BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism Is Superior To Capitalism

"Communism may be superior, but how can it work? That's what I asked" - The title of this debate is which is superior not how things can work however I will still explain how it can work. My opponent pointed out the Debt that Denmark are in yet there is no mention of the debt America is in which is a far bigger country and way more in debt let alone it is in debt to a "Communist" Country. However with this being the final argument and such I will explain how Communism can work. Also quick note I do not hate Capitalism in fact I see many of it's benefits and understand that it is a great economic theory and idea the same goes for Fascism however the issues with them is that they are very much easier to corrupt than Communism and before people start shouting "STALIN" keep in mind Stalin was actual a great genius and only now in this age are people uncovering how smart Stalin truly was although I still think he was a Tyrant. Firstly, I would like to point out that Socialism and Communism theories and ideas are becoming more and more accepted in society today a good example of this is Bernie Sanders who had a ridiculous amounts of support mainly from younger voters if anything this is a clear sign that the next generations are turning towards Socialism and Communism as the answers to all of Capitalism's problems. Secondly, Con only makes points towards Denmark yet he does not touch Norway, Sweden or Finland, Finland has the best education system in the world along with one of the greatest healthcare systems. However Sweden and Norway do not even come close to Norway which is ranked as the No.1 Socialist country. I stated that Communism will happen as a result of peaceful/violent revolution depending on the country in places like Syria/Kurdistan you have groups like the Lions Of Rojava and outside of warzones and such you have Norway and people like Bernie Sanders who can rally the young people. Thirdly, Alright I think that's enough banter from me now let me explain how it can work. Firstly we need to learn from our mistakes. [e.g. How Stalin took control of Russia] Keep in mind Communism has never failed it still worked under Stalin and Industrialized all of Russia under his control in mere years. However in order to ensure a peaceful reign of Communism we must ensure that Marxism-Leninsim stays in power. Keep in mind no one in the Bolshevik party had heard of Lenin's warnings about Stalin however in this day and age it is much easier to see these things about to happen and even easier to prevent them. Keep in mind the idea of Marxism-Leninism is the idea of a single person people can rally behind and has power however still must listen to his fellow Communist Party. Yes Capitalism is the main power today but for how much longer? With people starting to learn from the past and realize the mistakes the younger populations are starting to turn to Socialism/Communism as a superior answer who sees it's Pros outweigh the cons. Sorry for such a short post I am currently in school and enjoying this debate.
Communism Is Superior To Capitalism

First off I love the fact that Con points out the amount of people killed by Communism but simply glimpses over the amount of people killed under Capitalism. Fun Fact Stalin killed maybe thousands not millions the 27 Million last in WWII were soldiers and if your telling me that he used them ruthlessly then please tell me why you want Hitler to have won WII considering it was Stalin's tactics he knew the cost and had no other choice than to face it. Anyhow Capitalism has killed way more people than Communism here is a small list of things that Capitalism has thrived from/caused. 1. The Slave Trade 2. Imperialism [Which involved countless deaths of native people African, Aboriginal and Indian] 3. The war in the Middle East 4. The Great Depression. 5. The 2008 Bank Crisis. The list can go on but luckily I have a source that will give us the number of people killed under Capitalism that number is here: 205,000,000 killed Source: http://www.petersaysstuff.com... Now Con has told me to point out how we can achieve Communism but clearly did not see my argument or did not read it. "Now look at Scandinavia mainly Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland all of these are socialist countries however many would argue that they are heading towards peaceful progressing into Communism." These countries have almost achieved the classless society and are becoming more socialist if anything this is the peaceful revolution I was talking about in my first argument. Plenty of Countries today are still happily Communist and many countries have thriving Communist/Socialist Parties so in the long run we will achieve Communism more likely Leninism-Marxism by peaceful progression of the working classes silent revolution or if everything goes to hell a violent uproar. I await Con's response.
Communism Is Superior To Capitalism

