BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism vs any other ideology

The problem with the postulation that human greed can be ended is that no matter how good we have it, there will always be something else that we want. That is the underlying factor in economics, humans must try to satisfy an infinite list of wants with only a finite amount of resources. In addition, the wants and needs of every person is different. Some people are born with diabetes, some are born with allergies, so how could a government distinguish between these peoples' needs and wants in accordance to their disabilites? Maybe someone can't handle glucose the way others can, and it makes them sick to try and process it, yet they can still eat it if they needed to. Would this be a want, because it's not crucial to their survival that they go glucose free, or would it be a need because it still makes them sick to try and process it, and is overall detrimental to their health? There's an infinite amount of these little details that are handled on a daily basis by individuals themselves. After all, you should know what's best for you right? It would be practically impossible for a government to try and sort through the plethora of minute conditions and disabilities that individuals are able to take care of by themselves. Even if a government was able to process and handle all this information successfully, it would be ludicrous to think that there wouldn't be private markets within the communist society. Lets assume that there are two citizens, each issued bread and cheese. Next, lets say that one citizen prefers the taste of cheese over bread, and vice versa. Eventually these two citizens get together and trade their unwanted goods for wanted goods, after all, they both have something the other one wants. This goes on for weeks until they finally decide to start trading bananas for oranges, water for soda, the list goes on and on. Maybe someone even finds a way to end up with two wheels of cheese for every loaf of bread he gives away. This is a free market which runs off of mutually beneficial transactions between two or more parties. The problem with communism is that you are the only person who knows what's best for you. Not your friends, not your teacher, and certainly not your government. Only you.
Communism vs any other ideology

Communism brings an end to the constant cycle of class antagonism. It destroys classes and by doing this eliminates a major creation of conflict. I believe communism can bring peace and bring an end to non coercive and non consensual force by eliminating the people who initiate it. The bourgeoisie. Communism would also end poverty. Instead of the few owning all the wealth the wealth would be collectively owned and everyone who get what they need to survive and live a fulfilling life. The elimination of private property would follow. Money would no longer be a necessity to survive instead money would be abolished and along with that material greed and commodity fetishism.
Communism vs any other ideology

"The problem with the postulation that human greed can be ended is that no matter how good we have it, there will always be something else that we want." This is an assumption. Under our current sociological and cultural mindset this may be true. But We only have seemingly infinite material wants because the market produces far more than we can consume. Let me reference the Marxist theory of Base and Superstructure( https://en.wikipedia.org... ). "Some people are born with diabetes, some are born with allergies, so how could a government distinguish between these peoples' needs and wants in accordance to their disabilites?" I don't know what you mean. Communism is a stateless society. It is the final transition from capitalism to communism. In a communist society these needed medication would be produced by specialised syndicates. The rest of your argument is a Strawman. I clearly said in the definition that communism was stateless. Please re-write your arguments accordingly.
Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same ...

Forgive me for not being too familiar with LD format. I'll try to adhere to the standards of Lincoln-Douglas as best I can.The full resolution of the debate is: Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grant to citizens.Pro will argue in favor of the extension of due process protections while I as the Con will argue against any obligation to do as such.===Definitions===Should- having an obligation or duty in regards to some ends or goodConstitutional due process- Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner Right to be present at the trial Right to an impartial jury Right to be heard in one's own defense Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior Taxes may only be taken for public purposes Property may be taken by the government only for public purposes Owners of taken property must be fairly compensated[1] ' I'll assume this round will serve as acceptance and clarifications and that argumentation will begin in R2. ' ===Sources=== ' [1] http://www.usconstitution.net...
Bob Marley Vs The Beatles

For this debate I will be arguing that Bob Marley was a superior musician to the Beatles and his impact on the world was much greater. My opponent will argue the Beatles had a greater impact on music and on the world in general. Note that one cannot argue any of the member of the Beatles solo careers or their work after the Beatles. Round 1 is for acceptance only. Round 2 we will both make are arguments, there will be no rebuttals at this point. Round 3 we are free to rebut the opponents main points and no new arguments will be introduced. Round 4 will be for rebuttals and concluding statements
The United States ought to value freedom above national security.

Our opponent could not continue the round, but we think this is an important and controversial issue so we'd like to post a counter argument. In some situations, civil liberties MUST be sacrificed. Take, for example, the civil war. Abraham Lincoln, possibly the greatest president of all time, put the country into martial law during the war. In addition, he suspended rights like habeas corpus. America could have been ripped apart forever, the civil war was almost lost and the country would never be the superpower it is today. If the country had stuck to its "founding freedoms", the country would have perished. Today too, our country is threatened by enemies to democracy. If America is to guide the world and protect its people, privacy must be sacrificed. These freedoms like a right to a speedy trial could be used against us, as an ignorant or indecisive jury leads to criminals hurting the country. The choice is clear, put SECURITY first. Freedom is only good for its people if its people are safe. So secure the country first, worry over ideals later. Please post your comments for this debate, we intend to find an answer to this question with the help of the rational community.
The United States ought to value freedom above national security.

