BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialism is a horrible idea.

Thanks for the debate, Pro. I'll present my opening arguments this round. Note that I do not have to show that socialism is an especially good political/economic system; I just have to show that it is not a fundamentally horrible system, as Pro claims. == CON CASE == 1. Property rights don't exist "In the state of nature land belonged to everyone. Everyone had infinite rights to everything, and it was in forming a society that some rights were surrendered to keep things stable. Since land was owned by no one in the state of nature, people claiming it for their own violates the rights of everyone else to use this land. Taxes are one way of penalizing individuals for stealing otherwise public land, and compensating everyone else for the loss of their rights. Properly understood, then, many forms of taxation are merely equalizers, not modes of theft" [1]. Thus, socialism is ethically justified-- in the absence of property rights, it provides a system which maximizes collective happiness. I would leave it at that, but Pro says I need three arguments, so here are a couple other advantages of socialism: 2. Creates a social safety net, ensuring that all members of society have their basic needs fulfilled. In other words, it is the most humanitarian economic system, since it requires the government to look out for the well-being of the populace. This results in increased social stability and deceased income inequality, both of which translates to substantial pragmatic benefits [2]. 3. Avoids the various externalities associated with a free enterprise system, such as capitalistic competition driving businesses to unethical practices which are not in the best interest in society. For example: law firms engaging in unnecessary litigation, doctors recommending unnecessary procedures, banks selling their clients faulty loans (i.e. the thing that led to the 2007-2008 recession), manufacturers moving their operations off-shore, and growing corporations engaging in practices which are harmful to the environment in order to develop further. Under socialism, since all companies are owned by the government, they can be far more consumer-centered, rather than profit-centered. - In conclusion, socialism is morally just and has major utilitarian benefits too. It cannot reasonably be said to be "horrible", and thus the resolution is negated. - [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Socialism is a horrible idea.

Please present argument in 3 point style, no Rebuttles until second round and 3rd round for closing statements. ----------------- 1. It promotes collectivism. Collectivism is when the government wants to sacrifice the rights of the individual for the better of the whole. Hillary Clinton, Mao ze dong, and hitler all said it when they claimed we must stop worrying about the individual and about society as a whole. However that is the fundamental flaw with them all as the government is then able go oppress people in the name of helping the whole. Nazism, communism, and socialism all share this aspect. 2. Socialism is literally Nazism and Communism. The only difference between these 3 is that socialism is pragmatic like nazism, and socialism is without a dictator. 3. It's proven to fail. Mary Thatchet put it perfectly, "the liberals will soon tax all the money from the wealthy." Socialism wants large scale entitlement programs to put individuals into a circle of dependence on the government that they can't get out of. It ends up leading to the point of no incentive to work, no money, and the whole system collapses.
Socialism is a horrible idea.

1. For cons opening arguments he stated that there are no property rights, however he has only shown the philosophical idea of one person. The argument that there are no property rights is not proven as it is a very debatable subject and therefore that argument is invalid without hard evidence. 2. Social safety nets sound like a great idea but once again have been proven not to work as our very own social security is set to run out in 2022. Saftey nets, especially for retirement, don't work as the demographics are constantly changing so there could be a time with more retired people then working or a very close amount of each.
Female athletes should not make as much money as male athletes

I feel that female athletes should not make as much money as male athletes.First, Male athletes post much better times in track events, jump higher and farther, and also throw farther. Men’s tennis players are much better, and I would love to see a women’s football (not soccer) team beat a men’s football team (even the Miami dolphins!). For example the mens world record in the 100m is 9.58s and the womens record is 10.47s. If men perform so much better, shouldn’t they be paid based on merit?Other Examples(Men’s Vs Women’s Records)Mile World Record: 3:43.13 Vs 4:12.56Marathon World Record:2:03:38 Vs 2:15:25Shot Put World Record: 23.12m vs 22.63mDecathlon World Record: 9039pts vs 8358ptsAlso the men’s marathon world record pace is the same as the women’s 5k world record pace.Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... So if the men compete at a much higher level, then they deserve higher pay. You can make the argument that they run equal distances so they should be paid the same amount, but the men do much higher quality work, such as sustaining the womens 5k world record pace for over 8 times as long(marathon).Second, far less people attend women's sports compared to men's. When Seattle had a basketball team (The Supersonics) attendance was twice as high as the Seattle Storm's. If twice as many people are filling the stands of the NBA versus the WNBA then it's no wonder they are bringing in less revenue. But it's not just the amount of fans in the stands, it's also a matter of ticket prices. The average attendance for a WNBA game is 8,000 people and the average ticket cost is around fifteen dollars. That's about $120,000 per game. Averaging out to a little over $4,000,000 a season. However, half of the WNBA's games are away games so they only see about $2,000,000 a year in ticket sales. How does that compare to the NBA? The average ticket cost of an NBA game is around $50 (a lot more than the WNBA) and average attendance for the 2009-2010 season was around 16,000. Double that of the WNBA. So that's $800,000 on average per game. Times that by the 41 home games, they play in the regular season and we come to $32,800,000 of yearly ticket sales per team. That is over 16 times the amount the WNBA brings in. And that is just ticket sales. Far more NBA games are televised compared with the WNBA. The average NBA team brings in about $15,000,000 in pure revenue, that means after all expenses (such as salary, taxes, promotions, etc). The WNBA doesn't even turn a profit. How do they stay afloat? The NBA subsidizes the WNBA with about $12 million per year. Therefore men bring in more money and deserve more pay.Sources: http://nbahoopsonline.com......http://www.buzzle.com...http://www.altiusdirectory.com...
Schools should have homework

