BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
capitalism vs. communism.capitalism is the only one that has freedom builtt in it.

Thank you again Con for providing an interesting topic of debate. Since Con has failed to provide explicit definitions for the terms he used in his opening argument, Pro will take the liberty to extrapolate the general working definition that seems to be what Con is proposing. The first term to define is Communism, in this case, Con seems to propose that the USSR and China are examples of a Communist system. Pro cannot accept this definition. Neither the USSR nor the People's Republic of China claim in any way to run a Communist system of government. This is clear in the nomenclature of both nation's names: USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [1], with emphasis on Socialist Republics. Anyone with even basic knowledge of Karl Marx's theoretical works would remember that for a Communist system to evolve, one must first have a Socialist one. The same is true with China- People's Republic of China- again, they do not claim to be a Communist state- rather a Socialist one, that they hope will evolve into the Communist state that Marx envisioned. Therefore, since no nation on Earth has actually claimed to run a Communist system [2], Con's arguments on the Iron Curtain (GDR) and the Bamboo Curtain (PROC) are invalidated. The resolution is negated. Footnotes: [1] http://www.history.com... " the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) is established" [2] Steele, David (1992). From Marx to Mises: Post-Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court Publishing Company. p. 45. ISBN 978-0875484495. "Among Western journalists the term "Communist" came to refer exclusively to regimes and movements associated with the Communist International and its offspring: regimes which insisted that they were not communist but socialist, and movements which were barely communist in any sense at all"
If the USA or Russia could play cricket we might know who is the best at sport.

Thank you for responding. I am saying that cricket mirrors the character of its participants. If any of the major players in International affairs adopted cricket as a national sport it would bring into sharp scrutiny the nature of their people. In England we have a sense of fair play that cricket embodies. I suggest that other pretenders to World sports and Indeed World Dominance should look at cricket to express themselves. Karl Marx never played the game and look what a mess he left behind.
If the USA or Russia could play cricket we might know who is the best at sport.

America has its sports , NBA ,NFA etc to which it excels and is indeed the World Champions of itself. Russia is good at shooting events. Im not suggesting that cricket is a global game . What it is , is a team game and character building. If anyone of these two ageing superpowers could adopt cricket as the "litmus paper" of global sporting prowess we might be Inclined to judge them properly.
USFG should ensure the welfare of families living in poverty

I apologize for my hasty reply, but I am short on time. My first objection to welfare type systems is that it slows down the process of natural selection, if not eliminates it outright. If the welfare of the poor is truly ensured, people aren't going to be dying of the natural causes they should be dying from. Now I know that sounds ruthless, but ruthlessness allows us to do what's best no matter what. Not only are people not going to be dying from these natural causes, but poor people who would otherwise be completely unable to support children are now able to, since their children's welfare is also ensured. Now you might be thinking there is nothing wrong with poor families having more kids. But there is a great deal wrong with it. First off, like I said, this is detrimental to the natural selection that would otherwise be constantly making humans better and better over time. Poor people are the failures of the world, and this is in large part due to being less genetically capable on average. As an example, poor people are generally less intelligent than the middle and upper classes on average. Allowing them to continue having children they would otherwise not be able to provide for is to stop the gene pool from growing more intelligent on average. Another negative effect of allowing the poor to have more children is the nagative impact. We know that people consume, on average, the same amount they produce. This is a mathematical necessity - what one man produces must be consumed by another. However, there are some individuals who produce more than they consume and some who consume more than they produce. Now the poor, given that the USFG is ensuring their welfare, tend to be the group that is taking more than they give. Letting them die out naturally would save us from having so many leeches in the world. On to some points my opponent made: My opponent's first point is that the poor do not create themselves. Here I will simply ask why this should grant the poor access to additional monetary support from the Government? True, our society may be built on the requirement of having many low-end workers, but the poor are stuck there because they just weren't good enough. This is no reason to reward them. My opponent points out that those with more power tend to step on the low level workers, presumably unfairly. For this, I ask for some examples. And lastly, my opponent makes a point about the economic effects of welfare systems. However, I have already brought this up. Welfare recipients are the leech that takes more than it contributes - the economy is better off without them. I am sorry I could not expand on these points to the extent I usually do, but understand that I have 2 minutes remaining.
USFG should ensure the welfare of families living in poverty

