BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitalism is good

I was born in Brazil with my single mom making around $4.50 an hour. I was still able too get an education, through scholarshipsYes there are scholarships but then there are millions of people who cannot go to school not because of costs, but because they need to work and earn money to be able to eat.there are number of people that dropped out of school and still became successful.The number is far too low to be significant. I don't see why most people should not become sucessful. Its not like they do not have their own talent or something worth contributing to society. then what would be the motivation of starting a business and working hard, if you could be lazy and make just as much?There is no financial incentive yes. But that is not a bad thing. This is because doctors are not just doctors because it makes more money but because they are passionate about the job (many people are) and this is true for many important professions. Also, can we not survive without businesses? Governments can manage businesses and distribute products according to what the people need (as long as they are honest citizens and not criminals or something). People who actually have a passion for business can become the managers of government owned industries. If anything Gov. owned businesses will uphold corporate social responsibility whilst pure free market economies will not require businesses to uphold their social responsibilites.Thirdly, Competition, is when businesses, compete to be the best. In order for a business to become the best, it must create new ways to make its product or service, more affordable, or better, this creates innovations.I already addressed this issue. Capitalism, especially pure free market capitalism, is extremely vulnerable to monopolies in which case the competetion would essentially stop. Alternatively, the USSR was pretty innovative, especially when it came to the space race.Conclusion:- Free Market capitalism will almost certainly result in evironmentally and socialy irresponsible businesses (which we see today).- Capitalism does not necessarily have competition since the market is vulnerable to monopolies.- Circumstance and luck play a larger role in success rather than a person's ability under Capitalism.- There may be no financial incentive without capitalism, however there will still be passionate incentive which is far stronger than financial incentive (we will see better quality doctors, teachers etc).- Not all people are given an opportunity under Capitalism.-Therefore Capitalism is not good.The resolution is negated, I rest my case.
Capitalism is good

First of Capitalism does give everyone an opportunity, there are number of people that dropped out of school and still became successful. I was born in Brazil with my single mom making around $4.50 an hour. I was still able too get an education, through scholarships, now I'm about to go to med school. Its not easy, but then most stuff aren't. Second Motivation is what drives people to become successful. If wealth was distributed and everyone made the same amount of money, then what would be the motivation of starting a business and working hard, if you could be lazy and make just as much? This would cause businesses to stop being created and cause economic collapse. Thirdly, Competition, is when businesses, compete to be the best. In order for a business to become the best, it must create new ways to make its product or service, more affordable, or better, this creates innovations.
Capitalism is good

Capitalism, gives everyone an opportunity. I dont think Capitalism has given an opportunity for everyone. We have a few rich people in the world who can get their kids a good education and a higher amount of middle class people who can afford a somewhat decent education and then you have 3 billion people who live on less than 2.50$ a day[1].There are hundreds of millions of families that cannot afford to send their kids to school because they need the kids to work what menial jobs they can to earn just enough money to survive. Hundreds of millions of kids who cannot afford an education and cannot pursue a career. Think about it, we lose many potential doctors, scientists and other people who can change the world for the better. The kid who is smart enough to find the cure for cancer may be dead or dying because his/her family is in extreme poverty and cannot afford to feed him, much less afford to get him education and an opportunity in life.but those that get paid little can try to get better job or even start there own business, there is no one saying they can'tIf only those that get paid little could have afforded education. Capitalism also creates motivation and competitionCapitalism also creates the motivation to loot from people. It creates incentive for a company like Walmart and McDonalds to pay its workers less as they get more money.Capitalism makes people take jobs they hate just for the money and not because they are passionate about it, which not only hurts the economy, but lowers the quality of life of many individuals. Besides its not like the socialist USSR did not innovate new technologies, its not like the USSR did not have motivation to advance their nation.Moreover, if a business has a monopoly, there will be no competetition and any new businesses will not gain ground in the market, thus ending the careers of what could have been very competant businessmen. This is not the dream of opportunity that is regularly portrayed in Capitalism.Sources:[1] http://www.globalissues.org...;
Confederate Flag's should not be aloud.