You stated, "The smartest people in the world did homework when they were a kid." -You have no proof at all to make a claim such as that one, and furthermore you would be hard pressed to find some. You stated, "It's unbelievable that you are saying that practicing problems has no effect on how good you practice problems. You think that just reading about the information and never doing it can make you a genius?" -This is a fabricated claim by yourself! I never mentioned the word practicing let alone mention a thing about practicing problems. The point is if one IS studying then OF COURSE they are practicing problems. It is implied in the notion. To further the proposition that homework is mostly a fading method of discipline and instruction, here are some links from some prestigious sources to expand this belief: 1) Homework: How Much is Too Much? Series Examines Increasing Workload for Young Students http://www.npr.org... 2)The Myth About Homework Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2006 By CLAUDIA WALLIS http://www.time.com... 3) Development Too Much Homework: Bad for Kids? By Kamala Nair, Parenting http://www.parenting.com... The research is well into effect, and it will not be soon enough until the education bureaucrats wake up to it. But this is only the tip of the iceberg when we talk about the laundry list of issues when it comes to true educational reform.
Schools should have homework

Well guess what, I also know a ton of people that do homework and get the best grades in the class. The smartest people in the world did homework when they were a kid. And yes, homework do make kids better. Of course working out more problems make them better, it is not meaning less. It's unbelievable that you are saying that practicing problems has no effect on how good you practice problems. You think that just reading about the information and never doing it can make you a genius? If students find out that they procrastinate, then they obviously want to fix this problem. Without doing any homework, students don't know if they procrastinate. Once they find out a bad habit, they try to fix it. Homework shows the student their bad habits, not fixes them. If students just study and play with no stress, how do they know that they have bad habits such as procrastination? Students do their homework. Even irresponsible ones do. The school makes sure of it that they do their homework. And yes homework does change the person. If a student never does homework, then of course the teacher would notice. The teacher notifies the principal or assistant and they come talk with the student and convince the student to do homework. If he continues to not do his homework, then he has consequences. The school makes students do their homework. Homework does not change their deep rooted characteristics, the students, parents, friends, or teachers try to change them. But, without homework, students cannot find many of their deep rooted characteristics, especially bad ones. Staying stress free gives you no experience in how to deal with stress. All students will have to go through a lot of stress in their adult life. It is unavoidable. If they don't have enough experience in stress, then they become hard to cope with. Students that grow up with no stress are spoiled. In addition, what happens if a student is gone? Then how does he learn the material. The teacher can't teach every absent student on the material that they worked on in class. Homework gets people that missed class to catch up and learn what they missed in class. It would be hard to understand things by not working on them. How about learning writing. Do you expect a student to be writing essays every week or even poems to practice their writing skills? I don't think so. Writing essay is essential to increasing the students ability to write and as far as I can tell, students really would not write essay when they do not have to. All of the students that I know that never did homework in their life fail classes all the time and sorrowfully regret not doing homework in their child life. Homework is one of the most important necessities to a childhood. Thank you for debating -AZ
Schools should have homework

