BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism in relevance to the American economic situation

Pro offered the resolution claiming that "Communism" would improve the "American economic situation." I challenged Pro to provide a good example of Socialism or Communism as an example, and he offered the Russian Revolution installing communism as being an improvement over Tsarist rule. By the end of the debate, he was claiming "that there have been no Socialist [countries] proves my point." At the start, the Soviet success was claimed to prove his point. By the end of our debate, the failure of all socialist experiments, including the Soviet one, was claimed to somehow prove his point. Pro claimed that the violent origins of Communist regimes perpetually condemned them to authoritarianism. However, I repeatedly pointed to the many African nations that tried socialism after being freed from colonial rule, the lengthy experiment by India with democratic socialism, and the flirtations with democratic socialism of western European nations. Pro did not deny that I provided valid examples of democratic socialism that did not have violent origins, and he did not deny that all such experiments failed. Books like "Heaven on Earth" and "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" extensively document the experiments and the subsequent failures of socialism. Pro implies that socialism has not succeeded because non-violent democratic socialism has not been tried. That implication is false. It has been tried redundantly and it has uniformly failed. I provided the reasons why socialism always fails: it defies the human instincts for personal freedom and security, and it requires a large non-productive bureaucracy to replace market forces. The bureaucracy always fails to make efficient allocations of resources due to lack of market knowledge, and the bureaucracy necessarily constitutes an elite ruling class. I challenged Pro to explain how the inherent defects might be avoided. Pro did not respond. I challenged Pro to explain, for example, how the level of production of a simple commodity like pencil sharpeners would be determined in his ideal socialism state. He did not respond even to the simplest challenge. Pro's case reduces to one of pure faith, unsupported by either experience or reasons. He claims that socialism will produce a wonderful society, but he cannot explain why it has not in the past nor how its inherent cited flaws can be overcome. Pro seems to admit that people do not want to be stripped of property rights and made subject to the total economic control of the State. He says, "Our current financial crisis would only be helped by socialism, even if its not what the people want, that is not the debate here." Thus, socialism has never worked, no reasons are offered as to why it would work, and people do not want it. Yet Pro claims it should be adopted. The resolution should be rejected.
Communism in relevance to the American economic situation

The fact that there have been no Socialist country's proves my point. The examples Con gives are examples of Communist governments. These governments in charge use Communism to achieve Utopian Socialism. This cannot work when violence is used and in fact completely contradicts any efforts towards socialism. Now with the abolition of American economic and credit system, we would no longer have societal standards of which to be led by. The focus is easing our economic woes. With Socialism, this happens. Our current financial crisis would only be helped by socialism, even if its not what the people want, that is not the debate here. With Socialism, we can create a classless, non violent, non racist, equal border less society. It would destroy the need for money. This is the goal of Socialism.
Communism in relevance to the American economic situation

This is my first debate on this website, so I apologize for any grammar or spelling errors. It is my opinion that Communism and Socialism can achieve the goal for societal relief we as Americans desire. As the economic pressures show no sign of relief, we continue to search for solutions in the places we have found problems in the past. It is my belief that Communism and more specifically Socialism can create an America and eventually a One would Community that can ease our economic problems. The abolition of class separation would contribute to an American society dependent on the workers who control the amount of production. It must first be achieved that the working class understands the power of 'No' whilst considering governing forces. These of course are the forces that control the means of production. Through an economy of products solely built, managed and distributed by the common class worker, we can centralize our means of contribution. Eventually branching out with our international influence to create a border-less unified world wide economy. A market in which we do not depend on internal means of production controlled by the greedy capitalists of today. Instead we shall thrive upon world wide resources and create a world in which every job is rectified as important and 'note worthy'. As for references to past and current "Communist 'Countries'", I understand their importance in a worldwide economy. Specifically in America. However it is important to approach this situation with an equal understanding. These countries never really had a Socialist or Communist government. Furthermore as a Capitalist country we continue the biased opinion and exploitation of Communism. We must recognize the the destruction of these 'dangerous' countries as nothing more than a way to make profit. After all war is about as profitable time as one country could be so lucky as to come across.
The death penalty should be abolished

