BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anarcho-capitalism can work

"I clarified the definition that would be used for this debate in the first entry. If you did not agree with my definitions, you shouldn't have accepted my challenge. "Here is the definition you put in place: "Anarcho-capitalism in this case refers to a society with no government where what is or is not a crime is based on whether or not it interferes with other's [sic] property rights. " (from Round 1)Let me clarify. I am not contradicting this definition; I'm just trying to extend it. In the instance that crime is, indeed, based on the matter of property rights (as you have described here), how would such a system come to be in an anarcho-capitalist society? Indeed, the free market would have driven it. People's demands for security would be reflected in the system of justice, unlike it is now under a government monopoly of force. "'What exists now' is not relevant. Besides, law today is not exclusively based on people's rights. At any rate, this is not about the merits of government, so this is irrelevant. "What exists now is relevant, because we need something to compare anarcho-capitalism to in order to deem it successful or not. And part of anarcho-capitalism is the absence of government, so whether or not the existence of government "has its merits" is central to the debate, if anything. "I cannot argue with that. "The opponent drops his argument about privatized regulation. ---And I don't think there's anything to respond to besides the above. As an aside, I respectfully recommend that the opponent read into what anarcho-capitalism is, at his leisure. As it stands, many of his arguments are verging on Strawman attacks. (See: . http://en.wikipedia.org...)Lastly, the opponent has not met his burden of proof. Let us remember that the opponent took on the FULL burden of proof, meaning that he has to put forward arguments for the stance that anarcho-capitalism CANNOT work (under any circumstances and/or through whatever framework of the word "work. ") This burden of proof has not been met. ---Thank you.
Anarcho-capitalism can work

"No. The "law" would be determined by the free market, whether it be regarding life or property. Killing would not be acceptable as long as individuals continue to have a demand to not be killed in the free market. There would be no government to uphold property laws, either; you seem to not understand what anarcho-capitalism is, I'm sorry to say. " I clarified the definition that would be used for this debate in the first entry. If you did not agree with my definitions, you shouldn't have accepted my challenge. "It would be less of a violation of the criminal's rights than what exists now. The government has a monopoly on violence against "criminals." In a free market, private enterprises would compete to stop crime." "What exists now" is not relevant. Besides, law today is not exclusively based on people's rights. At any rate, this is not about the merits of government, so this is irrelevant. "In our society, poor people can afford to buy a copy of Consumer Reports and read reviews of products." I cannot argue with that. "In an anarcho-capitalist society, reviewers would have a bigger niche, because the government wouldn't take taxpayer money to make its own inefficient determinations about business matters through regulation." True, however, this does not address the point, which was not about reviews. "Well, in an anarcho-capitalist society, all property would be private, by default. What is now considered "public" would be owned by individuals or groups." Agreed. "I disagree, however, that the purpose of an anarcho-capitalist society is to protect private property; the idea of self-ownership is certainly the core of a free market model, but the protection of such an ideal is up to the individual." True. Perhaps a better phrasing would be that it is intended to protect people's right to choice. "Private regulation would arguably be far more efficient. As it stands, there is a health care crisis under the US' regulatory practices. This can be partly attributed to the undersupply of affordable doctors, due to the artificial restrictions on entry into the profession. Hospitals should compete with each other by hiring the finest physicians, and each physician (as well as the hospitals' results) would be judged by competing reviewers." I have no rebuttal at the moment.
Kids should be taught how to cope with bullying instead of learning a zero policy fro bullying

i understand your point but i do not agree and from experience I've seen the devastation bullying has caused i have a few personal connections i was bullied as a kid and up 8th grade in freshmen year i developed an eating disorder as a result of the years of bullying and the weird thing is that contrary to what you said i never consider myself a victim....i was always a tough kid i just thought that if i was skinny they'd stop teasing me and everything would be alright it got so bad i ended up in rehab my sophomore year but even though what i went through was horrible and id never wish it on anyone else i still consider myself one of the lucky ones....... i lost a really close friend to suicide as a result of bullying, i spend a lot of time thinking about if theirs anything that could of been done to save him, it honestly suck going through life realizing that their not going to be with you growing up together we were only 14 or 15, now all i have left is memories of him he had his whole life ahead of him and it was cut short leaving all of us who knew him to wonder why and for those of us who knew why it was sadder because we knew he tried to do everything you said but no one would take him seriously, this is why i think their needs to be a system in place so no one has loose someone or know one has to feel like their alone. you can not always count on people in charge i.e teachers guidance counselors and administrators to do the right thing you cant they are only humans its unfair to expect that, that's why there needs to be some sort of system in place for that ensures incidents of bullying are no ignored because i am not willing to risk another kids life on a school system without it i know the horror and the pain it can cause all to well.... while bullying may start out as harmless teasing it will not stay that way things can and in most cases will escalate kids are capable of horrible things I've seen it happen for us to sit back and let that happen is irresponsible we need to be proactive to make sure no one ever has to experience the pain and suffering that bullying will cause, it is not enough to deal with the aftermath of bullying anymore we need to stop it before it happens. p.s please my friend was really special to me so be respectful if you choose to mention anything about him please...thank you i honestly really do appreciated it :)
Kids should be taught how to cope with bullying instead of learning a zero policy fro bullying

