BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Counter Point to the Kindergarten Cookie Ration argument

1: I contend with the fact of basic psychology allows for the dismissal of incentive for communism's fall, it really doesn't, let me get an analogy: Why does one work? It wants something, maybe, it wants to live, maybe it wants to get a new book, maybe it wants to set up shop for others to get something they want. This IS capitalism at its most pure form, this IS a free market, where people exchange goods. Also, of course, it can lead to greed, no system is perfect. But my rebuttal is I support the family, the family working together the family is a community in a community (as I'm socially conservative), a family is stuck together, but a community isn't a family because they're brought together by a shared sense of belonging humans inherently have, but Marxism takes that and takes the competition out of life, removes outside sources, and makes the community mandatory. I am for the societal structure of the community but you can't make the community everything if you make the community everything the community will die. The community needs the Starbucks, needs the ace hardware, needs the Mc Donalds, they need the same fundamental basic line as other communities, ironically to compete with other communities to BUILD the team spirit. My point is this: You can not force the community, the community must agree to be a community, or else they're just a collective going towards a goal, rather than individuals making a group that attains a goal for the individual and those individuals have their things and use a certain amount to benefit the community, rather than the people just being parts. 2: Marxism HAS to exist without Communism, and Communism is an evolution of Marxism, it is a nation enforced Commune. Obviously much worse than a united community and the death of everything we hold dear. It was more of a distinction you needed to make to understand where I was coming from than necessarily something to rebut your argument as a whole. 3: I was saying for it to take place it needs all of these classes 4: Capitalism is you working for yourself without having everything you earned being the communities, which is something that absolutely has to take place to have a thriving prospering good community. My problem with what you're saying is that it implies capitalism is inherently greedy, greed is a selfish desire for resources, insatiable. But capitalism itself isn't greedy, you can argue it evolves to greed, but even then it isn't harmful greed. It isn't the rich oppressing the poor, it's the rich getting rich which doesn't come with them oppressing poor people, they're's loads of laws to stop that from happening, If you do believe what I fear you might, can you clarify how, and if you don't can you also state why? 5: You can't tell parents what to teach their kids, it's treason, the government should represent the people not tell them what to teach their kids, that is tyranny. Any ideology that is taught by the parents, the school, the state, the media, will spread, will succeed, it happens with anything. It isn't inherently uniquely the downfall of true communism as you describe it.
Counter Point to the Kindergarten Cookie Ration argument

2. I still contend with your logic that an incentive toward personal gain is the fundamental flaw with communism. Nor does one have to deny basic psychology to understand otherwise. While I am no expert in psychology I did take a course in college and I found that much of a person's identity and cognitive behavior can be influenced by external stimuli controlled by other people and circumstances. Basic needs of survival do not necessarily extend into greed, social institutions can positively reinforce greed in-deliberately or by intention. Basic psychology allows for the dismissal of personal incentive as the reason for communism's fall. which leads me to 3. 3. Marxism is the ideology in which communism was born; the theory which communism tried to implement in into government. So I would counter that while Marxism WOULD exist without communism, communism WOULD NOT exist without Marxism. The two are not separate enough for you to dismiss my argument. 4. Are you saying there are multiple groups? In communism there is only one group. It can be likened to different parts of a body but they work to form one individual rather than the many independent individuals of capitalism that work for their own interests with or without regard for others. The individuals in the singular group formed by communism no longer view thriving and prosperity as unique to themselves but dependent on the overall prosperity of the group; it becomes more of a selfless endeavor as the individual no longer prospers independently from the group. Yes, all individuals prosper, but it is not simply a safety in numbers mentality that can be abandoned when it is no longer convenient, at least it shouldn't be. Your problem with the state only becomes an issue when the state sets itself apart from the community and in doing so has failed to follow the educational principles outlined in Marxism. The government will have failed to educate itself sufficiently enough to follow the rules. 5,6,7. It all comes back to education. The family unit is the foundation of every society and the education first received by ones parents can have a profound affect on a child's potential contribution to society as a whole or even their acceptance of that society. What a child learns from their parents is the beginning of their education. If the government can convince the parents to teach their children to uphold the principles of Marxism than all will go well since everyone will see everyone else as one large family with the government as the benevolent head in which they can trust. In this sense education is key since it will work it's way to the top as newer generations replace the older. But it failed in its infancy because the government failed to educate itself and lost the trust of the parents who in turn began to deviate from the ideology of Marxism. Everyone must be educated in communism.
Counter Point to the Kindergarten Cookie Ration argument