First off, I noticed that you are debating the same issue from two different perspectives in two different debates. I will not look at the other before I have finished this. I look forward to seeing how you perform both and if i can tell which side you believe is the stronger case. I accept all the definitions, but the line between morality and social concerns is vague if you accept that moral acts produce the best possible outcome for as many people as possible. The first point I would like to make is that the poor do not create themselves. By this I mean that the economic system is set up in a hierarchical way that requires a large number of people working for less pay in order to support those who have more specialized and better paid job. For example, for every 5 or so people working in a Mcdonalds at a certain time there will be 1 manager. It would be bad for business if 5 managers overlooked 1 laborer. This pattern extends throughout the marketplace with the owner or CEO occupying the best paid and most exclusive position. This structure shows that most people will be included in the bottom levels of the economic scale by necessity. Secondly, In this structure it is natural for those with the administrative power to use it to benefit their interests even at the expense of the low level workers. Part of this is just sound administrative planning. If a company uses all of its profits and capital to increase the pay and benefits of the worker, then there will be no capital to invest into the expansion and preservation of the firm. But another side of this drive leads to the lessening of the low level worker's ability to provide for himself or a family. This is where government comes in. It provides the organization and influence that allows the workers to join unions, get a minimum wage, and have some say in the way their lives will go. The government can do this by enacting legislation either to give money to those who cannot support themselves such as in social security and welfare, or to actively limit the actions of firms such as in minimum wage laws or child labor. From an economic standpoint the reason that it is beneficial for a government to do this is that merit is the basis for control of a company and those of a lower class have less chance of realizing potential merit. A hungry child will not perform well in school if the child has to worry about whether or not food will be served that night. The child will be even less likely to succeed if the child is dead from starvation or easily curable diseases due to the fact that medicine costs too much. In this way, the economy is harmed by not having the greatest range of choice when choosing those to promote.
USFG should ensure the welfare of families living in poverty

I am CON in this debate, I will be arguing that the topic above is false. I have no case to make this round, since I am CON. :: DEFINITIONS :: D1: USFG -The USFG is the United States Federal Government D2: Should -Ought. This simply means that it is the correct course of action. This is not a moral issue, it is an economic and social issue. D3: Ensure the welfare -To ensure someone's welfare will mean to make sure that person can afford basic necessities - a healthy diet and a place to live. If the person is having trouble affording these things, the government should make sure that person can get by. D4: Families living in poverty -I am talking about people living at or below the official US Census Bureau's poverty line, which is different depending on where you live and how many people are in a family. An obvious note - this refers specifically to families in America. ::ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:: If my opponent has a problem with these definitions, he or she can feel free to offer new ones in R1, which I will either accept or show to be inferior to my definitions. I ask that my opponent begins his arguments in R1, and forfeits the final round, so that we both have 3 rounds to argue. Otherwise, my opponent is free to forfeit next round and let me start, but it makes much more sense for PRO to argue first on this topic. Thank you.
Most women deserve to be raped

Ladies and Gentlemen, Rape is one of the worst things know to man. The horror of it, the sheer unethically means that is something no one should face. I agree with my opponents first statement and shall not raise any new points. My opponent believes that those that do not take responsibility deserve punishment. What he seems to not understand is that the punishment must fit the crime. Who deserves to have their entire family slaughtered, for not taking responsibility and going shopping? It is ridiculous. No Crime is terrible enough that the criminal deserves to be raped. Secondly, as both Pro and I agree that rape is wrong and violence is wrong, how can something considered wrong be used as a justified punishment. It can"t be. If it is not justified, no one can deserve it. Pro says that to my previous statement, I was trying to say that "because in order for someone to deserve something done to them there must be a genuine reason for them doing this". No. No I didn"t. My previous statement clearly means that a wrong thing can"t be used as a punishment. What Pro meant and later went on to say is that that meant that most rapists are insane, Pro then disagreed with that. He believes most rapists are sane and that there must thus be a reason for the rape. Rapists are INSANE. Insanity is by definition a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behaviour, or social interaction. Is rape normal? No! Thus rapists are insane. This leads, to them not fitting the nice picture Pro has painted of them. They do not have uniform standards of choosing victims. Rapists will rape whoever they want! There is no way to take responsibility to avoid rape. If one rapist likes girls acting provocatively, the girl could "Take responsibility" and not act provocatively. Consequently, she would be raped by the next rapist who likes girls acting unprovocatively. There is NO WAY to take responsibility. What Pro believes is that there is a way to "Take responsibility" to avoid rape. Let my use an analogy. A man walking in the Middle East had a little American flag on his collar. He was then picked up by Jihadists and tortured and killed. He meant no offence with his flag, the Jihadists took offence. Did he deserve it? NO! If there is no way to "Take responsibility", if a women "Means no offence" and the offence is TAKEN, she cannot deserve to be raped. Pro has stated "most women are irresponsible or selfish". This is again, incredibly sexist. It"s blatantly wrong and Pro has nothing to back it up. I would like to thank Pro for debating with me and wish him well for the future. Thank you too, to hldemi for an invaluable contribution. To finish, Pro believes that women are the cause of rape. I beg to differ. No rapists, no rape. No women, still rape(Though much reduced as that taste is rarer). So who do you think is to blame? How can anybody deserve to be raped?
Most women deserve to be raped

