BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism is better than Capitalism.

Honestly communism is a great idea in theory, and yes it does allow you to have a life with less work, but does exactly what you said capitalism does, it allows big fish to eat the small. Unless you consider dedicated hard working people who make buissnesses and put in the work it takes to perspire in life, big fish, than communism takes advantage of the small fish. Yes, you want to enjoy life, everyone does, communism makes it so a young buissnessman, able to work and charge less for his products charge the same as everyone else. Yes, this make less people go to his store less, and yes, this potential owner of the nexrt mass company will be confined into his small store forever, but there are other problems that arise. For one every type of product in the country costs the same. If the country wanted it could, say, charge 10$ for each apple rather than 1$ and people would either live without apples or pay that price. Where in a capitalist country buissness would be forced to compete against each other for the demand of the consumer and whoever sells the lowest price at the best quality makes a ton of money. This is great for consumers like you and me, because everything costs less, which is obviously a good thing. Second, you run out of hard working people. Honestly, if I wasn't forced by our capitalist goverment to work hard, beleive me I definently wouldn't work nearly as hard as I do, but the thing about me not working is that its someone else's problem. If I were a farmer I might produce 10,000 crops every year. (I'm not a farmer so that's why my estimate was off.) All the farmesr collectively might produce 300,000 crops every year per 100,000 middle-class people, but in a communist goverment I might work 7/8 as hard producing 8,750 crops, and the community would produce 262,500 crops, causing at least 1 out of ten middle-class people to be without three meals a day. If this doses't convince you just imagine what happens when the doctors, dentists, lawyers, sewage workers, police officers and every other job stop working as hard. I don't think its nessassary to explain exactly how horrible that would be. Communism is basically horrible for the working class and it may sound good in theory to be able to enjoy life, but getting rid of ambition from everyone is not the way to do it.
Communism is better than Capitalism.

First of all, communism also allows people to work hard. It is true, however, that capitalism forces you to work hard. But do we really need to work hard? And what if what we think of working hard is just work for someone else? Perhaps he likes what he is doing, so, to him, spending more time and effort into something he wants to do is something he wants to do. As a matter of fact, working on something someone likes doing is something they like doing. Can this be considered a job at all? I would say no one likes to work. Working, more often than not, is something we don't want to do. Now, I'm not the best candidate for saying what communism says, but I will say what I think it should say: communism should not force you to work. Communism believes to citizens' contribution to the community. We know we can, and do, contribute, as well, from those little things we do everyday for those around us. Capitalism, on the other hand, forces everyone to fight for themselves. This is a flawed idea, since the big fishes will eat the small. Is this a society we want to live in? A society that forces everyone to work and only the few lucky or privileged will succeed? About getting better jobs, that is something I don't want to do. I just want a respectable salary for me and my family. I don't want no fancy cars and houses. If you do, then let me tell you you are missing the point of life, which is living your life, not accumulating money and goods. Finally, about having equal opportunities, I don't see how a low income person can effectively challenge a high income one. I know for a fact I don't want to live in a capitalist society. I want to live in a communist society, because communism serves my interests, the common people's interests, my desire to feel safe, accepted and useful to the society. I want to live in a society that understands my right to be happy. Capitalism cannot and will not ever understand that.
Gay Marriage

First of all, who ever said women aren't allowed to be involved with intercourse during menstruation? That isn't biblical if that is what you are referring to. And what does any of what I said have to do with women being leaders in a church? This is about gay marriage, not women's rights. Also, what does that quote; "We cannot curse one deed without cursing the plethora of deeds before or after it." Supposed to mean? Is the following sentence in your argument supposed to be a question? I apologize, but I don't exactly understand what point your argument is trying to convey. Also, you are correct; Jesus never actually called prostitutes vile or disgusting. As Christians, we are to love the sinner, not the sin. If someone comes to church who is openly gay, the church isn't going to cast them out. The church would love on them. And then, when appropriate, the church would address the sin that the new person is committing and then they'd take it from there. There's be no hate involved. Furthermore on your stance, why do women menstruate when they aren't pregnant? Well if you really must know, blood builds up in the uterus to prepare itself to get pregnant. But when there is no sperm to join with a female's egg, the female won't get pregnant. Therefore, she menstruates. The blood has to come out since she is not pregnant. What I meant by; "Biologically Incorrect", I didn't mean anything to do with bodily functions. Take two squirrels or monkeys, or whatever animal. Would a male monkey purposefully try to attract another male so they could be gay? No. Why? Because it isn't their nature. They weren't created that way. Same goes for us. I don't mean to be T.M.I with what I'm about to say, but it's a part of life so just look at the science behind it; Humans are created to reproduce. In the Bible, God commanded Abraham to; "Be fruitful and multiply." That Bible verse is intended for reproductions. We humans were meant to multiply meaning, two women with two vagina's were not created to have sex with each other. Same goes for men. We were created scientifically; for one penis to unite with one vagina and they combine to multiply, make more human beings, and fill the earth. If everyone suddenly went gay, nobody would be able to reproduce the way God intended us to and we'd all fall into great sin and turmoil.
Gay Marriage

