BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Federal Reserve System and the base of "capitalist" America.

The attacks are not personal attacks and I will apologize if they were offensive and misunderstood but I will not take them back for the very gullibility I speak of is quintisenntial to my point. My opponent brings up the history of union mistreatment and corporate mistreatment of industry. Even though in my first argument I told of how certain capitalistic factors were taken advantage of in the free banking era. I explained that in today's extensive media invovlement in the issues of workers, it would be many times more negatively effective in the business interests of large corporations. Any chance of exploitation would diminish greatly. My opponent blames the recent income gap explosion in an economy my opponent agrees is not capitalistic on the deregulation that has been ongoing since the Reagan years. I partially agree with him, for many of these regulation theories include regulation of the secrecy of the federal reserve. He particularly is talking about financial deregulation. In all seriousness, deregulation is not true deregulation, the money is still backed by debt and credit is still unlimited. Any regulation or deregulation in a system like ours will produce results that may look beneficial or the complete opposite. Whatever it is the long term is still going to be recession, inflation or stagflation. My opponent also claims I did not address the issue of the length of artificial boom and bust cycles after the federal reserve was initiated. It must be known that we have never had a true free banking period for te free banking era was a time when states regulated interest rates and reserve ratio's. An improvement I would take over the system we have today but sill not a free banking time. A completely capitalistic currency market is a revolutionary idea but not a new one. I assume my opponent is aware of the certain corrupt circumstances around the FED's founding and has accepted them. Defending his opinion by comparing it to the past corrupt presidents. However past presidents have done these things beyond the limits of the law like Harding and Nixon. However they were democratically elected. The FED's board is completely hand picked by our elected. Not by us. So there is a major difference.
Federal Reserve System and the base of "capitalist" America.

First, I would like to express my hope that Con will be more courteous in the final round of debate. His several personal attacks in the second round were not helpful to his case and are most unfortunate. I hope that he can clean up his act for round three. I will also note that Con did not respond to the evidence provided in round one that recessions have been shorter and further between after the creation of the Fed. This omission on his part is not insignificant. --------------- Con begins on the point of labor exploitation. He states that collective bargaining can be a part of capitalism. The implication here is that unions can take care of workers and government regulation is not necessary. However, early union history showed many problems with precisely this system advocated by Con. When workers would begin to unionize, people would be laid off and whole factories would be shut down in order to prevent collective bargaining. The same would occur during strikes. Those striking simply lost their jobs. Pure capitalism would allow businesses to engage in these practices. Under pure capitalism, there is nothing to stop businesses from doing this. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The next point made by Con is that the income gap has grown in the past decade. Although the link he provided was to a wikipedia search that did not have any results (lol), I accept as fact that the income gap has indeed been growing in the recent past. I find it rather odd that Con would use this argument. The deregulation that has taken place since the Reagan Administration, and especially during the Bush, Jr. presidency is almost always cited as the cause of this increased gap. The final point made by Con is that the founding of the Fed. is marred by corruption and shady dealing. However, you cannot entirely judge and entity today on things that happened nearly a century ago. There have been periods of corruption in the U.S. presidency. Would Con get rid of the presidency for this reason? If there was corruption in the past and does not exist anymore then there is no problem. If there is corruption now then we can reform the system to rid it of its corruption - we do not need to completely destroy it.
God and Hell cannot simultaneously exist (redo)

NOTE: SperoAmicus and I were engaged in this debate earlier, but due to a delay in my argument posting and poor timing with Christmas, Spero was unable to respond in the allotted time and forfeited. But, since the discussion was very interesting we agree to copy and paste our arguments abck into this debate and continue where we left off. This will be my third go at arguing a problem of evil variant. In my past two debates (and in their comments sections) a theme seems to emerge – people disagree that more or less with the premise that there is evil in the world. There have been many different ways of doing this; you can (correctly) point out that I don't define evil, or say that evil is just an "absence of God" or whatever. While these arguments are useful and necessary to establish the problem, I grow tired of them, so I hope that this argument will sidestep that criticism and allow us to move on to something else. Here's the argument: if God exists, no one would go to Hell. I want to start out my mentioning that I will use Hell a lot here, but if you don't believe in Hell, the argument still applies if you substitute "non-Heaven", meaning just that God is incompatible with people going anywhere but Heaven. This avoids the questions about evil because by definition, heaven is good and Hell is bad. If you deny this premise, I cannot see a reason to be religious. Religions all seem to prescribe ways to get into Heaven, so if you don't agree that heaven is better than Hell, then there is no reason to try to get into Heaven. My argument formalized is this: 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to send everyone to Heaven. 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows how to send everyone to Heaven. 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to send everyone to Heaven. 5. According to religions, everyone does not go to Heaven 6. If Hell exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to send everyone to Heaven, or doesn't know how to send everyone to Heaven, or doesn't have the desire to send everyone to Heaven. 7. Therefore, either God, Heaven, or both do not exist. I think that's enough to get us started. I look forward to it!
2012 is end of the world

