BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism > Capitalism

Communism vs Capitalism So, in this world I've set up for the purposes of the debate, both theories exist, but neither has been exploited. We are a group of people trying to decide the fate of our society, and we have two theories to consider: capitalism and communism. I am the half that is arguing for communism, Vi is arguing for capitalism. All we have are the ideas and writings of those like Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Communism in essence, is far superior to Capitalism. It embodies a system of equality, in terms of money and power. In a communistic society, the idea of government has withered away, as there is no need for a ruling body anymore. Yes, I am saying that 'laws' have been abolished since there is no ruling body to implement them, in terms of a written decree that X is illegal and the consequence is Y punishment. The idea of money has been abolished as well, since every worker is equal and receives the same 'payment'; though I will venture to say that there is no real payment, as much as an availability to the same resources and privileges as everyone else. The idea of class, fiscally, has deteriorated as well. Since monetary superiority is not longer possible, no longer can individuals or groups, who previously had more status or money (they go hand in hand), have influence or power, over anyone else. The superiority of this theory over Capitalism is very visible. Capitalism breeds self sustainment, but also advocates a 'dog eat dog' nature, and relies too much on one's ability to do better than another; as this is wrong, because no matter how much Capitalism says, even if you work hard, if you are inherently less adept (Biologically) at a skill, ability to speak, ability to understand quickly, etc, you will not succeed; as society may value a particular 'intelligence' or skill over another. Capitalism advocates the desire for a 'better than normal life', and to have a better education in order to attain this. This breeds materialism, which is an injustice within itself and is the antithesis of what a society should be; and that is the equality of all, in all regards possible.
Speech is our most important freedom.

"I think a basic difference between my opponent's paradigm and my own is that my opponent is describing the effect of freedom on the individual, whereas I am more conceerned with its effect on society. But both views have to be balanced against one another. That is what courts are for. Consequently my values are superior to those of my opponent who only sees one or the other aspect of a very complicated issue." ============================================================================= My Response On the contrary, I am describing both the effect on society and the effect on individuals. 1st, on society. If life is not a right, then it can be taken away at will. This negates the entire point of society and is essentially anarchy, far worse than the impacts my opponent describes. 2nd, If life is not a right, for an individual, it can be taken away at will, and when an individuals life is taken away, so is his freedom of speech. As such, my impact encompasses and outweighs his impacts. In conclusion. He has yet to refute my points about how right to life is necessary to freedom of speech to exist, meaning that right to life is more important than freedom of speech. I have addressed both societal and individual impacts of removing the right to life, and in both instances, they outweigh the removal of freedom of speech. There is only one way to vote. Vote Con. Thank you.
Speech is our most important freedom.

Now we see my opponent's agenda in a code phrase. Besides "where are all those protesters after the child is born," let's look at the more serioous hidden agenda problem. This debate is over and the new one is: Using an example from another debate: Now I have made the point I think that my opponent used this http://www.finitesite.com... to produce this http://www.debate.org... without telling anybody. so What? One thing is lacking here, and it is a good point and one made frequently in debating: Who cares? So what? What value do you attach to pursuing this matter? Why are you bringing this up anyway? What is your agenda? Put your cards on the table. Any court of law is going to want to know where you are going with this, and it is important to know why. It is not because we don't want to waste the court's valuable time. It is because the withholding of that information is not fair to your opponent. What you are doing is concealing an agenda. If your opponent does not know what you intend to prove down the road with this conclusion, in debating terms it is like posting an incomplete opening argument that does not attach any value to itself. It cannot be countered with opposing values because there are none to oppose. In layman's terms, so what? Taking a look at that Michael Coren buffoon we can easily see so what. He's the buffoon on the right. The guy on the left is the one that is going to debate me. Now if I don't know about this clip I won't see the buffoon on the right who lays it all out for me. Debating him would be a dream come true. He is translating the smooth academic language Ross McKitrick is speaking but does not practice into the hysterical stuff that Joe Sixpack will hear on talk hysteriadio. Where does anyone say anything about what Mann says about Man's (or Mann's for that matter) contribution to global warming? That would be critical if you are arguing, as they are, that the value is "look at all the money we are spending on global warming because of bad science." Well we are not spending money to address natural global warming. More importantly the buffoon on the right, Michael Coren, whom I have never heard of and now I see why, exposed the whole agenda of piecemeal attack. It is like the old Cisco Kid radio show where one bad guy starts confessing and the other bad guy says, "Shut up you fool!" He forgot to explain that this whole agenda of piecemeal attack is bad science. Michael Coren, who we may think of as a reincarnation of Wally George, thinks it is OK and spills the beans. Disregarding for the moment the remarkable similarity between the title of the YouTube post and my opponent's premise, and that it's pretty clear he was pretty dishonest but that's not the worst of it. If all I have is the arguments of the guy on the left, the only thing I have to go on is a valueless argument. Serious debaters have long since left all three of these buffoons, and online debating itself, in the dirt with the simple requirement that you need to attach some value to your argument. Now we see why. Because it tells where you are going with this argument.
Speech is our most important freedom.

