BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitalism is responsible for the detrimental effects to human life

I must argue that Capitalism is the source of the harmful and detrimental effects to human life. I present the mode of production system of Capitalism to demonstrate my arguments. ``It is characterized by: the predominance of private ownership of the means of production and exploitation of wage labour, distribution and exchange in a mainly market economy( commodity production), and capital accumulation( production for profit). ``(. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Firstly, all things are exchanged by money in a capitalist society. They are natural resources, raw materials, human labor, land and machinery. They are regarded as commodities. They are bought by capitalists and business managers. They use them to make goods which can be sold on the market. In particular, workers are hired and employed by capitalists. They do not have means of production. They can not live a day without receiving a wage offred by the employer. Therefore, they are controlled and exploited by capitalists as freely as they would. This is one of the source of the harmful and detrimental effects to human life. Secondly, we must keep in mind that ``the overall aim of capitalist production , under competitive pressure, is to maximise net profit income(or realise a net superprofit) as much as possible, through cutting production costs, increasing sales, and monopolization of markets and supply. ``( . http://en.wikipedia.org...) When the business firms face serious recession, the demand for their products decreases and the situation of over-supply emerges. This damages the financial stability of many business companies. Therefore, managers reduce labour-force as much as possible to survive the predicament. This strategy contributes to producing mass unemployment facing many developed countries today. This situation is harmful effects on human life. Many workers are deprived of their hope and dreams for their future. For example, ``the 17-nation Eurozone`s unemployment rate reached the highest level since the creation of the common currency 13 years ago, climbing to 11percent in April as employers slashed 110,000jobs. ``(. http://money.cnn.com...) And ``the unemployment rate in the broder 27-nation area that makes up the European Union rose to 10.3 percent in April, as employers trimmed 102,000jobs from their payrolls. This was the highest EU unemployment rate on records that go back to 2000. ``(. http://money.cnn.com...) That are all for my arguments for Round 2. I am looking forward to reading Con`s arguments for Round 2. Good luck, Con.
Capitalism is responsible for the detrimental effects to human life

DefinitionsMy opponent apparently thinks he can win this debate purely on an abusive definition. This is called semantics, and attempting to win a debate solely on it usually equals a loss. His definition of Capitalism comes from the book The Britannica Guide to Political and Social Movements That Changed the Modern World in Chapter 3: Socialism. The "definition" actually begins with the phrase, "Socialists complain that Capitalism..." thus demonstrating this is not an objective definition, as it stems from the documented bias in the Socialist ideology. [1. http://books.google.com...]I suggest an objective counter definition, given that there have been over twenty comments complaining about your abusive definition,Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. [2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...]Responsible: Being a source or cause. [3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]Detrimental: Causing damage or harm; injurious. [4. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]Effect: Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result. [5. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]Burden of ProofMy opponent has the burden of proof to demonstrate that Capitalism is the source of the harmful effects to human life. This means establishing a causal mechanism to get from Capitalism to the effect. If no such causal mechanism is described, we have no way of differentiating Capitalism from any other cause, reducing such a resolutional claim to a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. The use of "the" in the resolution indicates that 'all of the detrimental effects' are attributable to Capitalism. Surely this is not what my opponent means and it would be impossible to prove, yet that is the construed meaning until he clarifies.I will argue the Con side through rebutting my opponent's claims, demonstrating the true origin of such detrimental effects, and establishing what true Capitalism is.Last ThoughtsMy opponent went against the format by making arguments in his first round. I ask that those arguments be disregarded, as round one is for definitions, acceptance, and setting parameters for the debate.Now that we have that settled, I look forward to an enlightening debate. Good luck, Pro! :D
Capitalism is responsible for the detrimental effects to human life

Round 2 is arguments. Round 3 is arguments and rebuttal. Round 4 is rebuttal and conclusion. These days many people in the capitalist countries face loss of job opportunity. Moreover, the stability of human life and the dignity of human beings are being threatened. Capitalism is responsible for those predicaments. I define the capitalism as follows: ``Capitalism leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition - people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. `` ( . http://www.britannica.com...) It is true that socialism brought about many harmful effects on human life and society during the days of Cold War. However, we must admit that the emergence of the globalization of national economy are damaging on human life in many parts of the world. Therefore, I focus my arguments mainly on this side of the capitalism.
The United States should not have any laws limiting access to guns.

