BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Libertarianism

My first argument will be an example.Imagine there is a lake with 20 fish in it. There are 4 fishermen. They have two years to catch the fish in the lake. The first year the fish will be worth 1 dollar each, the second year it will be 2 dollars. What do you think will happen?The first year the lake will be untouched. The second year the four fishermen will try to catch as much fish as fast as they can, leaving the lake completely empty. The fisherman with the most starting money, the biggest boat and the most advanced equipment will catch 15 fish, leaving the remaining 5 to the lesser fishermen. The rich fisherman is now even richer, while the other 3 are left with nothing.Now compare this with a new scenario. The same 4 fishermen but now each has his own little pond with 4 fish in it, belonging to them. There will be 4 fish left in the lake. The first year, when the fish are worth 1 dollar, one might grab a few, and the second year the fish might be gone. But after that, each fishermen has 4 fish of his own to sell. Each fisherman now has 8 dollars, one or more might have caught the remaining 4 so they have more. But now each fisherman has 8 dollars to buy food for his family.The first scenario is libertarianism. The scenario where the government doesn't care about the economy. Here the fisherman with the most advanced equipment will take everything and the remaining three will starve. The second scenario is what you might call a socialist state, where the wealth is divided but there's still room for competition.If you apply these scenarios to a larger scale you will see the huge differences. The first scenario would be the US of A. Notice how the differences in wealth are huge because of lack of government interference. The second scenario would be Holland for example. Where the government plays a role in the economy to make sure everybody gets a slice.Compare these two scenarios yourself and decide which one you would like to live in as an average citizen.
Libertarianism

I will argue that libertarianism is not beneficial to a society.LibertarianismA set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. Government keeps economical and social interference to a minimum.Not beneficialDoes not have a good effect [on the society].No semantics, first round acceptance.I ask the voters to vote based on who won the debate not on your personal beliefs (because then I'd be screwed).
Should we let black people handle their dirty work

My Opponent uttered the ridiculous words " I'm sure you can take solace in knowing that every time you're at a traffic light understand that the very people whom you've demonized as inferior, a black man had designed the very traffic light you have to obey.....How ironic." Which is utterly retarded because if you have actually seen pictures of the "first traffic light" it looked more like an cross than an actual traffic light, and since nobody uses that kind of bullcrap invention, and nobody gives two sh"ts about that monkey garrett morgan so it is an irrelevant point. Any infant can draw up something and it can be built, hell my coworkers 3 year old son drew up the idea for a core processor which could reduce data lag in microchips by over 25%, and this was in 1980. Hiu also had to audacity to mention something dumb as well pointing out that "According to one source colonialism was one of the many causes of devastations of various ethnic people" First of all, this just shows that whites are superior to other ethnic groups, because we are colonizing their territory and not vice versa. Also indians are irrelevant and dirtmonkeys in todays society. The government doesn't care about those mojenjotawokicherokeewapanoag motherfuckers. This autistic being also tried to counter my point of crime rates in black scum neighborhoods but just pointed to statistics showing that 94% of black people were killed by blacks, WHICH PROVES MY POINT. (A bad thing about this is that only 6% of blacks are being killed by whites *sad face*) Again my opponent just gives evidence proving my point, that black people are unqualified to the jobs when he said that " White names triggered a callback rate that was 50% higher than that of equally qualified black applicants." and "their study indicated that improving the qualifications of applicants benefited white applicants but not blacks, thus leading to a wider racial gap in response rates for those with higher skill." Cleary I am better than him Also yes I am a proponent of genocide for animals, its called extinction. Check here for my debate on the genocide of pigs: http://www.debate.org...
Should we let black people handle their dirty work

