BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
What is a more successful form of government-Communism(pro) or Capitalism (con)

Sorry for forfeiture, I didn't realize it was a one-day argument period rather than three. I'll accept whatever the voters decide on whether to penalize me for it. I'm going to rely on the fact that BY DEFINITION capitalism is not a form of government. America is a democratic republic, not a "capitalism." Now let's look at the only example you provide, the Capitalist Party of Georgia. I'll have three major responses to this: 1. The Capitalist Party of Georgia (CPG) is a single-issue party. 2. The CPG isn't a substantial party 3. Just because something is a political party doesn't mean it's a form of government. Back to my first response: they are a single-issue party. Single issue parties are a common occurrence. They are prominent in American history: The Free Soil Party (Source 1), advocating that slavery shouldn't move westward, or the Green Party, or multiple parties running for cannabis legalization. They are pushing an issue, not a form of government. Most single issue parties fail, and nobody hears of them, because they have a platform on only one issue. 2. The CPG isn't a substantial party. They have no seats in the state (Sources 2 & 3) nor in the National Congress (Source 4). It's a bunch of reactionaries (conservative form of radicals) that aren't actually competent. Just look at their website: http://www.cpofga.org... Honestly, this isn't even a legitimate party. 3. Refer back to my first response about single-issue parties. Look at the examples I provided. The Free Soil Party existed, but there's no such government system named the "Free Soil" system, nor a "Green" form of government or any "Legalize Cannabis" forms of government. Even if you buy his argument about the Capitalist Party of Georgia, this disproves it being a form of GOVERNMENT. My opponent also made many claims, yet in all three rounds used a single source, whereas I have provided eight, all supporting my claim. Remember the definitions I made in Round 1. Capitalism is quite simply not a form of government. This means that no matter how bad Communism is as a form of government, since it actually IS a form of government, it's the only possible option. Source 1: http://www.gilderlehrman.org... Source 2: http://www.house.ga.gov... Source 3: http://www.senate.ga.gov... Source 4: http://www.senate.gov... (See "Party Breakdown" Section)
What is a more successful form of government-Communism(pro) or Capitalism (con)

Since my worthy opponent has forfeited this round, I will continue to state my arguments. In the first round, my opponent stated that "you've never heard of a capitalist political party, because capitalism ins't a form of government..." Well my friend---"The Capitalist Party of Georgia realizes that wealth and freedom go hand in hand. Capitalism is the engine that drives America and freedom is the fuel. As Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman so eloquently put it, "Economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom." That means your freedom to acquire wealth, however you define it, is absolutely necessary if you are to be truly free of government dependence. But sadly, the two major political parties in America don't fully appreciate that simple truth. The Capitalist Party of Georgia wants to offer the people of Georgia an alternative to the two major political parties who are entrenched in such a bureaucratic government mindset, that they can no longer proclaim a credible belief in smaller, less intrusive government, much less implement such an agenda. The Capitalist Party of Georgia can and will implement an agenda that gives you the freedom to succeed by tearing down the political walls that government builds on a daily basis to deny or restrict your economic freedom. We want America to be the best in everything, but that can only occur if you, not government, are empowered with the political freedom to achieve economic freedom and independence."" And also libertarianism is according to various web sites a capitalist party. So really I can argue that capitalism is a "form of government" but, instead I will continue to show communism for what it really is. Their were over 100 million people that died because of communist prisons, camps, soldiers, and government, all because they were ordained "enemy's of the state". Communism puts to much power in the hands of so few people. All the rest of the people have to deal with it. Usually, only 6% of the apartments/barracks/living spaces had more than one room for an entire family. Capitalism is better because it allows people to provide for their families based on their creativity, knowledge, and determination to work. Communism is worse because no matter how hard you work, you will always get the same-unless you are a powerful member of the communist political party. For the citizens of the communist country, this mindset--no matter how hard you work, you will always get the same, unless you are a powerful member of the communist political party--gives them less hope and less determination to work. Capitalism really brings more creativity and ideas to the table. I hope my opponent does not forfeit again! Good luck
What is a more successful form of government-Communism(pro) or Capitalism (con)

Considering the fact that capitalism isn't a form of government, communism is obviously the only option. Capitalism is an economic system. You've never heard of a 'capitalist' political party, because capitalism isn't a form of government. Communism is a socioeconomic system, meaning that it is a governmental and economic system. Since you are advocating capitalism as a form of government, which isn't real, there's not really any ground for you to stand on. Definition of Capitalism: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;Definition of Communism: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;http://www.ushistory.org...http://smallbusiness.chron.com...
Stricter Gun Control

In this debate, Con will be arguing against stricter gun control. Pro will be arguing for it.Gun control - Government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms.Pro has the burden of proof and will present his/her arguments in Round 1. Con will rebut those arguments, followed by counter-rebuttals from Pro, and so forth until the debate reaches an end. Pro must pass the last round so that both contenders get an equal number of rounds to provide arguments. No semantics. Good luck to my future opponent.
Assisted suicide should be illegal.

