am a Marxist Leninist and I will be one until the last day of my life." "The revolution is a dictatorship of the exploited against the exploiters." "The universities are available only to those who share my revolutionary beliefs."
Communists should be considered criminals just as neo-nazis

Hello, Hope you are doing well this afternoon! Please note I am not a Communist (nor Communist supporter) or Nazi (nor Nazi supporter). However, I disagree with you 1) that Neo-Nazi's are criminals and 2) That Communists should be viewed as Criminals. You see in this great country we call in America we label a person as a criminal for violating a crime, or more specifically breaking the law. Adhering to a particular ideology is NOT a crime, and is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution for them to exercise their freedom of speech. Therefore, you and I should be more than free to voice our disagreement with Nazi's or Communists. However, we should not regard these people as criminals on the basis of their ideas but only if their actions demonstrate that they have committed a crime. I also disagree with your assessment of Communism that it is built on theft and legalized coercion against people. Communism is built on the idea to create a classless society by making the means of production publically owned. It is not a crime to think such a thing, and there are merits to it in the face of what we know about class divisions during the Industrial revolution that led up to Marx's ideas. The point is that this idea about how a society can operate is not in itself criminal, though may appear so to people who can only think in the ways of Capitalism and Democracy. I of course stated I am not a Communist, but that doesn't mean I can't objectively call out it's strengths and weaknesses, and this can only be done if allow freedom of speech and not labeling people who disagree with us as criminals. If you are in support of freedom of speech, then you should agree with me that naming a Communist, Neo Nazi or anyone who disagrees you a criminal is wrong and contrary to the liberty this country was founded on. Kindest Regards, TrueScotsman
Israel should not be our ally.

1) Israel holds responsibility for sending our troops into useless wars.Example: Iraq War. First of all, many Americans thought that by going to Iraq they were fighting Saddam Hussein who was supposedly related to Al Qaeda and had mass destruction weapons, when in fact he had no connection to Al Qaeda itself. Bush declared on March 6, 2003 that:"Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people... I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I've got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction... The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."Those claims were, however, proven to be untrue. CIA found that Iraq had no "weapons of mass destruction" and the Al Qaeda reason was also proven to be false as Saddam is known for being secular and banning religious Islamic teachings from school.http://www.nbcnews.com... So, why did the US go to Iraq?President Bush was known for being a neo-Conservative. US Senator Ernest Hollings himself acknowledged that the US invaded Iraq to "secure Israel." Three pro-Israel Jews (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Charles Krauthammer) also played an important role in getting the US to go to Iraq. Former US Army General Wesley Clark also acknowledged in an interview that:"Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." He also exposed the plan for a "Greater Israel." "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."Sounds familiar eh? US took out Libya and murdered Gaddafi. Israeli and US forces attempted to take down Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2005, but failed. USA might even go on with a war with Iran now, the greatest threat to Israel today. http://www.ihr.org...2) Israel has not sent any troops/military aid to the United States when we were at wars with other countries.Hmm... When was the last time Israel sent any military aid to the United States again? How many troops did Israel sent to the Korean War? Vietnamese War? Afghanistan War? Iraq War?. The Zionists are making us fight for their wars.I look forward to seeing your rebuttals.
A Self Evident Fact: Churches Slaughter America's Children for Not Believing in Christmas

My opponent blatantly admits to having no evidence to prove his assertion. He literally just says that it has no evidence because it's self evident. Obviously if it was happening. There would be some evidence. Regardless of your opinion of the Christian community, there's no way they have the money to cover up the deaths of over 18 million children. I did that math. According to my opponent, over 18 million first degree murders have taken place since 1998 without any evidence being produced or without anyone reporting this. Because if you look it up, you won't find it. And it's not possible to cover up that kind of evidence. Killing 18 million children would at least create a definite pattern for the police to follow. This isn't a horror movie, this is the real world. If this was actually happening we would actually know about it.
A Self Evident Fact: Churches Slaughter America's Children for Not Believing in Christmas

