BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitalism vs Communism

I will start by providing the BOP. Consumer is kingOne of the most important arguments about capitalism versus communism is that in a capitalist society, the consumer is king. The consumer has all the power. The consumer regulates supply, demand, and price. For example, lets say that many consumers want to eat at a random fast food restaurant. As a result, the demand for the restaurant has increased, the supply has increased, and the price has increased. This is what I mean when I say that the consumer controls the whole business world. By buying this product and not that product, the consumer regulates which products are to stay and which have to go. Since there are many different types of consumer, there are many different brands and stores. Let's compare this to a communist society. Everybody is equal. Nobody has more than the other person. The government has to measure and record how much each person has so they don't get too much. In this society, the consumer is not king. He doesn't get to decide whether he wants an Armani or Tommy Hilfiger jacket. The government does that for him. Nearly all of the clothes that a people wear will be the same. Same brand, same color, same everything. Rise to the topOne of the biggest advantages of capitalism is that everybody can rise to the top. Everybody is capable of being a billionaire. It definitely is not easy, but it isn't impossible. One of the most important aspects of this is the introduction and usage of loans. How would a poor person get past Harvard/Yale/Princeton without loans? They wouldn't. Loans allow a person to advance in their life. Whether it be by getting through university with a loan, or opening up your own business with a loan. Loans give you many more choices in life. Let's compare this to a communist society. Loans do not exist. If a person is born poor, they will stay poor. There is virtually no moving up classes. Nobody opens their own business. Everybody goes to the same university. If a person is born a farmer, they will stay a farmer for all eternity as well as their children, and their children, and it goes on. People have no choices in life. Their life is chosen before they are born. Capitalism prevents warOne of the most important aspects of capitalism is that it discourages war. This is because of vested interest. Capitalism promotes free trade. As a result of this, countries have a considerable interest in each other. For example, America provides Japan with weapons while Japan provides America with cars. If they were to go to war, the results would be disastrous. Economies would falter. As a result, there is no point for a capitalist society with a significant vested interest to go to war with the country they are trading with. ConclusionIn conclusion, capitalism is a amazing system which is better than communism. It lets everybody rise to the top, reduces poverty, and it lets the consumer be king. VOTE PROSources:. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Capitalism vs Communism

This debate is about which system is better, capitalism or communism.I am pro captialism.My opponent is pro communism.No arguing about semantics.Communism:"A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. "-http://www.google.ca...Capitalism:"An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit." -http://www.google.ca...No experienced debaters (over 30 debates) please. Burden of Proof is provided by both sides.
Gay Marriage

In my humblest opinion, Gay marriage is wrong. It is contradictory to everything the LGBT community is preaching. They criticize the people who discriminate against their beliefs yet they are campaigning to allow gay marriage to be legal? Why? First off, you can get a civil union, It is just as legible as a marriage except with no religion involved. Second, you can't preach non-discrimination when you are trying to force a church (who is openly against the LGBT community as part their religion) into allowing gay people to get married? That, if I recall correctly, is discriminating against a belief system is it not? And thirdly, I am gay myself so this is from the most un-homophobic point of view a person can have.
Gay Marriage

Opponent’s First Proposition: If legalized, churches will refuse to marry gay couples, ultimately leading negative consequences First, it is incorrect to say that all churches will refuse to marry gay individuals. Gay marriage is currently legal in six states – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont (as well as the District of Columba). Many churches and religious organizations in these six states accept gay marriage and choose to marry homosexual couples. There have been no negative consequences associated with the legalization of gay marriage in these states. Moreover, even if every church refused to marry gay couples – which the previous paragraph demonstrates is not the case – gay couples can still schedule a marriage ceremony (outside of a church) or acquire a marriage license through their local courthouse. The legal institution of marriage is a right conferred through the government, not through religion or churches, and therefore gay couples could become married without the involvement of any church. Opponent’s Second Proposition: Gay couples who truly love each other should be willing to settle for civil unions when marriage is not an option I disagree with my opponent for the reasons discussed in the previous round, specifically that individuals should not be required to accept a lesser right in lieu of equality. We are nation founded on principles of equity and fairness, we are a nation that refuses to settle for inequality simply because that is the best that is currently offered. The civil rights of women and blacks illustrates the importance of refusing to settle with inequality, and demonstrates the importance to society of pushing back against an establishment that wants to prevent equality. Opponent’s Third Proposition: If gay couples are married within a religion’s church, they will offend that religion’s god First, churches may refuse to marry gay couples within their church. Therefore, it follows that if a religious group does permit gay couples to be married in their church, that they are likely a religious group that is accepting of gay marriage and will not be offended. Many churches are willing and do accept gay marriage, as shown in the six states that have already legalized gay marriage. Thus, gay couples will be married in churches that are accepting of gay marriage, or they will be married in ceremonies outside of church. Therefore, there is no risk that gay couples will be married “in the church of someone else’s god.”
Gay Marriage

