BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Governmental Economic Intervention

Con Debate intended for Dan Bousquet. Please do not respond unless you are him. America was founded upon the economic beliefs of Adam Smith as published in his seminal book The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Smith proposed that a free market economy in which governmental intervention is minimum yields the most economic prosperity. Smith argued, and history has proven, that a market economy in which individuals with specialized skills pursue their own interests makes for the most economic success. An environment that promotes economic freedom is imperative to economic growth. Economic freedom consists of: stable currency, private property protection, low taxes, low tariffs, and minimal governmental intervention. Economies that possess these characteristics are the most conductive to growth. History has overwhelmingly shown that capitalism has prevailed over socialism, and thus governmental non-intervention and the market economy have prevailed over governmental intervention and the centrally-planned economy. After World War II, North Korea adopted a socialistic economic system while South Korea adopted the market economy. Today, North Korea is one of the poorest and most oppressive nations on the planet while South Korea has one of the fastest-growing economies on the planet. Similarly, After WWII, Germany divided, and East Germany utilized a centrally-planned economy while West Germany utilized a market economy. East Germany eventually surrendered to West Germany because of the severe poverty it encountered. The results of the Cold War also support the supremacy of the market economy; during the mid-twentieth century, the world"s leading scholars and economists were divided between those who advocated for socialism and those who advocated for capitalism. The Soviet Union's governmental intervention was an utter failure, and the nation collapsed in 1991; America, of course, has not and will not collapse because of the ideals it was founded upon. The competitive market economy has proven superior to the centrally-planned economy, but governmental intervention is arguably necessary in many cases (and governmental intervention is not necessarily synonymous with socialism). Sources: B. Taylor. "Socialism vs. Capitalism." 2006. 7 October 2013. Web. Holcombe, Randall G. Economic Freedom and Economic Growth. The Independent Institute. 1 February 1998. Web. 28 September 2013
Caesars Legions pure justice VS NCR Cowardice Child Labour

you listen very closely you dirty ncr profligate coward child murdering f*ggot redneck hillbilly inbred sack of irradiated brahmin sh*t if you oppose the legion there are SERIOUS consequences. whatever part of nevada you live in, we will find you with our assassin squads and we will nail you to a f*cking cross IF YOU EVER DARE OPPOSE MY LEGION I KILL YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY AND I ALREADY DEBUNKED YOUR SLAVERY ARGUEMENT SO HAHA I WIN HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH GET REKT LOLOLOLOLOLOL ps i hate you
Caesars Legions pure justice VS NCR Cowardice Child Labour

alright firs up i'll have you know that i am not a "kiddo" thank you very much i'm actually a tweenager. also yes the Novocains might of been cowards but can you blame them? i mean considering what the legion would do if they disobeyed them? i don't blame them in fact ,i applaud them for being smart enough to not play hero. and to rebuttal the whole half of USA liked slavery just because a majority believe something's good doesn't make it ok i mean look at Nazi Germany. and also do you know what the jokes are for the south now a days? usually they're about how the south is inbred and racist so do what you will with that information. as to be honest yes the leaders of the ncr are slightly corrupt i'm not ashamed to admit that but still corrupt or not their plan for the Mojave is far superior than the legions. oh and speaking of superior or rather inferior melee build suck cow nipple and guns are the superior firearm yours truly Cuntron
Caesars Legions pure justice VS NCR Cowardice Child Labour

alright kiddo your in the f*ckin big leagues now so you better prepare your profligate self for the legions justice the people of novac were cowards, irredemable for their crimes. they had to be punsihed to make an example. you may think its unfair but truth is for every profligate we stick on a cross, we spare 3 more from deterrence, as for slavery you can f*ck off fam they only got lucky in the american civil war dont forget half america was fighting for slavery and for a damn good reason because it stops capitalism which is true slavery. think about it- with legions slavery you are working to benefit all mankind but with ncr "slavery" you are benefiting fat cats and there corrupt president kimball. as for melee weapons, f*ck you you nigg*r c*nt, only melee characters get the super slam perk which si the best perk in the game so suck my legion tits you dirty loser ncr
Caesars Legions pure justice VS NCR Cowardice Child Labour