Some say Mao Zedong killed between 250 and 300 million people while others say 70-100 million. But how do you know for sure? Who was keeping score? What there is no doubt about is that he was the greatest killer in human history. Stalin follows behind, being estimated to have killed about 30 million. But those who defend Communism, would say forget that, because China and Russia weren't practicing "True" Communism. To an extent, they are correct. But this is the problem. How do you bring about the practice of "True" Communism? It's pointless to debate the theoretical benefits of Communism when you can't offer a vision of how to make it work in reality. In the real world, Communism works like this - During the great famine of the 1990s, between 600,000 and 2.5 million people died of hunger. According to the commission"s report, the North Korean regime, then headed by Kim Jong-il, obstructed the delivery of aid to the hungriest regions until 1997, and punished those who tried to earn, buy, steal or smuggle in enough food to survive. http://www.nytimes.com... It doesn't matter, what flowery picture is painted in theory. It doesn't matter, what the pluses or minuses of Communism vs Capitalism are in theory. World history tells us that Communism, perhaps started with all the best intentions, ultimately leads to Dictatorships. Until Pro can forward a vision of how to keep Communism free of Dictators, his best intentions simply chart a path to hell. This is my challenge to Pro, since there is little point in debating a vision that can never come to pass, first, tell us how do we make this work in the real world?
Communism Is Superior To Capitalism

I will be Pro and will be representing Communism the Philosophical ideology created by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and stating that it is superior to Capitalism. The Con will debate the opposite stating that Communism is in no way superior to Capitalism and will argue against my claims. R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments R3: Counter-Arguments R4: Final Arguments/Points R5: Conclusion Let's try to keep this civil and fun.
the flying spaghetti monster is at least as likely to exist as the Judeo-Christian God

By saying FSM is just like God you are saying that spaghetti is eternal and infinite. As far as we know Spaghetti is finite we(humans) can eat it and grow it. The FSM must not be too powerful because we can eat it. FSM is a physical being it must be or else it wouldn't be made of of spaghetti something that is physical. The FSM also must not be all powerful because it is made out of something that has limits. The FSM cant be limitless or cannot be comprehended because someone saw it one time in its full glory and not only lived to tell the tale but comprehended the creature enough to know it was made out of spaghetti. For this to be true the spaghetti Monster one would have to be in the prescients of a sinner which is something a a most holy and absolutely Good God can not do( which means the FSM is not God) and second a person must of fully comprehended him to know he was made out of spaghetti God is a spirit so he is not made out of something and most likely does not have a physical body.But the spaghetti monster is omnipotent; it can do anything including everything you wrote above. What's most likely is that the flying spaghetti monster was where people got the idea for spaghetti; it was a way to worship it but they forgot about the monster over time.There is no historical record of the FSM being sighted or of anyone else say that the FSM existed before Bobby Henderson first used the name Flying Spaghetti Monster.There is also no document to base any of arguments for the FSM existence.There actually IS a document for the FSM similar to the bible:http://kosciol-spaghetti.pl... It's the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster.So Basically for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as likely to exist as God they have to share the same apptributes which they do not. And I have just shown they do.
the flying spaghetti monster is at least as likely to exist as the Judeo-Christian God

By saying FSM is just like God you are saying that spaghetti is eternal and infinite. As far as we know Spaghetti is finite we(humans) can eat it and grow it. The FSM must not be too powerful because we can eat it. FSM is a physical being it must be or else it wouldn't be made of of spaghetti something that is physical. The FSM also must not be all powerful because it is made out of something that has limits. The FSM cant be limitless or cannot be comprehended because someone saw it one time in its full glory and not only lived to tell the tale but comprehended the creature enough to know it was made out of spaghetti. For this to be true the spaghetti Monster one would have to be in the prescients of a sinner which is something a a most holy and absolutely Good God can not do( which means the FSM is not God) and second a person must of fully comprehended him to know he was made out of spaghetti God is a spirit so he is not made out of something and most likely does not have a physical body. There is no historical record of the FSM being sighted or of anyone else say that the FSM existed before Bobby Henderson first used the name Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is also no document to base any of arguments for the FSM existence. The Bible is a historically accurate and truthful document(I will explain and give proof to my statement in my next argument) So Basically for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as likely to exist as God they have to share the same apptributes which they do not. So the FSM argument is flawed from the beginning. Basically the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not the same as God because some of the FSM abtrubuts
the flying spaghetti monster is at least as likely to exist as the Judeo-Christian God