Our opponent's argument is based on the assumption that this is a different country, but as the resolution states this is the United States. In his counter argument, he says there are "countless instances of suspension of civil liberties in foreign countries", but the resolution is clearly intended to compare freedom to security in the United States, so his point is irrelevant. His only contention is that too much freedom leads to "murder, theft, extortion..." Our opponent is confused on the resolution, this belongs in another debate about government. But this resolution is about freedoms that conflict with national security, such as laws for privacy (i.e. wire taps, extensive tracking, etc.) In addition to making no real claim for national security, he agreed with our second point. The real clash lies in our third contention, what kind of message does the United States send to enemies foreign and domestic. The majority of the debate will surround this point because the other two points are settled. The truth is, the United States sends a message of cowardice and submission when it sacrifices freedom for security. Again we'd like to restate that by staying strong to our basis of freedom, the world sees us as a united and powerful country. If, instead, we sacrifice freedom and privacy the world will view us with a critical view. When we passed the Patriot Act, for example, countries saw that as sacrificing freedom in fear, a serious step backwards for democracy. The truth is simple: the country is based on democracy, the American people are granted unalienable freedoms, and our government cannot take those away. So to conclude, the United States was based on freedom, "national security" can be abused, and the country sends a message of fear when it takes away those freedoms from its people. My opponent offers no solid case to argue and he agrees or fails to refute our points. Vote Affirmation.
The United States ought to value freedom above national security.

Thank you for inviting me to take part in such an interesting subject for debate. I'll address each of your contentions individually. 1. I agree with much of this claim. I don't think it's axiomatic that a successful democracy requires the protection of its people by ensuring certain "unalienable rights," but since it's the only type of democracy I have any experience with I won't press the point. Certainly the US has always been notable for its liberal stance of personal freedom. 2. This is absolutely true as demonstrated by countless instances of suspension of civil liberties in foreign countries which serve not to promote the general welfare but to bolster the ruling party's power. 3. I think this portion doesn't make a solid claim - do we have any experience sending frightened messages in order to form an opinion? Is the primary message we send one of a commitment to freedom, or are there other more important messages which take precedent? I'll accept this contention since it is really just an expansion of the debate subject. My strategy to refute my opponent's claim is simple: the contention lacks sufficient specificity to be of any practical use, and thus should be discarded in favor of a more nuanced proposal. I think very few people would agree that we are free in the US to do whatever we choose. "My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins," as the saying goes. Murder, theft, extortion, libel, and fraud are all actions which potentially could be part of the list of things we are free to do, but there is overwhelming consensus that making such actions illegal provides more benefit to society than allowing them would. But what if an action doesn't result in such an obvious breach of somebody else's freedom to live unmolested? Can I provide state secrets to China? Can I kite checks? Currently these potential freedoms are curtailed, so clearly this is a question better decided on a case-by-case basis. The proposal needs revision.
The United States ought to value freedom above national security.

First we'd like to say that the purpose of this debate is to question whether security of the nation is worth sacrificing some freedoms of the individual. We're interested to know the answer to this question, so we can guide our nation better and progress forward. Because this is a debate of pros verses cons, the criteria will be a net-benefit analysis of the superior value. Next I'd like to thank you for your opinion in our search for the truth. My argument will be broken down into three main contentions on why individual freedom is more important than national security. 1) The United States was based on principles of freedom that have governed us for over 200 years. A truly strong and successful democracy requires the protection of its people, by ensuring certain "unalienable rights". When we pervert the freedoms that are the base of America, the country crumbles. 2) "National security" can be abused. Who defines what is a "security threat?" Could it be a possible terrorist? Or just a criticizing politician? My point is that when a tool as powerful as the government determines what is and is not a threat, the system will be abused. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so by letting the government bend the rules of freedom at will the security of our democracy is at stake. 3) The country should not bend its values in fear. In times of chaos Americans cannot give up their rights for "security". Founding father Ben Franklin said it best, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." Do we want to send the message of a country frightened and ready to throw away their founding ideals in fear? Or rather send a message of a nation united, more committed to the freedom that all Americans enjoy and stand for. So for the principles we're founded on, the abuse of "security", and the message of unity we urge a vote for the affirmation. Actions speak louder, so stand up for all people and vote freedom.
The United States ought to value freedom above national security.