alright so now it's my turn to debate this legion loser. so first up how can you even stand up for the legion i mean come on. it's so obvious that they're the bad guys of the series seeing as how the first time you encounter them they're literally crucifying people Jesus style. i don't even understand why this is a valid argument. let's just set out list of things the legion do poorly. 1. slavery: i don't think i have to explain why slavery is bad but it's pretty bad. so bad that we had to abolish it. 2. poor leadership: OK so it's quite obvious that the legion parallel the roman empire and i reckon that just like the roman empire, the legion will collapse in the very same way 3.tactics: as you can see if you played fallout: new Vegas the legion prefer a more personal touch i.e they prefer melee weapons which is a rally stupid weapon class to rely on especially if you're against an army who wields ranged firearms so to bring back to what the title said i believe both sub texts are false\as i've proven that caesars legion are unable to even apply justice let alone enforce it and as for the ncr using "child labour" as far as i'm concerned no children we're ever used in fallout nv to represent such a fallacy as "child labour"
Britain should sell Scotland to the highest bidder

The last time a Scot won the Nobel Prize was in 2013 when Dr Higgs discovered the Higgs-boson particle [1] - that's like, so last year! Brian waddles on about how much Scotland is 'worth', but to put that into perspective, that could buy tonnes of cabbage from Tesco - yuck! [2] Nobody wants cabbage just like nobody would want to buy Scotland. I think that this site also explains very well why Scotland wouldn't be willingly bought or bidded on -> [3]. Brian also provides some clips from the Youtube site, however both of these videos carry tags such as "classic" and "vintage", i.e: That's how scotland used to be! Everything up north is worse now, so much so that even the weather now reflects the current situation [4]. I still can't see how you'd be able to sell Scotland, you just can't round them up! Just when you think you've got them, they speed away in one of their streamliner cars [5]! It would be a right job, unlike This -> [6]! This is the approximate speed of one of their streamliner cars! Woah! It appears even Brian, well-renouned Youth Expert, isn't up to date with the latest cool games. Right now, everyone is playing Farming Simulator 2014! [7] Sources [1] http://www.heraldscotland.com... [2] www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/Details/?id=259416031 [3]http://www.theworlds.co.uk... [4]http://www.express.co.uk... [5]http://www.bbc.co.uk... [6]http://www.youtube.com... ;(The video) [7]http://www.farming-simulator.com...
Britain should sell Scotland to the highest bidder

If nothing else, Scotland is a fine tourist destination where visitors can expect some jolly banter in one of the many pubs and bars, please review the YouTube clips for more details. And think of the money. As a rule of thumb a company is sold for three times its annual turnover. If Scotland is sold it might be useful to value it similarly. The annual GDP of Scotland is GBP150 billion which gives a selling price of GBP450 billion. [1] So, if this amount was divided between the 58 million men, women and children who live in England, Wales and Northern Ireland [2} we would each receive GBP7,758.62 - that's GBP31,034.00 - enough money to buy a brand new Range Rover Evoque [3] or a BMW Z4 Roadster [4] if you already have a family car. Or, if you prefer, 2,698 70cl bottles of whisky from Tesco's. [5] It seems to me that it is worth the money to risk the wrath of the Scots by selling them off to the highest bidder. Finally, the Prime Minister's fondness for playing Angry Birds just shows how out of touch this over-privileged Old Etonian toff is with the general public, who are now all playing Candy Crush Saga instead. Thank you. [1] . http://www.scotland.gov.uk... [2] . http://www.ons.gov.uk... [3] . http://www.whatcar.com... [4] . http://www.whatcar.com... [5] . http://www.tesco.com...
Britain should sell Scotland to the highest bidder

