BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism

You have clearly not read the Communist Manifesto. If you had read the Communist Manifesto, you would know that Communism is, at heart, a better system than Capitalism. You could actually make human traits illegal. All laws are set in place to keep detestable behavior in check. Rape is illegal, for instance, to curb unbridled lust. In a Communist country, greed could simply be punished more strongly. Let's say Bill took 2 cookies instead of one. That's not a very bad crime. His punishment would fit his crime, he wouldn't get exiled, by any means. He'd just get kicked out of the workout, or maybe he'd have to do a few more papers later on or something like that. Punishments don't have to be severe. They just have to enforce morals. if a person breaks into the Communal kitchen and empties the whole thing out, they might get exiled. Communism is a basic exercise in teamwork. It's the most just, equal system there is. Real Communism, anyway. Not Fake Communism. Like I said, one of the key features of Communism is that a person gets paid according to how well they work. That's one of the features, right there. If a guy succeeds in work, he's gonna get a whole truck full of toilet paper and snacks. If a guy is lazy, he doesn't get any rations. Communism awards each worker according to how hard they work. Capitalism doesn't do that, actually. Rich people do very little work. Poor people do all the work. Poor people, thus, deserve more. Communism gives more things to the proletariat and gives less things to the Bourgeois. Those who skip out of work don't get paid. Nobody gets paid. There's no money in Communism. You're pretty ignorant, you know that? I think that there are about 2,000 or so people who are generous and fans of Communism. If those people were given some land and allowed to found a fully Communist country, they'd be fine. because they all believe in Communism. You have to believe in Communism for it to work. Communism does require a lot of perfect circumstances. But not too many. If all those circumstances are met, then the result will be a literal Heaven on Earth.
Communism

First of all I have read the communist manifesto, what I was saying that power hungry people are drawn to the system. And you would make a nautural human trait illegal? Greed is very common then comes the problem of how you would enforce it, so Bill took 2 cookies in the workout when he was supposed to have 1, time to exile him! And 1 trait of communism at least how people today promote it is 1 universal income meaning no extar pay for exceling in work, and pay docking for those that skip out on work. Communism requires a very special breed of person, 1 which isn't numerous enough for a society to function with them. And once again communism requires a lot of perfect cercumstances, most of which won't last long enough to make the society function in the long time.
Communism

Communism has never been properly handled. Communism has been misinterpreted by those leaders you mentioned. Communism is nothing more than a sensible economic system. It has nothing to do with authoritarianism. A country can be Democratic and Communist at the same time. True Communism, the sort of which I am speaking, simply involves the complete removal of currency and class structure. Communist China and Communist Russia cannot be defined as Communist. Stalin was not a communist. Nor was Mao. Karl Marx was a true Communist. To gain more knowledge into the subject, I suggest you read the Communist Manifesto. It's a very clearly cut-out rulebook. People do not have to become greedy. Greed is a choice. To prevent greed in a Communist country, greed can be made illegal, or punished in some way. You say that greed is a universal constant. It does not have to be. We can advance past it. Capitalism is just as bad. It promotes greed. Better to have a system that discourages greed than to have one that encourages it. When you remove your misconceptions, Communism is really a very practical system with many advantages over Capitalism. I have no idea what you mean when you say that Communism removes incentive. It does not remove incentive. If Jake works overtime, he'll get more than Paul. He'll get paid in foodstuffs and products, though, not money. That's the only real difference.
Communism

True Communism has never been achieved because the people that take power through it, Stalin, Mao, all of these people miss managed their countries. But it will never be achieved because sooner or later people will become greedy (like what we see today in most modern socialist countries, Examples of people using the system to take complete power, Maduro, and Mugabi) It also removes incentive, if Jake who works overtime everyday, is paid the same as paul who leaves the first chance he gets and hardly works. People will only work if they are rewarded for any work, or extra work they preform.
Developed Nations have a Moral Obligation to accept Refugees