First of all, you sure have guts calling me a damn monkey. All whites are HUMANS I don't think you understand. We are different from monkeys the same way sharks are different from fish. Furthermore, whatever scum you pointed out was basically irrelevant, any white person could have done the same. Us HUMANS have actually done the contributing to society, and even if you sum up all of the "good things" the "good" monkeys have done, it is far outweighed by the destruction and disorder these barbaric dark skinned animals bring to our society. Where are crime rates highest? Yup. Black Scum Neighborhoods. Who kills the most percentage wise? Yup. The monkeys. Who has the lowest income per-capita? You guessed it. Those ex-slave stable bucks. They would be better off in camps a-la Hitler or executed, and as President-elect Donald Trump said "What do you have to lose?" When dealing with exterminating monkeys... nothing
Should we let black people handle their dirty work

It is quite clear that my opponent has a strong disdain for Africans/Americans and to why that is, I will not go into detail for the spirit of this debate. But in viewing my opponent's post, he/she failed to clearly define why "blacks need to clear their own dirt." My opponent has clearly failed to define what that "dirt" is. Is it crime? Is it sanitation? My opponent stated: "I wont even drink water if somebody puts they're finger in it, and yet the africans will drink water infested in dirt and hippo hepititus. How do they not die?" Well considering that some of the countries in Africa are in severe poverty, it is not uncommon for the people to be exposed to a lot of bacteria and other microbes that their body grows an immunity, an immunity you and I do not have. This is no different than the advice of travellers going to Mexico and advising people to not drink the water. My opponent stated: ". If you go to their homepage you will see a picture of a chimp instead of a black, but don't be surprised, they are the same thing." I would assume my opponent would consider him/herself a Homo Sapien, and if my opponent concedes that he is a Homo Sapien then my opponent would realize that the closest relative to Homo Sapiens is Homo heidelbergensis who lived in Africa. This species had ape like features and it would be no surprise that at least anatomically we may share some of these features. So like the people my opponent is talking about he too, as a human may share some Gorilla/Chimp-like features as well. My opponent said: "That is beyond the point however, the thing is, blacks are not humans!! You will never see a human being, for example in the US, drink crap like that, but hippos and giraffes do that all the time. This is proof that black people are animals and not humans... Not convinced? Take a look at their homes... Does it look like the modern architecture in the US, Mexico, China, or even Easter Island?" I do not know my opponet's correlation between architecture and the phenotype of blacks but I am trying to determine if my opponent is referring to American blacks or Africans. However I would like to ask my opponent the following question: If blacks are inferior and animalistic how was this black inventor like Garrett Augustus Morgan able to design the first traffic light and gas mask? Surely inferior creatures genetically cannot design such complex things.
Should we let black people handle their dirty work

Hello, I am here to address the issue of blacks (also known as scum, monkeys, niggers, etc.). How do they still exist, since each family only earns 3 cents per day, according to www.cnn.com. 3 cents per day cannot even buy them a camel to hump, but that is the muslims, sorry wrong race. Anyways the impressive part is that they are still alive, i mean they literally have poop-water. I wont even drink water if somebody puts they're finger in it, and yet the africans will drink water infested in dirt and hippo hepititus. How do they not die? The answer to this can be found on www.scienceofafrica.com. If you go to their homepage you will see a picture of a chimp instead of a black, but don't be surprised, they are the same thing. That is beyond the point however, the thing is, blacks are not humans!! You will never see a human being, for example in the US, drink crap like that, but hippos and giraffes do that all the time. This is proof that black people are animals and not humans... Not convinced? Take a look at their homes... Does it look like the modern architecture in the US, Mexico, China, or even Easter Island? No! Blacks aren't sophisticated enough to build structures like this. The things they build resemble an upside down birds nest more then a door. They haven't even invented the wheel yet. I believe that is enough evidence to prove that blacks are animals.
Lies, Cover Ups, and Secrets