I agree with Brian that Britain needs to get rid of Scotland - and quick. Last year, they all put on a Country fair where all the residents of Scotland celebrated their abnormal hair colours and even took pride in it, and it was so laughable that it was lead by a comedian [1].Just recently, a Scottish armed robber turned up at a bookmakers and saw it as a joke [2]. My point is that no country would want to buy Scotland, so we should trick one into having Scotland, rather than selling it.A good place to do this would be at the G20. You can just imagine David Cameron saying "Argh yes, Murkel, yes. This is what we in Britain call a gift. I err arrgh think that you'll be more than happy of it. Want a game of angry birds in a minute?", and then Angela's translater would say (translated into English from German) "Wanna Gift, you angry bird? We brits love this sort o' thing, we do!". You could do this by sneaking Scotland into a box. Sure, whoever ends up with having to keep Scotland may riot, but at least we'll be happy, right?Also, nobody would want to buy Scotland because the only Scottish person anyone knows (although he's sometimes British) is Andy Murray, somebody who makes a living by hitting a small green ball with a tennis racquet. With a reputation like that, you wouldn't blame other countries thinking Scotland was a no-good useless place. As Milton Jones put it [3], Andy Murray isn't beneficial to anyone, really.Moreover, why would we want to sell Scotland? I'm sure that we don't want all the other countries knowing that we actually own Scotland, let alone us being desperate enough to try and sell it. Another reason would be that Scotland have been on their best behaviour recently, fires in Scotland have been at their all-time low ever since the Scots have wanted independence and the idea of Scottish independence started appearing in the news [4].But then again, perhaps Scotland will drift up into the North pole or something [5].For more information on David Cameron's love of angry birds, visit our website [6].Thank you. Can you believe that in one period of History in Britain, people actually wanted to look like this [7]?Sources[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://www.clyde2.com...[3] http://youtu.be... (Mock the Week, Season 12: Episode 9)[4] http://www.scotland.gov.uk...[5] http://www.snh.org.uk...[6] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[7] http://www.purgatory.net...^ (It's about Gingers, so Brian may find this source useful too)
Britain should sell Scotland to the highest bidder

Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland wants his country to be fully independent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and on 18th September this year a referendum is due to be held to decide its future. [1] But why wait? Why not let the ungrateful haggis-chomping, bagpipe-playing, tartan-loving, whisky-drinking, caber-tossing, salmon-fishing, Loch Ness Monster-spotting, grouse-shooting, penny-pinching, kilt-wearing golfing gingers separate from Britain without any further delay? Why not sell Scotland off to the highest bidder before they have their referendum? The British government should get a decent price for it: a report by the Scottish Government's Fiscal Commission Working Group - a group of renowned international economists, including two Nobel Prize winners - concluded that "by international standards, Scotland is a wealthy and productive country". [1] Indeed, Scotland's oil and gas reserves are worth USD2.5 trillion alone. [2] But who would buy it? China is the world's biggest energy consumer and must import 60% of the crude oil it needs. [3] They also like golf and Scotland is the home of golf. In addition, they like whisky and Scotland is the home of whisky. Furthermore, they like beef and Scotland is the home of the world famous Aberdeen-Angus beef cattle. Since China has reserves of USD3,387,512,975,177 it is one of the few countries that could afford to pay up front in cash. [4] Then there's Israel. There"s not enough space in Israel for all the Jews which is why they keep building illegal settlements in Palestine. [5] This wouldn't be necessary if they bought Scotland and shipped their surplus Jews over there. Or maybe Spain and Argentina could club together and buy it? Both these nations of Spanish-speaking greasers are desperate to get their filthy, swarthy little hands on British land - Gibraltar in the case of Spain and The Falkland Islands in the case of Argentina [6] - so Scotland, wgich would be divided in two, would make an ideal joint purchase for them. Britain has no written constitution [7] and what the Queen in Parliament enacts is law. This means that Parliament, using the power of the Crown, enacts law which no other body can challenge. [8] Therefore, there is no reason why Parliament, with the guaranteed acquiescence of the Queen, could not sell Scotland to the highest bidder and divide the proceeds between the loyal citizens of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that is exactly what they should do. Thank you. [1] http://www.scotland.gov.uk... [2] http://www.yesscotland.net... [3] http://edition.cnn.com... [4] http://data.worldbank.org... [5] http://www.amnesty.org... [6] https://www.cia.gov... [7] http://www.republic.org.uk... [8] http://www.ucl.ac.uk...
The most misunderstood subject : God

