BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Government is necessary to ensure freedoms

"Wars have been around since tribalism, and is a false assumption to think that wars and military are solely a construct of government."It was in the years of the Egyptians and Sumers that armies appeared. Sumers were the first to begin a war in the whole history. I quote A Short History of War by RICHARD A. GABRIEL: "These early societies produced the first examples of state-governing institutions, initially as centralized chiefdoms and later as monarchies.(...) The development of central state institutions and a supporting administrative apparatus inevitably gave form and stability tomilitary structures."As you can see war is an invention of civilizations, and civilizations were guided by governments. Ergo, governments invented wars."The art of fighting and wars are characteristics that humans possess"Actually, according to some studies this is completely false. Read the studies by Douglas Fry (https://www.uab.edu...)Some words on Genghis Khan: if your ideal of leadership is someone who killed ruthlessly, committing lots of mass assassinations, raping and robbing everywhere He went, you are missing the point."the Islamic State, has no central government"I quote the definition " Islamic state is a type of government(...)". " only a network of leaders" ISIS is lead by one supreme leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As you can see in the next picture ISIS is an organized government.http://d.ibtimes.co.uk...As you see governments are responsible for wars and without them we could feel safe and free.And about "the other guys?" I'm not concerned about them. Mobs, and that kind of groups, are minorities who confront the law, the government. Without a government it wouldn't have sense for them to exist. Anyway I agree that there will always be someone who doesn't want to cooperate. I don't think they will be, as you said, "anyone who opposes you". Instead it will be anyone who opposes us. That "us", the vast majority of society can handle easily with one rebel. Society itself will isolate and terminate guys like that. Nowadays it does the same with other minorities, why wouldn't it apply to "the other guys" minority?To sum up:Your argument about government being the only one able to defend our right, and that without governments we are vulnerable in wars was already debunked. The kinds of things that PRO says governments defends us from are things it has created: wars.Don't get confused, if I advocate 100% freedom for 100% vulnerability, you advocate 0% freedom for 50% vulnerability.
Government is necessary to ensure freedoms

Wars have been around since tribalism, and is a false assumption to think that wars and military are solely a construct of government. The art of fighting and wars are characteristics that humans possess, and are characteristic of government regimes because they are made up of humans. This desire of war is a survival strategy: aggress or be aggressed. The Mongolian Empire was formed by the combination of tribes as one people, which afford them the strength and influence they could not have achieved as individual tribes. For this ability to organize, and in this case, pay allegiance to Genghis Khan as their leader, they were able to build the greatest empire the world has ever seen, stretching from Iran to Korea. ISIS, or the Islamic State, has no central government, only a network of leaders, and have successfully invaded cities and murdered otherwise innocent, peace loving people; their own people I might add. It is easy to conclude that wars are not the result of government, they have existed before governments were conceived. As far as the argument of anarchy, obviously there wouldn't be worry of being aggressed within a totally cooperative society. But what about "the other guys?" What about those that don't want to be cooperative, and find it most beneficial to them for your total submission. It doesn't have to be a government that aggresses, it can be a mob, a sect, a tribe, a band of thieves--literally anyone who opposes you. "You are worried that foreign invasion would become trivial but you don't see that foreign invasions have an origin in governments. Are governments who perform foreign invasions, not individuals. As you can see, without governments, we would be safer. Our freedoms won't need defence because they won't be attacked." With the Mongolian Empire and ISIS, governments are not the only ones who perform invasions. Again, warfare has been around before the idea of government was conceived. It is naive to think that the world will one day dismantle all its armies and governments an brace a anarchic societal construct. For the entire world to volunteer this may be the ONLY this can come about, but I prefer to a bit more pragmatic. It won't happen. And if it does, it won't last. Because some one, some group, will be dissatisfied and will opt to aggress their opponents. What you are essential advocating is 100% freedom for 100% vulnerability. It is not sustainable. What will you think, then, after all your freedom has been robbed from you, and you toil under complete servitude? Freedom will always need defending because there will always be an evil that would rather take it from you. Without a government to defend and uphold your human rights, they become trivial.
Government is necessary to ensure freedoms