In Reply to 'Gay Marriage not being discriminatory towards religious beliefs': You said that 'Robert is a vegetarian so therefore people who eat meat are discriminating against his belief', This is a bad example. A practicing vegetarian does not belong to a church or organization. Saying that people who eat meat are discriminating against their belief is wrong, they are not discriminating against them until they, for example, force a Sirloin Steak down their throats. That would be a good example for the gay marriage case as they are asking a church, which is openly against homosexuality, to join them in marriage. This is discriminating against Christian's or Muslim's or any religion's beliefs because they are being forced into doing something they aren't comfortable with and that they could ultimately be frowned upon for by their God. In reply to Civil Unions: A marriage should be about love, not about legal stance. If one is more concerned about their legal stance more than they are concerned about the life they want to spend with their partner then maybe they should not be getting married at all, this of course goes for all people. In my point of view, if a gay couple really want to be joined in marriage but aren't prepared to be in a civil union just because of benefits or taxes, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to get married. Sounds absurd that I think gay people should have to give up more to be in a marriage rather than a straight couple, but straight people can get a civil union as well so it is hardly the case that a civil union is just for the gay people to 'get what they want', it is a completely open thing. Also it is a more sentimental union, seeing as the couple don't wish to bring such things as religion or money into their relationship, it is just love. In reply to the subject of gays forcing the church into allowing gay marriage: The word marriage, although it is a roman word, is that of a religion. It is the bringing together of 2 souls under the eye of their God. So a gay person (who is an atheist per say) asks the state if him/her and his/her partner can get Married, they are asking if they can get married under the eyes of a certain religion's God even though they do not believe in that God. That is offensive and making a mockery of a religion just like religion makes a mockery of homosexuality. If they want to be married under no religion with all the legal stuffs that a 'normal' marriage would have, then why not ask that a civil union could have more legal stuffs, why ask if they can just get married under a religion they don't agree with?
Atheism just another I believe blah blah

Please forgive me if my answers and responses come off hastily or rash, as I've had this discussion a few times. But thanks for challenging me to this topic nonetheless. From what I gathered from our brief chat outside of this debate, your stance is that Atheism is a belief in the same way Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc are all beliefs. I feel bad for not having anything to say in response to your long opening statement, but my main point is that atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief. Let me try to explain. A Christian believes in God, Jesus, all that fun stuff. An atheist hears out what the Christian has to say, and responds with "nah, I don't buy it. " Does this mean that the atheist has formed an independent belief system? I don't think so. Rejecting a statement for lack of evidence is not the same as believing the opposite of that statement. We use this technique in court. There's a reason the verdict is "guilty" or "not guilty," while the term "innocent" is never used. If someone is deemed not guilty, does that mean they're innocent? Not necessarily, as there's not enough evidence to prove that they are, and there's not enough evidence to prove that they're guilty. Atheists' stance on religion or God is basically "not guilty," instead of "innocent. " If this analogy doesn't hold much merit, then think of atheism as nothing more than a rejection of other beliefs, instead of its own independent belief. I hope this makes sense. Thanks!
The LGBTQ+ Community Should be Excepted

Before I begin my argument I'd like to acknowledge that you made a spelling mistake in the title of this debate. I believe the statement you meant to make was 'The LGBRQ+ Community Should be Accepted.' We should not accept and encourage a practice that actively threatens the survival of our species. That is to say that because our existence is dependant on reproduction, and reproduction is exclusively a heterosexual practice, homosexuality should not be glorified and normalized. From human psychology and behavioural studies we can draw clear lines between homosexuality, mental illness and addiction. Mental illness and addiction are two things that we vigorously attempt to prevent and cure. However, homosexuality seems to be a anomaly for no logical reason at all. Instead of encouraging and promoting homosexuality we should be investigating it's origin and working on ways to overcome it. Therefore, I conclude that if mental illness and addiction are not socially accepted, homosexuality should not be either.
A Fetus is Parasite When Inside Its Mother

