BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism is better that extreme lassez-faire capitalism

First model. I define communism as an economic system in which all assets are state owned, Citizens are required to work for free for a number of hours that is required for the production of enough food and material, Government distributes wealth equally amongst individuals. Laissez-faire capitalism is capitalism based on the "invisible hand" principle, There is no government interaction. My first contention is that communism protects the environment. It has been seen throught communist and socialist states that their levels of pollution are lower than other nations. We can also see a correlation between capitalism and pollution. A recent study at the university of Wisconsin-Madison found that, "It was post-Mao capitalist development that propelled unbreathable cities to flourish and the country to overtake the US as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. " It is also not a coincidence that most green parties support socialist or communist parties at elections.
Communism is better that extreme lassez-faire capitalism

After I said there was no correlation, You said that I disagreed with the majority of economists, But you didn't provide any data to back this up. You quoted a reporter, But reporters are not experts in anything. That's no better than an opinion. It's not that your claims have no truth in them at all. But the methodology of your argument is fallacious. You attribute capitalism with crime and pollution in an attempt to scare us into communism, But there are two problems with this methodology. 1) You have not given us sufficient data of the crime rates and pollution and there possible correlation to capitalism. 2) You have not given us sufficient data in order to conclude that the same thing would not happen under communism. Without having this information, It's just speculation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When you claim an entire system of government is better than the other and you're only argument is a critique of the competition, Then you need to make sure that the evidence for that critique is extraordinary. Our current model of capitalism has stood the test of time so far and we have a productive and thriving nation. I close by saying that anyone who wants to mess up that model, Needs to bring infallible evidence to the table. Good Debate
Communism is better that extreme lassez-faire capitalism

This debate has been about the themes of fairness, Crime, And the environment. In terms of environment, I have said that if we do not stop capitalism, Our environment will degrade(it already is because of the dirty and selfish politicians who want re-election). During the industrial revolution, England had a laissez-faire policy which resulted in enriching the English newest elite, The businessmen. It degraded the English air so much that England(London) became synonymous with smog. Capitalism creates environmental problems. It is not a coincidence that the six most capitalist countries(Germany, United States, China, India, Japan, Russia) are the six most polluting nations. We also have to think of the other living beings that we are harming such as animals and plants. It is also biting us. It is estimated that 7 million people worldwide die every year from"exposure to fine particles in polluted air that lead to diseases such as stroke, Heart disease, Lung cancer, Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and respiratory infections, Including pneumonia"according to the World Health Organisation. What has opp said? That there is no correlation. Well, Opp has just disagreed with the majority of the economists. Capitalism does cause crime. Maybe opp disagrees because they think crime is only about gangs, But it is much more. Investigative reporter Nick Davies, Who uncovered the UK hacking scandal, Had this to say, "rogue corporations have been allowed to flourish--and to break the rules and to make comrades of the police and the government--because it has grown up in a wider system[capitalism] which has encouraged it. " In terms of fairness, Capitalism has widened our inequality so much that it is now more that France just before the revolution. Capitalism is also responsible for the poverty cycle. We have effectively come back to feudal Europe where birth determines later life. The sociologist Karl Alexander did a study and found out that poor students" academic scores improved more than rich kids during the year. But when I came to summer vacation, Rich kids had the edge as their parents are able to afford classes. This gives an edge to rich kids in finding success. How terrible it is when children"s parent financial situation determines their destiny. As you can see, I have won all 3 themes. Let"s give a message to the filthy capitalists who "sat on the boards of Victorian coal mines, Explaining gently that they must preserve the right of children to work down and that they must resist the dogooders who would take away the free choice of those children, Were the shipmasters who argued that it was their duty to provide good strong cheap labour from Africa from the king"s dominions whose growth was essential to England's wellbeing and that good people must understand the conditions endured by a savage on the verge of starvation is less than an English worker. Let's not go back to cruel feudalism. Vote for progress Vote for fairness Vote proposition!
Communism is better that extreme lassez-faire capitalism

All of the problems you mentioned would still happen with communism, Except for the competition. So that's the only part I will address. competition is a good thing, It stop price gauging and forces the business to hear the demands of the consumer. In a communist market. Businesses would have no motivation or obligation to provide top level products or services. This means that the quality of the businesses will fall and prices will start to be unreasonable due to the poor quality of the items and services. You talk about competition causing crime. This is an appeal to fear. Anybody can argue that anything causes crime. Capitalism is not a high risk factor for crime, So crime isn't a good reason. If this was a debate about gangs, Then that would be a different story. As for you comments about people being overworked, That is a valid point, But communism doesn't fix it and it can easily be fixed in capitalism using the same methods. So why change governments to fix a problem that could have been fixed without changing governments? Your floor
The US should legalize drugs.

