BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Technology will make capitalism obsolete

Capitalism in its many variant forms is a jobs based structure. This requires people to engage in regular chores in exchange for access to resources. Technology will prove adversarial to such a construct through increased and personalized means of production and automation. Since the industrial revolution, technological advancement has streamlined and increased our means of production. This, because technology, defined here as the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, by its very nature, facilitates and enhances human endeavor. Logically, as means of production continue to increase, and automation becomes more and more a reality, it would be reasonable to expect a time when all resources essential to survival could become ubiquitous, their distribution efficient and the efforts required to maintain such a production minimal. This, of course, would encounter resistance from any jobs based economic model. Firstly, a capitalist system would find distribution problematic. It is after all a supply and demand system. If supply (access, really) of a particular resource becomes universal, monetizing it becomes impossible. Controlling supply by limiting production, raising costs and discarding or appropriating resources then becomes common place. It is counterintuitive to withhold resources from a population which needs them but it is the only way in which a supply and demand market can perpetuate itself when the means of production threaten to make all essential resources readily available to all. As such, as technology improves, capitalism will work more and more against the well being of the population by withholding resources.
Moeslim should not be banned from U.S

Muslims should all be deported to Asia and Middle East from Europe and North America. Europe and North America have been Christian societies for 2000 years in Europe and 300 years in North America, the values, beliefs and traditions are all Christian based. Now all of a sudden we have the Muslim people in Europe and North America, and we have bombs going off, we have terrorist attacks in Boston, Now York San Bernandino, we have attacks all over France, Germany, Belgium. I say round up all the Muslims, grandmas, kids, parents, ALL of them from each house and deport them back to where they came from. Most terrorist attacks today are by home grown people of Muslim immigrants. I say deport them all. Just like when Hitler deported all the Jews, I say deport all the Muslims and the violence and the bombings and killing will stop. Let Christians live on separate continents from the Muslims, let the Muslims blow themselves up in Asia and the middle east 9/11 was the biggest terrorist attack on American soil, 3000 people died, that is more then any Christian attack. We don't want Muslims here.
Legalizing Drugs in the USA

Ben Franklin once said, An ounce of prevention is worht a pound of cure, In places like Singapore where they hang drug dealers, Drugs are almost unheard of, No ones lives are ruined, Because people don't mess with drugs in the first place, Treatment is very expensive, And i used to be 100% for it because locking people up just didnt seem to have and effect and yes peoples lives arebeing ruined. But the easier you make it to get drugs the mosre lives wil be ruined because they wil be more accessable, And more people will have their lives ruined by drug addiction which is hellish. We already have problems with alcohol and tobacco, They kill 100 000 s every year close to a million people every year now add legal pot so more people will be on pot, Again prohibition was very unpopular people like to get drunk i like to get drunk i'm about to go out its saturday night in an hour guess what i'll be drunk i'm walking to the bar and walking home, Even during prohibiton people drank much less.
Legalizing Drugs in the USA

I understand that Portugal decriminalized drugs, But legalizing drugs would provide even more funds for rehab through taxation. You said that Singapore"s approach is working, But Singapore"s approach just ruins more lives instead of making them better. If you're taking people"s lives, What are you fixing? The war on drugs costs the United States approximately $51 billion a year. If we used just those funds to rehabilitate addicts think about how much we could do. Treatment is more effective because it helps the addict understand what"s behind their substance abuse and shows them how to deal with it.
Legalizing Drugs in the USA

First of all I want to state there is a difference between legalizing drugs and decriminalizing drugs and treating the drug problem as a medical emergency and not a criminal problemIn Portugal drugs were legalized this is not true, Their use and possesion were decriminalized not salesthats policy has worked wel but there is one that worls betterSINGAPORE in Singapore if they catch you using drugs penalties are strict if you sell drugs or firearms, Illegally? They hang you no if no and no butthere is no drug problem in Singapore nonei might also mention that the prohibition of alcohol while not popualr or even properly enforced because of corruption and lack of willcut booze use in half and reduced booze related illneses by half or moreyou lagalize drugs and you make the opiate epidemimc meth use etc 10 time worse this nation? Would fall
Legalizing Drugs in the USA

I believe that legalizing drugs will lead our country to a brighter future. By legalizing drugs we get rid of dangerous drug cartels. Money spent on putting drug users in prison can be spent on rehab centers, Bettering their lives instead of ruining them. If the government legalized drugs, They could tax them and use the money to fund education or improve our country's infrastructure. Instead of illegal cartels distributing drugs, Legal distribution businesses that provide jobs for many people would form. Round 1= Introduction Round 2= Rebuttal
There is no objective basis for morality.