Quoting you about what would happen if there were no governments: " a fractured system of groups, which each group having their own method of defense that wouldn't be near as effective and efficient as an organized, funded, military." The problem with this is that you assume that people with no government will try to mimic the military methods of governments. That's not true. Governments created military and wars. With no government there is no war. With no government there would be nobody to engage in a war, so no one would need to defend from wars. " it would be very difficult to organize, for example in the US, a nation of 300 million people, to work collectively to defend and honor freedoms with out some form of central leadership." In an anarchic system people won't defend their freedoms with violence, but with tolerance ant with the understanding that the only limit to my freedom is your freedom. People won't be controlled by a supreme power, instead they will decide for themselves discussing and arguing. "This anarchic society would be vulnerable, at least more vulnerable than a nation with a central leadership, to invasion by foreign powers, or taken over by a domestic power." is true that if one society becomes anarchic but the ones around it don't, they will be vulnerable to attacks. But attacks from who? Attacks from governments. As you see the ones who are causing problems are the governments, and you are saying it. But if not only one society changes, if all the globe becomes anarchic, this problem wouldn't exist. You are worried that foreign invasion would become trivial but you don't see that foreign invasions have an origin in governments. Are governments who perform foreign invasions, not individuals. As you can see, without governments, we would be safer. Our freedoms won't need defence because they won't be attacked. Lastly, as far as I'm concerned, conflicts in Middle East were fomented by those you say are "saving" the Middle East, the "western powers". They financed this regimens and the wars between each other because conflicts need weapons and they sell them. As far as I know this conflicts won't stop, the " power vacuum" won't be filled because if that happens the "western powers" won't be allowed to get richer selling guns and robbing and killing. Also the war against Middle East "terrorist" makes them look like heroes, so this will never end.
Government is necessary to ensure freedoms

As I mentioned prior, I do not wish to point out instances in history where government has violated basic human rights. What I am arguing is, is in the absence of government that honors and defends the rights of the people, a society is left vulnerable to being overcome by a domestic or foreign power. the government allows for the organization, mobility, and funding to invest in defense and justice system that ensures freedoms are honored and defended. Even in the instance of no government (anarchy), it would be very difficult to organize, for example in the US, a nation of 300 million people, to work collectively to defend and honor freedoms with out some form of central leadership. Would you would have, instead, would be a fractured system of groups, which each group having their own method of defense that wouldn't be near as effective and efficient as an organized, funded, military. Who would fund their artillery? or planes, ships, tanks? These groups would not have the enough funds, even combined, to have a fully armed military. Especially in a world of national governments who have the power and means to not only defend, but invade its neighbors. This anarchic society would be vulnerable, at least more vulnerable than a nation with a central leadership, to invasion by foreign powers, or taken over by a domestic power. We can see that in a reality without a government to defend freedom and ensure justice, everything from wrongful death by a drunk driver to foreign invasion would become trivial. As far as the Middle East is concerned, yes, it has been littered with Authoritative regimes who murdered their people or subjugated them to poverty with little resources to mitigate the situation. Now with the western powers toppling those regimes, a power vacuum is created that must be filled. And the options are clear: another totalitarian dictatorship, a republic, or anarchy. I think we know what the "lesser of the three evils" will be.
Government is necessary to ensure freedoms

You said that "in the absence of a government that honors and defends the liberties of the individual, a power can and will arise that will take away any and every freedom inherent in man". What you are getting wrong is the following: that power that will arise has already arise and It's the government itself. I don't disagree with what you said about the governments that defended rights. But they don't defend the complete freedom. Like Rousseau said we have sold our liberty for the sake of having a government which guaranteed our rights of security and personal property. Also I feel that the problem in the Middle east isn't as you describe It. First, Muslims have governments and are those who create problems: they start wars, they kill people, and so on. Secondly, Middle east has another problem: religion. Is religion that causes the violence in those countries. That being said, we can't forget that governments are the first ones to support religions, despite their violence. It isn't a government the one who will destroy religion, because religions cause financial benefit, even more this violent religions.* *Note: I know this isn't the topic and that's why I won't talk much. You are saying that the Quran is " a book where it is right to murder someone". I'm not a Muslim but I know that that statement is full of hate and prejudice. An argument cannot have as a premise such a prejudicial sentence, which could offend lots of people.
Government is necessary to ensure freedoms

