BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
National Join Capitalism Fund

Claiming land and using land are different things. Claiming land and having a claim to land are different things. To claim something as your own, you are necessarily saying that it doesn't belong to someone else. "As, I said earlier such a scenario would lead to severe problems. " And as I've said, the solution (landed property) also leads to problems. My solution is a solution to the problems created by the original solution. "After all they would of [sic] contested for the same piece of land in the past." Yes, they would have. That's what property fixed. Then other problems arose. "How can someone lose something they never possessed?" If my grandfather left me one million dollars to be paid when I turn 18, and someone spends it before I reach that age, I have clearly lost one million dollars despite never having possessed it. "...so an individual could go anywhere he wanted to claim land." Yes. He could. He shouldn't though, because everyone has an equal claim to that land. "So no one could have rights as he now selectively proclaims." No one can have rights because we don't have a government handing those rights down? I disagree profusely. They are rights and the government has to respect them. If they're granted by the government then they're privileges, not rights. Despite the rules of the debate, which I laid out and Con accepted, Con has still refused to debate the merits and effects of the Join Capitalism Fund and chooses instead to just berate the method by which I have proposed to fund it. I'll quote myself. "This is only a debate on the morality and effects of having such a fund. " Con refuses to debate effects and only debates morality. Con is letting the effects through. Half of the debate is over and Con hasn't said a word about the effects of the Fund.
National Join Capitalism Fund

"Therefore no one can own it. That begs the question how can everyone have an "equal" claim to it then?"Logic answers that question. Whereas before the introduction of private property in the form of land, any individual could go to any piece of land and labor upon it, after land became private property, that individual would need to ask the landowner's permission first. The landowner has only gained the ability to exclude others from the use of land. As the landowner has no greater claim to the land than any individual, and as the individual is losing out by no longer being able to labor and exist and trespass upon that land, the exclusion of others is considered theft. They are losing the prosperity that they had prior to someone who has given them nothing in return. The landowner is gaining all the prosperity and ability to work land freely while taking away that same right from those who didn't claim it. Q.E.D. Everyone has an equal claim prior to the introduction of landed private property and it is landed private property that is an affront to that claim. Person A is allowed to exclude the rest of society from the use of the land, but only with compensation that both society and A have agreed to.Con has let go every argument for the actual establishment of the Join Capitalism Fund and decided instead to focus on the existence of land as private property.I imagine Con will make arguments against the Join Capitalism Fund in the next round.
National Join Capitalism Fund

I accept your challenge. As the con side, I will be arguing against the morality of the "National Join Capitalism Fund" the negative effects said fund would have. First I will clarify several definitions and concepts. Definitions: 1. Property-a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively. 2. Stealing-take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. 3.Possession-the state of having, owning, or controlling something. 4.Ownership-the act, state, or right of possessing something. 5. Theft-the action or crime of stealing. 6.Private property- land or belongings owned by a person or group and kept for their exclusive use. Concepts: 1. National Join Capitalism Fund-"a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property" The national fund that the pro side is supporting is based off of the idea that everyone has an equal claim to land. Therefore according, to the pro anyone claiming it is "stealing from everyone else." The premise of the pro's argument is in error. The pro side has failed to prove the land belongs to everyone. The point was made that no one created the land. Therefore no one can own it. That begs the question how can everyone have an "equal" claim to it then? Then who or what determines what is "equal?" Until the pro side has definitively answered how everyone has an "equal" claim to the land, the fund that has been proposed has no basis. The moral of taking from A to pay for B and C due to the theft of natural inheritance has no basis until the pro side proves that everyone has this "equal" claim. The pro side has yet to show evidence that everyone has a claim to this "natural inheritance." The evidence has only been shown that no one can claim the land because no one created it. Therefore he has only shown no can make a claim to the land at all because they did not create the land. So how can the "natural inheritance" exist when no one created the land?
National Join Capitalism Fund