"Nowhere does Con explain why the acts of killing is immoral, rather Con attempts to avoid the discussion by appealing to the reader's emotions. Making a statement such as, "Look at this awful thing. Doesn't it make you upset? It must be wrong!"" "Con needs to demonstrate that objective morality exists with something other than subjective opinions, thoughts, and ideas even if those opinions, thoughts, and ideas are widely held." "Further, the emotional appeal made by Con in Round 2, is, in my opinion, ad hominem and repugnant. Implying that someone who does not agree with you, i.e. does not vote the way you think they should, is a "little warped" is not a proper debating tactic and should not be used." Keep in mind, audience, we can't be too clinical here. If we were aliens studying humanity and their ethics, could we ignore human emotional reaction to immoral acts? But we're not aliens, we're human, so is studying the emotional reactions of ourselves out of bounds? No, it's necessary. And morality often takes it's form and power in conscience, which affects emotions, thoughts, and then opinions. We can't discount the areas of human experience where the personal force of morality would appear. That's like arguing we can't look in the sea for live fish. Repugnant? Sounds like a moral judgement to me. One based on some kind of debating rules? Would those rules be based on more basic morality, like fairness and seeking the truth? Hmm... Now does an objective morality exist? Yes. We see a common morality against the taking of human life in one form or another throughout history and the world. We even see it appear out of nowhere in people isolated from other cultures. If morality is just an opinion, why, in a culture that reveres following orders and respect for authority (Korea), would one isolated man come to a similar conclusion to the majority of humanity? Why are rules constantly made to protect life? If there were no objective morality against murder, you would expect the trajectory of laws regarding human life to deviate wildly from we consider the norm. But even if a whole people group is warped, someone's life is always protected by law, even if it's just the oligarchy. I didn't get into WHY objective morality exists, I don't see it as necessary at this moment. If something exists, that can be recognized, even if we haven't established why. Morality: Not just like, my opinion man.
There is no objective basis for morality.

Pro says that if torture were considered moral by most people it would be moral. This is subjective morality, but it doesn't take into account the fact that if morality was truly objective, EVERYONE COULD think torture was OK, and it would still be objectively immoral. Objective morality would not require a democratic vote to be true, because it has reality independent of the minds of humanity. Less than that, if objective morality (or any other objective element of reality) exists, it does not require that humans are aware or heed it's existence to be real. I can say with certainty there are physical things that exist in this universe that no human is yet aware of, but that does not mean they don't objectively exist. The DPRK prison guards would not have to acknowledge that something is or isn't so for it to be so or not so. They might believe from propaganda that the US has an earthquake generator or their leader controls the weather, or that Nazis fled to Mars. That does not make it so. Objective morality does not preclude delusions, misunderstandings, or warped minds. Right and wrong are not physical realities, but concepts. Concepts are real, like ideas, attitudes, civic pride, inspiration, etc. But are moral concepts a universal force in humanity? In my examples, we saw a prison guard who was taught to harm, and taught and convinced it was good to kill his prisoners. He initially believed it to be so, and despite is lack of contact with cultures with conflicting moral codes, he came to the conclusion on his own that what he was doing was wrong. This was a conviction independent of culture, common to most of humanity, that suddenly appeared in the mind of one man, despite his isolation from other cultures. Pro attempts to make murder and all other forms of homicide a gray area. They are not. The distinction between justified killing and unjustified killing have been recognized in most of human history, in one way or another. While warfare, self-defense, and punishment for capital crimes are most often in one category, random killing, premeditated killing for personal gain or pleasure are most often in another. Even in cultures that are very averse to war, frown on killing in self defense, and outlaw execution, the other category is still held up as wrong, too: There is still an aversion to the taking of human life. On the other side of the spectrum, I can't cite a culture where all items in both categories are all A-OK in the society at large. At the minimum, we can see evidence for an objective moral against the taking of human life in some form or another. In defense of my appeal to voter's emotion: If we are dealing with an objective reality that exists regardless of the mind, but is evident to reasonable observers, regardless of culture, we would tend to see a negative emotional reaction of some kind in humans to killing or a killer.
There is no objective basis for morality.

