BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitalism is better than socialism.

Better? Absolutely not! Capitalism is not what many people think it is, neither is socialism. People think capitalism is good and perfect... Then why are there so many poor people starving on the streets? Why can't you pay your student loans? Why can't you pay for your health care? Why is the national debt increasing? Why 1% of american people control 40% of the wealth? All of these things are fixed with socialism. You get free health care, free education, free public transport, and sometimes free food. While in capitalism, the government doesn't care about your health care or that you are starving in the streets. And I'm talking about SOCIALIST countries, not COMMUNIST. Americans seem to mix them a lot ... Say what you want about socialism, but when your economy fails, and your debt destroys you, next time you will see socialism the other way.No I do not agree I have nothing against Capitalism but I have a firm belief that Capitalism controls the world. In post civil rights America, Capitalism has really put a thorn in Black America. Racism and hatred don't come from people like you and me but rich politicians and businessmen/women. That why southern whites resented the free slaves because their freedom hurt their capitalism which at the time completely developed the south.
Capitalism is better than socialism.

Capitalism is better than socialism in many ways, first of all, it helps people out of poverty and increases minimum wage. People pay for themselves and not waste money on someone getting braces on the other side of the country, and like I said socialism is just paying for other peoples problems. Socialists might say "Oh, but were paying for education and healthcare, which will help children to learn." But the parents should pay for his or her child's education, not some 60 year old man who is playing bingo and is in retirement. It doesn't make sense. Everyone should pay for their own problems, not other people. Plus, socialism is destroying the economy piece by piece because apparently everything is free and they should pay less for their dumb mistakes and make other people pays for your problems. And if Socialists are okay with that? Then I dont know what else to say. Its like if the government forces you to buy milk for another person that your never going to use and you will never meet the person. And its nice when you hurt yourself and you dont have to pay for it, but for other people, its just a random stranger that you probably will never meet. Capitalists pay for their own problems, it will help them to learn from their mistakes. Capitalism helps with job opportunities, therefore helping poor people get jobs and then helping the economy, its a cycle. Nothing destroys poverty more than the economy. Due to capitalism and the growth of companies, it has lowered prices and given poor people a chance to buy food and other survival supplies. Maybe some poor person on the street gets like 10 dollars in a full day of begging on the street. Due to capitalism, they could afford probably 2 water bottles and bread, and maybe a bag of oranges. Now that person can continue with live and on a very lucky day he could maybe afford a jacket or a pair of clothes. His live has gotten way better due to capitalism. Now that hes gotten some clothes, water, and food, he can get a job and it changes his life. All thanks to capitalism. That is my turn, let me hear yours!
Male privilege is not real

Male privilege has been an issue since society's dawn. Humans have a tendency to attach generalized stereotypes to things regardless of accuracy. Male privilege is the belief that males are better or superior to their female counterparts. How did these stereotypes emerge? Our ancestors from the stone age were very tribal. People attained positions, Because of talent. Males were physically superior, Thus they were given the hunter gatherer positions. Women had to bear children, Thus were tasked with raising children. Stereotypes were made. However, Females being tasked with the duty of raising children in no way makes them inferior to males. I am here to prove these stereotypes still exist, And will provide examples. Here are the accounts of a trans man's experience. His reports prove to be valuable, Because he knows what it is like to be a female, And knows what it is like to be a male. "Yet I"m Still Taken (More) Seriously I"m still amazed at the amount of people that now immediately shut their mouths the second I open mine. " This proves that males are treated with more respect. " I Rarely Get Interrupted I used to be interrupted so often while presenting as a woman that I in turn started to talk over people as a form of conversational survival. " This proves males are taken more seriously. "I"m Very Likely to Arrive Home Safely After Walking Alone at Night Assuming nobody is out looking to f-g bash, But that"s a somewhat different matter. It remains that I walk alone at night far more than I used to purely because I"m a dude. " This proves that females face many risks when alone due to criminal activity. I"m Very Likely to Arrive Home Safely After Walking Alone at Night Assuming nobody is out looking to f-g bash, But that"s a somewhat different matter. It remains that I walk alone at night far more than I used to purely because I"m a dude. This proves that females face many risks due to criminal activity. "I"m Allowed to Grow Old And likely will even be considered "handsome" or "sophisticated" because of it. " The value of a women is reduced with age, Because value of a woman is confused with beauty. Sources: https://thebodyisnotanapology. Com/magazine/these-25-examples-of-male-privilege-from-a-trans-guys-perspective-really-prove-the-point/
Sola Scriptura vs Sola Dei Verbum

