BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialism

To refresh your memory I previously mentioned the aborigines, most native American Indian tribes before they were wiped out, Gaia Mother Earth, Buddhists, Hindus etc etc etc... "because, if there was no law, everyone would do whatever they felt like,"Which means peace from those previously mentioned" no, without law, there is no punishment for murder, for example." And you know this - how? And yet strangely this, rarely, if ever occurs within those mentioned. Now why is that? Crime---must,---for---the---final---time---be---taught. It just doesn't appear in the brain and someone says "ah ha I'm going to go out and murder someone". Oh but wait, that's what the storybook nymph bible says. Then great! That must mean that this Cain character has power over its god that created him to kill. Pathetic and amazingly generic. Now if true, then how come, and why is it true that we do not hear of murders, crime and or whatever occurring within those that have been put forth unto you? So go right ahead and you tell me or anyone just where and how did this Cain character get is POOF amazing idea to kill his brother? Wow you must think that without law, everybody is going to become a murderer or become crime rambunctious. Law is necessary as later mentioned in the round. PEACEFUL law. Not the hate and evil that is specifically taught within religion and specifically taught with christianity and "believe in me or else" concoction. "But that conflict doesn"t necessarily mean war and hate" in most of the situations, yes it does mean hate and violence and this is why laws are needed. A world with everyone sharing and getting along is not possible." That's only according to you as 100% of everybody is evil and hate. Then you have just proven, not only to me but to yourself, that there is absolutely no hope whatsoever for humanity and I see no reason for me to finish this debate and read the rest of what you have to say.
Socialism

because, if there was no law, everyone would do whatever they felt like," Which means peace from those previously mentioned" no, without law, there is no punishment for murder, for example. Law is necessary because not everyone thinks the same. Some people think it's ok to steal, what do you do with them if there is no law? "But that conflict doesn"t necessarily mean war and hate" in most of the situations, yes it does mean hate and violence and this is why laws are needed. A world with everyone sharing and getting along is not possible. "Babies learn very quickly who is the master. When to cry for something and when not to", well, this is because parents show them who is the master. It's because parents teach them that they can't have everything they want and that selfish is wrong. In other words, parents put law to their children. "Ever watch Star Trek? Especially Star Trek The next Generation? They get along just fine" the fact that the only example you could give me of a society that works like this is from fiction is just pathetic. In fiction, characters think however the writer wants them to. They're born good if the writer wants them to. But in real life, people are born selfish and this is human nature. "Did it ever dawn on you that there would be "peaceful" laws?" don't build straw men, please. What I mean here is laws that force you to share. This is theft. It doesn't matter if the law is "peaceful", you're punished if you don't follow any law and being punished for not sharing is forced altruism, which equals slavery. These are the rebuttals of all your arguments. I'm not responding to your red herrings, most of your argument consists in talking about religion and Trump, which is obviously not what's being discussed here. It seems to me like you hate rich people and all your argument is based on that
Socialism

There is no evidence that Trump squashes the poor like you said he does. On the very contrary, he reduced the unemployment to a rate never seen before, which helps the poor more than any Welfare program. Working is the one and only way out of poverty and it should be, because it's the only fair way and this is what Capitalism is about. But this debate is about Socialism, not whether Trump is good or bad and, therefore, there is no reason to talk about him here. Yes, kings and queens are dictators (unless under Parlamentarism, because they don't have power to do basically anything), they're not chosen by the people, they have way too much power concentrated and can change overnight Socialism, as you said, depends on people sharing and getting along and this is exactly why it's doomed to fail: it challenges human nature. People are not born good, they're born selfish and shaped by the society they live in. Take babies as an example: if you don't give them what they want, they make your life Hell. Laws are very important to guarantee everyone's basic human rights, such as life, because, if there was no law, everyone would do whatever they felt like, which means, you can't assure that everyone is going to share and get along. With that said, everyone sharing and getting along (your definition of Socialism) is impossible. After all, everyone thinks differently, has different opinions, tastes and visions of right and wrong and, therefore, conflict is inevitable. You can't make everyone get along unless you take away their free will, which is impossible. Although, you can make everyone share Making everyone share would require laws. Putting laws on how much you can have, how much you would need to give. It's the only way because of human nature, people wouldn't share otherwise, or at least not enough to reach equality. But if you do this, power becomes concentrated in those who did that laws, creating a dictatorship. Socialism and freedom can not coexist. Besides, a redristibution would be just unfair. Those who have money worked and earned it, so it's theirs by right. If someone has two cars and someone has none, the one who has two worked for them and the one who has none can have two if he works for it. He doesn't have the right to take one from the one who has two just because he needs it more. The idea that he does is called Vital Space Theory and guess what? It's a Nazi theory.
Socialism

