BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialism will bring about a more just society

Socialism was intended to prevent the wealth gap that comes along with capitalism and lessen the abuse of the dollar driven government but fails for two major reasons: 1) Socialism discourages work and effort by shifting consequences onto others resulting in a society whose goal is to produce products for its citizenry's needs that lack quality. Innovation and competition are stifled and mediocrity becomes the norm. 2) It restricts freedoms of the individual With the first reason, socialism takes from people who would advance in society and gives to those who don't. It attempts to promote equality, yet a higher social class always ends up emerging, as well as, a ruling party rarely ends up treating all citizens fairly by making decisions necessary for everyone to get a fair and equal chance. This leads to the ruling government having all the power and the citizens effectively having no say in the economic pursuits of the nation. Secondly, it is believed that human right include owning private property, controlling one's own destiny, and competing in the business world. However this is impossible with socialism. Socialism is associated with infringement on one's individual liberty. Socialism is the road to mediocracy.
Socialism will bring about a more just society

It can be assumed that by claiming socialism will bring about a more just society, we are comparing socialism to the current system in the United States, capitalism. So, I would like to provide definitions for both of those terms as defined by Merriam-Webster:Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companiesCapitalism: a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the governmentAlso, I feel that it is necessary to define the word "just" as used in the title of the debate:Just: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fairIn other words, this debate may as well be called "Socialism will bring about a more fair society."With the current system of Capitalism, the wealthiest men in the country (top 1%) own 34.6% of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 80% own just 15% of the wealth. These are the bankers, the investors, and the CEOs, arguably the least productive members of society. The most productive people in the society are a part of the labor force, the ones hired by the CEOs to work and make them even wealthier. In a socialistic society, all the major industries are controlled by the government and the nation as a whole. This eliminates the private enterprises that lead to wealth inequality and the unfairness that exists today. We have discussed in class whether men such as Rockefeller and Carnegie were robber barons, and our consensus was that they were. With socialism, there would not be a need for that debate.Goverment ownership would not take away incentives to work hard. In fact, socialism rewards those who work the hardest. Having a socialistic society would not only take away unfair advantages had by those at the top, it would encourage hard work.
Why We Fight

My opponent seems to have abandoned debate.org for the moment. As this debate was begun with verse it seems appropriate to end it the same way. Anyone who can be bothered to read and judge, please vote on arguments rather than poetic ability! I'm not tryin' to be a preacher I'm not tryin' to teach a lesson But you ask me why we fight, I say : because of aggression. Regression to the basest state of nature I wanted to debate ya But you forfeited, I guess I'll see you later. There's many reasons we deployed our armed forces Biggest one is prob'ly greed over natural resources. See there's oil in the desert and it's oil that is the fuel That fans the fury of the ones who want the dollar sign to rule. War's a tool of economics Bottom line is effin' profits The war machine rolls on, there's little we can do to stop it. They said Dubya's enemies Were packin' WMDs But when we raid the army base we find the place is empty. They keep us blind with propaganda Lies and slander Have a proper gander It's xenophobia; "Ich bin ein Auslander" Check the next perspective You might find that you respect it But be a skeptic, be selective Try not to let your mind get messed with. Thanks.
Why We Fight

There is some potential for confusion in the format for this debate as the resolution is a question rather than a statement, it is difficult to be Pro or Con for Why We Fight. Therefore I hope that my opponent will forgive me for making various assumptions as to her position in this debate, she should of course feel free to correct me if I am wrong about her position. Although my opponent is clearly pro-war, I understand from the resolution that the issue we are discussing is not 'whether we should be fighting' but rather 'why we are fighting. ' So I urge readers not to judge this as pro-war versus anti-war. Instead I will attempt to prove that the reasons she surmises for war are either incorrect or only a very small part of the broader issue. I don't know whether she will expand on the reasons she lists in round 1, but for now I will deal with these before turning to what I believe are the real reasons in subsequent rounds. I assume by 'we' my opponent means the USA and it's allies (including the UK), I assume by 'this war' my opponent means the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan under one collective umbrella, as an extension of the 'war on terrorism'. I interpret my opponents opening statement as making the following points: There is meaning to this war (on terrorism). The reasons for war are primarily for a sense of personal security in your own home and neighbourhood and a feeling that your life will not "explode. " It is my contention that the real reasons for war are very different to these and that the fear is a symptom of the war rather than a reason for it. To briefly explain, I suggest that the terror and fear of imminent attack was encouraged by the government as an excuse for war once they had already established their own reasons. Furthermore I would argue that the real reason for any lack of security or peace of mind in US homes and neighbourhoods has more to do with the criminalisation by America of a huge proportion of it's own citizens rather than any external terrorist threat. I look forward to an interesting debate. Thankyou. Con.
Why We Fight