"Assisted suicide" refers to "the act of deliberately assisting another person to kill themselves." == A Definitional Note ==The term "assisted suicide" is something of a misnomer. There's no crime called "assisted suicide." I do not argue a legal penalty for patients who seek help in dying. The crime at issue is assisting suicide, and it's targeted solely at those who help another commit suicide. The legal right sought by proponents is the right to assist someone in killing themselves without suffering adverse legal consequences. That said, I'll still use "assisted suicide" as a short-hand description for the crime/right, as a way of deferring to common usage.The term "assisted suicide" is also a misnomer in the sense that it's often confused with "euthanasia." In euthanasia, the doctor kills the patient. In assisted suicide, the doctor assists but the patient is the final causal actor in his or her own death. I don't think the difference will matter much for this debate -- in both, the doctor intentionally helps the patient end his or her life -- but extra clarification always helps.== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Sources must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic8. The burden of proof is shared9. First round is for acceptance only10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss
Where did the universe come from? God (Pro) or The Big Bang Theory (Con).

LOL. I can't believe we are still debating over this when I have clearly won this debate. It sounds like you are getting really mad because you have no scientific evidence to back up your theory that God or some intelligent supernatural all powerful being with a magic wand created the universe. And the bible does't back any of your facts up. The bible actually has no facts what so ever. Its just a story book that people read when they are desperate enough to try and believe something when they don't have any facts to back up on what they are trying to say. Now the Big Bang Theory has a mountain of evidence and facts backing up that there was a giant explosion in the universe billions of years ago. And we know this because the stars and our planets are always moving. And what caused these movements"" A force. A force that only an explosion could cause. Now before this debate is officially over. And you truly believe that God has indeed created the universe I have one question to ask you. And I would appreciate it if you posted it in the comment section. Your question is""" Where did God come from? I ask you this because you are so determined that God created the universe. So where did God come from.
Where did the universe come from? God (Pro) or The Big Bang Theory (Con).

Why would you result to the Big Bang if we have no evidence that it happened also. the creationist view has some book that could be true.here is a link that gives some evidence on the flood Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood - The Age of the ... So I will say one last time you can go with something coming from nothing that exploded and over time made our beautiful complicated world or you can believe that A intelligent supernatural all powerful being that made the earth and put it into place. Which also has a book to back it up.
Where did the universe come from? God (Pro) or The Big Bang Theory (Con).

I totally agree with the second part. It is an endless cycle and everybody has there own facts and theorys but the bible should not be one of them. The bible is just a book that could have been written by anyone in the world especially a few hundred years ago. So say if God did create the universe, but why would there be a talking snake like it says in the bible and what evidence do we have about Noah's Arch. We don't because there is no supporting evidence that proves all of that actually happened. And who knows maybe I wrote the Bible. Or maybe the talking snake wrote the bible. All i am saying is that once we have some real supporting evidence that the bible is real and that everything in the book has happened, we could probably then say that God has created the universe. But until that time comes the Big Bang created the universe and the world we live in today.
Where did the universe come from? God (Pro) or The Big Bang Theory (Con).

All evidence that God created the Earth is in the Bible. Either in the Bible or the fact that every other theory has fallen short. There are no solid facts that the universe was created by God. But there is a book that tells us that the universe was created by God (the Bible). This is one piece of evidence more than the Big Bang Theory has. The fact that Christians have a book that has been respected and used all through out history by some of the most intelligent men is a great proof that God has created the earth. We can look at it like this either the world came into existence form nothing or an intelligent supernatural beings put it into existence, what other possibility is there. And can we just not use reasoning to see the one that makes since. Even if scientist do discover what made the Big bang theory, what made it. Its an endless cycle that wont end unless you have something that defies the laws of nature. That does not need to be created because it is all powerful. And that's when we assume it was intelligent because we look at the world around us and see the complexity.Now I must ask a question If I could prove God exist not with solid statistics but threw ideas and what you may experience would you then believe he created the world?
Where did the universe come from? God (Pro) or The Big Bang Theory (Con).