What my opponent is clear to leave out is the many things that are regarded as sinful and unclean in the bible due to interpretation, including shellfish, women not being able to be involved in sexual intercourse during menstruation, and to some women being leaders in the church. We cannot curse one deed without cursing the plethora of deeds before or after it. Also, if one says that loving someone is against the bible are we not missing the actual point of which Jesus wished to preach. I don't recall Jesus calling prostitutes disgusting or vile which are some comments that were used on this website to describe gay issues. Furthermore, on a biological stance, there are many things that biologically "should" be correct that are not. For example, why do women menstruate when they clearly are not pregnant, what is the "biologically correct" purpose for wasting resources of the female body every month when a baby is clearly not being produced? Or men and women who can not reproduce at all, are their bodies "biologically incorrect"?
God is made up by humans.

Proof that god was made up-Control over humans by fear of hell.Controling by fear is tactic that has been used and is used by many dictators and it works.Churches getting free money in the bible it says that people should give percent of their salary to church.If you just used your head a litle you could see that religion is nothing more that method for controling the masses.Give me good argument that god exists ohh forgot that you dont have any.
God is made up by humans.

God what is god or who is god even in the bible is not explained what actualy is god.And there is no proof that he exists.Dont tell me to look arround and see that life couldnt have just came out of no where.I would say that god is made up becouse we dont understand verry good where did life came from or the whole universe it like the ancient people they made up gods to explain where rain came from or lightnings ect.What i want to say is there is no proof of god and everything points that he is made up to explain things we cant understand yet.
Religious books are the ONLY possible source of moral guidance

I'll start by defining the scope of this debate. We should only debate the possible sources of moral guidance, we should define a set of BASIC morals which we can use as a basis for the argument (and I'll leave that to my opponent), here are the definitions: [DEFINITION: source] 1. any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin: [DEFINITION: moral] 1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. 2.expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel. 3.founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations. [DEFINITION: guidance] 1.the act or function of guiding; leadership; direction. My goal will be to prove that we can have sustainable and consistent moral guidance the source of which is our reasoning and to show that the Bible (or other theistic literature) is NOT the ONLY possible source for moral guidance. I accept the fact that religious literature may be used as a source for moral guidance, but it's not the ONLY source possible. I will not go into proving this just yet, I'll do it in the next rounds if my opponent accepts this debate. This debate is in response to my opponent's following statement: "the Bible (and other books which claim to be divinely inspired) are the ONLY possible source of moral guidance. Morals, by definition, are standards of right and wrong that transcend the physical world and human reason. If something is "immoral" we say it's "wrong." In other words, it conflicts with a deep conviction. What do we base that on? Human reason? I hope not, because human reason is fickle. Morals are unchanging, otherwise they aren't morals. Human reason may lead us to correct judgments today, and something like utilitarianism tomorrow. Utilitarianism is "reasonable," unfortunately it's based on a twisted value system which devalues individual human life. Thus, morals MUST be based on something which is not derived from the facts of the physical world, but given to us by a power which transcends that physical world. If there is no God, then there are no true morals. "There are MANY countries that don't observe the theistic moral structure and they're doing JUST fine." That depends on what you consider "fine." I could show you some fairly frightening statistics that might change your mind. Public education comes to mind." I will wait for my opponent to accept before I begin my arguments.
PC v Console

