BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's time for New York to drop the "New"

Thanks Brian for the response. Readers, we’re in the last round, as you finish reading this post, you will realize that in all seriousness and silliness, you gotta vote for the CON. About the vase, it’s nice to know that a DDO presidential candidate is going to be rich, might as well use the money and enhance this site? Probably put on a troll-security and stuff. :P Now, moving on, it’s really a shame, damn, about not mentioning New England, curse you Wikipedia suggestion search! But anyway, my opponent still insists that we rename the places with ‘New’ in them with the name of their original origin. Again, my points about the disadvantages of this kinda stand. But one flaw from PRO, based on the sources I mentioned in R1, New Zealand got its name from Zeeland, a province in Holland, my opponent insists that we take out the ‘New’ so it would be Zealand instead, but Zealand is an island in Denmark, where the capital is, do we really need to affect an innocent place just because of a name? And do we really need to create a feud between Mexico and US? Isn’t the immigration fiasco already enough of a dispute? On my opponent’s next contention about the Washington’s, it may be true that a not-so-American American might be on the wrong ‘Washington’, but come on, a travel agency making this laughable mistake? They’re is not that lame. And just want to point out that the White House is in Washington D.C., so there’s no need for some confusion. Next, my opponent argues a potential on the confusion, but would you rather be in a polluted urbanized city with protesters around filled with muggers and exploding buildings or would you rather be in peaceful Europe where your wife and kids is waiting for you (assuming, hypothetically). But come on, again, there are tons of ‘Yorks’ out there, especially York, New York. My opponent lastly states a simplified address of a luxurious hotel, but come on, taking out 3 syllables is simplified? Na-uh, that’s just lazy. :P Haha, so again, thanks Brian for this funride of a debate, I hope to debate you again soon. Voters, do your thing!
It's time for New York to drop the "New"

First of all, I was astonished that anyone would pay ï¿½53 million for a second hand vase and when I read that I regretted sending my Ming vase back. But not to worry, I have got lots of other second hand vases that are much newer than that old Ming vase and should, therefore, fetch even more money. Moving on to the debate proper, for one awful moment I thought my opponent was going to add New England to his examples of New Jersey, New Zealand and New Mexico, because that would have been very difficult to counter, but luckily he didn't so I don't have to. All I would say is that they should be renamed Jersey, Mexico and Zealand and and the originals renamed Old Jersey, Old Mexico and Old Zealand. The fact is that there is already a lot of duplication in place names in America. Take, for example Washington. George Washington has both a city and a state in America named in his honour so if an American walked into a travel agency and asked to book a vacation in Washington intending to visit the White House he could end up in Seattle. He may, even, find himself in the village of Washington in the north east of England (1) where George Washington's family originally took their name. So yes, there is a potential for confusion but a minor clarification should ensure that a tourist wishing to visit medieval buildings, amble around antique shops and consume cream teas would not, by some misunderstanding, find themselves among skyscrapers, dodging deranged taxi drivers and eating salt beef and bagels. I didn't mention in my original argument that both the city and state of New York should be renamed "York" so, for example, the New York Palace Hotel's address would become: York Palace Hotel, 455 Madison Avenue, York. York. USA. Much shorter and simpler, don't you agree? In conclusion, the "New" in New York is no longer required and an unnecessary addition to the city and states' names and should be dropped. Thank you. (1) . http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk...
It's time for New York to drop the "New"

I recently responded to an advert in a newspaper which read: SPECIAL OFFER New Vases Only ï¿½9.99 each Made in China However, when the vase was delivered I noticed that the glaze was tarnished and, suspicious, I used the Internet to research the markings on the vase's base and discovered, much to my dismay, that far from being "new" the vase was actually made in China during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) and I, naturally, sent it back with a demand for a full refund. Okay, I hear you say, so what's all this got to do with New York? Well, after the English acquired the city of Nieuw-Amsterdam from the Dutch in 1664 they renamed it New York - that was 347 years ago and, like the Ming vase, anything well over there centuries old cannot plausibly be described as "new". That's why I propose that New York be renamed "York" and, for the avoidance of confusion, the original York in England be renamed "Old York". Thank you.
Legalization of Cannibus (Marijuana)