I will be arguing that "you" did the wrong thing on that beach that day by objective moral standards, and objective moral standards exist. There was a second island in another place, at a different time. How the people got there is irrelevant, and like the first person, they have made the best of what they have. One day a group of people from another island found them. They returned with a war party, killed anyone who resisted, rounded up the survivors into a group of huts and burned most of them to death. Children, women, the elderly. Most exterminated. Some they brought back as captives to torture for sport and eat, as has been their tradition. I ask the voters: If the solitary person on the first island had witnessed the events, what would their reaction have been, even though they had not been brought up as we have? Even if they knew they were completely safe from the attackers. If they responded with sorrow, maybe plagued with nightmares later, shouting "NO" anxiously as they watched, unable to look away, or unable to watch, would that be a normal human reaction? If the person responded with emotional detachment, or glee, wouldn't this person be classified as disturbed? Wouldn't you, and any sensible person consider them a threat to others? Would you feel safe with that person around children? Would you feel safe turning your back on them while you slept? If the dwellers of either of my island populations found the solitary island dweller in their midst, would they feel safe knowing what this person was capable of doing without remorse? They haven't been "corrupted" by Western values. Still, we know how this detached murderer is watched carefully in any society, if tolerated at all, because they are morally warped, and every person with common sense recognizes that. We see a common morality against murder throughout the world. Tolerance of random, remorseless killers is seldom accepted. Even if the violence is taught as right, and the people are brainwashed into believing that is the way things should be, objective morality always shows up, as we can see among a tribe of Ecuadorian Indians and in the DPRK's prison camp system: . http://articles.latimes.com... . http://www.colinharbinson.com... . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Even if people don't know of a different system, (isolated NK, isolated tribe) we have examples of people fleeing and recognizing the "normal" actions of that society as wrong. This is recognized objective morality, not attached to any culture, pervasive in the human experience, and "in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind. " Objective morality exists.
There is no objective basis for morality.

My position is that there is not an objective basis for morality; that judging or labeling an action as either moral or immoral is the result of individual belief, or opinion, or preference, or some other non-objective source. For this debate, the term "objective" will have the definition found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind. Since this topic could have a potentially wide range of discussion surrounding it, this debate will focus on only one aspect: killing another person. In addition to narrowing the focus to one aspect, I will frame the debate in the form of a specific scenario. My hope is that limiting the scope and framing the debate will provide ease and clarity and aid in a greater understanding of this topic. The scenario is as follows: I live completely alone on an island in the middle of the ocean. There is no one else on the island, no one ever visits the island, and there is never any communication with any other person. How I got to the island is irrelevant. I will never leave the island. The island and the surrounding ocean provide a wide variety of resources and I am able to use my reason and my ability to think to devise ways of turning theses resources into things that I need to live, e.g. I make tools for gathering and/or hunting food, I devise means of collecting and storing fresh water, I discover or construct shelter. Over time I have become so efficient at providing for my basic needs that I am able to devise ways to use the available resources to make my life better, i.e. provide luxuries and means of entertainment. I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself. One day, a man washes up on the beach. This man is alive but unconscious. I have never seen this man before and I have never had any interaction with this man. Due to being unconscious, the man has not interacted with me in any way and I do not perceive any kind of physical threat or danger from this man. I walk up to this man and I kill him. I then continue with my day. The tide washes the body out to sea that evening and I never see the body again. I continue with my life as I did before the man washed up on the beach. My argument is that the action of killing the man on the beach was neither moral nor immoral and any classification of the action as either moral or immoral is not objective but is based on individual belief, opinion, preference, or some other non-objective source. The burden of proof is on the Contender to provide a sustainable argument(s) that demonstrates that killing the man was objectively either moral or immoral. The debate will consist of three rounds. Please provide your opening arguments in Round 1; Round 2 will be for rebuttals; and Round 3 will be for rebuttals and conclusions. Thank you for your participation.
i abortion wrong

Abortions Are wrong and evil anyone who is willing to kill a child is not right abortions are wrong and just because you might want to hide it from people doesn't mean you have to kill the poor child it just means you can get out of sight until the baby's born and if you kill the child you are most likely going to hurt yourself also and your just flat out mean to kill your own child so as I tell you once more abortions are wrong
Should creative subjects be an important part of the school curriculum?R32;

