BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
a subjective moralist saying "X is immoral" is like me saying "the blue M&M is green"

"The fact that an M&M is green is a factual issue, independent of our opinion. It relates to the correspondence theory of truth, a posh way of saying "things are what they are". Morality relates to the coherence theory of truth, which means "things are how we see them". The former claims a physical fact, while the other is a social institution."those ideas are formed based on an objective definition for green (blue mixed with yellow), not a subjective definition for green (a color that i or society likes). since you resent a subjective definition for green, perhaps you will understand why i resent a subjective definition for morality. if you use my definition for green, then green isnt a claim of a physical fact, it is a claim of ones/societys preference just like your definition for subjective moralityim going to define subjective greenness as color that society likes, and slightly modify a few words in your statements below to illustrate my pointhere goes: Firstly, those believing in objective greenness believe that greenness is binding to everyone, and that is the key aspect. By contrast, green subjectivists say that greenness is binding to communities. Outside of the community, the standard of greenness is no longer binding. To sum up, the green standard of an objectivist is universal and applies to every individual, regardless of their communities. By contrast, the green standard of a subjectivist is binding to a community, and as such does not apply to people outside the community.===========================i still dont see the diference
Mass murders are a wish to die, not kill

The act of shooting a large number of people and generally terrorizing everyone is the last great act of revenge and defiance. It's the ultimate power trip, where you hold the decision of life and death over people, and you're choosing death with a big smile on your face. Most of these people are angry at the world over the way they have been treated, or at least the way they perceive they have been treated. This is payback. The nightmare scenario for this person is to be on TV being led out of a building in handcuffs, powerless and subjugated to the will of The Man. They've felt powerless their entire lives, and they know at some level that capture means many years of being under someone's thumb, never, ever being free. They go into this situation with the full intent of killing themselves to deny the world its opportunity for retribution. Suicides rarely make the news headlines unless they involve someone famous. The suicide of the beloved but troubled comedian Robin Williams, for example, received massive media attention and it shocked the public consciousness. Mass murder is a form of suicide in that the perpetrator of such atrocities is often an enraged and fatalistic individual who intends to die at the scene of the massacre. From this perspective, the increase in mass shootings over the last ten years is very consistent with the increase in suicide. The legendary nineteenth century social scientist Emile Durkheim argued that suicide is a social fact rather than an individual pathology. Using a vast amount of data from official records on suicides in different parts of Europe, Durkheim documented significant variations between countries in their rates of suicide which he found were correlated or linked to environmental conditions. This evidence, Durkheim argued back in 1897, shows that "each society has a definite aptitude for suicide" which is a social fact that is external to the individual members of a given society. Such revolutionary and original thinking in the nineteenth century has given Emile Durkheim widespread recognition as the founding father of sociology. I have spent considerable time analyzing recent suicide patterns in the U.S. I have concluded that, consistent with the work of Emile Durkheim, suicide is a social fact that is, a predictable pattern based on social forces. I contend that there are powerful factors in contemporary society that help to explain the sharply rising suicide rate.
Mass murders are a wish to die, not kill

When you say that the main reason behind why people would commit mass murder is because of suicidal ideation, then it's presumtive. Although the murderers from the columbine shootings did have suicidal behaviors beforehand, the event itself implies a strong hatred and a desire to kill that surpasses any wish to die, otherwise, like you said, they would've simply killed themselves; and I believe that this desire for revenge, to kill, is the sole reason and determinate factor involved without any conclusive basis proposed to be from suicidal ideation. This desire to commit murder stemmed from the blame placed on the victims of the shooting unintelligibly that originated from false ideas of the perpetrators. People are different and I don't believe that we should strictly form conclusions that apply to cause of every individual mass shooting based on singular, or even a historical collection of events. These are individual minds and, though you can come to some statistical analysis based on the controversial link between suicidal and criminal behavior, you should not form false conclusions as if these minds resemble the minds of any other; or generalize that the main cause of all mass shootings are caused by the desire to die. In my opinion, I believe that the shooters had special environmental circumstances that ultimately encouraged or led them to criminal behavior and that accountability should be directed towards not those who had influence or control of their environmental circumstances but the harmful ideas that caused them.
The Austrian Model Of Economics Is Better Than The Keynesian Model

