BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism is the form of government we should have in the United States.

First off you are saying that the government will be taking most of the businesses by imminent domain. That is still forcing the people to let go of their businesses. I don't agree imminent domain right now as it is, so if the people don't want to sell they don't really have a choice do they. In outsourcing, the heads that make those decisions are doing what they are suppose to. They are making their business profit, and unfortunately other people get hurt in the process. People will get hurt no matter what actions you take. Our current needs to pass legislation in order to prevent companies from outsourcing. I don't agree with it, but I am just telling you how it works. "You have admitted right from the get-go that on paper this is the best form of government. Why then must we assume that it won't work. I feel the only reason people would not embrace this is due to greed. Given there are more than enough resources for all to live a high standard of living why is it that only a small number reap the benefits of the work that the average Joe does? ? Basically communism makes things fair. Forces things to be fair for all. No other system can do that. " I did admit that communism is the best on paper in a sense. The reason I say in a sense is because if everything is fair then nothing lets us achieve more. Also greed is a natural thing in all humans. Everyone strives to do better and it is impossible to eliminate that factor. Not everything is better because it is fair.
Communism is the form of government we should have in the United States.

"To each his own share will be based on his/her work. A doctor is going to make more than a janitor given the doctor's job requires more expertise than a janitor." Isn't the purpose of communism making everyone equal? If that is the case then giving the doctor a higher salary because he did more work, defeats the purpose of communism. "The people doing the work for these companies are not recieving American wages, not recieving workers compensation benefits, and the list goes on." The purpose of outsourcing is to increase the profit of the company. If other countries decided to make decent labor laws this wouldn't be a factor. Also they shouldn't recieve American wages since they do not work in America. But enough on outsource since it is straying from the original topic. "I will agree that previous attempts at communism have failed. Corruption and the like were responsible. However no country has ever attempted pure Marxian Communism." Also what stops the the leaders from going corrupt and destroying the country. There won't be any checks or balances on the government system, correct? Also you state that there would be controlled distribution of wealth to all parties correct? How does the communist government plan on taking the wealth from the rich in our country. I'm going to assume the government are going to use force in order to take it, in which case would cause liberty problem. Also since everyone should be earning the same amount that would include government officials. I also forgot something from the first debate. "I feel we can maintain property rights, however the state will be tasked to ensure that certain resources of land be free from private purchase." Will the government be taking the land from people and be evenly distributing to all. If so this also is an invasion of liberty and rights. Essentially a new constitution would need to be written along with all political officials being overthrown.
Communism is the form of government we should have in the United States.

I agree that a janitor and a doctor cannot make the same amount of money. To each his own share will be based on his/her work. A doctor is going to make more than a janitor given the doctor's job requires more expertise than a janitor. I will agree that previous attempts at communism have failed. Corruption and the like were responsible. However no country has ever attempted pure Marxian Communism. I disagree with your assertion that outsourcing is a good thing, in that it creates competition. This would be true only if the competition was a result. Instead of this "created competition" we end up seeing a copycat effect. Other companies realizing the advantages economically to going overseas are now following suit. So the competition no longer benefits the people, but the companies in their search for cheaper and cheaper labor. The company has no stake in the people of this country. They are only looking to meet there money numbers. So in essence the argument that this is somehow beneficial is laughable. It has helped to increase a trade deficit within this country, reduce jobs to the people of this country, and further the expansion of cheap labor. The people doing the work for these companies are not recieving American wages, not recieving workers compensation benefits, and the list goes on. This is a system of exploitation. In a communist system these worries will no longer exist. The good of the people would be first priority. You also stated that you could simply ban outsourcing through legislation. Heres the question though, what keeps these companies from simply closing down American operations and simply moving there operations overseas? That would most certainly be the outcome of such a move. I have not been swayed by any aspect of your previous argument. Planned economies, and a communist structure would allow this country to maximize its production, and control the distribution of the wealth. No other system can afford such protections the the people.
Communism is the form of government we should have in the United States.

