BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
No closed society can sustain anarchy for prolonged periods of time

Thank you for the debate. I would first like to start out with offering a definition Society-the state of being with other people (Encarta) It is quite easy for a society to exist without a government or rules. You only need to look at a group of friends. To meet your conditions "(1) The society simply lacks rules; (2) the society is conditioned so that everybody would work with society's best interest in mind; (3) society would informally and collectively punish 'transgressors' (of universally understood and unofficial rules) without any need for centralization." 1.I don't know about you and your friends, but as for me and the people I hang out with we don't really have any rules. I didn't sign anything saying I agree not to still my bud's girl or that I wouldn't steal from him. Sometimes we randomly get in fights in the hall just for something to do. There really aren't any rules. 2.This is probably the condition that best fits a group of friends. You just don't want to make the people you like mad, and generally they give the same respect to you. 3.In my group of friends if someone hits you, you hit them back. Society doesn't punish the transgressor the offended punishes the transgressor. This rules out all need for centralization. My friends and I have been hanging out since 1st grade so we've spent a good eleven years together. Not once in our society have we splintered off into different groups due to infighting nor has one person taken over and become the leader. The simple existance of friendships prove anarchy can exist for an indefinate period of time Anarchy exists everywhere in societies today but only among small groups of people.
No closed society can sustain anarchy for prolonged periods of time

As my opponent has forfeited his last round, I would like to simply state a few things and present some more evidence for my argument: (1) (this is a pre-emptive counter to a potential argument my opponent could make): although you and your friends have not drifted apart during your 11 or so years of friendship, you cannot assume that the situation would be the same under the conditions of economic interdependency or other conditions in which it would be impossible for large numbers of you to switch to another society (i. e. from what you said you are all high school seniors or juniors, and I would therefore assume that you don't make all your money for yourselves and your friends - if everyone else died and you and your friends were the only people on earth and had to find your own food and shelter, etc. I would argue that you would develop an informal, but nevertheless real, government of sorts, where decision-making and rule-enforcing are organized and not spontaneous). (2) More evidence that a centralized rule-enforcing group is needed: the 1919 and 1923 police strikes (Boston and Victoria): [. http://www.u-s-history.com...] ; [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] That is all I would like to say for now.
Resolved: North Korea and South Korea should just have sex and get it over with already

1) Jealousy"North Korea thought that the reason South Korea broke up with her was because South Korea no longer loved her."Thats the same crap that all psyco-bitches think when their man leaves them. Its always HIS fault because SHE is so perfect... The fact that North Korea thinks they did nothing wrong only shows why South Korea shouldnt go in a relationship with them, and instead keep everything sexual"If they just had sex now, it would be catastrophic for their relationship and would throw them right back into the abusive, controlling, and emotionally exhausting type of relationship they were in before"We dont know that though. When the US and Japan made up after their big fight in the 40's and started getting it on, everyone thought that would end badly too but now its worked out great and the two regularly hang out and visit each other. Same thing could happen to the two Koreas.2) Need each other but dont belong together" The sexual tension that has been built up will simply be replaced with the other type of tension, where they really just hate each other's guts"Never underestimate the power of really awesome angry sex. If frequent and good enough, angry sex can make even the most unlikely of people content with how the other person is, which is exactly what the two Koreas need. If they go into a relationship they will start getting controlling like last time, but if its just pure sex then both sides can be themselves yet release all their frustration they have in the most satisfying of ways3) They're old enough"but they are not nearly ready emotionally to go that extra step physically. They need time to ease into it"Let them try then. If they both think they are ready for it then why should we stop them? Russia and Cuba really got into the sex when Cuba was barely even in their teens and for a while it worked out great. Even the US got super jealous of them!4) Inexperience"They have only learned about premarital sex from Family Guy, where it is stated, "if you have sex, your penis will fall off and land in another dimension populated entirely by dogs, who will eat it." South Korea is certainly scared about that"The number one song in South Korea is Gagnam Style, a song about a korean guy who is positively obsessed with booty. I think that South Korea is mentally prepared to go for the gold and start doing the nasty, and if they think theyre ready too then let them have their fun, see if it works out5) Barriers" However, the only way he will get in her pants is if he romances her for a while and slowly chips away at those mental barriers"South Korea hasnt been in any other relationships since they broke up with North Korea, so how can South Korea try to romance North Korea if theyve never romanced anyone before? Last time North and South Korea were in a relationship, the North was very straightforward and assertive to South Korea which is how the relationship started in the first place. All South Korea has to do is be assertive to North Korea and be a man, not romance her, thats how countries end up getting friend zoned!
Humans Can be Good Without God