Poor Thing; Just out there huh? As everyone can tell no way you looked at a thing I said, researched what NEWS AGENCIES and others KNOW was an actual foretelling BY GOD of an event that would take place 2000 YEARS BEFORE it occurred. But that just went right over your head didn"t it? You have NO evidence that God doesn"t exist, while the scriptures 2000 years ago, predicted, the fall of jerusalem, by whom, AND the number of TIMES it would Fall. Talked about and described the reign of Alexander the Great to include WHO he would Leave the empire too. That Israel would become a Nation in ONE DAY! And sooo much more. Yet you athiests too lazy to research ... want everything handed to you! But nope ... sell it to someone else .... you WANT TO GO TO HELL. That is completely YOUR CHOICE. I told all you athiest long ago as have other Believers all about God. You all know, cause your all right here ON a religion Board.I have placed Ezekiel 3 on this board more times than I can remember. Your bloods on your own head! But for you, I"ll put it here just for you! Ezekiel 3:18 When I say to a wicked person, "You will surely die," and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself.The Bible says Hebrews 9:2727 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:Ron White says: https://Ron-White-You-Cant-Fix-StupidThough Ive never purchased nor rented this Cd ... I know what he means. dealing with Athiests. Now I know some sensative , Christians will have a twinge hearing that, but in my defense, I remind you that you call a Cow, cow .. right? Why? Cause it"s a Cow! There ya go! Stupid is as stupid DOES! And it is defined AS having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.Not a single Christian out there can DENY that anyone unwilling to seek God for themselves and just takes some yahoos WORD for it that he doesn"t exist, is clearly NOT the sharpest tool in the shed right? So by all means let them know when their being dumb as dirt! How else you gonna save them if your not willing to engage them, in confrontation if necessary. Remember the Apostles were. NOT KILLED by all unbelievers, they were KILLED by Atheists, and The RELIGIOUS. It certainly wasn"t because they played to their egos! It was because they told them the TRUTH ... Their going to HELL, and to the Religious? YOUR WRONG, you DONT KNOW GOD! Pharisees Killed Jesus because of this! You too must be willing to confront those who are going through the motions but themselves DO NOT KNOW GOD. yes they will become angry ... but you owe it to them to try and reach them, even if its unpleasnt for you! Read the Woes of Jesus to the Pharisees.... that couldn"t have been pleasant for Christ, but He didn"t shy away ... why do you?Gospels of Luke 11:37-54 and Matthew 23:1-39
Johnny Depp is one of the most talented actor alive.

Well, it seems I sorta messed up this whole debate by being sorta general. Oh well. Johnny Depp displays a versatility in acting unknown to any other actor. Look at the sheer variety of rolls he's played: Awkward, frightening teen (Edward Scissorhands) ambitious, cross-dressing director (Ed Wood) Cocky, egotistical pirate (Pirates of the Caribbean) and even a creepily joyful, out-of-it candymaker (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). Lets see Daniel Day Lewis play a pirate. The End.
Females 90 Day Rule

