BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants

As an organ donor myself, I must say that for me, as long as my organs benefited someone I do not care what their race, class, gender, politics or organ donor status may be. The main idea of it is to help your fellow man whom is in need, after you pass away. If a man is lying in a hospital bed, turning yellow through kidney failure, why should he be left to die for the non-crime of not being an organ donor? That is inhumane. What is your opinion on the mentally impaired who are not considered to be fit to give consent to be an organ donor, should they miss out on a chance for their lives to be saved? According to "only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants" they should not receive a transplant. That doesn"t seem right to me.
the people who run this place are losers

I disagree, I think ur just a -2 pped black transgender non binary hypocritical poop eating donkey spitting nincumpoop indian loving jew bashing spineless sadistic dirty stuckup sadistic c*k sucking bu** fu**cking pp smelling crot*ch grabbing ball l*cking se*men drinking dog ra**ping nazi loving child touching cow humping perverted spineless heartbreaking mindless penis less testicle choking urine gargling jerk offing hoarse faced sheep fondling toilot kissing self centered feces spuking a hole!
Utilitarianism is in principle a better system of morality.

Note: I have made this debate impossible to accept. To be considered for accepting this debate, please state the moral system you will be arguing for in the comments section. Topic:I take the position that "Utilitarianism is in principle a better system of morality." My opponent must choose a sufficiently different system of normative morality and argue in favor of it. The winner is the one who shows his morality system to be better.Definitions:Utilitarianism, roughly defined - a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives [1]. This means I support the assertion that pleasure is central to morality. Per Jeremy Bentham: Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think...[2]. The specific brand of utilitarianism that I will be arguing in favor of is "pragmatic total utilitarianism." That means I do not expect to sit down every time and calculate the effects of an action. Practicality affects factors of utilitarianism and it will be accounted for. It means I will be following this rendition of the "felicific calculus" [3]: R = results; I = intensity; D = duration; P = certainty (0 <= P <= 1); F = fecundity (other average positive results); X = impurity (other average negative results); and E = extent (number of persons);R = P * [(I * D ) + (F * E) - (X * E)] The greatest thinkable R value determines the morally correct action.Better - more desirable.Morality - principles that determine what is right and what is wrong. Context:I just want to debate about morality. Rules: R1 acceptance;R2 arguments;R3 rebuttals;R4rebuttals;[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]. Bentham, Jeremy.1789. The Principles of Morals and Legislation.[3]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
America has the best atheletics in the world

Okay, "bro," if you want to act like a child then why did you accept this argument. And by the way I'm not fat I played lacrosse in college. 1. The US has the most decorated Olympian of all time. Michael Phelps. Ever heard of him? He has won 19 Olympic medals. You really cannot refute this fact. (http://olympics.time.com...) 2. American basketball is by far the best. No argument. They have 14 gold medals in basketball, and some of those were from before they were even allowed to use professionals. They have the most overall. 3. The last summer Olympics the US had the most medals. The US (103) had 15 more medals than the closest team, China (88). (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 4. In the US soccer is not a popular sport at all. The average MLS player makes a mere 60k. Yet they still made it to the round of 16. They only lost to Germany by 1. By 1 point. How many did Brazil lose by again? Oh yeah 6 goals. Now the American women on the other hand are extremely good. They have won the gold medal 3 times straight and have won the FIFA world cup twice. Oh, and they beat the Dominican Republic 14-0, two years ago. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 5. There is also this nifty fact: As of the winter Olympics in Sochi 2014, USA has won the most gold medals (976) (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
America has the best atheletics in the world

Format 1- Acceptance 2,3,4- Arguments 5- Rebuttals and Closing Statements My main argument: 1. The US has the most decorated Olympian of all time. 2. No one can compete with American Basketball 3. In the last summer Olympics, America had the most medals 4. America's women's soccer team has won gold 3 times in a row 1. http://olympics.time.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3.http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
America has the best atheletics in the world

So based off of your "argument," you really haven't said anything to refute my argument. You say that America doesn't hold the most records yet you have no proof. Guess who hold the most records in swimming? America. It has a total of 25 records, the next closest is Germany with a tiny number of 7. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) AGAIN you see America holds many records in Running, even if Kenya or Jamaica has more, which I am not sure of, do you really think KENYA and JAMAICA is as good at sports as AMERICA? No they don't have any other really good sports outside of running. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Besides this you really don't have any arguments. Plus I just proved it wrong so... These facts added to the amount of medals and how America dominates in the Olympics I can't see what your argument really is going for right now except making things up.
Capitalism is creating a two class society as described by Marx.