1: there is no basis to establish the premise of the children's happiness as you did especially given the context of what you shared in regard to the cookie ration argument. You are injecting your opinion and going above and beyond the value of the simple illustration. 2: as for your second point I would argue that not all students will work like hell just for a piece of candy. There are some who don't care about candy and then there are students who will work like hell candy or not. And you failed to pinpoint the fundamental flaw of communism. It isn't that people work for rewards. To find the real flaw we only have to consider the root word of communism to try to understand the underlying cause of it's failure It's a community, a team, a family. In team sports and in war individuals display the ability to put aside personal gain and selfishness in order for the group to succeed. They even go so far as to view each other as family. The concept of communism was to apply the same ideas to an entire nation. The family succeeds together, suffers together, works together to pull itself up. But this all requires people to understand the system and be trained; educated in how they have a part in mutual success. Soldiers and athletes are taught to do their part in the team for the success of the team. What about regular people? What if only one child received a cookie? A properly raised child who valued his entire family, who understood how the system works only if everyone supports it, that child would share his cookie with everyone else. That's true communism. It's idealistic, yes, and sadly it doesn't exist, because it's extremely difficult to teach the general populace not to behave like stupid idiots. Education is the real flaw with communism. Education is an expensive endeavor and its success isn't guaranteed by the amount of resources poured into it because... People; they have free will and they do whatever idiotic, corrupt, self defeating, things that pop into their heads. Communism requires that everyone in the general populace be trained to work as one unit. For everyone to understand their personal accountability to the person next to them just like in a military or sports team. Communism requires an educated populace that's its flaw.
Donald Trump Would Make a Better President than Hillary Clinton

Thanks for waiving the last round. First let me just say that Trump claiming he knows more about the Islamic State than the generals do was just Trump being a flat-out knucklehead. I believe that he was only trying to fire up the crowd and just act like a big tough guy. Since, he has become increasingly more presidential, making less stupid care-free statements, especially in the past 2 months I'd say. And he reversed his position on the killing of the terrorists' families quite a while ago. He says that he realizes that there are laws that govern everybody, and that it was wrong. Plus, he'd never succeed in that anyway. Okay, on to the 2nd Argument. On healthcare, Donald Trump has proposed repealing and replacing Obamacare, long before we've started seeing the massive premium hikes. He wants to work with Congress to establish a system that promotes choice, quality, and affordability. He will work with states to ensure care for those who have not had continuous coverage. His plan will allow citizens to purchase coverage across state lines in all 50 states to start a dynamic market. If the purchased plan is approved by state requirements, vendors should be able to sell across states. This will allow full competition, which will reduce the costs and increase customer satisfaction. He will allow individuals to fully deduct their premium prices from their tax returns under the current tax system. And he will review options for Medicaid and work with all of the states to make sure that those who want healthcare can have it. For education, he will invest into school choice by reprioritizing existing federal dollars. He will give the states the choice to allow this money to go with the student to the school he or she attends. He will start a national goal of providing school choice the the millions of school-age kids living in poverty. He will also work with Congress to make sure that universities and colleges are making a good effort to reduce the cost and student debt in exchange for tax breaks and dollars. Finally, he will make sure that the opportunity to go to a 2-4 year college, or go to trade school, will be easier to pay for, access, and complete. Constitution, Supreme Court Judges, and 2nd Amendment. Donald Trump will appoint SCOTUS judges who will uphold our Constitution and laws, and secure the Bill of Rights, especially the rights to free speech, press, religion, and to keep & bear arms. He will defend the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period." - Donald Trump He will enforce the laws to get tough on violent criminals. He will fix the mental health system by expanding treatment programs, and make it easier to take proactive steps to save lives. He will ensure that military bases and recruiting centers are well-armed, and fix the background check system so it will work as it was meant to. I again ask my opponent, ThinkBig, to wait at least a day to post his arguments.
Donald Trump Would Make a Better President than Hillary Clinton