Well no one really knows how it happened and all I can give is my theory of how it happened and where it came from. My theory is that the Big Bang Theory is an apperence of space everywhere in the universe. And that the universe was created as a very hot, very dense single point in space. Before the Big Bang Theory actually happened our world was just a giant blanket of absollute darkness. Now where it came from I can't really say cause it is still a mystery to me. I am still trying to figure it out from all the facts that we have gathered over the last hundred years. I am interested on how you think that God created the universe and how it took just only 7 days to make the universe that way it is today. And i would like to see some of your supporting facts on how it happened.
Where did the universe come from? God (Pro) or The Big Bang Theory (Con).

I thank you for the explanation of what it is but I asked you were it came from how did it happen. And whatever caused it where did that come from. If you look there is no effect to cause the beginnings of the Big bang theory. and if there is were did that come from how did that come into being. Matter can not be created and destroyed it is a natural law. The only thing that can break natural laws are supernatural beings hence God. Now most people would retaliate and say where did God come from. So I will answer that in the next round if you wish.
Apples

I accept. My first point will be to debunk Con's argument. Personal opinions do not outweigh the many positive effects apples have on people. My opponent also makes the untrue and unsourced claim that "apples are red". There are many different colors of apple, such as green and yellow. Now for my argument. There are many health benefits of eating apples, a few of which I will list here. My sourced website will provide a larger list of benefits. I'll list 5: 1. They stimulate the production of saliva, leading to cleaner teeth. 2. They reduce cholesterol, which leads to a healthier you. 3. They detoxify your liver, leading to healthiness. 4. They help control your weight, leading to a more healthy body. 5. They prevent gallstones, leading to less pain. My opponent also makes the completely irrelevant and incorrect claim that 9+10=21. That is a meme and has nothing to do with apples. I urge you to vote Pro. Source: http://www.besthealthmag.ca...
say no to uniforms

Why would a uniform prevent you from expressing your feelings? While a uniform may take away your ability to express yourself via the clothes you wear, you just then have to express yourself in other, more tangible ways. Does a uniform prevent you from growing your hair long or cutting it short? You can wear buttons or color your hair or wear different color socks... all kinds of things! Learning to be different when everyone looks "the same" will be a valuable life lesson for you.It would not be boring. It will be the best thing that's ever happened to you as a person. Plus, you don't have to spend so much money on clothes and use it instead on cell phones or video games or Pokemon cards or whatever you kids do nowadays. Maybe you don't have to worry about getting randomly killed by a gang for wearing the wrong color too. Nobody can bully you about your clothes, because they will be wearing the same ones. Who knows? With all the extra time you get from not shopping for clothes, maybe you can get your homework done or learn something instead.School uniforms are the bomb.
Mufasa (the EEPster) should shave his head.

I confirm that I am against the proposition that "Mufasa (the EEPster) should shave his head." -Counterarguments- 1. The burden of proof is on you to show that he doesn't thoroughly wash his hair and that he was never taught "proper hygiene" by his parents or guardians. From my standpoint, it seems quite clear that he washes his hair on a daily basis. It always looks the same, you can smell the shampoo when you are close to him, and it is never oily or flaky; things you would expect if he didn't wash his hair. Similarly so, if Mufasa should shave his head because it is rarely washed, then following this same line of reasoning, so should people with dreadlocks. They will wash their head from every 4 days to 2 weeks, many times longer than that. Afros also do apply because you are talking about hygiene and personal grooming, not whether or not it blocks the vision of others. Washing and grooming an afro is just as hard for Mufasa to wash and groom his hair. 2. An unwarranted claim, it is your burden to prove that his hair actually hypnotizes people, and causes them to run into objects. Having been around Mufasa many times, I have never once seen a person run into something because they were distracted by his hair. But personal anecdotes aside, there have been plenty of other people with unusual hair, whether it be the style or the color. People wouldn't stare at something and continually walk for two reasons: (a) Most people aren't captivated enough by hair to constantly stare and walk at the same time. If they were to constantly stare, this would most likely happen when they are standing or sitting. (b) People will be embarrassed to be caught staring at someone, whether it be their hair or boobs; so they won't stare excessively. -Contentions- 1. It's unusual, and defines Mufasa as a person. Everyone knows him by his hair, and this is one thing that distinguishes him from society. Who want's to be a normal duckling? 2. It doesn't impede on Mufasa's ability to perform well in academics, and he isn't personally interested in sports anyway.
police officer at schools

