BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitalism

Unfortunately my opponent had to skip the last round, so here I'll just give a brief re-cap of the debate. Pro's main arguments were that capitalism works, and works best without interference from the government. He also notes that capitalism is the best method at keeping society productive. To illustrate these points, he cites the U.S. has a prime example of capitalism at its best, making it one of the most successful nations in the world. In response, I gave a plethora of examples proving that the U.S. has been far from capitalistic since its inception. From instilling tarriffs which helped develop the American economy during the Indutrial Revolution, to large government subsidies helping fuel and sustain the economy during WWII, even to present day regarding quotas we impose on other countries, our government and the market have been intricately interwoven making the market (and American success) what it is today. Further, other nations that have implemented less than capitalistic policies have been even more successful or have demonstrated large turn-arounds in their economies thanks to government interference. In short, it's completely untrue that the U.S. has economy has been left to its own devices, and in reality we have intervention to blame for a lot of our eminence. Additionally, I have demonstrated that profit should not be the sole considering factor of business (under U.S. law - it is), and unfortunately Pro was unable to respond to my questioning regarding what *should* matter or be considered in corporate decision making. With the motive strictly being profit, there is no insurance for the community, environment or even other businesses that may be affected. In relying on the market to resolve its own issues, you're basically deferring morality to dollars: whoever can afford to prevails. A true community representation cannot be determined via the market, because in America the top 1% owns more than 90% of the combined wealth of others [1] -- and worse, 2% of the world owns 50% of the world's wealth [2]! In conclusion, I have proven that government intervention in the market helps grow and maintain successful economies (via historic and economic facts), and that regulating our economy helps ensure society is protected from corporate greed which solely values profit - even at others' expense. I fail to see how capitalism was described as being the most superior economic standard considering repercussions on both the economy and society in general. Thanks for the great debate, Rob, and good luck :) [1] http://afgen.com... [2] http://shell.windows.com...
Capitalism

My first debate in a very long time. I would like to keep the character limit at 4k if we could for readability and increasing participation in voting. The first two contentions are theoretical while the last one is practical. You can criticize the system we live by, but *** 1) We have this system for a good reason: it works. It has been nothing short of miraculous for 70 years straight in the US and the US has been and will be the best place to live in the world for the foreseeable future. Criticizing capitalism necessarily means that you have a better way to run the country than we do now. The problem is, no other way has been shown to work as good as capitalism in the real world. An American criticizing capitalism is like a Saints fan criticizing the franchise at this time. Like, WTF FOR?!? *** 2) Capitalism is the most benign method to keep everyone in society productive. How else do we keep everyone contributing? Without capitalism, we would have to either force people to work arbitrarily or provide for them regardless of whether they contribute. We could use some other motivator besides currency but this would add unnecessary complexity to the system and likely reduce efficiency and practicality. All of these are clearly inferior to letting people just choose what they want to do and let the people who interact with them give them their worth in return with currency because currency is the simplest way to exchange worth. *** 3) Capitalism works best without interference. Regulations usually only interfere with the efficiency of the system. Take the BP oil spill, for example. BP should have unlimited liability for the clean-up, but it doesn't. Why? Because the government has stepped in and disrupted the market. If we simply made businesses sue-able for damages they inflict (clean-up of environmental disasters) then they would have understood prior to the disaster that they hold unlimited liability for the clean-up. They would have certainly been much more careful about causing a disaster in that situation and it may not have even happened. But with regulations, they can afford to be sloppy sometimes. There are always bail-outs for businesses that are too big to fail, after all, and the US gov't seems all too quick to declare caps to how much BP is liable for. The free market, therefore, holds the correct alignment of interests.
Women Missionaries Societies--Home Missions--Head

Wheater this argument is directed toward the men or the women votes, we will be judge as either being right or wrong. When our societies decides to cast their votes in an unrighteous manner, it cannot exist. For, God and Jesus judges the righteous and the unrighteous. Pretending we do not understand only indicates our desire to not use a good conscientious. Therefore, church and unchurch defines the bodies. The bodies within the building or the bodies without the building and without the head builder. Being obediance to the faith will not only heal nations, but also women missionaries and home mission societies.
Women Missionaries Societies--Home Missions--Head