The Pro side is whining about the fact that I have chosen to debate the morality or lack thereof morality. Let it be known here and now the Con side has refuted all of the points the Pro side has provided so far about the morality of the National Join Capitalist Fund. 1. The pro side has insisted upon offering opinion and autobiographical content for the basis of his moral argument for the fund. Here are two examples from the last round only: "Yes. He could. He shouldn't though, because everyone has an equal claim to that land." Again, he has not defined where his basis for this equality is from other than his own opinion. "No one can have rights because we don't have a government handing those rights down? I disagree profusely. They are rights and the government has to respect them. If they're granted by the government then they're privileges, not rights." The concept of rights are relative whether the Pro side likes it or not. Therefore no one has an obligation to even acknowledge such a concept exists because it was created by another human being. 2. The effects of the list need to to be discussed thoroughly. I will address the behavioral, financial, and moral effects. -Crushing student loan debt. To lift student loan debt is an admirable idea for many. But let the readers not engage in the art of deception. If the fund payed student debt, it wouldn't be fair to those who didn't go to college. There are many who chose not to go to college and they are not receiving this benefit of having their mistake being paid for. Also to pay the student loan debt would enable students to take on degrees which have no benefits like BA's in Art History, Theater, or Psychology. Students may try to pursue post graduate degrees that will reap nothing but dust. In essence, we should burn the money instead rather than enable more incompetent behavior. - Poverty Poverty can't be eliminated because it is relative. For example, in the past the impoverished usually suffered from malnutrition. In the United States, it is common for the impoverished to be suffering from obesity. http://www.worldhunger.org... -Mortgages and other loans Demand is increasing so price would increase significantly as well. There is a limited supply in housing, so prices must rise. - The lack of small businesses. Most small businesses fail. It would be more beneficial to burn the money then waste a large sum of money. A minority of small businesses are successful. http://www.forbes.com... - Low wages Employers will not compete for inexperienced 18 year old employees. "This would increase wages because many 18-year olds would choose to simply not work for someone else for a while." How could these 18 year olds be successful and manage their finances without experience?
Universal healthcare

I see your point about government and healthcare - a more capitalist system would have allowed lower costs, and we could hypothetically not be in this mess. So you propose that we lower the bar for licensing, protect doctors more from lawsuits, and decrease gov't regulation to lower costs. I could possibly consider going along with this, but I don't know if the rest of the country would - an interesting subject for new debate. I see now what Republicans mean by "destroying the best healthcare system in the world". Kind of like that flashy german car you were talking about, they don't want to see the changes you are proposing take effect. Possibly, the changes you are proposing WOULD take effect if we did switch over to a socialized medical system. They would be forced to. Is this what I am to assume Republicans mean by universal healthcare ruining our great healthcare system? The best one in the world, that's so good that more and more people can't even afford to use it? So how do we pay for the obvious rises in health care costs that would be accrued to actually take care of the physical health of our citizens? I would hope that anyone would put basic healthcare ahead of most other things... how about ditching some of those useless liberal policies you were talking about? Or wait, I've got an even better idea! You know those wars we are fighting, against the Islamists and the potheads? I bet we could save a lot of money by cutting THOSE programs to help save the lives of our citizens! Let's see here... 50 Billion dollars per year for the war on drugs... The WoD doesn't due a scrap of good for anyone, and the money we spend on imprisoning all the non-violent drug offenders will save us even more! Let's see here, it costs as much as a harvard college education per year to keep each drug offender in prison. We have more people in jail, percentage-wise and absolute number-wise than any other country, so we probably have a few people to spare. - 249,400 drug offenders in federal prisons(2006) - 93,751 drug offenders in state prisons(2006) - $19,002 per year for each one - It costs over 6 and a half billion dollars to keep drug offenders in prisons each year, and this does not take into account jails at all. The war on terror, which also isn't doing anybody any good, costs 260 billion per year. With 317 Billion dollars of extra revenue each year, we ought to be able to keep our health care system working just fine. And you said the liberal policies were ridiculous! Handsoff, you kidder! You knew all along that these twisted neoconservative policies are REALLY the ones crippling us financially and ethically! While you're considering answering the questions I posed to you in round 2, consider 1 more question as well: What are the wacky liberal policies you would rather get rid of to pay for a better health care system?
Universal healthcare