My apologies for the forfeit - unforeseen work issues most definitely ought to be valued over participation on debate.org. I'm fully aware that the argument concerns freedom vs. national security in the US. Surely there is insight to be gained by examining experiences in other countries, or even in hypothetical ones. Nonetheless, I'll restrict my comments geographically; this restriction doesn't hamper my argument at all. As I explained in my first post, the notion of "freedom" needs to be more clearly defined in order for the subject of this debate to have any real merit. It's not as simple as, say, assigning a value (PF) between 1 and 100 to our personal freedom and then determining that our national security is therefore (100-PF). While it's clear from my opponent's clarifications that he also realizes the fuzzy nature of his statement of argument, perhaps he does not realize that I agree with his broader claim: by dishonoring the constitutional codification of personal freedom here in America we cease to be that which has defined us since 1776 - a nation for which personal freedom, in aggregate, leads to collective freedom and prosperity. The solution to this problem is to reword the initial argument: "The United States ought to value freedom (as defined in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the various amendments) above national security. If you value precision and clarity then you must vote Con. The nature of any argument must be clearly stated in the title, not doled out piecemeal in the various rounds. Thank you.
Kids learn just as much at a public school then a private school.

The false accusation is made everyday. "My kid will learn more at a private school, and my kid will then excel more and not do drugs." Before you can even write, your destiny is written. Your destiny doesn't include a type of school. Your kid has a personality. It's not the type of school that will keep your kids out of drugs. It's your kid. Your kid can do well at either school. Its up to the kid how much they want to challenge themselves, and thrive. I am only 14, however I know that I will do just as well at a public school vs. a private. Studies show that kids at public schools test to be equal in academics to kids who went to top prep school. The teachers do change things, however its up to the kid to get involved and work hard. It's not the school. Its the kid. For the record there are drugs at every high school so don't bother arguing with me on that.
Kids learn just as much at a public school then a private school.

Studies have found that kids do better on standardized tests, when they attend private school. They typically go on to do better in life and attend better universities. http://nces.ed.gov... quoting Cape.org "In a June 2002 report, NCES found that private schools had students who scored higher on standardized tests, had more demanding graduation requirements, and sent more graduates to college than public schools. The report said that students who had completed at least the eighth grade in a private school were twice as likely as other students to graduate from college as a young adult. NCES statistics also showed that students in private schools are much more likely than others to take advanced-level high school courses." http://www.capenet.org... studies have determined that students do better in a safe and supportive environment. http://nces.ed.gov... , and private schools have been determined to provide a safer environment than public schools. http://nces.ed.gov... You just can't deny the evidence. Kids in private schools do better on standardized tests. They are more likely to get a Bachelors degree and also ar more likely to attend advanced placement classes. http://www.capenet.org... This is a pretty simple case. I am just arguing a truism at this point.
Rap Battle 20.2: [your fav rapper] (Pro) vs Eazy E (Con)

You think I'm dead? Ma spirit's un-killable Unlike your @ss, I kill with every syllable My thirst fo' pvssy is just un-fillable it explains the STDs on ma willy hole But, nigga People choose not to go at cho' nub Cause your face acts like a natural glove! Yes it sucks I contracted fvckin' AIDs But at least I can say I got pvssy fo dayz! So you betta than me nigga? Is dat true? Just remember you used to open for my rap group! Givin' me shjt cause Suge knocked my groove But don't forget he dangled you off the roof! [1] muthafvcka Yo' new shjt's unpopula, no one like's you, nigga 30 years later, they still listen to my tune, nigga It's too bad you failed: the suicide attempt Next time do it Cause everyone holds you in high contempt We rappin', you losin', you think Ima DIE again? Well your round 1 was weak... TRY again Now, bjtch, you betta quit stealin' ma rhymes Yo lines suck without them, but quit with your crimes [italics is part of the beat]
Rap Battle 20.2: [your fav rapper] (Pro) vs Eazy E (Con)