I retract all previous statements made by myself, In my honest opinion I do believe that the death penalty should be abolished, but hence I do believe that any good debater should be able to argue both sides. I do believe that with enough time and effort put into this debate, it is possible for myself to win, though to be put simply, I just can't be bothered anymore. I am simply too busy with school, and have another historical project to allocate my time towards. (I entered a fake age when I created this account, as I was under the assumption that there was an age requirement, In reality I am 14 years of age) I congratulate Pro on their victory, and forfeit all 7 points. Bye bye ;)
The death penalty should be abolished

Rebuttals1) The death penalty is used to serve justice."In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die."Previously, my opponent asserted that if the death penalty had been replaced with life sentences, people falsely convicted of an act of crime are forced to live their lives behind bars, fighting against the harsh prison conditions.These two do not come together in agreement.The death penalty remains a form of hypocrisy. My opponent asserts that those serving the death row are humanely executed, via needle, fire squad, hanging, etc., whereas those killed by these criminals are brutally slaughtered, raped, abused, and tortured mercilessly.Will the government forgive those that chose to kill via shooting their victims to death, hanging their victims, etc.? No. Why not? Because either way, they are a form or murder; they take lives or a life without consent.2) The death penalty provides closure to the families or loved ones of the victim.My opponent's assertion that the death penalty provides closure to the families and/or loved ones of the victims relies on a quote he had found on the internet. However, upon investigation, the article also states:"...closure can never occur."[1] 3) Those who break the laws know the consequences"The death penalty is not a punishment sprung upon innocent people who had no idea about the laws. Those who murder or rape must know that what they are doing is indeed illegal and their acts will be shamed upon."Of course. This has been established centuries ago. This explains why laws are passed fairly and people that commit an act of crime and are unaware that it is [an act of crime] are not excused from legal punishment.However, this also applies to life sentences. Therefore, this can not be used as a benefactor.I am eager to read my opponent's response.Sources [1] http://discover.umn.edu...
The death penalty should be abolished

I would like to make my opponent aware that he has failed to follow the debate structure. He is significantly new. Therefore, his mistake has been pardoned. However, he may neither attempt to counter my arguments nor defend his [arguments] on round four.Rebuttals1) Executions are carried out at great, excessive costs."Encouraging our basest motives of revenge, which ends in another killing, extends the chain of violence. Allowing executions sanctions killing as a form of 'pay-back.'"[1]This is a form of hipocrisy. If the government wishes not to encourage the act of killing, they must not reenact such actions. If the government strives to better their system of justice, executions won't do. Usually, an innocent person whose life has been taken was looking forward to make a living and create a purpose to live. A criminal and an innocent person's unwillingness to die may not be the same.2) There is no credible evidence that the presence of the death penalty deters acts of crime."While some criminologists may believe that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to murder, that is only an opinion based statistic..."It may only be an opinion based statistic. However, our knowledge on criminal activity is uncomparable to theirs. We must rather listen to them on the topic of crime than ourselves."'Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates.'"That may be true. However, that does not imply that it won't have an effect on murder rates; it simply suggests that they won't be noteworthy."Secondly, the purpose of the death penalty isn't to 'deter' crime as such, it is to punish inexcusable crimes, and to thrive as moral, civilised society while reducing the small percentage of the population who continue to commit offences."You may believe that the existence of the death penalty does not particularly serve as a deterrent. However, deterrence would make a very effective and substantial factor. Deterrence can stop a crime before it even happens, saving the devastation of many families.3) Innocent people have been convicted and executedYou assert that 96% of all inmates serving the death row are guilty, yet you argue that if life sentences took the executions' place, innocent people are forced to live their lives for years behind bars, against the harsh prison conditions. Now, since you are using percentages as a means to favor your side of the debate, I am going to use them to my advantage. Imagine what life would be like for the 96% that are guilty. They are forced to serve everyday of their lives fighting against the harsh prison conditions and behind bars possibly overwhelmed with boredom in an attempt to bring justice to the victims and the families of the victims.Further sources will be provided the next time I am available. However, I am very busy, particularly with school.I am eager to read my opponent's response.Sources[1] http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org...
The death penalty should be abolished

