BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary

Hello again. I've noticed that you once again submitted this argument twice, so I took the liberty of accepting both debates. Now, I had to give a little effort, so props to you for once again forcing me to read scripture. Now, onto the debate. My first movement will be defense for the substitutionary view, and my second will be an attack on the christus model. Now, even as someone who is not religious, I can see the benefits of the sub. viewpoint. Firts of all, it would show God's true devotion and love for his people by giving up his own son, as he had previously asked Abraham to do the same, and while Abraham only offered to do it, God showed that he returns favors and values covenants and agreements. Now, the sub view also means that humans can sin and still be accepted into heaven. Jesus died for our sins, so if humans don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing. This means that no one is morally perfect, not even God, but he shows that no one has to strictly follow his teachings, but they can still receive paradise and eternal life. This seems to be a good choice, but was capitalised by priests who demanded feelings of guilt for it. Now, Christus Victor seems to portray God as someone who cheats on deals, trickin the devil who punishes sinners into releasing humanity, rather that the previous sub view which does acknowledge both humanity and god's sins, redeeming both. This new viewpoint creates a much more sneaky, deceptive God, not one I or anyone else would swear loyalty, because he may just trick us too. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
Capitalism is a better economic system than communism

China in it's political policies and one party system deems it as Maoist Communist rather then that of Soviet Communism [Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist]. Now for the USSR and Stalin It should be noted that the famines were happening under the Tsar long before the Soviets came to power and it was thanks to Stalin's industrialization that the famines and starvation ended. I would also love to address the propaganda against Joseph Stalin way to many people speak of his tyranny and use of fear yet there are videos of former Gulag prisoners praising him and wishing someone like him was back in power. Stalin killed AT most 3 Million according to population graphs and official documents the amount of people killed under him is nothing more then vastly exaggerated and furthermore should be noted that Democratic Leader and promoter of Capitalism Winston Churchill also killed 3 million innocent people and unlike Stalin where official documents state most people who died under Stalin were criminals and that most died long after leaving the Gulags. Churchill was happy to blame the Indians who he had starved 3 million to death that they were the result of the famine and that they were below human. I do not think you realize that Socialism is a mix of Communist and Capitalist Ideas the countries of Scandinavia follow what is known as Scandinavian Socialism google it or read a few books and you'll see how much more Socialist the countries are. A huge majority of the people in countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland support their governments and they themselves have a high life expectancy due to their socialist policies. The North Korean Education System has North Korean children learning English at the age of 7 and all children have access to education. Citizens are also completely safe as long as they don't betray the government many independent reporters have stated how the people in North Korea can criticize the government and it's leader there is no penalty for this also many reporters who have gone to Korea and seen more then it's capital can safely ensure that all across the country that the people are well dressed and have proper clothing. I would like to point out this debate is supposed to be mostly Capitalism V. Communism but so far has devolved into Capitalism V. Socialism & Communism. Communist Quote Of The Day"A Lie Told Enough Often Becomes Truth" - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Sources:. https://www.liberationnews.org...http://blog.peerform.com...Any sources I linked to in my previous argument. I would like my opponent to post his sources as so far I've debunked everything my opponent has said with evidence.
Capitalism is a better economic system than communism

