BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Government is Inherently Violent

I understand the average Joe wants to have a good life, with a home, children, and a job. But, when you do so, when under a government jurisdiction, when living in a certain Geo spatial area, you must follow the laws of the land. If one isn't happy about certain laws of the land, one has two options; leave the country or change the law. Moreover, when you want this "American Picket Fence" life, you have to pay to the government for them to protect your house, to protect the streets, to build the roads, to deliver mail to your house, to keep everyone safe and people undisturbed. Most people are fine with paying their 'fair share' of taxes to ensure their safety for them and their family, but if one isn't happy with the laws put forth by the laws of their land, then find new land and don't claim land in that country.
Government is Inherently Violent

"...if one chooses, you don't have to own a home, have a job, or buy groceries from the store." This is true -- however, if I do wish to own a home, have a job, or buy groceries from the store, I will have money forcibly taken from me. Because I have these things, I have somehow consented to such a system, thus making taxation voluntary and acceptable?"The Amish are very self-sufficient, thus, people and government generally leave them alone."Many of us are not Amish, nor wish to be. Because we'd rather have modernized items, we've somehow consented to pay tax dollars?*I'm afraid I did not understand the conclusion of your post regarding war.*Argument from ConsistencyBecause I have no right to use your house, I do not have a right to tell my friends that they may use your house. One can not allocate a right that they themselves do not have.Because I have no right to chop the tree in your front yard down, I don't have the ability to give my friends the right to chop the tree in your front yard down. One can not allocate a right that they themselves do not have.Similarly, I don't have the right to forcibly take your money and cage or shoot you if you resist. So how, then, can I give politicians the right to do the same? All humans are equal, and the initiation of violence is unethical -- violence is only acceptable in self-defense.It's a commonly held belief that because 51% of a population says it is moral to extort someone in this manner, it is made acceptable. That is called taxation, and the mob's blessing does not make that which is unethical ethical.That which is wrong for the individual is also wrong for the majority.One can not allocate a right that they themselves do not have.
Government is Inherently Violent

I do believe that one can believe in both the notions of that violence is only acceptable in self defense and support the government's beliefs, values, and systems. I understand your point of that all government actions are powered by taxes, but, if one chooses, you don't have to own a home, have a job, or buy groceries from the store. The Amish are very self-sufficient, thus, people and government generally leave them alone. My uncle, lives in a rural community in Alabama, and he hasn't paid taxes in over 20 years. He lives with his own wife and children, they self educate, and they raise their own crops and animals, and fend for themselves. So yes, one is born into a society of taxes, but, it is that one person's choice to leave and make decisions for themselves to exempt themselves from taxes. Back to the notion that if you believe in government self defense only, you can't support government; that is illogical due to the fact that a majority of people in this country (USA) do not want war. They do not want our men and women going to a remote area on this earth and fighting Jihads. These people that don't want war also support government because the people of our country are aided by government. Thus, they support health care system, infrastructure, FAA, Etc.
Music Battle

So, I've seen a few of these, and I want to piggyback off them and do one, too. Though, I do want to offer two stipulations of my own:1) Each song, both by Pro and Con, must contain vocals to some extent. They don't have to be the focus of the song, but they should be there. This is to prevent anything that falls under the blanket term of "classical music," from being posted, whether it's contemporary or not. Any other genre is fair game, however.2) Only songs that have been released this century (that is, anything from January 1st, 2000 to the present day, including any songs that may become available as this debate is taking place.It's also encouraged for more independent (read: obscure) music be posted, but it's not at all a requirement. Youtube is preferred for this, but if a song you want isn't available there, if it can be found elsewhere as long as it's publicly accessible, it's acceptable.Structure of the debate:R1: Acceptance (and any clarification, if necessary)R2: Pro and Con post their first song.R3: Pro and Con post their second song.R4: Pro and Con post their third song.R5: Pro and Con post their fourth and final song. Rules:1) No forfeits2) Songs must be ten minutes or less.3) An artist/band may only be posted once (any group that has reformed under a different name is acceptable; i.e., one may post a Kyuss song one round, and a Queens of the Stone Age song in another)4) Songs may only be in English (any song that contains only verse or part that is a foreign language, with the rest of the song in English, is an allowed exception)4) No insultsAny violation of the stipulations and the rules is an automatic loss.And most of all, have fun!
only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants, for the most part