You would think there are no troubles where I live, but Lancaster county is different from other parts of Pennsylvania. There are a whole group of racist students and confederate flag wearing rednecks. Yes, many of them do think black people are inferior. There was even a day a few years ago when students organized to wear white t-shirts to show that they believed in white supremacy. That may not be part of the debate, but I feel it was necessary to validate my view. The Confederate flag causing "fights daily on school grounds and off" does not make much sense as an argument. Say, for example, that the fights are started by those who saw the flag and were upset by it. There was another Supreme Court decision (forgive me for forgetting the specific case, it has been over a year since I read about it) that says that, if violence is started by a person bothered by the speech of another, it is the fault of the person who reacted violently for doing so, not the fault of the speaker. But let us say that the fights are started by those displaying the flag. Is it really the flag that causes these fights? The reason for the fights is not the flag; the reason for the fights is the same reason that these individuals display the flag: racism. Racism is what would have caused the fights in this case, the fact that one human being is ignorant enough to think that skin color makes a person inferior. If caused by the flag bearer, the fights most likely would have occured even if the flag was not displayed. And could the "'Fighting terrorism since 1861'" not refer to fighting the strong central government that was the reason for the Confederate States' secession in the fist place? The problem is, we cannot know the meaning without asking the person displaying it. But we cannot assume that EVERY person displaying a Confederate flag is racist and wishes another race to be enslaved. Also, I do not disagree that schools and other public institutions should not display the confederate flag. But it is an individual's choice as to whether or not they want most people to see them as a bigoted moron, even if that is not the message they are trying to send.
Confederate Flag's should not be aloud.

First of all exactly It is not a threat to national security however it is the flag of a force that was. Secondly you make an excellent point, however if we are going to look at it from two sides let me tell you what it represents here, apparently in northern Pennsylvania (sorry I had to look up your state my argument depended on it) there is generally no issue with it. However in the deep south were I am currently living (Florida) there are fights daily on school grounds and off because of the Confederate flag, the most popular bumper sticker shows a confederate flag and then has the statement, "Fighting terrorism since 1861" there have also been some racist homicides in which the confederate flag makes it appearance this year. The fact is southern states have a different take of the confederate flag as the northern states do. In my middle,high and now college the confederate flag has been the instigator in a number of situations. Almost at every corner there is a confederate flag flying next to the U.S.A. It is an issue in the southern states still, there are people down here that still hold racial views and fly the confederate flag not for the "Calm and relaxation, a different lifestyle" but for the rebellion and the racial discrimination we should always remember it represents. Oh yes a also one more thing, I meant nothing of the sort by stating that I am a republican conservative, of course not democrats and republicans alike both stand for free speech. I simply find that republicans try and uphold the constitution more and democrats try to change it more, again not trying to get into a rep vs demo debate I apologize for even brining it up.
Confederate Flag's should not be aloud.

"In my views the confederate flag represents a threat to national security" No tense was specified. "We must remember that the confederate flag does not represent the fun wild south it represents a rebellion of men fighting to uphold slavery and it should not be allowed in a school or a public area." It represents different things to different people. To you and me, it may represent slavery, and we therefore would not wear it. But I have a friend who does wear the confederate flag, but is also friends with many black students. I've asked him why he wears it and he always says it is because it represents TO HIM what the south is: Calm and relaxation, a different lifestyle. I have also seen black men wearing Confederate flag belt buckle in Virginia. I believe as long as they are not actually inciting any violence, Confederate flags in schools should not be banned. It is like the Supreme Court's decision that talking about overthrowing the government as an abstraction is legal, but actually taking steps to do so would be illegal. "now I am a republican conservative I am for free speech 100%" This is a bit off-topic, but why would a republican conservative be more likely to be for free speech than anyone else? It was not stated directly, but it seemed to be insinuated.
Confederate Flag's should not be aloud.

I do not completely want them removed as I said in my opening statement which apparently my opponent did not read ,I believe that to some extent they should be removed, for instance as a historical and respectable approach to the civil war they should play a major role, however in a place such as a school or any public place they should not be allowed to be worn. The confederate army were fighting for many reasons however one of them is and must be remembered to support and keep slavery an active role in society, now I am a republican conservative I am for free speech 100% but to allow a display in the classroom of a school that clearly shows the flag of a group of people supporting African American slavery is ridicules and should not be allowed what so ever. We must remember that the confederate flag does not represent the fun wild south it represents a rebellion of men fighting to uphold slavery and it should not be allowed in a school or a public area. Also, I did not say it IS a threat to national security that would be absurd, I said it WAS a threat to national security and must remembered as one.
Confederate Flag's should not be aloud.