China and Cuba are merely communist in name. China's economy has liberalized substantially in the last 2-3 decades. China's economy is heavily reliant on free trade, and it is safe to say that China is more of a capitalist country than a communist country. China was only truly communist during Mao's brutal regime, which was characterized by famine, suppression of freedoms and many millions of deaths. Only after the reopening of the markets did China begin to prosper. The USSR industrialized under Stalin, but the cost was widespread famine, starvation and the creation of a culture of fear and tyranny. Capitalist nations such as the US industrialized at a much lower cost and promoted many innovations. However, unlike the USSR, China failed to industrialize until reforms were made by Deng Xiaoping, and the country moved toward a capitalist, free market rather than a closed, state planned economy. China only industrialized and began to develop after it adopted a freer market, while the USSR paid a heavy price to industrialize under a socialist system. Scandinavia's success is not attributed to socialism, but to capitalism. With a combination of a prevalent welfare state, a free market and strong labour laws, Scandinavia has prospered. All Scandinavian nations except Norway are part of the EU, which advocates for freer markets and increased international trade. Norway is still part of the EU economic zone, and therefore reaps the benefits of capitalism and international trade. Corporations still play a big role in Nordic countries, with worldwide corporations such as Volvo and Nokia starting up in Scandinavia. Therefore, it is not the achievement of socialism which has allowed Scandinavia to prosper, but capitalism, which provided sufficient capital to fund an extensive welfare program and a high-quality educational system. A planned economy is much more centralized and rigid than a free market and in the USSR'S case, most resources were directed towards scientific development. This meant that the USSR matched the USA's space technology, but were far behind in mostly everything else. This is one of the key factors of the USSR's, and the last spark of communism's decline-that their economy could not keep up with the times. The seemingly utopian setting of North Korea that you have described can only be from the viewpoint of the rich residents of Pyongyang. North Koreans may have a widespread literacy rate, but their educational system is substandard compared to the US'. North Korea is far from the opposite of safe. If any citizen is caught stepping out of line or caught opposing the government, they will be sent to a gulag where conditions are inhuman and are renowned for its brutality. North Koreans only believe in their success because of the false, dangerous propaganda that the government has successfully implemented on every aspect of life. You have also stated that North Koreans dress well, but again, it only applies to the rich Pyongyang residents.
Pokemon Go encourages dog and cock fighting.

I suppose I start my argument. Argument:So what is Pokemon? It's a video game and cartoon of kids growing bonds with their caught Pokemon, usually by battling. This is common knowledge, which is similar to what a dog fight is. Looking at the internet, PETA is an organization that believes it's encouraging animal abuse. But how similar are these two? Let's see:Pokemon: Fictional animals fight, kid friendly, no blood or death. It's a video game, and not against the law/Dog Fight: Real animals fight, gory, and with death. This is real life, and will probably get you punished, either by your parents, or maybe the law. Sure, Pokemon is basically a dog fight. But it's not exactly the same thing. The game doesn't state that you should make pets fight, it just has a penguin shooting bubbles at a chicken. It basically is a fact that they have similarities, but I think many people are against animal crulety, and won't have dog fights. But some of those people probably don't mind the fictional world of Pokemon, where you're gaining information on these fictional creatures, as well as becoming friends with the Pokemon. In order to say it actually encourages dog fighting, there must be statistical evidence that dog fights are raising nowadays, because of Pokemon. I only ask if the dog fights are increasing, not necessarily that a correlation is shown. So what will it be? (I admit it's difficult to disprove the resolution, but the burden's mainly on Pro. )
Pokemon Go encourages dog and cock fighting.

Pro is unable to really prove that Pokemon's popularity rises with dog fighting. Sure, there's a small increase from 2000 to 2007, and some of them may perhaps relate to Pokemon, but I don't think it's enough to say that Pokemon has promoted dog fighting.Ultimately, it comes down to the voters. Does Pokemon ecourage dog fighting? I say it promotes itself more than an illegal blood sport. A game about strategy, fantasy creatures, and mythology, versus something that involves the murdering of real life pets. When putting it like that, it sounds very different. But both Pokemon and dog fights cause harm. So does Pokemon encourage dog fighting to be point that it should be banned? I wouldn't say that. So what do you guys think?
Pokemon Go encourages dog and cock fighting.

"I only ask if the dog fights are increasing, not necessarily that a correlation is shown. So what will it be?"PowerPikachu21Not enough time has elapsed for a scientific peer reviewed study. Yet, we are encouraging the act of fighting and we are getting desensitized to it by playing the game. Overall, it sets a bad precedence. Instead of using Pokemon Go, I will take the broader approach and attack all violent video games."Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others.Children may be more fearful of the world around them.Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others." [3]"A 2010 review by psychologist Craig A. Anderson and others concluded that “the evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.” " [3]Impact, video games may make children less sensitive to pain and suffering of others. This is bad, because people will react less when experiencing dog fighting in the physical world. Children may also behave more aggressive or harmful ways towards others. In other words violent video games in general make children more likely to participate in dog and cockfighting. Conclusion, there is scientific research to show that violence in the media, that includes Pokemon Go increases aggression and harm while desensitizing children to the pain and suffering of others. Btw, dog fighting is still going strong. :( [4]. Sources1. http://heatst.com...2. http://features.peta.org...3. http://www.apa.org...4. http://www.cnn.com...
Country music is amazing.

