BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
capitalism is evil, and must be destroyed

if you work hard??? how hard does bill gats work. none. thats because he is rich. he just got rich, then poof he doesn't work. explain that. also, u dont get to keep it! people can steal it easily. if a person earns a lot of money, then its stolen, how do u explain that. also, since were all a family, because of the fact that were humanity, that means we share, that means i get what u make, and u get what i make, thats the way it is. communism is the only good system, just look at china, they are super smart and advanced, and make everything we use, thats because communism works. explain that. conclusion = capitalism means u work hard then get robbed, communism means u make everything. thats the truth.
capitalism is evil, and must be destroyed

Ok, I do admit that there are some problems with Capitalism, but it is still better than any other system, especially Communism. Capitalism is good because it gives motivation for a person to work hard. In a capitalistic system, if you work more, you get paid more. Keep in mind, though, that I am talking about on an individual level. For example, if person A works hard for 40 hours/week, then that same person would make more money than if they had slacked off at their job for 40 hours/week. Capitalism is also good because it allows people to keep what they earn. Once someone has earned money, the government should not have the right to take that money and give it to someone who has not earned it. This goes back to the motivation to work argument because there would be far less motivation to work if the money that you worked hard for was given to someone who didn't work for it. Communism is bad because there is no motivation to work hard or contribute to society. In a perfect Communist system, everyone would work hard at what they do best, and then everyone would get the same amount of money. Unfortunately, this is impossible. If everyone is paid the same, where is the motivation to go through years of college to become a doctor or scientist? Because it is far easier to do simple jobs, there would be far fewer people like doctors and scientists. We really need those kind of people in our society and we could not function or be the international superpower that we are today. The Pro says that the rich get a bigger piece of the economic pie and that isn't fair. It is completely fair because that pie shows how much society values that person. For example, doctors are paid much more than salesmen because society perceives doctors to be more important. It is completely fair that doctors have more money than salesmen because doctors contribute to society more. Communism will never be as effective as Capitalism.
capitalism is evil, and must be destroyed

capitalism is the worst sysyem, because it lets the rich take the poors money. the poor work hard, so how are they so poor? theres only 1 reason for that, its the rich who take there money from them. capitalism makes the poor poorer and the rich richer. its immoral because no1 should be able to have more then they need, because that would mean they arent using all of it, and that means the pie isnt divided evenly. since we all share, thats written in the constiution, that means that we have to share EVERYTHING, not just some stuff, therfore, capitalism is bad, therfore communism is good.
Debate on a issue

Ok my arguments are as follows: R1: Wealth Without minimum wage the poverty rate would skyrocket, as people would not be able to make enough money to live. Stores could get cheap labor however the workers would be denied. R2: Economy As we have seen recently, when coeporate America loses money so do the private citizens and stockholders, this is also true in reverse as people could not afford products, thus hurting the overall economy. R3: Well being As I have stated before if the minimum wage is eliminated, it will hurt the economy, hurting citizens, and yielding no benefit. Though in the short term it would provide cheap labor, it hurts us in the end. I await my opponents response.
The Queen should stand trial for complicity in crimes against humanity.

I would like to thank LawrenceTheBeloved for accepting this debate and for posting his rebuttals to which I duly respond as follows: Thatcher's systematic and cowardly attacks on the working classes ranged from introducing the Poll Tax so that the poor paid more while the rich paid less in local taxes, to selling off huge swathes of publically-owned social housing to the private sector without replacing them and thus causing misery and hardship on a wholesale basis for the most vulnerable people in society, to closing down public nursing and care homes and throwing old and sick people onto the streets to be “cared for by the community”. The problem is the community had their own worries what with Thatcher’s decimation of British industries and record levels of unemployment. But none of these policies, no matter how heinous and spiteful, represented crimes against humanity. However, Thatcher’s anti-union laws which restricted working class citizen’s right to protest and blocked their free movement around the country [1] arguably represented “persecution against an identifiable group on political grounds”, which is a crime against humanity. Since the Queen signed these Thatcherite union-bashing Acts of Parliament into law she must be held responsible for their catastrophic effects, she must be hauled before the ICC and punished for her key role in Thatcher’s brutal, cruel and illegal class war on decent, hard-working British families. Thank you. Sources: Thatcher’s Union-Bashing Legislationhttp://www.unionhistory.info...+'Anti-Union+Legislation%3A+1980-2000' The Queen grants Royal Assent to Thatcher’s draconian laws.http://www.parliament.uk...
The Queen should stand trial for complicity in crimes against humanity.