BelivedThese are the contrasts between Belief in God and Belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Belief in the God (1) Prevalent among all people of all times. Atheism is rare even atheists admit this. (2) There are many sophisticated philosophical arguments for Gods Existence (3) The Christian God is a coherent explanation for why something exists rather then nothing why knowledge is prescriptive and universal why morality is objective and why religion is ubiquitous. (5) Belief in God is rationally satisfying. Belief in the flying Spaghetti Monster (1) Believed by no one. Even the so-called advocate for the FSM do not rally believe it exists. (2) There are no technical philosophical arguments for the FSM actually there are no technical arguments of any kind for the FSM (3) even those who sarcastically espouse that the FSM exists don't really believe that the FSM exist nor do they think the FSM a coherent explanation for finite contingents being logic morality beauty ect. (4) No one rally believes in the FSM but if they did it would not be rationally satisfying. Belief in God is rational and supported by good reason plus a written historical document to go by (The Bible) and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrational and not supported by any good reason. Bobby Henderson simply begs the question( comments the logical fallacy) when he says there are no good reasons to believe in God. Despite his claim to the contrary Christianity is a rationally defensible religion and not a blind faith. Source Got Questions.org artical How is the (3) even those who sarcastically espouse that the FSM exist don't really believe that the FSM exists nor do they think FSM is a coherent
the flying spaghetti monster is at least as likely to exist as the Judeo-Christian God

Your so called gospel of the FSM most reasent copyright was in 2006 while the Bible is over 2000 years old. The Gospel of the FSM has pictures of a cheep cartoon FSM stamped on real historical photos plus Bobby Henderson wrote the Book and if he Really is a prophet of the FSM then why is he the first and only one who knows about the FSM
The Earth is a mess and needs volunteers

Well since you have forfeited the last round you have given me an echo chamber and it hasn't really been much of a debate. I'll just build on what I have been saying before then. Since I've argued that the earth is not a mess, and within this "debate" I've done so successfully as my argument hasn't been countered, your original argument is wrong. And with less incentive to drive our technology forward, we are therefore less incentivized to come up with technology that is more efficient, less polluting and cheaper than our current technology. So there goes your other point about "volunteering ourselves to care less about technology". And no matter how weak or strong my arguments are, they haven't been countered. I win by default.
The Earth is a mess and needs volunteers

Well since you have forfeited this round, I'll assume everything I said in the previous round is valid as it hasn't been countered. Since the earth is not a mess, we don't need volunteers to clean it up; it's already clean by the human standard. You can't clean up a non-mess. I should add a second point: volunteering to cut down on our consumerist mentality is bad for the economy. Having a demand for the newest and greatest technology is the incentive that drives the scientists and engineers to invent it. If people decided that they didn't want faster phones and more impressive technologies, then there would be less incentive to drive our technology forward.
The Earth is a mess and needs volunteers

Hi, I will take you up on this challenge. The earth is not a mess and does not need volunteers. Since this is our planet we can do with it as we see fit. If we do not think it is a mess, there is no need to clean it up. In fact this is the mindset we have when we mass produce disposable products. Until we can measure and confirm that we are in fact polluting the planet or harming it in a way that will also harm us, then we do not need to react. Volunteers are not the best at widespread impact. Independent volunteer activism is not as powerful as a large oil corporation for example, that has much more economic power than any volunteer group. Large corporations would be better suited to large scale activism than volunteers ever would be.
Suicide is selfish

I had a friend who commited suicide, and i have friends who have considered it. I have never thought of my friends as selfish for it, though. I feel horrible that they got to such a dark place, and i didn't help. This is what most people feel when their family or friend commits suicide. There is no way to measure how bad things get for a person. Some people don't realize that people actually care about them. Some people feel completely unwanted, even if it isn't true.
Suicide is selfish

Suicide is not selfish. Not all of people's depression can be talked out, or stopped. If you are cyber-bullied, or seen as an outcast, there is really nothing teachers can do to help. Some people want so desperately to escape that they kill them self. Other people are too overcome by fear or anxiety. Some people have severe depression or anxiety disorders, and it is a lot harder to help them. Suicide is sad for those close to the person, but it is not selfish, because the person never really killed them self. The fear, anxiety, or depression killed the person. Those who say it is selfish have never been as depressed as people who consider suicide.
An objective morality can be discerned

Okay, this is my first debate on this website, so bear with me. I wish to debate whether or not an objective morality can be discerned. Obviously, I will be outlining exactly how I believe this morality can be discerned, and my opponent will counter this (taking a nihilistic or relativistic stance). Here is how the debate will be structured: 1. Definitions/presupposition(s) and agreement upon said definitions/presupposition(s) 2. Opening arguments (no rebuttals) 3&4. Rebuttals, arguments, wisecracks and whatever else. 5. Closing arguments (stating whatever one believes still stands, despite rebuttals) Definitions: Objective - That which is based on shared reality rather than on internal affairs. That which is objective is not influenced by emotions. Morality - Principles concerning the nature of right and wrong. Presuppositions that I'm making: That reality is in fact shared in some sense, and, as a result, principles regarding the nature of reality can be discerned. That humans evolved, just like every other animal on the planet.
An objective morality can be discerned