Saddle timespace has pi values greater than pi in flat timespace; and, globally bent timespace has pi values less than pi in flat timespace. Gravity, velocity in mechanical engineering, current in electrical engineering, and entropy production rate in thermodynamic engineering, access globally bent timespace. The entropy of the universe has been defined to be the proportion of photons to nucleons, therefore, entropy production rate is polarity cancellation rate. Globally bent timespace doesn't cause gravity; gravity causes globally bent timespace. Harvard University's Dr. Lisa Randall defined that direction through the variously bent timespaces to be the fifth dimension. If we take a Cartesian coordinate system, and have that arch from 3.14159265... on the X axis to 3.14159265... on the Y axis to represent flat timespace, approaching the origin represents, faster and faster polarity cancellation rates. As the rigid orthogonality of flat timespace is left behind, matter gets more and more tenuous, and visually becomes invisible. Fire is a fast polarity cancellation rate. At pi equals 2.718..., and below, all is in flames, and made of flames. From personal experience with fast entropy production rates, globally bent timespaces have been called the "underworld". If "heaven" is in saddle timespace, with its retarded polarity cancellation rate, it is understandable why salvationist religions are so restrictive: to acclimate their members to tolerate the smothering environment of such slow polarity cancellation rates. But, the mathematics suggests that cancellation back into nonexistence is most available in the globally bent timespaces, nonexistence sometimes called "nirvana" in the liberationist religions. Bent timespaces are not that unfamiliar.
Lies, Cover Ups, and Secrets

It is lying. Prominent science magazines explained the effect of LSD, and such seratonin blockers, as caused by increases of the percentage of brain use. Now, after articles about how it is impossible to keep secrets with the internet, and then articles about governmental attempts to punish innocent people for stumblinging into sites with published secrets, these science magazines now are saying that percentage of brain use is a myth. And, there was am MRI lie detector ready to be applied publicly. The article about it said that if the truth were being told there would be one volume of light. If a lie were being told there would be two volumes of light. It got around that if correspondence tables of analogues were memorized then with truth or lie there would be many volumes of light. Then that MRI lie detector was dropped as potentially futile. But, the total volume of these volumes of light didn't exceed 10% of the brain's volume. Ordinarily these globes of light move around all over the brain so that soon all the brain has been used over and over. LSD blocks seratonin the neurotransmitter of the inhibitory neurons that keep the brain down to this 10% brain use. Parasympathetic nervous system stimulation spreads to the brain and overrides these inhibitory neurons thereby increasing the percentage of brain use, like LSD. We live in a multidimensional universe which can be perceived and used with more than 10% brain use. No one, known of, has been able to handle over 50% brain use. All this information was published by Scientific American magazine, and or, Discover Magazine. Now that this knowledge explains the supreme grand secret of the "lodge" publishers have been intimidated into saying that 10% brain use is a myth. The supreme grand secret of the "lodge" can be medically expressed as "Vagal stimulation is as effective as LSD". It is an exasperating disgrace that this knowledge about our own bodies has been so ruthlessly suppressed.
Lies, Cover Ups, and Secrets

Before us today we have a genuine liar. One who will cover up that which is valid and keep secret all that is true. That person is Pro.If these lies, cover ups and secrets were what Pro suggested they are, then they would all have been considered to be true or unknown. Instead, Pro says we know them to be untrue, if someone admits they are lying, they are no longer lying.I also wish to point out that contradicting ideas in a field of study is not 'lying' from a psychological standpoint, it is not deception of any kind rather it is the brain's way of finding the very opposite; the underlying truth. Being skeptical of things such as brain percentage are based on the brain being used for different things at different times. Most tasks only demand a certain percentage of the brain but all of the brain is used just not all at once (this would be very unwise and would potentially render you unconscious form the strain of having to oxygenate the entire brain at once). It's not a lie to say we only use a certain percent of the brain at any time, it's a mistake (not a lie) to think that we don't use different sections, eventually all, of our brain for the overall array of tasks we do on a daily basis including sleep.
Lies, Cover Ups, and Secrets