"Which is why I posted a definition for us." And I think it's an inadequate definition. "Please explain." A human female (let's call her Mary) and another human female (let's call her Jane) are of the same species. They are both human. But according to my opponent's definition, they are of different species since they cannot reproduce together. "So that means that a male can be in both species." An animal can only be of one species. "Well, a caterpillar isn't the same "species" as a butterfly." Actually, it is. The Isabella Tiger Moth (pyrrharctia isabella [1]) is both a caterpillar and a butterfly. The Indian Luna Moth (actias selene [2]) is both a caterpillar and a moth. And, of course, the monarch butterfly [3] is both a caterpillar and a butterfly. "Why can't the same logic be used to compare adults post-puberty to children pre-puberty?" Other than the fact that a caterpillar *is* the same species as a butterfly, it's because a caterpillar goes through complete metamorphosis while a human does not go through metamorphosis at all. "Monkeys also have humanlike faces, skeletal structure, and extremely similar DNA. Different races also have many different characteristics." Yes, but not as humanlike as actual humans. What I really meant is that a baby's DNA does not change when it grows older. If its DNA does not change, how can it change species? "My opponent's argument seems to be that it's riduculous to say that a child isn't a homo sapien sapien and that females aren't of the same species. However, this does not explain why and thus his arguments are nulled." I have given adequate explanation during this round. I have applied a reductio ad absurdum to my opponent's definition of "species" by showing how his definition implies that a human female and a human female are of different species. I have supported it with evidence ([1], [2], [3]). My opponent's definition of "species" is refuted, and I have adequately shown that a fetus is homo sapiens. Therefore, a fetus is not a parasite when inside its mother. Vote CON! [1] http://bugguide.net... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
A Fetus is Parasite When Inside Its Mother

Thank you for your timely response and I'm sorry it's taken so long for me to post my argument. <<"Species" is not so easy to define. Biologists and taxonomists still argue about its definition [1], [2]. >> Which is why I posted a definition for us. << For example, I could say that since a woman cannot breed with another woman, they are not of the same species.>> You could... << But this is, of course, ludicrous.>> Please explain. <<. It is likely because although two women cannot reproduce, they are both capable of reproducing with the same man.>> So that means that a male can be in both species. It still doesn't mean that women are of the same species. << Since biologists generally agree that animals cannot change species during development, it follows that if an adult is human, then that adult must have also been human as a child or a fetus. Therefore, a fetus is a human (homo sapiens).>> Well, a caterpillar isn't the same "species" as a butterfly. Why can't the same logic be used to compare adults post-puberty to children pre-puberty? <> Monkeys also have humanlike faces, skeletal structure, and extremely similar DNA. Different races also have many different characteristics. My opponent's argument seems to be that it's riduculous to say that a child isn't a homo sapien sapien and that females aren't of the same species. However, this does not explain why and thus his arguments are nulled. This was a great debate and I had fun! Vote wisely!
A Fetus is Parasite When Inside Its Mother

"Species" is not so easy to define. Biologists and taxonomists still argue about its definition [1], [2]. My opponent's definition works in some cases, but his attempt to apply it to fetuses is inappropriate. For example, I could say that since a woman cannot breed with another woman, they are not of the same species. But this is, of course, ludicrous. The real question is why. It is likely because although two women cannot reproduce, they are both capable of reproducing with the same man. Unless, of course, one of the women is barren. Are barren women therefore not human? Of course not! This goes to show that my opponent's definition is inadequate. Fetuses, though incapable of reproduction, will become able to reproduce when they grow older. Since biologists generally agree that animals cannot change species during development, it follows that if an adult is human, then that adult must have also been human as a child or a fetus. Therefore, a fetus is a human (homo sapiens). Additionally, fetuses have distinctly human qualities. They have human faces, human skeletal structure, but most importantly, human DNA. The DNA of a fetus is entirely and indisputably human. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu...
A Fetus is Parasite When Inside Its Mother

Species- the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) It is clear that for things to be considered the same species that they must be able to breed/reproduce with each other. I would like to contend that - some fetuses will be female and thus the wrong gender for breeding to every be possible - a fetus lacks the proper development to reproduce with its mother - if a fetus cannot reproduce with the being it is inside, it is not of the same species, and is thus a parassite. That will be all.
A Fetus is Parasite When Inside Its Mother

Fetus- In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Parasite- an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Organism- a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Mother- the human the fetus is inside In this debate none of these definitions can be contended and it is assumed that a fetus is a living organism. A fetus is parasitic because: - it lives inside the women's body - it takes all its nutrients from the mother - the mother gets nothing in return from the fetus - if the fetus is taken out of the mother, it will die Thank you and good luck!
The current economic recession is proof that conservatism is ineffective.