The world is in a mess. ISIS runs freely, the economy is stagnant, people are illegally crossing the border, and companies are leaving due to high taxes. The list goes on and on" I believe that Donald J. Trump is the only one who can take us out of this mess, restore America to what it once was, and Make America Great Again. Trump"s Plan to Grow the Economy Donald Trump"s plan for the economy includes lowering corporate taxes from 35% to 15%. This will promote small business, therefore allowing them to grow, blossom and create jobs. This will also encourage them to stay here, rather than leave to other countries. He will also reduce the income tax rate, by reducing the brackets to 3 categories: -12% (for those making less than $75,000 per year) -25% (for those making less than $250,000, but less than $75,000) -33% (for those making over $250,000 Donald Trump will implement a temporary moratorium on new regulations, and will determine which regulations are critical to health or safety. The less critical ones will be subject to repealing. He will repeal and replace Obamacare, and allow insurance companies to compete and let businesses decide which plan will be best for their employees. Mr. Trump"s plan also includes regulatory reform and trade reform. I"ll get to that later, in order to move on to other subjects. Defeating the Islamic State Donald Trump will be aggressive in his mission to defeat and destroy the Islamic State (ISIS). He will make an effort to work with the United States" Middle Eastern allies to establish joint and coalition strategies to crush ISIS, as well as cutting off their funding, to prevent them from spreading radical Islam. He will strengthen our vetting system and allow only those who share our values into America. He will temporarily suspend immigration from countries in dangerous regions, as well as countries known to have exported terrorism in the past, similar to what President Carter put into place. Immigration Donald Trump intends to fight to enforce our current immigration laws, and secure the border by constructing an impenetrable wall along the southern border. He will immediately deport the criminal aliens. All illegal immigrants will be subject to deportation. Not all of them will go out, but the bad ones will immediately leave. He will stop issuing visas to any countries where safe screening and vetting is impossible to occur. He will also reform legal immigration to allow good people in. If my opponent would please wait at least a day to reply, that would be wonderful. I"ll be busy, and would appreciate him waiting so I will not run out of time for my reply.
Donald Trump Would Make a Better President than Hillary Clinton

I am pro, you are con. I will be arguing that Donald J. Trump will make a better president, and Con will argue that Hillary R. Clinton will make a better president. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals & 2nd Arguments Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Closing Arguments Be polite, debate with dignity, and use proper grammar. Thanks, and good luck.
My opponent has just lost the game.

Thanks again for the quick reply. Pro says, "Since you admit that you are thinking about the game, you were "just" losing the game then, and you are still "just" losing the game now." With this argument, pro is attempting to alter the resolution, in an attempt to create a "no lose" situation for himself. The resolution clearly states, "My opponent has just lost the game". "Just", meaning at that instant. With "just" being there, and being used as it is, changing the word "lost", to "losing" is grammatically incorrect, and alters the resolution, therefore I ask that this argument be invalidated. In round 3 pro concedes my earlier arguments, in favor of this attempted change, therefore I ask that they be considered valid. In light of his concession, and invalid attempt to change the resolution, I ask for a vote for con. Thanks to Brainmaster for the challenge.
My opponent has just lost the game.

Thanks to pro for a quick response. I'm not "always" thinking about the game, but I had been the entire time, since learning about it, thus becoming a participant. Pro's argument serves to prove my point. He says, "... you just lost the game on an identically themed debate. And you re-lost on this debate." He's absolutely correct. I had "just" lost the game when I began reading the other debate. He says that I re-lost on this debate, but the resolution has nothing to do with "re-losing", it says "just lost". "Just", as used in the resolution, implies at this instant. By his own argument, the resolution is negated. Pro states that my argument is invalid, but does not show that it violates any of the rules that were agreed on. Therefore, it should be extended. I look forward to the next round.
My opponent has just lost the game.

Thanks to pro for this debate. I couldn't have just lost the game. I became aware of The Game when I began to read a debate between Pro, and OreEle. At that point, I began thinking about it and thus lost. I even said to my wife, "I just lost the game". I finished voting on their debate, then asked Brain to give me a shot, accepted the challenge, and here we are. All those events took awhile, and I was thinking about the game the entire time, so I couldn't "un-lose". The resolution states that I "just" lost the game, but as you can see I lost quite a while ago. Therefore, the resolution has been refuted. I look forward to pro's reply.
My opponent has just lost the game.

According to Wikipedia: The Game is a mental game where the objective is to avoid thinking about The Game itself. Thinking about The Game constitutes a loss. The rules: 1.Everyone in the world is playing The Game. (Sometimes narrowed to: "Everybody in the world who knows about The Game is playing The Game",[4] or alternatively, "You are always playing The Game.") A person cannot not play The Game; it does not require consent to play and one can never stop playing. 2.Whenever one thinks about The Game, one loses. 3.Losses must be announced to at least one person[6] (either by using a statement such as "I Lost The Game" or by alternative means). You cannot not play the game. You are always playing. You go next CON.
Friends is the best TV episode ever

