BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Generally speaking socialism and communism are synonymous.

1.'I acknowledge that there are differences between Communism and Socialism, Much like within Christianity there are differences between Baptists and Methodists. However, the differences are deep in the detail. Generally speaking they are synonymous.' The main difference there is that Baptists and Methodists are both subgroups of Christianity, what are Socialism and Communism subgroups of? 2.'The differences that my opponent has listed are few and far in-between. Notice my opponent did not contest any of the several things that Communism and Socialism have in common.' Irrelevant what they have in common. Fascism and Socialism have some common elements as well, does that mean they are synonymous? 3. 'In Con's argument it says "Forster Diary 11 May in T. W. Reid Life (1888) .... I learn that the great distinction between communism and socialism is that the latter believes in payment according to work done and the former does not".[5][6] So the "great" or largest distinction between communism and socialism is this one principle. Communism and socialism virtually have everything else in common.' It's a MAJOR difference. That would be the same as saying:' Fascism and Socialism's major difference is that the former believes in extreme nationalism and socialism does not.' The core principle of socialism is the equality of outcome, which communism defies... 4. 'Con says "Using definitions from thesauri is rather pointless," I ask how else would one determine if words or ideas are synonymous if not through a thesaurus? His justification "as the theories of Marxism are too complex to be defined in a few sentences. In order to understand both of these concepts, one must study deeper into socialist and communist theory." I agree that the theories of Marxism are complex. However, like any ideology they have been, and will continue to be summed up in a few sentences. I agree with Con that the only way to understand the differences between these two ideologies is to "study deeper." This is why the resolution reads that "generally speaking socialism and communism are synonymous." It's useless because different thesauri have different definition. This resolution stands on the basis of socialist theory in opposition to communist theory. The problem here is that this resolution is called 'Generally speaking socialism and communism are synonymous' When it comes to complex and strict ideologies, generally synonymous would mean they do not oppose each other in any area (or oppose each other in very irrelevant areas). If they were truly synonymous they would have theses in addition to the already established ideology. Communism does not build upon socialism, communism opposes socialism in many of the main policies of socialism.
Generally speaking socialism and communism are synonymous.

Rebuttal: I acknowledge that there are differences between Communism and Socialism, Much like within Christianity there are differences between Baptists and Methodists. However, the differences are deep in the detail. Generally speaking they are synonymous. The differences that my opponent has listed are few and far in-between. Notice my opponent did not contest any of the several things that Communism and Socialism have in common. In Con's argument it says "Forster Diary 11 May in T. W. Reid Life (1888) .... I learn that the great distinction between communism and socialism is that the latter believes in payment according to work done and the former does not".[5][6] So the "great" or largest distinction between communism and socialism is this one principle. Communism and socialism virtually have everything else in common. Con says "Using definitions from thesauri is rather pointless," I ask how else would one determine if words or ideas are synonymous if not through a thesaurus? His justification "as the theories of Marxism are too complex to be defined in a few sentences. In order to understand both of these concepts, one must study deeper into socialist and communist theory." I agree that the theories of Marxism are complex. However, like any ideology they have been, and will continue to be summed up in a few sentences. I agree with Con that the only way to understand the differences between these two ideologies is to "study deeper." This is why the resolution reads that "generally speaking socialism and communism are synonymous." I resubmit the definitions from round one. Generally: "in a way that is not detailed or specific, in most cases." Synonymous: "having the same meaning." "In a way that is not detailed or specific," socialism and communism "have the same meaning." The resolution stands.
Generally speaking socialism and communism are synonymous.