-PC/laptops have been around for a long time, not to say consoles have not, but there has been a vast improvement in the capability of these machines. In the early days, computers would take up an entire room and would be able to do basic tasks. Since the first computer in 1946, they have become more personal and much more powerful. By the time 1981 rolled around, these machines that would take up an entire room, was now capable of being brought around with you on your travels. Computers now are have a vast capability of storing countless amounts of information, running games that would impress anyone, availability to create mods for games or just create your own game. -Cost, this can be pushed either way, you can choose to spend $400-$600 on a console which is a rather set sticker price. On PC/laptops you have the ability to spend $300 to the upwards of $10,000. Obviously the more you spend the better performance you will receive. Because of this price range there is a lot of flexibility in parts, size and capability of the machine you are looking into making. In all fairness, you never expect to spend the amount that you want on a pc, it normally go over, while on console it's a set price and not changing. -Performance, for console it's normally going to be a 'what you see is what you get' kind of situation. For PC, you have a vast majority of choices that will enhance your performance, and you also have the possibility to change the graphics card. On console you do not have as easy of a upgrading parts. You can build a PC from scratch while the console just comes at a sticker price and what the performance is would be rather standard and unavailable to change. -Graphical Process Power, along the same lines as performance, what you see is what you get for console. PC has a wide variety of choices to choose from and possess the capabilities for upgrades. If there are any other topics you wish to touch on, please feel free too, I shall respond next round Best of luck! -Chaos
PC v Console

I will argue for the sake of Console gaming based off of the price of entry. A next gen console will run you about $300 - $400 + a game for $60 depending if you get games in a bundle or not. Out the door within the first 6 months you're more than likely to spend around $500. With a PC you're going to be spending a minimum of $500 to build a budget PC (not including monitor, peripherals, games, etc.). You will most likely get a game with a decent new GPU, but out the gate the average gaming pc is still much more than a console. You do miss certain exclusives that make the console worth while, not to mention if you like certain genre's of games are specifically designed for console.
The Morality of Abortion

I am pro-life, but I want to play devil's advocate in this debate because I want to run an argument by my opponent and see how he will respond to it. I will argue that an individual human life does not begin at conception. I will not take a hard position on when exactly it begins. I think it will be enough to negate my opponent's position if I can show that life does not begin at conception because that will show there is at least some point during pregnancy in which abortion is morally permissible, however short that period of time may be. Maybe the odds be ever in your favor!
The Morality of Abortion

This debate will center around the question, "At what point in a human pregnancy is abortion acceptable if at all?". I will be taking a conservative position on the pro-life movement. My assertion is that life begins at conception and at no point in a pregnancy is abortion acceptable. Rules -------- 1. Be mature and professional 2. Use the terms pro-life movement and pro-choice movement (Use of terms like pro-abortion, anti-abortion, anti-life, etc is unnecessary and could be considered ad-hominem) 3. No spamming 4. Define terms that you use. Both sides must agree on definitions. (If a definition is challenged the challenger must state why) 5. By accepting the debate, you agree to the definitions of the terms below Round Configuration ------------------------------ Round 1: Acceptance / Definition of position Round 2: Opening arguments (no rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Defense Round 5: Closing statements Definitions ---------------- Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy Fetus: an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception. Conception: When the sperm fertilizes the egg I look forward to a good fun debate. Good luck to the pro!
gods word is not truth because i just got a new key to my house..

What? Ok, let's simplify this. Your statement/stand: Since I have gotten a new key to my house, God's word is either false - or I am God - or I am lying. Rebuttal Type II disgree with every one of those. You yourself, have admitted that your words are not God's words which means you admitted you're not God, so I won't bother with "or I am God" part. Rebuttal Type IIYou have never, even in Round 2 explained how you got to that conclusion, despite my pleads in Round 1. I don't know how logical and scientific this Debate is supposed to be, but its under Religion. Explain, or else I will not be able to give a proper Rebuttal. You have given me 2 options in Round 2, either to say you're lying or telling the truth. I will take the 3rd option, and that is to prove that "Since I have gotten a new key to my house, God's word is either false" part is wrong, as I have done in the 1st round. I do not understand what you mean by "my word is not gods word", but if that was your Rebuttal, then, yeah, it's not a proper one. You're not the one giving options here - I am; you're either supposed to explain how you got to that conclusion, or rebut my statement about how God's word has nothing to do with getting a new key to your house. To reiterate, because I must -God's words are formed by many people, witnesses, his disciples and. .. well, his own words. His words are filled with. .. Religious and Political views, commandments, Literature, Poetry, and is considered a Literary Masterpiece. They have, absolutely nothing to do with getting a new key to your house.
gods word is not truth because i just got a new key to my house..