It is a self evident fact because it has no evidence to back it up. For Example, Just because they win the debate saying "you have no evidence to back up your argument" doesn't mean that they disproved it, it just means that it has no evidence to back it up because it is self evident. Even though 2,642 children are slaughtered every day since the 1998 release of "All Dogs Go To Heaven Christmas Carol" doesn't mean that they don't cover up and erase the evidence, It doesn't mean that it is blatantly false, it means that they do it, clean up the evidence and went on with their day, and nobody knew of it ever since. Even though it has no evidence to back it up, it has never been disproven. It has only been proven, but it is self evident But, it is still a fact.
The food, the fat and the gluttony: it's time to help the obese help themselves

It is indeed a privilege to debate such a worthy opponent as freedomsquared and I thank him for his most comprehensive, eloquent, intelligent, and, above all, humorous rebuttals, which I should like to address in turn as follows: R1: Donna Simpson (the fat lady) is Killing African Children It would appear that I have seriously misjudged Ms Simpson. I thought that she was a selfish, lazy, greedy tart who was only interested in her own self-gratification – how wrong I was! It appears, according to my opponent, that she is actually some kind of modern-day Joan of Arc who very year spares the lives of three starving African kiddies by not eating even more than she does (supposing that were possible). I wonder who else I may have misjudged. I always thought of Hitler as being a cruel ad heartless fascist dictator but on reflection I may be wrong. After all, he didn't send all the Jews, Gypsies, cripples and political dissidents to the gas chambers – instead this kindly old soul mercifully allowed hundreds of thousands of them to work in forced-labour camps. This act of compassion is too often overlooked and from now on I won't have a word said against the Fuehrer, who was, at the end of the day, a jolly good egg. R2: Fat Lady Will Cost Tax Payers The obese everywhere expect all taxpayers to pick up the bill (check) for their greed and over-indulgence but my opponent is right – it is the fault of the system – we should change it so that the mega-fat can no longer exploit our generosity. C1: Economic Downfall Don't worry, those pancake / sausage kebab things will still be available to normal people and the people employed serving greasy burgers to the obese will instead be employed serving them bowls of lentil and cabbage soup. C2: It Wouldn't Work It would work. If fast food wasn't available to them, as it isn't to people in East Africa, they would all lose weight – no obese people in the refugee camps, remember? C3: Freedom People have the right to pursue happiness, but not at the expense of others, in this case taxpayers and starving kiddies. C4: It Would Destroy America I think scenario 2 is the more likely – Mexico is the only country in the world to have more obese people than America – they would be happy there and the united States' taxpayers would no longer have to subsidise them. In short, everyone would be a winner! Sorry I didn't have time to write more but I urge you to vote Pro nonetheless. Thank you.
The food, the fat and the gluttony: it's time to help the obese help themselves

Two news stories caught my eye this week. Firstly the misery and suffering of the acutely malnourished children in the world's largest refugee camp in Kenya. http://edition.cnn.com... Some might say these children are the lucky ones as thousands of other kids have already starved to death in famine stricken East Africa. The second story that took my attention concerned a New Jersey woman, Donna Simpson, who weighs in at 602lb (43 stone / 273kg) and who has pledged to carry on gorging herself until she weighs 1,000lb (71ï¿½ stone / 454kg). Simpson, a mother of two who pays her $750 (ï¿½460 / €528) a week grocery bill by prostituting herself on the internet for the sexual gratification of voyeuristic perverts, said she "has a right to eat what she wants and weigh what she wants" even though her calorific intake would feed ten starving children in Africa. Furthermore, Simpson's shameless greed is likely to cost the American taxpayer dearly: the obese in United States place a huge financial burden on the health system there - an obese with diabetes costs $11,744 (ï¿½7,216 / €8,262) more per year than the average person in health care costs. But malnourished children or the cost of their gluttony to the taxpayer doesn't seem to concern obese people like Simpson who boasted "I can sit and eat 70 big pieces of sushi in one go," before adding "I do like cakes and sweet things, doughnuts are my favourite." While it may be true that some people are more prone to gain weight than others, most of the obese are grossly overweight simply because they are lazy and greedy - Daniel Emmer, public relations manager of Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, says "lifestyle choices and behaviors drive 87.5 percent of the cost for health care claims." http://www.foxnews.com... That's why you didn't see any obese people in the CNN report from the refugee camp. So, clearly the obese deserve to be hit and we should hit them where it will hurt them most – in the stomach. Not literally, of course, but rather by making the sale of junk food to the grossly overweight an offense, just as it is an offense to sell tobacco and alcohol to children. Although this plan would likely make the obese squeal like pigs in protest, the measure would, in fact, improve their health. Equally importantly, this proposal would save the American taxpayer billions in reduced health care costs. Furthermore, the reduction in demand for crops would also allow the United States to send more food aid to starving children in the developing world. So let's not waste any more time, let's help the obese to help themselves by restricting their access to fatty food. Thank you.
The USA should be a confederation.