Salutations to debate.org! I am Darth Pious, known in some parts of the world as Adrian, and I am honored to have my first engagement with philochristos, a most humble Christian who has graced me with the garden of his turbulence. I accept his challenge. I don't deny any of his definitions, though as was mentioned, these will need to be fleshed out. I will do my own brief definitions here: Sola Scriptura is what philochristos has said it was. Let me also explain what I think it is not. It is not the view that it is the only source of knowledge for Christians. I have seen this application in some Christians, but I trust philochristos will not subscribe to this view. Sola Dei Verbum is what philochristos has said it was, and for those who do not see the difference, it is this: the words of God, or the deposit of faith, includes but is not limited to Sacred Scripture. What else is included? Tradition. This can be defined and argued over later. With this being said, I accept to the following rules of engagement, and am looking forward to what philochristos has to say. God Bless.
Sola Scriptura vs Sola Dei Verbum

For this debate, Pro will defend Sola Scriptura, and Con will defend Sola Dei Verbum. Since we each have a position to defend, the burden of proof will be shared.DefinitionsSola Sriptura: The position that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians.Sola Dei Verbum: The position that the word of God is the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians.These are the simplest definitions for these terms. I purposefully didn't flesh either one of them out in detail since I suspect the meaning and implications of both of them will be part of what we argue over. Con is welcome to correct me if he thinks these definitions are wrong, but I ask him to be succinct in his correction.Rules1. Round 1 is for acceptance, definitions, and well-wishes.2. Round 2 is for opening statements. Con can respond to what I say in my opening.3. Round 3 is for rebuttals and any new arguments either side wants to introduce.4. Round 4 is for conclusions and rebuttals, but no new arguments.5. Voters must vote on the content of the debate, not your own opinion or the arguments you would like to have made.6. Burden of proof is shared. (I said that already, didn't I?)7. Fairness and charity are expected from both debaters and all voters. No motive-mongering.8. Forfeiting the last round is an automatic loss for the whole debate (arguments and conduct). Forfeiting just one round prior to the last round is a conduct point.9. If anybody vote bombs, St. Nicholas will rise from his grave, and after scaring the bejesus out of you, will brand you a heretic and burn you at the stake. If you vote bomb just to see if that's true, and if St. Nicholas happens to be busy in the great beyond and can't deal with you at the moment, rest assured that the day of reckoning will come.10. I've made the character limit 6000 instead of the usual 8000 in hopes that it will encourage people to vote and discourage people from forfeiting.Good luck, Darth_Pious! I expect great things from you!
are any genies true ever since 4.5 billion years on this planet lets debate only truth

I am going to assume that my opponent was speaking about fact-proven genies, due to the uncertain nature of his/her opening argument. Anyway, I thank my opponent for beginning this debate and wish them good luck. If we are speaking factually, a genie wouldn't be physically possible. First of all, they were first mentioned in our fictional (whether fantasy or not) works of literature, and we have no proof that they could possibly exist. There's no biological evidence to support it. Additionally, if the genie was truly existent, there is no way the humanoid creature could have evolved or survived. If we are considering the genie to essentially be human but with "no legs", the genie would require the evolutionary track of a human. Also, we estimate life to not begin at the beginning of the earth, but instead around 300 million years following the cooling of our planet. The evolutionary track is another problem. We estimate the earliest primates existed approximately 65 million years ago, and the Homo genus approximately 2 to 3 million years ago.
are any genies true ever since 4.5 billion years on this planet lets debate only truth

Genies who are spirits exist with humans that is true which is dream for humans but are any genies true ever since 4.5 billion years on this planet ? i am challenging truth and want to challenge with any prophets or gods right now. My challenge is that, were there ever true in there decision of truth where they confirmed they are true to others ? without checking if there was fabrication (which means bandish in urdu) on knowing about something if its true or did they check if some other genie kept something in there mind which genies are checking if it is true because when something is kept in some genie mind it is changed accordingly according to that genie and fabrication can be done anywhere and if mind is blocked of original god then genies will never find out what is truth. So many reasons i told you here and there might be many other reason like genies can put courts to show something lie in front of other genies. So what do you think were any genies in 4.5 billion years true on this planet earth. Note : if one god of different time is wrong or lie of any times then his every decision and his every truth is lie and he is not true. Remember in all the times genies believes in one god to be true only and never wrong or lie and by believing in one god to be true they go even in past and current and future and show miracles by saying there one god is always true and cannot be lie and if they ever believe one god was lie then they would have fly and shown miracles to everybody that one god is also wrong and lie. So lets debate what do you think or believe now. If you win in this debate you will get blessings from me.
are any genies true ever since 4.5 billion years on this planet lets debate only truth

