BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The entire monetary scheme (economy, trade, finance) contradicts itself.

Well, first of all, I agree with you in the mindset that our military personnel are seriously undercompensated for their work to protect our nation. However, that doesn"t mean that those other people you have mentioned (stars, politicians, business dogs, models, and other entertainers) aren"t actually working for the money they receive. All we are seeing is the value scales of the public at large; in general, our society appears to value the movie stars and general entertainment over the service of military members; if it were the other way around, the stars wouldn"t make the big bucks. (The pay for being in the military is also dependent on the government, which while influenced by the public has a whole other set of contributing factors influencing it which I won"t get into.) Thus, movie stars act, professional sports stars play sports, politicians lobby and earn money and representation for those they represent, business dogs build companies and businesses to earn capital; all these people have worked and do work for the money they earn. They have simply landed themselves in a field which pays more than most other occupations and, when viewed by us average people, are commonly seen as not working because we judge their job of "acting" or "talking" or "sitting behind a desk all day taking telephone calls" as being easy compared to what we do. And, in some circumstances, it very well might be easier. I simply find it difficult to accurately judge the work of another until I have tried to do it. And let me tell you, I wouldn"t be able to play professional sports or act in a movie. This doesn"t mean I am approving of the salaries they make, nor am I supporting the disparity of incomes you have cited; I am arguing that we cannot be presumptuous enough to say that those who make a lot of money work less than we do.
The entire monetary scheme (economy, trade, finance) contradicts itself.

First, you are grossly misinterpreting everything I have said. Not once did I argue that inflation is a good thing; I agree with your stance that inflation generally has more negative consequences and is not promoting our economy. I am not supporting the destruction of the lower class, nor have I supported increased costs of living. What I have done is explain precisely what causes inflation and why SOME, NOT ALL, people in this country actually think it will help. You seem to be criticizing inflation and the economy without a complete understanding of what causes it. Again, I sympathize with the lower class and understand completely how hard most of its members work to maintain a decent life style; but this does not mean that they are the sole reason our economy is still standing. Second, yes, they do work for their pay. Just because you or I make a presumption that what they do is not work, either because they get paid several figures more than I do or because they have an "easier lifestyle" than I do such as acting or modelling, does not mean that they don"t work. Many of them worked extremely hard to get to the position they are in now, and while we may see it as easy, they still have jobs and they still need to show up to work to earn their money. You appear to have overlooked all of my arguments on inflation, the economy, and have failed to specify on the topic of the debate in favor of attacking me as a squid-brain ruining the lives of the lower class. I would implore you to actually address some of my arguments an discuss the economy instead of having a lowly name-calling game.
The entire monetary scheme (economy, trade, finance) contradicts itself.

You're telling me right now that they are working for their pay? When a man who has a family to feed is working in a factory his whole life and is never paid no more than his first day's pay check compared to celebrities and sports players? Are you really going to try to even insinuate that this is even remotely accurate of a statement by you? You're telling me that inflation is good when it destroys the lower class? When cost of living goes up? When the people that keep this damn economy going are getting by with scrapes, while those who do not even remotely as much as the bottom class get paid infinitely more than those who put their soul into their jobs for these monkeys? While the bottom class gets no break when the jobs of our own country are sent over seas!? Are you out of your mind? Yes, yes you are. The biggest obstacle is that giant squid looking monster in your head that mucks everything up. You should go get that checked out.
The entire monetary scheme (economy, trade, finance) contradicts itself.

I can sum up monkey making in two sentences - watch me: Work for others. Others work for you. People wonder why the cost of living is sky rocketing since the old times - inflation. Inflation is caused by a few things: printed money, people at top hoarding all the money with unbelievably unrealistic pay checks for the little work they do compared to say, a soldier "fighting for our country" who get brains scrambled, beheaded, lost limbs, here in the U.S, sending jobs overseas, paying celebrities, sportsman more than people who actually work and keep this economy going in the first place. It's the bottom class that holds everything else up - the entire money scheme is the next world's biggest farce next to "God" being used to pillage people's towns.
soccer: barcelona is currently better than real madrid

