BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A hybrid of capitalism and socialism is the best economic solution

The USA might be said to have some socialist policies governing its economics but it certainly does not have a hybrid socialist-capatilist economic system, hence my reference to China. The USA has market capitalisation and not a market socialism-- which is the social ownership and democractic control of the means of production. Confino, in the article you gave, raises the social comparison of socialist values and idealism. This was essentially my point. Fusing socialist/capatilist dichtomies together is idealistic and practically impossible. To have an economic system which contains both 'efficiency and resilience, collaboration and competition, and diversity and coherence' is impossible given that human economic values have been shown historically not to be in sharing but in possessing. An efficent, competitive company will outcompete the company which is also socialist. Capatilism aims towards profit, so if is taken-up will reward those who reject socialist principles and find ways of making more money until the other companies go out of business. I see now that your hybrid of capitalism and socialism is beyond economics, which you did not specify; it is a capatilist economy accompanied by socialist institutes and values. It is when the government provides 'public services' (though the defence budget I would hardly call a public service since it takes enterprise beyond the welfare and self-defence of US citizens, often with a commerical incentive such to promote the Arms Trade). Medicare still functions under capatilism; it is taxpayer money paying private companies to satisfy a demand in the elderly or certain disabled persons. The same goes for roads. This is not ecnomically socialist; it is only politically socialist in that it offers equity to certain groups accessing social services.Capatilism is like an ecnomic infection; it takes over what it gets into. Now we sare seeing it become globalised:http://www.nytimes.com...;
A hybrid of capitalism and socialism is the best economic solution

Capitalism does not consider the people or the planet. Because of this capitalism will destroy tomorrow for profits today if left unchecked which is not desirable. Socialism provides no incentive to produce, no reward to create. Because of this socialism will not provide enough resources which is ineffective. To be both effective and desirable for the short and long term we must take a holist look at not just money, goods, and services, but also the planet, health, and happiness of the people. The Capital Institute released a report on regenerative capitalism. From The Guardian “holism wouldn’t approach global economics from a capitalism-or-socialism perspective, but rather from a capitalism-and-socialism perspective.” https://www.theguardian.com... The purpose of regenerative capitalism is to promote and sustain human prosperity and well-being in an economy of permanence. So it is designed to be both effective and desirable for both short and long term by utilizing capitalism and socialism. We need a sustainable economy that’s stable, has good production, and happy people. http://capitalinstitute.org... We can already see capitalism and socialism in every developed country. In the US we like to think of ourselves as a capitalism, but we have regulations (which could be considered socialist by themselves), and socialist programs like the military, roads/highways, Medicare/Medicaid, and a whole host of other examples. You mention China but it's an example of a hybrid economical system. Not the best example, but an example none the less. http://www.pewresearch.org... We need to start looking into the best combination of the two holisticly.
A hybrid of capitalism and socialism is the best economic solution

Going straight into the argument... I think that what your write is practically impossible. Every economy where capitalism is practiced becomes monopolised by capitalism. Look at China's socialist market economy-- practically it is capitalist. Cuba, Vietnam where we see an extreme form of capitalism where the few have the majority of wealth. It is true that all these regimes have a bourgeois class but because profit is the key prerogative of any commercial enterprise, all socialist principles must over time give way and corrode to this model of profit. It might be that this hybrid you write of might be the most desirable solution (that I am unsure of and would hope you can persuade me of). To say it is the most effective solution however, simply ignores the demonstrable practical consequences of both socialism and capitalism being enacted in a country.
A hybrid of capitalism and socialism is the best economic solution

For this debate "best economical solution" is defined as:The most effective, and desirable solutions for the use of resources to provide for human beings both short and long term. I would also like bring your attention to the character size of 2,000 for this debate, and have done that in an attempt to prevent going to deep into what is a very broad topic. I'm looking for a high level view rather than going into technical detail.
Eminem is a better song writer than Lil Wayne