This debate is the bronze medal match of Bsh1's individual debate tournament for his DDO Olympics. Coincidentally, fire_wings is also one of my opponents for the team debate tournament bronze match also. Hopefully I'll be able to shut him out of medal contention! ;) In all seriousness congratulations to my opponent for making it so far in both tournaments, he is an excellent debater and I look forward to the challenge.Full text of resolution: The USFG should legalize consumption of all drugs for recreational purposes.Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Constructive (No rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Case Defense/Closing ArgumentsDefinitions:USFG- United States Federal Governmentshould- compelled to do something as it is the best path of actionlegalize- to make legaldrugs- often illegal substance that can cause addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousnessrecreational purposes- essentially any reason Rules: No new arguments in the final round.No kritiks of the resolution.No counterplans.No trolling.No semantics.No forfeits.If any of these rules are violated the offender loses the debate.fire_wings must message or comment with any changes he wishes to make to rules, definitions, or structure of the debate. Once the debate is accepted by the contender, he waives all rights to add definitions, change structure, or any other aspects of this debate. Should he attempt to do so, do not weigh these ideas when voting. BoP is shared, resolution must be looked at on balance.If the contender so chooses, he can use the following structure, please just notify me:Round 1: Con gives rules/Pro gives opening arguments Round 2: Con's opening arguments/Pro rebuts Con's case Round 3: Con rebuts Pro's case/Pro defense his case. Round 4: Con defends case/Pro waives.
'defense of others' is too limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypo

con wants me to be able to clearly negate him when he says killing bob is the same as the victims he killed. i don't know what else he wants me to say though. just reread my arguments. con is negating just as much as i am. i could blame him for the same things he blames me for. for some reason con brings up that there's a difference between killing and letting soemone die. often yes, this is true in ethics. but it doesn't have anything to do with this debate. it's irrelevant. the information was not added post facto as con argues that we have certainty of bob's ID and his overall scheme. it was clearly part of the hypo, con could only post facto add uncertainty later. at any rate, again, it's not so much that i want to establish a rare situation where the certainties are known.... all i'm trying to show is that killing bob is not "inherently" immoral. con did nothing to argue against this, all he did was show practical points about uncertaintity. he does later address that the governemnt should be the sole arbiter, but focuses so much on practucal points, that it seems these things should be addressed separately. besides the 'inherent' morality point, if we just ignore this and address con's other points, we see him arguing that morality shouldn't be reduced to probability. but, that's all a court room does, 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. and, killing Bob isn't even so far fetched out of society's morality when all it requires is adjusting what it means to be "imminent killing". if we have a very high certitude of all this stuff, it's imminent enough, and bob is culpable enough, to be shot. con says i didn't address his fair trial points. i addressed the 'government' points in my last argument, which addressed those points. i suggest con go back aand reread those arguments. con does provide some historical sources for why he thinks the government is the only entitty eqiupped to decide matters of life or death when true imminency isnt there. but he doesn't show how it necessarily is morally superior, and pretty much must be implicitly conceding the point..... "it is better for people to die than for bob to be stopped by a shooter, as only the government can make that call". he has no choice but to concede that point. but when he does, it shows that the government should NOT be the sole arbiter of these things, such that people can not be murdered by bob, for instance.
'defense of others' is too limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypo

