BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitalism Is Bad

My opponent conceded his closing argument to me, as I have little to go on I will simply list some benefits of capitalism. * Carried us out of subsistence farming. * Allows us to become more and more populated, which has not been a problem in reality. * Improve d all of our lives. Compared the average GDP per capita of the USA vs the PRC or other communist countries * Allocates all of our resources in the most efficient way possible. * Is natural, greed and desire to gain wealth are a natural human element. The best way to achieve this is though free market capitalism, in which nobody unfairly gets ahead of anybody else and people have the ability to change * When in comparison to the other systems, capitalism is clearly better. All real communist or socialist countries have failed or are failing due to problems with their own ideology. The only way a socialist country can survive and prosper is trying to allow the free market, capitalism, in.
Capitalism Is Bad

I noticed an odd peculiarity in your rhetoric. You use the near archaic terms Proletarian and bourgeoisie, words I don't remember hearing since my last reading of The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital. I have a feeling this is going to be a debate with a lot of Marxian theory, which should be fun. You make the bold claim that the poor can not benefit from the system of capitalism, and that only the rich can benefit from such a sytem. I beleive this to be absolutely untrue. In fact, everybody benefits from any true system of capitalism- just in different ways. While the rich may enjoy luxuries, so do the poor. In all of the countries I can think of that have at least had some extended period of capitalism (and still have some capitalism left) the poor are afforded great luxuries that the rich of previous years might not even have had. Microwaves, TV's, VCRs, vehicles. The poor are no longer living on the farm worrying about them dying next winter, or understanding that their child will more than likely not live into adulthood, they are in apartments, living quite well than they ever had before. You bring up that there is no reason to value life in the capitalist system. That is not necessarily true, and is somewhat a loaded question. You could say that just because the poor do not live in mansions, their lives are not valued. In fact, it's a very emotional argument rather than a logical one- which reminds me of a lot of what Marxian rhetoric is- appeals to emotion rather than reason. The poor do have the ability to better themselves, which is not capable in any realistic socialist or communist system, in which everybody is essentially the same- dirt poor. In capitalism you have the opportunity to advance, prosper- you might live, at some times, comparatively bad, but if you try hard enough you will win out in the end. In socialism or communism, you do not have this opportunity. The only opportunity you have is sameness, poverty, and despair. I question whether or not the examples you have given me of the PRC or Africa are examples of true capitalism. When I think of Capitalism, I think of the only true form of Capitalism- the free market system. The PRC is opening up free trade and other such things, but outside of hong kong, they are not a free market. An ideal form of capitalist healthcare allows the poor to provide for their own care if they need to. Capitalist care. There is definitely capitalist incentive to heal the poor- a monetary incentive. When you spoke of communism you mentioned something to the effect of no true communist country would fail in the way that a capitalist country would. That is outright fallacious. Please look up the no true Scotsman fallacy. When compared to other systems, Capitalism is very good. Capitalism allows you to prosper- while communism and socialism allow you to rot.
Capitalism Is Bad

There are many problems with a totally free market economy, and i will admit that "communism" as a political practice has failed. But many countries, such as the U.S.S.R. and China, the "communist" party was communist in name only. A true communist country would not fail in the way that capitalism has failed. The main problem of capitalism is that there is no incentive to honor the inherent value of human life. This is because there is no distribution of wealth among the vast majority of workers. The majority of wealth (capital) lies in the hands of a view who become wealthy off of the work of the proletariat. Such an exploitative system should not be advocated by the majority of people. The rich bourgeois are the only ones whom the system benefits, while the middle class and proletariat are taken advantage of. This basic thesis is bolstered by the example of health care. In places like Sub-Saharan Africa, industrialized China, and other countries driven by capital many people are exploited by capitalists, that contention has been well documented. Sub-Saharan Africa's problems can all be traced to the forces of capitalism. It started during the colonial period where the European powers stole Africa's resources. When the massive amounts of health-related problems began to surface the capitalist powers had no incentive to help out, so not much was done. The only incentive that capitalist powers have to help out the sick and poor is to make sure that they are just well enough to work for them. Thus, health care is used as a tool of the capitalist powers to enslave the people of Africa. This one example can be seen throughout the world in all places where economies are driven by capitalism. Such a cheapening of human life is what we have to deal with in a capitalist system. So what the alternative? A more regulated economy that respects the environment, human life, and the advancement of civilization through the abandonment of capitalist structures.
Are Social Medias taking over humans.