1. Why does 2008 have any impact on what's happening currently? Barcelona's main two strikers back then were Henry and Eto'o(who was also their highest goal scorer in the league and scorred in the final against Man U) neither of which have played for Barcelona in years. Ronaldo, Kaka, Benzema, Xabi Alonso and Diara didn't even play for Real Madrid back then. At that period in time Man City finished 40 points behind Manchester United in the Premiership. As great as that Barcelona run is, it does not matter currently. Also 5 European cups in a row is a bit better. 2. As stated before Real Madrid are higher in La Liga by 5 points and have a better goal difference. They also did better in the current Champions League. Yet again these are statistical things from right now where Real Madrid are playing at a higher level than Barcelona. Over the 5 past La Liga seasons Real Madrid's point total has been 7 points higher than that of Barcelona. (1) 3. The last 5 matches between these teams has been 1 win for Real Madrid, 1 win for Barcelona and 3 draws. They played just 24 hours ago in a 2-2 draw where Real had in my opinion an unfair red card and a goal dissallowed. With many feeling as if Madrid were the better team. 4. As mentioned they both play the same position yet Ronaldo has scored more frequntly and hase been selected to the UEFA team of the Year 6 times compared to Messi's 4. 5. Saying Barcelona is a better playing team than Madrid is very subjective. As stated Madrid are doing better in La Liga currently and over the past 5 years cummitavely. They both play beautiful football yet one doesn't have to roll around on the floor for 30 minutes. It is fairly clear that Madrid are beating Barcelona at the moment in a league which better suits Barcelona whilst if they played in the more physical premiership or Bundesleague Real Madrid would cope better. 6. As stated Real Madrid has two Fifa World Players of the year on its team(2), whilst Barcelona have 1. As you conceeded Real Madrid have the better goal keeper. Real Madrid have scorere higher than Barcelona in each of the last 3 seasons in La Liga proving they have the more dangerous attack. For the World Cup Spain even picked more Real Madrid defenders than it did for Barcelona.(3) (1)http://goalzz.com... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org... (3)http://news.bbc.co.uk...
soccer: barcelona is currently better than real madrid

This debate will probably seem futile within a few hours. 1. Real Madrid are 5 points ahead of Barcelona currently in La Liga with more wins. They also have scored 8 more goals and have a better goal difference.(1) Real Madrid also did better than any other team winning all 6 Champions league group games something Barcelona did not do as well as having the best goal difference in the CL. 2. Real Madrid only lost last season to Barcelona by 4 points and scarred more goals. Clearly currently being ahead 5 points now rather than Barcelona winning by 4 points months ago makes them currently a better team. 3. Last year Real Madrid beat Barcelona for the Copa Del Rey 1-0, so Barcelona don't win all the trophies or always win. 4. Ronaldo is better than Messi. Messi has 136 goals in Barcelona's last 3 seasons whilst Ronaldo has 151 for Real Madrid. They both play attacking midfield. Ronaldo was also able 42 goals in 49 appearances for Manchester United showing his ability to play the highest level in both the English and the Spanish league, Messi wouldn't be able to handle the physical play. 5. Real Madrid has 2 Ballon d'Or winners on its team whilst Barcelona have one. Casiallias has also made the UEFA team of the year 5 times running despite playing in a position where only one player will be selected. (2) This is more times than Messi or anyone on the current Barcelona team has been picked. He has also won the IFFHS best goal keeper in the world a record 4 times even though it has been around since 1987. (3) 6. I think a more interesting debate is which club is greater of all time or is this Barcelona team better than any other Real Madrid team because there is quite an obvious consensus today. (1) http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Government of any kind is immoral

Governments of some type have ruled over mankind for most of existence but are governments moral institutions? Definitions(debatable) : Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior that are agreed upon generally by society. Government: An accepted monopoly on the use of force within a specific geographical area. My argument is one from the principle of non-aggression, that is that it is immoral to initiate force against another person or group of people no matter what the intended result is. As a child, you learned that theft is wrong and that assault(hitting) is wrong, so why is it okay for a government to do these things? Society should be based on voluntary associations, any association with governments are involuntary. This is just a summary of my argument and I anticipate covering other territory such as social contract theory. I look forward to the discussion.
Government of any kind is immoral

