BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism is an ineffective system.

I would like to extend an apology to you relative to the debate. With Christmas and the fact that you took a long period of time to extend the challenge I was unaware that you had posted your argument and that thus mine was due. I hope you understand. Contrary to what you may think I have not conceded on the debate topic. I would also like to begin by stating that due to a request by the opposition I will no longer refer to myself in the third person. It ensues thus that my opposition will not do the opposite. Another issue I would like to address is the title of the debate. The debate is about communism, not altruism. I explained during my previous posting that we would mainly be discussing the latter, however this isn"t because the debate is strictly about the latter but instead because it is a continuation of our previous debate which ended with the discussion of the latter. I will refrain from using that word for a while. In fact, what the opposition has committed was a no true scotsman fallacy. He said that "No, I never stated that they were not 'True socialists'. I merely stated that the systems enacted in aforementioned societies were not in line with socialist ideas. " Now. According to the wikipedia page this is a no true scotsman fallacy1]. To say that they "weren"t in line with socialist ideas" is a no true scotsman argument. You have avoided my point which was that in every case where socialism was initially attempted it never succeeded. Instead of presenting evidence to EXPLAIN why they didn"t succeed you instead provided evidence to AVOID explaining why they didn"t succeed. That is a no true scotsman fallacy. Now, with this in mind I am under absolutely no obligation to prove to the audience why the USSR and Maoist China were in fact socialist (with the prospect of being communist in the future) as they themselves claimed to be so. In summary: I want you to explain why the previous attempts at communism weren"t successful. I don"t want examples given about why the USSR wasn"t socialist, I want to know your view on why it deviated from it. A system based around altruism failed[2] because the people in it weren"t altruistic[3]. What I would like to address and perhaps have not made clear (seeing that you misunderstood my position) is what you think of this. You explicitly said that altruism was possible if it was taught, however, in a country where altruism was initially attempted it deviated from this. Instead of explaining the theory behind your belief I want you to actually explain why it failed. If it didn"t work in Russia what makes the rest of the world any different? PS: Apologies for not addressing your points in order, they all added up to the same thing. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Communism is an ineffective system.

Before I begin I would like to extend an apology to my opponent for not beginning this debate at an earlier date. Pro concedes that he doesn't really have an excuse yet that he doesn't particularly regret his decision. Pro has things (pointless vice documentaries and conspiracy theory videos) which he has been busy with. Pro hopes that Con accepts this decent (horrible) excuse. To the voters Pro would like to state that this is merely a continuation of a previous debate and that to fully understand this debate it would be recommended that they read the previous iterations of this topic. To summarize the debate for all who didn't bother to read it the main point of argument centred around the idea that people have an inherent goodness within them. One of Pro's main points to defend the opposite was that in all apparent "brands of communism" the problem has effectively been that at some point power has been taken by the upper class. Con didn't particularly offer an argument against this but mainly stated that Chinese and Russian communism were not examples of "true communism" but did not explain why they became "untrue communism". As Con's entire argument rests upon this I motion that the debate focus on this point. Definitions: Communism:Communism (from Latin communis " common, universal)[1][2] is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order. Altruism:Altruism or selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others. As aforementioned Pro has proposed that the reason that previous iterations of communism has never been proven to work[1] is because people are not altogether altruist and enjoy seizing power for themselves. Because the communist system relies on altruism (as stated in the previous debate) I motion that if Con concedes that people are not inherently good I will win the debate by default. The most effective example of how altruism does not work is the fact that the Holocaust has happened. Normal people (SS personnel could not have all been mentally disturbed) led thousands of people to camps infested with typhus. These people were normal yet did bad things. Thus, people are not inherently altruistic. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org......
Money grows On trees.

My opponent does not refute the distinction obvious in the definition, that shrubs have multiple stems and no main trunk, unlike trees. Therefore, shrubs are not "mini trees. " The debate is over. Closing Statement: Money, in this debate, the United States Dollar, is made of cotton, linen, synthetic fibers, and ink. None of these comes from a tree. My opponent has contended that the cotton plant is a tree, while I have pointed out the definite distinction that cotton in fact grows on a shrub. Therefore, it cannot be said that money grows on trees. The resolution is negated.
Money grows On trees.

My opponent concedes that Linen, Synthetic Fibers, and Ink do not originate from trees. My opponent also agrees with my definition of tree. He only contends that the cotton shrub is a tree. Gossypium hirsutum is the type of cotton that makes up the overwhelming majority of the cotton produced in the United States [1]. It is of the genus Gossypium, which is a genus of shrubs [2], which are distinct from trees in that they have multiple stems from the base instead of one main trunk [3]. Therefore, money does not grow on trees; it grows on shrubs. Thank you. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Money grows On trees.