Thank you Con for the debate. As the final round is for closing, I won't be rebutting what Con has said. Instead, I'll be restating why I think that my argument still stands. Con should do the same. My initial argument, as far as I can tell, still fully stands. I'll restate it here in diluted form: 1. Morality is a naturally occurring, ecological phenomena. 2. Morality's purpose can be discerned through many different means, either by observing convergence across social species, observing patterns through human history, looking at the morality of primitive/hunter-gatherer "societies", observing the consilience of various religious/legal traditions, whatever. 3. The purpose of morality can then be used to form various natural "pillars" upon which one can build an adaptive, objective, consequentialist morality. 4. Through my own study, I have found the purpose of morality to be to maintain group cohesion (for the the deeper purpose of human survival). I have found the pillars to be altruism, reciprocity and cooperation, though I'm sure there are more pillars that are currently escaping me. 5. One can then measure, objectively, various actions through this lens. 6. One needs to define this morality and apply it because humans have escaped (in some sense) natural selection. Our inbuilt, natural morality wasn't meant to deal with macro-level/societal issues. 7. Since the purpose of morality is survival, and nature has demonstrated, through millions and millions of years of selection, precisely what type of morality works for that, we should heed nature and apply the pillars nature has set even further. This is without even mentioning the practicality of this, as humans were "built" to apply this form of natural morality, so applying it further would be substantially easier than trying to create a new form of morality from the ground up. Not to mention humans have yet to be capable of matching natural complexity through technology. Simple! I have provided many sources which support this argument. Con has presented the moral philosophy of relativism, where any action is moral or immoral according to the culture within which it occurs. I believe that I have sufficiently argued against Con's stance. Again, thank you, Con, for the debate. Please, do recall that this portion of the debate should simply be used to state why you believe your argument still stands. No rebuttals.
An objective morality can be discerned

I did not mean to imply that morality is only man's. There are certainly other social species, lions for example. I simply meant that human morality is man-made. Lion morality is lion-made. 1. In what way does relativism disregard the natural origin of humanity? 2. I think your point about flaying babies is probably the most invalid. The one word refutation is, of course, religion. Rabbis have been flaying the genitalia of newborns since the days of old (the old testament of course :D). In their communities they consider this a good thing. There are people who agree with this morality, and those who argue against it. I don't see the point in your argument about peanut butter or jumping jacks... So what? What if eating peanut butter is moral? How can you possible discern whether or not an objective morality would define the morality of eating peanut butter? There is an infinite multiplication of moral points that could be made on any subject which could be said to argue that even a biased morality cannot be discerned. For example, say that you outlined your entire morality. This includes whether or not eating peanut butter is moral. The question can then be asked: Is the morality of eating peanut butter moral? You see, there is an infinite complication of moral rationalizations that would have to be decided before a true complete morality can be discerned. From now on I will assume that this debate is about the THEORETICAL discerning of an objective morality, in which an infinite number of moral rationalizations could be worked out (this is not possible realistically). To address your third issue, I was using Kant's Categorical Imperative as an example of yet another morality that is not necessarily objective, but is a morality nonetheless. Just because some people think that they should act in such a way as Kant's imperative dictates, it does not make it objective. Murder is not justified under a system that follows Kant's imperative, but it is justified under a different set of morals that are those of the murderers and other criminals of Johannesburg. To some, the life of crime is necessary to their survival. That is irrefutable... In an economically starved city such as Detroit, there are more criminals because they need to support themselves and their families. I do not imply that rape and torture and murder are appropriate, but that anything, including murder rape and torture, are moral under the proper circumstances. Questions arise such as this: Would you push someone in front of a train to save the lives of 10? In this case, morality is questioned. What would an objective morality say about this? Which is better? To condemn the 10 lives, or to murder the one? Because it is impossible to be objective about a question such as this, an objective morality cannot be discerned. When I said "nearly-generic" morality I was referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which outlines rights that each person is born with. Sorry that all of my arguments have been rebuttals... This is my second debate and I started the first two at the same time. :/