I really can't understand what you're challenging me on, so I'm again going on factual things. First, some refutes to my opponent's claim. "You tell me how they sees future from there past which is in same time for them by believing in temporary fake truth and never believed in original truth." Future from the past isn't really possible, considering it may end up being the present. As stated in earlier debates you've participated in, time is really a construct of perception designed to keep track of things. "If they never believed in original truth then how they sees future from past which is in same time for them by believing god is true and they believe god is not lie or wrong when god has been proved lie and wrong." My being of atheism tells me that god isn't really existent based on science, making one point in this statement true. Also, you haven't defined your meaning of "original truth". Please make that a little clearer in your next argument. Again, "future from the past in the same time as them" completely ignores all things that can result in a temporal paradox. That statement isn't possible as well. I would also like to point out pro has made a video showing "DNA Proof" that he is a "son of god". This video entails him rubbing some strange liquid on a shirt, not a DNA sequence. Please do not be fooled by this irrelevant video.
are any genies true ever since 4.5 billion years on this planet lets debate only truth

i am talking on believers of god who are originally genie who sees future from there past and past from there future which runs in there same time. genies who are believers of god sees future from past and past from future by believing god is true only and never wrong but god is also wrong and been proved that every genie has evil thoughts who forces someone to sin when someone becomes against there gods which is evil sinner act. So you tell me when god is proven as wrong and those who sees future from past in same time for them how they sees future from past which is in the same time for past and future by believing god is only true and never wrong ? when god has been proved lie so every believer must believe god is also lie and visit past from future and future from past but believers of god believes god is only true and sees future from there past which is in same time for them. You tell me how they sees future from there past which is in same time for them by believing in temporary fake truth and never believed in original truth. If they never believed in original truth then how they sees future from past which is in same time for them by believing god is true and they believe god is not lie or wrong when god has been proved lie and wrong. If genies are true then only there power works and if they are wrong then there power doesnt works so how any genie power of truth works which is not proven lie by anyone. Dont you feel god knows this ? that he is lie and wrong which is true but still believers of god sees future in there current time and when any genie is wrong there power doesnt works.
Time is an illusion

You can't frame the examples literally. Strictly speaking we can't see anything that doesn't consist of at least 3 dimensions of space and one of time. When you see something that is "2-D" it is really only a representation. The "dimension" of time is present in two or three dimensional representations anytime there is motion. A drawing would be an example of a two dimensional representation without time, it will always be the same. We can't even represent things that have less than two dimensions. 1-D lines are infinitely thin and 0-D points simply exist in a given location. This is the greatest proof of concept for the arguments. Even disregarding the dimensional argument, you can't get around the fact that time is what enables different arrangements. Any prime movers must have some sort of material to work with. In this particular case, it is time. This is not to say that existence is limited to our present conceptions, there may well be an existence that couldn't exist as we do. Regardless, I congratulate you on a good debate.
Time is an illusion

It is said that time is the 4th dimention. If that's true, if time exists, then we can at least know that time is not a dimension. Given line X a point is free to move along that line. Where then is time? The 2nd dimention? Given plane plane XY there is a point that is free to move now in 2 dimentions. Where then is time? The 3rd dimentions? We're biased as 3rd dimentional beings to think that time is the 4th dimention wouldn't you agree? I put forth my summary statement: Time is an illusion as it is not required to support multiple configurations of a given line, plane, or space. The past is merely a configuration of the universe that, if duplicated exactly particle for particle, would rebuild "the past". That's all I have "time" for. :)
Time is an illusion

You misunderstand me and unintentionally agree with my counter-thesis. I agree that there is nothing but now in our perception. If there was no time, there couldn't be more than one arrangement of chemicals. Here is the proof of concept in your own terms: At time "A" the arrangement is # @ ! At time "B" the arrangement is @ # ! At time "C" the arrangement is ! # @ These examples show that your conception of "arrangement" is made possible by distict points in time. This is result of a lack of time: Point "A" is infinitely short, it encompasses all existence. the order is # @ ! it always has been and always will be. There is no possibility of change. This is further proved by conceptualizing time as a dimension. We can see the same concept if we try to crunch the third dimension into the second. No matter what you do in the second dimension it can only be placed in that plane. Solid objects cannot exist. Think of time as an integral. It is the summation of infinite and infinitely small points of "being" (you may call them arrangements if you wish) from point "A" to point "B." The addition of the extra "dimension" is what enables existence as we percieve it.
Time is an illusion