"It is an unexamined life, or death." Well if there is no one alive there is no need to keep them alive. ========== My Response What? All I was saying was that you misrepresented the options. You are supporting freedom of speech, I am supporting right to life. We assume, that if freedom of speech is taken away, that you are censored, we assume, that if right to life is taken away, you can, and probably will be killed. Because you are censored or dead, does not make right to life, or freedom of speech any less important. ========== My opponent equates being alive with having freedom from being arbitrarily killed. How is being arbitrarily killed any worse than being killed any other way? How can the government possibly protect anyone from being arbitrarily killed? It would be pretty easy to prove that the killing wasn't arbitrary at all. ========== My Response The idea of right to life (not just the existence of life, the right to that life) being equated with freedom from being killed comes from social contract theory and the state of nature. In the state of nature, everyone has absolute freedom, including the freedom to do whatever you want to to other people. For example, killing them. Right to life, protected by society, is simply restricting the right of others to murder you if they want to. As for arbitrary, I meant that to avoid a death penalty debate. It is not worse than any other form of death. The government protects people from being killed by maintaining the peace, as well as punishing perpetrators if necessary. ========== If everyone has a right to be alive then right to be alive is a non-issue and why are we having this debate? Either there are no people who have no right to be alive, or there are many people are alive who have no right to be alive. In the latter case please explain why they have no right to be alive. =========== My Response The right to be alive is an issue, because we are not debating whether or not the right to life and the right to freedom of speech exist, we are debating whether one is more important than the other. =========== My opponent argues that "Life is necessary in order for freedom of speech to exist." A better statement would be "Life is necessary in order for freedom of speech to not exist." And that is not much of a clarification. =========== My Response Both statements are equally true. Life is necessary for freedom of speech to exist, and if freedom of speech exists, then it can be removed from existence as well. But my primary point remains unanswered. Without life, freedom of speech cannot be exercised. Therefore, the freedom from being killed is more important than freedom from being censored. Freedoms and rights are used interchangeably because most rights are freedoms, and most freedoms are rights. I am just accustomed to saying right to life. Right to life, and freedom from being killed are the same thing, in the same way that freedom of speech, freedom from censorship, and the right to free speech are all the same thing.
Speech is our most important freedom.

"It is an unexamined life, or death." Well if there is no one alive there is no need to keep them alive. My opponent equates being alive with having freedom from being arbitrarily killed. How is being arbitrarily killed any worse than being killed any other way? How can the government possibly protect anyone from being arbitrarily killed? It would be pretty easy to prove that the killing wasn't arbitrary at all. If everyone has a right to be alive then right to be alive is a non-issue and why are we having this debate? Either there are no people who have no right to be alive, or there are many people are alive who have no right to be alive. In the latter case please explain why they have no right to be alive. My opponent argues that "Life is necessary in order for freedom of speech to exist." A better statement would be "Life is necessary in order for freedom of speech to not exist." And that is not much of a clarification.
Speech is our most important freedom.

"Notice that I use the word "freedom," whereas my opponent uses the word "right." Rather than speculate I would need to have this clarified. We all die sooner or later anyway but words will still be there. It is better for the rest of us if my opponent leaves a few words rather than not leave anything at all. We don't really care what my opponent wants. The unexamined life even if of quiet desperation sure is worth living anyway but not as much as an examined one which guarantees at least meaningful desperation" ============================================================================ In this case, the freedom is also a right. Freedom from being arbitrarily killed. Likewise, freedom of speech is also a right. As for whether or not it is better to leave a few words than to leave nothing, those few words cannot be left if you are dead. The issue of an unexamined life versus an examined life, once again, ignores my fundamental point. It is an unexamined life, or death. My basic premise has not been refuted. Life is necessary in order for freedom of speech to exist. Life is therefore more important.
Speech is our most important freedom.