Thank you, Con, for providing your final round in this debate. My first argument: Small scale moral obligation. My opponent's rebuttal was that developed nations do not do well to take care of their own citizens. However, I had previously argued that if the government is failing in that area, there are then other methods in which to equally distribute resources so that all residents can have their basic needs met. My opponent never responded to this. My second argument: Land ownership. My opponent argued that because people will never be happy and peaceful (an argument from pragmatics) that this is not a good response. However, just because something might not be practical, does not make it moral. And, as our debate is focused on the morality of the issue, not the practicality, this rebuttal is refuted. My third argument: Moral victory of Terrorists by refusing refugees. My opponent's rebuttal argued that we should prevent a physical victory by not accepting any refugees. This is an argument from a utilitarian moral theory, that the ends justify the means. However, I have previously argued against this incorrect philosophy, and my opponent did not prove its truth value. My opponent's arguments: Moral Good vs Moral Obligation My opponent simply stated that there is a difference between the two, but never explained what the difference was. Recall that I argued that anything that is morally good is a moral obligation, thus proving my resolution for the debate. Harm to Nation Citizens My opponent did not show that developed nations have insufficient resources for all citizens, rather, that the government fails in means to distribute all goods equally. A communistic government would solve that problem, if one concedes statism. Causes Harm to Disadvantaged Families This is essentially a restatement of the prior argument, which again, would be getting rid of a failing government system, and replacing it with something more practical. Refugees Can be Terrorists As in relation to one of my arguments, it is morally wrong to allow the rest of the refugees suffer because of a minority group. If you are looking for a morally good world, which would eventually lead to a safe world, please vote Pro. Thank you for reading this debate, and thanks again to Con for providing a great challenge.
Developed Nations have a Moral Obligation to accept Refugees

Hello, this Forever 23 and I am here in my final speech to prove that countries don't have moral obligations to take in refugees. So my roadmap will include doing the final refutations, repeating my points and finally weighing this debate. Their First Assertion: Small Scale Moral Obligation. However, as I have mentioned previously, even developed countries have trouble maintaining the wellbeing of their won citizens. According to the worldbank, even in Denmark which has the lowest poverty rates, 6% of the population is living in poverty. In the USA it is 15% or 40 million people. Once these nations are able to take good care of their own citizens, that's when we will be able to talk about excepting refugees. Their second assertion: People really cant each own separate land. However, humans will never just come together and hold hands and live in a "happy and peaceful community" as the proposition is assuming. That's why we each have our own property. If your neighbor just came to live in your house, you would not let him stay. It has always been and always stay the same that we put ourselves first before others. The same is with nations and their people. Their third assertion: Refusing Refugees Grants Terrorists Moral victory. However taking in refugees grants terrorists PHYSICAL victory. As I mentioned before. according to CNN, ISIS hid 10000 of their people among refugees. Once these terrorists who are camouflaging enter the country, they will cause death of thousands. Now onto quickly restating my own assertions 1. Morally good not morally obligated. There is a difference between moral must and moral good. Taking refugees could not possibly be considered a moral obligation. 2. Has a high potential end up in causing harm to nation citizens. The countries have no resources to support refugees as stated in my first speech/ 3. Causes harm to disadvantaged families. Many families in developed nations are barely getting along. With the refugees, it will be even harder. 4. Refugees can be terrorists Refugees coming from these countries can be I) emotionally scarred or b) have terrorists hidden among them. Dear judges, if you are looking for a good, safe world, please vote opposition.
Developed Nations have a Moral Obligation to accept Refugees

Small Scale Moral Obligation: My opponent rebuts this by arguing that developed nations do not have sufficient resources for the current inhabitants and possible refugees. I already addressed this possible objection in the first round, that my opponent would have to show that there isn't a sufficient amount of resources. Current developed nations have inhabitants that have abundant amounts of food and shelter, so because there are superfluous amounts of resources, accepting refugees is not an issue. I argued that a society is morally obligated to accept refugees to the point that there is sufficient resources for people to live on. My opponent would need to prove that developed nations have insufficient resources. Land Ownership: My opponent rebuts this by arguing that people have a right to defend themselves. While people ought to be able to defend themselves from a group of people that have bad intentions, this does not cover the debate topic. We are debating on whether a developed nation should accept refugees. A refugee and a terrorist are two separate types of people, and so this argument is insufficient in refuting my point. New Argument- Refusing Refugees Grants Terrorists Moral Victory If nations are provoked to the point where they allow fear to dictate decisions which lead refugees completely abandoned, then the terrorists can claim moral victories. Not only where the terrorists successful in directly killing others, now even more people will die, only this time as a result of the developed nations. The terrorists will become encouraged over this, and will see it as their enemies also killing innocents. This will only increase the bloodshed, something which ought to be prevented. Opponent's arguments. My opponent did not respond to my request of arguing for a moral theory and classifying their moral good vs. moral obligation classification. Their entire argument depends on explaining and maintaining consistency with their moral theory. Without addressing this foundational issue, my opponent's arguments are entirely subjective and inherently meaningless. Terrorists Can Hide Among Refugees: My opponent argued that because there may be some terrorists hiding among the refugees, that means that we then have to right to reject all of the refugees because of the minority. This is consistent with utilitarianism, which is a moral theory that I argue is incorrect. This theory does not treat people as ends in themselves, rather, it argues that the ends justify the means. People can be used in order for others to feel safe. This is selfish and wrong. This results in a nation creating an “us vs. them” mentality, and dehumanizes others as undeserving of their culture.
Belief without sufficient evidence is harmful