First, I will direct you to the same article posted by Con in round 2, realizing that it only sources the ill effects of smoking. Of course smoking is bad for you! It's inhaling the smoke of a substance with a temperature of at least 451° Farenheit or 232° Celsius. There is no conclusive evidence of ill effects when consumed or inhaled in any way other than smoke.http://cyber.law.harvard.edu...;Where is the source for your "recent study?" If it cannot be provided, I will conclude that your percentages in round 2 in incorrect and conceded. Until this is given, your entire argument of round 2 is invalid and does not stand to disprove any of my statements in round 1.I believe my BOP has been met as I have:A. Shown the positive health effects from ingesting C. Sitiva or Tetrahydrocannabinol.B. Proven the economic benefits of legalisation.C. And shown that the Gateway Theory stands to question, as it cannot prove Cannabis to provoke the use of other, "harder" drugs.TO CONCLUDEI have met my BOP and refuted all of Con's claims against legalizing Cannabis growth, use and sale thereof. Thank you, and vote PRO!A message to Con:I will post all of the links I used to write these rounds below. I suggest you read them to have a more substantial argument and rebuttal in the coming rounds. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...All sources used on these wiki pages are reputable and all findings have been reproduced. Thank You.
Legalization of Cannibus (Marijuana)

First, I will direct you to a very informative Harvard article about the negative effects of marijuana. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu... This article shows that marijuana is in fact an "immune-suppressant" which means that it does not correct health issues as Pro would have us believe, rather, it accelerates them. Leading to the conclusion that even for medical purposes it is unhealthy and dangerous. A recent study was done that shows 27% of marijuana users have admitted to having anxiety, which is nearly 300,000 marijuana users in just the teenage population of America, and 15% experiencing paranoia(about 150,000 marijuana using teens) as well as amplifying a variety of aggressive mental disorders. Separate studies link all of these attributes to violent crimes. From this we can draw the conclusion that the use of marijuana increases the likelihood of violent crimes. Not something anyone would like to legalize. Upon review of these facts, it is plain to see that marijuana is a volatile drug, that presents danger to those around it. To conclude, Pro, as the Instigator of this debate, holds the Burden of Proof for demonstrating why marijuana should be legalized in America. As the Con, I have no such burden, I only need to refute the evidence brought to attention.
Capitalism is a better system than socialism

"Socialism only works if society follows the same morals." And thus, you have explained why socialist countries have always failed. Socialism ignores the basic principles of humans, and thus it quickly turns from "each according to his need" to "each according to his greed". There's no "A only works if B" in capitalism; the system is designed to work without dependency on the unpredictable natures of others. Your main three points against capitalism are that it causes war, waste and is undemocratic. I will break these arguments down one by one, starting with war. Socialism has began to harm Venezuela, and has harmed in the past. Shall we forget the siege of Changchun? Stalin's holocaust that was supported by Marx? Holodomor, the famine caused by Stalin to silence Ukraine? The killing fields of Pol Pot? And how about the most well known socialist of them all, the NATIONAL socialist, Adolf Hitler? These may not be wars, but they are equally bad, and caused by socialism. Secondly, you argue that capitalism is undemocratic because of media bias. But was socialism ever democratic? Media bias is better than censored media. If you look beyond the mainstream media you'll find plenty of independent news sources such as blogs and YouTube channels offering a wide range of opinions on a topic. Under socialism, other ideologies have been banned, censored, etc. Lastly you argue about the waste left over due to goods not evenly being distributed, but isn't waste better than shortage? Mao had a famine. Stalin did too. But socialism strives to deliver an equal amount to everyone, right? So why the famines? Why would socialism replace capitalism? Capitalism has actually replaced socialism in Japan, China and Vietnam. Look at the first world countries of today. USA, UK, Australia. All capitalist, with strong economies. The Middle East is rich because of oil, due to capitalism. Now look at the former socialist countries. Most people in Russia are poor. North Korea is a nightmare mess. China is still developing and is only growing stronger due to a shift to capitalism. Cambodia is very poor. Laos is poor too. There's no perfect economic system, but capitalism is the one that works the best and is the most durable. "Production may be coordinated through markets." Markets are capitalism.
Capitalism is a better system than socialism