I do not claim to know that much about socialism. And no it hasn't failed in countries where it has been demonstrated because it hasn't been demonstrated in any country to its true nature. Its only been polluted by its rulers. I mean how can it be true if according to wikipedia "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms."? No single definition... A few things that are for sure is... That democracy doesn't work as people like Trump, the worst president of all time, squashes the poor and loves to see the rich eat from its gold plates thus worldwide peace will never be achieved Wherever religion is splattered, its coffin is dug, especially christianity, in which you seem to be so fond of, as war after war, which claims and every stacking high amount of bodies, because what it is really after it its supreme ego god complex because it, like you believes that it is somehow better than everybody else thus worldwide peace will never be achieved. And no religion has ever proved that its god or any prophesies are true. Of course a dictatorship doesn't work as many have ruled with an iron fist and sure the exact opposite is true that that the dictator happens to put his or her people ahead of him or her which has happened and is kind, caring and loving. Sure call kings and queens dictators. Then there's communism which is always a false theory. No country has ever practiced communism. It is supposed to appeal to the lower class. Yet the upper class are the ruling party. A major hypocritical contradiction. Then there's Buddhists, Hindu's, aborigines, many native American Indian tribes until they were wiped out by the sweaty greasy white man pig christian brethren, Gaia Mother earth who were and are at one with the land, believe in life's and earth's inner connection along with evolution and is now a proven. Hmmmm socialism? Everybody sharing with everybody and everybody getting along. "Socialism is a worldwide inevitability" I was told by my government teacher way back in 1980. I'd have to agree with him if there is to be worldwide peace. Make no mistake. There are 5 things that must happen in order for worldwide peace to occur and everything else falls into these categories... 1. Get rid of all religion. 2. Get rid of all money/ wealth 3. Get rid of all guns and higher weapons of mass destruction. 4. Get rid of borders. 5. Get rid of the media Summary Donald Trump is as good as a dictator as this country has ever seen and an evil one Bernie Sanders would have been great for this country
Socialism

I come here as friendly How would Socialism work in a country? All the examples of socialist countries that we have are proved to go totally wrong, so I naturally don't put any faith in this regime and I'm 100% pro-Capitalism because I think it works. So, why do you think Socialism works after so many wrongs? After every country that used it became dictatorships? Reminder that I come here as friendly, but if you attack, I will attack back, so you choose if you want to keep this peaceful. I just want to hear it from you
The end justifies the means

My argument this round will be short, sweet, and to the point. Lets begin by defining a few terms. The End- My opponent puts limitation on this as being right, moral, and correct. Excuses- pardons, makes amends for Any- Excluding none Evil- morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked All definitions are taken from the American Heritage dictionary. So what my opponent tells you is that our goal is to achieve an important, moral end. This end is good. The goal is goodness. She also says that we may excuse ANY EVIL to achieve this MORAL END. If the goal is a moral end, forfeiting morality in the process undermines the whole system, thus NOT achieving morality. For example: My sister is dying. She needs a new heart. Is searching for and getting her a new heart so that she would live moral? Absolutely. Am I morally justified in killing a woman down the street to get that heart? Absolutely not. The end does not justify the means.
The end justifies the means

Thank you so much, rougeagent21. One quick point before I get started, my user name is Lolagirl57; hence I am a girl and a "her". You referred to me as a "him". Sorry, but I felt a need to tell you that. Anyways, let me address some of the points you made about my points- "First of all, the term "important enough" is completely subjective. My opponent must define what this really means." I realize that "important enough" is subjective, but as I classify later on in my argument, the end needs to be a "good" end, which is something that is noble and helpful. Important enough is generally something selfless and for the good of the majority of the people. "Secondly, I will soon show you that some "undesirable" means are not in fact justified, even if they are in an effort to achieve a good end." I would appreciate this example, not just a vague reference. "In the future, please do not put words into my mouth. I will say what I mean, and would appreciate it if you would not make an argument out of something that came out of your mouth. (Or computer in this case)" I apologize. "Further, if desired by my opponent, I will in fact provide examples such as my opponent has listed that do not agree with Sophocles' theory." I do indeed desire these examples if you please. "So just to clarify here, you are saying that if an end is "good," then we may use ANY less-than-ideal means to achieve it?" No, this is not what I was trying to say necessarily. If the means are truly bad, then it would almost defeat the purpose of the "good" end to use these means. "Interesting enough. I agree with you on this point that, IN THIS INSTANCE, the "less-than-ideal" measures taken did justify the end. This example however is not enough to prove the theory as a whole." Okay, thank you, but did you have any comments on the other examples? With the serial killer, the Holocaust, or the Ryan Moats story? Because I noticed you had no comments for those. Please, share your thoughts and tell me if, in those instances, the less-than-ideal measures taken justify the ends. "Question #1- Who decides if an end is "important enough?"" We can only hope that people have enough common sense to figure out what is "important enough" by themselves. But if they can't, then I guess the jury and judge decide if the end is important enough in a legal situation. "Question #2- Are the means justified to achieve an important end, EVEN IF the means cause more harm than the good in the end? If so, who decides what "harm" and "good" are done?" I believe I addressed this earlier on in this statement, but, again, if the means are truly bad, then they defeat the purpose of the "good" end. Besides, if what you are striving for is in fact "good" then the means can't be that bad after all. "Question #3- "The end excuses any evil" Do you truly wish to stand with ANY evil?" These are the words of Sophocles and I don't mean to say it will support ANY evil; just that many lesser evils can be justified by a greater good. Thank you so much and I can't wait to read what you write next.
The end justifies the means

