BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
socialism will hurt the U.S. economy

Socialism is a socioeconomic philosophy which has failed everywhere it has been tried, yet for decades has been slowly and steadily creeping into American society. Many contemporary Americans, including some prominent and high-level politicians, hold socialist views and continually press for the implementation of socialist principals and programs in the United States. Socialism is bad for America because it results in large, intrusive and controlling government that diminishes the role and value of individual citizens; it is largely based on "false compassion" that promotes victimhood and big government solutions; and it offers a false hope of utopian brotherhood and equality, resulting in the loss of freedom and the rise of governmental tyranny. socialism would hurt the economy. it is when the rich are forced to give to the poor basically. now who is the poor? of course there are many poor people out there that are hard working, but there are also many who dont care to work and live off the rich's money. why would this hurt the economy? imagine being a business owner. it takes a lot of work. if you own a business you are making the money yourself and you deserve that money. now imagine having to give a lot of that money to the people who dont feel like working. do you think everyone who is forced to help them will care to work as hard knowing that they wont be getting as much as they deserve? it may work well at first, but in the long run it would hurt us. people would start to realize that it is easier to live off the government and dont have to work. people will slowly get lazier and lazier. this means business owners who provide jobs will start making cuts. why are the hardworking being punished so that the lazy can have money? it would help the economy if we dont give them free money which forces them to work.
socialism will hurt the U.S. economy

I accept the challenge to this debate. First I think that it is important to define socialism. All though this is an affirmative burden, my opponent has not met this burden, and it is crucial that we know what we are debating about. I define hurt contextually. I define the U.S. economy contextually. I define socialism as social democracy. Social Democracy - A moderately socialist form of government achieved by democratic means. Social Democracies typically have regulations, and strong welfare states. Now, at the same time, they still have free markets. Many services like healthcare and education would be provided to everybody. One misconseption about socialism is that it is always centralized and statist. The idea of the proletariat owning the means of production would not be, under this definition of socialism, the nationalization of industries. Industries (other than the health insurance industry) wouldn't be socialized by the state, but directly by the workers. Factories would become cooperatives. They'd be owned by working people; business decisions would either be made by vote or by the elected representatives of workers. There'd be no management, though in some cases there would be elected management. There is one last point which I would like to clarify before this debate. My opponent says that forcing money from the working people to the non-working people will hurt the U.S. economy. He is right about that. I do not deny it, in fact I will be arguing that Capitalism enriches the investor class at great expense to the working class, and that this process is ultimately very harmful to the economy. Now that the definitions and ground for the debate have been laid out, I'll refrain from making any contentions, so that my oponent can make the first contentions in this debate. I look forward to seeing his arguments.
Is Pokemon the First Movie actually a great movie

The reason people still talk about it 17 years later is because they still remember what a waste of time it was. There are two reasons to talk about a movie: 1. It's great 2. It's not great They are obviously talking about the second kind because of lack in storyline and entertainment. Your argument, like the movie, is irrelevent. In the next round you may only counter the R2 argument (read R1 format). You may not create an argument or rebute this counter
Is Pokemon the First Movie actually a great movie

1. The story is pointless. They learn that forcing Pok"mon to fight is bad and wrong, but Mew two erases this memory from their minds and they go back to pointless violence. 2. This FIRST movie takes no part in any future storyline and so it wastes your time. 3 Somehow the tears of the Pok"mon bring ash back to life. How does that make sense? Do they cry him back to life? 4. This movie should not be for children: the ending scene with all the Pok"mon fighting is sad, violent, and cruel. Also Mew two blows up a lab and kills innocent scientists! For Kids! 5. In the end violent scene, since the lab-created Pok"mon are exactly alike, you don't know who to route for! 6. The first scene is confusing and gives no info since you don't know anything or anyone. Now state your points: no counters yet.
The United States Should Normalize Relations with Cuba

