BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communist America

I assume there is no prior criteria, and you began with an argument as to why you believe America is a Communist nation. I will begin by saying that Communism, as defined by the Business Dictionary, is, "(an)Economic and social system in which all (or nearly all) property and resources are collectively owned by a classless society and not by individual citizens. " To simplify, this is to say that Communism is a system of economy and government in which their are no distinct classes; instead, each person is equal in wealth and prosperity(or lack thereof), and that no one person has any more power than the others. This in itself should show that the United States is not a communist nation, as its market is capitalistic in nature, and its government is that of a federal republic. There is no way for any nation to have a "secret" communist government; if the actions and dealings of that government are capitalistic and democratic(as is the case in the United States), then the government is de facto capitalistic and democratic, even if there are communistic thoughts in the people who run the nation.
Plastic bags should be banned

Contention 1: They are better than paper bags on average.First, the city of San Francisco tried the policy that you are proposing and they have failed. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) This has costed the city a total of $48,000. San Francisco charges customer's 10 cents per paper bag on top of the total cost of product that they have purchased. (http://savetheplasticbag.com...) This has harmed the city substantially. We all know that Plastic bags are better. Say something liquid spills in your paper bag. The paper bag will be destroyed while on the other side the plastic bag still holds the material and can be used. As for my opponent's Marine life argument, Karen Lavender of the Sea Education Association has stated, " "If scientists sifted through 2,000 bathtubs worth of plastic contaminated seawater, they'd find just enough micro particles to fill the palm of a person's hand." (http://www.psmag.com...)
(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

R2 ArgumentsEvolution is scientific because it meets the following three criteria. Evolution can be falsified, tested, and observed. ""With respect to the fossil record, evolutionary hypotheses are routinely tested as new fossil data are collected and matching that data against hypotheses about evolutionary relationships." [3]"But decades ago, theorists also proposed that a new species could evolve without any such changes, but instead simply as a result of large DNA strands' moving from one chromosome to another within a genome, a change known as a chromosomal rearrangement.While the theory sounded promising, since such rearrangements can be quite common, it eventually waned in popularity, in part because scientists had no way of testing it.Now in a slick feat of molecular maneuvering, a team of researchers has reorganized huge portions of one yeast species' chromosomes, rendering its chromosomal map identical to that of a closely related species, just as it was once, in the distant past. " [3]" "evolution can be observed via natural selection. [4] Evolution can also be observed in the lab. The most notable is drug resistant pathogens becoming dominant via natural selection.[5] ""Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory: If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits. If it could be shown that mutations do not occur. If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations. If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection. If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals. If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species. " [6]Therefore, I have proven that the theory of evolution passes three test of being scientific, can be falsified, observed, and tested. The same cannot be said of Creationism. We cannot observe nor test Creationism."""20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money." [7]"“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;” " [8]"" Jesus Christ cannot be God because he cannot be the source of all moral authority due to condoning slavery and beating of slaves. Therefore, I conclude that Christian Creationism is disproved. Thank you for your time and energy reading this debate. Sources3. http://www2.ljworld.com...4. http://atheism.about.com...5. http://listverse.com...6. http://rationalwiki.org...7. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...8. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
Communism is better than Capitalism