I would like to argue that global society with the expansion of capitalism in to almost all markets and economies, is thus creating a bourgeoisie and proletariat based class system. I would initially like to point to the limited distribution (on the global scale) of wealth to support my claim. I do accept Karl Marx was misplaced in his belief in the failure of capitalism but argue this isn't due to its flaws as explained by him but his lack of appreciation for the adaptability of the mode of production. This lack of understanding or even knowledge of said quality undoubtedly affects the validity of any predictions made by Marx, the theory though does provide in my opinion a very relevant and applicable characterization of modern class systems. This is due to capitalism forcibly creating winners and losers in any economic interaction, thus over time reducing the amount of participants in any competition.
Capitalism is creating a two class society as described by Marx.

Marx is a great topic. If you can build a case that two classes are being created I'd be interested but you can essentially define a two class system into existence in any society. Say the 1% wealthiest and the other 99%. 'Us' and 'them' usually end's up as a divisive position that causes conflict, which is why I accepted the debate. The more nuanced you want to get the more classes you will have. Class structure is simply a way to describe a society. The only real arguments you reference are links that describe the validity of Marx writings and arguments that Marx is a great thinker and distinct from communism. Again, welcome to debate.org!
Capitalism is creating a two class society as described by Marx.

The argument is a theoretical one Ok, I’m not a Marx fan, great. You have not presented any arguments that support that capitalism is forcing a two-class society. Your resolution fails. would it not be of value to understand Karl Marx writing for a debate around his theory? Not really. As you set up the debate it was more focust around capitalism, which I am more familiar with. Your resolution was that capitalism [1] is creating a two-class society. That Marx [2] predicted this is incidental. the communist manifesto was written as propaganda and should be read as so… and should be read as one would read Aristotle. Yeah, I agree it reads like propaganda. Comparing him with Aristotle is a real stretch. I won’t spend time arguing about that tho because it has nothing to do with the debate! - No offense but you have been pretty condescending about my knowledge of Marx’s writings. I don’t understand why but this has been the major thrust of your arguments and is entirely unrelated to your resolution. I’m not a fan of Marx and I don’t see how this was a requirement to accept this debate. I successfully distracted you from your resolution in round 1. I felt kind of bad and tried to steer you back on track at the end of round 2. Round 3 all I did was try to encourage you to develop some argument to support your resolution... but you haven’t. You have provided no evidence that capitalism is creating a two class society. To win a debate you have to present an argument. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Capitalism is creating a two class society as described by Marx.

The argument is a theoretical one, i have provided proof of a theory presented by its theorist, you only only don't see the value because you have little understanding of the theory. i have provided three real world examples of this, china, india, america... i presented a text which rebutted your statement that america isn't a capitalist state and that china is communist society. would it not be of value to understand Karl Marx writing for a debate around his theory? as for your dismissal of the theory and its lack of value to contemporary; sociology, philosophy and politics... http://plato.stanford.edu... http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.independent.co.uk... http://harvardpolitics.com... here are just four arguments that disagree with you, i could provide many more. don't mistake communism's failings with that of Karl Marx, and your statement regarding religion, the communist manifesto was written as propaganda and should be read as so. he was a gifted writer whom understood the value of langue, in his other texts you may find more substance but he is a philosopher and should be read as one would read Aristotle.
Capitalism is creating a two class society as described by Marx.

Your lack of understand of my points is due to your lack of understanding of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels work. you clearly have a lack of understanding of the communist manifesto which you said you've read, that is the text which Marx gives a explanation of how each mode of production was a evolution upon the last; Primitive communism, asiatic, ancient and feudalism which is followed on by capitalism. i would suggest you to read said text again with others (many can be found at www.marxists.org) Karl Marx, famously said " if many whom consider themselves Marx are then I myself am not" his words have been twisted and used for many political purposes which aren't ones he would have supported. in my opening statement i stated; "This lack of understanding or even knowledge of said quality undoubtedly affects the validity of any predictions made by Marx, the theory though does provide in my opinion a very relevant and applicable characterization of modern class systems." I'm not stating anything to do with communism but i'm suggesting it is a relevant critique of today's socio-economic system nothing more or less. Since the question specifically mentions Marx, it would require even the most basic understanding of his works to critique, which you haven't shown so far. i feel by answering your many questions i would simply be repeating myself, again in my opening statement i addressed your concern for america not being a capitalist state, it is, but capitalism evolves and changes for survival again a understanding of this would be needed to understand my argument, i suggest reading "http://www.amazon.co.uk...; once this has been done, i feel you would be able to understand my argument and adequately answer the question.
Capitalism is creating a two class society as described by Marx.