My opponent has stated that "Nobody deserves to be raped due to their personality, age, gender, handwriting, wearing a skirt etc. " and then states that they only deserve it if they don"t take responsibility. However, in the last round, my opponent has stated that women can be not taking responsibility by wearing clothes that plant ideas in mens heads. That is a blatant contradiction! Now, Pro states that those who do not take responsibility deserve the punishment. What Pro is failing to consider is that the punishment must fit the crime. I do not mean, as Pro has tried to frame me to state, that the punishment must be in any way related to the law, just that too harsh a punishment means that the woman not taking the responsibility does not DESERVE the crime. Do women that drink to much deserve the punishment of having them along with their own family executed. No! Of course not! It is frankly ridiculous. The is similar to my oppositions notion that women who don"t take responsibility DESERVE something as HEINIOUS and rape. With such a terrible punishment no one can DESERVE it for such a light crime. Pro states that rape is wrong. Pro states that violence is wrong. I along with the majority of people agree with that. So, I pose a question, how can something that is considered wrong be used as a justified punishment? It can"t! "Men can experience the same thing without being raped" No one can contemplate just how terrible rape is without experiencing it. The degrading feelings, the worthlessness, the self hate. The suicide rate among victims of rape (13%), shows just how terrible it is. 15% of rape victims are under the age of 12, 44% are under 18. Do these poor defenceless victims deserve to be raped? No! No one deserves to be raped! Rape is such a terrible thing, there is no crime that can come close to comparing with it. Thus it is impossible to truly deserve to be raped. Pro, throughout his arguments, has tried to suggest that women are the cause of rape. This is rubbish! Rapist will rape whoever they want! They are uncontrollable and will rape a woman whether she is or isn"t responsible. Most victims are not the cause of rape, RAPISTS ARE! I thank you, Pro, for your arguments and hope to see your conclusion. I leave you with this. No rapists, no rape. No women, still rape(Though much reduced as that taste is rarer). So who do you think is to blame? References: . http://www.suicide.org... (Thanks for the assistance hldemi)
Most women deserve to be raped

Thanks Pro, its been great to get your points on this idea. Now Pro"s argument is that women deserve to be raped as they don"t take responsibility. In general terms that can be applied and sometimes is. Someone deserves a punishment because they don"t take responsibility for something. In general terms, that argument seems plausible, moral even. Yet when one applies the context to it, it is proven to be completely ridiculous. Does someone deserve to be raped for simply wearing something that may or may not plant ideas in someone's head and having to much to drink? It is like sentencing someone to the death penalty for leaving out a ladder which then caused someone to have a fall. You are giving the person a punishment to harsh to fit the crime, while that person has indirectly caused the crime. Does some deserve something so terrible as rape for simply making the mistake of not taking responsibility? Rape destroys people and ruins their life, many victims of sexual assault take their own lives. Do they really deserve this for a mistake that harms no other people? My opponents argument and stance is proven to be one without the knowledge of the horror that is rape. It is very likely that my opponent has never been raped from the lack of sympathy shown, so without this knowledge, how can he deign to fit this punishment to such and insignificant crime? Just a few more things: Pro stated that "people deserve to get what they are asking for" though this cannot be true in the case of rape because as we both clearly agreed, rape is defined to be "Sexual intercourse against ones will", thus no one can ask to be raped. Pro also stated that "Women just want to express their hatred of men". Please, that"s sexist and generalising, keep it out, it"s blatantly wrong. No one deserves something as common as rape. (More arguments coming in the next round)
The heptadic structure of the genealogy of Jesus Christ can not be replicated

I am not going to do that. Obviously, that would be very hard, next to impossible to replicate. That doesn't mean it is divine. This question is set up as a classic "burden of proof" fallacy (Look here for the definition: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...). You are claiming that your answer is true unless someone can prove it wrong. By attempting to force me to prove your answer wrong, you are giving me a vastly harder task. I'm also reminded of a tweet by Brian Eno (Wikipedia Page Here: https://en.wikipedia.org...). "Instead of shooting arrows at somebody else's target, I make my own target around wherever my arrow has happened to have landed." It's easy to make such a difficult to replicate pattern, as long as you create the pattern first and then decide the criteria. For example, try to replicate the criteria below. 1. There are x whole integers 2. None of them are greater than x * x 3. None of them are lower than x - x 4. One of them is x squared 5. One of them is x factorial 6. They are all divisible by x 7. One of them is equal to x * x 8. One of them is equal to x * (x - 1) 9. One of them is equal to x * (x - 2) The only possible answer is "3, 6, 9" but that doesn't prove that there is anything divine about that series of numbers
The heptadic structure of the genealogy of Jesus Christ can not be replicated

