BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America is not capitalist

"Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Politically, it is the system of laissez-faire(freedom). Legally it is a system of objective laws (rule of law as opposed to rule of man). Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its result is the free-market." http://capitalism.org... According to Adam Smith, a capitalist nation is a nation in which every person is entitled the right to property. A capitalist Nation, or a Market Economy, is based on competition. Behind this is a phenomenon which Adam Smith called "the invisible hand", the idea is that if an entrepreneur charged too much for a product, no one would buy it, causing him to go out of business, if he charged too little he would not make a large enough profit, and go out of business. So businessmen would find new ways to make cheaper, higher quality goods, while the capitalists are brawling it out so to speak, the consumer is reaping the benefits, his wages may stay the same, but the purchasing power of his wages goes up. An example of this is henry ford; he was a true capitalist, he worked to make a higher quality product for a cheaper price, and treated the workers as how laborers were regarded in "The Wealth of Nations", as a partnership, rather than seeing his workers as slaves like that of John D Rockefeller. Today we have none of the above, workers are not given the fair price for their labor, big business are collaborating rather than competing, and Walmart is violating the entire idea of the invisible hand, they charge too little causing everyone else to gout of business, then they raise the price. This is a monopoly like that of standard oil, it violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1898, and as far as I am concerned Sam Walton is nothing more than a reprobate.
America is not capitalist

"America is not capitalist" Definition of capitalist: (merriem webster, any alternative definition may be used) "of or relating to capitalism : using capitalism as an economic system" So the question becomes does america use capitalism as an economic system? If america does, then it is capitalist and you are wrong. Definition of capitalism: " a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government" ergo "Does america organize it's economy so that the things used to make and transport products are owned by individuals and companies rather than by the government?" If yes america is capitalist The government does not manufacture in the US, even government materials(military) are made under contract with companies. The government similarly does not transport goods in the U.S. for our economy, that is done by freight, shipping and cargo plane companies. Therefor if the government does not "make" or "transport" the products of our economy, and companies do, america is in fact capitalist
America is not capitalist

The controversial topic of eminent domain, does not refute capitalism even though it's a pain Natural monopolies such as roads or lines, must be regulated by government or else we're sort of blind Six sets of roads and power distributions, might seem fair under capitalism and our constitution But the redundancy and waste this would cause, should make us stop and think for a pause Our system is capitalistic more than anything I see, so I say we're capitalist in this land where I Pee This debate has been great and i had much fun, but the time for it to end is here, despite all the puns
Barack Obama is doing a decent job as president

Thanks for accepting. 1.) Obama has done a lot to help improve the environment, which is a very important matter, no? A few things that he has done on this subject are: Gave out 92 grants to water conservation projects that will save enough water for about 950,000 people. Started the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which has over 540 public recreation areas, protected more than 54,000 acres of coastlines, and restored over 5,200 acres of coastal habitat. This happens to be the largest investment in the Lakes in 2 decades. Invested $150 billion in green technology so that America can reduce its dependence on other countries on oil, and support American companies, manufacturers etc. Also, oil is an unrenewable resource, and is not stable, as we must be ready for the day it runs out. Obama sent 1,400 boats, 'deployed' 3 million feet of boom to protects the shores, activated 17,500 National Guard people, started 17 command centers, and thanks to his direction, they recovered 11 million gallons of oily seawater. He also met with the families of the people who died. I don't get why people criticized him on that, he did everything in his power. 2.) Obama cares about students and their education. This indirectly helps the economy, as people will have better jobs, make more, spend more etc. He started Race to the Top, which has caused 46/50 states to raise their standards of education. Obama made college slightly more affordable for over 7 million students by making sure that interest rates were not doubled (that was originally on the agenda). He ended No Child Left Behind, allowing states to be more 'creative' in their education reform plans. He started and added to the post- 9/11 G.I. Bill, which has allowed more than 800,000 veterans and families to get an education. 3.) Obama is supporting science and research. That is an extraordinarily important field, to save people from deadly diseases. Obama is proposing that $31 billion dollars be given for medical research. This includes over 100 million dollars of funding for Alzheimers Disease and 80 million dollars for the US department of health and human services. 4.) Obama has improved the economy. Look at this cartoon below, it is SO true. Obama has a bit to do with the economy, but he does not directly control it. The US has a market economy, and lots of economic decisions are made by the people. Also, Congress has an equal amount of power as the president, so only blaming Obama is conceptually wrong anyways. Now, look at the jobs numbers: Sources:1.) http://www.ontheissues.org...;2.) http://www.barackobama.com...;3.) http://www.upi.com...; 4.) http://www.barackobama.com...; and a bit of background knowledge there.
Barack Obama is doing a decent job as president