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for posting this debate. Again, I stand in firm affirmation of the above resolution that states The United States should normalize its relations with Cuba. I would first like to challenge my opponent's definition of normalize. According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary the word normalized is defined as the following. "to bring or restore (as relations between countries) to a normal condition." http://www.merriam-webster.com... I would also like to challenge his offered definition of natural. I will define it again by the same Merriam-Webster's dictionary "having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question Using this definition I believe that our relationship with Cuba is neither natural nor normal. Our former president added Cuba to list of "The axis of evil" in 2002. (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1971852.stm) First of all I find it inherently impossible to have a relationship with a group of people whom you find evil. My opponent went into a long, drawn-out, and entirely irrelevant lecture on past relations with Cuba, which has no bearing on his own resolution. I would like to define "should" as my opponent failed to do so. According to Merriam Webster's dictionary should is defined as the following: —used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency <'tis commanded I should do so. Should in the above example expresses the fact that "should" and "ought to" are interchangeable" and ought to expresses the future and not the past. So, by saying I affirm that the US SHOULD normalize its relations with Cuba, the negation's case SHOULD be the opposite. In public forum debate, according to Black's law the negative cannot argue the neutral, because the resolution suggests that the US-Cuban relationship is not normal. Since his position is neutral he is not really debating. I will now prove how our relationship with Cuba is not "normal" and needs to be "normalized" As I said in my previous argument, in order for any political relationship to be "normal" is must be A) workable B) we must establish a neutral relationship with Cuba and therefore we should remove them from the proverbial "axis of evil" C) We must, remain neutral in their affairs, unless they directly affect the US itself or any of its allies. I rest my case and await my opponent's response.
The United States Should Normalize Relations with Cuba

I stand in firm affirmation that the United States should Normalize its relations with Cuba. I have two main contentions. 1) Fidel is no longer a threat to the United States. By giving the cold shoulder to Cuba we are still conveying that we are a threat, and that is not necessary. Barack Obama sent a new message when he went and conversed with Raul Castro. We will accomplish nothing by ignoring them. 2) Opening Trade With Cuba could help stabilize our economy. Cuba is a very lucrative nation and establishing trade with them. We need to be in a workable relationship with Cuba. The time for hatred is over. And for these reasons I stand in firm affirmation of the above resolution.
The United States Should Normalize Relations with Cuba

I will be negating the resolution that The United States should normalize relations with cuba The first round is for introductions. This should be Public Forum style of debate as much as possible. Definitions and the case for aff introduced in round 2 Definitions/argue of definitions by con and con case introduced round 2 Support for aff case/destory neg case in round 3 Support for neg case/destroy aff case round 3 round 4 see round 3 criterias
Teaching creationism in schools

I will start my argument by stating my basic points on the topic.- Creationism is a religious belief and not truth or fact.- Education should be factual.- Teachers shall not bring their beliefs into the classroom.Also a reminder to myself, my opponent and viewers. The debate is focused on whether or not teachers should be allowed to teach creationism in school, not whether it is truth or false.My stance is that teachers should not have the right to teach creationism in public schools. This so called "academic freedom" would be unjust to the education received by the students for the teacher. Firstly, creationism is a religious belief. Their is absolutely no science backing it's existence. As religion is not taught in public schools, creationism should not be either. Teaching creationism is teaching the students that a greater being does exist, persuading their minds to believe in such a being due to the fact they were taught that way. The belief of a greater being should be solely left up for the students to decide, with no influence from the public school system. Secondly, education taught should be scientific facts. Evolution is widely renowned as the one acceptable scientific theory of human and life origins. Again, creationism is just a belief. Because evolution is the most widely accepted theory of origin, it should be the one that is taught in schools. This reasoning backs up why the teacher should not have the choice to teach creationism in school.Creationism is how religious people describe life origins. Because religious people solely believe in it, creationism should have to place in public schools. An example is that bibles are not lectured from in public schools, so why should a teacher be allowed to preach creationism to the students. A teacher who would want to teach creationism is religious, and is only trying to persuade their students that a greater being exists, thus unjustly determining the students faith for them.To sum it all up, teachers should not be allowed to teach creationism in schools due to the fact that is a religious belief and religion does not belong in public schools. http://www.nl.idebate.org...http://www.icr.org...
Teaching creationism in schools

In April 2012, Tennessee passed a law that protects teachers who wish to teach creationism in public school.My opponent and I will debate whether or not academic freedom, mainly teaching creationism, should be allowed in public schools. I wish for the opponent and I to stay focused on the teachings of creationism in school by choice of the teacher.I will be arguring against this particular academic freedom. I believe that allowing the lecture of creationism in schools in a gateway for religion into the public school system.Round 1: Acceptance, basic viewpoint.Round 2: Main ArgumentRound 3: Rebuttals Round 4:Rebuttals, Conclusions
The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is NOT pointless.