I believe that Social Medias are NOT taking over humans. A few starting definitions and rule clarifications to avoid debating semantics. If my opponent does NOT approve of any of the following definitions, rules and terms he must object to them via PM or comment BEFORE posting his next round. By posting his next round without objecting to any terms set forth here and reaching an agreement with me beforehand in the Comments OR a personal message he accepts the following definitions and conditions. Neither me nor my opponent may change or object to the definitions once they have been agreed to.Social Media:1. forms of electronic communication (as Web sites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (as videos) Used interchangeably with the term Social Network: in context of human social communications: 1. a network of friends, colleagues, and other personal contacts: Strong social networks can encouragehealthy behaviors. in context with computers Computers. 2. an online community of people with a common interest who use a website or other technologiesto communicate with each other and share information, resources, etc.: a business-oriented socialnetwork. 3. a website or online service that facilitates this communication.Taking over:1. Gaining control of sth via force.2. causing an obsession within someone. 3. to assume control or possession of or responsibility for sth. become dominant.Human: 1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. The human race. in this context a majority of the human race.Few debating rules:1. No plagiarism2. No forfeits3. All sources must be properly cited4. Maintain proper language and social etiquette.6. standard DDO rules and debating formats apply.7. all disagreement over the format, rules or definitions of the debate placed forth in this round should be discussed in either the comment section or in a private PM before advancing the debate.Following debate format is to be held:R1:Acceptance and definitionR2:Opening argumentsR3:Rebuttals and closing statement. No new arguments by Con.Failure to abide to these rules will result in a 7-point loss.Have fun, and good luck.http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The texts of the bible are historically unreliable

lf you unable to continue because l speak of the truth its fine by me...lf the truth is whites tempered with manuscripts does it make me a racist or showing hatred! NO! My opponent is a coward l'm not afraid to point out evil committed by any race. Pro needs to understand this l'm your his worsnightmare ..THE WHITES TEMPERED WITH THE BIBLE BECAUSE OF RACE l HAVE THE EVIDENCE BUT YOU DONT HAVE THE BALLS TO FACE THE TRUTH!!!!
The texts of the bible are historically unreliable

I am hugely disappointed by whitesworstnightmare's response. It does not even attempt superfically to address any of my points. I was looking for a serious debate where we would be quoting textual critics and old manuscripts. Instead what i find is an outpouring of racial hatred. If somebody were to read whitesworstnightmare's post separately, it would sound like the debate topic is something like "Whites or Blacks, who is superior? " If this is the standard or argumentation, then I don't wish to waste my time any more on this debate. Let's discuss manuscript evidence, let's discuss views of textual critics. In fact the theories put forth in the argument such as Jesus is a black is only laughable. (I AM NOT A WHITE MAN BY THE WAY). I don't agree with the theoy because it's so unsubstantiated historically. So, if whitesworstnightmare wishes to continue this debate, let him/her stay relevant to the topic.
Out of all the information you don't know is it possible for God to exist in that realm

Well as nice as it is for someone to care about my opinion, My knowledge of things says nothing about what we can or can't know as a collective. You said that one can't know what all of the cells do in living things, That's not really true. The only thing that you can say is that one cannot know the current state of a given instance of cells at any given time. But it is quite possible to know the functions and makeup of things. You ask: "What implements the laws? " Laws are not things to be implemented, But rather descriptions of states of affairs. They're post hoc, So they don't have to be accounted for. In summation, I agree that there can be a gap, But I do not agree that god can be in that gap because we can use evidence outside of the gap to know what can or can't occur within the gap. The gap must still follow all of the laws of physics. God does not follow the laws of physics. Therefore, God cannot hide in the gaps. Your floor.
Out of all the information you don't know is it possible for God to exist in that realm