.. Two rules too: 1. ) Do not disrespect anybody. I don't want to waste my time with people saying things like 'Obama sucks'. You are entitled to your opinion, but this debate is attacking/defending POLICY ONLY. 2. ) Please back up everything with sources clearly labelled. Like this: Rebuts opponents argument. 1. ) argument, makes a point 2. ) argument, makes a point SOURCES 1. ) www. google. com 2. ) peta. org i just randomly made up the pages, but you get the idea. Source 1 backs up info in Argument 1. And (obviously) you are not limited to 2 arguments. By accepting the challenge, you are agreeing to these two rules.
The Problem of Hell Redux (2)

I thank KeytarHero for agreeing to debate this with me. IntroductionI have already done two debates on this subject but I hope to tackle this issue yet again. [1][2]To reiterate, my position is that the existence of hell - conceived of as eternal, conscious torment (e.g. the "traditional" doctrine of hell) - is, in all likelihood, incompatible with the existence of a God who is conceived of as perfectly good (e.g. just, merciful, loving, etc), powerful, and wise. I think this problem presents a uniquely diffcult issue for that kind of monotheism in general and Christanity in particular; the latter position is the one I will be arguing from.Just to make clear the commitments of the traditional (eternal, conscious torment) doctrine of hell I'll use Jonathan Kvanvig's explication:The Anti-Universalism Thesis: Some persons are consigned to hell;The Existence Thesis: Hell is a place where people exist, if they are consigned there;The No Escape Thesis: There is no possibility of leaving hell and nothing one can do, change, or become in order to get out of hell once consigned there;The Retribution Thesis: The justification for hell is retributive in nature, hell being constituted to mete out punishment to those whose earthly lives and behavior warrant it. [3]One's theological or religious persuasion - whether theist or non-theist - does not matter in accepting this debate. The only type of person I hope to debate is someone who is competent and can argue powerfully for the position that the existence of hell and God, within the context of Christianity, are, in all likelihood, compatible.I accept the burden of proof inasmuch as all the opponent has to do to defeat me is show that my arguments fail to prove their conclusion. If they show my arguments do not prove their conclusion the argument points should go to my opponent. Thusly, my opponent has to show how and why my arguments fail.Good luck to KeytarHero.RulesRound 1 is for acceptance and clarifications and/or statements of purpose. If there are any more issues that need to be worked out please post them in the comments.Rounds 2-4 are for argumentation.Sources[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] "The Strong View of Hell" , in The Problem of Hell, ed. Jonathan L. Kvanvig, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p 25
Do parents really care

If the resolution was "At least one parent in the world doesn't care about his/her child", Con's argument would be persuasive. There are any number of stories that can be produced that prove that a few parents don't care about their children, but this is not true in the general case. I could produce dozens of stories of parents undergoing extreme hardship for the sake of their children, but such anecdotal evidence is pointless. As I showed in my previous round, a vast majority of parents *do* care about, and care for their children. Con made no attempt whatsoever to rebut the argument I made. I found another study about the high cost of caring for children and who pays it... "... parents provide 90 per cent of the spending on 'regular' items such as food, clothing, childcare, activities and holidays." "The study, based on a major survey of the lifestyles and living standards of more than 1,200 children, shows that even in low income families average spending on children is only slightly less than for children as a whole. Parents commonly prefer to sacrifice spending on themselves, rather than see their children go without." (1) Do parents really care? Obviously, in the general case then answer is yes. (1) http://www.jrf.org.uk...
Do parents really care