I make no communist assertions, at no point do i even use any variable of the word communism in my opening statement. So you’re not a commie, great me neither. Marx is the author of communism and since your debate stressed Marx as a powerful thinker I rightly assumed you were defending communism. I would like to also stress I at no point suggest that capitalism is a worse mode of production than previous ones; it is undoubtedly better. Great, we agree again. The common misconception is that Marx himself wasn't a fan capitalism, he actually saw it as a great stride in human evolution, That is interesting. I haven’t confirmed and would appreciate a link but I would have assumed that Marx thought capitalism was a step backwards. Capitalism is close to a natural state and I agree that there is conflict inherent in the human condition. look at the sweat shops of china where workers are paid so little and working conditions are so poor due to a ever increasing lust for profit China is communist. I may agree that they have increasingly adopted economic policies not consistent with communism but why did you choose a communist country to provide proof that capitalism is harmful? Profit is bad Ok. You are still sounding like a communist/socialist but you see capitalism as a step forward. When I trade with someone else it’s because I feel like the deal benefits me. I hope the person I have traded with agrees since I am empathetic to their condition. My argument is that, if capitalism is going to progress in the way it has, countries such as India and China will continue to having growing numbers of poor to feed the wests consumerist desires. Sure. It upsets me that the US may exploit other countries. Both India, China and arguably the US are not capitalist. Where is this argument going? - You have presented no arguments that support your resolution. Why do you think we are moving toward only two classes? How do you define them and why do you think capitalism is the cause?
Capitalism is creating a two class society as described by Marx.

I would like to clarify, I make no communist assertions, at no point do i even use any variable of the word communism in my opening statement and thus find ;"I don"t see why you are leaning so heavily on Marx to support Communism." confusing to say the very least. I would like to also stress I at no point suggest that capitalism is a worse mode of production than previous ones; it is undoubtedly better. The common misconception is that Marx himself wasn't a fan capitalism, he actually saw it as a great stride in human evolution, he suggested it provided mankind with a great platform to better its self. He argued like I am in this debate that it has its natural progression and unfortunately eventually causes conflict. I find your suggestion that capitalism doesn't create winners and losers bemusing, look at the sweat shops of china where workers are paid so little and working conditions are so poor due to a ever increasing lust for profit, meaning corners are cut at every point. The idea of profit by its very nature is that someone benefits from the sale of a product, one may also benefit from the product but the seller will always seek to receive the most monetary value even at the buyers expense. My argument is that, if capitalism is going to progress in the way it has, countries such as India and China will continue to having growing numbers of poor to feed the wests consumerist desires, meaning nations will become almost classes within themselves, the exploited and the beneficiaries, such as America Vs India. E,g the bourgeoisie and proletariat.
Capitalism is creating a two class society as described by Marx.

Hello, and welcome to debate.org! I have several problems with your set up and I am not really sure what position I will take. I don’t see that capitalism is expanding at all at least not in the west. Wealth is more equally distributed than it was before capitalism and the modern era. I’ve only read the communist manifesto but it read like a religious document making assertions without any evidence. I don’t see why you are leaning so heavily on Marx to support Communism. That there are many classes or two simply depends on your definition. Why are you so convinced we are moving toward only two? How is it that capitalism creates winners and losers? Cooperative trade tends to benefit both parties and all transactions are voluntary. Why is it that you associate force with capitalism when communism forcibly redistributes property? I lean toward the middle politically: socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I think private solutions are best when possible since they are by far more efficient and do not apply force as government solutions do. Looking forward to your argument.
Halo is better than Call of Duty (Please base votes on arguments not what you think is better)