Although unicorns undoubtedly prove the existence of god. That doesn't mean that 2012 won't happen. There's lot's of people who believe it will happen, and it certainly could if like an asteroid crashed into earth and killed us all. Or the polar ice caps melt due to like nuclear testing or something. Or even more likely is that a solar flare from the sun incinerates us all and we turn into ash. There's lots of ways it could happen, and it will because there is no proof it won't.
Narendra Modi vs. Manmohan Singh

Hello, Due to circumstances beyond my control, I will be unable to post an argument this round. I have already contact Cermank about it. I would ask that we "tie" this debate, and start a new one. Cermank as no obligation to agree to this, since I have technically violated my own rules, and I can understand if Cermank doesn't want to do that. Either way, I would still like to do a debate on this subject, and could have arguments up tonight. With sincere apologies, bsh1
Narendra Modi vs. Manmohan Singh

PrefaceWhile I've never been to India, I did follow the world's biggest democratic exercise--India's most recent election--with interest. The rise of the Hindu-Nationalist BJP and the embarrassing loss suffered by the heretofore ruling Congress Party marks a seminal change in India's political structure. The nature of the latter's defeat was so total that it was unparalled in the history of the subcontinent. Therefore, I created this topic to explore the underlying dynamics of this political split, using key members of each party as lenses through which to conduct the examination. I thank Cermank for agreeing to partake in this debate--it will certainly be challenging for me as it is outside my normal comfort zone. It will be difficult, but also interesting and fun. I look forward to a superb discussion! Full TopicNarendra Modi will be a better Prime Minister than Manmohan Singh. ContextNarendra Modi - . http://en.wikipedia.org...Manmohan Singh - . http://en.wikipedia.org...StructureR1: Pro's Opening CaseR2: Con's Opening Case, Pro's RebuttalR3: Con's Rebuttal, Pro's Rebuttal R4: Con's Rebuttal, Pro's Rebuttal and Final FocusR4: Con's Rebuttal and Final Focus, Pro types "Pass"Rules1. No forfeits2. All citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossThanks.
Taco Bell over a Taqueria

Hi. Don't want to commit to anything to serious at the moment, As I limit myself to 1 hour at the lap-top in the morning before I have to get on with more important business. I would need to give a serious debate a serious amount of research to be able to do it justice. I've never eaten at Taco Bell or La Taqueria. Give me good old fashioned British pub grub anytime, Washed down with a nice pint of real ale. Regards.
Taco Bell over a Taqueria

I am on the if there is food and I need food then I will get it. This is a invalid debate because of how there are two very distinct different sides. If you would like to debate on a different topic then I will gladly do so. (Resolved: a just Government ought to prioritize civil liberties over nation security. Lincoln Douglass style debate) I did the debate we are currently doing in High School it was just a funny debate. I would like to point out that your attitude has been very respectful and nice to have compared to what most of the other debates I have read are like. I would enjoy a more formal debate. By the way I don't really like Taco Bell.
Taco Bell over a Taqueria

Horses for courses then. You're an on the go fast foodie and I'm a sit down and relax type of person. Probably an age related issue and I expect that voters will view the situation in a similar fashion. We have no way of really making a quality comparison. One would hope that hygiene and food quality are commensurate with nationally required standards in both instances. Slow and cheap or relaxed and more costly. You make you're choice and stump up accordingly. I would suggest that unless you can back up contention 2 with some sound statistics we should probably call this one a draw. Nice to hear that you're an active person and that you enjoy soccer. Enjoy you're Taco Bell and keep rolling.
Taco Bell over a Taqueria

Resolved: Taco Bell over La Taqueria. My opponent brings up a good point about the dinning experience. Is sitting down and dinning out better then driving through the drive through and getting your food 80% of the time with in 5 minutes? I would say that if I went to a Taco Bell after a game of Soccer with my friends or after playing Air soft with friends then I would want to be able to get food easily without having to go sit in a formal dinner. Your sweaty and tired from running around a field for the past two hours, You need food in you and you have no where to go but a Taco Bell and La Taqueria. I would go to La Taqueria because I don't have to worry about what I look like in the moment. Also Taco Bell has more of a menu then your average Taqueria. Contention One still stands. And we are rolling with Contention Two. (Thanks for the spell check)
Taco Bell over a Taqueria