. As a baby, Brryan's father secretly injected him with a syringe of HIV-tainted blood in hopes of killing him, but on Saturday, -18-year-old Brryan will graduate high school. Actually i was supposed to be mare specific with you The father injected his son (Brryan) with HIV tainted blood The father hoped that the small child would soon die so the father wouldn't have to pay child support I belive this man was the most selfish person in the world to do this to not only his own son but his new born son What kind of real man does this Also there is enough AIDS and HIV in the world as it is I've also researched a very interesting story A young boy from California was given AIDS by his father first of all how could you rape your own son Secondly the father knew he had AIDS and he still went ahead with it I am not only gaining up on males there are also some non caring mothers out there too Like the ones who give their children away to prostitution and drugs There are 68.7 percent of child prostitutes in the U.S.A. alone how do you think they got there? Please really think about this question
Do parents really care

I'm not entirely sure why she chose me, but it prompted me to do some research and I have to say that I was gratified with my findings. care verb 1) feel concern or interest; attach importance to something 2) look after and provide for the needs of The question put before us by nickygirl1180 is, do parents care about their children? She has brought up a single unsubstantiated instance where a parent allegedly injected himself with HIV, but such anecdotal evidence doesn't help us in the slightest in answering the question put before us. So how can we answer the question as to whether parents care for their children? We could look at this question from a relative perspective, do parents care for their children more now than they used to? "Recently published research concludes that today's U. S. mothers and fathers spend at least as many hours caring for their children each week as parents did four decades ago during an era that in the popular imagination was a golden age of family togetherness. " (1) The research goes on to tell us that fathers in the year 2000 spent 153% more time with their children than fathers did in 1965. Today's mothers also spend more time with their children than in 1965. Clearly, parents today spend more time caring for their children than they did back when I was a kid. This shows that parents do care for their kids in the sense that they "look after and provide for the needs of" their children. But maybe this isn't using "care" in the sense that the instigator meant. Do parents "feel concern or interest" in their children? Do they "attach importance to" their children? These aren't questions that are often asked in studies, personally I think that is because the answer is so obvious that we shouldn't even be having this debate, but it has been touched on in several studies, and Kristin Anderson Moore, Ph. D. and her colleagues compiled some into a brief named "Family Strengths: Often Overlooked, But Real. " (2) What did these studies find? * 84% of preschoolers go on family outings frequently. * 70%+ of adolescents have parents who usually or always praise them for doing well. * 57% of mothers know almost everything or everything about their adolescent's close friends. * 80%+ of adolescents think highly of their parents. * 77%+ of adolescents enjoy spending time with their parents. * 79% of adolescents report that their mother usually or always helps with what is important to them. Clearly, most parents do feel concern or interest and attach importance to their children, and the children themselves feel that love and respond positively to it. (1) . http://www.prb.org... (2) . http://family.samhsa.gov...
USB devices are very dangerous. (External HD, USB chargers and Hubs, USB charging stations, ext.