I believe that Halo is better than Call of Duty because: 1. Halo is balanced for competitve gameplay. The weapons, the maps, the ranking system, the equipment/AA's are all designed to work well in a competitve environment. Every weapon has a different functionality or use giving the game great weapon variety and depth. 2. Halo battles are about outsmarting and outperforming your opponent using your weapons,grenades, melee, and sometimes your equipment to defeat your enemies. Its not all about who sees who first, because while that is a large factor as in any first person shooter game, there is a ton more decision making and skill that goes into a Halo match than any Call of Duty match. 3. Call of Duty campaigns are unoriginal and don't have any in depth story lines, for example, imagine your sitting across a table from your war buddy, and your playing Russian roulette, big shocker, he doesn't get killed and you escape imprisonment. Now, picture a Sergent you've been since the very first Halo game, your fighting the final boss and he gets shot, "oh he'll get up" you said, "he'll be fine" you said, nope he saves you by shooting the guy in the back and with his last dying breath says "Send me out......with a bang."
Child Prodigies are Discouraging People

Thank you, Con. I agree to your definitions and wish for an exciting debate. However, I must point out that this debate focuses on opinions rather than facts. Also, whenever you see me put a number inside parentheses (as below), I am denoting a source is being cited. (1) http://www.answerbag.com... In the unprofessional source above, a person is prompted to answer whether or not he or she dislikes child prodigies. The answerer responded, "Only if they make me look dumb. I hate to be one uped." As I said in the first round, prodigies make others look stupid. Who feels accomplished doing something that a little kid has done before? (2) http://www.cracked.com... Again, the link above proves the fact. According to the website, childhood is meant to be "a magical time when you're still allowed to be a non-productive drain on society and not feel guilty about it," but "some child prodigies. . . make us look like worthless turds." Of course, almost nobody would write on the Internet of how they stopped pursuing their dream because he was discouraged by a prodigy, but I am sure that has happened before. Something that Con may point out in his portion of the round is that just because a child was successful in youth, doesn't mean he or she will be rich and famous as an adult. However, this fact does not matter. As children, none of us knows how life will turn out. Many are still discouraged by successful children, regardless of what could happen in the future. The natural desire of the human mind is to be the greatest person one can be. When you accomplish something, whether it's a high school diploma or a publication of a book, you usually want that accomplishment to be not only an impressive one, but an accomplishment that will make you stand out in society. The concept of prodigies ruins this notion in the sense that doing something important at a young age is more impressive than doing something important as an adult. In this way, symptoms of depression or feelings that one has wasted one's life can result from child prodigies in both children and adults. I hope my messages make sense and conclude my portion of this round.
Child Prodigies are Discouraging People

Hello there, and thank you for this debate. I have finally found one in which I feel I may have an opinion - so thanks again! I find this an interesting topic and look forward to further debating on the subject. Definitions: PRODIGY - "a person, especially a child or young person, having extraordinary talent or ability..." (http://dictionary.reference.com...) DISCOURAGE - "to deprive of courage, hope, or confidence; dishearten; dispirit..." OR "to obstruct by opposition or difficulty..." (http://dictionary.reference.com...) I think it is obvious, that people ARE discouraged by child prodigies; as in, it HAS happened some time on this earth several times. But besides this matter, I feel you will post your argument in a way in which I can still debate against. Good Luck shooterboss!
Child Prodigies are Discouraging People

Basic Rules and Agreements: 1. No vulgar, slang, or other offensive language is allowed. 2. Intentional spelling or grammar errors are not permissible. 3. The first round is for introduction and agreement purposes. 4. If sources are used, they must be cited with URLs or titles of books. 5. Although visuals (images and video) are okay to use, they must supplement the written argument, not replace it. In almost every news media (television news, Yahoo! news, radio news), you've probably heard of a child prodigy once. Whether this particular youngster has become a famous singer, written a popular book, or programmed some amazing games, many children, specifically around ages 10 to 18, have done difficult things that one would usually expect only from adults. However, not everyone is inspired by how some children can do amazing things at such young ages. This debate discusses how the child prodigies of today are discouraging the success of other people tomorrow. I will take the Pro/For side of this debate: I believe prodigies discourage others and make others "look stupid". A book writer may feel underachieved once he or she finds that a 13-year-old boy has also written a book. As a note, I will try not to make any of my arguments biased. I am not discouraged by prodigies; I simply believe others may be. Good luck to my contender in this debate.