BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism is Bad

Your first flaw doesn't seem like a big problem to me, As I can see a communist country using currency purely for commerce with other countries. Second flaw: To answer a quote with a quote; "Human nature is like water. It takes the shape of its container. " - Wallace Stevens Just to clarify, I am not against democracy. However, Democracy has one major flaw: Democracy does not represent everyone, Only the majority. The randomness gives everyone an equal chance to have their opinions amplified. In your example with the coal miner, You suggest 12 people creating legislation. However, I would suggest that the country randomly employ 20, 000 leaders who do all of the legislation for a month, Before having new leaders rotate in. These ideas would eliminate the idea of politicians while still keeping a democratic society, Which seems lovely. I think the first generation of people in the communist society would be the hardest, But after everything is put in place, It should not cease to function easily. I think a constitution could really be another beneficial tool easily used to prevent corruption. I think a simple, Not incredibly limiting unamendable constitution would fit best. Anyways, I would like to hear if you have any other major reasons against it. I do quite look forward to your response.
Communism is Bad

Be it resolved that communism is bad True Marxism is a very complicated subject to rebuttal, As theoretically, It should be a perfect system. I used to believe that the only flaw that communism faced was (as you mentioned) the corrupt leaders who enforced it such as Stalin. However, I have come to the the conclusion that communism has two fatal flaws that will forever prevent it from working in modern society. The first major flaw of communism is how it relates to other economies. In theoretical communism, Or Marxism, They strive to get to the point of no currency. Their is no private property, And everything is borrowed and shared in order to benefit the good of the society. Unfortunately, Having no money or private property is a serious problem when relating to other economies. How would you import goods and resources? More importantly, What would you get in exchange for exporting you own resources? How do you balance a existing currency to no currency at all? In Marxism, This is solved with one global economy, But I doubt that countries like the U. S. A are going to willingly throw away their position as the richest in the world. If you have some of the answers to these questions, I would like to know. The second major flaw of communism is how it relates to human nature. When people are presented with enough money and power, It can corrupt even the individual with the highest of intentions. Which is why we strive to limit as much power to our leaders in a democratic system, So no one individual controls that much power. Your preposition to randomly select leaders is a clever idea, But is not without flaws. First, To quote Joseph Stalin: "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything, " There is a inherent possibility of someone rigging the system to get people who share their ideals and goals in. The second problem is the randomness factor. Perhaps I misunderstood, But if you randomly select individuals, Who's to say they have the skills to lead the country? Picture this. You are a coal miner, Like your father before him and his father before him. Suddenly you receive a letter in the mail saying that you and 12 other people have to create legislation and decide the fate of the economy. You wouldn't know what to do at all! Likely you would be swayed to vote for whatever you are told is best for the economy. I look forward to your response.
Communism is Bad

Hi, Nice to be debating you. I would like to debate true Marxism. I believe "practiced communism" hasn't really been communism, It has been authoritarianism under a communist facade. I do not support the work of Stalin. Stalin is essentially unfairly the face of communism, For Stalin himself is clearly a fascist with fascist ideas. Kim Jong Un is also a fascist, Not really a communist. And China is basically capitalist. The one communist leader I did support was Lenin, Not for being a great person, But for being a good leader and bringing a country back together after the installment of a new government. The two main problems during Lenin's reign were: 1: Famine, Which really wasn't communisms fault, It was the fault of environmental conditions 2: Lenin sending out his secret police to kill anyone he thought supported the Tsar and would overthrow him. Lenin was extremely paranoid, Probably due to PTSD, But none of the killings of the secret Lenin police was communisms fault. If you can find a passage in the manifesto saying "Thou shalt have famine and secret murder police in a communist society, " maybe I would blame communism. But to me, Both of these problems seem to be unassociated with communism. One big complaint people have with Marxism is that there is no ethic to work. However, This assumes that the only reason someone would ever work a job is for the income. Not everyone detests their job. The government could help people find the job that the person would enjoy, And be glad to work. Some people work as a passion, And some enjoy the time spent with coworkers. People would also be able to work for a much shorter period of time each day, And probably for only 3-4 days a week. Why, You ask? In true Marxism, There is no unemployed. The government is able to help employ everyone, Which makes people able to work for less time since more work is being done as a whole. Also, Monopolies are no longer a problem, Because you are unable to charge people more or less for a service. In communism, You only need one company to handle each industry. What about government corruption? I think the easy answer is to have a rotating system. Look at jury duty in the US: there is no one employed in the "jury business. " People are randomly chosen to be in the jury. In communism, You could have a system where 20% of the population is randomly enlisted in a government at all times, And people rotate in and out. That minimizes government corruption. What problems does communism solve? Monopolies and corporate control are no more. Copyright can cease to exist. Countrywide health care is easy and automatic. And so much more. Anyways, Nice to be debating you, And as always, I look forward to your response
Feminism