I feel that amid all the rhetoric and philosophy which surrounds this issue, there is really only one argument. You addressed this in your fourth point; that citizens give their consent by the services rendered, or that they do not. It is the heart of the argument, because the debate is centering around the right to use force being derived from the governed. Anyone who's anyone knows that a government cannot function without funding. As people subject themselves to a government, they submit to pay for their protection. Just like insurance, but much more practical as it can use force to implement law. I feel as though my competitor has been very blind in his views and statements, and has not really looked past his biases. I thank him and the judges for their time, and hold that governments of at least SOME kinds (where they derive their power and force from the governed) can be absolutely moral. I feel as though the burden of proof has weighed against him, and I plead for the votes of those judging. Thank you.
Government of any kind is immoral

George Washington once said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." I will begin by agreeing with you, as George Washington did, that government is, in fact, force. However, I would bring up the origin of government. All just or "moral" governments are created by a number of people consenting to surrender some of their unalienable rights (or portions of those rights) to an entity with greater capacity to protect those rights. The Declaration of Independence says it well: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"This leads to the "contradiction" called to attention in a previous argument. You stated that taking money from another person without their consent is wrong. Likewise, that a government forcibly taxing its citizens is wrong. Now I would ask, does the government not have the consent of the governed? Are you restricted and forced to live in a specific place or to always pay these taxes? You are not. Indeed, you give your consent and restrict your rights the moment to drive on a public road, the moment a peace officer protects you from harm, or the moment you receive any other benefit paid for by the taxes of citizens. Any person willing to forgo the comforts of life under a government may leave the bounds of that government. A person in a remote, uninhabited jungle will have neither a government to pay or a government to protect them. But in imagining a world without those comforts, most come to the conclusion that a government is necessary (especially a world outside of a jungle, where you interact with other people).This leads me to address a final question; where does the right to use force come from? If a government takes its power from those it governs, why can it exercise force on individuals, while a citizen does not have that right? It is simple. Each person has the right to not be forced to do something. This is a right which they may surrender if they see fit. In creating a government, the governed not only consent to surrender their rights for protection, but also some of their liberty for security. People realize that a government requires funding, and a way to force obedience. Indeed, people are very willing to surrender some freedom to a government which requires those freedoms in order to operate. I believe that government is the most effective way to ensure all people are protected from each other. I believe that force is the only way this can come about, and that a government truly gains the right to use force from those it governs with their consent. Thank you, and I solicit a Con ballot.
Government of any kind is immoral

Perhaps force is not the correct word depending on how you define it. The concept that makes government immoral is its initiation of force. Force in and of itself used for such things as self defense is no all bad. My argument was not that government is just a monopoly on the use of or initiation of force but that is is an accepted or legitimized one. Force can be used by private actors but if is is not in self defense it is generally looked at as not desirable. However, when governments engage in the initiation of force it is somehow looked at as acceptable. If I were to break into your house and steal from your wallet, that would be wrong, however if I work for the IRS and take money forcibly from your paycheck or force you to write a check to me pending increasing violent punishment it is not wrong. How do you address this contradiction?
atheism is theism

there are no contradictions cause+effect=logic logic is determined by existence, like if you are lost in the woods and pick up a mushroom and eat it, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is poisonous? logic in reality is determined by matter disBELIEF is belief, belief to the contrary, to believe that god is false where as the theist believes god is true belief is doubt, so as a balance of believing god is false, i must doubt god is false, therefore i must believe god is true
atheism is theism

I'll just refute the propsition "atheism is theism" with the law of non-contradiction. The law of contradiction: "The law of contradiction means that two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. X cannot be non-X. A thing cannot be and not be simultaneously... All logic depends on this simple principle. Rational thought and meaningful discourse demand it. To deny it is to deny all truth in one fell swoop." Since debate uses argumention in adherence to rational discourse, one must deny rational discourse in order to accept pro's resolution. This would be illogical and shows that pro has made himself an impossible burden of proof. Since pro cannot meet his burden of proof the debate will go to me by default. http://www.spurgeon.org...
atheism is theism

god=Creator creation and destruction only happens in the mind, destruction=turn my back creation cant exist without creator, so the creator is the creation, cause and effect it being in my mind, is me being it I am the all seeing eye pyramid capstone reflection flying at the top of a pyramid, I am god A=all that can possibly be experienced, future past and now information=separation, like i can reach infinity without ever being able to experience it in reality, at least the non ending part
Stepmothers- An Evil to the Modern Society