Thanks for the pleasantries. I am against universal health care, but not because it doesn't sound nice. It certainly does. We're all liberals at heart. In fact universal housing, food, clothing, cars, college, income, etc.(etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam) also sound very attractive. The only problem is this: no one has a right to any of it. This country currently confiscates gobs of money from its rightful owners to provide a plenitude of unearned goods and services to undeserving and largely ungrateful recipients. Do we really need one more form of wealth redistribution in this country? Might we stop before there is nothing left to distinguish us from your average European country?
Universal healthcare

I would lke to challenge Handsoff to a debate on universal healthcare. The match will be scheduled for four rounds so that I can blow off my first round with pleasantries. My only debate with you, handsoff, was not very competitive and I would like the chance for a good exchange with you. I saw you were against universal healthcare, so I just threw it up there. I haven't, as of yet, read any of your debates but I see your record is exemplary and I would like to take a crack at you! Our last debate was productive despite its complicated nature, and I reference it often in my other debates. If you have a stronger opinion, about a different subject in which we disagree, then feel free to challenge me instead of taking this debate.
why chris brown is better than usher raymond

Firstly, I shall examine the resolution. The resolution says that Chris Brown is a better human being than Usher, not that Chris Brown is a better artist. So, all I have to do is prove that Usher is a better human being than Chris Brown. So, I do not have to prove who is the better artist but who is the morally best human being. Now I will attack my opponent. While evidence can be found that Usher raises money in support of AIDs victims, Usher has never confirmed whether or not he has AIDs, so it remains only an unfounded rumor. Since said rumor has not been confirmed, than neither can the idea that he has given AIDs to women. Also, having AIDs or not having AIDs does not contribute to determining one's worth as a person. However, there are pieces of evidence and police reports that state that Chris Brown did indeed beat artist Rihanna. Seeing as Chris Brown has been proven guilty of the charges brought to focus by Pro and Usher has been found without fault in my opponents accusations, it can be said that Usher is indeed a better human being.Sources: http://www.tmz.com...http://www.statenews.com...http://www.chacha.com...
why chris brown is better than usher raymond

Chris brown has way more songs than usher and he can rap way better than Usher. Contention 1. Usher sleeps with girls Usher is a player. Usher has way more disease than lil wayne. Usher gets his girls go home with them and has physical contact with them. They leave unhappy and they have aids because of Usher. Contention 2. Chris brown is not a woman beater. Chris brown didn't beat rihianna if you think he beat her up your crazy. If you think he beat up rihianna then show me evidence about that because Chris didn't beat her up.
Humans will NOT go extinct.

Can't really argue much about politics, since I don't think war or some mass genocide could actually end our species, even a nuclear war couldn't wipe out the entire planet like some people believe since we simply do not have enough nukes to kill everyone. We will probably go extinct for natural causes such as disease, or if we don't develop an effective way to travel and colonize other solar systems before the Sun becomes a red giant (presuming if something doesn't wipes us out long before the Earth is sallowed up by the sun.)
God can never be disproved officially and scientifically.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. just to be safe, let me emphasize that the topic of this debate is about the probability for God being soundly and scientifically disproved, but not the probability for God being soundly and scientifically proved. I am not trying to say our promote that God exists, and I'm not saying that you said I said so, it's just to be safe and clear. thunder, telescope, good examples. how ever, it's almost generally accepted by the scientific community that some things will never be able to be proved, no matter after 1000 years or 10000 years or whatever. here's a few example: origin or universe: to understand what triggered it and what allowed it to happen, we need to understand and explain the physical status before it (when time didn't even exist, according to stephen hawking). if nothing is needed to trigger it (the big bang, let's say), why then? why is nothing needed to trigger it? do you think this is going to be explained ever? most scientists nowadays don't think so. origin of randomness (if the world is not of determinism): probably principal of uncertainty and quantum fluctuation. but then, why is there quantum fluctuation? quantum fluctuation is so random no scientist currently is even attempting to explain why it happens. how entity of the smallest scale (e.g. quarks) exist and function: to understand it, we have to get inside of it (meaning that to explore a scale even smaller than the quarks themselves). to a point, we reach planck length. let's say that the string theory is correct. the magnitude of a string is a planck length. then, there is no way to understand the inside property of a string (e.g. how it comes into existence), cuz there's no way to observe something smaller than planck length. science can get deeper and deeper, but to a point, it must stop. Therefore, it is very safe to believe that science will never be able to solve everything. to disprove God, science needs to give explanation to every single logical, valid, factual based, non-subjective question that can be asked. it is safe to claim that this is not something science can possibly do. how safe is it? much safer than the claim that science can solve everything.
God can never be disproved officially and scientifically.