The Queen, Her Majesty Elizabeth II, should not be held liable for the alleged "crimes against humanity" committed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during her terms between 4 May 1979 " 28 November 1990. There is not evidence for Prime Minister Thatcher committing any crimes against humanity or any other crimes. Thatcher had ended the illegitimate hostile takeover of the Falkland Islands by Argentina, brought justice to the corrupt Conservative Party, and stood up for women all over the United Kingdom and the world. She restored the British economy, which was called the "sick man of Europe" before her term as PM. The unions had complete power over the country and Britain was a wreck. After she left office, the UK was a major power on the world stage and for the first time since World War II.
The death penalty should be abolished

First I must apologize for an error I made in my first argument. "The drug pentobarbital ...slow and painless death as required by federal law" should have read "quick" and painless. I also forgot to cite a source so here they are. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Now back to our regularly scheduled debate. The drugs come from corporations like Lundbeck and are made by pharmaceutical scientists not medical doctors. Furthermore who makes the drug is irrelevant to whether or not the act of putting someone to death is acceptable. You agree that the few unfortunate families of the wrongfully accused do not justify banning the death penalty. when you state "the wrongfully executed victim's widow, children, etc. may find it unfair that another victim's relatives was spared" you are assuming those families had some sort of evidence that their family member was innocent. If there was some sort of concrete proof to his/her innocence they likely would not have been executed. Of course as I said no system is perfect but, as you admit to agreeing to, those few instances do not justify removing the whole system. Your fourth point may be your most valid thus far as world diplomacy can be a tricky and fragile business. However this argument is an example of the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy (invalid argumentative tactic). In other words, millions of people share my opinion so it must be the correct one. Other countries believing a certain way does not automatically mean it is right. If every other nation outlawed coca cola would you be telling me we must ban coca cola? If all the other countries jumped off a bridge would you? You did not respond to it but I will bring it up once more. The people that typically go on death row are murderers, serial killers and sociopaths with no other drive than to hurt and kill other people. as long as they are alive they are a danger to fellow inmates and prison staff/ guards.
The death penalty should be abolished

Hi Connor. Thanks for accepting the challenge, and let's have some fun. As I read your statement "No system is perfect, but I think these numbers say that ours is doing a serviceable job.". Also, you said the 20 exonerations in 42 years is not worthy of cancelling the death penalty. However, as this is legitimately true, the wrongfully executed victim's widow, children, etc. may find it unfair that another victim's relatives was spared, but the government fell into the irreversible trap that hurt a newly-made widow. Nowadays, lethal injections are widespread in the United States, but the execution materials are made by doctors. Wait! Doctors are supposed to support and help people get a well-being, and now they're making materials to kill people? See the problem with lethal injections, which you explained in your argument? It has doctors do the opposite of what they're paid to do. Bad reputations can soar at any moment, especially after protests. Now, I'll list two more main reasons why I oppose the death penalty: Reason #3: Obviously, when one of your relatives die, or even be separated, it can be depressing. Yes, when one of your relatives has life without parole, it is depressing also, but death to that relative can be even more sad. The depressed, mourning widow and children of an executed criminal doesn't deserve this time of hardship and mourning. In fact, in this link: http://deathpenalty.org... there was an old lady whose son was murdered, but she protested that his assassin would not be punished by death. Killing in return does not repair the agonizing pain inflicted by losing a loved one. Even criminals receive agony they don't necessarily deserve. Executing one means they are in the headlines. Most murderers deserve to be put in prison and left alone by the civilians. More info is here: http://deathpenalty.org... Reason #4: Many nations abolished the death penalty, and retaining the practice can damage global reputation and approval. Some extremely controversial countries in the world, such as Russia, has abolished the practice (This is my opinion about the controversy because of the Ukrainian crisis, don't mean to be racist). The US keeping of the death penalty is a big excuse those anti-Americans can jump up on, thus damaging America's global approval rating and reputation. Even worse, botched executions and executing innocent lives can worsen reputations even more. Many consider the death penalty as "cruel or unusual punishment" which America's Constitution's Eighth Amendment forbids, leading to some foreigners realizing hypocrisy in our government. This is something that we totally don't want. OK. This is my second round of this debate, there are three more to come, and I will see you next time.
The death penalty should be abolished