Although I strongly believe that creative subjects are important, I don"t believe they are necessary to the school system. Schools should offer perhaps an after school program or an optional elective of these, but they are no more important that things such as mathematics, ELA, P.E, History, and Science. I even do Orchestra in school, but as an elective. I believe that if schools have enough money they most definitely should spend it on such, but otherwise it should be optional. You also said that students must unleash their talents? Well, students may not be good at that. Many creative subjects come naturally, and many cannot achieve that standard. If they can"t, their whole GPA may go down. But what about academics? No matter what, academics will be used in the real world. Creative subjects will most likely not. That"s my argument. Yes, every subject requires some creativity, but that is the students" job to incorporate their OWN creativity into their OWN passion, in whatever way they wish. I"m not saying we should stop, but it should be more of an extracurricular activity rather than a requirement. We should make kids do things that will help them in real life, but encourage them to practice creativity. Thank you for listening to my argument.
Should creative subjects be an important part of the school curriculum?R32;

To begin with, I would like to note that one of the most acute problems facing modern educational systems is that creative subjects such as art, music, dance and drama, once an integral part of the curriculum, are losing their status in favor of more academic, more obviously "commercially useful" subjects. Creativity is being squeezed out by the government"s pressure to reach SATs targets and climb league tables. As a result, students" talents go unspotted. Moreover, children are left without an opportunity to develop their critical thinking. I am of the opinion that we should embed creative subjects into every part of the school day. By increasing the number of hours spent for art, drama and music, we can achieve remarkable results. As practice shows, kids hate learning because it"s tedious as a rule. Therefore, I am convinced that we can boost their performance by making this studying process much more interesting and inspiring. What is more, we can make students enjoy learning by alternating more scientific subjects and creative ones so that to stimulate brain activity. Another very convincing argument in favor of creativity is that it boosts students" confidence, since there are a lot of quiet introverted kids who don't know how to deal with their emotions, how to cope with negativity. I think it cannot be denied that in our ever-changing world the purpose of school is to prepare students for the situations that we cannot foresee. Thereby, whenever kids face a challenging situation, they will be able to think their way through it, to find many means to solve the problem for it is the ability to think, not to memorize that is stressed by creative disciplines. We should encourage creativity because it"s the only way we can develop problem-solving skills. Access to art and literature, and the opportunity to explore creative expression, can broaden young people"s outlook, encourage empathy and curiosity about the wider world. Needless to say that there are skeptics who strongly disagree with this point of view. Low-income parents tend to believe that creative education is a risk, not a sensible investment since they often have a misconception that if their kids go into the arts or learn performance skills they will have to face financial insecurity being unable to enter the workforce. That"s why parents encourage their children to train for business, or for professions like medicine, or work in finance. What they don't understand is the fact that the training students get in the arts can be the most useful thing in the future because it gives the confidence to be open to new ideas and people. Finally, I want to share Kurt Vonnegut"s advice with you: "Practise any art, music, singing, dancing, acting, drawing, painting, sculpting, poetry, fiction, essays, reportage, not to get money and fame, but to experience becoming, to find out what"s inside you, to make your soul grow". So let children sing the Beatles with the same enthusiasm as they read Shakespeare! What is your opinion on this issue? You are welcome to voice your boldest thoughts and ideas in the comments!
it is better to be poor and young than to be rich and old

Okay, we must look at all the reasons why being poor and young is not necessarily better than being rich and old. First, if a rich man was born into wealth, he has had a comfortable life throughout his existence. If he is a smart man, he will have used that money to get the most out of life, going on amazing trips, doing amazing things, etc. In short, his wealth allowed him to have a meaningful life that he can look back on happily in old age. A young poor man can't do this. Next, if the man is rich enough, he could hire scientists to extend his life much younger with stem cell therapy. He needs a new heart, bing! New heart on the way, he needs a new kidney, etc. Then, he would effectively be a rich and young man, rejuvenated by stem cells. Being rich and young is better than being poor and young. Third, the poor man could have a medical condition, that because he can't afford health care, will kill him very shortly. The rich man has more life left, and with his money, he can make more out of it. For all these three possibilities, we can determine that being poor and young is not necessarily better. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Prostitution should be illegal.

This debate is about prostitution. I believe prostitution should be legal, but I've chosen to argue a side I don't believe in, to keep things interesting. This should be fun! There are three rounds. The first is for acceptance. The second is for arguments. The third is for rebuttals. I have made the voting open to members with a minimum Elo of 2500. I also ask voters explain their decision. That should keep randoms from voting and ensure a fair assessment.