Many people have an array of beliefs, often believed because of "intuition", "contemplation" or because they have been presented with claims that are emotionally attractive, but that they lack sufficient skills in critical thinking to reasonably evaluate the reasonableness of these beliefs. Some of these are overtly harmful. Belief in "Bretharianism"- the ridiculous belief that the body can be sustained by air alone- has led to deaths and people seriously damaging their health because of this belief. Belief in various alternative medicines has led to people to both injest harmful substances, and forgo medicine that would actually be effective, once again leading to deaths and injuries. But I want to go further and suggest that even beliefs which might be or at least seem to be harmless on theior face, are ultimatley harmful if they are believed without sufficient justification, as they can casscade into deeper, more harmful beliefs. Forminstance, the belief in a Diety may seem harmful. But the ompact oif thinking there is an all seeing, all powerfulmbeing has immense implications, as does the belief in an afterlife, and thus even the initial belief should be sufficiently justified. I would challenge anyone wishing to debate this to show that any belief held without sufficient evidence could be beneficial, or indeed not at least potentially harmful.
People who don't read comic books are not aloud to have an opinion about a movie

Thank you for the debate. Allow me to start. Before I provide my argument, allow me to define the pertinent terminologies. Aloud - audibly; not silently or in a whisper Opinion - a view or judgment formed about something According to Pro, people who don't read comics are not audibly, loudly, and vocal about their opinions of movies, regardless if they have seen the movie or not. I will be favoring that people are in fact audible about their opinion of a movie when they did not read the comic. Premise 1: People can be audible about their opinion, while there are numerous methods of communication to convey one's opinion, vocalizing it audibly is not only preferred because of its simplicity, but also the most effective. You can demonstrate your opinion via body language, but is limited because of the possibility of an inability to comprehend the meaning of it. Premise 2: People who have not read a comic book are audibly voicing their opinion about a movie based off the comic book. In fact, I think the people who have not read the comic book may have an unbiased opinion regarding the movie because they don't have any preconceived expectations. For example, if an individual never read Spiderman but wishes to watch the movie, that person will have an opinion but won't hold that opinion to the content of the comic book, thereby demonstrating an unbiased opinion. Over to you Pro.
chicken or the egg- i say the egg came first

My opponent’s mistake is thinking that the question of “which came first” is a question of biology, when in fact it is a question of category. The word “chicken” is categorical, bringing to mind what we now biologically classify as Gallus domesticus. Using my opponent’s own claim that chickens come from a less-than-chicken ancestor, I showed that categorically, the wild fowl becomes a chicken only when observers have chosen to reclassify it.My opponent responds that once the chicken is categorized, we can then categorize the egg from whence it came. This, however, is a mistake in chronology. The egg can only be categorized as a chicken egg after the wild fowl has been categorized as chicken. Thus, the “chicken” egg came after the “chicken.”Thank you for your time and consideration for this fun little debate over an age old question.
chicken or the egg- i say the egg came first

Taxonomic classifications do not work that way. There is wide genetic diversity within Gallus domesticus, yet they all fall under the same category. It is reasonable that as selective breeding was performed on Gallus gallus, genetic diversity was not sufficient to warrant a new classification. Indeed, the only way to determine success was to evaluate the fowl after it was born.It’s impossible to track down the first egg of Gallus domesticus without first isolating the first adult Gallus domesticus.Thus, the chicken had to be first.
chicken or the egg- i say the egg came first