Socialist: "a person who believes in socialism" ": a member of a political party that supports socialism "(1) Communist: "a person who believes in communism or is a member of a political party that supports communism"(2) A:Defining Socialism: A brief overview Socialism: "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. "(3) "True socialists advocate a completely classless society, where the government controls all means of production and distribution of goods. Socialists believe this control is necessary to eliminate competition among the people and put everyone on a level playing field. Socialism is also characterized by the absence of private property. The idea is that if everyone works, everyone will reap the same benefits and prosper equally. Therefore, everyone receives equal earnings, medical care and other necessities. "(4) Summary: 1: Classless society 2: Government Control of the means of production 3: Absence of private property 4: Equal earnings, medical care, and other necessities B: Defining Communism: A brief overview Communism: "a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc. ) and there is no privately owned property. "(5) "Marx believed that a truly utopian society must be classless and stateless. (It should be noted that Marx died well before any of his theories were put to the test. ) Marx's main idea was simple: Free the lower class from poverty and give the poor a fighting chance. How he believed it should be accomplished, however, was another story. In order to liberate the lower class, Marx believed that the government would have to control all means of production so that no one could outdo anyone else by making more money. Unfortunately, that proves to this day to be more difficult than he might have realized. "(6) "In the communist society that Marx described, the government has supreme authority through its total control of land and means of production. Because the government distributes land and property among the people, communism sets a standard of equality -- both economically and socially -- among its followers. "(6) Summary: 1: Classless society 2: Government control of the means of production 3: Absence of private property 4: Standard of equality " economically and socially C: Generally synonymous. It is clear when observing the definitions and summaries of communism and socialism that they are generally synonymous. (7)(8) (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (4) . http://money.howstuffworks.com... (5) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (6) . http://people.howstuffworks.com... (7) . http://www.thesaurus.com... (8) . http://www.thesaurus.com...
Generally speaking socialism and communism are synonymous.

Resolve: Generally speaking "socialism" and "communism" are synonymous. Generally: "in a way that is not detailed or specific, in most cases." (1) Synonymous: "having the same meaning."(2) Round 1: acceptance Round 2: arguments and rebuttals Round 3: arguments and rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals and closing remarks (no new arguments) (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
No government can ever be %100 flawless

R1: "It could be a perfect species or an all powerful being that made the robots."There is no proof of either."In fact, I can bring up the statement that I am part of a perfect god like species and I rule myself, and my opponent will not be able to disprove that."Perhaps you can. But to say so would be the BoP fallacy.R2: "This is irrelevant since this debate is not about weather a perfect AI can be made. Rather if a perfect AI can govern, which I have proven that it can."Actually, a perfect AI cannot govern if it is not made, which you have not proven that it can. So yes, it is relevant to this debate. R3: "AI can be programmed to not have rights. And since rights do not exist, you are not violating them. Rights promised and are given by the government, so the functioning government will still be perfect if it never had rights"But if rights do not exist, then there is no right of the government to force the citizens into thinking how it wants them to. "-In order for a government to be perfect it must guarantee rights-Rights do not exist in that government"If both of these are true, then by your logic, the government you propose is imperfect."There may be a time when waterproof robots can withstand extreme temperature and have batteries as long as they function."Perhaps that may happen. But they would still have one need: Batteries. Even if they ran on solar power, they would go out when there was no sunshine at night.
No government can ever be %100 flawless

R.1 Robots do not have to be man made"Robot programming =/= perfection. Even robot logic can be errant."What? I believe my opponent is implying since humans are flawed and since robots are flawed therefore robots are flawed as well? Who said the government had to be human? It could be a perfect species or an all powerful being that made the robots.In fact, I can bring up the statement that I am part of a perfect god like species and I rule myself, and my opponent will not be able to disprove that. R.2"This argument is no good if my opponent cannot prove that a perfect AI will ever be made."This is irrelevant since this debate is not about weather a perfect AI can be made. Rather if a perfect AI can govern, which I have proven that it can.R.3 Brainwash and dictatorship "If we brainwash the people, we are violating their right to think as they choose" AI can be programmed to not have rights. And since rights do not exist, you are not violating them. Rights promised and are given by the government, so the functioning government will still be perfect if it never had rights-In order for a government to be perfect it must guarantee rights-Rights do not exist in that government"Robots also have the following needs: Batteries, proper temperarure, and a way to keep water out of their bodies."I believe my opponent meant temperature? Anyway, that part of my opponent's argument is a blind assumption. There may be a time when waterproof robots can withstand extreme temperature and have batteries as long as they function. "All one-man governments are either dictatorships or monarchies with no other side to be the head of government. And we all know what happened in monarchies before parliament was invented: religion was forced onto people."How is this true? I may have an alter ego and dictatorships is still a type of government since they are governing the area.
No government can ever be %100 flawless