Kids in elementary school and middle school should be taught how to cope with bullying instead of learning how to not do it at all. They should be learning for themselves how to deal with bullies instead of getting an adult because in life theres not always going to be someone there. Guidance counselors should give advice of what to do when your bullied. Talk to another teacher, if it starts to get physical call an adult, but sometimes they need to just suck it up and get over it. Bullies are a part of life. This day in school bullying counts as gossiping, critizing, and minor teasing. Everyone in life is going to be bullied and bully somebody else. Its human nature. We need counceling and learning ways to cope. Most likely your being bullied for a reason. Most of the time there is two people at fualt in the situation. The bully. and The victim. Victim is a state of mind, and if you treat them like they livein this perfect safe world your just setting them up for dissapointment and a harsh reality check.
a progressive tax system should be used

As my opponent has forfeited the last round, I will extend my previous arguments and refutations and summarize the debate so far. -My opponent never once provided any sort of source substantiating her claim that the "rich" use more 'government' (as opposed to private which my opponent made the mistake of arguing) 'services' (my opponent also confused these with government restrictions on the rich). Meanwhile, she attempted to unjustly shift the BoP on to myself to provide positive arguments refuting her unsupported claim (which I did), ignoring totally her burden as instigator and Pro. This means that her point may be discarded wholly as she did not properly defend it. -The terms "rich" and "poor" were never defined in this debate by my opponent. Thus even if she tried to provide empirical evidence of their using more resources then the "poor", she would not be able to find any since she would have no parameters on which to find these statistics. There are no studies on the matter using solely the terms "rich" and "poor" with no secondary classifications according to net or gross income or general social class. Without these definitions there is absolutely no way to have meaningful discussion on whether one group ought to be taxed more as we don't know who we are referring to beyond a single word. -Even if my opponent were to have been able to provide empirical justification for her claim of the rich using more resources, not only did I show that a service based tax policy would be more sensible and fair (taxing people only for services used, rather than based on income only), but my opponent conceded this! She outright conceded in R2 writing, "i [sic] concede that another tax system could be better to more fairly tax those who use more, among the rich. " Therefore, my own service tax suggestion ought to be valued over my opponent's progressive tax suggestion. -On my opponent's second contention that the government has a responsibility to redistribute wealth from the top down, she was never able to properly defend the moral responsibility of those with more to care for those with less (ignoring mere aesthetic and emotional opinions). My opponent was also not able to defend her causal argument that the rich are only able to get rich at the expense of someone getting poorer. This argument was refuted over 200 years ago when it was established that there was not some set amount of wealth in the world, but that the amount of wealth tends to expand. My opponent has not upheld her burden of proof, has forfeited the last round, and has posted her rounds in a rather unorganized form with multiple spelling and punctuation errors.
a progressive tax system should be used

I believe a progressive tax system should be used. the richer you are the more you are taxed. i'm not wed to a certain number, just that it should be progressive. the richer should be taxed more because they use more resources, and are primarily responsible for those who "don't have" for not having. the rich should may a certain amout more because: first becaus tehy take more resources from society... it's like society says "you take this apple this tree etc you pay X percent". also, the rich use more police, courts, transportation systems, national parks and resources, IRS workers, space flight use, represent more needing protected with the military, etc. poorer people participate in all that but not to the same degree... they just exist. a flat tax does in fact cause the richer to pay more, as the same percentage as someone else but on a higher income is a higher tax. but, this is only the beginning of what should be done. we should add a surtax onto the flat tax for the richer because the government often must redistribute to the poor just for the basics. food stamps, health, whatever. i'm sure we could squibble about what the poor should have access to, but by far most people agree they should have access to at least the basics, if it's through no fault of their own... like food stamps etc. hypotheitcal. an average family have five pigs five cows five apple trees. a poor person collects the rubble they find on the ground. a rich man has thousands of pigs cows and apple trees. the average family is just existing really.... the rich man has the excess that causes the poor man to not have anything. the only thing preventing the poor man from getting the apples etc, is man made law and technology claiming it. natural law would allow the poor man to get what he needs, and if we deprive him, we owe him something for depriving him of his rights. it comes most naturally from the rich man who "has too much". we could be principled about the excess that the rich pay as a percentage... perhaps to the extent it's for poor programs etc. the bottomline though, is that we shouldn't just have a flat tax and leave it at that.
Roblox is better than Minecraft.