I feel like this is more of a discussion than a debate which I really like, debating feminism isn't as fun as talking about it. I can't really tell what side you're on but I think you should know is that feminists are not advocating for women to be the same as men. They are advocating for equality. Also, I think when it comes to being treated the same way, I don't see the problem with that. I think you should treat people differently based on their personality, not gender. If a woman doesn't like sports, then don't always talk about sports with her. Don't not talk about sports because she is a woman, do it because she doesn't like sports. If a woman does like sports, talk about it with her. Don't assume she hates sports because of her gender. Same thing vice versa. Obviously men are not superior, though people believe this. However, I think the real problem is that stereotypes and "gender roles" are what's holding us back. I can explain in the next round if you're interested. "If there are areas where men specialize in, then there are areas where females specialize in as well, rather than running after their position, why not see what females already have and work further to improve them?" The problem with this is that it assumes that females are naturally good at one thing while males are naturally good at other things. Generally, more women are stay-at-home moms than men. This doesn't mean we are necessarily better parents or that men are better at working, it's just the way society has framed it. And I see what you mean about physical work. Men are generally stronger and bigger than women but what feminists are saying is that if a woman is strong enough to do physical work, let her. And if a man doesn't want to do it or he can't, don't call him a wimp or bully him. However, also remember that women are not running after traditionally male roles just so they can be men. They are doing it because they actually want to. A woman running for public office isn't necessarily doing it because she wants to be "like a man". She wants to see change in her region. Feminists aren't trying to turn women into men. They are just advocating for equal opportunities and want to erase stereotypes and gender roles because they shouldn't really exist.
Feminism

Is Feminism really for equality? I mean, I know the concept that 'females are seen as the weaker sex' or that 'females and males should be treated the same way'. That is the thing, we are not the same, our brains work differently, we are born differently, our personalities are different, our conduct is different, our styles are different, there are many things that are different. Now, what I want to know is, how are men superior? I mean, sure they (some males) have more (physical) power than females because that's just the way it is, it does NOT automatically make females weaker than them. If there are areas where men specialize in, then there are areas where females specialize in as well, rather than running after their position, why not see what females already have and work further to improve them?
Abortion

Thank you, 1dustpelt, for your response.Abortion is MurderFirst of all, abortion is only murder depending on where you live, as a significant aspect of "murder" is "unlawful". If getting an abortion is legal, then it is, by definition, not murder. Now onto my opponent's logical argument here:P1: A fetus will become a human being in the future.P2: It is morally wrong to kill a human being.C: Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus.Premise one is not necessarily true, as a fetus could die due to a miscarriage before it becomes a human being. If, however, it is morally wrong to kill anything which has the potential of eventually becoming a human being, then masturbation must also be morally apprehensible as you are killing millions of sperm cells each ejaculation.I would not consider premise two necessarily true in its entirety either, as it is morally acceptable to use deadly force as self-defense against a human being who is trying to kill you, for example.However, even if we grant that both premises are perfect and true, the conclusion still does not logically follow. The conclusion should look more like this: "Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus in the future when it becomes a human being".My opponent states a "fetus has a right to live just like any other human being" but warrants no justification for granting things which are not human beings the same rights as human beings.If the woman did not want a baby, she should not have gotten pregnant.My opponent asserts the horrendously ignorant assumption that all women who are pregnant became pregnant of their own desire. This should not come as a surprise to anybody reading (except for Con), but contraceptives do sometimes fail. Even if a woman is on the pill and/or the man wears a condom, accidents do happen. Furthermore, (again, sorry for bursting your idealistic worldview, Con) there are such things as rapists, and conception can occur in a rape victim. Perhaps, Con, if the rape victim didn't want to be raped, then she shouldn't have gotten herself raped, eh?It's not the baby's faultIt's true what my opponent says: the fetus has no choice to exist or not exist. Therefore, we don't know if it wants to exist or not exist. Therefore, that decision should be delegated to someone with a fully-functioning brain, such as the pregnant woman.No one is blaming the fetus for being a fetus. However, it is still a fetus, a sometimes undesirable parasite in the woman's womb which should be removed immediately upon the request of its host.Honestly, you might as well have said "It's not the tumor's fault for being a tumor, so the doctors should let it grow".
Abortion