I disagree that the rearrangement of the atoms in my miniverse prove or creates time. Due to the way the universe was created we always see cause before effect. Because of this we must speak in terms of "before" and "after" but that's merely a convenience for decribing the muliple configurations of the eternal "now". An unchanging universe would not exhibit "time" or even the need for time because there would be no "cause" and "effect" only one static configuration. Your counter-thesis: What we percieve as the present is really a memory. Because of this, we consist of time and space. What we percieve as the present past and future are merely arrangements of chemicals in the brain. If we could take a snapshot of your brain in it's present configuration and then return your brain to that same configuraion, would you know any different? As humans it is not possible for us to talk about configuration A, then B, then A again without invoking the concept of time. This is a coping method that allows us to communicate concepts of "cause" and "effect". However, it does not prove that there is literal construct called "time". Order is not time. When we say the configuration is ABC, the configuration is CBA, the configuration is BAC - we must use the concept of time to describe in which order these configurations occurred. It does not prove that time is a literal construct.
Time is an illusion

Problem 1 with your thesis: Your argument is enabled by the passage of time. If there were no time, the change in order would never occur, and we would always see the same order. Problem 2 with your thesis: Even disregarding that flaw, you've proposed a different cause of time. Counter-thesis: What we percieve as the present is really a memory. Because of this, we consist of time and space. This thesis is much more reasonable because of the primacy of the senses regarding reality. I'm glad you picked this topic. It should be interesting.
Time is an illusion

I assert that time does not exist. It is, in fact, an illusion created by the movement of matter and energy. Let's suppose a greatly simplifed universe which is only composed of 4 atoms labeled A, B, C, and D. In this space exactly large enough to contain these atoms they are created by God and arranged in order ABC and D is the observer. God rearranges them to CAB and D is not changed. God rearranges them back to ABC and D is not changed. Did atom D just go back in "time" or just witness a return to the original configuration of the universe? I thought this would be a cool change of pace so let's see where this goes.
Eating meat is great for you

First of all eeeeeeeeeeewww meat. How can you want to so much as smell and sense flesh let alone insert it into your body. It looks bizarre, gross and absolutely terrifying. One would argue that vegetarians are posh, having meals from the freshness of plants. Feeling like a model on salad, rather than Arnie 'n' Sylvester on the PROtien💢(stinky organs eeeew)
Eating meat is great for you

I understand the ethical concerns that eating meat produce in slaughter houses is awful and I agree with that. However, even people who eat meat with organic/natural on the label that doesn't mean the meat was grown in better conditions. Regardless why do you or some people believe meat is bad for you. As an athlete I eat a lot of meat and protein every day to maintain my body. Yes meats are bad for you if you eat meat with high quantities of saturated fat, but meats like chicken don't have a lot of that. The main meat issues regarding diabetes are due to people along with eating their meat eating a lot of sugar and refined carbs in their diet, this causes diabetes. Please respond I am interested to see someone elses point of view.
The Problem of Hell Redux

IntroductionI have already done one debate on this subject but I hope to tackle this issue again. [1] To reiterate, my position is that the existence of hell - conceived of as eternal, conscious torment (e.g. the "traditional" doctrine of hell) - is, in all likelihood, incompatible with the existence of a God who is conceived of as perfectly good (e.g. just, merciful, loving, etc), powerful, and wise. I think this problem presents a uniquely diffcult issue for that kind of monotheism in general and Christanity in particular; the latter position is the one I will be arguing from.One's theological or religious persuasion - whether theist or non-theist - does not matter in accepting this debate. The only type of person I hope to debate is someone who is competent and can argue powerfully for the position that the existence of hell and God, within the context of Christainity, are, in all likelihood, compatible.I accept the burden of proof inasmuch as all the opponent has to do to defeat me is show that my arguments fail to prove their conclusion. If they show my arguments do not prove their conclusion the argument points should go to my opponent. Thusly, my opponent has to show how and why my arguments fail.Good luck to whomever accepts this challenge.RulesRound 1 is for acceptance and clarifications and/or statements of purpose. If there are any more issues that need to be worked out please post them in the comments.Rounds 2-4 are for argumentation.Sources[1] http://www.debate.org...