Well, darn. You don't have to agree with the side you are debating. In debate tournaments, being able to defend a position you don't support is a skill needed to debate. My opponent concedes; I have won the debate. For future reference, read more carefully when choosing whether or not to accept a debate. I shall start another of the same topic after New Years, when I get another chance. I urge a CON vote. Any vote for PRO is outrageous and undeserved. Listen to Aerosmith. Thank you for your time.
Abortions

There are many reasons why abortion is necessary in today's society. So many girls are growing up so fast. They are doing drugs, drinking, and having sex starting in middle school. The statistics are constantly showing that the rate of teenage pregnancies is still rather high. Yes, it is immaturity on a young girl's part. However, that does not mean we should ultimately force her to have a child. If a young girl isn't ready to have a child, then why should she be not given the option of termination. To bring a child into this world into the hands of a child still growing themselves is just wrong. It slows down the progression of the young girl's life. She will struggle to find support for her child as she tries to continue to attend school. It is no easy life to be a mother at any age between 13 and 18 years old. It is very difficult. Many girls are forced to drop out of school because they can't afford a babysitter and their parents aren't going to up and quit their jobs just so that the baby will have a round-the-clock sitter. Having a child so young takes away from a girl's social life, education, and growth. They are made to grow up even faster then they already have been. I believe that people deserve a second chance to try and fix the mistakes they have made. Terminating a pregnancy, I feel, is one of those things. It is a decision that everyone should, personally, have the right to do. I do believe there should be a cap on the age a girl is allowed to receive an abortion, but I don't believe that there should be a ban against them. I believe that the age to receive an abortion should be 14 and above and I believe if a girl is under 17 they should have the consent of a parent to go through with the procedure. It is in a young girl's best interest to allow her mother to know what's going on with her. I don't believe it should just be a total secret. I think they have every right to know, especially because the procedure has it's risks like any other. The last thing anyone wants is a liability issue.
speed and acceleration

So Joedan, it has come to this. The final showdown. I'm not going to hold back. This moment has been coming since we were born; we were destined to have this fight, as it has finally come to blows. So I only have one question for you: IF A CAR IS ROLLING UP A HILL AT A STARTING VELOCITY OF 12 M/S, AND HAS A NEGATIVE ACCELERATION RATE OF -6.8 M/S/S, HOW FAR WILL THE CAR GO BEFORE IT CHANGES DIRECTION???????AND WHAT DOES THE FOX SAY?
speed and acceleration

Your height wont matter in a fight, because unlike you, I have no sense of honor or courage or sportsmanship and cheat like Jesse James on steroids. And if you are dead then that means you are a zombie now and as we all know the terminator hates zombies (as seen in terminator vs. zombies pt. 4 the movie) so he will still throw the car at you rendering you a dead zombie or better known as an dead undead
speed and acceleration

Well Joedan, first of all you probaly long for the touch of another man, and I did not die. I died long ago. I've been dead the whole time! You see dead people! Yea, uh huh, take that, Joe! Who's the "looser" now? Furthermore, I happen to know that I am taller than you are, clearly giving me a strategic advantage if this is to result in a fight, which at some point it probably will. Until then, you're also a dunk knuckle. That's right. Uh, uh, ooooooooh...
speed and acceleration

If by that you mean that I, the future winner of this debate, have won and you, scrub, have lost, and I'll tell you why: the car did not need a driver. Yes, this car was indeed a prototype of the inevitable autonomous vehicles that will make there way into our stores. The particular car under discussion is a new automobile being developed by google.I thought that was implied.Either way, it is obvious that I will win this debate and make Mrs. Moreland Proud!!!(on a side note, I really wish that there was a rainbow font. That should totally be a font choice. I mean, it may very well already be a choice, I'm just too lazy to look.)
I have the right to remain skeptical about the new Transformers movie.

Did you expect a Casablanca? Transformers is an action movie and is sold as an action movie. The reviews agreed that the CGI and the action were there. If it had been marketed as an amazing movie with the most amazing performance by its cast ever to come along in this decade, then you might have reason to be skeptical. The movie is essentially the movie it was marketed to be, and therefore you have no reason to be skeptical. Furthermore, there are two other movies made by the same director, so you should expect it to be like those. This debate was not whether the movie was going to be good in regards to performance, but whether you should be skeptical of the movie. The movie was marketed as an action movie full of CGI, and it delivered that.