1. Abortion is Murder The fetus has a right to live just like any other human being. A fetus is a future human being. It is wrong to kill a human being, therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus. Each abortion takes the life of a new, innocent, unique human being. 2. If the woman did not want a baby, she should not have gotten pregnant. Many arguments for abortion is that women have the right to control their own body. However, this argument can be rebutted by the fact that the woman did control her own body by deciding to get pregnant, therefore it is her fault that she is pregnant. 3. It's not the baby's fault The baby has no choice to exist or not exist, so you cannot blame the baby.
Should History be taught on one subject throught the year instead of multiple.

thank you for your response. I would also like to mension that you don't have to say "The stress on the brain is less" you can say boring. The one problem with your argument is that you are comparing mathematics to history in more ways than one this is not comparable, Typically in history tests you will be asked short questions and at the end be presented with a essay the individual has to write if one is given a basic understanding of a history topic he/she will produce a simplistic essay centered around what the student knows, In mathematics this misses the point because the purpose is to apply the information. you mension that "In english, You don't completely learn about grammar and all the trivial and unimportant rules before moving on to spelling. The younger kids can't remember everything or know how to apply them to sentences because of their maturity level. " but however practice can fixes this problem if a child is taught in a classroom all the rules of a subject in a manner that allows that child to develop their skill as well as the child having disipline to make notes then the problem boils down to disapline which is the parent and schools duty. when you state "As you don't have to learn about more mature topics when you are young. " I agree with your reasoning for this I wouldn't want a 3rd grader learning about nazi germany, But it can be fixed by refering back to my original argument teach a topic about history consitantly, Another point can also be that history should rather be restricted to high school and middle school. I would also like to suggest a new point that other media should also be involed in the lesson such as tv shows, Movies, Video games while I cannot speak about this in a strictly scientific point of view I can however point out that media that gets people to connect with the subject material increases their interest which provides an easier learning enviroment as the students have more motive to study.
Should History be taught on one subject throught the year instead of multiple.

HarleyWright/pro side, Please excuse my improper debate etiquette or other mistakes on my part, I have never debated in real life or much on the internet either. I would like to thank you for creating this argument, And giving me the chance to discuss this with you. Without further ado, I begin my background part. The prompt is "Should History be taught on one subject throught the year instead of multiple". I will interpret this to mean if the subject "History" should be taught on one time period, Or more specifically one topic throughout the year instead of, Possibly skipping from greek and roman times to the renaissance in one year in high school (grades 9 to 12). I'll interpret "subject" as from "a specific movement, No more than 500 years, And no less than 20, That have characteristics unique to it or that were developed during that time. " Instead of making my argument right now, I would like to verify these terms are as I interpret them to be. I'll also take this first round to attempt to refute your points. HarleyWright wrote: " History is complex and normally is taught in segments throughout the year my position is that one topic should be taught throughout for students to have a more enriched experience in such catagories as quality of life and first hand accounts. when history is taught in segments throughout the year a student will get a rough but correct idea of what happend in the period. Normally the topic will be covered in the next year to give a more detailed experience. Having a good understanding of history is paramount to being a intelectual voter and to knowing human nature itself. " I would like to point out that the current system of history is to build on the previous points and end up with around the same result. The stress on the brain is less, As you don't have to learn about more mature topics when you are young. Also, To make a slightly "tu quoques" argument here, I object that mathematics and other topics are learnt in basically the same way. To be honest, I do hate how mathematics is taught in school and should be more fulfilling, But taking it all the way is really too complicated, And don't even mention the stress on teachers. In english, You don't completely learn about grammar and all the trivial and unimportant rules before moving on to spelling. The younger kids can't remember everything or know how to apply them to sentences because of their maturity level. Sometimes it is better to tell high school students that electrons are nice little balls floating around an atom, Than to say it's a probabilistic cloud governed by a relativistic wave equation, Dirac's equation "https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Dirac_equation" etc. Especially in 10th or 11th grade. In summary, My argument (also a counterargument) is that the maturity level or general ability and grasping things for students change over time, And to fully understand a time period of something requires a lot of that skill. Thank you, deathtank55555/con (you can just refer to me as "con" if wanted)
Should History be taught on one subject throught the year instead of multiple.

