BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism VS Capitalism

Of course, but look at what THAT results in. Stalin killed over twenty million people in his Purges, Mao Zedong killed seventy million, Pol Pot in Cambodia killed 1/4 of the population... clearly, communism is a brilliant thing. Furthermore, everywhere communism appears, it collapses soon afterwards. Although China has one of the biggest economies in today's world, this is because of their recent switch to capitalism, demonstrated by such companies as Sinopec Group (with a revenue of 273 billion dollars) and State Grid (income of 226.2 billion). The United States, however, a leading figure in capitalism, has and has always remained the strongest, best place to live in the world.
Communism VS Capitalism

I cannot refute your original comment, as typos have limited my understanding as to what you were trying to say. Anyway, history is a clear source and example as to what happens to communist countries. Take, for example, the Soviet Union, a tower of strength for many years... if it didn't rely off of the United States and other "capitalist" countries for currency and value. An overlooked flaw in the communist system is the fact that a command economy poses a problem to the value of objects. Without competition, it is impossible to determine the price of something, and therefore limiting the communist country in the world trade market, unless it "steals" prices from other capitalist countries.
Achilles and the Tortoise Paradox

It seems my opponent is doing two things that are disadvantaging him. First; he has a very evident contradiction. Namely, he says: 1) " I am not trying to claim that the tortoise will win the race. My opponent has clearly proved that he will not" 2) "I instead contend that, given an infinite number of iterations, the tortoise will not be overtaken. " Clearly, these are incompatible statements. Second, he says: "However, he has not addressed that to be a Paradox something only need express a "possible truth. " This means that, in some way, it has some truth, but not necessarily from every point of view. " He compares this to a fable with talking animals. This isn't the case here; yes, the tortoise can talk and discuss the terms and conditions of the race, but no, the situation doesn't express a possible truth of any sort. In no way could a tortoise ever beat a man unless the man literally fell asleep, or was paralyzed, or had some other situation that rendered a tortoise superior to him physically, but that is besides the point. Basically, what it all comes down to is a resolute understanding of the paradox, which my opponent has not arrived at. He understood clearly, the MEANING of a paradox, and demonstrated this by clearly stating "you, the voter, should vote "Pro" because it fits both parts of the definition of a Paradox. ". That is beside the point; actually it proves my point. His final analysis to arrive at this conclusion is "My opponent claims that the "problem with analyzing the paradox . . . is that it looks at the scenario in micro-terms. " I contend that this is not a problem at all, but rather the entire point. Clearly, Achilles will win, but by analyzing it step-by-step it appears that the tortoise will. This makes it a Paradox. " Notice how he says, "Clearly, Achilles will win". He agrees, this paradox is simply ridiculous when looked at. Even step by step, the analysis is false because Zeno, who created this paradox, assumed that distance is continuous while time is discrete (hence the step by step analysis which leads to the fallacy). Had he done the rational and realized that time is in fact a continuous entity, we would never have come across this problem. The resolution is negated.
Achilles and the Tortoise Paradox

I would like to remind the audience of the definition of paradox established earlier, "a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth. " My opponent himself has asserted that the paradox is absurd by declaring that "claim[ing] that a head start means you will always be in first place is simply ridiculous;" this paradox claims such rationale and, by my opponent's own statement, this paradox is ridiculous or, to use a synonym, absurd. However, he has not addressed that to be a Paradox something only need express a "possible truth. " This means that, in some way, it has some truth, but not necessarily from every point of view. Compare this to a fable of some sort; it expresses a truth, generally in the form of a moral, but not every piece of it makes sense. Generally they involve animals talking; this obviously is not a reality, but rather a device for expressing the truth. Similarly, Zeno stated his paradox to challenge the conventional way of thinking, not that it would be flawless in every manner. Again, I am not trying to claim that the tortoise will win the race. My opponent has clearly proved that he will not, unless the head start is enough to overcome slower speed of the tortoise. This, however, is not the point. I instead contend that, given an infinite number of iterations, the tortoise will not be overtaken. Yes, the infinite number of iterations will take a finite amount of time. Again, this is not my point. This paradox is instead trying to point out an interesting truth: that no matter how many iterations are taken, Achilles will not overtake the tortoise. This is the "possible truth" that makes it a Paradox. Perhaps this same point could have been illustrated in a similar example: Achilles and the tortoise are taking place in a similar race, but with a slight modification. Every arbitrary unit of time (say, every hour perhaps), Achilles will run to where the tortoise originally was and stop. The tortoise will also run as Achilles does and then stop at the same time as Achilles. By assigning the same amount of time to each iteration, it should be clear that regardless of the number of iterations that Achilles will not catch the tortoise. Now, this was not the paradox stated, but the kernel of insight (the "possible truth") granted is the same. My opponent claims that the "problem with analyzing the paradox . . . is that it looks at the scenario in micro-terms. " I contend that this is not a problem at all, but rather the entire point. Clearly, Achilles will win, but by analyzing it step-by-step it appears that the tortoise will. This makes it a Paradox.
Achilles and the Tortoise Paradox