I concede that the Fed played in a role in the Great Depression, but not as huge of a role as what the Austrians claim. Also, the Austrians clearly understate the other factors (that I described in the prior round) that contributed to the Great Depression; my opponent fails to counter these other major factors--so I assume that he has dropped them. By not refuting these major alternative factors, my opponent has failed to explain how the Fed played the huge role that the Austrians are so convinced it played.And in regards to Strawman #1 and #2, the Austrians have no limit to market "suffering." A market can collapse (as it was on the verge of doing during the Great Depression), and an Austrian would just say that the market can somehow recuperate--when, in reality, there in no evidence that a Great Depression economy can recover on its own--and the results of the government inaction prior to the New Deal only show that government intervention is critical. The Austrian view overlooks reality; a market failure has real consequences that can lead to no hope of recuperation.The Keynesian School is considered a mainstream school of thought, while the Austrian School is considered a heterodoxical school of thought. The Keynesian School emphasizes empirical data, while the Austrian School believes in a "logical," reductive system of analysis that ignores real numbers. The primary reasons for market "busts" is private malinvestment... and this oftentimes leads to a self-perpetuating cycle of non-investment that could lead to market collapse, as unemployment rises. Keynes proposed fixing this problem by stimulating the economy through government spending, and it worked. History supports the Keynesian approach, while the only thing supporting the Austrian School is a set of obscure, pseudo-scientific books regarding theory.
The Austrian Model Of Economics Is Better Than The Keynesian Model

According to the Keynesian Model, as my opponent says, “The cause of the [...] Great Depression […] was that people started hoarding money when times became tough” Yes, but times became tough because of the inflation from the Roaring 20s, which itself was caused by the Federal Reserve drastically reducing interest rates. So the source of the problem can be traced back to the Federal Reserve, back to the same government intervention that the Keynesian school argues for! If only the forest fire caused by the Panic of 1908 had been left alone to run it's natural course (as the Austrian School supports) then stability would have eventually returned. Instead, the Fed (the embodiment of the Keynesian Ideology) intervened, stumping out this little fire by reducing the interest rates. This created the bubble of the Roaring 20s, and postponed the inevitable Great Depression. When the gigantic bust finally reared it's head, Keynes' school calls for yet more Fed intervention, despite the fact that it was Fed intervention that caused the entire ordeal in the first place! My opponent points out how Bernanke and Austrians blame the Fed for the Great Depression for different reasons, yet it is very telling that the Austrians and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve agree on the most important point: The Fed caused the Great Depression! The Keynesian's instrument, around which revolves their entire ideology, carries the blame for causing the very problem that Keynesian's want to prevent! My opponent says that “Rothbard clearly stated that the proper course of action for the government after the Great Depression had started was to employ a laissez-faire policy--or, in other words, NOTHING. That's right; he expected the market to correct itself.” Yes, that is right. A problem caused by the Fed cannot be fixed by the Fed; in fact, it can only be made worse. Remember that the Fed, in it's attempt to stump out the economic “forest fires” of the 1910s, merely reserved fuel for the huge “wildfire” of the Great Depression, which then blazed wildly out of control. The Keynesian School of Thought has inspired the Great Depression, and promotes the same tactics that made it worse than it would have been. The entire goal of Keynes' school is to avoid busts, but busts have been popping up throughout it's entire history. After over half of a century of experimentation, Con's ideology has failed to prevent both the Dot-com bust1 and the Housing Bust2, among others. The Austrian School is better because it calls for a stop to this madness. My opponent tossed in some reference to Friedman bad-mouthing the Gold Standard, but that has no relevance to anything, given that Friedman doesn't even subscribe to the same economic model that I'm arguing for. As for Con's closing remark, all I have to say is... So much intelligent, very debate skill, wow. 1 http://www.bls.gov... 2 http://www.bls.gov...
The Austrian Model Of Economics Is Better Than The Keynesian Model

The cause of the bust that slowly became the Great Depression, according to Keynes, was that people started hoarding money when times became tough... but times become tougher when everyone started hoarding money instead of investing. In order to "re-stimulate" the circulation of capital that signifies a healthy economy, the government has to start spending. And you reference how Ben Bernanke agreed with Friedman about the Fed's role in causing the Great Depression. However, while the Austrian School's explanation also blames the Fed, it blames the Fed for a different reason. It claims that the Fed caused the Great Depression by INFLATING the money supply, while the Monetarists (such as Friedman) claim the opposite... that monetary contraction (the Fed's limiting of the monetary supply) and the DEFLATION that followed caused the Great Depression. [1] The Austrian School accuses the same culprit that Bernanke and Friedman blame... but it blames the Fed for the OPPOSITE REASON. Rothbard clearly stated that the proper course of action for the government after the Great Depression had started was to employ a laissez-faire policy--or, in other words, NOTHING. That's right; he expected the market to correct itself. This is, of course, market fundamentalism at its finest. [2] Oh, and that gold standard currency system that Austrians are so in favor of? Well, that contributed to the Great Depression, according to a number of economists--including Friedman. [3] The views of the Austrian School suck. Thank you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://mises.org... (pg 19) [3] http://tinyurl.com... (video)
The Austrian Model Of Economics Is Better Than The Keynesian Model