Alright, lets get started. In this round I will address some points of my opponent's case, and ask him a few questions. This will aid in the further clarification of the debate to make the voting decision clear to the viewers. "First, if the goal you are working for is important enough, then the means used to get there may not be desirable, but necessary to achieve the overall good end. " First of all, the term "important enough" is completely subjective. My opponent must define what this really means. Secondly, I will soon show you that some "undesirable" means are not in fact justified, even if they are in an effort to achieve a good end. "My opponent will try and tell you that the end doesn't justify the means in the case of war. They will ask if the sacrifice of many people is worth gaining land or just killing other people." In the future, please do not put words into my mouth. I will say what I mean, and would appreciate it if you would not make an argument out of something that came out of your mouth. (Or computer in this case) Further, if desired by my opponent, I will in fact provide examples such as my opponent has listed that do not agree with Sophocles' theory. "As a second point, there is a fine line between a morally "good" end and a morally "bad" end. We classify a "good" end as something that is noble and helpful. A "bad" end is something that is selfish and harmful. If the end is on the right side of this line, then we are justified in seeking it and using non-ideal means to get there." So just to clarify here, you are saying that if an end is "good," then we may use ANY less-than-ideal means to achieve it? "As another example, in George Orwell's Animal Farm, Farmer Jones gets hopelessly drunk and neglects feeding the animals all day. One of the cows breaks down a door to the store-shed, and several of the animals begin to help themselves from the bins. So they broke the rules and smashed the door and took the food, but the end was not starving, which seems like a perfectly acceptable end to me. Now, if the animals had already been fed and were just being greedy and trying to get more, then this would not be an acceptable end." Interesting enough. I agree with you on this point that, IN THIS INSTANCE, the "less-than-ideal" measures taken did justify the end. This example however is not enough to prove the theory as a whole. I will expand further in the next round. On to the questioning. Question #1- Who decides if an end is "important enough?" Question #2- Are the means justified to achieve an important end, EVEN IF the means cause more harm than the good in the end? If so, who decides what "harm" and "good" are done? Question #3- "The end excuses any evil" Do you truly wish to stand with ANY evil? Thank you for your time, and I eagerly await your response.
Should Child Pornography be viewable

I am extremely happy that you have accepted this interesting, but nessecary debate. So let's get started. C1: Morally, I don't accept watching Child Pornography purposefully I, too, agree that Child Pornography is wrong, and disagree with people who watch it on purpose. But second, there is no way for the federal government to differentiate between Intention and Accidental viewings, because someone you know may send an email of child porn if you did something to that person to make them extremely angry. Which leads me to my second case. C2: Not all things that are legal are morally acceptable or righteous, and vice-versa If all laws were morally acceptable and righteous, we would be skipping in a meadow with a triple rainbow on the horizon. Nah, just kidding. But not all laws are righteous and morally acceptable. The reverse is also true. For example, prostititution is allowed in Nevada, and I would say that most people think prostititution is morally incorrect. But it is still law. Therefore, I represent the pro side not because it is Morally right, righteous, or fit to watch, rather, on the premise that there is a high likelyhood that it was done on accident. Source(s) 1.)http://en.wikipedia.org... C3: I believe people who make child pornography should still be arrested. Making or Producing Child Pornography should still be illegal, as These acts are all done intentionally. Unlike watching Child Pornography, making/producing it can't be done accidentally. They do it intentionally, and should be punished as a felony. Child Pornography can undermine society, and the people making it should be held responsible.
Should Child Pornography be viewable