So, what exactly is socialism? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries." Socialism only works if the society follows the same morals. All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption and public goods to allow for self-actualization. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets. Socialism is a movement of both the worker and middle-class, all for a common democratic goal. This is how socialism looks if we put propaganda aside The more you put in to it, the more you get out from it. There's no "hoping" in this system, it's either contributing to do your role or not. The more people contributing, the better the outcome it is for the society. It's not communism nor democratic, it's better. That's why it actually works. Meanwhile, lets take a look at capitalism Waste - In a society where resources are not evenly distributed, there is always going to be the wealthy who have an excess of resources. While occasionally these resources are given to the poor, often this excess is wasted. Millions of dollars worth of food is wasted by those who have more than they need, while there are many others who desperately need it. Undemocractic - While every individual has a single vote in a democracy, in a capitalist system, they have very little say in the actions of government. Greater influences on government than ideology or public opinion are the wealthy. Governments will listen to big business and banks because they fund their election campaigns. They will listen to big newspaper barons because they know that they can influence public opinion. War - Many of the wars fought in recent years have been over profit. In Iraq, the war was largely funded by oil barons, and it was private firms who handled most of the security after the initial invasion. In Libya, western forces intervened when the civil war caused oil supplies to be cut off. They only sided with the rebels because they thought they were the most likely to win. In Iran, military intervention is being threatened over the blocking of trading routes to transport oil. Conclusion Socialism is clearly better than capitalism. It ensures that people are truly rewarded fairly for the work they perform, and it puts all people at an equal level. Fundamentally, capitalism works to divide humans and forces them to compete amongst each other, leaving only the lucky to survive. Capitalism is thoroughly barbaric. Socialism the opposite. It encourages humans to work together to achieve magnificent things, and to live off of their labor. Socialism is likely to replace capitalism, if humans care for
Capitalism is a better system than socialism

Now, pleasantries aside, I will get into my argument on why capitalism is a better system. Firstly, let's look at the ways each system work. Say there was a person who baked two cookies. They had worked for the cookies, so under capitalism, if another person wanted one, they would have to pay for it. However, under socialism, the first person would be required to give the other person a cookie under the name of fairness. The person who makes the cookies will realise no matter what, they will only always have one cookie, and thus see not point in making the cookies anymore if their efforts aren't recognised. Thus, no one gets cookies. This is a metaphor for socialism and industries. Industries collapse because they realise it's not viable to bother creating their goods when they're getting the same amount as the customer does; no point in lawyers working so hard when the person who sweeps the streets outside is getting an equal amount of pay to them. But in capitalism, you have to pay for what you want. Thus the manufacturer is rewarded fairly for their work in creating the goods, and the customer must give them something in order to obtain said goods. To me, capitalism seems like the fairer system by a mile. Now we'll look at examples of socialism in the past, and why it failed. Firstly, we'll start with a lesser known example, also known as Jonestown. I do realise Jonestown is an extreme example, but still an example nevertheless. A man by the name of Jim Jones began his own town, calling it to be a "socialist's paradise", but it was anything but. Residents were forced to work hours upon hours a day in the heat of the jungle in order to supply everyone with food fairly. Many were left hungry and Jonestown met a bitter end after Mr. Jones ordered a mass suicide after his failures economically had been exposed to the public. A more well known example would be China under Mao. They followed the example of the soviet model of development through heavy industry with surpluses extracted from peasants. Consumer goods were left to secondary importance. In the sino-soviet split of the 1950's, Mao split from traditional Marxism-Leninism and developed Maoism, the Chinese interpretation of communism. Mao was upset with the Soviet leader Khrushchev's position of peaceful coexistence between the communists and capitalists. The Maoists started a strong communist tradition, instituting the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The Great Leap Forward was instituted to help transform China into a heavy industrialised society. However, this was largely considered to be a failure and many Chinese starved to death. In the cultural revolution, Mao overthrew his enemies and millions of people were killed or persecuted. Toddlers were tortured to death, people froze in mud huts and there was a mass famine. I look forward to the challenger's opening arguments.
Capitalism is a better system than socialism

Hello, in this argument, I will be arguing that capitalism is better, and the person who accepts the debate will be arguing that socialism is better. Here are how the rounds will work: Round 1) Acceptance Round 2) Opening arguments Round 3) Refuting the other person's arguments Round 4) Final message to voters There are no rules except for please refrain from insulting the other person and to stay on topic. Good luck!
political correctness