Perhaps I could use a few math classes, thanks(: However that's irrelevant as well as inaccurate. Care to elaborate on your metaphor? I don't just "like" the words, I'm mesmerized and influenced. I am convinced that country music has been there for me. Here, let me show you. 1. Butterfly Kisses - Bob Carlisle; It's a song about a father watching his daughter grow up. That song reminds me of me and my dad, it's a beautiful song. I've loved it since 2002, I was 7. 2. Who You'd Be Today - Kenny Chesney; It's about a loved one that passed away. I listened to it every day when my stepmom passed, back in 2009, I was 14. 3. Just Too See You Smile - Tim McGraw; It's a love song. I always dedicate it to my girlfriend. 4. Mean - Taylor Swift; Yes, Taylor Swift. I said it. Taylor Swift. She may be two sandwiches short of a picnic basket, but that song makes women feel empowered. That one day they won't always be stepped all over. Now, I don't discriminate music, but you're thinking more in the lines of screamo in terms of your dim witted statement.
Country music is amazing.

All music IS math. Have you heard of the "octave"? It's eight sounds from one, up, to another that sounds the same but is higher. When VERY simple songs are written, a formula is used. They start at "1", go to "4" (in the octave), then, to "5" and then, back to "1". 1,4,5,1 = NOT complicated. Here is a way to invoke emotion: it's called the "circle of fifths" http://www.youtube.com... Add poetry, if you can, and, voila! You gots a hit! What you are expressing in your argument is your, personal, taste. This is not a subject for debate. Maybe you feel like chatting. Please take this to a chat room
college should be entirely government funded

Although such a matter is true in distinct fields, it shall remain as such. Even though the majority of the population is White (42%), there are still Asians (17%), Black (8%), and International (11%). With this amount of diversity, it is truly unreasonable to state that a university is discriminatory. Ironically, even during the Jim Crow Laws, many Blacks still resided in the South, thereby racism is truly awkward in the land of the free.
college should be entirely government funded

Harvard may be number one but have you actually looked at who goes majority of students are white which doesn't represent true diversity do you know why because of the wealth disparity that have been caused by years of oppresions that the government placed on minorities. Jim Crow Laws. With private univeristies raising cost each and every year the common man can no longer afford college. There are now even arguments that since you cannot afford college that you shouldn't even bother to go.
college should be entirely government funded

Government should pay the bill because it would increase the education rate so that we can be more competive in the world and we could raise our rank we were at one point number 1 in the world now we have decrease to 32 countries in Germany are higher thatn us. We need to be more compeitive because jobs are being offshore to other countries like india innovation. Iphone used to be usa made now China made. The education rate is dropping and with that come disparities ranging from race, wealth
should kids have cell phones

Thanks for the debate Pro.There were no rules or definitions, so I'll just get into it right now.This should be fun.*Introduction*It seems these days cell phones are everywhere and are virtually used for everything.We organize meetings, mess around with silly games and apps, and even order food via our cell phones.Most people will tell you that the life they live would be much more difficult without these devices.That's right, I said people.The problem is that kids are not people, so they neither have a purpose nor the ability to use cell phones.I'm going to negate this resolution that kids should have cell phones, because kids lack the ability to operate cell phones, kids have no use for a cell phone, and the dangers of leaving a cell phone in a kid's possession pose risks for both the kid and the cell phone. *Animal Rights*I get it.You want those conscious creatures, mainly mammals it seems, to be treated humanely and be afforded basic rights that humans have.On one hand, owning a cell phone isn't a right, so fighting for non-humans' cell phone rights is as silly as it is inaccurate.On the other hand, by giving kids a cell phone, you necessarily treat the kid inhumanely, because the cell phone parts are choking hazards if chewed and the lithium battery contains manganese dioxide, a known poison.So, while I sympathize with animal lovers, I've gotta draw the line at owning cell phones...shouldn't those phones go to people who need them first?My opponent may have a special place in his heart for kids, heck, my opponent may even have a kid living with them, for whom they think a cell phone should be designated.But if they truly love their kid, they'll keep them safe from harm.*Dangers*What would a kid use a cell phone for?If anything, I could see the kid chewing the phone to pieces, destroying the expensive device and endangering the kid at the same time.If you think plastic, metal, glass, and manganese dioxide is a delectable treat for kids, then by all means animal lovers, kill a kid and give them a cell phone.Personally, I'd like to avoid a future rife with this: https://www.google.com...Definitionsshould - used to indicate obligation.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...kid - a young goat.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...have - possess.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...cell phone - a mobile phone.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...*Conclusion*Therefore, I reject this resolution that young goats should have cell phones; the reasons should be obvious.
Snowden did nothing wrong