If the main purpose of homework is to discipline a student, then homework is kind of pointless. It seems like the focus of your argument centers on homework being a tool of discipline. As I have stated in the first argument, an independent thinker is an independent thinker regardless if there are homework assignments or not. Also, could you please elaborate on how homework "teaches" a person not to procrastinate, to manage time, and to be responsible. You are making a bold claim without much supportive evidence. You stated, "Homework tells you what problems you have, and gives you the opportunity to fix your problem. Otherwise, people would start finding out their own problems when they are adults." -This is an unbelievable statement for me to comprehend mostly because it is as if you are stating that homework is this mysterious force that has special, all-seeing powers. Homework is not that important! In fact some of the most intelligent people I have known never did any homework in high school. They had the best grades and test scores. They were independent thinkers. They read when they had to, studied when they had to. They did not need meaningless homework assignments to make them better students. You stated, "Time management skill is taught by the student him or herself. They have to learn it by them self, not ask parents to teach it to them." - I did not state a thing about asking parents for help, I simply stated that parents are obligated to being the primary educator in a child's life and to help make teenagers grow up to become responsible adults, not just to expect all of the work to come from their teachers. You stated, "Studying is a type of homework......... You sure that most students that don't have homework will study by themselves to become responsible. I think that this is not true. Students would most likely spend their free time playing games or enjoying entertainment, not studying." -If the student is irresponsible, then he will not do his homework anyway! Thus defeating the point! It is that simple! Assigning homework cannot change a persons deep rooted characteristics. Homework is not a magic potion. Lastly, you have made your point twice about homework causing stress, and how this is good for you for when you grow older. Well, stress is not good for the body at any time, for the young or the old. Stay as stress free as long as you can and you have a better chance of living longer, healthier, and happier life.
Schools should have homework

The purpose of homework is to teach the student how to not procrastinate, be responsible, manage time, and to be an independent thinker. THe purpose of homework is not to make the student procrastinate or be irresponsible. It is better to know when people are students that they procrastinate and can try to fix this problem. If a child procrastinates on his homework, then if he never had homework, he would procrastinate in his work. Homework tells you what problems you have, and gives you the opportunity to fix your problem. Otherwise, people would start finding out their own problems when they are adults. Time management skill is taught by the student him or herself. They have to learn it by them self, not ask parents to teach it to them. Studying is a type of homework......... You sure that most students that don't have homework will study by themselves to become responsible. I think that this is not true. Students would most likely spend their free time playing games or enjoying entertainment, not studying. Students have to have stress at an early age to experience it. Otherwise, they will get too much stress later in life. Having a stress-free teenage life might sound good during teenage years, but once not being a teenager, then they have to learn how to deal with stress later, but sometimes, learning to deal with that much stress would be too late.
Schools should have homework

Your topic of debate states that schools should have homework, but homework already exists? For arguments sake I will assume that you have a dislike for the concept of no homework for students. I will also assume that you are referring to high school homework because of your given age of 18. So, my first argument responds to your points from the perspective of analyzing the value of high school homework. Homework creates a false sense of responsibility. If the student needs to be afraid of the consequences for not doing homework, then the student is most likely not responsible to begin with. You also point out that homework allows students to improve their time management skills. I say that is skill that should be mostly taught by the parents or guardians, and not the teachers at school. Your second point is about the student becoming an independent thinker. A person who truly thinks in an independent fashion does not need to be told to do homework. These independent students know how to be responsible and study on their own time because they know it makes them more knowledgeable. Your third point states that homework is important because it allows students to review what they learned in class. Well, if the student is a good student, then the student already knows that it is important to review the class work of that day. This is otherwise known as studying. Lastly, you claim that homework can create stress. While stress is certainly a real variable to be reckoned with in ones life, it is hardly something that could be considered a positive. Anyway, if a student is a good student, then they will not procrastinate on their studies, and in turn not be stressed out. Instead, they may actually increase the chances of enjoying their teen years stress free without the burden of being forced to do homework.
Schools should have homework

Homework is very important to a student's life and the schools that do not give homework to student should start giving them homework. First, homework creates a sense of responsibility. They have to well plan their timing and know how to handle things. Second, it lets the student think by himself. This thinking skill is needed for the student to solve his own problems. If the student relied on the teacher for helping him with his work, then once he does not have the teacher, he would not have the experience make him think by himself without help from somebody else. Third, homework reviews what is learned in class. Without it, students would easily forget what they learned because they did not work problems themselves. Fourth, homework can create stress. This is an important necessity to a student's life. It is better to experience stress when young. If the student goes through education without the experience of stress, then once the student gets into the real world, the student would be in big trouble.
Science and Religion can't Coexist.

I will use the Holy Bible to make points of science being perfectly compatable with religious texts. Most cosmologists (scientists who study the structures and evolution of the universe) agree that the Genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth" (Time, Dec. 1976). Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time. (Jobs 26:7) He spreads out the skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
Science and Religion can't Coexist.