I studied Criminal Justice in school and among the things I learned is that our Criminal Justice system operates on the philosophy that a guilty person going free is better than an innocent person being locked up. I don't think anyone would argue that executing an innocent person is not so good. According to the Innocence project there have been 150 people exonerated from death row in the US since 1973 when capital punishment was reinstated. of those 150 people, 20 were proven to be innocent through DNA. No system is perfect but I think these numbers say that ours is doing a serviceable job. For those few innocent people it is truly unfortunate, however 20 proven innocents in 42 years is not a reason to ban capital punishment any more than innocent members of the general prison populace is reason to shut down our prison system. Death penalty cases are generally more expensive because of the cost of purchasing drugs used in lethal injections as well as the many appeals guaranteed by individual state laws. Appeals are guaranteed by many states and contribute to the low rate of wrongful executions. The drug pentobarbital can cost nearly $1,300 per execution and gives the prisoner a slow and painless death as required by federal law. Lethal injections were a large part of reinstating the death penalty as it ensured a quick humane as oppose to the electric chair or hanging. Between all the required appeals, defense costs and cost to procure the required drugs costs of the death penalty is and should be higher. The fact that it does cost more has to do with the way in which capital punishment is carried out and has nothing to do with whether we should or should not implement the death penalty itself. You cannot cure a murderer or a serial killer. These individuals will not change and if sentenced to life within the prison population will very likely kill again. If a sociopathic killer with no regard for human life doesn't deserve to die, how do you feel about the inmates in for lesser crimes who are their potential victims?
The death penalty should be abolished

K... Well in closing, As I have shown, there is no constitutional grounds to permanently ban the death penalty. The only times the death penalty has been suspended at the federal level it has been to work out the method to ensure the prisoner is not suffering and that all of their rights of habeas corpus are kept. Our criminal justice system makes every attempt to reform criminals. Some criminals are too far gone. In order for justice to be served, crimes must be met with equal punishment. The only equal punishment for depriving another human being of their life is for the transgressors to have their life taken.
The death penalty should be abolished

Sorry for my absence last time. Now I'm back on track. I have to apologize for your misunderstanding about my fourth reason to oppose the death penalty. Imposing extreme forms of punishment, including death, but not necessarily life without parole, can damage diplomatic relations and global reputation. One thing that I didn't bring up is that when someone is arrested, they are handcuffed and disarmed, giving the disability to shoot policemen. If they are found guilty and sent to prison for life, they have nothing to use as a weapon. Here are my next two reasons why I oppose the death penalty: Reason #5: Most defendants cannot afford an attorney and the government must appoint it, but the attorney probably is overworked, underpaid, tired, and less effective than usual. According to a study by the Chicago Tribune, 12% of those sentenced to death in 1976-1999 had an attorney that was later arrested or suspended. It isn't fair to have a mediocre attorney when the prosecutor has a superior and much better attorney. Even if we wanted to fix this, America may have to go through series of reform, causing nationwide protests, or even worse, riots. The best thing to do is to rid the practice all along. Reason #6: One common misconception is that the death penalty deters homicide rate. Studies have constantly failed to support and prove this. Some studies actually show that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than states without. In 1996, states with the death penalty's average is 144% of the states without the death penalty. So instead of deterring crime because of such a horrendous punishment, it can actually increase murder rates and cause problems. Source of 1996 statement: http://davecoop.net... The majority of criminologists (88%) doesn't believe the death penalty successfully deters crime, which it doesn't. Since the death penalty is such a harsh punishment, many people will believe murderers would back off because they are in the face of death. However, studies have failed to prove that. With lethal injections being badly botched, quick death can lead to torturing to death. The United States is currently testing unapproved execution drugs, which sometimes fails. It can take hours for a criminal to die while let's say, gasping for breath. That is most likely considered torturing to death and in America, the majority of Americans consider that to be "cruel and unusual punishment", which their Eighth Amendment to the Constitution forbids.
The death penalty should be abolished

Justice- Full Definition 1 a :the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments People getting what they deserve, good, bad or indifferent is justice. Justice is a cold concept with no regard for peoples feelings. If you kill another person or persons, you deserve to have your life taken. That is the only possible equal punishment. One could even argue that for TRUE justice to be served you should die in the same gruesome manner as your victim. But that is for another day. I realize that this is a very cold hearted black and white way of looking at it but that is what justice is by definition. As an aside, I would prefer not to wait a week for the voting, if you intend to forfeit the rest of the debate please just type forfeit and submit. I would prefer the back and forth discussion that I signed up for however.
The Bible is against Homosexuality