1. Suicide is a human right- so if gun restrictions would make it harder to commit suicide, this would be more reason to not have gun restrictions.2. You already have to have a backround check to buy a gun. 3. You only need a drivers licence to drive a car on public roads, you can still own a car, or even drive it on private land without a liscense. The equivalent would be to prohibit people from firing guns on government property- which is already illegal, and reasonable.
The United States should not have any laws limiting access to guns.

"It's already illegal for felons to own guns- any further laws wouldn't have any effect."And as I said, suicides by gun would be reduced. I'm not just talking about felons.Also as I said, felons can walk into a gun store and buy a gun without a background check."(My opponent suggests mandatory gun licensing,) which would treat people as if they were guilty until proven innocent, (i.e., you have to prove that you are responsible before they let you buy a gun), which is contrary to our Constitution- you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty."It is true that we are innocent until proven guilty in court. However, in practice, we do contrary things quite often. For example, you are also required to get driving licenses (effectively meaning that you have to prove responsibility before driving a car)."The Center For Disease Control doesn't hae any juristiction in the area of firearms, and my oponent sourced a blog instead of the CDC. His other sources are also incredible bloggs."The Violence Policy Center is not a blog.My other sources were blogs, one of which I had doubts about.My CDC link was from a factcheck.org post, but it is possible that they got it wrong.For a long time, the CDC actually did do research on gun laws.
The United States should not have any laws limiting access to guns.

1. It's already illegal for felons to own guns- any further laws wouldn't have any effect.2. My opponent says:"I am not proposing a ban on guns - I am proposing that people be required to undergo thorough training and a background check prior to obtaining them. This means judging their guilt (and also avoiding potential accidental manslaughter)."Which would treat people as if they were guilty until proven innocent, (i.e., you have to prove that you are responsible before they let you buy a gun), which is contrary to our Constitution- you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. 3. The Center For Disease Control doesn't hae any juristiction in the area of firearms, and my oponent sourced a blog instead of the CDC. His other sources are also incredible bloggs.
The United States should not have any laws limiting access to guns.

"First, 77% of crimes committed in America are do(n)e by those with prior criminal record, {1} and it is already illegal for felons to own guns- so banning everyone else from having guns will have no effect on the demographic which accounts for the majority of the crimes my opponent says such a ban would prevent. It's like if I said that my neighbor Bob might kill his wife (despite having no reason to believe this), so I tie up and disarm Bob's wife- it makes no sense."I have some doubts about your source here - it has a slant to the libertarian right - but it does seem credible.Also, first-time offenses, suicide, and accidental manslaughter are not affected.Finally, a national license and background check requirement would prevent repeat offenders from obtaining illegal guns from legal shops which do not perform these checks."Second, under our legal system, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty- and banning people from owning guns because they might misuse ther guns violates this principle."I am not proposing a ban on guns - I am proposing that people be required to undergo thorough training and a background check prior to obtaining them. This means judging their guilt (and also avoiding potential accidental manslaughter)"Third of all, my opponents sources are very unreliable- the first is in the opinion section, and the second is not a study, but a blogger who purposely falsified and cherrypicked data from an FBI report, and wikipedia. "My LA Times article did cite one study regarding this, so it cannot be entirely dismissed.There are other sources that could be mentioned as well.CDC data shows that states with poor gun legislation have high homicide rates - http://smartgunlaws.org...2000 terror suspects buy guns in a year (autoplay warning) - http://www.nydailynews.com...Gun owners are likely to use guns in violent crime http://www.vpc.org...
The United States should not have any laws limiting access to guns.

My oppoent has argued that the government should restrict the right to bear arms because this would make it harder for potential criminals to commit crimes. This argument is completely nonsensical for 3 reasons:First, 77% of crimes committed in America are doe by those with prior criminal record, {1} and it is already illegal for felons to own guns- so banning everyone else from having guns will have no effect on the demographic which accounts for the majority of the crimes my opponent says such a ban would prevent. It's like if I said that my neighbor Bob might kill his wife (despite having no reason to believe this), so I tie up and disarm Bob's wife- it makes no sense. Second, under our legal system, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty- and banning people from owning guns because they might misuse ther guns violates this principle. 30 times as many people die from obesity as do from gun violence every year, yet we don't ban fast food. {2}Third of all, my opponents sources are very unreliable- the first is in the opinion section, and the second is not a study, but a blogger who purposely falsified and cherrypicked data from an FBI report, and wikipedia. {1}. http://www.crimeinamerica.net...{2}. http://www.rightdiagnosis.com...
The United States should not have any laws limiting access to guns.