Your entire demeanor towards Snowden shows that you are one of those that have the mind set that he is a traitor but to determine if what he has done is wrong you have to evaluate his reasoning. Those that he exposed are desperate to aim the attention on Snowden to distract the people from exactly what it is he revealed them to be doing. You claim what he did was unethical so does that mean you believe an agreement to keep illegal activities that has upset the majority of Americans and other countries abroad a secret should be held with a higher regard than an oath to uphold the constitution? It is literally that simply, either path he chose he could be considered to be doing something unethical the only difference is he chose to do something "unethical" in front of the world to uphold his oath to the constitution. He chose to put his allegiance with the American people, not the government that was abusing its power. 1. Snowden took an oath to uphold the constitution as I have shown, he merely signed an agreement that was conditional to him working with the NSA. You have provided a false source which does not coincide with what Snowden has stated himself. He willingly took the risk to leak the information so therefore he would have no reason to lie about such a thing. There has been no official coming forward stating that he violated an oath of secrecy. 2. True he did steal documents and leak them to the public which is clearly illegal but that does not mean what he did was wrong. He chose to put his allegiance with the American people and the constitution, not the government that abuses its power. 3. Your missing the point of what his father said so perhaps this video will clear things up for you. A police officer takes an oath to uphold the constitution as well and they will break the law to enforce the law. For example they will drive 100mph to catch a criminal or they will shoot someone to prevent other lives from being lost. The police break the law but its deemed "ok" because they are doing so for the better good. Snowden also broke the law for the better good. Whether my opponent likes it or not Snowden was true to his oath to uphold the constitution and he sacrificed more than more people ever would to do so. http://youtu.be... So I ask my opponent directly: Where would your loyalty be, with the governments unethical activities or would you choose to uphold the constitution? According to my opponents line of thinking either option he chooses will be unethical.
Snowden did nothing wrong

"The one and only thing that could be deemed as "wrong" is that he broke an oath to secrecy but as he has stated he only took an oath to uphold the constitution." That is a lie on his part in that case. Snowden took two oaths[1]. If he hadn't taken the second one he wouldn't have been hired. Snowden committed multiple wrongs. Snowden also stole government property. That is called theft and it is illegal as well as unethical. [1]http://www.wnd.com... As I said the points of contention still stand. Snowden stole government property and violated his oath. Therefore he has done several wrongs. My opponent agreed that he violated his oath as well in Round 2. My opponent has ignored all points of contention to justify Edward Snowden's wrongdoing. Snowden has committed wrongdoing whether my opponent likes it or not. Edward Snowden's Wrongs: 1. Edward Snowden violated his oath. 2. Snowden stole government property that he was entrusted with. 3. Snowden own father admitted he was engaging in civil disobedience. Lon Snowden said "the history of liberty is a history of civil disobedience to unjust laws or practices." Therefore Snowden did break the law.[2] [2]http://www.wsws.org...
Snowden did nothing wrong

Literally every government agency has to take an oath to uphold the constitution. The one and only thing that could be deemed as "wrong" is that he broke an oath to secrecy but as he has stated he only took an oath to uphold the constitution "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." That is the oath Snowden had taken. Notice how it says "defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC" NSA being the domestic factor. Snowden was witness to illegal acts being committed by the NSA that violated his oath to uphold the constitution. As Snowden stated he did not swear an oath to secrecy he signed a conditional agreement stating that he would not disclose secret information. Take note that he did swear an oath to uphold the constitution but merely signed a conditional agreement of secrecy so that he could work for the NSA as a contractor. There is a drastic difference between signing a civil agreement and taking an oath to uphold the constitution. The constitution is the more important of the two by far and he decided to uphold it accordingly. He made the choice that his loyalty lay with the constitution, not some business agreement. I see that I did not clear this up efficiently in the first round so I hope this will clear up any confusion between an oath to the constitution and a signed agreement of business. http://www.newyorker.com...