After reading that over and over, I can just barely make out a counter argument, but it's not enough to actually count as one and I can only offer so much benefit of the doubt. Because I refuse to forfeit, I will continue. What exactly do you mean by un-church? A non-church? A building that's not a church? So the missionaries should be head of places like Starbucks? That's not a very good idea, the Starbucks company is more powerful than any church by virtue of having more money.
Women Missionaries Societies--Home Missions--Head

Jesus the great king and head of the churches, sit at the right hand of the Father and is second in authority in the Trinity. I am of the mind and opinions that Christ has all powers, touches to some degree, all and every things. He, being to my understanding subject only to his Father and our God. Thus, my position in this argument is that Jesus is the head of the women missions and home missions. The church and the unchurched, not specifically the builders, but the bodies.
Women Missionaries Societies--Home Missions--Head

Onto another debate I suppose, very well. I will, again, use biblical quotes in my argument to show that your religion is against this very idea. 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Just this verse immediately proves my point, but I aim for completeness. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing Here the bible demands women be silent and subservient to men. It doesn't allow women to be the head of anything that a man is apart of, so your idea would go against the very book you live by. Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. My final one and it just repeats what the others say.
Resolved: That Global Warming is a manmade problem.

Ok, so I had an excessive amount of work to do and completely did not have time to post round two. Had my opponent extended arguments or done anything in his last speech he would have easily won the round. But since we both didn't do anything round two/part of round three, this becomes a two round debate and you vote off of these two round. I would also like to urge voters to vote on the debate not on personal opinions. My opponent responds to both of my arguments by basically saying that I'm not showing why humans are the problem. However in my first speech, I link global warming to pollution. Increase in pollution = Increase in temperatures. This was backed up by the article I provided which linked pollution to rise in ocean's temperature. As you can see humans pollute. Pollution causes temperatures to increase. Thus, by the Law of Syllogism, we can clearly see that humans cause temperatures to increase. I believe that with my previous point, I have clearly won this round. However, even if you believe everything my opponent says, there is no way you vote for him.This is because he is trying to disprove global warming not the fact that man caused it. Because the resolution shows that global warming already exist, I have won this round on all levels. Once again, I urge voters to vote on the round and not personal opinion. Thank You
Resolved: That Global Warming is a manmade problem.

Okay, my opponent misinterprets my argument in his Resolution Overview. He claims that I say that global warming does not exist. To the contrary, I do not argue that the climate is getting warmer, I simply argue that it is natural for it to do so. Next, in his first contention he argues that "The study clearly links increase in temperatures over the years to the increased amount of pollution." When in fact, the only evidence shown in the article was that the oceans are getting warmer. CO2 and CH4 the two principle "greenhouse gases" were not clearly shown to be the cause. In his second contention he states that because glaciers are melting, men caused global warming. This makes no logical sense, glaciers would melt regardless of whether men caused it or not, his second contention should not be considered at all. For both of my contentions he simply says that I claim global warming is not a problem, which is false. I merely demonstrate that CO2 and CH4 do not cause global warming, and that current temperature changes are not abnormal when compared to long-term climate change trends.
Resolved: That Global Warming is a manmade problem.

Note to Voters: Take not your own beliefs when voting, vote based on merit of the arguments. Okay, to set the parameters of this debate, my opponent must prove with a preponderance of evidence that men did indeed cause global warming. I must cast a serious doubt that CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases created by industry cause global warming. Also, this is not about the existence of climate change, the earth is warming, the question is why. Contention 1: CO2 is not correlated to temperature change. As shown in graphs by realclimate.org at the end of the last ice age there was a 1000 lag in CO2 and CH4 levels as the heat increased. Other evidence from the EPA shows that in prehistory CO2 levels have dropped as temperatures have increased. The evidence supporting correlation between CO2 and global warming is at best sketchy, and leans more towards completely false. Contention 2: Current Temperatures are not abnormal. According to Ben Lieberman Senior Policy Analyst, Energy and Environment for the Heritage Foundation "But temperatures have risen and fallen many times before that. The Medieval Warm Period (c. 1100-1450) and earlier periods were likely as warm or warmer than the present. The earth was cooling as recently as the period from the 1940s to the 1970s, giving rise to fears of a coming ice age, until temperatures began to increase in the mid-1970s up through the present day." Also, according to EPA data, temperatures rise and fall constantly, our current position is not abnormal compared to the historic trend of rises and falls. Why vote CON? 1. CO2 and CH4 are not correlated to climate change and 2. Current temperatures are not abnormal
America should help in a worldwide extermination of the jewish people

jewish people are responsible for most if not all of wars in modern human history as seen and highlighted with the roschild family banking dynasty which owns nearly every central bank in every country,the only countries that do not have their monetary system controlled by them are north korea,russia,cuba, and iran. And it is appropriate to note that we have very run down relations with these countries because of the influence the roschilds have over our world
America should help in a worldwide extermination of the jewish people