It is freedom of speech. Even if I do not agree what it stands for, it is symbolic speech. It is the negative speech like this that actually needs an amendment to protect it. If something is universally agreed upon, from whom is it being protected? How does it threaten security? If it does, then so do any other banners, flags, stickers, clubs, groups or mottos other than "American" that people identify themselves with.
Confederate Flag's should not be aloud.

The above statement is pretty much it I do not like opening with a full argument because I usually run our of steam by the third and start repeating myself, In my views the confederate flag represents a threat to national security and a rebellion and regardless as to why or what the reason they should not be flown or worn to a certain extent is my opinion. I hope that people will vote not on what they believe is right but on who is a better arguer and has a stronger opinion.
should titanic's wreckage be raised

"It should be raised because it is history and we should get to see the wreckage in person not by pictures or video."A) The RMS Titanic sank 100 years ago. Ever since then, it has existed as an ecosystem for life in the sea. Lots of bacteria populate it and are currently breaking the ship down [1]. If we were to extract the titanic we would be responsible for bringing bacteria to us that we don't necessarily have immunity to. B) The RMS Titanic doesn't need to be brought back. If we were put it in a museum, nobody would care enough to see it. Most people only know about the RMS Titanic because of the James Cameron movie a few years ago that featured Leonard Di Caprio [2]. C) The RMS Titanic isn't the most interesting thing in the world. It was a sunken ship, that's not exactly uncommon, especially not back then [3].In summary, we should not bring back the RMS Titanic.[1] http://ocean.si.edu...[2] http://www.imdb.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Individualists and anti-collectivists should be opposed to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran

If capitalism is defined as the voluntary and non-coercive exchange of goods and services for the mutual benefit of all parties involved, then clearly, war represents a failure of capitalistic principles. Wars are funded with involuntary taxes -- wealth expropriated from the productive class -- or worse yet, inflationary fiat-money creation. These both go against individualist, libertarian, and Objectivist principles. War and armies are inherently collectivist. They are hierarchical and deny the individual freedom of expression -- necessarily so. Throughout much of history, wars were fought by slaves (conscription). But even now, the U.S. military consists of volunteers, but volunteers who are paid by confiscatory taxation and wealth-eroding inflation. Ayn Rand was against all taxation. She believed in an ultra-minimalist state that would be funded by voluntary contributions. An Objectivist may be able to make an argument in favor of the current wars in the Middle East, or the pending war in Iran, but how can he/she make such an argument when he/she knows that the only way to fund such wars is through involuntary taxation and inflation? Surely, you must admit that these wars' unpopularity would preclude them from being funded voluntarily, even in the absence of taxation. In conclusion, let me say this: Individuals will take proactive measures when they think their lives, liberty, or property are at risk -- including voluntary contributions to the raising of private armies.
phones should be allowed in school

The word is touche ;) (though debate.org will not allow me to put the little accent over the "e" ). I understand you are stating that they should be "allowed". However, I was stating what could be used instead of cellphones as since there are so many other things that are useful to the academic cause, teachers do not even need to allow them in school. They shouldn't be allowed for the reasons you have stated. Which is why I posted the way I did. I would much rather see students carrying Tablets or Laptops over Cellphones. Why, easier to see what the student is doing with the bigger screen. Allowing cellphones in class or in school is like "allowing distraction"... will there be distractions? sure... but should we allow them to be distracted? absolutely not. The fewer distractions the better.
phones should be allowed in school

to shay my friend, to shay as i understand that yes, children could possibly be using them in class for non-educational purposes, i am not stating that they need a cellphone, or should completely throw away textbooks, i am simply stating that they should be ALLOWED, not that they are MANDATORY. As i know some people cant afford cellphones for children, i understand that. They do not need a cellphone, i am just stating that they should be allowed. No other information needed.
phones should be allowed in school