Communism is by far the best form of government on paper, but in reality it doesn't work well. Communism makes everyone an equal, and no matter what their is no chance improve your income. So say if a janitor is being paid as much as a doctor what is the point of trying? There is no incentive to do better then your rival, because at the end of the day you get the same check as everyone else. Your suggestion to change America from a constitutional republic to a communist state is near impossible. People who strive for success and who are already successful won't agree with the change. By changing the government your goal is to help the poor. The poor only make up a small percent of our country. Also most peoples basic needs are meet. By attempting to change how the country is ran you could damage our society. Since by human nature we all strive for better things, which leads to greed. When you eliminate that strive why should anyone do anything? Also you state it will stop outsourcing. Well an easier solution to that is banning outsourcing. By passing laws saying the majority to all jobs need to stay in the US. I am not saying I agree with this, but outsourcing isn't a negative thing. By outsourcing jobs you decrease the amount it costs to produce a product, which will cause more competition between big corporations. Also you are suppling jobs to countries which need them.
Communism is the form of government we should have in the United States.

Our current system of government is currently selling away America's middle class. No longer can the average American hope to prosper. The days of the factory worker buying a home and supporting his family are over. Our minimum wage cannot even keep up with the rising prices of home heating oil, gasoline for his car, or even food for his stomach. We have become pawns for corporate interests. Selling away our future for the good of only a small percentage of people. I believe that only through a communist political structure can we realize our countries true potential. A system that has the good of all in mind. I am not going to use Stalin, or Castro as a model of my claims. I feel their forms of communism can be better categorized as tyrannical dictatorships. However I will use Karl Marx's model. One in which the state controls the means of production. One in which each is given according to his work. One in which everyones basic needs are met for. Given America's massive industrial capacity it would not be a difficult move. Instead of the corporations worrying only of their own profit, the state will have the needs of the people as a whole in mind. No longer will jobs be outsourced overseas to meet a cheaper solution. Capitalism has only bred us a society of materialism. Materialism at the expense of workers, and the greater good of the country. Communism in its purest application will maintain a standard of living for all. Furthermore I believe in communisms economic philosophy. That of a planned economy. I feel that by having a planned economy system the state can control the price of goods/services. We can ensure that the wealth of our resources is evenly distributed amongst the people. We can maximize our own output, as well as our own wealth. I feel we can maintain property rights, however the state will be tasked to ensure that certain resources of land be free from private purchase. This will enable the state to ensure that environmental standards are kept, and that nature is protected. Overall I feel this system is only the next logical step in our countries political evolution. We have created a huge industrial capacity, and a massive amount of wealth. The logical next step is to apply that wealth and our position in the world to the greater good of our people. A concept that capitalism has abandoned. Look to US oil company profits, the trend of outsourcing, our failing health care system, the state of dismay our social security system is in, and the wars of corporate conquest in the middle east as evidence of capitalism's moral decline. I do not feel there is any other system that could provide as much for the people as communism.
ODT: The Keystone XL Pipeline

This is for the ODT semi-finals. I would like to congratulate Contra for making it this far. Full Resolution: The Keystone XL Pipeline should be built in the US. Definitions: Keystone XL Pipeline: "...the 1,897-km (1,179-mile) Keystone XL Pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska."[1] Should: "Must; ought"[2] Built: "...past tense of build: To construct (especially something complex) by assembling and joining parts or materials."[3] Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules,and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources: [1]: http://www.transcanada.com... [2]: http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
We Should Show No Sympathy For Drug Addicts

Pro has put forward the argument that drug addicts were warned ahead of their time and thus this is a justification that they don’t deserve sympathy, also stating that drug addiction causes a variety of serious problems to occur, which Pro has put forward as ‘stealing, robbing, and killing’ in order to further fuel their habits. I will address this situation according to the order of the points Pro has put forward. Firstly, drug addiction occurs through a variety of reasons, many governments aim to advocate strongly against taking on smoking and drug substances, however, the government themselves do not fund treatmeant measures as much, and in many cases this still won’t faze the individual from taking it up, but this still isn’t their fault in most cases, many drug addicts are family members that are going through troubled times, whether it is divorce, unemployment, or other reasons. Ignoring the fact that we ‘warned’ them earlier of the risks they were facing do not always prevent them even if they didn’t want to take it up from the start, it is clearly seen that depression can be linked with drug addiction, depressive disorder, for example, is supposedly said to be cured with drug use and many people who experience this fall through addiction, and many users who fall into depression while on drug substances lose all hope that their situation can be improved, or feel ashamed about their drug conditions that they won’t seek help themselves. Not only that, Pro has put forward unsourced claims that 'several different reporters' have researched that there are warnings on cigerette packs about Nicotine, but this itself is a very controversal issue, and there are no facts to back up if this is true or not in many countries. [A] [B]Going back to Pro's earlier assertion that drug addiction leads to 'stealing, robbing, and killing' is unsourced, and it is slightly patronizing almost as well, that considering the fact that if what Pro has put forward is true, then it can be clear that the situation is dire and we need to take drug addiction more seriously in consideration. And this is where we should show sympathy for drug users, Pro put forward the claim that a lot of families are destroyed by drug users, which is why we should aim to take action to prevent such terrible disasters from occurring, recent statistics show that over 20 million people on the National Drug Survey did not receive treatment for their addictions, which almost certainly links up to why Pro believes so many families are being torn apart. Only 2 million people from this survey actually received treatment, which is why Pro came to push the assertion that rehabs are ineffective, as many do not receive specialized treatment. [C]This is why I believe that we SHOULD show sympathy for drug users, for not only the safety of the indivudal, but clearly for our society as a whole. Thank you for this brief debate.Sources - [A] - http://www.theguardian.com...[B] - http://www.helpguide.org...[C] - http://www.drugabuse.gov...
We Should Show No Sympathy For Drug Addicts