I stand by my belief that being LGBTTQ is a choice unless and only unless it is a mental problem. Because exactly, why would God add this if we didn't have the choice? We always have choices. Every day we have the choice to get up out of our beds or stay in them, the choice to quit our jobs or continue working, the choice between coffee or tea the choice to sex or Hockey on TV. (Well the last one could be simultaneous;-) The point is there's always a choice. I admit I was once curious as a boy of other boys I'm sure all of us were, but I knew what was right from the teachings of my mom and dad and God and strove to be a better person. I could have chosen to be gay that very instant. I could still choose to be now. As I said the Bible is very clear on this issue. You find it many times in the old testament and many times in the new testament. That verse on the women is also found a few times in the bible, some people believe the scribes who took the word from God may have been a little sexist and added them in, but until they find out it will continue to be that way. I personally believe the bible is talking about women ordination here, and I don't think women should be ordained and that is a totally different debate here. But the bible is clear. I don't want you going off on a tangent about other things when the issue at hand is "The Bible is against Homosexuality" Thank you.
The Bible is against Homosexuality

If those who are living in sexual immorality such as homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God, why did he create homosexuals in the first place? You mentioned in your very first argument that you think being gay is a choice. How hard could it be? Choose to be gay. Choose to be attracted to the same sex. You couldn"t do it, could you. Why would anyone choose to be gay, when they are despised by most, considered an abomination, subordinate, and stripped of human rights? God created us the way we are- we don"t get to choose our race, gender, sexuality, or our features. Hating people because of those things? That is a choice. Religious people who believe in God blindly follow the laws of the bible without questioning anything. Yes, I understand that they have faith in God and aren"t in their place to question Him, but as I mentioned before, there are many other sins in the bible that we ignore. They hate homosexuals because God told them to. God also told women to never speak in the church (Corinthians 14:35-35) in the new testament. The Bible is quite clear on that, too...
The Bible is against Homosexuality

Wearing clothes with mixed fabrics is not considered a moral law, and further study would prove that wearing clothes with mixed fabrics is allowed. It was only dealing with linen and wool. Dealing with cross-dressing, the passage is talking about wearing the opposite sexes clothing to deceive. This is an abomination. So women can keep on wearing jeans. However nothing should be deceiving, if you cant tell whether your a man or women in the way you dress or act there is a problem. There are many texts like it to say to avoid arguments however I believe it is a lazy thing to bring up. For example the death penalty when it was still on. Should we have kept it? Or have just said, lets avoid this argument and keep it forever. 2 Timothy 3:16 ESV say "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," This is not sinning, we are having a good discussion that may help others in their faith. I totally disagree with you on the everyday life thing and most of them are not dealing with moral and ethical topics. I love the last one. There's no doubt in my mind that Christ loves everyone. Sinners and righteous alike. Even though it is not for me to judge whether every LGBTTQ person, will or won't be accepted by God but the Bible is clear. Those who are living in sexual immorality such as homosexuality (1 Cor 6:10; Rom 1:26-28; Col 3:5-7; Gal 5:21) (1 Cor 5:9-10) will not inherit the kingdom of God.
The Bible is against Homosexuality

Homosexuality may be classified as a sin in the Bible, but so is pretty much everything else. Wearing clothes with mixed fabrics is, along with accusing and wearing clothes of the opposite sex. Titus 3:9 says: "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, for these are unprofitable and worthless." Technically, by having this argument, we are sinning. Of all the sins in the Bible, we seem to ignore all of them except for homosexuality. The Bible is against most things that are part of everyday life, and we only pay attention to one of them. Whatever happened to Mark 12:31- "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."?
you are a troll

C1: His forumYour forums title is I am not a troll, and it was essentially spam. Then you go off topic talking about racial slurs, and basically all of your posts on the forum are spam. [1] Also the forum itself is spam, as well it just begs the question of trollishness. No one would have thought you where a troll unless you made this forum, as trolls all have one hting in common: get attention. C2: Your debateYou make many racist remarks, and well you make no sense. Also this too is titled I am not a troll. [2] And why would an "non-troll" make these type on debates anyway? Also anyone who is not a troll would not argue like this:"Cheombuteo ttokgatji nal bakkuryeo haji maAnimyeon charari dareun saram manna(U uuu neo) tudeoldaeji ma(U uuu neo)" [2]C3: Obvious multi accounterYour opponent actually conceded with your spam arguments, [2] no normal person would do that. Also if you see his arguments they seem highly illustrated. Also anti trolers IP beginning doesn't match up with where he is from. san diego needs a 76.88 [3], he has 76.93. [2] Proxy. This shows he is a multi accounter possibly. Also the IP's they have are very similar.Vote Pro[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://www.dslreports.com...
you are a troll

Sir that is defamation of character! I am discussed by the conduct of the users of this website. all i came here to do was have a private debate with a friend of mine and perhaps have some input of some of the current members of this website and all i have been subjected to is nothing but slander and lies! I would like to ask you sir, what is it about the users of this website that makes them just attack new users of this site?