Okay! I would like to thank my opponent for the interesting arguments! I will now try at rebutting them.ALS receives 40 million dollars a year in researchNot only does the money make a difference, it makes people want to help. It leads the people to ask our government to help. It's not solely about the money, it's also about the people that are now aware, and want to help. Even with all hundreds of millions dollars that have gone into research, we have only managed small medical breakthroughs. True. But with the Ice Bucket Challenge now collecting so much steam, places like Harvard[1], Stanford[2], and others now funding research, and now finding things to go on. (See link 2) ALS is a horrible way to die. It's also an extremely rare way to die.At any time, there are around 30,000 people infected with the ALS disease.[3] By not funding, we are killing them. With out a cure, we are successfully killing 30,000 people a year. Now, that may seem like a small number, but imagine if one of your family members was affected with ALS. Would you still state- "Well, the ALS challenge is still pointless, redirect all funds to the Ebola!" I don't think so.Scientist are already on the verge of developing a vaccine for the Ebola virusThe link stated that the Ebola virus was nessecary, not that it is on the verge of creation. I don't want to really get into this, but just wanted to make that clear.Over 100 million dollars has been raised by the bucket challenge, which could have contributed far better to other causesNow, here is where your arguments are out fault. You agreed to argue that the ALS is pointless.Pointless - having little or no sense, use, or purpose.[4]You have been arguing that the other causes are more worthy, but that doesn't make the ALS any less useful in our attempts to combat the ALS disease.Example- You have two sick people, one has a cold, and the other has cancer. You have the ability to heal the man with cancer, and you do so. You then turn to the man with a cold. You don't turn him away just because his infection is inferior to the other person's, you heal them both, like any good person would. But also for charities for cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's etc... all of whom need the money more then ALS.You have once again failed to explain why the ALS is pointless, basing your arguments around how nessecary it is that other diseases get money before ALS. And the truth is, the ALS is just a bad a disease as Dementia, or Parkinson's. It needs funding, and the ALS ice bucket challenge is giving it to them. Where Cancer control gets its millions from the government, the ALS gets it's money from the people.Closing Remarks-1. Like my opponent stated- "ALS is a horrible way to die"2. By participating in the ALS ice bucket challenge, you are assisting other people in the fight to end als, and the suffering of it's patients.3. Thus, once again, it is not pointless.Sources1- http://www.neurodiscovery.harvard.edu...2- http://neurology.stanford.edu...3- http://www.alsa.org...4- https://www.google.com...
The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is NOT pointless.

I. USEFULNESS ALS receives 40 million dollars a year in research[1]. This means that ALS research has received 400 million dollars in the past decade alone. Yet that thing best thing we can get to actually treating the disease is the development of a drug called riluzole, which can only increase a patients lifespan by a few months. [2] Lou Gehrig (the man whom the disease is named after) died 73 years ago, and even with all hundreds of millions dollars that have gone into research, we have only managed small medical breakthroughs. II. OTHER CHARITIES ALS is a horrible way to die. It's also an extremely rare way to die. For example, the Ebola virus has been declared an international health crisis[3] and yet has raised less money from donations or government funding. The Syrian refugee crisis is now the greatest international refugee crisis of this generation[4]. The difference between these causes and ALS is that these problems have foreseeable solutions. Scientist are already on the verge of developing a vaccine for the Ebola virus[5] and there are already ideas for the refugee crisis[6]. Over 100 million dollars has been raised by the bucket challenge[7], which could have contributed far better to other causes. The thing is that people have a set amount of money they can spend on charities. This means the amount of money being donated to the aforementioned causes will be significantly lower. And not just for those two, but also for charities for cancer, heart disease, Parkinsons etc. .. all of whom need the money more then ALS. Unfortunately, it's rather late and I have school in the morning so I'm going to have to stop there. I hope for some interesting rebuttals. Sources . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [1] . http://www.alsa.org... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org... [4] . http://abcnews.go.com... [5] . http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org... [6] . http://techcrunch.com... [7]
The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is NOT pointless.

In this debate, I will be arguing about how amazing the ALS ice bucket challenge is for raising money. Arguments-It spreads the word-The ALS ice bucket challenge is a fun, quirky way to make people know just how bad ALS is. So far, there have been almost 2.4 million ice bucket challenge videos on Facebook alone. [1]The ALS ice bucket challenge is creating an awareness among people. It's cheap, and easy to do. Water, as a generalization, averages at around 0.01 cents a gallon. [2]If you use a gallon for water and a gallon for ice, it has cost you around two pennies. Even if you don't donate, you have just sparked the curiosity in people to find out more about ALS. This video can take about thirty seconds, the donation takes about a minute more. Unlike food banks where you have to drive to the store, get the food, and then drive to the bank, this can be done in a matter of minutes. People keep finding new ways to improve the ALS ice bucket challenge. And by making it more fun to watch, people get more and more interested. Awareness is being raised for the disease. ALS is a disease that makes a person unable to control his/her muscles, until, eventually, they can't control their own body. [3]The brain is still functioning, so the person has to watch as they die, locked in themselves. Before this year (and maybe a little before), not that many people knew what ALS was. A Large pool of donations has been collected. Over $16 million dollars has been raised through donations to ALS. [4]This money is constantly growing, because people are constantly being nominated. Let's say that everyone in the USA (313 million) donated 2 dollars.313 x 2 = 626 million dollars. Some celebrities have participated in the ALS ice bucket challenge. Not only did they participated in the challenge, they then donated lump sums of money. Some benefactors include-1- Tom Hiddleston[5]2- Jimmy Fallon[6]3- Bill Gates[7]4- Oprah[8]Closing Main Arguments-1. The ALS Challenge has created awareness2. The ALS Challenge has raised money 3. The ALS Challenge has enticed more peopleThus it is not, by definition, pointless. Sources-[1]- www. facebook. com[2]- . http://www.fcwa.org...[3]- . http://www.alsa.org...[4]- . http://www.alsa.org...[5]- [6]- . http://www.sbnation.com...[7]-
The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is NOT pointless.