Pro:"I am arguing that because of scientific inaccuracies in religious texts, the two can't co-exist."Innaccuracies in religious texts:Pro must cover the scientific inaccuracies in the Urantia Book.The book aims to unite religion, science and philosophy, and its enormous amount of material about science is unique among literature in that it claims to be presented by celestial beings.https://en.m.wikipedia.org...Urantia Book Video-http://youtu.be...Now, in this case, Pro must prove that advanced aliens from outer dimensions know less about science than human beings.*Pro must cover the scientific inaccuracies in -The Book of Mormon-The Holy Quran-The Holy Bible-The Jewish Bible-The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesseshttps://www.jw.org...-The Hindu Vedashttps://en.m.wikipedia.org...There are four Vedas: the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda and the Atharvaveda. Each Veda has been subclassified into four major text types1)the Samhitas (mantras and benedictions)2)the Aranyakas (text on rituals, ceremonies, sacrifices and symbolic-sacrifices)3)the Brahmanas (commentaries on rituals, ceremonies and sacrifices) 4)the Upanishads (text discussing meditation, philosophy and spiritual knowledge)5)the Upasanas (worship) is sometimes included.-The Satanic Biblehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org...-SutrasSutras are a genre of ancient and medieval Indian texts found in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainismhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org...Pro will need to cover the following faiths as well.-Baha'i Faith -Confucianism -Shinto -Sikhism -Taoism -Vodun (Voodoo)-Caodaism-Damanhur Community-Deism-Druze -Eckankar -Elian Gonzalez religious movement-Gnosticism -Roma (a.k.a. Gypsies) -Hare Krishna - ISKCON-Ifa, the religion of the Yoruba people of West Africa-Lukumi -Macumba -Mowahhidoon -Native American Spirituality -New World Fellowship (NeWFism) --Santeria-Elian Gonzalez religious movement-Scientology -Unitarian Universalism -The Creativity Movement (formerly called World Church of the Creator)-The Yazidi branch of Yazdanism-Zoroastrianismwww.religioustolerance.org/var_rel.htm*And last, Pro will have to cover the religious texts of science itself because vi spex claims it is a religion, perhaps even his religion, in the comments section above.
final fantasy 8 is the worst game in the series

My opponent not only forfeited the round again but they also opened a new Final Fantasy VIII debate with the same topic and the incorrect side again..and he's forfeiting rounds on that one as well. It's one thing if you open a debate and then get to busy to respond to it, but you don't open up ANOTHER debate exactly the same from the one you're already forfeiting and then forfeit that one too.
final fantasy 8 is the worst game in the series

My opponent has forfeited their last round. Voters should take note of this as well. While the burden of proof is still on my opponent, which means I don't have to say anything really, I do want to say that claiming a game is the worst of an entire series (especially one like Final Fantasy where there are a lot of games in the series) is a pretty bold claim and you'll need to provide a lot of proof for this. So good luck to you on that.
The Bible is reliable

ContradictionEssentially, my opponent has conceded that Matthew and Mark contradict each other. One claims Jesus says one thing, one says the other, but that's ok. They are each "plausible." Either Jesus rode on one donkey, or on both. Either he asked for two, or for one. The fact that the writers supposedly had the "Rashomon effect" collaborates this. They're both saying different things. Both are plausible, but both are exclusive to each other.ExodusThe fact that an archeologist cannot give exact census-level data does not mean they cannot give data which is accurate. Egypt had 3-3.5 million inhabitants. I gave the reference. We cannot give an exact number, that is true. But that does not mean that the population wasn't within that range. The manuscripts of the Bible have variants, that doesn't mean the Bible is completely flawed and we can't know what it says.Even if it was higher, let's give it 5 million, you're looking at a loss of population of over 1/2 and the death of the Pharoah. These are not consistent with what we find. Thutmose III lived long past 1446 BCE, and Egypt entered a golden age. It was not "destroyed" as the Bible says.Finally, the so-called "archeology" my opponent put forth is not archeology in any sense. It's essentially a faith-based blog, this specific article written by a journalist, not a historian. And the wheels were found by "Bible enthusiasts," not archeologists. It further brings up Ron Wyatt, who also claims to have found the blood of Jesus and that it lacked a Y chromosome. While Wyatt says this makes Jesus born of a virgin, it actually makes Jesus a female. Or, at best, intersex. This is the type of "evidence" that it there. It's non-existent and comes from secondary testimony by fraudulent sources not supported by qualified historians of any kind. It also originally stems from a fake news and satire site. Even Christian sources refute these claims. (http://www.blogos.org...)