I thank my opponent TheBlueWizard for that "state" pun! Very Nice. (I agree the US Gov. does need some reform!) I agree, the transformation from Federal Republic to Confederation will be very hard and may even damage things; as it did in the civil war. However in the long run, a Confederation would be a more formidable way of establishing and unionizing a nation. Just think, a government comprised of smaller governments! Genius! The Iroquois Confederacy: I am going to use multiple confederations to back my claim, the Iroquois Confederacy is one I will propose. During the time of Native American inhabitants, there were many wars being waged over land, food, and basic recourses. Native American tribes would have constant borders frictions, mistaken identities, and overall a lack of union or organization. The people of these tribes: - The Seneca - The Cayuga - The Onondaga - The Oneida - The Mohawk Were in constant rivalry with each other, for the reason stated above. They fought non-stop, without end, the rivers ran red. However after years of conflict two men Dekanawida, and Hiyonwantha brought forth a pact of peace called, "The Great Law of Peace". This ended the conflict with all of the nations and formed them into one union. However, they did not lose their sovereignty; the nations formed a counsel at Onondaga (the center most tribe), and formed the Iroquois Confederation. After that there was no war, no conflict, and the counsels and people of the 5 nations lived in peace. They together fought back many enemies, only to be destroyed by the Armies of the United States. (Damn Yanks! Just Kidding!) The point I am trying to put across would be that, if we become a Confederation it would give the States more sovereignty, making it so the states governments are more important. However, we don't have 5 states, just times that by 10 and that's how many we have. It would be a tedious process of decision making through so many representatives and it is up to the people of the newly formed Confederation of states, to figure out how they want to be represented. A more divided power would make it more difficult for corruption to spread, with so many governments and little power delegated to the central government, corruption would just have to look elsewhere. I feel I must restate something, the Articles of Confederation were awful, and made an outline of an extremely loose and faulty Confederation. I will not use this document to back up my claim. Thank You, godridden95 (Count how many times I said confederation or confederacy!)
The USA should be a confederation.

I would like to take the opposite position, as I believe that a transformation into a confederacy would be detrimental to the United States, and it's citizens. To clarify before we really start this however, I would like to state that just because I'm on the Con does not mean I support the USA's government in its current form, in fact I don't. I think it requires a great deal of reform, but a Confederation is not the way to accomplish this. I would also like to state (USA? State? Yes? No? Ok.) that I will be valuing Governmental Legitimacy. With that out of the way I'd like to say good luck to my opponent and may the best case win. I await your arguments, TheBlueWizard
The USA should be a confederation.

The United States should be a Confederation; other then a Federation that it is now. A Confederation is a union by compact or treaty between states, provinces or territories that creates a central government with limited powers; the constituent entities retain supreme authority over all matters except those delegated to the central government. In this definition it explains that the Government of the Confederation would NOT have as much power as the United States Government does now. The US government is to big and has way to much power, and the states of this union have no say in the authority of the Federal Government. I am not condoning the return of the Articles of Confederation, because (to be honest) that was a massive failure. That was created when the US was very very young and afraid of corrupt and powerful governments. The articles outlined what a true confederation should be, but it did not fill the spectrum. However, before I go further into this debate I must include our once American brothers; the CSA or Confederate States of America. Yes, indeed the CSA was a confederation, and for the most part, the whole process went very well, if you want more details on the endeavors of the Confederacy, just challenge me at this debate. I am not in any case a supporter of slavery, I find that to be inhumane. Thank You, Godridden95