Crony Capitalism kills the Free Market it dos not work with it. Here is a source proving my point: "I believe we no longer have free market capitalism and we no longer have a democracy," says David Stockman, the blunt-talking former Michigan Congressman and Director of the OMB during the Reagan administration. What now exists at the heart of the U.S. economy, Stockman argues, is "crony capitalism" - a system that benefits and even rigs the system in favor of America's banks and bankers at the cost of average Americans. It's a system built on the back of government-issued bailouts and free money. "The Fed is the great enabler" through its free money policies, which "generate results the market wouldn't otherwise provide for," he says. For example, banks - which caused the 2008 economic and financial crisis - are enjoying profits once again as so-called "risk assets" reflate. Meanwhile, well-meaning members of the middle class intent on saving cash continue to get "savaged" (Stockman's word) when they keep money in low-yielding savings accounts and rely on a dollar that continues to lose value. When Bernanke & Co. allow banks to borrow money at no cost for so long it turns "capital markets into a rip-roaring casino that really is not productive for the real main street economy and is generating windfall gains for to a very limited number of people for no good purpose," Stockman tells Dan Gross in the accompanying interview. These policies are nothing new, Stockman says, but "crony capitalism" hit new levels of absurdity in the recent past with the bank bailouts and the auto bailouts. People are inherently evil, people have more of a tendency to be evil than to be good. Look at a baby, It will steal from other children and in turn cry when something is stolen from them. Who has taught this child to be evil. No one, people are evil that's the way the world works. Charity just fuels the Political war machine, Politicians start charities either for publicity or for the sake of boredom. They don't think about the people they are helping, they think about what the could gain. In Capitalism, you can better your self but in Communism everyone can better themselves. Forced equality is a lot better than no equality at all. In Communism that uneducated worker would not exist at all everyone would have the education they needed to be useful to society. People are not allowed to be lazy in Communism if your not working your hardest than you don't get paid. At least in Communism you get a roof over your head and food in your stomach Capitalism cant offer you that.
Communism is better than Capitalism

I believe that Communism although it has never been fully implemented is still better than Capitalism. In Communism, the community or society solely owns the resources or the means of production. On the other hand, in Capitalism, the resources or the means of production lies with a private owner. This causes only that person to benefit and not the whole community. Communism stands for a class less society, which doesn"t see any difference between the rich and the poor. On the other hand, Capitalism divides the society into rich and poor. Capitalism can be said to be the exploitation of the individual. While every one is equal in communism, there is a great divide of the class in capitalism. Capitalism divides people and Communism brings people together. That is why Communism is the only form of government where there is no racial inequality, but there are also bad things about Communism. Communist nations tend to have dictators and those Dictators are often bad ones. Joseph Stalin once said that Communism will hang the capitalist using the rope sold by the capitalist. Stalin killed millions of his own people to protect the communist system. In the end, communism failed and capitalism was in. Communism does not work very well, but it can be changed for the better and not for the worse. Capitalism does not have that possibility it cannot be as flexible Communism. Communism with a few tweaks could fully surpass all other forms of government.
Yang Xiao Long vs Sans

As with the fight against Chara, Sans would lose. First off, the attacks that Sans is dodging are one-swipe blows by a child with a knife moving in the same direction. Of course, this would be much easier to dodge than the fists of a highly-trained fighter such as Yang. Although Sans can harness the power of time, there is no discernible evidence that proves he can see all possible outcomes. If he could, he would have dodged the second hit from Chara at the end of his fight. Secondly, Yang is extremely agile, again, much more than a child. She has achieved extreme feats and survived huge blows that would mean instant death for Chara, along with the fact that Sans' Karmic Retribution ability would not be into play as Yang is not a murderer of the innocent. Yang could survive possibly all of his bone-related attacks by simply standing motionless. She could easily dodge the Gaster Blasters seen in his attacks, as they are very slow by standard. Picture a level 1000 Chara with a weapon multiples past the power of the Real Knife, that has so much health that they can survive a fall from terminal velocity. Sans' time traveling abilities would only grant him some extra time for his attacks, but it is seen that he has a limited set of certain attacks he can use. He cannot throw Yang into a situation she hasn't seen before.
Human Rights

"One human right is the right to be free from enprisonment and execution when you did not violate a law and there is no evidence that you did." - This is an extension of property rights (NAP) @RustedBeef, I was very unclear. I apologize. When I refer to human rights I refer rights such as... (Positive rights) >Right to healthcare >Right to shelter >Right to food Unlike right to self-ownership, which can be logically proven as well as it is a negative right.
Is social media cause more harm than good

All these issues mentioned (bullying, suicides, break ups) are not caused by social media. These issues are that of societies, and they have been going on well before the invention of the internet, let alone online social media. Therefore, if social media didn't exist those problems would still exist. More over, you said that there are "4,400 teen suicides each year", now lets put that into perspective: there are around 41,844,000 children between ages 10-19 in the US, that means that 0.0001% of USA's teens have been pushed to suicide, and not even all of the suicides would have been linked to social media. 0.0001% of an age group affected to me is not more harm than good.
Is social media cause more harm than good