My contender has stated that he has read through, and accepted, the guidelines of the debate. Therefore, failure to follow the rules, even if misread, or not read, is punishable with a full seven-point reward to me. The comment section serves to let members clarify any misunderstandings encountered upon reading.I look forward to a clean and friendly debate!Presentations1) Executions are carried out at great, excessive costs."Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population. There are 714 inmates on California's death row."[1]Subtituting the death penalty with life sentences will save the government $90,000 per year to spend on a greater cause. For instance, the government could contribute more money to medical research on cancer, leukemia, etc.2) There is no credible evidence that the presence of the death penalty deter acts of crime."A 2009 survey of criminologists revealed that over 88% believed the death penalty was NOT a deterrent to murder."[2]"A recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime."[3]88% of the nation's leading criminologists, known for their extensive research on criminal activity, believe that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime.3) Innocent people have been convicted and executedIn any justice system, there always exists the possibility of convicting an innocent [person] of an act of crime. However, the difference between executions and life sentences is that life sentences are reversible, unlike executions."At least 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death in the US in the modern era are innocent, according to the first major study to attempt to calculate how often states get it wrong in their wielding of the ultimate punishment."[4]"At least 4 percent of all people who receive the death penalty are innocent, if a new study is right."[5]You may assert that four percent is a very small portion. However, if they had only been punished, though unrightfully, with a life sentence, they could have been discharged, saving the devastation of their families.I am eager, though slightly anxious, to read my contender's response.Sources[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[2] http://www.amnestyusa.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://www.theguardian.com...[5] http://www.forbes.com...
The death penalty should be abolished

Rules1. The first round is only for acceptance. This [rule] serves to clarify that my contender has read and agrees to follow the guidelines [of the debate].2. Minor trolling is allowed, as long as it is not consistent.3. You may request a change in rules/a rule, definitions/a definition, and/or the debate structure in the comment section. However, you may not [request a change] as soon as you have accepted the debate.4. Burden of Proof (Will be abbreviated as BoP in case of future word usage) is shared. In other words, [both] Pro and Con are required to introduce a minimum of one argument (If you feel it has enough substance in favor of your position) defending their positions.Failure to follow these rules will result in a seven-point forfeiture.DefinitionsDeath Penalty - "The punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime."[1]abolish - "Formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution):"[2]Debate StructureR1 - Terms and AgreementR2 - PresentationsR3 - RebuttalsR4 - RebuttalsR5 - ConclusionsI look forward to a friendly and clean debate!Sources[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
the judgement of anubis

Nope, I like drinking my hard lemonade just fine and awww, that's so sad! You got offended by my comment I made on your profile?By the way, you have many grammar and spelling errors, so voters should certainly take off points for that. I will now refute the opening statements he made earlier."holes in my teeth is money" No, those are likely cavities from drinking too much bleach."gods judgement is negative emotional consequence or attachment.. for your heart has been weighed" This makes no sense. Your probably drunk on bleach."if a feather can not make you pause your tv.. you go to hell" Wow, telling me to go to hell. Voters, make sure to take off those conduct points!"the weakness of my power is my need for energy" No, the "weakness of your power" might be dementia.".. for what is my power without energy.. a stone tablet as but a stone.. a low battery.." Again, this is nonsensical. Oh also, here is the definition for the term "nonsensical":http://www.dictionary.com...Now voters have to give me points for using the most reliable resources, assuming Vi_Spex won't cite a source in the next debate rounds. Also voters, keep in mind that Vi_Spex did not even present a coherent debate topic with debate terms. He just spewed gibberish, which is why it is appropriate for me to make the debate terms a Yu-Gi-Oh card game in the first place.Here is Vi_Spex's card again: My card I played earlier: I ask again, what will be your next move Vi_Spex?
the judgement of anubis

The title says "the judgement of anubis", and this happens to be the name of a Yu-Gi-Oh card. Since the debate terms seem very unsensical, I am going to assume my opponent is implying a Yu-Gi-Oh duel and that I have to play a countercard to the one listed in the topic header.Vi_Spex chose this Yu-Gi-Oh card: I chose to play this card to counter it: What will be your next move vi_spex?
There is no anthropomorphic global warming