An impossible debate it would seem. Especially if the comparison is based solely on cost. And taste is an individual preference. And "Contention 2": Does Pro have scientific evidence to back up this claim. If so, Then I will roll with it. But I will not "role" with it. It could be argued that the two are similar but different. Similar foodstuff but different dining experiences. In this instance you would expect to pay more for the more elaborate dining experience. So for the sake of the debate I will propose that La Taqueria is a more elaborate dining experience and so worthy of the extra cost.
Taco Bell over a Taqueria

Resolved Taco Bell over a Taqueria (sorry if I spelled it wrong). Contention 1: Taco Bell is generally cheaper then a Taqueria. I can get a Taco from Taco Bell for less then $2, It's as simple as that. If I went to a Taqueria then they can be as low as $5 cheapest I have seen. Contention 2: The preservatives in Taco Bell tacos will make you live longer. (Just role with it guys. )
Legalize all drugs, tax, regulate them.

Hello Zeke Forgive me but one no longer wishes to discuss this debate, for I'm not really interested in the legal aspects of drugs at the moment, I'm just invested in the socio-psychological aspects. Once again apologies, i hope you can accept a tie/void, and perhaps we could start a different in the future. For example you say 'no victim, no crime', however I disagree to extent, again because of issues such as addiction.
Legalize all drugs, tax, regulate them.

Hello I will know provide my statement. This round will solely be based on my opinion so I am authentic in my approach, the next round I'll introduce data if necessary. I will be approaching this from a psychological standpoint. I'll tackle this head on before discussing factors, if we legalise all drugs, their would be no drug free area. Where there is drugs, there are addicts (not all obviously), where there are addicts, there is toxicity. Toxicity destroys lives, friendships, and families. Here is Why all drugs will never be legalised: 1a: Criminal Organisations: The prison system would be non existent without drug cartels, and w/out a prison system society will descend into chaos, law & order would go titsup. Conversely, there is a overcrowding crisis in most prisons, so more criminals are being released. Also cartels would kill governors who legalise drugs, they re too powerful. it is fair to say they go and in hand, esp. when some gov' officials are corrupt themselves. 1b: Petty Arrests: (Corrupt) police need their commission so they pick up petty arrests, this directly leads to previous point. Another reason all drugs won't be legalised. 2: Medical Use Only: In cases of necessity, certain drugs should be provided to people based on their condition, for example in some places in Europe, there is a Heroin clinic for recovering addicts. Don't legalise every drug for recreational use, society will not benefit, too many deaths and rises in mental health issues will occur. 3:Prohibition: When alcohol was banned, people produced bootlegged alcohol, a similar thing can be said if all drugs were taxed. Criminal organisations would still want to compete, they'd just lower the prices, which means lowering quality, eg like look at Black Mamba and other types of Weed syndicates, all lethal because criminal manufacturers are constantly adapting to regulations. Poor folk will not spend on taxed drugs when they can get it from a known dealer. Again i'm in the middle, but these points highlight exactly why all drugs will never be legalised, esp. considering corruption.
Legalize all drugs, tax, regulate them.

I gracefully accept this challenge. Although I'm in the middle, i will challenge this notion and discuss it further Issues I'd like to cover involve criminal organisations, the prison system in relation to petty arrests, the fine line between medical use and recreational use, and the effects of prohibition in the past. Personal disclaimer: Whilst at uni, i smoked weed otherwise i don't do drugs. Before I was behind the whole legalise weed bandwagon, but it really did f' up mental health, there's even links to schizophrenia in some users. In short, all drugs (certain drugs) won't ever be legalised fully due to the aforementioned factors, which we can go in depth on. Opponent takes the floor first of course.
Legalize all drugs, tax, regulate them.

Our government is overreaching it's power on drugs. It is incapable of handling drugs. No matter how hard the government presses, drug usage will always be widespread and eminent. Because of that, our government is wasting it's time and money on this "drug war." We waste billions of dollars on something unstoppable and quite honestly, someone's personal issue, not the governments. People being arrested, imprisoned, all of the money on the DEA - it's your money too, don't forget. So here's my proposal. We legalize all drugs, we regulate them, we tax them. People can only buy so much of a certain drug, but they can get it. This not only saves the government and YOU money. It frees the market and helps the economy. People's sentences are stripped away. Many businesses open up. More people are employed. We put a tax on the drugs as well, so the government is now making money from doing this. Obviously meth and heroin aren't readily or easily available, but they're available. They're regulated. And they're highly taxed. This reduces overdose and death rates because of drugs. What about bath salts and prescription drugs? People take these drugs as an alternative because they can't get their hands on actual drugs. They make bath salts out of common items found at the store. Legalizing actual drugs fixes this problem. In order to maintain a free market society, reduce government spending by billions, reduce OUR taxes, create employment everywhere, we must legalize all drugs, regulate, and tax them.
Should "Black Lives Matter" be covered in High School during Black History Month