They say there is no meaning to this war, that we have nothing worth fighting for. That we're sacrificing lives of innocent men, but I say there's some things they can't comprehend. Like how we can lay our heads down at night, and fall asleep without a fright. How we can walk safely down the street, without fearing just who you might meet. Now if you can, imagine this, these are all the things that you would miss. If we were not fighting in this war, would you be able to trust who lives next door? How would you know what your day might hold, for all you know, your life might explode. You'd fear not getting to live another day, but then again, you're the ones who have to pay, for saying that the men who are over seas, should be back living safely in this country.
Gang Members in the U.S Armed Forces should not be allowed!

Let's begin. 1. )According to released FBI reports, Gang-related activity in the U. S. military is increasing and poses a threat to law enforcement officials and national security. 2. )Gang Activity in the U. S. Armed Forces (members) have been identified on both domestic and international military installations. 3. ) There are members in the U. S. Armed Forces that in this very moment are in many notorious gang affiliation. Some in which I don't want to state due to my safety. But logic clears up that missing sentence that is not stated. 4. ) One reason gang members should not be part of the Elite proud United States Military is because of what can happen once that persons contract is over, meaning violence in our communities. Now I know not all people are that way in which I'm describing therefore I support strongly in rough background checks before enlistment other than that, no gang member should participate in the U. S. Military.
September/October LD Resolution

September/October resolution for Lincoln Douglas Debate.Resoloved: "The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens."Rules:(1) Rounds structured in typical LD format.a. First round is acceptance.b. Second round is aff constructive speech and neg constructive and rebuttal.c. Subsequent rounds are rebuttals. No new arguments may be submitted in the final round.(2) Forfeit counts as an automatic loss, as does trolling. Gratia adversario meo!
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You misunderstand me, my fault for not being specific in round one. I am only talking about every US citizen having the rights to OWN guns not to rob banks with them or even use them in anything else than self defense. the topic says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. not what you have described as reasons for the law not to be carried out fully. George Mason during that debate also showed his distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress. I defend the statement of all citizens having the right to bear arms cause its intended purpose is to use the guns in self defense at a time of civil conflict. Just cause you have the right to have access to a gun doesn't mean its legal for you to use it for anything other than self defense. As for children owning guns parents have custody of their children and make decisions for them their fore nothing that belongs to a CHILD is actually theirs.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

With every right comes it's proper restrictions. People can't always get what they have a right to and sometime they are not due their rights. Therefore, I had to be opposed to: Resolved: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. For purposes of sticking to the resolution, I will offer (in contentions) people who "shall" have their rights infringed for good reasons. I. Minors We all know minors who can and can't handle "Arms", however, in todays society, we can't be giving EXTREMELY dangerous weaponry to people that may not know how to use them. This includes ALL ages including 2, 3, 7, 9, 17, or even 13 year olds. II. Felons What more do I have to say... Why give a dangerous weapon, a serious responsibility, someone who has already PROVEN that they are not capable of handling such responsibilities. Bearing arms isn't a right, it SHOULD be a privilege. A right, is something that you should ALWAYS have. FURTHERMORE, as proposed by the resolution, you have to see that if a felon commits a crime with a gun, then it should obviously be taken away. BUT, the resolution says that the guns are "to KEEP"... When such atrocity has been committed, the gun MUST be taken away. III. People on planes, in buildings, and in school. Not only do you have to worry about WHO can have a gun, but more importantly WHERE. People on planes, in buildings, and in school should NOT be allowed guns. If they were, the safety of ALL would be at risk. ================================================================= IV. Not all "Arms" are appropriate for the average citizen. Simply put, there could be the most responsible person in the world, and yet, there are "Arms" that even THEY should not have. "Arms" is defined simply as weapons, so what falls under that category includes normal weaponry such as rifles, shotguns, and pistols. But what ALSO falls under that category includes tanks, machine guns, C4, dynamite, and even types of atomic bombs. The constitution DOES say arms but when you take the rule of law word for word, you must adapt to the proper and safe interpretations of the law. In other words ladies and gentleman, "Arms" need to have restrictions toward certain people, and certain places. The law can't take the constitution seriously if it puts the people of America at risk for their good health (and lives)... Because of all of this, I urge a CON vote. Thank You!
Claptrap in the bible that no god would ever put into play thus proving that god is a useless fraud