\\\"Bills are composed of 25% linen and 75% cotton; red and blue synthetic fibers are distributed throughout the paper."/// Cotton, as you stated, "grows on shrubs". Even according to your definition, a cotton shrub, is a tree. Cotton is a "A perennial woody plant having a main trunk and usually a distinct crown." Therefore because 75% of paper money (the majority) grows on a tree, we can conclude that money grows on trees. \\\Because no major portion of the US Dollar comes from any tree,/// 75% of the US dollar grows on the cotton shrub, which I have proved to be a tree. Therefore, it has been concluded that money grows on trees. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Money grows On trees.

CLARIFICATIONS It has been clarified that this debate concerns other so-called "Paper Currency," but the US Dollar in particular. "Bills are composed of 25% linen and 75% cotton; red and blue synthetic fibers are distributed throughout the paper. " . http://www.enchantedlearning.com... "Currency paper is composed of 25 percent linen and 75 percent cotton. Red and blue synthetic fibers of various lengths are distributed evenly throughout the paper. " . http://www.garamchai.com... "The US dollar is printed on cotton paper. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... I challenge my opponent's definition of tree, because it is unsourced and too ambiguous for this debate. Tree: A perennial woody plant having a main trunk and usually a distinct crown. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... I reserve the right to challenge my opponent's unsourced definition of "grows" should he abuse it. COTTON Cotton grows on cotton plants that are classified as shrubs. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Shrubs are not trees. Shrub: A woody plant of relatively low height, having several stems arising from the base and lacking a single trunk; a bush. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... The cotton plant has multiple stems and lacks wood; therefore, cotton doesn't come from trees. LINEN Linen is "made of fibers from the flax plant. " . http://www.wisegeek.com... Flax is an annual plant. . http://en.wikipedia.org... An annual plant is not perennial and lacks wood; therefore, linen doesn't come from trees. SYNTHETIC FIBERS These are really cool. Most people don't even know they're there. Anyways: I assert that no synthetic fibers (the most common ones listed on page 5 of [1]) originate from trees and that even if one did, one could not assert that the whole dollar grows on trees. INK The only inputs of ink that could be considered products of the tree are the wood rosin and the turpentine, which are necessary, but because they exist in such small quantities on the actual bill itself, it cannot be argued that the whole or even the majority of the bill originated from trees. CONCLUSION Because no major portion of the US Dollar comes from any tree, it cannot be concluded that "money grows on trees. " Thank you. Foot Notes [1] . http://www.gatewaycoalition.org... [2] . http://www.census.gov...
Ultimate Team War: Super Thunderdome 2

No problem, tvellatott. Life, especially child raising, should always take precedent over fooling around on a debate site! Congratulations on your second child. I wish you the best of luck! I'm not sure I'll have time for rematch as I have matters to attend to. Nonetheless, I'll hold to you that rematch offer and will look into the next time I come out of hibernation! Have a happy new year!
Ultimate Team War: Super Thunderdome 2

I know this is going to be a terrible disappointment to my opponent but I am simply too hectic right now to put the effort into this that it deserves. As many of you know, my partner and I have just had a second child and I simply can't spare the two hours or so I need to write a valid response. Add the fact I've already forfeited two rounds and this debate is over before it's began.Furthermore, I made a fatal mistake with my choice of Aang, who violates my own rule about minipulating the environment with his abilities. The idea was that he could redirect lightning attacks, but that wouldn't work as I intended it to anyway. Basically he is fodder and with the strength of my opponents team, I consider this a loss already. To top it off, I am unfamiliar with all of my opponents choices; I have no idea how to respond to my opponents strategies without a significant amount of research and I can't justify it right now.I extend the DEEPEST apologies to my opponent for wasting his good time and ask that, if possible, we schedule a rematch for the new year when things aren't so busy.Peace, Logical-Master. I hope this doesn't make you think less of me. I'm serious about the rematch. I love UTW but because I only do them every 6 months, I always forget how time consuming they are.
Ultimate Team War: Super Thunderdome 2

MEMBER FOUR: Asuna Kagurazaka [4.1]I had never heard of this character nor this anime prior to this debate, but given the 2 extremely formidable magic weilders my opponent chose, I searched out the absolute best anti-magic character I could find. This is her. Skills alone she is worthy of being in the battle, but her natural magic cancelling abilities [4.2] make her an extremely valuable member of my team.[4.1] http://negima.wikia.com...[4.2] http://negima.wikia.com...MEMBER FIVE: Aang, the Avatar [Age 40; 5.1, 5.2]This is Aang at the peak of his abilities, as a full grown adult and complete master of the four elements[5.1] http://avatar.wikia.com...[5.2] http://avatar.wikia.com...LOCATIONSMy opponent and I have agreed to have all our fighters begin together, outside of the range of each other on the opposite side of the dome. Since the arena was specifically designed so that neither would gain an advantage based on the battlefield, this simply leaves a 5 on 5 battle.THE BATTLEUnfortunately I have less than 5 minutes left to post this round and I simply don't have time to begin this battle. Consider this round a forfeit and my opponent may begin. I've streched my DDO time a bit thin with moderating a mafia game and beginning this debate at the same time, but I will respond with gusto for the remaining rounds. Apologies to Logical-Master.
Ultimate Team War: Super Thunderdome 2