"gods word is not truth because i just got a new key to my house.."You never explained in your 1st Round how you even came to that conclusion, instead stating that you were lying unless you were God.God's word and having a new key to your house is almost unrelated.So, well, I'll just have to prove that having a new key to your house isn't related/does not affect/does not impact/has no connection with God's word/you are not God.Rebuttal 1 Having a new key to your house does not make you God/does not make God's word false.I don't need to reiterate that again; you can't be God - there would be tons of "God"s out there if you were.God's words have nothing to do with getting a new key to your house -_- explaining this is harder than you think, just saying.God's words are formed by many people, witnesses, his disciples and...well, his own words. His words are filled with...Religious and Political views, commandments, Literature, Poetry, and is considered a Literary Masterpiece. They have, absolutely nothing to do with getting a new key to your house.Rebuttal 2I can't think of another Rebuttal to that statement...ugh.
Gay Adoption and Parenting

Lesbians and gay men bring children into their lives in a number of ways. In lesbian couples, frequently, one partner gives birth to a child and the other partner, the second parent, becomes a legal parent through second parent or stepparent adoption, if that's permitted in the state where they live. Gay men can do virtually the same thing by using a surrogate to carry a child born from one partner's sperm and a donor egg. But it somehow will effect your children's life, wont be successful, will effect his education in a negative way. He will be laughingstock by his surroundings, won't have any friends.
Gay Adoption and Parenting

Many arguments against the legality of gay marriage include the sanctity of the family. According to social conservatives, gay people are deranged, perverted or otherwise unfit to provide a safe, functional and/or loving family environment in which kids can be raised successfully. At the very least, they argue that a proper home is strictly defined by having both a mother and a father. As such, despite the fact that lesbians can still get pregnant and gay couples can adopt, many people are opposed to same-sex headed families and think they should be discouraged if not outright illegal. In this debate, I will be arguing that gay and lesbian couples can on balance raise children just as well as straight couples. For all intents and purposes, just as well will essentially be defined as according to the same standards of wellness and success under similar circumstances. For example, if Con argues that kids with straight parents are likely to attend college, Pro will have the burden of proving kids with gay parents are also likely to attend college (or provide an otherwise equal measure of success). This is not meant to turn into a debate about semantics or trivialities, but discuss legitimate concerns regarding same-sex parenting. My opponent is free to make opening notes in R1, as I intend to start the debate and make my affirmative case in R2. However if he or she would like to post first, they may do so. Thanks and good luck.
America should not have welfare

I welcome my opponent to DDO. He was eager to debate this topic with me, and I'm pleased to accommodate.Pro contends that the entire American welfare system should cease because (1) there is no money for it and (2) no one really needs it. Pro gives no evidence to support either contention, and since Pro has the burden of proof, technically all I need to do is deny the contentions. I will nonetheless dispute the contentions in some detail.The reason that we have a welfare system is that the majority of Americans want to have one. I think it is human nature to want help people who genuinely need help. Humans are inherently tribal, so they instinctively want to support people in their tribe. The problem is that e no longer have tribal communities that know who really needs help, and who just needs a kick in the butt to get them to take care of themselves. The social problem has become more of a predicament in the last system as life expectancies increased enormously, so that there are many more old people with disabilities than tribal societies ever had to accommodate.The public still wants to have welfare programs, but they want significant welfare reform. significant welfare reform legislation was signed by President Clinton in 1996. http://www.usatoday.com... Since then, the reforms have been partially undone. People now want a limit to the time that able-bodied people can stay on welfare, and drug testing to qualify http://www.publicagenda.org....Entitlements like Social Security and Medicare have both welfare aspects and insurance aspects. Many people paid into the programs with the expectation of receiving benefits. Aspects like Social Security Disability payments are pure welfare. We can afford some welfareThe overall point is that we can afford some welfare and we should have it because the public wants to provide care for citizens who have genuine needs. What people want are very tightly regulated programs with limited eligibility, and that we can afford. Entitlement programs should be divided into a part that contributions that have been paid for by the individual's contributions and a welfare part. The paid-in part should be returned as benefits without qualification. The welfare part should be means tested, so that people who do not need government subsidy do not receive it.Some people are genuinely neededPro offered no evidence that those receiving welfare do not need it. It is easy to identify people who have genuine needs. For example, people with disabilities that significantly limit their ability to work have genuine needs. Others are financially devastated by crime, acute illness or injury, or natural disaster. Those people deserve a minimum social safety net to help return to being productive members of society.America should have welfare, in accord with a much-reformed system.The resolution is negated.