You have stated two positions: 1) Female 90-day rule is degrading 2) Female 90-day rule doesn't convey the message intended Regarding #1 Degrading is defined as humiliating or debasing (www.dictionary.com). Men have a reputation for seducing a woman for sex and then ending the relationship. Being dumped after sex is humiliating or debasing to a woman, leaving them feeling used. Waiting for a defined period (90 days, 17 dates, whatever), is a preventative measure designed to build trust while assessing compatibility over an extended period of time. A 90-day rule, therefore, reduces the probability of being dumped and therefore humiliated or degraded. Being used for sex is degrading. Your statement that a 90-day rule is degrading is not correct. It is, in fact, respectful of oneself, the opposite of degrading. Regarding #2 You make a critical error assuming that a woman's right to wait to engage in sexual activity until she knows the man is somehow meant to be a message to others. What boundaries a woman designs for herself are hers and hers alone and will vary greatly from woman to woman. No woman can be held to the boundaries of another woman and no universal standard can be set for all women. Therefore, it is invalid to say "Some respectful woman have one night stands. Some hoes make men wait 3 months." because you are assuming all women have the same objectives, experiences and standards. This is, simply, not the case. In any event, a woman's sexual boundaries are for her own protection (see #1 above) and not for external critique. If you don't like her sexual boundaries, then you don't have respect for her and therefore she is better off not being in relationship with you - especially a sexual relationship. Overall, I believe that those women who establish a [minimum time] rule have the goal of forming a true, intimate relationship with a man. When I say "intimate" I mean physically, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually. The physical intimacy in a relationship is generally the easiest to develop and can happen rather quickly. In order to develop a balanced relationship with intimacy in all areas, the relationship must be given time. Better to delay the physical in favor of the non-physical to determine if a relationship can develop. If a woman is not interested in a long-term relationship, she will not have a firm [minimum time] rule and would determine her willingness to have sex at the time sex is offered. If she experiences shame, humiliation or any other negative emotion the next day as a result of not having a [minimum time] rule, she will likely consider establishing such rule out of self preservation. If she doesn't experience any of these negative emotions, OK - we're not talking about her because she wouldn't set a [minimum time] rule anyway. Given my statements above, I hereby declare that a Woman's 90-day rule is not degrading and any message sent is one of self respect.
Females 90 Day Rule

Putting a timetable on your vagina is degrading and doesnt send the message its intended to. Placing for instance "A 90 Day Rule" in effect before you participate in sexual intercourse means a few things. 1, you feel you have made some hoe-ish decisions in the past and you need to protect yourself from yourself. 2, You have no idea how you construct a cross gender relationship so you use this as a guideline. 3, you allow sex to dictate the success of a relationship. Sleep with someone in 90 days. Hoe is a state of mind. Respect is self influenced. Sex is an act. One that respects themselves after an event or activity and leaves behind no self doubt will never be looked down upon. Some respectful woman have one night stands. Some hoes make men wait 3 months. This rule doesnt change your self worth or the image in which you are perceived.
Jesus was not the God or Son of God

Jesus was not the Son of God. The only sources we have of Jesus is the Bible and other texts which didn't make it into the Bible. In none of those books does Jesus ever claims, "I am God worship me". Jesus was only a human, he never claimed divinity. He ate, he slept, he pooped, he was completely human. When He was about to be crucified He did not say Crucify me, I will die for your sins. If He was the Son of God He would not need to fear death, because he was immortal How can God die? God is eternal if Jesus died he could not be God If Jesus was the Son of God, why didn't he come down from the cross. And when Jesus is on the cross he says, "My God My God, why hast thou forsaken me," not "Oh me oh my why have I forsaken myself," Jesus was only human. The Miracles of Jesus are used to prove he was God, but Jesus says if you believe in him you will be able to do greater works, "John 14:1-12" So the Christians should also be able to do miracles if they believe in Jesus Those miracles were metaphorical, He didn't really heal the blind or bring the dead to life, those were metaphors for healing the spiritually blind and the spiritually dead. The resurrection of Jesus is used to suggest that he was God, but probably he never resurrected, he was probably never dead either. Jesus survived crucifixion and moved to Kashmir, where he really died, and we have his body there and in the book Jesus in India, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised Messiah proves that Jesus died in Kashmir, and since Jesus is dead He cannot be God There is no God but God, and Jesus was only a human.