Why show sympathy for a person(s) that decided to throw their life away by abusing drugs and developing a habit that they knew would be hard to get rid of? Most drug addicts were warned ahead of time about how addictive and serious drug usage is, but yet they try to justify their actions by making excuses about their life problems and struggles. There are people from around the world with stories that are way more serious, but yet they don't use drugs. This statement doesn't apply to all, just some. For example: Marijuana has been shown to been extremely psychologically addictive. My source: http://www.drugabuse.gov... Cigarettes have been proved with statistics by several different researchers that Nicotine is a very addictive substance. They even put warning labels on the packs. I'm aware that some people find comfort in drug use because for some, it helps them to stop focusing on the reality of their circumstances. Once their habit has developed, it leads to strong cravings for that drug. This can lead to stealing, robbing, and killing, in order for that person to get the funds to support their habits. A lot of families have been destroyed because of drug addicts and their habits. So why show sympathy? For a lot of drug addicts, even when they leave a rehabilitation center, they usually go right back to their old habits. Especially if they were deep into their addiction.
Tupac > Biggie

Tupac can be shown to be the best based on 3 simple things. His poetic talent, his positive messages, and his contributions to the better good. Hip Hop itself is poetry with a beat, that speaks to the people. This is something Tupac Shakur excelled at. "Don't believe everything you hear. Real eyes, realize, real lies." A poet, actor, and musical artist Tupac had many talents, and he used them all for the greater good. A modern day Poe, you can see Tupac's talent in each of his songs. "She tried to hide her pregnancy from her family / who didn"t really care to see, or give a damn if she / went out and had a church of kids / as long as when the check came they got first dibs." -Brenda's Got a Baby His lyrics work to inspire and speak on important issues. "And since we all came from a woman/Got our name from a woman and our game from a woman/I wonder why we take from our women/Why we rape our women, do we hate our women? /I think it's time to kill for our women/Time to heal our women, be real to our women". While other rappers were rapping about "having sex with hoes", drugs, and money, Tupac was trying to make a difference. Not only that Tupac gave back to the community. He had many charities that he told no one about because he didn't want people to say he did it for the attention. He also helped anyone who ever needed him, "In 1993, Tupac received a letter from the parents of a dying boy, named Joshua. They said it was Joshua"s last wish to meet Tupac. Tupac flew to Maryland to meet Joshua and took him to a basketball game. Soon after Joshua"s death Tupac renamed his publishing company from Ghetto Gospel Music to Joshua"s Dream." "From June 1994 to April 2002, Ms. Erica Ford ran Tupac"s Code Foundation even after the rapper had passed away. Erica, Tupac, and his stepfather Mutulu Shakur, established The Code in 1994. The mission was simply to keep young people out of jail and to decrease "Black on Black" crime." And it doesn't stop there..... "Tupac put together a benefit concert to help a growing non-profit organization, A Place Called Home, raise money for a new building. Founded in 1993, A Place Called Home is a safe haven in South Central LA where at risk youth are empowered to take ownership of the quality and direction of their lives through programs in education." Believe me when I say there are MANY more.
Country Vs Country War