History is complex and normally is taught in segments throughout the year my position is that one topic should be taught throughout for students to have a more enriched experience in such catagories as quality of life and first hand accounts. when history is taught in segments throughout the year a student will get a rough but correct idea of what happend in the period. Normally the topic will be covered in the next year to give a more detailed experience. Having a good understanding of history is paramount to being a intelectual voter and to knowing human nature itself.
Should History be taught on one subject throught the year instead of multiple.

I guess, As you ran out of time (intentionally or not, I cannot tell), I have nothing to rebut and assume that you accept my arguments. I would like to make my best, And possibly last, Point. This point is that History builds on itself. If you learn about ancient civilizations, The only way to provide a full and correct understanding to a certain era is what comes before and after. Not much else can be said. Thank you for submitting your ideas on this, And I certainly hope your forfeit was not intentional, As we can keep discussing this topic.
Organ donation should be compulsary in Ireland

First off, if anything I would be a bitch as I am a girl. Second, I'm sorry that I came across rude. And third, I read your last statement wrong, so I apologise. Now onto the debate. The reason why I feel that there shouldn't be compulsory organ donation in Ireland is because people have the right to their body. We have the right to do what we want with our bodies, and our bodies are the most personal thing we own, so why must we do something that we are forced to do with something that is so personal to us. And when a person dies, the possessions of that person goes to the family. All the most valuable possessions of that person goes to the family, so why not the body, the most personal thing that person owned, be given to the family. If the family wants the organs to be given away, than so be it. The main reason why I am so against compulsory organ donation is because I feel that something like that should be an act of charity, a sign of goodness. I feel that if something is forced onto someone, it will lose its meaning. In the final round of the debate, I will be discussing the religious objection and discussing why I believe organ donation shouldn't be compulsory.
Organ donation should be compulsary in Ireland

Be that as it may, some sadists receive pleasure from cutting people up, even if the person is already dead. How can we deny them an activity that allows them to have so much fun? Personally, I would not give a single f*ck if a loved one's organs were taken, dead or alive, as it is helping another human live. It makes no difference to the dead person if organs are taken out of them, the only people that care are the butthurts that finally found something to cry about. Your feeling of being 'sick to the bone' is nothing more than your butthurt being activated. P.S. Yes, I'm sure focusing on Ireland would prevent the debate from drifting into useless points that would eat up the little time in the three day period we have to post our arguments. Good call on that one mate. P.P.S You come across as an arrogant bastard. Please refrain from acting like one for future debates. Thank you. P.P.P.S In your post script, you used 'your' in the place of 'you're'. 'Your' refers to possession whereas "you're" is a contraction for 'you are'. P.P.P.P.S In what way was my last statement in agreement with yours? I stated that revenue could be generated by selling body parts. This is a good thing for the Irish, as I hear their leprechauns are running little short on gold as of late.
Organ donation should be compulsary in Ireland

First off, the reason I limited the debate to Ireland only is to focus on the main topics of the debate and not drift onto useless points which will only eat up our time. The main reason why I feel that organ donation shouldn't be compulsory is because this means that the deceased will become human organ farms. We are using the death of a human as the field of organs and what we are doing is harvesting humans. I feel that this is a horrible thing to do to a person and also to the family of the deceased. How would you like it if someone gutted up your loved one after them being dead for a few hours. I feel that the system of organ donation is perfectly fine at the moment as people feel that donating is an act of goodness and they don't feel forced into it. I know you may say that if compulsory organ donation was made than peoples deaths would have meaning, but really, I feel sick to the bone to know that this person will be laid to rest with organs missing and the person may not want this. There may be no "opt out system", and if there was, who would we opt out? We are in the "big brother" effect where the state is contradicting our every move and action. So I rest my argument for this round and I wait for your response. P.S. From your last statement, it sounded like you were agreeing with me. Please know the side your on for future debates. Thank you.
Organ donation should be compulsary in Ireland

While it is true that the possessions of a deceased person will go to whomever the deceased has stipulated in his or her will, the same cannot be said for the corpse of the deceased. Traditionally, corpses are given to the family of the former person to bury simply out of respect and simplicity, not because they are entitled to the body. Here's an example: bodies excavated by archaeologists only become property when they are appropriated by the excavators as historical artifacts. Prior to appropriation, the bodies did not belong to anyone. If a person dies without any heirs and leaves nothing in his will for others, his possessions do not belong to anyone and are claimed by the state. In the same way, since bodies do not belong to anyone, the state has a claim to corpses within its jurisdiction. Thus, the state(Ireland) has the right to take organs out of corpses.