Team LMMEMBER ONE: Enel (1.1)[1.1] http://onepiece.wikia.com...The primary antagonist of the Skpiea story arc in One Piece. After eating the goro goro no mi, he became a lightning man. A fearsome opponent and one not to be trifled with.MEMBER TWO: Dr. Strange [2.1]Powerful wizard and sorcerer Supreme.[2.1] http://marvel.wikia.com...MEMBER THREE: Yui Kato [3.1]A powerful psychic and a tactical genius.[3.1] http://yuyuhakusho.wikia.com...MEMBER FOUR: Dr. Fate [4.1]Powerful wizard and sorcerer Supreme.[4.1] http://dc.wikia.com...Sosuke Aizen [5.1]Legendary soul reaper and the longest running antagonist in his series.[5.1] http://bleach.wikia.com... Rule Stipulations/Observations: (1) Should either debator stumble across an ability of a character that in itself violates the rules, note of this by itself is insufficient to prove that said character is not allowed. As long as a character is not seen using a forbidden ability, the character is allowed to be employed for combat. The policy justifiction for this is that the overall goal of the instigator's listed rules is to keep the competition fair. By not using abilities that are otherwise forbidden, the competition remains fair.(2) Any and all discussion regarding clarification/definitions should be restricted to the comment section presuming potential disputes can be resolved.(3) As I don't see where the instigator has provided the location of his team, I shall not provide the location of mine either. Pursuant to Stipulation/Observation #2, this can be resolved in the comment section before round 2 commences.
The US government should eliminate the funding toward programs aiming to help those in need

Hi, this is my first "debate"; I'm not going to present a formal case, but will simply list a few points. -Programs that give food to the homeless are good, but they spend money that could be used on other, more useful things -From a utilitarian perspective, it does not do anything to help our economy (Can you see a homeless man becoming successful and giving money to the government?) -People may pretend to be poor and go get some free food. -Please list counters to my points; I'm looking forward to reading them :)
The US government should eliminate the funding toward programs aiming to help those in need

Please don't judge me as I am doing this for the sake of debate/fun and may have personal viewpoints differing from the ones I put down :) "The US does owe 17.2 billion dollars but..." *17.2 trillion* My opponent criticizes my way of justifying my arguments with utilitarianism (for the greater good), but has not shown why using util is bad. He uses deontology, which is flawed for the following example Say a stupid robber came into my house, and asks if my brother was at home; he won't kill me if my brother is not, and if he is, he will kill both me and my sibling. Lying is obviously immoral, and if I apply deont philosophy to this, I should not lie and simply say that my brother is at home, getting us both killed. However, if I apply util, I may lie simply for the greater good and save both of our lives. My opponent also says that we should base our cases off of the majority. He contradicts himself here: he bases his case off of deontology where most people follow the philosophy utilitarianism. In the famous experiment with the runaway train problem of killing one man to save 5, 90.5% of the tested pulled the switch to save the 5 people and kill the one person (1). Also, in chess, most people will sacrifice several pieces in order to win the game. To counter my opponent's claims about how I have burden of proof as instigator, please realize that he instigated the claim that if people lose welfare, they would not be able to pay for food or other necessities. From (2), 8 dollars per hour is actually 75 cents per hour more than the minimum wage. Since minimum wage was created long before welfare was, the government probably had the idea that it would be enough to support the people receiving it, so your counters regarding salaries fall. To specify, the money spent on welfare could be spent on other, more useful places such as R&D on things that would boost our economy and give us more *excess* money that then could be spent on welfare. As of now, we have no excess money or we would be doing something with it. Thanks for not forfeiting or going AFK :P I await your reply :D Sources: (1): http://medicalxpress.com... (2): http://www.dol.gov...
The US government should eliminate the funding toward programs aiming to help those in need