Well hello Mr. Eaze You motherfvkin sleaze How's your STD's? **Ice ice baby** I'm Vanilla Ice, bout' to give you some spice' Can't believe I'm rappin with a dead nigga What he died from you can go figga I didn't get the AIDS, cus' I like to take precautions I use more condoms than ya daughter has abortions So whatttt if I'm white, at least I ain't no kike' I know you like the Jews, cus your manager you screwed He fvcked you up the a$$ Had you doin' the dick dance Tryin' to diss me you niggaa, at least I'm still alive, you been gone since 95' I still damn got it, never fvcking lost it Just look how white my teeth are, while I'm riding in my sports car I got the looks of a celebrity, I shop for things expensively, and now I'm ruinin' you aggressively You got beat by Suge Knight and his cronies You can't even stand upta amateur homies You shoulda killed that fvcker while ya had the chance, but instead you pranced around like a retard in a trance Now he's jokin' bout you on TV Indicatin' he injected you with HIV What a fvcking pu$$y you are, shoulda dealt with the problem, but you chose to let your enemies motherfvckin blossom You think Compton's great, well bitchh I'm in Florida, and if you wasn't dead already I'd take ya to the coroner **drops mic**
Rap Battle 20.2: [your fav rapper] (Pro) vs Eazy E (Con)

ma beat [Boy, you shoulda known by now... Eazy Duz It] Ay yo, just anotha battle, here with ma nigga Holy shjt you're WHITE?! What's with ya figya? Rap aint Vanilla, so why you think you got it? Go sing some pop, Cause this music's chocolate! I'm the muthafvckin Eaz, so please njgga please Quit with that breakdance shjt, and get to yo knees! [nigga] No sweat battling a one-hit-wonder Unlike your career, mine aint' a blunder! Nobody wants to fvck with Bob Van Winkle But I've fvcked so much that I feel a burn in my pee hole! So please hoe- Step back from the father of gangsta rap, And quit pretendin', cause a real gangsta's black! This prankster's wickety- wack one more word and this wangster's gittin' a slap And for a more thorough lesson, I'll go head- pull out ma Smith & Wesson We real in Compton, you fake in Dallas Come to ma palace and I'll give you malice, njgga "Ice Ice Baby" is just a buncha plundered treasure Cause you stole the beat from "Under Pressure" Well, it's been a pleasure Beatin you down every fvckin measure [boy you shoulda known by now] So go ahead, sign your cheesy love shjt [boy you shoulda known by now] Cause boy you shoulda known by now, Eazy Duz It
Rap Battle 20.2: [your fav rapper] (Pro) vs Eazy E (Con)

Rap Battle 20.2 (redo to finish it out), my competition and I will be assuming the roles of one of our favorite rap artists, your rapper and Eazy E (me). Whoever disses the other rap representation the hardest wins. R1: acceptance and choosing your rapper, or you can go first if you feel up to it (then you must concede R4) R2, 3, and 4: Lay down bars to decimate your opponent Rules: 1. Total plagiarism of a rap is denied, but sense we are taking on the roles of other rappers, one or two lines is permitted per round. But keep it low. 2. You can either Freestyle or use Edited lines, whatever you feel will help you win. 3. Note to voters: RFV not needed, but it's encouraged. 4. Rap Hard You accept this battle against NWA? Nigga, don't pretend to be somethin' you aint...
"Is coeducation a psychologicallly healthier learning environment in institutions ?"

I am Sugat Shanker and I accept the challenge . Recall what co-education means- Co-education is a system of education where males and females are educated together. Coeducation allows males and females of all ages to become more prepared for real-world situations, whereas a student that is only familiar with a single-sex setting could be less prepared, nervous, or uneasy. In classes that are separated by gender, male and female students work and learn on the same level as their peers, the stereotypical mentality of the teacher is removed, and girls are likely to have less confidence in the classroom than they would in a coeducational class. In co-ed, you can be well accustomed to the real life scenario where there will not only be the boys (or the girls) only and they can become well prepared. As you said,"Many parents say that coeducational institutions are not fit to make the career of their kids as they may get distracted". But I strongly defend my point that it is up to the students that whether they get distracted, there is an old proverb that "There is not even a trace of poison in sandalwood tree, although the snakes keep coiled around it". As in the real life, the student decide whether they have to get distracted or not. With these arguments, I end my debate. I hope you may find it convincing for you.
Organ/Fetal tissue donation

Well, according to online.wsj.com yes, the person may be brain dead but are still on life support. Is it morally right to take take their organs while on life support? Life support is to live. To add on the number for transplant-related diseases are on a rise. People are growing seriously I'll after their transplants. At the university of Mississippi acdc found an amoeba which affected the person who received the donation. As demands for organs are on a rise so are bacterial infections, viruses, tuberculosis and cancers due to poor testing.
Organ/Fetal tissue donation

Yes, some religions do support saving a life but do they know how and which ways a recipient is chosen? Is it by religion, race, age, or ethnic groups. If the recipient believes in a different faith then who's the organ go to? These are religious websites. Now, could the organ be donated by wealth? Is it illegal to sell organs, but there are still those who will find the loop poles with the law. There are websites who support this all like "'matchingdonors.com" but how accurate are these. When it comes to the Internet there are lies everywhere and holes in the stories.