Rebuttal to C1: "We can always program robots in a way so their technique is perfect." Robot programming =/= perfection. Even robot logic can be errant."We perhaps may even indeed create the perfrcr artificial intelligence" Perhaps, but because of slow scientifc progress, we may not have enough time befoere the end of the world for that.Rebuttal to C2:This argument is no good if my opponent cannot prove that a perfect AI will ever be made.Rebuttal to C3:If we brainwash the people, we are violating their right to think as they choose, thus still an imperfect government. Furthermore, brainwashed=/=lacking needs. Religious people are brainwashed, but they still have needs. Robots also have the following needs: Batteries, proper temperarure, and a way to keep water out of their bodies. False. All one-man governments are either dictatorships or monarchies with no other side to be the head of government. And we all know what happened in monarchies before parliament was invented: religion was forced onto people."I now declare this to be my own government, and since I like it, it is flawless" This is an appeal to authority.Rebuttal to R1: Like I said before: if it's robots, they can still have logical errancy just like people. And no one-man government did not have a greedy ruler.
No government can ever be %100 flawless

C.1 Government does not have be made by people therefore, it does not have to be flawedMy opponent defined government as "the governing body of a state, nation, or community." My idea of artificial intelligence of governing is not a contradiction to the definition, therefore valid. The point is, it does not have to be people. We can always program robots in a way so their technique is perfect. And who knows? We perhaps may indeed create the a perfect artificial intelligence. It is theoretically possible with the correct tools therefore the robot governing will be flawless. C.2 The perfect robot can meet everyone's needsIn order to have a flawless government it needs to meet everyone's need which is within that government. The simple solution to that is brainwash the people so they do not even have needs! With this government plan, no consent is needed as the government is simply "governing". For an example, North Korea has a type of government and it brainwashes people without consent. Still a government. Better yet, have the people be robots! That way, you can program the artificial intelligence to not even have needs. In order to be flawless, it must also meet environmental needs. Simple way is to have the residence be perfect for living. With robots, they will not really have an environmental need. C.3 Have a one man governmentHaving a one man government and treating yourself however you like it is still a valid government plan. You make up the rules to your desires, and since it is subjective it is impossible to prove otherwise. For an example -I now live in a clean place that does not have any diseases -There is no one there, and I love it-I now declare this to be my own government, and since I like it , it is flawlessNow on to rebuttalsR.1 The government does not have to be peopleMy opponent's entire argument revolves around the idea that people control the government, and people are flawed therefore the government must be flawed. My argument is that it does not have to be people. Or it can just be one person and that person can treat him/herself however he/she wants to be treated.
No government can ever be %100 flawless

Many apologies for the earlier forfeit. Loss in conduct will have no objection, however any further points rewarded in regards to forfeit with no further RFD will be considered a vote bomb. R.1 AI does not have to be made by humansSo, my opponent brings up the claim that no government can be 100% flawless. His only argument for that is that since humans are imperfect, the government has to be imperfect. This is not true simply because theoretically, it is possible for a perfect species to exist. Or even a perfect being to exist, and we cannot perceive it. Now, there is no evidence for that however, flaws are subjective. There is no evidence whether you can claim that others perceive something as flawless or not. This can be done by manipulating and or brainwashing to be in my favor. R.2 “But if rights do not exist, then there is no right of the government to force the citizens into thinking how it wants them to.” Rights are given by the government. If the government does not give rights, therefore rights to not exist. If rights do not exist, then the government can manipulative its people, because it is not about whether the government has rights to do that or not. Why? Because rights do not exist! Government rights are subjective as the government is creating them. Rights are not fixed. If there are no rights, then the government does not have to worry about manipulating its people. When did rights have to be justifiable mean of a flawed or flawless government? If rights never existed, then within that perception that government is flawless.My argument in regards to a one man government stands. Flaws are subjective and if I believe it is flawless, therefore it is. Similarly, I can have a group of people, AI, or clones agree with me.
God in nature (intelligent design) [Version 2]