US currently has a better navy and airforce but that is only cause it's not in a war. Once a war starts China's manpower and Russia's technology combined would be able to build a large navy and airforce. Much much larger than the United States. Japan is only a small country off the coast of China which China would easily be able to deystroy in just a couple months. And Canada doesn't have that large of a male population either. All China and Russia would have to do to invade the US is go through Alaska as its so close to Russia.
Country Vs Country War

Yes Russia may help china but the US will likely have Japan to support the US and will be provided assistance from UK and Can the UN will make sure that both countrys don't nuke each others from the face of the earth Russia wont be much help to attacking, though they have a great land military we have a way better navy and airforce so they wont be able to even reach American soil. Plus if they do even get near us we have support of Canada to help us out as for the EU they may grant supplys to china but they wont try to get involved in the war itself.
Country Vs Country War

Well for my opening statement, you never said anything about war actually happening, you only said we had to argue why our country would most likely win. I live in the US but I know that China is a powerful country. 1. They have a Larger Population China's population is that of 5x ours with a majority male. They would have a much large military force and they would be able to build weapons of war at a much faster speed then us. 2. Chinese government controls natural resources The Chinese wouldn't have to buy weapons of war from private companies like the US would, they just build what they need and want. 3. China is closer to our allies and has powerful allies Russia would most likely support China in any fight and it's closer to the US allies then the US is so China and its allies would have an easier time taking out our allies.
Country Vs Country War

For my closing argument id like to point out to voters the horrible spelling and structure and grammar of my opponents arguments. I'd also like to point out his extremely little knowledge of countries in this world and their power. My opponent mentioned the South Koreans being allied with the US and that they would handle North Korea, however, without US troops their the Chinese would be able to join with North Koreans to smash both South Korea and Japan. He mentioned the US having experience, however China and Russia have just as much experience in war. He also has failed to realize that the EU is actually an American ally as he claimed it would only support Russia with money and such. My closing statements in this debate are that China would be a powerful foe for the US, especially along with its close friends and would most likely win a war. For those reasons I urge a vote on my side,
Country Vs Country War

The China and Russia will make a good army but we can track down them easy since we have like the worlds best radars in a war china is mostly gonna be defeansive and do a few attacks once in a while while Russia try to attack and china will give them aid, China may have a good numbers but the US has major fighting experience plus since we have many allys that are super powers they will most likely help us if china and Russia actually invade our land plus since we have a major role in the UN and give them like the most money they wont stand for the destruction of the US and will support the US Russia and china may be strong but they cant beat about half the world including a few of the super powers plus the US has more rich people than china so they would want to help the country and will donate major funds for military and the US may begin testing the experimental weapons on china and Russian troops plus America has about a good relationship with almost all the Americas so its likely they will help if china and Russia troops reach American soil creating a world war china allys will be Russia and North Koreo for sure but we will have south koreo to take care of them we will mainly focus on making sure china and Russia do not reach the Americas wich is as much as our allys would help us do.
Challenge:The Existence of God, absolute morality, Jesus, Bible validity, or whatever else you want!

Don't argue with me on here, I will debate but I'd rather use youtube instead of typing for hours on end. so the challenge is to email me whatever you want to debate about religion i am the pro christian stance and you can be whatever. http://www.youtube.com... heres the video email is skepticsaskhere at gmail.com I'm ready for athiests Catholics agnostics Muslims or whoever else would like to challenge this
schools do or do not have the right to ban controversial clothing ( i.e.gang colors ect)

I agree that schools should not ban clothing and get to decide what we wear. I do understand if there is little clothing at all and teachers what to make sure they wear something not too revealing, but just because they think we are wearing something that resembles a 'gang' (which is presumably not true) shouldn't prove their actions. At my school wearing miss-matched socks, showing shoulders, and wearing pants or skirts above the knees is prohibited. It is something that should be changed.
Pure Capitalism With Basic Needs vs Marxist/Social Socialism Dbt 3

Pure capitalism is fundamentally an amoral economic system which has the sole "advantage" that it is highly efficient at consuming natural resources. However, in a world where planetary resources are scarce and dwindling and where a single business enterprise can (inadvertently or not) threaten all of humanity with terrible harm, perhaps extinction, prudence and sanity demand that we engage in long-range planning concerning the allocation of resources so that issues of sustainability and morality are taken into account. Unlike pure capitalism, Marxism and socialism involve planned economies (the key word being "planned") which thus enables society to manage scarce planetary resources in a sustainable and moral fashion.