*DISCLAIMER- ALL NUMBERS ARE ARBITRARY* My opponent's argument, in brief, is just a rewording of the paradox, that goes something like this: iteration 1 of Achilles getting to the previous position of the tortoise takes 'x' amount of time. Iteration 2, takes x - a1, iteration 3 takes x - a2, ad infinitum to x - an (the numbers and the 'n' following the 'a' go as sub-scripts). X is a constant, defined by the distance between the tortoise and Achilles all divided by Achilles' speed; which is why distance divided by velocity equals time. ===Beginning of Refutation=== X will continue to decrease, according to logic, because Achilles' velocity is greater than that of the tortoise. Let's say he is 5 times as fast. 100 meters will become a difference of 20 meters; then, the time covered will reduce from 5 seconds to 1 second. Then, to 1/5th of a second, ad infinitum. If you take any number divided by (5 multiplied by infinity) it will reach zero. Of course, we can't take zero seconds to do something. Thus, the point at which the time will become something of 0.0000000~~~~(infinite zeros)1, is the point at which the tortoise will be overtaken. ===Con Argument(s)=== My case is simple. The problem with analyzing the paradox by the terms of the paradox is that it looks at the scenario in micro-terms. We have to zoom out; let's look at it this way. The finish line is 1000 meters from the start, and the tortoise is 100 meters ahead of Achilles, who is at the finish line. At 100 meters per minute, Achilles will reach the finish line in 10 minutes. At 20 meters per minute, the tortoise will reach the finish line in 45 minutes. Somewhere during Achilles' 20 minutes, he must have overtaken the tortoise. Moreover, it seems logically narrow-minded to consider the paradox prima facie. To claim that a head start means you will always be in first place is simply ridiculous; head starts are what I give to little kids to motivate them to try and run faster. As they get more athletic, the head start becomes less and less, but I still overtake them; it just takes a longer time. Finally, note what my opponent concludes with. "after an infinite number of iterations, the tortoise will still not have been overtaken. " My opponent is wrong here; because the time is decreasing by a constant multiplier every time, we are adding what is an infinite series that CONVERGES; so, the sum of the infinite addition of this series will be a whole number, not infinity. Information on converging series: . http://en.wikipedia.org... (Note differences between divergent and convergent) I look forward to my opponent's response.
Achilles and the Tortoise Paradox

Shown here http://hubpages.com... about a third of the way down the page. _____ In the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 meters. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed ( very fast and very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 meters, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 meters. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise. ____ I am going to attempt to prove that this paradox does not stand under scrutiny and analysis, which is why I am Con. My opponent's burden is to defend this paradox, as Pro. I look forward to an interesting exchange of ideas. If my opponent begins, he should pass on the last round to make the number of rounds of debate even. Otherwise, I will begin in round 2.
The United States Defense budget should be decreased by at least $200 billion

I will be taking the stance that the United States military budget should remain the same. Since I am not arguing for change, I believe that my opponent will have the burden of proof, while I simply must support my point. I accept my opponent's rules and will follow them to the best of my ability. In accordance with the rules, I waive this round. Good luck to my opponent, and may the best argument win.
The United States Defense budget should be decreased by at least $200 billion

I will be arguing in favor of the above proposition. My opponent may take any of the following positions:1) That the current defense budget should be decreased by a smaller amount than I propose2) That the current defense budget should remain the same3) That the current defense budget should be increased.I believe we should both share the burden of proof, but I am willing to settle for something else if my opponent convinces me I should have the burden of proof. What I believe my opponent should prove is that the United States currently needs to spend the amount they propose. What I will try to prove is that we don't need as much of a defense budget that my opponent proposes, and that we should at least decrease it by $200 billion and that we can afford to do that in terms of not being too weak if we had it lowered by that much.Current facts:The current US defense budget for fiscal year 2017, is $582.7 billion[1]Rules of this debate:1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults2) The total number of rounds used for argument should be the total you see here minus 1. This is to keep the total number of rounds used for argument between us even, since I am not using round 1 for argument. My opponent may begin their arguments in round 1 if they choose, but should waive round 4 if they do that. They may do the opposite if they wish though.3) The last round of argument should just be rebuttals and/or conclusions. No new arguments in this round. New facts and statistics can be shown, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments.4) The first round of argument should just be main arguments, no rebuttals this round. So, if you are second to post, you should not rebut what your opponent said directly. Violation of the above rules is justification for voters to give the person who did not violate these rules the point in conduct.Sources:[1] https://www.defense.gov...
9/11 was an inside job