I am of the opinion that the best way to rid society of groups that are detrimental to its health, groups like this should not deserve the status of being taught as educational material within the class room. Distancing educational establishments from these groups shows that society is not willing to acknowledge their actions as appropriate or warranting a spotlight. Presenting violent views such as these in class rooms presents the risk of students potentially siding with their viewpoints as they do not attempt to help black lives as their name claims, preventing the potential corruption of bright young minds. Though this group may be contemporary, it does not mean that they are relevant to the matters that black history month seeks to educate high school students in.
Should "Black Lives Matter" be covered in High School during Black History Month

Hello there, I hope we have a great discussion. Black Lives Matter, a movement that can be described as militant and even racist, gathers following due to the narrative that its name gives. On face value, it appears to have good intentions but does not, however, strive to solve any issues faced by the black community and only seems to appear in news and media in the context of riots and social media outrage. A movement such as this would normally be dispelled and forgotten were it not for its rhetoric in advertising itself as a justice group for the black community, when it only in fact promotes violence and acts of terrorism. Should this be taught in high school during black history month? I do not believe so, as it is only a negative and often divisive example of a militant movement protected by the fear of appearing racist to oppose it. This group has provided nothing for the black community except for turmoil, propaganda and lies, things which I firmly believe have no place being given to the minds of the youth.
Should "Black Lives Matter" be covered in High School during Black History Month

One can not deny that the "Black Lives Matter" movement has taken hold in contemporary American society. Nebulous in nature, the term Black Lives Matters means different things for different people. For some the movement represents a strong acknowledgement of the African American struggle for equity and social justice, while others view it as a expressions divisiveness fueled by anti-blue sentiments. Difficult to reconcile in the public arena, should the movement make its way into the class room discussions of our schools. Are students mature enough or teachers astute enough to engage in intentional discussion without those conversations being bias driven. Do we owe it to our students, or will we as teacher simple push our agendas.
the only reason to fight is to find paradise.. that being the end of liers

Clearly I am not the troll. FrameworkI am clearly not the troll. Vi_spex is the troll. I win this debate because my opponent had not filled or even went close the fill the BOP when I did. I win this debate. Rebuttals1. Okay, Pro's first arguments had nothing to do with fighting, paradise, or the end of liars. However my case had fighting, and paradise is not true. Pro never had anything related to that. It was all about spaceships, which does not do anything to this topic, or anyways, support his side.2. Okay, Pro says I am the troll when I represent topics that are related to the debate, when my opponent's arguments are nonsense. He clearly trolls. He says that religion is the opposite of paradise. I know that. Our topic is that fighting is only about paradise, when I said it is about religion too, which is not paradise, meaning that there is more reasons there is fighting, making me right. Arguments1. I will go onto my arguments, which is only one. My argument is that paradise is not being the end of liars. Paradise: A very beautiful place that seems perfect. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Okay, so now my argument is that the definition is not about liars. Paradise is a perfect place. It is not being about the end of liars.
the only reason to fight is to find paradise.. that being the end of liers

Okay, first I will go onto my arguments. FrameworkOkay, BOP is on both of us. I know that Pro trolls. Pro will be talking about the only way they fight is paradise, when I will argue that there is other reasons to fight or have wars, not just paradise. In the other round Pro has to explain why paradise is being the end of liars. If Pro fills the BOP, he wins. If I fill the BOP, I win.Arguments1. Other waysThis is an argument of it is not only paradise that they fight. It is also land, and religion.First of all, let's go onto land. Land is a wonderful resource for people, makes more space. With more land, it is basically having more power. Wars fight about land, who gets the land, who steals land. They all do this because more land supports their country and you can do more things if you have more land. It is not by paradise.http://www.123helpme.com...Okay, no let's talk about war by religion. Most wars are because of religion. Without religion wars, there will be lots of peace, no 9/11 and many more. Because there is lots of religions, different beliefs, and ranks, there is always a disagreement between one and another, making an war. http://www.gotquestions.org... http://addictivelists.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...ConclusionThere are many reasons that wars occur, not just paradise. Most wars are caused by religion, and land. My second argument will go int he next round.