The mistakes of the minority should not impact the majority. When used correctly, many of the problems don't occur. Facebook and countless other social media websites have plenty of security features which are able to prevent such crimes from happening. This is also why there are age restrictions (usually 13+) on most of these websites to ensure that the users are mostly competent enough to ensure there own safety (or at least their parents/guardians are). For the bad to outweigh the good, I would think that a large percentage of people would have had to have been affected by such attacks/such crimes, lets say 1/3+ of active users. For Facebook that would mean that 470,000,000 out of the 1.44 billion monthly active users would have to have been affected to safely say that social media sites cause more bad than good, which is not the case.
Is social media cause more harm than good

I didn't say there is no positive effect that comes from social media.But there aren't so many good thing that comes from social media and sometimes bad outweighs good.Ofcourse social media make us wider connection but it also cause danger to society,Many criminal has use social media as a searching tool for victims,and the sad fact is the most of the target victims are young people especially kids.Many crime occur in social media.
Is social media cause more harm than good

Hi Stephannoi, thanks for the challenge! As you may know, my stance on social media is fairly positive: 1. Social media allows news to travel very quickly, globally. Due to this, Facebook recently added a safety check for natural disasters, which could ultimately be used to find survivors in emergencies. 2. Charities get more support. The 2014 "ALS Ice Bucket Challenge" raised over $100 million for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 3. Social media could now be considered essential to your work life. Sites such as LinkedIn open up job opportunities which would not have been available to a generation without social media.
Speaking slang is hurtful to the soul when you are speaking to people who speak the English language

Slang is the evolution of language. My opponent, in fact, is speaking what would be considered slang years back. Slang is also human creativity coming out in language. Slang can also be viewed as artistic. Slang has a function in society as so (through our music and writing, help different cultures communicate), and also helps different cultures express themselves. What we use now is far different from the English say people in Shakespeare's day used: "O, spirit of love, how quick and fresh art thou !" Twelfth N, Act i, Sc.1 - Shakespeare Our language is the evolution of their's through the use of slang that is developed to express our culture and times. Evolution is change to adapt to environment in order to survive. Communications aids in human survival. Adapting communication (language in this case) to suit the needs of culture (which is also used as a tool of survival) is acceptable. Therefore adaptation of language to fit culture in order to aid in survival is acceptable. peace and much love, the Vi. :)
Under Obama, a $4000 tax on the middle class

Thank you for this debate, it was entertaining and enlightening. My opponent has been arguing a straw man for most of this debate. In his opening arguments, he addresses a rationale for the figure that is not mine, and in his closing arguments, he cites references that do not refute my claims. Even his IRS website calculator does not deal with these tax increases, as it isn't in the calendar year. My claim is that Obama's failure to extend/make permanent the Bush tax cuts will raise taxes on the established middle class family by $1870, and Obamacare raises taxes by $2085, for a total of $3955. These tax increases, if they come to fruition, are indisputable. If they are prevented (like in this lame duck session), at the time the statement was made, it was still true. My opponent likes to say that the Bush tax cuts' expiration aren't Obama's fault, but they are. Obama extended them for two years and wants to make them permanent for some. Therefore, the expiration date was his design, thus the tax hike will due to him, and yes, Bush is to blame as well. Furthermore, the quote in question says the hike occurred under Obama, not that Obama legislated them. This is misleading, but factually true. My opponent likes to think that since these increases occur later and/or are unlikely to occur, it is not fair to count them. Tell me, if Obama were to raise the retirement age to 80 effective in 2030, is that Obama's doing, or whoever is president then? It would be Obama's. However, if in 2030, the president decided to have it become effective in 2032, it is now both president's deal. The tax increase from the Bush tax cuts are Obama's fault, in part, and are scheduled to occur on January 1. The other tax increase is the mandate, and my opponent is correct in saying health insurance is not a tax and it doesn't go to the government, but that isn't the tax I am referring to. The tax increase is the individual mandate penalty, which has been ruled a tax by the Supreme Court. By not having insurance, I will be taxed, thus this is a tax increase. If I don't want/need insurance, I will be taxed. The tax occurs because I, as a family, must have insurance or pay over $2,000 in taxes. The tax I calculated is the penalty, not any premiums that would be paid to avoid the tax. However, if taxes are raised, and I can avoid them, taxes were still raised. There are tax cuts, but my opponent does not state them, so I cannot comment on their likelihood of affecting an average family. Regardless, if I raise taxes and increase credits/deductions so there is zero net effect, I still raised taxes, and if you don't qualify for those credits/deductions, your taxes definitely increased. I have met my burden of proof, I have shown that the tax increases should be attributed to Obama (in addition to Bush), and my opponent has done little to challenge my claim, except by discrediting the claim as interpreted by others, but not my me.
Under Obama, a $4000 tax on the middle class