All those lies I mentioned to get into wars were factual. Robert McNamara who was the Secretary of Defense when the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred admitted that the event was a lie and was done to justify going to war. It is confirmed that the government and/or the media lied about the blowing up of the USS Maine to get us into war with Spain and lied about the sinking of the Lusitania to get us into World War One. The government also told us there were WMDs in Iraq and Al Qaeda was associated with Iraq. This was another confirmed lie. So you cannot argue that the U.S. has gone to war on multiple occasions over lie. The government is willing to kill their own people to go to war too. A plan called operation northwoods was proposed to JFK in 1962 by the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff. This plan was to carry out acts of terrorism on US citizens by the government and make it look like Cuba did it to justify a war with Cuba. JFK, however, rejected this plan. So do not call me crazy for saying the U.S would kill its own people and lie to go to war because operation northwoods proves this wrong. Again this is a fact you cannot dispute. Another fact: the US government received 40 warnings that Bin Laden wanted to fly plains into buildings in New York in 2001 before 9/11 even happened. Another fact: Passports of the terrorists which were on the planes that flew into the WTC were found, but the black boxes of only one of the four planes that crashed that day was in good enough shape for us to supposedly listen too. Black boxes are suppose to withstand the most intense conditions but a passport survived when a majority of the black boxes didn't. That sounds messed up to me Another fact: a skyscraper has never fallen due to fire except with the WTC. According to the 9/11 report the buildings fell because of fire. Jet Fuel burning or a normal fire cannot melt steel and cannot bring a skyscraper down. To take it a step further WTC 7 fell solely because of fire. There are many instances in history where buildings have burned out but their structure remains in tact. My proposal is controlled demolition was used. The way the buildings fell was just liked a building would if it was blown up by controlled demolition. Another Fact: building 7 fell at the rate of gravity according to the 9/11 commission report. According to Jesse Ventura who was part of the navy seals and was part of the underwater demolition team in the navy said this goes against the laws of physics. When the building fell there had to be some resistance there. There is so much more to it by I will leave it at that. If you look into 9/11 and discover the information the government and mainstream media don't want you to see, it becomes very obvious this was a conspiracy.
9/11 was an inside job

Do you guys ACTUALLY believe this? I don't even know what to say... It's so... Stupid. Pearl Harbor an excuse to get into world war 2? I just, can't believe how superstitious you are. I obviously can't talk any sense into you because you are so hell bent on tragestys being lies. If it makes you feel better. They is a group out there that helps people like you. It's called an... Hmmm... Oh yea! Asylum.
9/11 was an inside job

What makes me think this is a majority of the wars American has been in in the past 150 years has been over lies. Usually an event is done before a war is started to sway the public's opinion to support the war. Examples of us lying to go to war are War with Spain in 1898 with the blowing up of the USS Maine, World World One with the sinking of the Lusitania, Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and Iraq with Al Qaeda and WMDs. Many people including myself also think that we let Pearl Harbor happen to get us into World War Two. Our country does say lets start a war with other countries because there is money to be made at war. Many people profit from war including corporations which pretty much run America. We just found a vein of lithium in Afghanistan worth a trillion dollars too. The government clearly played a part in 9/11 to get us to go to war in Afghanistan because of money. Also there are so many things that happened during, before, and after 9/11 that make no sense.
9/11 was an inside job

What makes you think this? My aunt DIED in the crash. So by what way, shape, or form does this even come CLOSE to an inside job? What good does that do? This is extremely offensive to just about everyone. Do you think our government just wanders about saying "Let's start a war with this country." No. It's American payback as my best friend says who was in the war "We went there to show them who the hell they were messing with and show them payback. We are not going to let some terrorists mess with mother America."
The mission to kill Osama was prima facie a reckless act