The claim which suggests or states that humans need God to be good is an erroneous one. An example of good without God is the history of the country of Sweden. Sweden has been proven to be one of most secular countries in the entire world. [1][2] Despite it being against the Iraq war holistically, "Sweden expects to take in three times [as] many" Iraqi refugees than the United States. [3] My next point of contention: if there were a God of any of the monotheistic faiths - whose existence has yet to be proven by scientific and material evidence - he should not be an example humans would desire emulate for a moral life. If this deity did exist, again, whose presence humans have no evidence of, his mandates and examples should not be followed in order to live a moral life. I shall elaborate on this point if an opponent takes up my challenge. My next point of contention - studies have shown monkeys, a relative with whom humans share 96% of their genome with, have a sense of morality, thus leading us to the conclusion that morality is innate in us. Again, more studies and elaborations will follow if I am challenged. [4][5][6] Lastly, an alternative. If no supernatural being can dictate what is right and wrong, then what can? Science. Science can determine human values and morals by essentially calculating human well-being in certain circumstances. With this, I conclude my challenge. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://czso.cz... [3] http://abcnews.go.com... [4] http://www.str.org... [5] http://www.timesonline.co.uk... [6] http://thescribblersweb.com...
Obamacare

In conclusion, Americans need to have affordable health care. This is the first step of many to find the easiest, most efficient, and most cost efficient health care. This is not nationalized health care. It is not for people who can't work. It is just health care that Americans can afford if their employers health care is too expensive or if their employers don't offer health care. It is worth giving it a try. It may help you, your kids, or your friends. It is customer driven. If one insurance company is not competitive, it will not be picked, and sooner or later it will have to drop its price. It is the way Americans do business. We have been strapped with what our employers offer for too long. Now we have a choice.
Obamacare

Obamacare is just a start. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will Obamacare. But it is a good start towards affordable healthcare. If you want to keep your doctors you will be able to. But you have to make an informed choice and check out which insurances are accepted at your doctors office. It would be prudent to give this a chance as it is the only game in town. It will not bankrupt the country. If the defense budget hasn't bankrupted the country yet, nothing will. With all the cuts to the social programs, there should be more room for health care. It will not, unless businesses let it, change the way your insurance is run. Businesses don't like Obamacare because they don't want to give benefits, good wages or anything else to their workers. It is only the bottom line for them. Obamacare will allow people to buy the insurance that is a good fit for their health and their budget. I don't see the employers offering to consider your healthcare costs. The political climate is very negative right now. It is all about money. President Obama is all about considering the common man. You can believe that or not, but he does a better job of keeping our interests in mind than the corporations. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Obamacare

I do not know where it was said that you would be paying for others mistakes. The argument for Obamacare is that everyone in America is entitled to affordable health care. That the health and well being of your family should not be at the whim of your employer. In Minnesota we have a health exchange. It is just like a stock exchange. You are asked to put in information regarding your health and income. With your answers you will be given choices of the best type of insurance available for you, your spouse, your children. Each person should be able to have the insurance which best fits their health. With this approach you should be able to save money on your policies. The insurers are Blue Cross, Humana, Medica and HealthPartners. If the insurance companies have to compete, they will have to drop their prices, or lose business. The people who are going to be on Obamacare, will be on it because their employers insurance is too expensive or do not offer insurance. In other words the working people of America. You are not paying for anyone's mistakes. Unless you count the employers of America who do not want to pay a living wage or the benefits their employees deserve.
Obamacare

Why should I have to pay for others mistakes? So, the argument for "Obamacare" is that healthcare is a RIGHT not at privilege. I don't mean to sound very conservative but, please point out in the bill of rights, constitution, or any document made by or founding fathers that say it is a right. Good luck with that. So here is an example. Mike a non-smoking businessman makes 500k a year. Janice is a person who smokes is jobless, homeless, and has cancer. So, Mike should have to pay for Janice's poor choices? No. If you were to murder someone(not saying you will) should every one in America spend 30 minutes in jail because you made a poor choice? I think not. The fact is in life you have to make your own choices and if poor, deal with the consequences.
Should Donald Trump become President