it's still hard to decipher a coherent message. but it seems straightforward enough to respond now. con says it means they gave up an organ so they want an organ back. no, only people who have died give organs for the most part, at least for teh purposes of this debate. that means they won't need an organ. if it were we were talking about soemone volunteering an organ and needed another... why not give it to em if they are first in line? they deserve it before a nonorgan donor. the other point con made was the organ they donated was bad. if it was bad, then they don't deserve another one, sure. i think con is talking about nondead donors, but still, his points are too hard to decipher either way.
only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants, for the most part

only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants, for the most part there are a lot of practical stuff that would need addressed, like the mentally handicap point where they can"t consent to being an organ donor. i dont mean to make it sound like tit for tat or an eye for an eye... but when it comes down to who should get dibs, why should someone who wasn't a donor get dibs? there's a line of people who want the organs. why should the guy who wasn't an organ donor himself get dibs? he shouldn't... that's not the fair thing to do. if we required people be donors, more people would sign up, and there'd be more organs for people. this would be overall better for that reason. if a person doesnt want to be a donor, why should they get organs when they need em, when others need em? the fitting analogy is a free loader analogy. wanting something free without putting up anything in return. in a system where we donate organs, they aren't contributing at all. that is free rider.
Inflation is worse than unemployment

"If you doubt the problems with inflation, just look at the 1970s, and the effects of the staggering inflation were overt." This is a reference to the failure of the Phillips Curve (http://www.economicshelp.org...) which stated that inflation and unemployment were inversely related and was actually a by-product of your argumentation which is that one is worse than the other and specifically inflation is worse because of how it manages to hit every dollar versus concern for a lack of cash flow. The grounds for inflation causing unemployment are extreme (http://economicsonlinetutor.com...) and while natural often self-correcting. However there is greater effect from unemployment (http://www.raybromley.com...) relating to how the Equilibrium for the economy in any status would behave. Surpluses of funds among the consumer base does not necessarily equate a surplus of monetary printing and furthermore a shortage of funds among the consumer base still does not necessarily equate a lessening of monetary printing since, as I went over with SUTA, those lives still require funding at the base level and therefore monetary printing continues regardless (http://money.cnn.com...). Stagflation is the major keypoint that is a thorn in your side as you alluded to in the 70s where the two are not directly connected therefore there's no direct correlation that gives rise to inflation being "more harmful" than unemployment and a lack of economic cash flow; when the value of money drops significantly it has the same effect as when production stops of certain commodities however unemployment has greater effect in both realms and generally when extreme drives stagflation which is "not supposed to happen" according to the Phillips Curve or drives inflation of pricing due to lack of competition because businesses refuse to invest in the area.
Inflation is worse than unemployment

Again, inflation can lead to unemployment if it is not managed correctly. Plus, all the effects you listed above could also occur with inflation. If you doubt the problems with inflation, just look at the 1970s, and the effects of the staggering inflation were overt. Furthermore, when unemployment is high, those who keep their jobs are largely unaffected while inflation hurts everyone. Furthermore, inflation can lead to an enlarged national debt because one dollar no longer supports the same amount of programs because it is devalued. Speaking of currency devaluation, inflation will also cause the value of the dollar to decrease in relation to foreign dollars. Also, in response to your first comments. During times of high unemployment, inflation is usually lower.
Inflation is worse than unemployment