The majority of your previous post was a continuation of the arguments that I pointed out were incorrect in my previous posts. Plausibility does not mean reality. Yes, I agree that one can prove and have proven that co2 can act as a green house gas and can theoretically warm the planet. Where I disagree is that co2 has been proven to be the cause of global warming. Yes, I will agree that in miniscule amounts it probably does warm the planet. I do not think though that it has been proven that it raises temperatures significantly. Even in your 'runaway' co2 warming hypothesis, there is not evidence that co2 causes additional warming. The co2 is the effect, not the cause of warming. But I will take this further and argue that the entire field of climate science is too uncertain for any to be able to prove that man made global warming is fact. Consider http://www.sciencedaily.com... "The researchers estimate that this effect could cut by two-thirds the projected increase in global temperatures initiated by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." How do you know that increasing co2 didn't 'cause' this vent to work? Or any other natural self regulation? It's the same with co2 acting as a fertizer for more plant growth. Not to mention our minimal knowledge of cloud formation. And I do not agree with your contention that solar variability is irrelevent: http://www.theminorityreportblog.com... Variations in solar energy as a driver for global climate change have been wholly discounted by the IPCC and climate modellers on the basis that something they call Total Solar Irradiance has not changed enough between 1975 and 1998 to make a significant contribution to the climate warming observed during that period. It is because solar influences have been discounted that the IPCC and climate modellers have been determined to attribute most of the observed warming during that period to an enhanced greenhouse effect caused by CO2 produced by human activity. Consequently the climate models currently in use contain no solar effects as a component. This article shows that they are wrong and that, in fact, solar energy is and always has been the overwhelming primary driver for global temperature with CO2 such a minor component that it should be ignored. Due to the differences in scale between the solar effect and the effect of CO2 the latter is only ever going to have a marginal effect at and around the peak of any natural warming trend and is unlikely to activate any tipping point that would not have been activated by natural cause. Indeed, during natural cooling spells CO2 will be a wholly beneficial mitigating factor. This article will then go on to identify the additional parameters apart from solar activity that will need to be measured to give us a workable if approximate predictor of global temperature movements. Showing that solar energy has been the predominant driver throughout history prior to the industrial revolution is not difficult." There is so much unknown and so much complexity that at this point it is impossible to categorically say that man is causing global warming.
There is no anthropomorphic global warming

It is not true that anything that can cause warming is in fact causing current warming. In your case, you argue that co2 is a green house gas and can be proven to be a warming agent. I do not disagree. Where I disagree is whether or not this co2 is causing today's warming. In most historical episodes of warming, co2 trails temperature. If it was a forcing agent, one would expect the exact opposite. Co2 has been much higher in the past and temperatures were lower: http://www.nolanchart.com... "In fact, 450 million years ago when we were in the depths of the coldest period the Earth has had in half a billion years, CO2 levels were 10 times above today's! Even using the last century as evidence for a dependent relationship is meaningless. 65% of the warming this century occurred in the first three decades, and then, while CO2 levels continued to rise, temperatures fell for four decades in a row."
Digimon has a better storyline than Pokemon

Rebuttal: Do. Not. Diss. Pikachu. The whole opinion you have on Pikachu is wrong. You seem to think he is just a a little mouse Pokemon, and the fire breathing fire thing is better. A whole sub-plot is based on Pikachu. Yes, he may be small, and he may be weaker then the big Pokemon, but the fights on. In Series One episode 11, Ash has to choose whether to evolve Pikachu to win. But Pikachu refuses, as he is determined to win as himself, he will not change. Not only is this touching, but it sends a good message to the children-adults watching it. The opposition has stated that Digimon is better because there is only one, instead of being able to get more, like you can in Pokemon. But aren't our parents always telling us to make more friends? We cannot only focus on one person, we must build up a good network of friends, as it will help us rise to their talents. Also, The Pokemon kike having others around it, to talk to. Which leads to when you stated that The Digimon characters are better because they can speak english. Sure, that's great, they can talk to their owner and everything. But this takes away one of the basic plots of the two: Animal (or pokemon/digimon) and Human co-operation. They anthropomorph the creatures so they no longer seem like animals. Also, you stated that Taichi has grown up. Yes. He has. That is one of the mistakes this series has made. The program is aimed at kids, so features kids. The children can relate to someone their own age, but can you see one relating to an adult? No. Pro also stated that the pokemon are stupid because they can only say their name, while Digimon speak english. .. .So. .. are you calling people who speak other languages stupid? Because they do not speak English? The Pokemon are communicating, their name IS their language. The way they say it is how they communicate. I could just as well state that Digimon are stupid because they cannot talk by saying their name is different ways like Pokemon can. And please. Check your grammer. He even HAS a child. Not even have a child. Ok?