Final Rebuttals:"No other programme is as good because it is based on a simple storyline (in a cafe and house) so it relates to peoples daily life..."My opponent claims that no other program is as good because it is based on a simple storyline. But this statement can only be true if there are no other episodes based on a simple storyline. I believe the episode 'Dr. Eggman's Tomato Sauce' from the TV show Sonic Boom is based on a simple storyline. According to Wikipedia, the episode summary is simply, "Eggman created his own brand of tomato sauce, but Sonic and his friends are distrustful."[3]This sentence is easily understood by many people. In fact, it seems easier to understand than a standard 3rd grade worksheet.[4]In conclusion, I believe 'Dr. Eggman's Tomato Sauce' is based on a simple storyline.My opponent did not show how a simple storyline automatically relates to peoples' lives. Perhaps, instead, my opponent meant that the episode "Friends" both relates to peoples' daily lives AND is based on a simple storyline, therefore it is the best. However, neither of these seem to be great-making properties, so they do not seem to make an episode 'better' or 'the best'. Additionally, I believe 'Dr. Eggman's Tomato Sauce' relates to peoples' lives because some people watch the show. Participating in an activity requires a sacrifice of time from our daily lives. Therefore the episode is relevant to our daily lives (if we choose to watch it). But finally, perhaps my opponent meant that no other episode is as good in that manner. But we are arguing over which episode is the best ever, not which episode is the best that is based on a simple storyline. No other argument presented by my opponent stands. Therefore the notion has not been carried.Please vote!Sources:[3]https://en.wikipedia.org...;[4] http://www.education.com...
Friends is the best TV episode ever

Thank you, RazorxLeaf, for instigating this debate.The resolution, as you can see, is whether ‘Friends’ is the best TV episode, not show, ever. I will argue that the episode ‘Not What He Seems’ from Gravity Falls is a better TV episode, thereby negating the resolution.Argument 1: Rating comparison.According to IMDb, Not What He Seems is #12 on the list of highest rated episodes. ‘Friends’ is not on the list.[1]Now considering that this debate is about specific episodes, any overall rating of the show is irrelevant.Rebuttals:My opponent’s entire argument is a bare assertion.[2] Since my opponent did not back up any claims with logic or sources, we cannot affirm the resolution.“Friends is the best due to its ability to fit many target audiences and appealing to both families and teens.”My opponent says that if something is able to fit many target audiences and appeal to both families and teens, then it is the best. However, I believe there are many episodes that fit this requirement. Are they all the best? Then we would have more than one best episode. Additionally, we cannot assume that this is a good rating system. If an episode were to fit these requirements, should we automatically give the episode a 10/10 rating? But any episode that is the best should have a 10/10 rating (or the highest possible rating). So I find this line of reasoning to be invalid and unsound.“It has great comedy coupled with serious life lessons.”If true, this may show that ‘Friends’ is a good episode. But it does not show how it is the best episode.Due to character limit, I cannot interact with my opponent’s arguments as much as I’d like. However, you can see that they are all similarly unsound. The resolution has been negated.I await my opponent’s reply.Sources:[1]http://www.imdb.com...[2] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...
The Nationwide Legalization of Marijuana

Here's my evidence http://www.thecannabist.co... . Making pot legal would mean that dispensaries like the ones in colorado and Washington could sell weed to pot-smokers and it would take away from the violent criminals making the incentive to deal drugs less. If there were an industry nationwide of selling drugs in a legal way then why would anyone purchase drugs in an illegal way. This is like what happened to alcohol after the prohibition. In my opinion, I do not see why legalization would make more violent people want to enter the industry. People want to feel safe, so why would they buy drugs from someone who makes them feel unsafe?
The Nationwide Legalization of Marijuana

Thank you for responding to my post! You have brought some good points to the table. i am a little weary of some of your facts. in order for me to better understand your evidence, can you please provide citations from where you obtained your data. My reason for this is because there could be a plethora of reasons for why the crime rate has gone down. I like your point of taking drug dealers out of the mix, i agree this would take a lot of the harm of illegal drug use. But do you not believe that the governments stance on marijuana at the moment keeps a lot of people from getting involved with it? meaning, it keeps a lot of potentially violent people from entering the industry, and if they were to legalize marijuana, do you not think this would open the door for violent people to enter the industry because of the end fear with the law? these large sentences may be why certain violent criminals stay out of the industry.
The Nationwide Legalization of Marijuana

First off, let me start by saying the decriminalization of marijuana would be beneficial to our country in many ways. Marijuana has been proven to be virtually harmless for the majority of the population. In my opinion, the legalization of marijuana would have the largest effect on crime. In states where marijuana has already been legalized, such as Washington and Colorado, crime rates have been cut by over 10%. The legalization has cut down on violent crime due to the fact that people do not have to get their weed from drug dealers, making the transaction for acquiring pot much safer. Another way in which this would help our society is the abolition of mandatory minimums due to pot related crimes. There have been cases in which defendants have been sentenced to 20+ years in prison for the possession of minimal amounts of marijuana largely based on mandatory minimum sentencing. This is morally and ethically wrong and something must be changed.