Im not trying as much to debate you but to stir up thought with a little bit of debate (I should've stated that in round 1) 1. What implements the laws? 2. But we do have knowledge to a certain extent for example we know that the heart pumps blood out of the left ventricle, That we breathe with our lungs but something in which we don't know is the job of a trillion cells or even the job of a singular cell we don't know if it has one or more than one job. 3. It's more of an a question that everyone can answer individually not as a collective but furthermore in this context I'm interested in 'your knowledge' Thank you for being such a wonderful opponent this is really fun :) Oh no no you're too kind giving me the floor here you take it.
Out of all the information you don't know is it possible for God to exist in that realm

Ah! The classic God of The Gaps argument. I can actually point out some reasons why this isn't true at all 1) Even if there is a gap, The laws of the universe don't change, Therefore nothing can exist in the gap that violates the laws of the universe. 2) One thing that we can't know is if we already know anything. This means the percentage could be 0% and we wouldn't know it. 3) People all know different amounts of knowledge. You can't attribute this argument to anyone's knowledge, Therefore, I can just as easily claim that someone exist who has seen all the gaps and verifies that there is no god and you can't really rebut this because your claim is dependent on what your opponent knows. The rest of my argument will be probabilistic. So beyond the obvious contentions I just mentioned, All evidence points to there being no god. That means that in the absence of any evidence for god, The only honest default position is that no gods exist. Your floor.
Out of all the information you don't know is it possible for God to exist in that realm

Looks like most your argument is just a sermon. What a waste of words. I did answer you question. Twice. But I'll spell it out for you since you don't understand my answer. You ask me: "How do you know that the laws weren't implemented and if that the universe was always in that state. " The short answer is that I know because of the impossibility to the contrary. The long answer is that laws are descriptive, Not prescriptive. That means that it is impossible to "implement" them because they're descriptions of various stats of affairs. That was the whole point of my answer. Your question is fallacious because it uses a false equivocation of the word "law" to try and sneak a prescriptive law into, But there are no prescriptive laws. You are an apologist. You're arguing using apologetics. God doesn't explain anything. It only accounts for it. There's a difference. Explanations tell you the reasons that something happened. God does not do this. God does not explain why the big bang happened how it did. God doesn't even explain how God works. It's just a wildcard explanation that can be used for anything. How did that tree fall over? God. How did that cloud get there? God. Why did my toe fall off? God. It's vacuous and lazy. I don't care what scripture says. That's just the opinion of some 2, 600 year old people who were far less educated than you or I. These were people who saw lightning bolts and thought it was a magic person in the sky. Why would I get my knowledge from such an errant source? good debate
Out of all the information you don't know is it possible for God to exist in that realm

I was. I do that sometimes so my answer can be matched to the question. Well I'm not ridiculing your vocabulary, I'm trying to help you speak coherently. Whether you realize it or not, Your question implies a prescriptive law. When you say "implemented" that necessarily implies that the law is prescriptive. You might be doing this by accident, Because apologists do this a lot and you might be getting your arguments from them. But it's wrong regardless of how you try to spin it. A law is not an edict. It's a description of something we see. The law of gravity is true even if there is no gravity happening. All the law says is that when gravity does happen, This is what it will look like. I will never accept your characterization of laws because it's simply a word trick. Ad hoc or post hoc means that you have something you want to prove, Like the existence of god, And instead of studying from the bottom up, You add all of the evidence into what you want to prove instead of letting the evidence just prove it for you. The reason I said show me god is because you're asking how he doesn't fit into my model. The fact that you can't show god to me is my reason for leaving it out of the model. It's the same reason I don't add unicorns and harry potter into my model. Would you ask me that same question about unicorns and harry potter? No you wouldn't. I've been giving you explanations, You just don't accept them. Classic presupp tactic. "Just for clarity I'm talking about the God of the Bible (KJV) to be specific I believe I can explain it but furthermore just because you can't explain something doesn't make it a false narrative for example light we all know what it is but cannot give a formal definition of what it is and if you believe that you can please give an explanation. " You're still mixing up the words explain and account for. First of all. The bible is not evidence. Second. The god of the bible is the hardest god to argue for, So that just makes thing worse for you. Third. When I say explanatory power, I mean god's ability to explain things in the universe. Fourth. When I say explain. I don't mean it simply accounts for it, I mean that it can describe the method by which god creates the universe and can make predictions. Fifth. I'm not talking about narratives. I'm talking about explanatory power. Sixth. Yes we can formally explain light and that's why science excepts light and not god. Here I'll show you. Light consists of photons and is the fastest moving thing in the universe. I just gave facts about light that explain things about it and make predictions. I can use the statement about it being the fastest moving thing to compare other things two it and I can make the correct prediction that nothing will move faster than it. God has none of these explanatory properties. "My response: You never explained it you only bought it up as a ploy to dodge the question. " Yes I did I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking harmful ways of thinking. You don't offend me, Your miscarriage of knowledge does. It's nothing personal. Your floor.
Out of all the information you don't know is it possible for God to exist in that realm