One of the greatest influences of the Enlightenment period was the idea of a government established by the people that would work by proxy--individuals would be elected to be the voice of the populace, and ultimately advocate for the well being of the individual. This form of governance was based on the idea of individual liberty, in that the individual had ownership of itself and possessed inalienable rights that could not be compromised by any other individual or that any person to be owned by a monarch or lord. liberty, right to autonomy, right to self-determination were the bulwark that defended the individual from subjugation from its own government. Of course, any power given can be coerced, and to be terse, I do not wish to argue the instances in our history where government has violated human rights. Rather, I argue that in the absence of a government that honors and defends the liberties of the individual, a power can and will arise that will take away any and every freedom inherent in man; more so than any government that honors and defends freedom can. This was not secret to influential thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Payne. The British Colonies had to defend their right to be free from the Monarchy because the legitimacy of their schism with England would not be recognized without a fight. As it was then is still true today. Even in the post-colonial, post-WWII era where secularism and human rights have spread to other nations and have adopted the tenets of liberty into their own government, if it were not for such governments to defend and honor the rights of its people, there would threats, both domestic and foreign, that would threaten the human rights. In areas of the Middle East, such as Iraq and Syria where no legitmate governments have been formed to lead and defend their people, Islamic exteremists have taken over and threaten to restore the caliphate and govern it based on a book where it is right to murder someone who is not a muslim, ie. not a believer. A government has more power and influence and any one individual to combat any power that is willing to violate human rights.
Government is necessary to ensure freedoms

In my opinion, governments don't ensure freedoms, they do the exact opposite: they make citizens less free. Governments create limits, prohibitions and regulations for groups and for the individuals. As an anarchist I believe that government isn't needed to guarantee freedom, instead the abolition of governments is needed to do so. I know that many people think that the government ensure freedoms by it's laws. The problem here is that the reality is far different. Laws just cut out our possibilities of choice, they diminish our freedom. This doesn't mean that I want an estate of chaos. What I want is a world in which you don't have to obey the government, I want a world in which the limit of our freedom isn't the law but just the freedom of the others.
When music stops being played it ceases to exist

My argument is fairly simple; if a song is not being played by anyone anywhere in the world it has stopped existing. Some basic definitions: Music - "1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre." Sound - " 1. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing. 2. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency. 3. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium. 4. Such sensations considered as a group." Exist - "To have actual being; be real." By played I mean when all the melodies, sounds, lyrics (all things in the definition of music) are played audibly from a sound emitting devise in the order that has been recognised or copyrighted by the artist. For this particular debate we will only consider music composed by humans, no dogs playing the flute or considering the breeze in the trees a song. At this moment in time the only song that I can consider to truly exist is 'Paranoid Android' by Radiohead (as it is what I can hear at the moment) for the sake of this debate we will only consider this song as I cannot be sure any other will play when I click on them. I posit that in 40 minutes when I leave for work and this song has stopped playing and assuming no one else in the world is playing the song that Paranoid Android by Radiohead is no longer in existence. Anyone accepting this debate must accept all of my conditions and promise to wear a hat whilst debating this topic with me. I would also like to ask my opponent to not type too much and to carefully number all of their points. It is also irrelevant whether my opponent considers Radiohead to play 'real music' and I would like to remind everyone that I have no knowledge of music beyond how to listen to it. However after years of practise I have become very good at listening to music. I would also like my opponent to keep all racism to a bare minimum.
When music stops being played it ceases to exist

A forfeit is always disappointing, even more so when anticipating an interesting response. My opponent seems to have been online recently so I assume he hasn't abandoned the site altogether but who can say? Hopefully he will make up for it with a dazzling and revelation packed argument in the next round. I am still wearing a hat but have elected to wear it on a different (non-standardly hat-bearing) appendage. Thankyou.
Colleges/Universities

Colleges/universities should cost less because it is our human right to have free education. The Universal Declaration of Rights tells us that "Everyone is entitled the rights set forth in this declariation...." [1] And furthermore, people should have rights to education as the UDoR also tells us, " Everyone has the right to education." [2] Education can help further grow the students and give them knowledge. If primary school, middle school, and high school are free, why can't we bump down the cost a little bit for colleges and universities? Sure, it doesn't necesarily have to be free considering the costs for colleges and universities, but can't we make it a bit more fair and make colleges and universities cost less?What do you think, my opponent?[1] http://www.un.org...[2] http://www.un.org...
Capitalism is the most practical type of economy.