Notice that I use the word "freedom," whereas my opponent uses the word "right." Rather than speculate I would need to have this clarified. We all die sooner or later anyway but words will still be there. It is better for the rest of us if my opponent leaves a few words rather than not leave anything at all. We don't really care what my opponent wants. The unexamined life even if of quiet desperation sure is worth living anyway but not as much as an examined one which guarantees at least meaningful desperation.
Speech is our most important freedom.

Alright. Thanks for creating this debate, and I think this should be very interesting. I have one question before moving on to my argument. Am I supposed to actively demonstrate a right? or simply argue that it is more important? Anyways, the basis of my argument is pretty simple. The right to life, or rather, the right to not be arbitrarily killed, it more important than the right to freedom of speech, because life is necessary for speech. If life is necessary for speech, but speech not necessary for life, then life is more important than speech, because violation of the right to life also ends the right to speech.
Speech is our most important freedom.

Resolved, that speech is our most important freedom. By "importance" of a freedom I mean the value of having it minus the value of not having it. Government oppression is not a value. By "speech" I mean any kind of communication. My opponent will be expected demonstrate that there is a freedom more important than speech, and to explain how this can be, without speaking but by using that other freedom instead. I am of course open to arguments that my opponent should be allowed to speak, as of course I am sure he or she will be open to arguments that I should be allowed to use that other freedom. By "freedom" I do not mean to include any acts of violence or property damage, which will be considered communication in any case.
Animals Are Conscious Beings

I wrote "All that is necessary for animals to evolve into conscious beings is natural language and complex tools." That is not what I should have said. What I should have said is that natural language and complex tool construction are the two clear traits that distinguish man from other and that I think that those traits evolved roughly concurrently with each other and consciousness. I concede that non-human animals are conscious in that they are aware of their self and environment,but I contend that they are not aware of their thought processes. I think that to begin to analyze and understand one's thought processes requires thinking that uses the grammar and syntax of natural language. If one's thought processes are not complex and adaptable enough to handle natural language, then it seems unlikely they are capable of representing the complexity of their own processes. To think about ones thoughts one needs to model one's thought processes. This is not a very well formed argument but I am running out of time so I will leave it as is. Thanks for the fun and interesting debate. I would love to revisit it with you or someone else sometime soon. Cheers!
Animals Are Conscious Beings

In Con's argument, he claimed, "All that is necessary for animals to evolve into conscious beings is natural language and complex tools." However, in the first round of the debate, he wrote, "It seems impossible for a mind to be fully aware of itself in relation to not itself with out a full grasp of Natural language [and only Natural language]." Con also used the definition, "4. (Psychology) a. denoting or relating to a part of the human mind that is aware of a person's self, environment, and mental activity and that to a certain extent determines his choices of action." in order to explain his definition of the term "conscious". In no way does this definition speak of ability to make complex tools as a means of deciding whether or not a being is conscious. Since his future claim in the second round of the argument was not supported at all, the argument is invalid, in my opinion. We are debating whether animals, other than Homo sapiens, are conscious or not. One of Con's arguments was the fact that the use and understanding of Natural language was essential in determining whether a being possesses consciousness. I would like to ask Con this, do you consider those diagnosed with Persistent Vegetative State as conscious beings, or are they too considered unconscious and therefore it is allowable to experiment on them? The individuals diagnosed with PVS fulfill Con's factors in being labeled as unconscious. For example, in The New England Journal of Medicine's article, "Medical Aspects of the Persistent Vegetative State", it can be read, "The vegetative state is a clinical condition of complete unawareness of the self and the environment, accompanied by sleep-wake cycles with either complete or partial preservation of hypothalamic and brain-stem autonomic functions." I believe Con's definition included the wording "relating to a part of the human mind that is aware of a person's self, environment...-" In conclusion, Con will either submit to being in agreement that he approves of those diagnosed with PVS being experimented on, as per his argument that animals, which humans are considered, can be tested on if they are not conscious, or Con can agree that animals, just like those in Persistent Vegetative State, should not be tested on because they are conscious and can feel pain and emotion.
Animals Are Conscious Beings