Interesting points... Unfortunately my opponent, as instigator, does have burden of proof, and he has not proven why the US gov't should eliminate welfare funding. The US does owe 17.2 billion dollars, but my opponent has not explained why welfare would be a better place to cut costs than, say, the military which more is spent on than the next 11 countries combined. My opponent is arguing from a nihilistic point of view. This is permitted, but it does not prove why his utilitarian MORALS are better than my social democratic ones. My opponent then generalizes, with "food stamps are given to people with low income, and even in places simply where the unemployment is high, so it is probable that they will be able to pay for their food" but gives no reason why these people would, in fact, be able to pay for food if not for food stamps. I not only go back to the fact that my opponent has BOP but also that 15% of Americans (1) lived in poverty in 2010. Poverty by definition is having an income less than the minimum required to support a family, single person, whatever the case may be. Without this income, malnourishment, meaning not having enough money to buy food to eat, becomes a factor. "From your very own source (2), there are 39 states that offer more money for Welfare than and $8/hour job," Yes, they do. This is because an $8 job is not enough to support in some cases a family of several children or in some cases oneself, depending upon where one is. In fact this would amount to $14720 a year by average work hours (8 hours a day, five days a week, eleven and half months a year) by my own calculations, and the poverty line for a a single parent of one child is $15030 (1) so no, an $8 an hour job isn't enough to support many families, that's why welfare is necessary. "and 8 states that offer more than an average American teacher." I don't see evidence provided for this. But given the ridiculously low pay of US teachers I wouldn't be surprised. In closing, my opponent seems to base his arguments loosely on nihilism (no moral values) and utilitarianism (a kind of morality). However, no evidence is provided that the two are compatible. Why is balancing the budget moral then? I had assumed that we were basing the debate on standard moral values that the audience will share (i.e. people starving is bad, not putting our descendents in debt is good), but if not, please provide evidence for the new morals that you are basing your argument on, since neither they nor, as you rightly pointed out, conventional western values are pre - set and ultimately intrinsic (i.e. the only ones). You are allowed to say that conventional morality is false, maybe it is, but please prove, as instigator of a positive debate (i.e. we should do something) why your moral values are better than any other set and thus should be followed. I do, however, appreciate the debate and my opponent's interesting responses. 1) http://www.npc.umich.edu...
The US government should eliminate the funding toward programs aiming to help those in need

Thank you for accepting this argument! :D I hope we have fun. -The US owes about 17.2 Trillion dollars (1); why not save money to pay it off? -You contradict yourself in arguing through a deontological basis by building your arguments off of morals rather than the final outcome, whilst you yourself criticize me for using a utilitarian perspective. -We aren't talking about Congress--It doesn't matter if Congress is for the greater good or not--we are talking about our arguments :) -To counter your first argument, there is also no evidence that they wouldn't be able to pay for food either; and since you are making the claim, the burden of proof is put on you. In addition, food stamps are given to people with low income, and even in places simply where the unemployment is high, so it is probable that they will be able to pay for their food. -From your very own source (2), there are 39 states that offer more money for Welfare than and $8/hour job, and 8 states that offer more than an average American teacher. (1): http://www.usdebtclock.org... (2): http://www.statisticbrain.com...
The US government should eliminate the funding toward programs aiming to help those in need

However, I disagree with them strongly for several reasons. My points The US only spends $131.9 billion per year on welfare (2), and by contrast $668 billion on it's military, but this relatively small amount of money (as a part of the entire US budget) goes a long way. - In America, there are 46.7 million people on food stamps (1). This is 14% of the US population. There is no evidence to suggest that these people would be able to pay for food if they did not have food stamps available. If they could, they wouldn't need food stamps. - 4.1% of American rely on welfare (1), if they didn't have welfare, is it not entirely possible that these people would be homeless? If one has no income, it follows that one will not be able to pay rent. Considering the benefits of finding a job, which will evidently pay better than welfare (there are only 6 states where welfare pays better than a $12 an hour job) it is evident that many of these 4.1% of Americans would be homeless without welfare. Is this morally right? - Since when is the US government necessarily utilitarian? There is no evidence of this. In fact, the US congress, an elected body, may pass any legislation it wants within constitutional limits, which you introduce new points on if you wish. - Please provide evidence for other points. .. 1) . http://www.statisticbrain.com... 2) . http://www.cfr.org...
Hillary Clinton should not be able to be president

I don't know what I'm talking about? I've listed multiple sites/sources and you haven't I wont bring up any new arguments since this is the last round but i've successfully proven all of your points wrong. Don't trust Megyn Kelly, she works on Fox. All they do is spread propaganda. Everyone lies. Republicans lie more than the Democrats ever will. Its impossible to not lie. Its just human nature. But ive proved that the things you thought she lied about were just not true. Vote Reformist!! (P.S.- I know Jason Chafftez is not on committee. He was an investigator)
Hillary Clinton should not be able to be president

My opponent clearly doesn't understand what he or she is talking about! Back in March, Megyn Kelly revealed that Trey Gowdy was looking to get that email server from Clinton. For the 100th time, Chaffetz wasn't involved. He was not even on the Benghazi Committee. Go to benghazi.house.gov, and look at it yourself. My point that I am trying to make is that If you want to be president, you have to be honest. She simply doesen't meet those categories. She lied about her emails. Lied about