Welcome, everyone!Motion: God exists in natureFirst, allow me to clarify the motion. By "God exists in nature" I mean the following: "Through observation and reason, we can conclude the existence of a god as the best explanation for certain - if not all - aspects in nature." This means no ontological arguments, people! I've been observing (haha...) them recently in the forums and don't wish to debate them now. What do I mean by God? I simply mean an intelligent designer that is unknown to us. (So, Pro could argue for aliens, I suppose). I, as Con, will be arguing against the existence of God in nature. However, the burden of proof will lie on Pro here; proving God impossible and/or non-existent is not a burden I carry.Pro's burden of proof is: To show that God is the best explanation for certain - if not all - aspects in nature.Con's burden is: To undermine and/or refute Con's argument(s). The rules are as follows:1) Pro must give the opening case in round one. In round four, Pro must put, and only put, "No round posted here as agreed."2) A forfeit of a round is a forfeit of conduct; a forfeit of a round is only a forfeit of conduct.3) There can be no "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of the debate unless one of the debaters conceded the debate.4) Sources are considered accurate unless they are proven otherwise.That's all for now! If anyone has any question, please post a comment! Good luck to all! Allez![Please note this is the second version of this debate; this debate is not a glitch.]
Atheism is not a religion

Well its a shame. Sorry that I have to say goodbye to you after the first RD. But due to the fact that you like nearly every christian out there you don't have the ability to do something as wide and as vast as "reading", You do know what "reading" is - correct? You know. Words. Sentences. And you did not do that and instead went off on a conveyor belt of antics and invented some charcoal blackened ash neanderthal excuse that had nothing whatsoever to do with what was posted unto you in RD1 AND you like the typical christian, You completely avoided looking at videos at all costs as you cannot handle any type of evidence whatsoever especially when it is slapped to your groin, As you would have discovered in both text and through video that atheism is most certainly NOT a religion. So this debate is now over.
Atheism is not a religion

A religion doesn"t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), Some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), Some non-theistic (Buddhism). I"d say atheists and their religion are "anti-theistic. " But their atheism is religious nonetheless. You have your own world view. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, Follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, They interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out. Muslims view the world that there is one god and Jesus is not his son or equal. You even have your own Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, There is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, It is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, Undirected, Purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
Atheism is not a religion

"The only way you can be a bad atheist is to believe in god. " Matt Dillahunty "You don't get to put your unreason upon the same shelf with my reason. " Bill Maher "Atheism is a response to a single claim, That some god exists. We don"t believe that"s true so we"re atheists. And that"s all it means. " Jen peeples Atheism: 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Here"s some videos that proves atheism is NOT a religion: You can find them on Youtube. There are plenty more (more like hundreds) Video 1. Reasons for accepting atheism Video 2. Proof that atheism is accurate and correct Video 3. Penn Jillette: Reading the Bible (Or the Koran, Or the Torah) Will Make You an Atheist Prove that atheism is a religion. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Smoking should be made illegal

I accept. My contentions are as follows: Contention 1: Banning smoking is an infringement upon personal liberty. Contention 2: Banning smoking will reduce tax revenues. Contention 1: Banning smoking is an infringement upon personal liberty. I believe that as a society, it should be our number one goal to protect Liberty across the board. But if you only protect religious Liberty and you don't protect people's personal habits, then you're really not defending Liberty. Smoking is a lifestyle that affects the individual that smokes. I understand that there is effects from second hand smoking, but I think there are ways to regulate smoking in certain places, but not ban it all together. Overall, we need to understand that some people choose this lifestyle and we need to protect that personal liberty. https://m.youtube.com... Contention 2: Banning smoking would reduce tax revenues. One of the benefits of having any drug legalized is that it is heavily taxed, and thus bringing in money for the state for highway, library, and school funds. If you ban smoking, you take a huge bite out of all of those funds. In 2012, the total U.S tax revenue was 17 million dollars. Imagine what that kind of money could do for schools and roads across the country. Also, if the state is funding it, then the state can meddle. For example, smoking can be banned in certain locations at public universities, but when the tax money is absent (as is the case with private schools) then the state must remain out of the business of regulating it. http://thefederalist.com... http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
Smoking should be made illegal

Smoking is should be made illegal because it causes cancer, brutally harms the environment and is the cause 6 million deaths around the world every year. 600 million trees are chopped down every year. Why? Just to satisfy the addiction of millions of people around the world. Smoking is completely non beneficial to the smoker and the people around them. I understand that there is a sense of choice for the smokers but the smokers are at the same time changing lives for non smokers around them. If you inhale the smoke you are just as likely to get lung cancer than the smoker his/herself and no one deserves to die the slow painful death of cancer.