There are so many lies, cover ups, and secrets. The medical profession has been trying to hide that colloidal silver kills all bacteria, yeasts, molds, and funguses upon contact. Viruses were deliberately synthesized to be immune to glyrhizin, so that the glyrhizin in real licorice would no longer cure all viral diseases. All allergies can be cured by incorporating the beneficial bacteria Bacteriodes Fragilis. People without allergies have Bacteriodes Fragilis. Fast, free, easy weight loss can be caused by the release of thyroxin by pushing on the thyroid gland. The thyroxin is soon reproduced to be used again. Lies are being published saying that percentage of brain use is a myth. But, a brain MRI shows regions of light traveling around the brain which indicate regions of the brain being used, the total volume thereof compared to the volume of the brain being the percentage of brain use. LSD works by blocking seratonin, the neurotransmitter of the brain's inhibitory neurons, which would keep brains down to the normal ten percent brain use. When parasympathetic nerves are stimulated enough that stimulation spreads to the brain, overriding the brain's inhibitory neurons, thereby increasing the percentage of brain use. The largest parasympathetic nerves are the vagus nerves, so that the most suppressed secret in history has been, put in medical terms, "Vagal stimulation is as effective as LSD". Everybody has a natural right to know about their own bodies, yet, in the Twentieth Century twenty five million people were locked up in the mental hospital gulags for having any experience with this fact. That was one quarter of America's population. Benjamin Franklin was a member of a special interest cartel, whose secret this was and still is, therefore, he started the modern mental health system to suppress this secret. Professionally, more than ten percent brain use is called "psychosis", which was an imprisonable offence in America before the Twenty-First Century. They still plan to suppress this secret. When everybody knows, they can't get everybody.
President Trump is strong on fair trade.

Sadly, my opponent has given me nothing to rebut to. His only concern has already been answered in my previous contentions. As follow up, I would like to ask a few points of concern to side Proposition. When you do stop trading with these nations like China and Mexico, how is the US going to sustain itself when (China) it's largest importer is gone? By calling an embargo like for what pro stands for. It is illogical and harmful to America itself to embargo on such trade routes. As I already stated in my previous contentions, which pro ignores. The broader logic behind trading, not to mention many of my opponent's claims are absurd. By embargo Mexico because they have gangs, this is illogical 1. The Mexican government doesn't even support them- you wanna fight the gangs, fight them, that would be contents of another debate. Calling an embargo on them harms America as well. Then you talk about Saudi. Look. Where is America gonna get their oil when you embargo them? How the hell are you going to get the majority of the goods on your shelf when you embargo China? How is America gonna sustain by literally embargoing everybody? Anyways, as my opponent has given me little to rebut to. I'll just end it off here
President Trump is strong on fair trade.

My opponent has already lost this debate. If he did read my previous points of contention I've answered about why we should trade with nations like China, Mexico and so on even though they have violations of the UN charter. He also attempts to tell us that "fair trade will not have negative impacts".... In the next round first of all, my opponent must adress this reso again. He tells us in the first round that oh, no, we're not debating about Trump or fair trade-> He gave me a case full of human rights, and I rebutted that fully. Thus, he must frame this reso once again as he provides no definitions. As that is the situation in today's debate. I'll just assume that we'll be debating the reso written as it is. Whats fraudulent about anything my opponent claims about human rights is not accurate. What he needs to understand is that Trump has little statistics in backing anything he says. When he tells us "we need to start winning again" he doesn't tell us how we're losing when we're turning the biggest profit on China as we've ever been (refer to round 1 source linked in comments). Thus it can be justified that Trump has little understanding and stating his remarks for proof would be statistically incorrect. So then begs the question of the status quo trading system. As I've touched on earlier Trump campaigns is way up by getting the votes of the people who have been lost by globaliziation and the people on the "iron rust belt". He is merely scapegoating the jobs being lost by China. Oh wait, Trump says, I'll lower tax rates so the jobs come back. WRONG. He has been trying this and no single major enterprise is coming back. All he is doing is sacrificing welfare funds for nothing. Thus, actions rise over words. And the quality of something when it comes to macro policy is measured by the effects of it. Countries like China and Mexico's trade has not been reduced at all. For all stated above this motion will fall
President Trump is strong on fair trade.