Russian mathematician Ivan Panin discovered this structure a century ago. Skeptics claim that it's only coincidence and that it can easily be written by anyone. So I am here to request that a person be the contender and actually produce such a genealogy and prove once and for all that Ivan Panin was an idiot. What you have do to, is write an entirely fictional genealogy and fulfill all of the requirements below. You are free to use any computer programs that you believe would be able to help you in your mission. I wish you luck and I am positive that you will not be able to do it, exactly because it's divinely inspired. May the one that is correct win. (1) The total number of letters has to be divisible by seven (2) The total number of words has to be divisible by seven (3) The total number of names has to be divisible by seven (4) The total number of vowels has to be divisible by seven (5) The total number of nouns has to be divisible by seven (6) The total number of generations has to be divisible by seven (7) The total number of male names has to be divisible by seven (8) The total number of words that begin with a vowel must be divisible by seven (9) The total number of words that appear in one form must be divisible by seven (10) The total number of words that appear only once must be divisible by seven (11) The total number of words that begin with a consonant must be divisible by seven
Vaccines are beneficial

Sigh, you again never showed how many animals are used for testing vaccines. For all we know, the animals could be tested on how well justin beibers songs are. I did't say why vaccines are good since I was refuting your dumb comments. Now I will argue. A. Vaccines have saved many lives. They prevent several diseases with a VERY low chance of failure B. Many terrible illnesses have been eradicated thanks to vaccines. When was the last time you saw polio? C. Vaccines have very small chances of something happening badly. The chance of you getting a severe reaction to a vaccine is tiny compared to the actual virus D. VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM, IT HAS BEEN DISPROVEN SO MANY TIMES E Even if animals are used to test vaccines, the human lives saved are well worth it.
Vaccines are beneficial

Con shall be arguing vaccines harm more than help. (Amount of people sick/injured/killed) Rules: No linking to whale.to, naturalnews, blogs, un-scientific studies, anecdotal evidence, or online polls. If you do link to these, there is a 6-million point deduction. Also, if Con says "Big pharma" or anything like that (All your evidence is fake because Big Pharma Changed the results!) he shall lose the debate. Graphs and charts are welcome Oh and Vaccines do not cause autism. You may argue this, but you will lose. Just becuase vaccines and autism rises does not mean there is a link. Con may state his argument in round one And con? Good luck
Popular culture needs to start glorifying Alpha Males and start demonizing beta males

According to the Dictionary and several other sources, the definition of an Alpha male is that it is the most dominant man in a particular group. I do not really have to prove anything as the BOP is on Pro. He must prove that Alpha males deserve to be glorified in poplar culture AND that beta males must be demonized. If, Pro even fails to prove one of his assertions then, he must lose the debate. In order for me to win, all I have to do is either prove that Alpha males are not worthy to be glorified by Hollywood OR prove that beta males shouldn"t be demonized by popular culture. I shall attempt to argue against the notion that beta males should be demonized.
Popular culture needs to start glorifying Alpha Males and start demonizing beta males

Opening Statement: Coming-of-age, teen-comedy, teen drama films like Superbad, I Love You Beth Cooper, The Girl Next Door, American Pie-esque films all provide a false-narrative where the beta/omegamale with more-than-likely some form of anti-social personality disorder is given a new lifelong luck and a rather likely end to his rather unlikely life by him getting a girlfriend/wife/sex.I will discret and thoroughly show the disadvantages in the Beta/Omega male lifestyle.
Sweatpants

"This is an opinion argument, but" - BUT, this is an actual debate, where you cannot simply base a case off of no evidence. You claim sweatpants are evil, yet you do not define evil. Even in the metaphorical sense of an inanimate object being evil, this does simply not meet that criteria. YOU CANNOT BASE YOUR CASE SOLELY ON PEOPLE'S OPINIONS, and just because people agree with you does not mean you are write. You made a claim, but gave no warrant, no analysis, no evidence, and no impact. You have the burden of proof to prove that sweatpants are evil but you just did not do so. Because this is a seven point system, I would like to point out that blogs, which almost all of your articles are, are not reliable in any sense of the word. However, dictionary.com, one of the most trusted sources of factual information on words, is. In conclusion, because my opponent has no evidence, the opinions she agrees with are all blogs describing sweatpants ugliness, she has not related how anything she said makes sweatpants evil, she agreed with me, and she failed to carry the burden of proof that was on her, and for those reasons, I should win.