When debating a subject it helps to research the subject you are arguing. so I will open with asking you to prove your facts to me by these studies you have talked about but not actually posted in your argument. So I will begin by understand that of course cell phones CAN be used for educational purposes but let's be honest here. How many kids are actually using their phone for educational purposes. Knowing several teachers and talking to them as I research this subject more... More kids are texting during class than actually using their so called calculator app. Words with Friends is a social game and though has educational purposes playing that in the middle of a lecture would be very rude and likely not at all related to the homework likely going to be assigned to that student. Yes the internet is available on the phone, but the computing power and the number of windows you can have up on a Laptop or a Desktop at the school computer lab would be much more efficient when researching a subject the teacher may have given you for a report. You can bet I am not posting this debate via my cell phone. I type 10 times faster with a keyboard than a virtual keyboard on my phone. A far as enthusiasm, i would like to see that study posted in your next rebuttal. There are other ways to increase enthusiasm of students besides cell phones, or are you saying those of us that grew up without cell phones were ever enthusiastic about learning? Schooling is several hundred years older than cell phones. or are you saying after these many hundreds of years of schooling, students are just now finally getting enthusiastic about learning because now we have cell phones? please clarify. As far as technology is concerned. A phone just really isn't needed when you have other devices that can help a student much better than a small screen in which you have to hunt and peck for writing a small report. A Laptop would be much more sufficient and also easier to see if you are actually on task vs just "texting a friend" or "playing candy crush". I also fail to see how using a cell phone will give children the experience they need for future job skills. Again, what I do for work, all I use my phone for is sending and receiving texts/calls/emails. My Laptop, however, is used quite a bit more than my phone. So I disagree a phone even is remotely needed in school. there are more distractions on it and easily concealed distractions no less since the device is so small. If you would like to conduct a study on words per minute typed on a cell phone for reports vs on a full size qwerty keyboard I would be happy to help generate that report. So that being the case allowing cell phones in school is just an extra distraction when a laptop can do everything your cell phone can do but more efficiently, allowing a cell in school just isn't needed. I look forward to reading these studies you claim cell phones help student productivity.
phones should be allowed in school

I believe that students SHOULD have a cell phone for educational purposes. People say that students are irresponsible with their cell phones. HELLOOOO! Did anybody realise that phones have educational apps? Phones at school…..it has a nice ring to it! On phones you can download many apps. Some of these apps can be used for educational purposes. Words With Friends, Reading Eggs just to name a few. In the 21st Century Phones have been PROVEN to be beneficial for education. Phones have calculators, calenders and the Internet. This has just combined three devices and put them into one! You have easy access to all of those things and they also make learning more fun! Phones have been proven to increase the enthusiasm of students. Instead of writing in your workbook, you could be online playing an educational interactive game with your friends. I’m not sure about you but I think majority of people would choose to play an educational game over writing in your textbook! Now lets face it. All kids nowadays are going to be using a LOOOTTT of technology when they’re older and working. They may still be using phones or may be using a more advanced piece of technology. Using phones in school will give children experience for their jobs when their older. Isn’t the whole point of school to learn things for their future lives? In some parts of Australia, it is quite deserted, and there nay be only one or two children living in that location, or possibly none. The nearest school could be a LOOONNNNGGG way away so the student may not be able to go there. With a phone you can use it to go on the internet and learn things yourself, or you can even Skype the teacher, or she could email you work and you could complete the work, and send it back to her! An education like that is better than no education!
Words such as the N-word and other words aren't offensive

Your current argument is a little abstract so I'd like to take my time to break it down.My opponent's definition of offensive is "Offensive is defined as something that causes someone to feel hurt, upset or even angry." This is a fine definition and I will support it entirely. So the question becomes does the N-word cause people to feel hurt, feel upset or feel angry. My opponent agree's that "more people are offended when people use the n-word in a sentence due to its sad past." I think in this debate we have pretty clearly established that often when people are called the N-word they are feel those emotions because that word was used. Now, my opponent and I also agree that the experiences the n-word brings up or alternatly the intetions of the person speaking it cause the people to be offended. Where we disagree is I think that the experiences the word brings up, the preceived intentions of the person using the word and the word itself cause people to be offended. How can they all cause the same person to be offended at once? I'll break it down step by step. Person refers to someone using the n-word. The subject hears the word. The subject interprets that word and the use of the word indicates they have bad feelings towards african americans The african american refered to is offended Each of these steps caused the person to be offended. My point is just because the intenetions of the speaker caused the african american(s) to be offended doesn't mean the word wasn't also the cause. They were both necessary coditions. Thanks, I am enjoying this debate as well.
Words such as the N-word and other words aren't offensive

I'm going to give one big point because I do believe that this point relates to all of my opponents points. Offensive is defined as something that causes someone to feel hurt,, upset or even angry. This means that just about anything can be offensive to anybody and the reason that the n-word is considered offensive is because more people are offended when people use the n-word in a sentence due to its sad past. However, it's not the word that people are offended by, it is the experiences that the word brings up. I'm willing to argue that people aren't offended by the word, but instead by the person that spoke with the intentions of harming another. So to reiterate, it's not the word but the intention that people take offense to. Thanks again for the debate I'm having a fun time