He has filed bankruptcy 4 times yes, but that doesn't mean he was broke. many many many celebrities have filed bankruptcy when they get sued and have to pay money, its pretty much a way of not paying it. (not to mention it was a select few businesses and not his company as a whole, you basically are saying that because McDonald's shut down 4 of there restaurants they are bad at running the corporation) and I have read many times of supposedly racist things he has done, such as denying blacks to live in his apartments (even though he had 6000+ blacks living in his apartments and didn't deny them as a race as much as because there were better people to rent too) and his saying of the Mexicans are rapists and whatever, when he was talking about Illegal Immigration. Which is shown as true. 90 percent of cocaine enters the U.S. through the Mexican border. Even more, these cartels also manufacture 80 percent of the crystal meth sold in America, 14 percent of the heroin and a huge amount of marijuana. they also take up a huge amounts of rapes in the southern border and in Texas alone , a little over 1000 rapes against children have been filed in the last 2-3 years. not to mention they have kidnapped 366 people in Arizona. https://www.hg.org... Mexican Drug War is Also an American Issue - Mic
That Javascript is the greatest programming lanuage

I disagree. Going by my opponent's own criteria, Machine Language is far better than Java. Quick definition: *Machine code or machine language is a system of instructions and data executed directly by a computer's central processing unit. (wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org...).* Now, to my opponent's criteria. 1. Adopted widely While Java is adopted by most PC's, Macs and many mobile phones, Machine Code is adopted by every and any system that contains a CPU. This includes every microwave, digital watch or DVD player, to name but a few. 2. Well supported My opponent bases this conclusion on the number of forums discussing Java. However, my opponent does not provide any sources for that contention. A quick Google search shows that "Java language" returns about 20 million results while "Machine Code" comes back with some 100 million. Clearly, machine code is the more talked-about language. 3. Easy to use Right, I have to concede this particular point. Machine Language requires some expertise and can't be used just by any amateur with a PC and 5 minutes of spare time. My opponent wins on this point. 4. Powerful Of course it's true that Java is powerful in its object-oriented environment, indefinite function argument, closures....etc etc etc...But of course Java could never function, it wouldn't exist, if there were not a machine language underneath it all. Machine language has the ultimate power. It drives the entire machine; whether it's a microwave, a PC, a Mac, a mobile phone, a digital watch, a DVD player or a mere space shuttle. Machine language is the most powerful language of all because all other languages depend on it. All of their instructions are mere requests for Machine Language to perform a certain function. 5. Fast There's no language faster than Machine Language. Machine Language is the only language that interacts directly with the machine. All other languages (Java included) are interactions with the machine lanaguage (either directly or indirectly). All other languages (being higher-level languages) are simply sets of requests for the Machine Language to perform a function, as it is only the Machine Language that interacts directly with the machine. There's no doubt that, where computer languages are concerned, the Machine Language is the fasters of them all. In conclusion, Machine Language beats Java in 4 of the 5 features that my opponent relies for his own argument. The only component in which Java beats it is ease of use. It is therefore beyond any doubt that Machine Language is, by my opponent's own standards, a better language than Java.
That Javascript is the greatest programming lanuage

In this debate, I contend that Javascript is the greatest programming language. My opponent is to choose any other programming language and argue its superiority over javascript. Definitions: Programming Language: written set of instructions that a computer can interpret, either directly or in "compiled" form Javascript: The latest version of the Javascript programming language as defined by the standard published by the Mozilla Foundation. Greatest: In terms of ability, flexibility, speed, ease of use, how widespread the adoption is and any other like relevant factor. My main contentions: 1. Javascript is adopted widely Almost every operating system in the world has a web browser with Javascript support. Therefore almost every computer in the world uses Javascript. It has a near monopoly on client-side web communication, and is increasingly being used for compiled applications (see this effort by Gnome: http://live.gnome.org...). It is one of the few languages that is both compiled and interpreted. 2. Javascript is well supported There are more online forums discussing Javascript than most other languages out there. A quick study of my local bookstore this morning revealed about one half of the computer books deal, directly or indirectly, with Javascript. 3. Javascript is easy to use Javascript is used by amateurs all over the globe. It is very easy to get started, there are numerous tutorials littering the net. The fact that it can be run without compilation makes it easier to write too. 4. Javascript is powerful With useful features such as an object-orientated environment, indefinite function argument, closures and dynamic variable typing, Javascript does not really restrict the programmer from doing anything they want. 5. Javascript is fast When interpreted, Javascript is among the fastest interpreted languages due to the many recent breakthroughs in Javascript interpretation. When compiled Javascript is not usually noticeably slower than something programmed in anything else. No other language in the world can boast these five features. Therefore I conclude that Javascript is the best. I will produce more specific arguments on learning what language my opponent decides to take.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Legalize Medical Marijuana.