In round 1, I will talk about how USB devices are being exploited and what criminals are doing with them. Bad USB malware Bad USB: All USB devices have a security flaw, which means hackers can (reverse engineer the firmware. Hackers have discovered that USB controller chips offer no protection from reprogramming." USB devices infected with bad USB Malware can: USB can behave like a network card. USB can spoof network card, redirect traffic," and use device as attack vector USB can behave like a keyboard. A hacker can install malware PC, perform Dll infections, install Rootkit in video card, and etc. Infect Any phone and Tablet, flash drive, or Usb external drive. Install MBR virus This article explains what bad USB is: Proof of concept article: Black Hat" http://securitywatch.pcmag.com...; This article how a mouse can get infected. This is a very detailed article." https://cseweb.ucsd.edu... Bad USB malware can infect all plug and play devices. Devices that get infected with bad USB should be thrown out." USB flash drives and external drives that get infected should also be thrown out. The files in the drive can be altered, or modified. Infected USB drives can spread malware to other Computers even if auto play is disabled. dll files within the drive can get infected. Malware can also mutate (change code.)" I posted a video of what BAD USB Malware can do to a PC. I tried to recover my files from infected drive. The malware mutated and broke out of the sandbox. https://m.youtube.com... Juice Jacking: USB charging stations and Hubs are everywhere. Most people will run to the closest USB charging station when they need a quick charge. Those charging stations can be setup not only to charge your phone, but exchange data. The main problem is; the same cord you charge your phone with is the same cord you use to transfer data. Hackers can install malware and remotely control your phone. Reprogram the firmware in your phone. Reverse Juice jacking: when you plug your Phone into another USB device, your phone will infect that USB port. This is a security researcher that talks about juice jacking. I like this security research because he can explain it in a language that preople can understand. https://m.youtube.com...
Segregation Equals Success In The US & Abroad: Part 2

In conclusion, The Homestead Act had been on the books three years before black people could claim citizenship. After the Civil War, Newly freed slaves still didn't benefit from it. . . "You may want to check your timeline. " Case in Point: Whites got free land, Blacks didn't. Dude, Every race of people has done bad things. I'm just explaining why all races should separate which is why I'm giving examples. Nothing more, Nothin less. I refer to you as "you guys" instead of repeating white white white, Black black black. That's journalism 101. . . Ok? . . . Converse with people who only believe me? May I ask, "what's the point in debating with someone who believes the same things? Kind of shot yourself in the foot with that comment. . . Now back to addressing your nonsense. You keep repeating the words "union, Egalitarian" etc. . . Now. . . Tell me why were the (Black Codes) created? Yep you shot yourself in the foot yet again didn't you? . . . First of all, Indentured servants were never slaves. These people agreed to work for a set period of time and then they were released. Yes, Many of them received free land when they were released. You boldly said that "black people aren't oppressed now. " So what is redlining & how does it affect someone & their community? I'll wait. . . ". . . Why are there all-white town as we speak today? Here's a little proof. Https://bossip. Com/814839/can-sit-here-seats-taken-predominantly-white-ohio-town-working-hard-to-keep-black-bus-riders-out-of-the-community/. . . I don't even have to address phony gov. Stats because our government has always been 100% honest ethical and righteous. . . Right? Lol. You say "police violence is a myth. " Need I say more? You also say that "Weinstein hasn't gotten away with it & that his case is still on trial. " OK. . . In the mean time. . . What about Rob Lowe sexual past with a 15-year-old. Yes, There's a sex tape as proof. What about Kevin Spacey? What about Matt Lauer? Maybe Tom Brokaw? How about Ryan Seacrest? Ben Affleck? And on and on and on. . . Segregation is definitely the best thing for everyone on their native homeland. Oh that's right! There won't be any white privilege to benefit from in an all-white population. Am I correct? Which is why you people do not want to segregate and that speaks volumes. P. S. You may want to start researching and learning a few things before debating. PEACE
Segregation Equals Success In The US & Abroad: Part 2