My opponent says, "the Keynesian Model has been tested and proven effective through historical and empirical evidence." His supporting evidence for this claim is the Great Depression. However, even the Chairman of the Federal Reserve acknowedges that it was government intervention itself that caused the Great Depression in the first place! Allow me to quote Ben Bernanke, speaking in honor of Milton Friedman's 99th birthday:"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve System. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it."1 (emphasis mine)The "we" refers to the Federal Reserve, the instrument of the government intervention that my opponent is defending. So much for the Keynesian Model being "tested and proven effective through historical and empirical evidence"; The Fed itself admits that it was the cause of the Great Depression.My opponent says that "a big bust is a self-perpetuating path toward economic instability that cannot reverse itself", but there is no evidence for this.The Austrian School Of Economics is better because it allows for busts to follow their natural course of dying on their own.The Keynesian School seeks to prevent them altogether, but as seen in my opponent's example of the Great Depression, it only makes them worse.1http://www.federalreserve.gov...
The Austrian Model Of Economics Is Better Than The Keynesian Model

Thanks for accepting! My position is the following: The Austrian School of Economics is better than the Keynesian School of Economics. Economies go through cycles of booms and busts. Booms are periods of economic growth, while busts are the opposite. The Keynesian School says that busts are bad and must be prevented by government intervention in the economy. The Austrian School says that busts are an unavoidable part of the boom/bust cycle, and government intervention that tries to prevent busts will only postpone them and have them arise even worse than they would without such intervention. I will now provide an analogy using a true story that isn't related to economics. I didn't come up with this analogy; the original version can be found in my references.1 I hope this makes things easier to understand. Forest Fire Analogy In an effort to prevent forest fires, the government devised elaborate plans to suppress any and all fires completely. This worked for a time, until it was realised that all that was being accomplished was the suppressing of inevitable, even bigger, fires. The explanation? When the natural course of things were allowed to pass, many small fires occurred. However, they quickly burnt themselves out after consuming the underbrush, and didn't reach the tree tops. After these fires were suppressed, the underbrush (fuel for the fire) grew unnaturally thick and high. Eventually, a little fire that would have been self-limiting in the past, now grew wildly out of control, scorching the tree tops and causing massive devastation. The mistake was acknowledged, and the intervention was reversed. In this analogy, busts are forest fires, and the attempt to prevent them is government intervention into preventing busts in the economy. The Keynesian School views busts as bad, and demands that they be suppressed. However, since a future bust is inevitable, and will be even bigger due to intervention, the Keynesian School of thought worsens the very thing it intends to prevent. The Austrian School of thought is more realistic since it realizes that booms and busts are inevitable, and calls for allowing them to follow their natural course without government intervention. That is why the Austrian School of Economics is better. 1http://www.peakprosperity.com...
Orchestra or Band? (Orchestra)

I accept your challenge. I think a band is better they have more styles. Furthermore, most instruments in an Orchestra can also be found in a band, like trumpets, piano, etc. etc. In a band, you have more freedom, because as you said, they have to have a layout in an orchestra, and it is very formal. In a band, you have a lighter atmosphere with no fixed layout. They also sound nice... at times.
The United States of America is the greatest country in the world.