A recent Television advertisement, by Gov. Mitt Romney, claims that "Under President Obama: $4,000 tax hike on middle class families."I maintain that this is not a true statement of fact, and wish to debate the subject. I will adopt the position of "Con," since I want to challenge the premise. I ask that Pro defend Governor Mitt Romney's assertion that President Obama has or will definitely raise taxes on the middle class by $4000. I am willing to be fairly relaxed concerning any rules for this debate, and am willing to honor any agreements made in the comments section. My only real request of my partner is that we set aside the final round for summaries of our best arguments - as a convenience to readers who may wish to vote on our performances. I feel that such summaries allow readers to more easily digest our arguments quickly, and allows them to understand our emphasis.Pro may begin arguments at once, in R1, if they so choose; this is a short debate at only three rounds. I don't expect to need more than two rounds for my presentation.I present this debate in order that I may discuss, in the company of intelligent persons, a statement that I feel was an intentional attempt to deceive the (already gullible) American electorate. http://www.youtube.com...
Necrophilia should be legal

First of all, I don't believe in god, and I don’t believe in hell. Secondly, regardless of that, the law is separate from religion, and since the law is separate from religion, religious ideas are irrelevant to a discussion of what should and should not be legal. If you allowed religion to influence laws, the legal system would collapse, because different religions have different rules, and the law would contradict itself if it tried to accommodate all of them. If the legal system collapsed, the government would have no way to control the people, which would result in anarchy. If that were to happen everything would be legal, including necrophilia. Necrophilia, under the system I described, is in no way disrespectful to the dead body, since the person consented to precisely what is being done to it. In addition, nobody can humiliate a dead body. The definition of humiliate is ‘to make (a person) suffer by lessening his dignity or self-esteem’ (New Webster’s Dictionary And Thesaurus of the English Language). A corpse cannot suffer, as it is dead. It also has no self-esteem, and its dignity is left intact if the person consented before they died.
Necrophilia should be legal

I've done a debate like this before, but it's been several months, so I thought I'd try it again.I strongly believe that necrophilia ought to be legal. I will admit, I am a necrophiliac, so I am somewhat biased regarding this subject. I've heard the arguments against the legalization of necrophilia, and I've heard the proposed solutions to the problems. I'm going to expound upon what I believe to be the ideal system in which to practice necrophilia.To begin with, allow people the option to leave their body to necrophilia. Once someone has decided to leave their body to necrophilia, they receive a form to fill out, further specifying what they’re okay with concerning their body’s exact usage (for example, some people might be perfectly fine with having someone make love to their body, but not with having someone mutilate it). Then, when the person dies, their body is sent to a facility where it’s checked for diseases that could potentially be transferred to the living and properly cared for. The body is then put into an online database (kind of like online dating for necrophiliacs), including the information from the form that the deceased filled out, the results of the tests to check for diseases (which means that it’s informed consent for the necrophiliacs) and a current photograph (because we want to know how long our prospective lovers have been dead, regardless of whether we like them fresh or not so fresh). When a necrophiliac finds a body that suits their needs and preferences, it’s transported to them. Once they’re done with it, the body is returned to the facility (assuming it’s in any shape to be reused), checked for diseases again, and put back into storage so that it can be reused. Thus, this system would eliminate the issues of consent (the person consented to precisely what is happening to their body) and sanitation (the body's are kept in a sanitary environment, and the necrophiliac is informed of the risks before beginning their endeavor), the two biggest real arguments against necrophilia.