My opponent claims that the Jewish people are responsible for most wars in the Modern Era. This claim, in part, depends on one's definition of "the Jewish people." I would contend that there is a heavy burden upon the Instigator to show evidence of such after a specific group is determined to represent the Jewish people. My opponent makes quite the leap of logic in claiming that nearly every central bank is owned by the Rothschild family (where the very term of central bank would seem to imply government ownership) and that must be relevant to the topic. I would claim that it is not appropriate to note that "we" (perhaps U.S.A.?) have "run-down relations" with North Korea, Russia, Cuba, and Iran. Though I contest that the Rothschild family has little effect on diplomatic relations with aforementioned countries, the hypothesized fact has no bearing on the topic. To be clear, I shall assume we are prefacing the debate upon certain imperatives such as individuals have rights separate from their group-identity, the violation of one's rights greatly weakens the society, and murder must be substantially justified. -A first and unedited response in the spirit of Hurin by the Agonist
The Modal Ontological Argument Is Unsound

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world P5: A maximally great being exists in the actual world C: A maximally great being exists I believe that the argument is unsound. The burden of proof will be shared (my opponent must show the argument sound).
Suicde

Life is really pointless when you figure the world today is actually getting worse wich is only strengthening depression and making it less understandable wich is making more people teally aggrevated and mad and financially screwed and making people make bad decisions and the majority are not drinking or drugs or criminally insane no no the normal are giving up like 4000 a year?!!. And believing in god and doctors and counseling and bitter anger retaliation spite all this does not pay the rent even the normal yup normal people that you would never expect are suicidal so my argument really is with people or about the people who seem to cry or get all upset and make an issue of " why why did they do this it was selfish or i wish i knew he/she was feeling like that or just feeling bad about a friend or relationship or relativrs that killed themselves, well people seem really really concerned after the fact but chose to do nothing to prevent or be supportive and actually help maybe we dont know how?!., maybe a suicidal person is a much more stronger person who knows but telling me or anyone after some one dies like that that they were selfish or dumb or wrong well there dead so whos the stupid one ? Really think about it.no differant when a car breaks down and people hit or kick it and say stupid car out of anger lol really whos the stupid one?!!.
Suicde

I agree with my opponent that it's questionable to label a suicide attempt as self-concerned, because it doesn't have to be. I think what a lot of us fail to remember is that suicide tends to coincide with low self-esteem, and someone with low enough self-esteem may think they're doing the world a favor by committing suicide, making it what some may even consider to be a selfless act, as opposed to a selfish one, but that's beside the point. Life is only pointless if you don't have a point for it, a use for it, but that doesn't make life pointless or useless in itself. Just because you don't know how to use something doesn't mean it's unusable; you just have to learn how to make use of it. A lot of us don't know what to do with our lives. If someone doesn't know what to do, I suggest they look into what needs to be done, and do that. When I lost interest in life, I found interest in the military. I realized dying in the line of duty would be a lot more appreciated than dying in the name of suicide. Why die for a disputable reason when you can die for an indisputably great cause? I don't know why more suicidal individuals don't think of this, with all the ideas they think of. Life is perceptional. If someone perceives life as pointless, that's their perception of life, but it's not the facts of life. The fact is, life has a lot of potential, and you can't define anything with potential as pointless without defining it incorrectly.
Serious relationships are better than just dating