First, the definition debate. I did not offer an alternative definition. I pointed out that Pro chose to define a reckless act as a careless act, gave the definition of careless, and argued out that an act with over seven months of planning cannot be said to lack forethought or thoroughness. Pro does not recognize this distinction and tries to move the point to an impact debate about the number of lives at risk. If Pro wanted to define reckless as “unacceptably risky”, he had the opportunity to do so in R1. Pro chose to define it as careless and should have to defend that claim, although he did not do so. Second, I never argued Pakistan would not consider an attack to be from India. I argued that there were over 200 US strikes within Pakistan’s border since 2004, using manned aircraft, drones, and troops. In none of those cases did Pakistan start a nuclear war with India. With over seven years of evidence showing that a US strike in Pakistan would not start a nuclear war, it is not reckless in any sense of the word to believe that this particular strike would not launch the nukes when over 200 previous strikes also did not. Pro has not disputed this. It is simply not reasonable given past behavior to believe that Pakistan would start a nuclear war with India over detecting a pair of helicopters, even if they thought the helicopters were Indian. It is reasonable to think they might launch their own aircraft. They launched planes, not nukes. Pro fails to meet his burden of proof that there was a high risk of war that Obama should have been concerned with. Anything is possible. Pro must argue probable. The strike was not lacking forethought or thoroughness, thus not careless, thus not reckless under Pro’s definition. The 200+ previous strikes are solid evidence that one more strike wouldn’t cause nuclear war. Pro has not given good evidence or arguments that there was a significant risk of nuclear war.
The mission to kill Osama was prima facie a reckless act

Many thanks to XimenBao for his response.First of all let me point out that I had provided definition of terms in the introductory round. Those definitions are part of the debate. The voters should not permit Con to rely on an alternative definition for rebuttal - as that would be against basic norms of debating. Further this should lead to loss of conduct points for Con.Population of India is more that 1200 million. Population of Pakistan is over 170 million. (For reference - population of USA is over 300 million)[1]. Risking lives of so many people for the sake of one person is 'careless', no matter how much planning has gone into it. Moreover Con offers no evidence to show that US tried to minimize risk of Indo-Pak nuclear conflict.XimenBao has contradicted himself. First he insists that Pakistan would not have thought attack is from India. In the next sentence he concedes that Pakistan did think that it is an Indian attack and scrambled the jets accordingly!We will never know how close Pakistan came to using nukes. It is possible that timely realisation that the victim of attack was Osama Bin Laden just prevented a nuclear war. Just because the humanity escaped a calamity, does not reduce the American culpability.Vote PRO========I would like to thank XimenBao for debating this issue with me and wish him best of luck for future.== Reference ==[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... (Country-wise list of population)
The mission to kill Osama was prima facie a reckless act

I give two arguments. First, Pro's definition of a reckless act is an act proceeding from carelessness. Carelessness is in turn defined as "Marked by or resulting from lack of forethought or thoroughness" (1). The operation to capture or kill Osama was planned since August 2010 when his residence was found (2) and many options were considered, including a rejected plan to use bombers to destroy the compound (3). This was a carefully planned act. Whatever Pro thinks of the wisdom or possible consequences, the act was created with significant forethought and thoroughness and thus was not a reckless act. The reader will note that I have refrained from argumentation based on grammar, and thus have complied with Pro's request to avoid syntactic argumentation. Second, there have been over 200 drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004 (4) and this is not the first time we've used ground troops in incursions within Pakistan's borders (5). In this context, detecting helicopters and ground troops was not enough cause to start a nuclear war with India the last 200+ times, it wasn't this time, and it's not reckless to reason from past results. Even if Pakistan did think it could be an attack from India, they wouldn't start a nuclear war, they'd scramble their aircraft. In fact, they did think it might be an attack from India and they did scramble their aircraft instead of starting a nuclear war (6). The resolution is negated; in meaning, in theory, and in fact. (1). http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(2)http://www.cbsnews.com...(3)http://www.dailymail.co.uk...(4)http://en.wikipedia.org...(5)http://www.msnbc.msn.com...(6)http://www.deccanherald.com...
The mission to kill Osama was prima facie a reckless act

Definitions:The mission to kill Osama : Refers to the American raid in Pakistan which killed Osama bin Laden.Prima Facie: on its first appearance, or at first sightReckless act: Action characterized by or proceeding from carelessness Syntactic arguments are not allowed.== Arguments ==The operation to kill Osama bin Laden was conducted at Abbottabad, near Islamabad - capital of Pakistan. Abbottabad also houses Pakistan's premier military academy.[1]India and Pakistan are nuclear power with a history of conflicts.[2] Pakistan does not have a well defined no-first use policy with regards to use of its nuclear weapons.[3]American as well as Pakistani president have confirmed that the operation was conducted without information of Pakistani civilian government or army.[4]It is probable that Pakistani establishment could have mistaken the raid to be an Indian attack. In such a case they could have used nuclear weapons. India would retaliated leading to a nuclear holocaust in both the countries.Risking destruction of a whole sub-continent for killing one person is prima-facie reckless.The resolution is affirmed.== Reference ==[1] http://www.ndtv.com... (News article about location of Abbottabad)[2] http://en.wikipedia.org... (Wikipedia history of India - Pakistan conflicts)[3] http://en.wikipedia.org... (List of nuclear powers and policy towards nuclear weapon use)[4] http://ibnlive.in.com... (News article confirming Pakistan did not know about Osama raid)