It appears from your opening statement that America's greatness (among other things) stems from it's diversity, charity, and economy. First off, diversity: America is not the only country in the world that accepts people as citizens. And it's certainly not the best at doing it. Application for citizenship for the US can take years, and even if you're accepted into the country (not as an citizen but as an immigrant) you have to wait years more to attain the status of "US citizen". And, America is not a particularly accepting nation. Take for example, the citizen with Middle Eastern heritage. In recent years our government, has racially profiled these people, restricting their rights, and treating them like second class citizens. That's not the behavior of an accepting nation. Charity: You claim that: "America for instance gives more fiancial aid to the United Nations." Ignoring the fact that you don't actually say who we give more than (I'm assuming you mean out of all the countries that contribute to the UN, the US gives tme most), your assertion is completely false. The UN receives financing from it's members based on their GDP. The US does not have the largest GDP in the world. Also, the US is overdue on their payments to the UN. To date we owe the UN over 1.2 billion dollars. The US has consistently ignored the UN, most notably with the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The US government does not donate more money to charitable organizations than any other country. Economy: The United States economy isn't "Great". Right now we have a national debt of over 1 trillion dollars. Our economy is in a recession. The housing market is in a terrible state. Our economy is certainly not the best in the world. Your last argument was something like "we have 50 states". True, no other country in the world has 50 states. However I can't see how this pertains to America being great. The areas you've listed thus far are areas where America is not number 1. To successfully argue the point you have to prove 2 things: A) An area where America is greatest (actually more than one area) B) That this area(s) outweighs all the things that we're not number 1 in. Right now I'll point out that: 1)America is not the most developed country in the world. 2)America is not the most technologically advanced nation in the world. 3)America does not have the largest, or the best military in the world. 4)America's education system is not the best in the world. 5)America's health care system is not the best in the world. 6)America's government is not the best in the world. Looking forward to hearing from you.
The United States of America is the greatest country in the world.

hello hattopic Yes i would like to have this debate with you. i have also heard that America is the greatest country in the world and i really agree with that statement. America is great in so many ways but i am just gonna focus on some and hope to have a good debate with you alright. America has a country has welcomed people from all over the world for instance. we have all kinds of people there with the american citizenship and they all contribute to the country. America for instance gives more fiancial aid to the United Nations. Its money is being use worldwide in business and that means a lot. Its economy is good and is formed of fifty states and all these are amazing. Is there any country in the world with these characteristics??? i dont think so. I will tell you more in my 1st argument... hope to hear from you. Thanks
Reggae song off

Nice Pro, I absolutely love Bob Marley. I don't think anyone can disagree that he was an amazing Reggae artist. So, out of respect for the late and great Marley, I'll share one of my favorites: Bob Marley & The Wailers- 'Stir it up' (1973, live studio recording) http://www.youtube.com...;I can't help but desire the island life whenever playing this jam.
after xi jinping assumes presidentship in china will the chinese-american relations become stronger

Since my first period class starts in 7 minutes and will last for 2 hours.. this 1 hour 23 minute time remaining means that I only have 7 minutes to type this. You should have given at least a day.. geez. I don't even feel like sifting through this pile of words, but here goes: First: Plagiarism. This last round is rife with it. http://www.ibtimes.com... Second: Some of the plagiarized text echo what I was trying to point out. My opponent has not forwarded any argument in his favor and has, instead, copied text from ibtimes.com in hopes of it sufficing in winning him this debate. Third: Read the last round I posted to for reference to the problems in many of the statements toward the statement in support of the growth of sino-american relations. These statements cannot be taken as absolute evidence and are, therefore, invalid. My opponent has failed to prove Xi will, without a doubt, improve Sino-American relations.
after xi jinping assumes presidentship in china will the chinese-american relations become stronger

Xi Jinping is portrayed as knowing America because of his trip to Iowa in 1985 during which he stayed with an American family, and some Wikileaks reports that revealed him as a Hollywood film fan, and a daughter who reportedly attends Harvard University. It seems rather superficial to assume these items and preferences indicate Xi will be friendlier towards the United States than his predecessor. However, as of now, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think China's attitude will turn aggressive once Xi assumes power. In reality, although Xi offers a change of face in the Chinese leadership, U.S.-China relations are not about to undergo any dramatics changes. I agree that Xi's policy toward the U.S. will be stable and continuous with little personal style. The basic structure of Sino-U.S. relations is quite stable. The new leadership in China cannot change such a structure, said Professor Song. Xi appears determined to continue and even improve President Hu's legacy when it comes to keeping Sino-American relations steady, at the very least for the sake of business. In a meeting with businessmen, Xi stressed that relations between the two powers were an unstoppable river that keeps surging ahead despite twists and turns, (AFP) reported. The economic ties between the U.S. and China are overwhelming and paramount. Total trade between the two powers amounts to almost $500 billion. China is now the U.S.'s second largest trading partner. Neither country -- China still growing, while the United States tries to recover -- can afford to have Sino-American relations severely damaged. Fortunately, Xi Jinping has been demonstrating a commitment to the status quo during his visit, stressing greater cooperation and respect between the two powers.