This God can be any God, for this topic is not limiting its subject to any entity or religion. for the sake of convenience though, let's say the God is the impersonal God that Einstein discussed about throughout his life. first, we have to come to a consensus on if God is to be disproved, how is it to be done. I believe, if God is to be disproved, we (scientific community) need to propose an valid explanation to every single possible and logic question that can possibly be asked, and fully justify the explanation. This is what the scientific community has been pursuing i.e. the ultimate theory. not relativity, not quantum mechanics. This might sounds achievable, but the statement itself (to propose an valid explanation to ...) is not illogical. this debate topic is to discuss how probable this is. the standpoint of pro is that, human and science will NEVER be able to explain every thing and find out every single truth/fact. therefore, God will forever (1000 year, 10000 year, so on) remain the only viable 'theory', if you like, to a lot of phenomenon e.g. randomness.
God can never be disproved officially and scientifically.

I accept Pro's challenge. I would kindly ask Pro to which God is he referring to as he isn't clear who this god, that can't be disproved, is. Second, I would like to add that I will prove using logic and reason that god(s) are improbable to even exist and if they do I would like to add if my opponent agrees that if this being exists, is he/she/it is either supernatural, spirit form, or flesh and blood.
God can never be disproved officially and scientifically.

In my conclusion, there isn't scientific evidence to disprove or prove the existence of god(s). My opponent's closing remarks "Therefore, until the day that science provides a complete explanation and proof to every single fact that can possibly exist and proves that none of them is related to a God, God will remain human's only accessible explanation (correct or not) to certain areas" I stand on the side that one day deities won't be a necessary explanation for phenomena that have an alternative natural explanation, and if they are, like those who used that explanation in the past who didn't know the answer at the time (i. e. Newton), those questions will be one day addressed by future scientists who are willing to find the answers. I'm hopeful that the points my opponent had made will be addressed, not by me, but rather future generations to come.
God can never be disproved officially and scientifically.

I am glad that we reached consensus with regards to the topic of this debate and that the debate can be settled. There isn't much that I want to add on to the current information, except for one clarification. Con: "With science, we can only test what's available in the natural world, to test something claimed to be of supernatural origin can not be tested, and I will admit to this." I totally agree that "with science, we can only test what's available in the natural world". we could also replace the verb 'test' in this sentence with 'prove'. However, I would like to point out that something can be out of the scope of our natural world, yet is not 'supernatural' too. for example, physical and quantum status of the universe before its beginning. this is obviously out of the natural world we have been talking about, yet it's a scientific topic and is nothing supernatural or spiritual. However, science will never be able to test or experiment on or prove anything regarding what's before the beginning of the universe, whatsoever. Conclusion: what does the 'Ph' in 'PhD' stand for? philosophy. we have PhD in Religion, we have PhD in Science. most academics effort human have made is the attempts to make sense of the universe we live in. Unfortunately (?), there will always be some issues or phenomenon or problems etc that science cannot fully test, explain, solve, justify, prove etc on its own in the rigorous scientific way. In other words, science has its own limit. In fact, the limit of science is set by science itself and its rigor. There are also areas (such as those beyond our universe i.e. prior to the beginning of the universe) that science wouldn't even attempt to solve. Still, human have the desire to make sense of the universe we live in, no matter what way it takes. Therefore, until the day that science provides a complete explanation and proof to every single fact that can possibly exist and proves that none of them is related to a God, God will remain human's only accessible explanation (correct or not) to certain areas (e.g. those mentioned above), and God will remain not disproved. However, as discussed about, there will always be something that Science can't full test, explain, solve, justify, prove etc. Whether this is 'unfortunate' or not, you decide.