I argue for gun control(ie requiring a license to own a gun), Pro argues for the motionSeveral studies show that pro-gun legislation increases crime.Open carry laws increase crime - http://feeds.latimes.com...Another study shows: "The overall homicide rate, among the metro areas whose principal city is in a state that requires some form of permit to purchase a gun, is 4.32 per 100,000 residents, compared with 5.74 among cities in no-permit states. This certainly does not confirm the gun control = higher violent crime hypothesis. Quite the opposite." http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Gun control decreases crime by making gun access harder and thus reducing the ability to commit violent crime.
Rap battle

You just need to chill alright? I didn't think anyone under 10 was allowed on this site That whole last verse of yours was out of spite Because you still think swine is spelled with two e's How can you stand up when you're always on your knees? You would probably vote for Kanye in 2020 I am the pinnacle of success I am better than the rest Come on man here I'll put you to the test If you still think you can win after this the audience probably just feels bad for that lisp A pinch of Copenhagen is too much for you to handle Skoal Berry blend pouches go pretty good with those socks and sandals What is this Scandal? Are you trying to pull a fast one on me? Well surely I am simply one hell of a Butler You're bleeding from your wrists cause you're a cutter My verse might be short but its better than yours sorry I'm a real man so I have to go do some farm chores
Rap battle

Well i got the shittty rap of yours, Well thy were fucckking and immature. I assume u hv never used debate.org as it does not allow slanng words, I am not like u,- a fucckking nerd. Man slow down there, Lol ur buttt is a complete sphere. I dnt hv mental issues Cause people like you do sentimental misuse. I said already insults can be given here Or u were busy in fucckking there. You think people are gonna vote u Man,its not a single % true. U aint no rap god I m gonna wind ur asss with a rod. Shittty old tale says that tit for tat Man u are biggest braaat. I am a straight forward man, yes i am Helll u have a crore of internet scams. You are roasted like popcorn Shitt,you are even associated with pornn??!!!??!!! I am gonna rap with you till my last drop of sweat of mine You wouldnt last that long you swinee. Well talking waffle I think you had enough In round 3 its gonna get more shittty rough. Thnx;)
Rap battle

What's my name? hold on I'll tell you My waffles are tasty and yours are blue Spitting rhymes is what I do Have you ever heard of spell check? I lied I don't spit I slit, your neck You'll be dreaming and bleeding your rhymes are misleading cause you say you'll win with immature little curse words I'll cut off your nuts and fry them into cheese curds I'm already in Hell and guess what I'm the devil Even when you stand straight up you still ain't on my level You can try to rap back in round three but these debatees will still vote for me And what's with all of these insults about my mommy? Looks like someone has some issues It also looks like you're all out of tissues cause they are all crusty sort of like how your rhymes are crusty
Rap battle

Lets do it. . . . . Hey you what the hell is ur name, Rapping isnt a game. U cnt stnd in frnt of me, Cause i will make u pee. Talking waffle does only fucckking gaffle, U made a mistake accepting it, cause u didnt ever suckk tiitts. Is ur name tommy cause u will run away to mommy, Man give ur mouth a stitch cause ur jst a fucckkin bittch. Dnt tke it seriously as it is a rap, Not some biological cell sap. I dont know how to tell Ok jst go to helll. Now u will start some mumbo jumbo, cause ur the biggest shitty dumbo. I will whip ur asss with a wrench, And u will become some old shititty french. Now now Dont go too far, ur mom will be worried But she doesnt know that u hv porrn completely studied I assume i hv made u mute, Man ur gf's buttt is really really cute Now i will rap the rest in round two Man i am telling it to u, Fuuucccckkkk yooouuuuuu. Thnx ;)
The World Would Be A Better Place Without Relegion

Islamic Jihadist - Have killed tens of thousands in the past 12 centuries because they do not share their ideology. Modern day, look at isis.. convert or be killed. Aztec's - 20,000 human sacrifices a year to please their gods. Catholic crusades - 500,000 + killed. Salem Witch Hysteria - 12 killed over religious nonsense. 30' years war - 800,000 killed. lets not lie to each other, Adolf Hitler was a baptized catholic who killed 6 million jewish people because they were.. Jewish. The pilots of 9/11 did what they did for allah and 20+ virgins. Atheist make up 0.07% of the federal prison population, catholics 24%, protestant 28%, muslim 5% it is irrefutable that religion has played a role in a vast majority of warfare in human history. It serves as yet another thing that divides us.
Professional Athletes Are Overpaid