First of all I would like to specify that in this debate I consider young age as less than 8. I would like to discuss with you first of all on this age . Yes this age children are not matured full or even partially they only seek the help of their parents or so called grandparents or they are called as Father's biological parents. Preferentially the child seeks the utmost care and appreciation of the biological mother . When , unfortunately on the loss or the separation of his or her natural mother a child being alone hopes for new mother to take care of his/her. And for the information when any new mother arrives in their house it depends on her how she takes care of her stepchild , either she will take utmost cae of her stepchild or she would start exploitation. This depends on her. Secondly I would answer your all questions you asked in your previous argument ; 1: Did the father support the step-mother in her role as a mother to his child or treat her as just a provider of essential services? you think then why would a father marry a specified beautiful and a hottie woman to be with him for his all life and does not this indirectly mean he loves that woman . But he also loves his biological children equally as his second wife . And for the further taking care of the family Stepmother has to step forward on her own to take care of her new family and stepchildren. So father will only expect this kind of responsibility which she must bear on her shoulders because it is her responsibility for which stepmothers are nowadays cruel. 2: How did the dead biological mother and father"s parents, along with extended family treat the step mother; was she welcomed and supported, or criticized? Dead biological mother's parents , they must think that the decision is up to their son-in-law to decide what to do and what not to do for the welfare of their grand children . So they would naturally respect the son-in-law's decision and therefore welcome the new stepmother. And for the Father's parents they would consider their son's decision as the final as they would be sure that their son is now a grown up child and can distinguish between what is right and what is wrong . So they also naturally welcome her . And this would happen only in the first when she is married as they would think that their grandchildren have got someone to take their care. But later consequence and the rude behaviour of the stepmother would force them to criticize her. Finally In my conclusion I would like to state that as I have told stepmothers are naturally an evil to the society but I have not focused to all stepmother s in my debate rather I have said more than half of the stepmothers are so called evil. Thus stepmothers are in no reason are torturing to their stepchild an the reasons they are showing are useless.
Stepmothers- An Evil to the Modern Society

You have answered my arguements word by word and paragraph by Paragraph. Its convincing . I want here to say that we so far discussing about stepmothers who have married to their husband when he has divorced her wife. But in this round I specially want to focus on my perspective aboutr stepmothers who have married to their husband and take care of their stepchildren who have lost their natural mother at an early age and are otherwise regarded as orphan.They feel peaceful when they see their another mother infront of them and they expect a motherly care from her. They want that as their mother has given utmost love ad importance they must be given utmost sympathy in the family. But they did not know what was waiting for them in the future from their so called stepmother . In all over the world a survey has been conducted that most probably 75% of total stepmothers are rude to their stepchildren in many ways and the leftovers 25% treat their stepchildren as their own children and I proudly and respectfully say U are one of those stepmothers who treat your children as your own children. But the real point is tht If stepmothers in my case treat their stepchildren in a rude manner then what is the main reason behind that ? For me I would like to stick o my own second round reason that they want to give importance to their own children . ..........................................
Stepmothers- An Evil to the Modern Society

I know that you are like respectable guide for me , but in this field of debate I would like to argue on this topic . Accordingly you said about your experience as a stepmother to your children . In your experience have you observed stepchildren's reaction to your rules and regulations. No matter how or why their natural mother back you up but children have the right to judge themselves and to decide what they should do what they should not. And as you have mentioned the daily chores , Basically i would like to mention that children should not do house daily chores at such a young age. Its like a torture for them. They are correct to think that they are not allowed to go here and there with move with their friends . And this relationship between Stepmother and her children ruins a childs life. Basically Girls are affected by this kind of so called torture by their Stepmothers. Basically a stepmother's primary objective is to give birth to her own child and give her most importance in the family. So they search for one way or the other to make their stepchild get punished by their father and make them guilty in front of their father . This make a fathers natural child gain no importance or care infront of their father . Basically I would liketo cite an true example in front of you that my friend who is a muslim by religion gets everyday torture by her mom in their home. Her mom forces her to do everyday household works in the house . Even she scolds her uselessly with no reason due to which she was mentally affected and also tried to quit her life . She even complained infront her father but got return punishments. So this has happend in todays world that actual children have no importance to gain. And sorry to say Sex talks , it is not permitted to children mainly Girls when they are Virgin . This would urge them to experience what sex is. So Again I repeat STEPMOTHERS are an evil..............................