Roblox and Minecraft are both based on creativeness. Minecraft lets you create structures and places with blocks that are only cubed, and has a small amount blocks that aren't cubed. Roblox lets you create blocks with any desired shape or size. Minecraft has a very limited amount of entities compared to Roblox which lets you make your own entities. Roblox has 1,024 different block combinations for textures, get technical and you have over 1,000,000. Roblox also HD textures, compared to Minecraft's pixelated textures, and you can easily switch to different types of textures using blocks without detail if that's not your thing.
Roblox is better than Minecraft.

1. "Roblox lets you create blocks with any desired shape or size."Minecraft lets you do this as well. Well, not create blocks, but create castles, and other objects as well. Roblox and Minecraft are alike because they can both do this.2. "Minecraft has a very limited amount of entties compared to Roblox which lets you make your own entities."This sentence really depends on the type of Minecraft. If you are playing with mods, there are WAY more entities. If not, then yes, Roblox has more entities.3. "Roblox also HAS HD textures, compared to Miencraft's pixelated textures, and you can easily switch to different types of textures using blocks without detail if that's not your thing."This also depends. If you have a laggy computer, sometimes people put their sliders down to 1, which makes Roblox pixelated and blocky. So, this really depends. as well.Now onto my arguements.You are focusing on building in Roblox Studio... you haven't said anything about the players. Roblox is a kids game. Same is Minecraft, except more teens play Minecraft. If you join a game in Roblox, most people there are 14 and under. Most kids in Minecraft are about 13-16. In fact, I see 20 year olds play Minecraft. You do not see 20 year olds playing Roblox anytime. Also, there are annoying people on Roblox and Minecraft. Roblox has its "Guests" and "Noobs", while Minecraft also has "Noobs" and "Griefers/Trollers."In Minecraft, there are MANY servers. You can make a server and play with your friends. You can build HUGE creations! [1] It's really fun on survival too because you can mine and build a house. I personally like going on "Hard" difficulty for a challenge. Now, I know that Minecraft is pixelated and blocky, but so is Roblox. Roblox isn't pixelated, but it's blocky. Also, on Roblox there are ADs and annoying games. Also, people try to hack and scam you for Robux and Tix. It's really annoying. That's why I stopped playing.So as you can see Minecraft has the advantage so far, you're up Pro.Cites: (just some awesome creations)[1]- http://gamingbolt.com... http://mashtop.com...; http://2.bp.blogspot.com...; http://www.faqingames.com...;http://www.sandbox-games.net...
Violent Video Games

Society should restrict the sale and play of violent video games because children become desensitized to violence and its impact. If children are exposed to violence through media, such as violent video games. When children see violent acts in society they equate it with the non-personal response of a video game. Then those children become a danger to themselves. As children have no real picture of the devastating effects of violence in reality. The violence of video games often down plays violence. So to the child it is not very huge. Which is a major concern. It is a major concern because some children may try to emulate the violence seen in video games, thus causing harm to either themselves or others. Final thought violent video games cause violent behavior and violent acts. Below I have posted a link to better support my argument. . http://www.sciencedirect.com...
Violent Video Games

I'll accept with only a few clarifications1. I would like to limit the scope of research to the US just for relevancy's sake.2. I would prefer that instead of using the Pro's interpretation of "encourage the user to become violent" that we instead ONLY argue that "they encourage the user to commit violent acts" as it is much harder to judge the merits of what it means to "become violent".Just to be clear then the burden of proof is as followsPro: Violent video games encourage the user to engage in violent acts.Con: Violent video games do not encourage the user to engage in violent acts.I look forward to debating you!
Business should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they wish in the private sector