Considering the comments that have been made, I will gladly accept the choice of Communism. Specifically, I will focus on pure Marxist communism. Defined: Communism by Merriam Webster (m-w.com) 2.c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably Since you are the Pro side, and the creator of this debate, I will not push for a full speech here (that would give me more posts than you 4 >3). However, I will take this to counter the one point you have posted so far as to ensure you do not have more than me. You have stated that capitalism allows private ownership, and thus has a greater incentive for success. However, this incentive only creates the incentive for one company, one man, one machine. Yet, in the final stage of Marxist communism, everybody is a worker. And everybody is an owner. It creates a society where the entirety of the community is indeed one actor. They all are working as a single unit. If one of them slows down, so does the company, and thus everyone slows down. Leading the end result that all the other works make that lazy worker work. Instead of man leading a company, doing no work, yet receiving more, everyone receives as everyone puts in. Thus, Worker A is hurt by Worker B's laziness. This creates that other incentive I spoke of. In capitalism, only the one Owner loses money if Worker B slows down. Thus there is only one man to get on Worker B. However, under capitalism, the mob of all the workers can try to get Worker B to work again. Rather than one person pressuring Lazy Worker B (as in capitalism, the owner is responsible for the worker); communism offers the alternative of all the other workers, Works A, C, D, E, F, G,H, etc. to get Worker B back into labor. Communism thus, creates many more incentives for production. Mob of Workers > Single Businessman I would like to express here two things: 1. If you are going to vote on this, please give all arguments presented by me full merrit for their word, and not on your own bias. 2. Do NOT include historic nations such as China, North Korea, USSR, etc, in my example. Remember, in the final stage, the government NO LONGER EXISTS. IT IS ONLY ONE MASSIVE WORKING CLASS.
Capitalism is the most practical type of economy.

Capitalism - . http://en.wikipedia.org... Practical - Useful - of a valuable or productive kind (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Economy - . http://en.wikipedia.org... Type of economy - . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent will choose one (1) other type of economy, whether or not it be on the list of economic ideologies, and we will discuss the practicalities and the pros and cons of each, through the course of the debate. My first argument for Capitalism: Capitalism allows for things to be privately owned, which creates more incentive for success. "Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned. "
The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses Are Being Abused

For all I know, you could win this debate by disagreeing with me. In fact, you have accepted the challenge of taking that other side in this debate. So far you are disappointing me, not because I feel you're winning, but because I feel your discussions are unclear and off topic. Perhaps you are trolling. I hope that is not the case. You have agreed with me that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are being abused. That implies you are not on the other side of this debate as you have opted to be. Perhaps you shouldn't have accepted this debate challenge. I believe there are many people out there who believe that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are not being abused. It's a shame you have taken this opportunity from them to state their case. Perhaps I shall debate this matter again with somebody else.
The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses Are Being Abused

I feel that you did not address many of the arguments I brought up. Your argument from round 1 was hard to read. Much of what you brought up seemed irrelevant, unclear, and unnecessarily complicated. Much of it seemed too abstract. You assigned some of what you brought up to specific things I brought up, such as parts of my four step argument that the protection of a law means the enforcement of the law, but your assignments seem poor and are hard for me to understand. You seem to be making the topic more complicated than it really is. I would appreciate it if you addressed my arguments more directly and more relevantly. It actually seems that parts of your argument may be incoherent or nonsensical. You have suggested there is another type of due process of law "meaning separation." I am unsure of what you mean by that. I believe there is one and only one type of due process of law. I performed a Google search on "Due process of law," and the results support my belief. I know there is a separation of powers within the federal government and outlined in the United States' Constitution, but your use of the term "separation" is not as clear. You mentioned Roe v. Wade (1973). I personally believe abortion should be legal. Roe v. Wade, however, was decided invalidly as it improperly invoked the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See "Roe v. Wade" (2017) from Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org.... Your apparent hesitation so far in this debate strengthens my side of the debate. You should better address the arguments I brought up in the previous round, and provide a response that is more relevant and more coherent.
Forrest Gump is a true story

Well if you look in the movie, it shows the historical events happening. In every single black and white tape showed, Forrest Gump is there. That means that Forrest Gump was in all of those locations at the time that the events took place. I researched the things in the movie, and it turns out that all of these events and people are true! The movie was based off of fact, and had no fiction in it whatsoever. Also, did you ever notice the part of the movie when the APPLE logo shows up, and Forrest buys stocks? Apple is a real company! That literally PROVES that Forrest Gump is true. Case closed. (Again)