I appolagize for the wait. Unfortunatley i have drafted this at least three times all in which have been erased. RULES: 1. This debate is purely for fun, so both debaters will treat each other with proper respect. 2. This is purely each debaters own opinion, therefore they may argue from whatever standpoint they desire, however, may not use any evidence as hard fact. With that said i will begin. #1- My first point is that having a serious relationship, limits us to a whole world of new people. We are bounded to one person, and one person only. But by just dating, we can be with practically anyone we want. What if your in a serious relationship with some one, and later on you find out that you really don't have all that much in common? Then you have to go through all the heartbreak of splitting up for no reason. See, but if you are just dating, it wouldn't be nearly as bad once you find out you don't have much in common, because you didn't have any committment to that person anyway. Another benefit of that is you won't have to deal with all the drama and stress that comes with a break-up. #2- My second point is friendship. Alot of people know what I'm talking about, when they have got into a serious relation ship with a close friend, which 90% of the time screws things up after the break-up occurs. It is really troubling, when a friendship you have had for a long period of time, is disrupted or ruined because of a relationship. However, you can date a friend all you wish, without worry of having to break-up with that person or lose their frienship. #3- my last point, is that there is alot less stress. When you are in a serious relationship, you are suddenly entitled to do more than you bargained for. The other person has to know pretty much where you are every second of everyday. You have to do extra things, like buy them expensive things for their birthdays, and go with them cloth shopping etc. All in all its just a big hassle you normally wouldn't have to worry about by just dating. Again i would like to thank realist for offering to accept this debate, and i hope it will be fun. -philosophical
What came first, the chicken or the egg

I must say that my opponent does pose a valid argument. There are gaping holes in those arguments though. First, in the dictionary c does come before e but what does that have to do animals and eggs. Those are just letters and these are words that have been long debated. Any argument I have heard does not involve using the order of letters. Its like saying that dinosaurs came first instead of the world because dinosaur starts with a d. Second, I must say that God is a very good answer and I too believe in god, but the theory of god creating animals out of nowhere and there being dinosaurs and caveman contradicts themselves. I can assure there were no chickens on Earth during the dinosaur period because they would have been killed. Third, The egg must hatch the chicken and according to the theory of evolution reptiles aid eggs which gave birth to birds so that same concept would apply to this scenario as well. Lastly, I must say that this a long drawn out debate for hundreds of years and that either side may post a good argument of any kind. I applaud my opponent for finding websites that contain information supported by there own opinions and facts. I however will not use sources (the websites). With this kind of debate which has been deemed an endless parabola of arguing, there will be many good websites that support there side very well, but there is still no actual proof. There are hundreds of websites that say there information and yet, this argument has never come to an end. Sources for this argument would therefore be futile to incorporate in this story.
What came first, the chicken or the egg

Burden of Proof:My opponent, I assume, will be arguing that the egg came before the chicken. I will be arguing that the chicken came before the egg. 1. Looking into a dictionary, we find that the chicken comes before the egg. A dictionary is a book giving information on particular subjects or on a particular class of words, names, or facts, and is usually arranged alphabetically [1]. We are, of course, referring to a common, English dictionary. Looking into the definition of the word "dictionary", we find that a dictionary is arranged alphabetically. The alphabet is the letters of a language in their customary order [2]. Again, we are referring to the English alphabet, which consists of 26 letters. In the English alphabet, the letter "c" comes before the letter "e". All words beginning with "c" will come before all words beginning with "e". As a result, the chicken, technically, came first. 2. The formation of the egg shell relies on a protein found only in chicken's ovaries. As shown by sites [3] [4] [5] and [6], the egg's shell requires a protein. This protein is called ovocleidin (OC-17), and it just so happens to be found only in a chicken's ovaries; therefore, the chicken had to come before the egg, or else a chicken egg could not have been made in the first place. Apparently, the protein is specifically essential in kick-starting crystallisation- the early stages of the creation of a shell. See, the protein coverts calcium carbonate into calcite crystals which make up the shell. Calcite crystals are produced very rapidly by chickens, seeing as they create six grams (0.2oz) of shell every 24 hours. 3. The Bible supports my argument that the chicken came before the egg. The Bible states that God said "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens. " God then blessed them by saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth. " This was in Genesis 1:20-23 [7]. Notice how God created birds (this includes chickens, of course). Moreover, please take notice of how he (I am referring to God as "he" as a reference term) told the birds to multiply on the earth (meaning that they will produce eggs). God created birds first, which caused the birds to produce eggs (this includes the chicken and chicken egg); therefore, the chicken had to come first. Conclusion:I have provided proof that the chicken came before the egg by using the Bible, scientific evidence, and common sense. I await my opponent's rebuttals and arguments and wish him good luck. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] . http://www.msnbc.msn.com...[4] . http://articles.nydailynews.com...[5] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [6] . http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...[7] . http://reasonforhope.org...