God is a Thing of love. Thats my first sentence. im only here because my brother clicked some stuff so yeah. im gonna have to be a really good argumentative peson right now. When was the first time you fell in love? I want to hopefully argue you fell in love with your mom first. or at least one of your parents. God is not a useless fraud God is a real Spirit. I dont know what im doing right now. Bye
A Good God Exists

I once again say, YOU THINK GOD SHOULD SPOIL US. I said he treats us like a normal father. He lets us make our decisions because when we are all judged, he will sort out wrong and right. When the murderer/rapist commits the crime, they will carry it with them until they die. When they die, God sorts it out. The bible says that God is perfect, and does everything he wants for a reason. Someone will die when god wants them to for a reason, like committing one too many murders, and getting caught. My opponent will repeat the things he said if there was another round. If my opponent is correct, then 1. The bible is false, and 2. God is out to destroy the world he created. If so, then humankind would not be alive and so advanced.(Furthermore, if God is against us, who is stopping him destroying the whole world?)If God is evil, then why are there Christians everywhere, and people proving God is kind?
A Good God Exists

Since Pro has declined to argue this round, I can only presume he is either bowing out, or, preparing to reassert his original objetion.Let me clarify, then, the point he may have been making.The way I interpret this repsonse is that God gives us challenges to help us grow. If he never gave us challeneges, we wouldn't be perfected (or move towards perfection, since we are unable to be perfect according to most theologians).First, the idea of God as a parent is rather loathesome. As a parent, I understand letting my child risk a scraped knee in order to learn how to ride a bike (which, let's face it, isn't really perfecting us...)But, to think I would sit silently while my child was raped and murdered would make me the sickest, most despicable parent in the history of the world - and I'm not omnipotent! I would try, knowing I might fail. God, if he exists, watches silently, as women are raped all over the world, while children starve to death (every 5 seconds), or are murdered. God watched while 12 million people were killed in Germany, 100 million in Russia and tens of millions in China.And, while people die of painful diseases, tsunami's, and let's say that ALL of those dead go onto Heaven.What of the families they leave behind? What of the baby that is spared for a few days, trapped under the rubble that her mother died in during an Earthquake - unknown until we discover her weeks later?What of the untold suffering?The Problem of Evil, while not a solid argument against God, is clearly a solid argument against a Good God in the sense that if that God is Good, then it MUST only commit Good Acts.Pro is saying that all this lack of action in the face of such misery and the utter hiddeness is a Good Act by an All-Good Being.If a Superhero was like this, we wouldn't call him a Good Guy, he'd be Evil - or, at least, ineffectual, or non-good.We can't simply change our definition when we assert that it's for some unknown purpose.So, the claim that God must have this system in order to make things better is spurious. After all, if I can't know what the possible Good might be, then Pro can't say what the possible Bad might be. Perhaps God is Evil?If Pro wants to continue this argument, he is still saying that God commits non-Good acts to do a greater Good (Theological Utilitarianism), which is ceding the argument. Con stands unrefuted.
A Good God Exists

With all the Philosophical Charity I can muster, I can't figure out what this has to do with my argument. Nothing in my argument precludes God from existing and challenging us, but to do so, if God reveals itself to some and not to others, it is acting with deceit - the intention to hide or confuse. A God can challenge us, test us, and do all the things theists want that God to do, but unless it acts completely good all the time, it can't be considered All-Good. To be completely Good means you don't act bad some times, even with good intentions. The extreme example would be Stalin, who believed he was acting with the best intentions. Do we say he was All-Good is it turns out he was right all along? Pro, by accepting this argument, must argue for a Good God. Our growth has nothing to do with god's character. It's a non sequitur. God, choosing to create a world in which suffering exists, already chose a less-than-Good path. Whether or not a greater good can come from it does not turn less-than-Good actions into good ones. Certainly not for an omnipotent being. Pro confuses the issue by asserting, without merit, that our growth somehow ameliorates God's less-than-Good actions. For example, God could have created us like God: perfect with no reason for improvement. If growth is a greater Good, then God is not perfect. If Pro wants to argue for the supremacy of growth, then Pro would be arguing against a perfect being. My points stand.
Time never changes

I think this whole debate will go around in circles, So I am going to end it right here. The whole reason I took this debate was because I knew I was right. I know it has been proven that time is relative. I don't see why you have a hard time accepting that. Here are some links. http://www. Physlink. Com/Education/AskExperts/ae433. Cfm https://www. Quora. Com/How-can-one-prove-that-time-is-relative https://www. Independent. Co. Uk/news/science/einsteins-theory-is-proved-and-it-is-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195. Html (by the way you did insult me by calling me a dim-wit)
Time never changes