An Intro To Ethics: Ethics delves into what ought to be rather than what is. Henry Sidgwick rightly points out a typical flaw made when determining what ought to be done. “we frequently prescribe that this or that `ought' to be done or aimed at without any express reference to an ulterior end,” (1) As John Stuart Mill says “All action is for the sake of some end.” In order to determine what we ought do we must observe what the results will be from that action. What ends are produced? “all the rules of conduct which men prescribe to one another as moral rules are really---though in part unconsciously---prescribed as a means to the general happiness of mankind,” Henry Sidgwick (2) Any moral code is a means to an end. Thus to show that people ought to adhere to P.C. (Political Correctness) all I need do is show that by doing so the general happiness of mankind is produced or preserved. The Purpose and Impact of Political Correctness: By being politically correct we, as a society can avoid needlessly offending whole groups of people. Thus, resulting in greater general happiness of mankind. The harm that results from the P.C. inept:Perhaps those reading will recall some of the recent comments made by GOP Presidential Candidate Donald Trump when he announced he was running. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems [with them]. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” (3)Obviously immigration is an issue in this election, but the crass comments from Donald Trump exemplify the harm that comes from the P.C. Inept. Donald Trump with this short statement effectively insulted and demeaned millions of people. Clearly this type of rhetoric is immoral. Conclusion:We see that the politically inept insult and demean millions of people, this negatively affects the general happiness of mankind. The purpose and impact of political correctness are to avoid such needless offending and results in greater general happiness of mankind. Therefore, we see that people ought to adhere to political correctness.Sources:1) http://www.laits.utexas.edu...2) http://www.laits.utexas.edu...3)
Marijuana Legalization

As many may not know the marijuana plant can be used to make hemp products including paper, string, and even clothing. At one time before marijuana prohibition hemp was looked at as a cheaper and better alternantive to modern paper making techniques. The legalization of marjuana would allow companies to use hemp in their manufacturing process which would create many more producers, sellers, and buyers of this product which is never a bad thing for our economy. Many companies may even set up bases of production inside the United States which would have a positive affect on the country that gets almost sixty percent of its goods overseas.
Marijuana Legalization

Marijuana has been know to be the gateway drug that introduces more harmful substances to the consumer. It has corrupted the minds of thousands of people which gives them nothing to show for except damaging their body's. My opponent states that billions of dollars would be saved if marijuana was legalized. What would benefit the consumer by being able to buy a drug that causes harm to their body and most likely more people would probably use marijuana if it was legalized. Looking at the bigger picture would legalizing marijuana really better America and its people.
Marijuana Legalization

While my opponent believes this is unfair I believe that by continuing the prohibition of marijuana the government is basically handing mexican cartels and drug lords billions of dollars, this is unfair. Our government successfully spends billions of dollars attempting to stop adults from using marijuana while allowing the plant to be sold illegally creating unimaginable proffits for mexican cartels. If marijuana was legalized billions would be saved from wild-goose-hunt government agencies that have spent endless amounts of money trying to destroy marijuana while billions will be generated by taxing the revenue produced by the legal sale of the plant.
Marijuana Legalization

The most important factor in the marijuana legalization debate is one things and that is money. By legalizing the recreational use of marijuana the infamous "war on marijuana" will finally come to an end leaving millions of dollars for our government to use in a more productive manor. Marijuana users would be viewed as normal people rather than criminals who waist our countries money by being sent to jail. Studies show that each inmate costs an average of $45,000 per year, so with the amount of people that would avoid jail the savings would be astronomical.
Believing in a God you cannot prove to be real

It looks like my opponent left and isn't coming back... I don't want to waste my time debating myself but I'll present a good argument for him to refute if he decides to come back. The Kalam Cosmological argument: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore the universe had a cause. The Big Bang is the most widely accepted theory of how life began. Astronomers have noted that the universe is expanding and calculated the rate of expansion back to a "zero-point" in which all energy, matter, space, and time were created from (the origin point of the Big Bang). Therefore, the cause of the universe was timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and inconceivably powerful. One such being for this cause would be God.
Believing in a God you cannot prove to be real

I accept. I will present a case as to why belief in a God is rational even though a spirit being can't be shown through any physical means of experimentation. The topic is "believing in a God you cannot prove to be real", therefore, as pro, if I have a rational reason to show why I believe in God, whether or not God actually exists, I should win the debate. Burden of proof is on me. "God" meaning an intelligent designer of the universe and limited to any particular religious denomination. Back to you , con.
Believing in a God you cannot prove to be real

My problem lies in the rationale of keeping with a belief of a God that occupies a space and/or time that cannot be perceived by humans, and thus I believe cannot be proven or disproven. The way I see it, "God" is simply an arbitrary grouping of several extra-terrestrial qualities that have never been directly experienced (eternal, omnipotent, omniscient), put together in a single definition of an entity which also has not been directly experienced. I believe keeping such a belief to be at the very least time-wasting, and illogical. It seems to me that religion is an unnecessary middle step between our own moralities and real-life action REGARDLESS of whether or not God actually exists, and actually perpetuates more negativity than positivity in the world. I want someone to rationally explain their side of the story as to why God (or religion - I'm keeping this topic open) is necessary, or even just preferable to the world without one, because I do not see it being the case at all, and also argue any of my other points as you see fit. No rules at this time, but rationality and openmindedness are always highly appreciated!