My opponent attempts an argument about to impose an embargo on member states like Cuba and Mexico he stated. But what my opponent fails to realise are the impacts of such decisions and how they will impact micro and macro economically. I like to remind the house of the motion before us today. "President Trump is strong on fair trade". No. It doesn't matter when it comes to words when there are NO impacts. Look, according to the own executive of office (1). Mexico is currently our 3rd LARGEST trading partner. Right now, what my opponent doesn't realise is that there's $579.7 Billion Dollars of two way trade between these nations last year. Making Mexico America's 3rd largest goods trading partner. So Mexico and the US share a lot of trade. The arguments that our president makes and just mere instances of almost 600 billion dollars of capitol trade. Accidents always happen. And by what my opponent attempts to purpose a "logical" solution to call of trade with this NAFTA partner. When the US has a 18.5 Trillion dollar economy, and Mexican-US trade has almost 600billion tied with it, the effects of an embargo is detrimental. When the US is nearly receiving 300 Billion from Mexican imports (also according to 1). And considering that some top exports from the US includes things like Tech and Furniture and that Mexican trade supplies many of America's cities. My opponent is going to attempt to maker the assertion of that this embargo guarantees more jobs into the US. However, this is foolish for the following reasons: When Mexico and the US are tied within so many deals, its detrimental to the people who depend on Mexican imports and many utilise them daily. Thus, an embargo would be detrimental. Secondly, Pro tells us wait pressuring them will encourage them to improve human rights. No. As universal measurement, lets refer to the UN charter for human rights. What Pro fails to realise is that many nations whom the US trades with violate human rights. Even America's largest importer, China, who totals more that 600 Billion dollars in trade. China has no freedom of speech and it does persecute religion like the Falun Dong. On Con, I've proved how detrimental it is to embargo trade as Pro suggests Thus for the sake of resources and the American people This motion will fall
The death penalty, is it A- Morally Right and B- Logically Right

Considering that there are so many people in the U.S., that one cent adds up to make millions of dollars. Millions of dollars could certainly help scientific research now couldn't it? And what's your source for the crime in countries without death penaltyvs.with death penalty? Americans make up 25% of the world's prisoners http://www.cbn.com... and I believe that the in for life prisoners should be given the death penalty.
The death penalty, is it A- Morally Right and B- Logically Right

If people aren't going to change, then they should be given life, or until someone deems them rehabilitation. And your "Logic" argument is stupid! I think you'll find that US taxpayers pay less than 1 cent per year per prisoner, so your argument is invalid, and may I also remind you of the fact that there is no more crime in countries with the death penalty per pop. per area per year than there is in countries without. And criminals tend to assume that they're not going to get caught!
The death penalty, is it A- Morally Right and B- Logically Right

I am actually a big supporter of rehabilitation, but some people won't change and are too dangerous to be let out into modern society. The murderers, the rapists, the most evil of people can't be allowed back into normal society. I think that killing them is more humane than imprisoning them for life.It's logically right because I think that it is ridiculous that taxpayer dollars are being taken away from scientific institutes that we need, to feed, clothe, and shelter these prisoners.
The death penalty, is it A- Morally Right and B- Logically Right

So your argument is that the death penalty is morally right because it gives people something to look forward to? That's rubbish! The death penalty is literally the definition of morally wrong, the morally right thing to do would be to aim for rehabilitation and not deterrence, hell, it works in Norway, there's barely any crime there, and there's no death penalty, in fact, prisons in Norway are more like holiday resorts. I will explain my, "logically wrong" part next argument. Good luck.