I ask the voters not to hold ff against my opponent. This round calls for rebuttals, so that is what I will do now. Rebuttal #1 "Ease of Access" First, my opponent argues "Ease of Access". He basically argues that by legalizing Medical Marijuana, people will be able to have easier access and use it for their problems such as depression. We all know that are more dangerous drugs out there that can easily kill people. These dangerous drugs are used more on the street because 1. They treat or give you an immediate high and 2.Easier access. Some off these dangerous drugs are: [1] Acetyl Fentanyl Molly Smiles Vitamin K” or “Special K” These are just a few very dangerous street drugs. If you read about these drugs here (http://listosaur.com...) You will see that Marijuana is not on here. You may be thinking, what does this have to do with ease of access? Well, as you can see, there are allot more deadlier drugs that are on the street now that can kill people much easier and faster. Even if people did have easy access, it wouldn't hurt them. According to leaf science [2] While prescription painkillers cause thousands of overdose deaths each year, no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose. Again, as my argument is the previous round have proved, Medical Marijuana has been proved to ease pain and help with illness, what's the danger in that? The only thing it could possibly to while using recreation is to ease pain. Rebuttal #2 "Safety Concerns" There is not much to rebut here because my previous argument had to do with doctors using Medical Marijuana to slow down cancer and to each other. My opponent argues that Medical Marijuana only makes cancer worse, when in fact , that isn't the case if you read my argument in R2. My opponent brings up lung cancer and other cancers and how Medical Marijuana can increase this. This is all just a hoax. According to "Patients for Medical Cannabis" [3] THC has been found to reduce tumor growth in common lung cancer by 50 percent and to significantly reduce the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University, who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies. The researchers suggest that THC might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer. (study)" As you can read here, it doesn't increase any type of cancers. Medical Marijuana is already legalized in 23 states. If it really worsened conditions, do you think doctors would still be using it? If they would have found that it makes cancer grow more quickly and more aggressively, they would quit using it. But instead they continue to use it and preach of it because it is so effective. Since my opponent wasn't able to rebut my points in this round , I'll stop here. That seems fair enough. Sources: [1] http://listosaur.com... [2] http://www.leafscience.com... [3] https://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com...
Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Legalize Medical Marijuana.

Contention 1: Ease of AccessIt is truely easy to acquire Medical Marijuana in America. For the number one example I'll give you our Bluest State in California as an example. Journalist Adam Brown reviewed California's law and revealed that in California and several other states, including DC, that you could be prescribed medical marijuana if, "you have a debilitating condition like "general pain" or "mild depression" or "unspecified symptom syndrome. " [1] We can see that this isn't a black market issue and it's a sugar coated way of legalization of marijuana for the general public without officially doing it. I mean let's alll be honnest here. We've all suffered from some sort of "general pain" in our life time, does that mean that we should all get Medical Marijuana? It's simply wrong and we can see that this is a close connection to Brave New World's Soma. The fact is that many Medical Marijuana advocates would argue that it's mainly used for cancern, but if we observe Colorado we can see that over the majority of the people perscribed Medical Marijuana isn't cancer related and is something perposterous that wouldn't even get a person any type of perscription medicine. [2]We can plainly see that we cannot continue with further legalization of Medical marijuana until we see major reform here, so that the above attrocities are corrected. Contention 2: Safety ConcernsThere are several safety concerns surrounding Medical Marijuana. Like first one can see that Medical Marijuana involves the chemical THC which has been found due to a recent study to increase the rate of brain tumors. [3] They have found that the THC in Canibas slows the bodies anti-tumor responses to a near stop allowing tumors to increase and become more previlent. Many studies show that THC can slow down tumors, but when it is mixed with cannibas and not soley THC injected into the body we can see that it has the oppoisite effect. UK cancer institute director Lesly Walker has found that contrary to popular belief that "It absolutely isn't the case that men might be able to fight prostate cancer by smoking cannabis," [4]Another study showed that smoking 1 joint increases the percentage that one could get Lung Cancer by 8% and that smoking 3 joints is the equivlence of smoking 20 cigarettes. [5] Other studies have shown to cause many other mental disorders like Skizofrania [6], panic attacks/aniexty [7], and after smoking the joint it increases the rate of a heart attack by 5 times! [8]We can simply see that these risks are way to much and especially for that of Medical Marijuana being used the way that we've seen it be used and the ease of access being way to much we can simply see that these side effects are not worth a tiny bit of being high because of your "pain. "Sources1. (. http://www.cracked.com...) 2. (. http://www.mapinc.org...) 3. (. http://www.jimmunol.org...) 4. (. http://www.reuters.com...)5. (. http://news.bbc.co.uk...) 6. (. http://www.schizophrenia.com...) 7. (. http://www.panicattacks.com.au...) 8. (. http://www.drugabuse.gov...)