Because your rebuttal is very similar to my statement in, To me looks like you're repeating me. You said: Good question. I can violate a speeding law. I can't violate the law of gravity. Honestly, I suggest you learn to separate these two words, Because you'll just get laughed off the floor every time you make this argument. It's hard to take my opponent seriously if they can't even tell the difference between a natural law and a punitive one. My response: I can tell the difference but you've made the assumption also in this context we're talking about natural law it seems as if you're dodging the question by trying to ridicule my vocabulary, Can you answer the question please. You said: Sure, Just show me god first and I'll study him and see how he fits in the model. Oh wait, You can't, Because he doesn't exist. Why are you asking me to prove your claims? My response: Because its a philosophical 'debate' your thoughts aren't feelings, If you use your feelings justify a so called 'facts' then that isn't a fact and personally whenever I catch myself doing that I personally feel that it might be a wake up call to change my views and thoughts ect. If you can please give an explanation. You said: God is a vacuous explanation. God has no explanatory power. You can ACCOUNT for the universe with God, But you cannot EXPLAIN it. Guess what else can account for god? Fairies, Warlocks, Realicorns, The flying spaghetti monster. Etc. My response: Just for clarity I'm talking about the God of the Bible (KJV) to be specific I believe I can explain it but furthermore just because you can't explain something doesn't make it a false narrative for example light we all know what it is but cannot give a formal definition of what it is and if you believe that you can please give an explanation. You said: Your floor. Please look up the two kinds of laws. I tried to explain them, But you're being obtuse, So you need to get yourself a dictionary and spend a couple of hours figuring it out. My response: You never explained it you only bought it up as a ploy to dodge the question. There's no need to denigrate my intelligence I thought we were having fun please let's be nicer to each other :) I look forward to your reply :)
Out of all the information you don't know is it possible for God to exist in that realm

Rapid fire. "Are you repeating me? " umm, No. "How do you know that the laws weren't implemented and if that the universe was always in that state also what's hoc? " Good question. I can violate a speeding law. I can't violate the law of gravity. Honestly, I suggest you learn to separate these two words, Because you'll just get laughed off the floor every time you make this argument. It's hard to take my opponent seriously if they can't even tell the difference between a natural law and a punitive one. "Elaborate on the laws and on how God doesn't fit as well as any evidence. " Sure, Just show me god first and I'll study him and see how he fits in the model. Oh wait, You can't, Because he doesn't exist. Why are you asking me to prove your claims? God is a vacuous explanation. God has no explanatory power. You can ACCOUNT for the universe with God, But you cannot EXPLAIN it. Guess what else can account for god? Fairies, Warlocks, Realicorns, The flying spaghetti monster. Etc. Your floor. Please look up the two kinds of laws. I tried to explain them, But you're being obtuse, So you need to get yourself a dictionary and spend a couple of hours figuring it out.
Out of all the information you don't know is it possible for God to exist in that realm

You said "that one can't know what all of the cells do in living things, That's not really true. The only thing that you can say is that one cannot know the current state of a given instance of cells at any given time. But it is quite possible to know the functions and makeup of things. " My response Are you repeating me? You said Laws are not things to be implemented, But rather descriptions of states of affairs. They're post hoc, So they don't have to be accounted for. My response How do you know that the laws weren't implemented and if that the universe was always in that state also what's hoc? You said In summation, I agree that there can be a gap, But I do not agree that god can be in that gap because we can use evidence outside of the gap to know what can or can't occur within the gap. The gap must still follow all of the laws of physics. God does not follow the laws of physics. Therefore, God cannot hide in the gaps. My response Elaborate on the laws and on how God doesn't fit as well as any evidence.