You wrote: "You claim Homo sapiens are the only species with the ability to relay information through various exchanges such as physical movements or behaviors, as that is the basis of all language or forms of communication, but has man not studied enough of animals' behaviors to conclude that they do communicate via sound and body language, even sense of smell?"This is not my claim. I am not claiming other animals don't use language. They use animal language. They have never been shown to use natural, or human, language. Natural Language utilizes complex rules of grammar and syntax to convey complex meanings and concepts that are unconveyable without those two things.I can be certain that animals have not yet developed use of natural language, or at least they have only recently done so on an evolutionary time scale, or they have but they are at an evolutionary dead end for complex tool creation. All that is necessary for animals to evolve into conscious beings is natural language and complex tools. I wished to develop and delve into why I think it is only possible to find the combination of complex tool use and natural language use in an non-conscious intelligent animal. Unfortunately I have run out of time so I will leave you with a hint of where I will be taking the argument next round. My sincerest apologies. Have a wikipedia excerpt: "Approaches to the origin of language can be divided according to their underlying assumptions. "Continuity theories" are based on the idea that language is so complex that one cannot imagine it simply appearing from nothing in its final form: it must have evolved from earlier pre-linguistic systems among our primate ancestors. "Discontinuity theories" are based on the opposite idea â€" that language is a unique trait so it cannot be compared to anything found among non-humans and must therefore have appeared fairly suddenly during the course of human evolution. Another contrast is between theories that see language mostly as an innate faculty that is largely genetically encoded, and those that see it as a system that is mainly cultural â€" that is, learned through social interaction.[5]" I disagree with most every political position of his, but Noam Chomsky is clearly a brilliant man and cognitive scientist. "Noam Chomsky is a prominent proponent of discontinuity theory. Chomsky argues that a single chance mutation occurred in one individual on the order of 100,000 years ago, instantaneously installing the language faculty (a component of the mind-brain) in "perfect" or "near-perfect" form.[6] According to this view, language's emergence was much like the formation of a crystal; digital infinity was the seed crystal in a super-saturated primate brain, on the verge of blossoming into the human mind, by physical law, once a single small, but crucial, keystone was added by evolution.[7][8] It thus follows from this theory that language did appear rather suddenly within the history of human evolution."http://en.wikipedia.org...
Animals Are Conscious Beings

You claim Homo sapiens are the only species with the ability to relay information through various exchanges such as physical movements or behaviors, as that is the basis of all language or forms of communication, but has man not studied enough of animals' behaviors to conclude that they do communicate via sound and body language, even sense of smell? For example, a study done by Paula Stockley examined scent communication in mice. It was discovered that the various scents picked up in a female's urine told the opposing female (they were both competing for a mate) that she was now entering her territory, and that she had the reproductive rights. Also, the well known method of communication using an animal's (specifically a dog's) body language can be found in Stanley Coren's documentary, "Animal Communication: How to Speak to a Dog". This documentary highlights the various uses and techniques of body language in dogs. Now, I do realize you used the term, "Natural language" as a deciding factor in whether or not an organism is conscious. However, I wish to contradict your notion that animals do not have the ability to use Natural language. According to your source, one of a Natural language's definitions reads: "(a language) that any cognitively normal human infant is able to learn...-". One can consider Hungarian, a language, along with countless others, that a dog (specifically Canis lupus familiars) is fully able to understand, a Natural language, as it is one that an infant is fully capable of learning, along with the fact that its development can be credited to practice as opposed to prescription, as per your source. The reason why I use Hungarian as an example is due to the fact that a study using 37 different Hungarian dog owners that tested both their dogs' social and verbal understanding of familiar and unfamiliar words. The study, done by Eotvos Lorand University, concluded that, even uses of unknown synonyms and usage of two words in a single command did not, for the most part, phase the dogs. From this evidence, the conclusion that can be drawn is one that looks favorably upon canines' abilities to understand Natural language. These findings indicate that animals' consciousness, though currently being studied, is much more developed than humans could imagine.
Animals Are Conscious Beings

Yes my definition of conscious in this context seems very different from yours. Just as a reference for any readers I think it is good to include: http://www.thefreedictionary.com.... When I wrote that animals are not conscious I was referring to this definition of the word: 4. (Psychology) a. denoting or relating to a part of the human mind that is aware of a person's self, environment, and mental activity and that to a certain extent determines his choices of action. I think they key readily observable distinction that delineates man from other animals is the comprehension and use Natural Language(http://en.wikipedia.org...). It seem impossible for a being to truly think in fundamentally the same way that humans do without the ability to use Natural Language. It seems impossible for a mind to be fully aware of itself in relation to not itself with out a full grasp of Natural language. Therefore based on the definitions above I think it is fair to say animals lack that type of consciousness.