The value of the dollar has no value when there are no liquid assets to spend. What I mean by this is simply that inflation lowers buying power but only extreme inflation really has a more tangible effect lowering economic standing to the point where it's crippling however a total lack of assets is definitely fatal to one's buying power and doesn't have a degrading effect against the dollar because there are no dollars to degrade. Unemployment effects three distinct systems which worsen the outcome for all citizens: 1. The Private Citizen: With no money they cannot buy anything. 2. The Corporate Entity: With no buyers they cannot produce profits. 3. The State: With no jobs for the citizens SUTA is reduced, Unemployment is increased with the stores for governmental money being depleted perhaps beyond the fund that SUTA was built for, and no taxation can be collected on other fronts for services provided by the city which create deficits within the city itself. All of this is cyclic however in when the Private Citizen cannot buy from the Corporate Entity the Corporate Entity cannot pay The State which causes the Corporate Entity to leave which lowers job market for the Private Citizen which only worsens unemployment and lowers SUTA taxation which in turn greatly increases the government deficit causing The Government to eventually go bankrupt due to being unable to meet the obligations of it's citizenry. While inflation can indeed raise prices to the point where maintaining person's on payroll is difficult and some have to be released so long as the business itself does not close down it pays SUTA and furthermore it won't leave the locale; if it does not leave then money is generated, or rather funds are passed, and the economic condition of all entities tends to stabilize and survive whatever dryspell is causing the issues such as a recession or even just a change in the natural resources of an area or natural disaster.
Inflation is worse than unemployment

Inflation, by very definition, leads to lower buying power. Lower buying power leads to decreased demand, and decreased demand leads to many different things: slower economic growth, slower RGDP growth, unemployment (yes, inflation can cause unemployment), etc. Furthermore, when inflation is high in an economy, people tend to expect more inflation. The expectation of inflation leads to even more rapid inflation. I will stop here; this is my argument, I look forward to your response.
Inflation is worse than unemployment

I would first like to begin by stating that both are bad for the economy. Secondly, I am asserting that high inflation is worse than high unemployment for reasons that will be mentioned in R2. Lastly, I am not counting the inflation that is commonly referred to as demand pull inflation because this is relatively healthy and is a simple side effect to economic growth. However, I am referring to hyperinflation(the devaluing of currency because there is too much of it) and supply shock inflation (inflation that results because of a shortage of something crucial to the economy).
The Deistic God

Introduction: Myself and Iredia disagree on essentially everything with regards to space, evolution, intelligence and God, so this debate will concentrate in Iredia's side, with particular focus on his interpretation for the requirement of a deity. Format: Iredia will begin his arguments in Round 1 and will leave the final round blank/state "Left Blank as Agreed" in order to have an equal number of rounds (4). No new arguments in the final round, only summarisation and rebuttals. In round 1 I would like Iredia to lay down the relevant definitions, especially regarding his deity, although one requirement of an attribute must be that it has a mind (I think Iredia agrees in this much).
Objective rationality is a myth

I'm afraid that's not an argument; that's two premises with a set of inferences which do not logically follow from them. But, indeed I agree, humans are not objects. Well observed. You, as a subject, are using both logic and reason to make a truth-claim about human knowledge: that it is not objective. However, this also means that you are claiming that there is something more true than other claims which can be expressed through your own individual perspective. "There is no objective truth to anything", you say, whilst claiming that something is more true than something else. This is called a performative contradiction. On what grounds can you claim your perspective true or right without predicating it on some notion of objective truth? You need to define the term "objective truth". For just because nothing can be known transcendent of the human perspective, this does not mean that everything is equally false. For instance...... If we described all our human experiences into words and compared them, our words would converge on general characteristics and descriptions which could be used to tell truths about the human condition in general (e.g. feelings of hunger or how we all perceive things in a certain way, etc.). Equally, by using scientific instruments to test the behaviours of substances and processes under certain given conditions, we can predictably arrive at the same results. This data exists independently to interpretations of it. By focusing only on types of a priori knowledge (logic and reasoning) you have excluded empirical evidence as a means to objectively true knowledge. Why? Do you seriously believe that the law of gravitation is only subjectively true? And, yet it can be made into a premise in an argument -- "The law of gravitation, that two physical bodies will be attracted to one another given the distance between their centres of mass, is true under certain types of systems." -- is this too a subjective premise? These types of knowledge transcend the individual and therefore do not supervene on any one individual's subjective perspective to exist and still be true. And therefore, though knowledge cannot transcend the human perspective (for how else are we to know anything except by our biological substrates enabling us to know certain propositional truths?), it surely can transcend individual subjectivity.
Objective rationality is a myth