First off, I would like to state the rounds.Round 1- Acceptance Round 2- Main ArgumentsRound 3- RebuttalsRound 4- Closing Remarks(Violating any of these rounds is grounds for a full forfeit.)Rules-BOP is split both ways, while I must prove that the ALS ice bucket challenge is a good thing, my opponent must do the opposite.Any trolling is subject to a full forfeit.Forfeiting any round is subject to a forfeit.No new points may be added in the fourth round, only rebuttals may be added.After the debate is over, please refrain from commenting extra points/arguments.Definitions-The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge- The act of dumping water on yourself, and then nominating other people. Afterwards, most people donate money to the ALS Fund. ALS- Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, is a disease of the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control voluntary muscle movement.Pointless- having little or no sense, use, or purpose.Remember to cite your sources, and good luck!
Prohibition on drugs should stop

I will be arguing that there should be a prohibition on drugs, and I will post my first argument during this round. Claim: Drugs cause harm to many people and also animals. Proof: The website, . http://www.addaction.org.uk... states, "When drugs get into the bloodstream they are carried to all parts of the body and some reach the brain. The quicker the drug reaches the brain, the more intense the effects. . .. Once in the brain drugs affect chemicals called neurotransmitters. These are the chemicals that control the flow of information within the brain between the neurons or brain cells, forming a synapse. Neurotransmitters also alter people's moods and feelings. Different drugs can affect different neurotransmitters. For example, ecstasy appears to affect a neurotransmitter called serotonin by reducing the amount of the chemical in the brain. Those people with lower levels of serotonin in the brain tend to suffer from depression and also there are concerns that taking too much ecstasy for too long might make a person chronically depressed. Experiments with animals have shown that certain drugs like ecstasy can damage brain cells but experts are not agreed on whether this happens with humans to the same extent. There have been concerns about damage to the brain from taking a wide range of drugs including ecstasy, LSD and solvents but the evidence is, so far, inconclusive. " As you can see the use of drugs will cause horrible damage to the human body. Because of this a prohibition on drugs should be in place.
Prohibition on drugs should stop

Perhaps that is the truth. But certain people, and that is meaning all of those who do bad now, illegally, and with medication, will continue to do this with a freedom, and more people will do this because it is natural for people to copy what they see. Everyone will begin to do this, and eventually, the entire world could become a drug world. Everyone doing drugs, would not be a happy world.I agree that it is up to the pupil as far as what they want to do to their body, but it is the government's job to do what is best for the majority of the population. And just like with alcohol and cigarettes, people would do it in places where they are not supposed to no matter what.Also the companies that make a profit off of this, could convert to making something else that is just as appealing as the bad stuff.This is my conclusion to the debate. Thanks to my opponent for his time, and the debate. I had fun.
Prohibition on drugs should stop

An understandable fear but many people thought the same of the alcohol prohibition but as is the case with most things in life their fears were worse than reality. If prohibition yielded more promising results I might see justification in continuing with it. Even if the prohibition is lifted people will not be allowed to just run rampant through public places getting high and causing chaos. There will be designated places such as their is with alcohol. People are allowed to smoke cigarettes, east fast food, and drink like a fish and all three of those things are proven to be extremely bad for your health. Their legal because 1. mega companies make a fortune off of them and 2. It is up to the individual on what they put in their body. This really comes down to ones freedom to choose for themselves. People don't like having the government tell them what they can do with their body.
Prohibition on drugs should stop

Prohibition was a great idea in many ways and at its conception im sure that it seemed like the only solution but history has only shown it makes things worse. I don't think anyone should use a drug like cocaine or heroin but it is simply impossible to stop someone from getting the drug. It can't be done and so we have to deal with the situation in the most efficient way possible and that is not prohibition. Were every drug to be legalized the only people that would do these drugs are the ones who were doing them while they were illegal.