I would like to first wish upon the both of us a fun informative debate. Since my opponent offered no structure or definitions I will enact my liberty to do so.Structure1-acceptance2-positions3-rebuttals4-summary/rebuttalsChild pornography-Child pornography, any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving children under the age of 18, is a crime.http://crime.about.com...Viewable- fit to be watched: of a good enough standard, or in a good enough condition, to be watched.http://www.bing.com...Good-morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious.http://dictionary.reference.com.................................................................................................................................................................My opponent will attempt to prove that child pornography is morally acceptable,rightceouss, and fit to be watched because this fits the definition of viewable. While I will negate this claim.1. Child pornography is illegal therefore it is not morally justified.Producing, possessing or distributing images of minors (anyone under the age of 18) engaged in sexual conduct is illegal. As we know if something is illegal and prohibited by federal law there is a extremely high chance that the action that is illegal is not morally good, or righteous. Child pornography isnt right. Please let me know if any average citizen that is o.k with someone watching child porn or even having a sexual attraction to there child. No one who isnt a creep. Child pornography isnt morally acceptable and is thus not acceptable to be viewed.http://www.adultweblaw.com...2.The issue of pop-upsYes pop-ups happen. I don't expect someone to be prosecuted for pop ups. But I do expect someone to be prosecuted if they have saved pictures and frequent visits to child porn websites. If you truly have a problem with child porn pop ups then turn on the filter on Bing to filter out pornographic material. There are things you can do to prevent these pop ups.
Canada should move to abolish the monarchy

Looking forward to his response. I will try to elucidate my point of view in the following points:SupportA recent poll by Strategic Council demonstrated that only 30% of canadians feel a connection to the Queen or the Governor General. Furthermore, the poll indicated that 65% think that 'ties with the monarchy should be cut once the Queen passes away' [1]. Another study by Your Canada, indicates that 55% of canadians believe the Head of State should be elected and believes it is time to discontinue the Royal Family's hold on canadian duties. [2] My point here is that the majority of canadians think the system should be changed, and expressed the fact that they do not share any ties with the british royal family so why are foreigners considered de jure Head of State of Canada? Cost Moreover, canadians pay an exorbitant amount of money of their taxes to the Royal family and their representatives, the Governor General and the 11 Lieutenant-Governors. Currently valued at more than $50 million, per year which, per capita, is more than what the british pay, ($1.57 compared to $1.32) [3]. Money that could easily be reinvested towards more important matters such as healthcare or education. And that cost keeps rising. Amid the fact that they serve no duties that a fully elected official could not do. MeritUnder the current political system, no canadian, no matter how skilled and talented, may ever aspire to become head of state of their country. That profession is by birthright reserved to a foreigner that has no connection or affiliation with the canadian people. This is particulary odd; Canada must show that we're able to govern ourselves. Although symbolic, this function still has a particular meaning. And ought to be given to a canadian national to fully demonstrate that Canada is no longer a colony of the British Empire. We must adopt a system that rewards one's merit rather than one's luck at birth, specially when it comes to the highest ranking position in the nation. We must follow in the footsteps of South Africa, India, and the other 18 nations that have decided to be fully independant. Canada loses $50 million per year and unlike the Brits, we get no profit from tourism or the Crown Estate. Why do we hold on to this outdated system? [1] . http://bit.ly...[2] . http://ycyc-vcvc.ca...[3] . http://www.macleans.ca...
Canada should move to abolish the monarchy

I propose that we refer to the royal family by this definition: 'The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. ' . https://en.wikipedia.org... I assume that when you say 'the functions of head of state of Canada should be granted to a Canadian citizen', you are not suggesting another monarchy or hereditary role, but an elected one? As you are moving against the status quo I expect you to carry the Burden of Proof.
Canada should move to abolish the monarchy

Following Con's sudden forfeiture, I will now post my conclusion. I believe, and so does the majority of Canadians, as demonstrated earlier, that it is time to opt for a system that values merit and ability over bloodline. Particularly when it comes to the most important position in the country. Notwithstanding the fact that Canadians profit in no ways of Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state, we even lose $50 million per annum, and that cost has proved to be increasing rapidly. I invite the voters to vote Pro because I have elucidated all notions that Con has put forward. Having a Canadian head of state increases our independence and autonomy, while demonstrating that we have overcome our old colonial days. Con has failed to clearly demonstrate why we should maintain a foreign, distant Queen as, de jure, head of state of all Canadians, and I ask the voters to vote subsequently.