I accept what your saying but is it the police duty to ensure the children's safety. Students are sended to the school not to fight and kill they are going to the school to study something. Students must be given classes about the problems of fighting.Police have a number of duties in the city to ensure the safety of the citizens but with that duty it is impossible to manage the students too.Is this the true way of good manners. There was an incident that took place in which a student killed his brother on the matter of a cricket bat.The boy being a scout he tied his brother and put a big stone with him and put him to a well.The boy then killed a cat and put that also to that well.And the police caught him.The poor parents had only only two sons one died and other one in the child.See the problem of that parents. So at a small age itself all the childrens should be convinced to have discipline other than getting a police officer in the school.if there is a police officer he may be also will be at risk because the students will also start seeing the police officer as an enemy because he won't allow there vigorous activities. And if the police officer is kept and he avoid troubles will the character of that students change. I say that it will be nice if the school authority or the government or any private officials start classes to stop the behaviour of that student it will be given more price other than to keep police officials. Or there can be also one way the school should select one student with all the qualities that can limit the anger of the students and say to them to avoid doing like this. So friend appointing a police officer isn't the correct decision.A police officer have a lot of duties to do at their given area,
police officer at schools

Tyler Cleven Mrs. Hogan English 1 2 December 2014 Dangerous Conflicts At School School shootings, crimes, and laws broken on school grounds can all come to a halt with one simple guy or girl, a police officer. A police officer could stop a lot of crimes that happen at school. Also the violence and fights that happen. Finally all of the school shootings. A police officer should be placed at all schools during school hours. There should be a police officer on duty because of the recent amount of school shootings. "In the last 13 years there have been a total of 39 school shootings throughout the country. In mostly all of them they happened in less than 2 minutes and two thirds of them ended before police could arrive" (Devlin). This could all come to an end with a police officer. He or she could protect the staff and children in the school. Although some may argue that these shootings are rare and it would be a waste of time. Just in 2012 there was a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton, Connecticut. This incident killed 26 people mostly children in a matter of minutes. So is saving peoples life"s a waste of time. That"s why a police officer should be placed at schools all across the country because of the increase of school shootings. Another reason that there should be a police officer on duty is because teens are victims of more crimes than any other age. This is a rising occurrence where "there are 3 million crimes or illegal acts committed on school grounds every year"(Cruz 3). This is a concern for many parents and teachers. With a police officer he or she couldnt stop all of the crimes but could stop and make a big difference. On the other hand some may argue that it would cost to much money to put a police officer on duty at schools. but consider all of the damage that is caused by these crimes and fights. These crimes can all be stopped by a police officer. The last reason for a police officer to be on duty is to stop all fights and violence in schools. "About one in four high school students report to have been in a fight in the past year"(Devlin). Also "seven out of ten kids have either been threatened or injured by a weapon"(11 Facts). This is a problem and these fights can lead to serious injuries and even death.These fights can be broken up by a police officer and would reduce the amount of fights. Thats why there should be a police officer to stop all fighting and violence in schools. A police officer should be on duty during school hours. This should happen because of all of the school shootings. Also the to stop all fighting and violence in schools. Finally, that teens are victims of more crimes than any other age. so that is why there should be a police officer on duty during school hours. Cruz, Barbra. School Shootings and School Crimes. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print. Devlin, Barrett, "Mass Shootings on the Rise." Wall Street Journal. 25 Sep. 2014: A.3. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web 18 Nov. 2014. "11 Facts About School Violence." DoSomething.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.
The death penalty is the best way to punish criminals convicted of capital crimes

Warning: This will be a strictly factual debate. If you accept and don't use facts, but morals and religion you automatically lose.RULES:1. If you or I forefit, we automatically lose. 2. If you bring morals and religion into the debate you automatically lose.3. If opponent doesn't propose any counter definitions, then they must accept my definitions.4. If either side brings up new evidence in round four, than that side loses.Other then that, good look.Round 1: Acceptance and Definitions. If Con doesn't like my definition, they can propose theirs during this round.Round 2: ConstructiveRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and Final Points (No new evidence may be brought up here)Definitions:Death Penalty: The punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. [1]Capital Crime: A crime, such as murder, rape, or betrayal of one's country, that is treated so seriously that death may be considered an appropriate punishment.[2]Criminal:A person convicted of a crime who serves time in a prison for their crimes.Best way:Best: most advantageous, suitable, ordesirable [3]Way: manner, mode, or fashion[4][1]https://www.google.com...[2]https://www.google.com...[3]http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...