My opponent mainly comes from a market standpoint, Since they bring in a large amount of money, they are justified in being payed the amount the amount they receive. Let's analyze this theory. Let's say that from the money the school receives, 10% is used on maintenance and essential supplies, while 90% is used to pay the workers. If this was the case teachers would be making a reasonable amount of money. But the school itself would not be up to par. Education would decline, etc. Now let's swap this into a situation that is really happening. Now let's say the teachers are athletes, and the school is the economy of the country. Athletes are paid way over what they could spend while our economy continues to plunge. It is not logical in an economic instance to pay people who only provide a vanity service way more than what they can even spend. My opponent again brings in the teacher argument. However he again misconstrues what i was implying. I wasn't advocating for teachers to get paid more, i was just stating that the service that an athlete contribute is no more than entertainment, while other jobs that actually have a huge impact on our society don't receive such a generous compensation. I would now like to address his argument on "Billions of dollars in revenue are generated by the sport. ." Before i address this however i would like to point out that since this is a new argument in the final round, it should be disregarded completely. However i will still refute it. I would also like to point out that this is a vague statement. He doesn't address what sport, or X amount of billions. No statistical or evidential bearings. He also agrees that he didn't attack my definition but stated that, "$750,000 per year is more than enough for 7 families to live off of. With that being said, it appears that my opponent's definition of overpaid averages to anyone who has a family that earns over $107,000 per year. According to the census bureau, 21.8% of families make over $100,000 per year. Does this mean that all of those families are overpaid or only those who worked in the entertainment industry? " Since my opponent already conceded my definition, this new argument should have no bearings on how the round is judged. And to be technical, what if i say yes? What if i agree that people who make over 107,000 annually are overpaid? He still hasn't refuted my definition, therefore meeting his burden has already become improbable. It is for these reasons i must affirm the resolution.
Professional Athletes Are Overpaid

I thank the con for posting his response. I will begin by attacking his case then providing some more key arguments. My opponent's main point in his response is that since there is a much smaller amount of athletes, we are justified in paying them that much, compared to the millions of teachers we have. However, does this justify why they get payed so much? I understand why we shouldn't double every teachers salary. But why is it justified to pay athletes who's jobs are based solely on entertainment and not more important pursuits such as teaching our next generations? Why must millions of dollars be subjected to vanity spending while none of it goes to more important matters? Such as finding a new energy resources or funding health care. If we just payed all of these athletes around 150,000 annually instead of 5 to 10 times that. They would still have a surplus to spend regardless. As you can see my opponent never attempted to refute my definition of "Overpaid" so we can already see how my case stands more firmly. Also since the only thing we are arguing is that athletes are or are not overpaid as the resolution implies. My opponent has clearly not met his burden of clash. One more thing i would like to recap on is how much athletes make. When i offered the claim that they make around 750,000 dollars. I'm referring to people who are alternates, or sit on the bench or dugout most of the game. They make 7 times more than a doctor by sitting down. Now from a generalization of the term overpaid, anyone would easily say that is way too much for what they actually contribute. In the end is it really healthy for our economy by just pumping money for people who do no more than show up to practice? I now give it to the con.
Professional Athletes Are Overpaid

According to . http://www.census.gov..., which uses 2008 census figures, there are 7.2 million teachers in the United States. Although salaries vary by state, the average salary for a teacher is approximately $46,000. According to CBS Sports, which uses figures gathered by the Associated Press, the average salary for a MLB players is $3,305,393. MLB is a $6,100,000,000 per year industry (. http://blogs.forbes.com...) The 2011 league minimum is $414,500 with the highest paid players making in excess of $15,000,000 per year. By simply looking at the disparity one can make the assumption that MLB players are indeed overpaid. Although many players are from outside of the U. S. A. , I will use U. S. census figures to make my point. There are over 310 million people in the U. S. (. http://www.usnews.com...) However, consider that a MLB regular roster consists of 25 players per team for a total of 750 players. Even when the rosters are expanded towards the end of the year we're looking at a total of 1200 players in the entire league. That is 1200 people out of 310+ million as compared to teachers that represent a figure of 7.2 million out of 310+ million. MLB is a private industry where it takes lots of money in order to attract the top talent within a limited pool of talent in which owners have to choose from. If there were only 1200 people in the entire country who were capable to teaching what would teachers earn? The questions as to whether professional athletes are overpaid has more to do with economics than it does with basic living cost.