And Secondly I would like to wish him good luck. Now since my opponent has used Wikipedia definitions I will use them as well, to make it that there no biased definitions. Business-A business (also known as company, enterprise, or firm) is a legally recognized organization designed to provide goods, services, or both to consumers or tertiary business in exchange for money. Businesses are predominant in capitalist economies, in which most businesses are privately owned and typically formed to earn profit that will increase the wealth of its owners. Private Sector-In economics, the private sector is that part of the economy which is run by private individuals or groups, usually as a means of enterprise for profit. I will also use my Opponents definition of Discrimination. I now await my opponents opening arguments, and again wish him the best of luck. Sources- Business-. http://en.wikipedia.org... Private Sector-. http://en.wikipedia.org...
America's public education system is terrible

Our entire culture is not geared towards education. The system only works with one type of student, so of course some will be able to compete with the best. The best learners are the ones who learn on their own. We are not communists, so choosing your own career is not really a luxury. The schools try to teach too much. Who needs anything above pre algebra. Unless you want to be an engineer or a scientist or something like that. It's a waste of time to do 6 years of useless math. There is no depth in history class, all they taught me for until 9th grade was the revolutionary war which no one cares about. Writing is a waste of time, nobody wants to be an author anymore. Some science is useless, who cares about how many valence electrons are in a carbon atom. You are wasting your time talking about the college majors and stuff, I was talking about elementary through high school.
America's public education system is terrible

America's public education system sucks for a lot of reasons. First, we spend the most on it in the world and we are one of the worst in the world. We are 31st in math, 21st in reading, and 24th in science. So that means Obama's idea of making it rain doesn't work. Then there are too many idiot teachers who just blab on all day and give a crap load of homework which is pointless. No one actually learns, all it is is memorizing useless stuff and spitting it back on a test and forgetting about it a day later. I don't want a math related career, so why should I waste my time with anything above pre algebra. I have learned more screwing around the internet for 5 minutes than I have 7 months at school. Then all the schools focus on is making everyone feel good about themselves. They say "everyone is special". But if everyone is special, then no one is. And the schools waste their time with this anti-bullying stuff. Not everyone will get along with everyone.
ELO doesn't make you a good debater

Con already assumed that ELO makes you a better debater without explaining how. You don't need a greater ELO to face better users. You simply challenge them to a debate or they accept your debates. Playing video games and debating for ELO is a false comparison. With video games, you need practice for your body and mind to adapt to the pace. With a debate, you don't. You can research and plan your arguments ahead of time and do just as well as or even better than others. Lets compare a debate that Sargon had with a debate that UndyingHarmony, a person with lower ELO had to see if there's a difference. Sargon: http://www.debate.org... UndyingHarmony: http://www.debate.org... Sargon argues using the Kalam Cosmological argument and so does UndyingHarmony. What's the difference between these two debaters? Lets now look at another person who uses the same argument. http://www.debate.org... These are only a few examples of people who use the Cosmological argument. If you argue that Sargon is a better debater because he argued his position better then you already agree that ELO has no relevance to whether or not a person is a good debater. My opponent appears to argue that ELO like a video game enables you to be better at debates by critical thinking, but there's nothing to go by. You can look at Blade of Truth's profile and check his debates, did he make any improvement from debating a lot? Probably not. He showed a consistent amounts of wins throughout his debates. Conclusion: ELO does nothing but boost your rank and increase competition, but as far as debating goes, it doesn't benefit you.
ELO doesn't make you a good debater

Unfortunately the resolution is not "Elo does not determine whether or not you are a good debater". The resolution is clearly seen as "ELO doesn't make you a good debater". Here's why Elo does in fact make you a good debater: -It's an encouragement system, like a game. You win, you gain elo. You lose, you lose elo. Because you need to keep on winning to get more elo, you become a better debater to adapt and win against strong debaters in order to gain more elo. I believe that is enough to prove how the elo system works and why it encourages people to get more elo, gain reward, and as a result become better debaters. There's a reason video games increase critical thinking skills as well as reflexive thinking and hand-coordination.
ELO doesn't make you a good debater

"Maybe for single player, now what about multi-player?" Exactly, with multitudes of debaters of DDO, you can't possibly hope to cheat and get away. My opponent tries to give an example with Ragnar's poor voting. He votes bad does not mean he is bad at debating. What a straw-man fallacy. I win, you lose. I proved that elo does indeed not only measure your skill in some way, but also encourage you to become better at debating. It should remain, regardless of how inaccurate it may be. It can be fixed to be more accurate, and more encouraging to everyone so that they can all become even better debaters. VOTE ME.