con argues if bob killing people is wrong, then killing bob is wrong. that's not true at all. if it's okay to kill in self defense or defense of others, as long as a death is imminent, then we can see that con's logic can't be taken at face value. i mean, perhaps con doesn't view self defense and defense of others teh same as everyone, but that's on him, a huge outlier to everyone else on this issue. and, if we assume the defense point.... all i'm doing is tweeking 'imminency' to mean not just 'about to occur' but 'will occur soon enough'. con continues giving practical cosiderations about uncertainty. one might almost assume without those practical consierations, con might view it as permissible to kill bob. it would probably be a case where tehre is some uncertainty, sure. but my only point is that it is not inherently immoral to kill bob, at elast without uncertainty. perhaps the person who saw bob was the brother and neighbor of two different victims killed different times, and he saw them both. and the person saw other videos and is highly knowledgeable. i realize this is not very likely as a hypotheritcal, but it's possible, and it makes my main pint that it's not inherently wrong to enact vigilantism. even if there was "some" uncertainty as to his idenity and his past, or "some" uncertainty of his future in killing. it is still "highly likely" the right thing to do. when considering all the outcomes and various morals, a very hgh probabliilty is sufifcient. indeed, it would be very possible even though he'd be a vigilantee, that the vigilantee knows 'beyond a reasonable doubt' all that has and would occur. what more could you expect? and it's not even like the vigiliantee is doing things the public doesn't like by taking it upon himself... cause everyone agrees killing in defense is okay, it's jut an issue of how imminent, imminent has to be. con makes a point about shooting bob's legs. perhaps if it is possible, that would be the best solution. whatever is most mitigatory leading up to and including death, though. con argues that the government is who should have the duty to enact these punishments or deterrences. but why does it have to be the government? in this case, the government will not stop the murderer from murdering again, but the guy at the park can.
'defense of others' is too limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypo

'defense of others' is too limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypothetical bob is a serial killer on the run and's shown every reason he'll continue killing. you see him by chance at a state park. a high reason to think if you try to call authorties he will get away. u have a gun- moral to kill him? remember, 'defense of others' as a legal and moral system is often said to be only permissible if the pending harm to another is 'imminent' which usually is said to mean 'right about to occur'. here we are talking just about morality.
Jesus is not Michael the Archangel

Thank you Con for your response. Again, Con has not contested any of my arguments from round 2 on. I guess at this point I will rebut is final argument and make some closing statements. I. "AN ARCHANGEL'S VOICE"Thessalonians 4:16 does not say that Jesus is an archangel, it just says He will speak like one, which makes sense because archangels are powerful. The statement is allegorical in nature. It is like when someone says that another person sings like a dying goat. Are they a dying goat? No, it's just a comparison. I would also like to present the following verse that call on believers not to worship angels:"Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind. " (1 Colossians 2:18 NIV)CLOSING STATEMENTSThanks for a good debate.
Jesus is not Michael the Archangel

Thanks for your response, As we read in the Bible, Michael is the only archangel. There is no other archangels. In Greek, word arche means first in position as well as time. Therefore we know that Michael was the first one, and he was the chief of all the angels: "one of the foremost princes" (Dan 10:13 NWT)" Thessalonians 4:16: "the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice" Jesus spoke with an archangel's voice. If there was only one archangel, and Jesus spoke with archangel's voice then we should understand that Jesus was the archangel, Michael. We might conclude that Michael, was Jesus name before Jesus started walking the Earth. Looking forward for your response. CITATIONS; http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com...
Jesus is not Michael the Archangel

Thank you Con for your response.Con seems to have not contested any of my points and instead brings forth new arguments. I assume then that he will post his rebuttal to my statements in this round. Therefore I will not bring forth any more new arguments and I expect him to do the same.1. MEANING OF THE NAME MICHAELCon has made a fatal interpretation error saying that the Hebrew term "Michael" means "who is like God" and should be interpreted as meaning "[he/one] who is like God". His incorrect translation makes it seem that the Archangel was given the name because he was like/similar to God. However upon closer examination, we see that the translation, "who is like God" is actually a QUESTION. It is a rhetorical/scornful question that asks "who is like God?" and expects in answer of "no one." It does not mean to imply the the bearer of the name is similar to God; intead, it means to respect God by affirming that no one in this world is like God. See sources for a more in depth explanation. [1][2] 2. MICHAEL AND JESUS'S SHARED OCCUPATION AS MESSENGERSCon states that because both Jesus and Michael were messengers of God, they must be the same.This is his logic:P1: Jesus is a messenger of GodP2: Michael is a messenger of GodC: Jesus is Michael. That is akin to saying:P1: Nicolas Cage is a fishermanP2: I am a fishermanC: I am Nicolas CageThe above argument is obviously fallicious and I can definitely say that I am not Nicolas Cage just because we are both fisherman. Con might argue that since they are both like God (as he argued above) they are more likely to be the same person. I have already shown that his assumption that Michael is like God because of his name is false, but even if he was right, just because it is more likely that they are the same given two common attributes doesn't mean that they ARE the same. He still has not yet given hard proof that they ARE they same and not just LIKELY the same. 3. APPEARANCES OF MICHAEL AND JESUSAgain, Con tries to argue that because both have some common attribute (appearing to people), they must be the same. See rebuttal two for a complete explanation of why this is fallicious. I look forward to Con's response. SOURCES[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]: http://www.behindthename.com...;
Jesus is not Michael the Archangel