So you're just going on and on saying white people have been bad throught history. I can sit here and say black people have been bad throughout history too but I'm not going to. It doesn't prove that people aren't egalitarian. "You guys? " you can't even define who I am hahahaha. Also, You can only have conversations with people who already believe you? Consider this a nice break from your echo chamber. 1. All Unions were created on the premise of protecting jobs and securing wages. You're cherrypicking instances where black people weren't accepted cause they were lowering the wages and ignoring instances where black people stood shoulder to shoulder with Unions to protect workers rights. All of this happened before the civil rights movement I might add. 2. Did indentured servents recieve land from the Headright system? That system oppressed more than just Africans. 3. Black people were still slaves durring the start of the homstead act so I don't know why you think they would have benifited. You're going so far back in history to prove that Africans were opressed. I'm not debating that Africans Americans weren't oppressed I'm arguing that they aren't oppressed now. A black man can raise to the highest seat of power in the U. S. How would that be allowed in a racist society? 4. Drug dealers go to prison regardless of race. 5. If you serve in the military today you have access to free education regardless of race. 6. Criminals are getting shot. Out of the 75000 assults that took place on police in 2018 less than 1000 were killed. That means that police tactics are succesfully nonleathal 98. 66% of the time. Now subtract the number of justified police killings and you'll see that police violence is a myth. I don't feel like subjecting myself to random internet searches of black people commiting crimes but I assure you that they exist and they go on and on and on. MLK marched for Civil Rights because he was legitamtly being oppressed. You are advocating for segragation when you aren't even being oppressed. You are advocating to seperate from a system that has granted you equal rights. Wienstien hasn't gotten away with anything yet. The case is still on trial. So maybe just wait before you jump to conclusions. No its not a joke. In the U. S, Gun companies pay more to the government for wildlife concervation than any other conservation group. Look up the 1937 Pittman-Robertson. Reagan and bush are not dictators. Did I say Mugabi and Amin? Sorry I meant Charles Taylor, Sekou Toure, Hissene Habre, And too many to count really. I'd also Like to point out, If we're going to continue to lump all the races together, All of these dictators commited atrosities against their own race. Tell me again how segregation is going to save us?
Segregation Equals Success In The US & Abroad: Part 2

You asked, "why would I make my utopia segregated? Yes, Race plays a huge role in my ideal utopia because it's proven that you guys don't believe in a egalitarian society. If you believed in it then you would be owning 95% of the wealth despite doing 20% of the work. It's really ridiculous for any black person to converse on a topic like this with a white person because you guys aren't logical thinkers or believers. You said that "white people don't have an advantage? " Wow! You are unbelievable. I'll play devils advocate one more time. Are these situations advantageous? 1. White only unions that prevented blacks from entering certain jobs. Did that not occur? Yes 2. Did whites receive millions of acres of (free land) under the Headright System while blacks received 0% of land? Yes 3. Did whites benefit from the (free land) of the Homestead Act? Yes Did blacks benefit from the Homestead Act? No 4. Do whites go to prison for opioid/meth crimes? No Do blacks go to jail for marijuana/crack crimes? Yes 5. Did whites benefit from the GI Bill? Yes Did blacks benefit from the GI Bill? No 6. Are whites getting shot by cops for no reason? No Ate blacks getting shot for no reasons? Yes 7. And on and on. . . Just last week a white man burns down three historic black churches? Just last month a white man shoots up a synagogue. A few days a white poacher gets killed for illegally hunting endangered animals. And on and on. . . But you say the segregation is wrong. You ever wonder why MLK was marching/protesting for basic Civil Rights? But you say we're all equal. Just look at the #MeToo crap. Cosby's in prison on hearsay but Weinstein's hasn't stepped foot in a courtroom despite (audio evidence? . . . But we're all equal. . . Mute R. Kelly! , Mute R. Kelly! But Elvis doesn't get mentioned though he was having sex with a 14-year-old girl. Do you not you see the hypocrisy? Wildlife conversation? Is that a joke? Those animals are purposely raised in captivity to get hunted when they're adults. Yes, There are an abundance of video, Articles and documentaries about this stuff. Mugabi and Amin? You meant to say Hitler, Busch, Busch Jr. Trump, Stalin, Reagan, Mussolini & too many more to name.