Rationality def: the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic. My argument is based on the fact that humans behave according to perceptions, with perceptions being the information and senses that are available to a person. Premise 1: Perceptions can never be objective or factual. No one is capable of omnipotence. Premise 2: Human behaviours and decision-making is based off of perceptions. Inference 1: Human decision making can never be rational or logical in an objective sense. Inference 2: Human decision making and behaviour can only be rational and logical in a subjective sense. Inference 3: Thus, if human decision making must be subjective, then the very idea of logic and rationality itself, which must be interpreted through a human, is a subjective method of reasoning, as is this current argument. Inference 4: If logic and rationale itself is a subjective method of reasoning, then those who do not subscribe to its conclusions are only subjectively incorrect and cannot be objectively incorrect. Inference 5: If people can only be subjectively incorrect or correct, then it is not possible to arrive at an objective conclusion. Thus, rationale itself, which aims to reach an objective conclusion, is not possible and thus a contradiction.
Is This A TEST

Given that this debate is about whether the US is vulnerable to Russia forces, you have provided no new relevant information in your 3rd round argument. One half is saying that the continued Russian flight tests near our borders are example of Russian showing off their military might. On the surface I can agree with this statement, but this has been a Russian strategy for nearly a century. This still has nothing to do with Americas vulnerability to a potential attack. As I clarified in round 2, we are well prepared for such an instance. The other half consists of several quotes and instances which are trying to paint the picture that Russia hasn't changed and is still secretly the same USSR. Once again this has no relevance on whether the US is vulnerable or not, even if it was entirely true. The Russian Federation is not Communist. Period. They don't practice any of the ideological beliefs of Marxism. They have free enterprise, private industry, a return of religion, and a fairly right leaning party ruling the country. Even if you make the argument that Putin is a dictator and Russia isn't a democracy, they are still capitalist.
Is This A TEST

Lookingattheissues Rebuttal to CON on Debate.org under Opinion, under Politics ...July 28Th. 2015 ...8:22 PM Tuesday Con posted in his reply that,"This argument began when my opponent posted an opinion poll about Russian bombers preforming military test off the US coastline..." The fact that the Russians are flying Bombers and fighter Planes really definds the Russians purpose for flying off America's shores. First of all the Russians are saying and demonstrating that they can reach our coast lines with bombers and fighter planes any time that they wish to., and they are saying in effect, that we have the capability to bomb America when that time is right and advantageous that all the conditions are in their favor to do so. Vladimir Putin Biography Prime Minister, President (non-U.S.) (1952") ....."In 1999, Russian president Boris Yeltsin dismissed his prime minister and promoted former KGB officer Vladimir Putin in his place. In December 1999, Yeltsin resigned, appointing Putin president, and he was re-elected in 2004. ..... Putin could not run for the presidency again in 2008, but was appointed prime minister by his successor, Dmitry Medvedev. Putin was re-elected to the presidency in March 2012. In 2014, ..." "Russians had gone to the polls in a similarly superfluous electoral exercise that restored Putin to the Kremlin throne. That outcome had been pre-determined much earlier when Putin, inconvenienced by term limits, loaned the presidency to a figurehead " mentee Dmitry Medvedev " with the understanding it would be returned to him at the earliest legal opportunity." ".... Putin was appointed head of the Federal Security, an arm of the former KGB, as well as head of Yeltsin's Security Council. In August 1999, Yeltsin dismissed his then-prime minister Sergey Stapashin, along with his cabinet, and promoted Putin in his place....." Russia might call its nation by any designated name it choses and still remain under the same form of government as before with slight modifications to mask who they are as a country to deceive the native into thinking that they have changed from the communist controlled country that they were. About the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (U.S.S.R.)..... " Lafcadio Hearn once Wrote of Japan,,"Japan Wears Successively, ......., a series of Western Masks; but these are discarded in turn, for beneath the masks the old Japanese character lives." To paraphrase Lafcadio Hearn , This is also true of Russia,,......., "Russia wears successively a series of Western Masks; but these are discarded in turn, for beneath the masks the old....Russian..... character lives..." "There are three basic major socialist ideologies: Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism. These are all regarded as forms of socialism." Author unknown Communist Russia still exists, for example".... former KGB officer Vladimir Putin...... was appointed head of the Federal Security, an arm of the former KGB, as well as head of Yeltsin's Security Council.