One does indeed need to define a chicken, and given our present cultural context, the phrase “chicken or the egg” refers to what we commonly understand to be the domesticated chicken: Gallus domesticus.Gallus domesticus descends from the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus), possibly by interbreeding with the grey junglefowl (Gallus sonneratii), as much as 8,000 years ago. Gallus domesticus no longer shares all the genetic traits of its ancestors, making it a distinct category of chicken. Modern backyard chickens are less aggressive and have a different body composition than their wild counterparts. (http://archaeology.about.com...)The history of the chicken answers the question plainly. First, we had Gallus gallus and Gallus sonneratii eggs, then humans worked with the offspring of said eggs to produce biological changes ideal for domestication. Only when man was satisfied with the domestication was the product reclassified to Gallus domesticus.The organism was first declared chicken by man, after which came the eggs of said chicken.
chicken or the egg- i say the egg came first

one needs to define chicken. a chicken is one which can mate and have kids with at least one chicken in existence. if you were to go back in time, there would be the first chicken capable of doing this. that chicken came in the form of an egg.that chicken came from a chicken hybrid. all other attempts to answer this question wrongly define chicken. once chicken is properly defined, one has to conclude that the egg came first
Should you step in to monitor a parent talking insultingly to a child

If the parent was really an abuser, they would have physically abused the child by now. A deep tone and actual insulting words shall be handled by the adult who is saying the insulting words. You can't assume the current child's age in this situation. They could be arguing like we are currently are now. If you are so worried about the situation, do what your parents have told you your entire life. Keep telling somebody until someone listens. It shouldn't be so bad you'd have to step in. There should be no situation for this matter. Whichever way this argument goes, thank you for putting up a good fight. -Em
Should you step in to monitor a parent talking insultingly to a child

I won't insult your intelligence - you believe what you are saying is true... but the facts show that not all parents value their positions and do their best at all times. Some adults have tortured and killed their own children. And even more demonstrated is that abusive behaviour ranges from physical to verbal to emotional and all are equally damaging. I do not assume that because an adult is disciplining a child - they are abusing them - I am speaking to obvious ridiculing, harsh insulting words and demeaning tones that are not discipline - but bullying. And certainly they are not behaviours of a parent concerned with raising a respectable future adult.
Should you step in to monitor a parent talking insultingly to a child

You can't be sure of abusive behaviour yet. Stepping in to monitor it would be useless, because it's a parent. They know what they're doing. There should be no reason to monitor it in this situation. If the child has not been harmed physically, there's no reason to care, yet. In our childhoods, we have all been yelled at by adults, teachers, or our parents. There was a reason for it every time that happened. If it gets to a concerning rate for the child's parent, the the child's parent should step in.
Should you step in to monitor a parent talking insultingly to a child

I can personally think that, yes,it should be taken care of. But, no, if the child is being verbally abused, you should not step in to stop it. There has to be a reason for this matter, whether it's a mental illness, or the child has gotten in trouble, you don't know in this situation. You shouldn't report it to anyone, because you don't know if the parent has a mental illness or not. Nor should you step in to stop it, because the child could be in trouble and is being punished. There should be no reason for stepping in to stop it.
Should you step in to monitor a parent talking insultingly to a child

First you have to determine that the words being spoken to/at the child are insulting in both words used and tone/volume of voice. If it is obvious in any reasonable person's definition of insultingly - then YES! Step in and be a peace maker. Do not abuse the parent or his/her right to discipline their charge, but rather chose a tone and words that will calm the situation so that you can bring into focus the real reason for this open berating. The parent, in all hope, will discover their error and make steps to correct any future confrontations with the child. The child, in all hope, will understand that respect is important and that they have value. Thus propelling a different and productive form of communication between them and any and all people they encounter. This does not apply to an obviously abusive situation. And by abusive I mean abuse being delivered by either participant (child or adult). We are all well aware of children that go into phases of blatant disrespect for adults and positions of adults. A calm and thoughtful mind should prevail.
Men should not hide their boner/erection when it shows.

You are only repeating yourself. You must know that some men have large penises which can't be hidden. An example from the past occurred, when I was at the swimming pool and my penis was erect. I tried to hide it but it was too big compared to the space I had in my swimsuit .Two women looked at it and started giggling and seemed to be talking about it. They were not afraid of anything.
Men should not hide their boner/erection when it shows.

I don't understand how women would be afraid of seeing an erection, it is a natural thing and women should rather appreciate it than be scared of it. Considering that women would be scared because of how big the penis is, it is still not a reason to hide it. Sometimes boners can not be hidden, while wearing tight swimsuits in pools, erections will definitely show, and so by not being able to hide it, women will have to accept it.
Should the United States Embrace Gay Marriage

Hello Hostile and thank you for your final comments and rebuttals. My apologies to the ff, if any misunderstandings and that I didn't expound much on my part of this debate. I do appreciate the fact that you asked me to debate you. It was definitely educational. Thank you. In my closing, I will just say that I did not mean to come off as a "hate" speech person because then that would go against my conscience and beliefs. Again, thank you. Good day to you!