Note -Firstly, I was insulting the person in the video, Not the debater. You or the arbitrator need to understand diction and word placement better. Thus, The whole problem here is one of language, Word placement and what you can and can't do with language and words. Thus, You can't use time as a linear vector in a mathematical sense especially when you try to create an extra dimension with it. I understand that velocity is rate of change of position with respect to a FRAME OF REFERENCE and is a function of time. Velocity is a physical vector quantity which has magnitude and direction. Note : FRAME OF REFERENCE is jargon for aether matrix. When you accelerate you have to push away from something. There has to be a leverage point to push away from. A galaxy spins around a black hole which the aether falls into like water going down a sink or drain hole. The matter is destroyed in the black hole and is shot out as aether at 90 degrees in both directions away from the rotational axis. These are called aether jets which create aetheric pressure throughout the universe. Thus, What we call gravity is just aetheric pressure. Quote - "Light has a lower frequency from a moving object. " Why is the frequency lower? Because when you move through the aether matrix, The aether matrix pushes back and slows you down a little. The aether has a similar effect as air has on sound waves except its much thinner than air. Thus, As you travel through space the aether matrix will push back harder the faster that you try to travel. Thus, If you try to travel near the speed of light you will hit a brick wall of resistance and your vehicle will be compressed and become shorter and your clocks will slow down due to the compression of the components and NOT BECAUSE TIME HAS CHANGED. Thus, To understand why time can't change you must first understand how the universe works. As Einstein said " a universe without an aether is unthinkable" Quote -"The twins paradox. " Reply - To prove that this paradox is faulty we need to increase the 'theoretical speed' of the craft to 10 times the speed of light. Now, One twin travels for 10 years at 10 times the speed of light and returns back to Earth 100 years before he was even born. Now, How ridiculous is that. Thus, I have proven that the whole idea of time changing is absurd nonsense. Note - I know you are most likely to say that travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible. But, This is only a theoretical experiment to show the mathematics and logic is not consistent. Quote - " You don't need to know what you are acceleration from. What matters is that you ARE accelerating. " The physics dictionary definition of velocity clearly states that a FRAME OF REFERENCE is required. Therefore, YOU can't say that it is not required.
Time never changes

No, That's actually completely false. Like I said before, Time moves different depending on how fast you are accelerating and the speed you are traveling. This has been confirmed in many experiments on several occasions. There have been experiments that show light emitted from a moving source has a lower frequency. Regarding the airplane experiments, Those mean absolutely nothing. It has already been proven that time dilation exists, And that time is relative. If you do the research, You will find that there is no reason for this debate. https://youtu. Be/Bg9MVRQYmBQ Here is a video explaining it all.
Time never changes

Time can't slow down or speed up. Firstly, Because time is a concept and is not an object. You may be able to make a clock run faster or slower through mechanical manipulation. But, Despite this increase in the clock's hand spin rate, Time ITSELF has not increased in speed. Thus, When they put a clock on a plane and fly around the Earth they may say that the time has changed by some micro seconds. This may occur due to the aether drag which pushes on the mechanism of the clock. Note - It has been measured that the Earth's spin rate is slowing down. This is also a result of aether drag. https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=RA8Jm8hCROQ Note - This video blames the slowing down on the Earth's tidal flow. Note - The tidal flow is a result of aether drag also. The Earth's gravity is the aether flow. Therefore, You can't deny that there is no aether flow. Note - Gravity is a pushing action because a pulling action has no logic, Not to mention any mechanical leverage or anchor point. Thus, There is no rope which is connected from the Earth to the moon. Thus, Something must be pushing the moon from behind. This something must be invisible to human detection instrumentation. But, We can measure gravity, Thus, We can measure aether pressure which is the same thing.
Time never changes

First off, I did prove I was right. To the many references to many experiments done, To Albert Einstein, To the video I showed you. I don't see how that was bullying? All I was doing was telling you I was right. It's pretty obvious, Isn't it? You don't have any proof that time never changes. But, On the other hand, It has been proven many times that time is relative. If you can give me proof, I would love to go back to the debate.
Time never changes

Quote "I think this whole debate will go around in circles, So I am going to end it right here. The whole reason I took this debate was because I knew I was right. I know it has been proven that time is relative. I don't see why you have a hard time accepting that. " This is called bullying. "So I am going to end it right here" This is clearly stand over tactics that would be typical of a night club bouncer. Quote " I knew I was right" Assuming that you are right from the outset is not in the spirit of debate. You are here to PROVE that you are right and not to just repeating over and over again ad nauseam that you are so so right and I am so so wrong etc.