Dear Con; As we go deeper into that topic, I had a pleasure to read some information about "Michael" as the name of that one archangel. "AV - Michael 13; 13 Michael = "who is like God" As it says, Michael is the archangel that is like God. Only but looking at the name of the archangel we see some connection between Michael and God, but lets see the definition of the word archangel. "AV - archangel 2; 2 1) archangel, or chief of the angels" So archangel is the chief of the angels, or the boss of the angels, which mean that he could give orders to all of them. God's son, Jesus was a significant person and as we know, the apostles were listening to God's words and spread them. As we look farther lets see the definition of the word "angel" "TDNT - 1:74,12; n m AV - angel 179, messenger 7; 186 1) a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God" Angels, the messenger. Jesus was sharing the God's words, so we can say that he was also a messenger. From the definitions of the words we got this: Michael - the one that is like God archangel - chief of the angels angel - a messenger Therefore it gives us a certain description of Michael, the archangel. The one that is like god, chief and messenger. Michael as well as Jesus were the messengers that were sharing the words of God, therefore Michael=Jesus We also know that God's child, Jesus appeared to people in certain situations. Genesis 16:7, "And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur." Genesis 21:17-18, "And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation." Genesis 22:11-12, "And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." "The angel of the Lord", Jesus. I look forward to the response.
Jesus is not Michael the Archangel

Thank you Karwin for accepting.I. ANGELS AS CREATED BEINGSI will begin my arguments by noting that angels are created beings as evidenced in Psalm 148 (NIV): Praise the Lord. Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise him in the heights above.2 Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his heavenly hosts.3 Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all you shining stars.4 Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies.5 Let them praise the name of the Lord, for at his command they were created,At this point it is conclusive that the Bible supports the notion that angels are created beings.If angels are created beings, then Jesus must either be another created being, or not created if he is truly not an angel.The Bible supports the notion that Jesus was uncreated.John 8:58 (NIV): "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" Basically what is happening here is that Jesus is stressing that even before Abraham, he has always existed. In the Greek manuscripts from which this verse was found, the term "ego eimi" (or "I am") is used, indicating eternality, instead of "genesthai" (or "was born, begin to be"), which indicates temporary existence. The verse is also a reference to Exodus 3:14 where God identifies himself as "I AM." [1]With all of these in mind, the following logical statement can be createdP1: All angles are createdP2: Michael is an angelP3: Jesus was not createdConclusion: Jesus is not Michael the Archangel.II. THE REFUSAL TO REBUKEIn Jude 1:9 (NIV) it says:"But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!'"As we can see here, Michael the Archangel does not have the authority to rebuke Satan. However in Matthew 4:10 (NIV), Jesus is clearly shown having the authority to rebuke Satan. "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"Clearly, Jesus's authority over Satan cannot change as "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."I believe that at this point I have clearly shown why Jesus cannot be Michael the Archangel as evidenced in Scripture.I eagerly await Con's rebuttal. CITATIONS[1]: https://www.christiancourier.com...;
Jesus is not Michael the Archangel

Hey, How can you be so sure that Michael the archangel isn't Jesus? As we know Michael was one of most powerful archangels of all ages, and he was strong enough to defeat Lucifer. In my opinion we might consider, that Michael is God's son, Jesus. He is very powerful, and so is Jesus. Maybe that's why Jesus died for people's sins, because he was an archangel. Angels are the guards, the people's guards who are protecting us. I think that Michael might be consider as God's son, Jesus.
Jesus is not Michael the Archangel

The following rules are to be kept. Rules 1. The text that will be used is the New International Version (hereby the "NIV"), unless CON can somehow prove that the verses in question are corrupted and the New World Translation (hereby the "NWT) is actually the authoritative work on said verse. 2. Wikipedia shall be considered a legitimate source. Use of Wikipedia shall not receive scrutiny from voters. I am looking forward to a insightful debate.
smoking should be illegal

Thanks for that – I now realise I'm Pro so I have to shift my stance somewhat: I am a smoker but I can't give up even though I realise it's bad for my health because if I do, all the sexy and attractive fly-girls will go off with the those cool and hard guys that continue to smoke. Therefore, smoking should be illegal so as to give non-smoking blokes a level playing field when it comes to copping off with fit birds. Thank you.