Let me tell you why wayne is better: Regarding flow, eminem sounds the exact same in each song (trying to rap fast like twista) He tries to sing in a lot of his songs Half of his stuff does not rhyme He is always talking about his daughter He raps on and off all of the time (some yrs he raps, some not) Lil wayne is always proving himself in his mixtapes It's 2011 and its all about metaphors, which lil wayne is best at Lil wayne has a team behind him, eminem just has 50 cent, lloyd banks, and dr dre Lil wayne gets better every song of the way Lil wayne has had 100 times more feature requests than eminem Should I go on… I don't think so...
Eminem is a better song writer than Lil Wayne

I appreciate my opponent's argument, but sadly there are some major issues. 1. I stated that round 1 was for acceptance, which means it was not for Con's argument. 2. I frankly had trouble understanding Con's Argument. Con, I believe you mixed up "Biterphobia" and "Cleanin Out My Closet." The latter was the slow one whereas the first one was the fast song. 3. I am not sure whether Con is insulting or glorifying Eminem. Con, you complimented both of Eminem's songs, but then you go on to say that he isn't good. 4. This is about song writing, not lyrical flow in the song. I understand the similarities but writing the lyrics is different from planning the speed of the lyrics. 5. The preschool lyrics argument, I have no idea what Con is talking about. Con, could you please verify that quote with a source. Without a source, for all I know, Eminem could have said that as a joke. Now for my argument Enimem's lyrics are more meaningful. meanï¿½ingï¿½ful/ˈmēniNGfəl/Adjective 1. Having meaning. 2. Having a serious, important, or useful quality or purpose Eminem raps about his life and experiences wheres Lil Wayne has less meaningful lyrics, here are a few comparisons. "A million here a million there i'm a young money millionare tougher than Nigerian hair" - Wayne "It hurts but i'll never show this pain you'll never know if only you could see just how lonely and how cold." -Eminem Here is an excerpt from "Cleanin Out My Closet," where Eminem delves into his own soul and talks about things that he's kept buried. "I got some skeletons in my closet and I don't know if no one knows it, so before they thrown me inside my coffin and close it, i'ma expose it, i'll take you back to '73, before I ever had a multi-platinum sellin' Cd, I was a baby, maybe I was just a couple of months, my father must have had his pantie's up in a bunch, cause he split, I wonder if he even kissed me goodbye." Due to restrictions this ends my argument, Thank You.
Eminem is a better song writer than Lil Wayne

Here's why Lil wayne is better than Eminem. First category is flow. Lil Wayne completely and utterly DEMOLISHES Eninen in this category. For some reason, people say Eminem has a "sick flow". I don't know why. Maybe one of you could explain it to me. To me, a rapper that has a good flow can rap fast, slow, or anything in between and his lyrics "flow" together nicely and it's easy to understand his words. Eminem's lyrics flow together horribly and he's sometimes very hard to understand (Ever heard "Can't Believe it"?), and he sounds awful no matter what speed he raps at. Listen to this song: http://www.youtube.com... It's called Biterphobia. He's rapping much slower on it, but it still has a nice flow, and he sounds good. Often times when Wayne tries to rap that slow he sounds terrible. No go listen to Cleaning Out My Closet. He's rapping VERY fast on it, yet his lyrics flow together beautifully and you can still understand what he's saying Next category is lyrics. Wanye murders Eminem even more here. First of all, Eminem has preschool level lyrics that take no time at all to understand. "I don't owe you like two vowels". ALL you have to know to figure this one out is the alphabet.
Blackmail

An example of Incoherent thought: 1) Blackmailing God, by telling him to make you his prophet, lest you endorse womanizers, be jealous of womanizers, idolize womanizers and subliminally, passively and actively reinforce their lifestyles and perspectives by promoting atheism. ie. God is the God of all the elements of this reality. and endorsing womanizers is blasphemy. Thus blackmailing God, as the full extent of your search for him Is Bigotry, and is a form of incoherent idiocy. Shall we engage in a debate about the incoherent idiocy of the atheist population's reasoning tactics? I challenge anyone who cares to suggest otherwise, that every atheist is entirely bigoted, wrong, and I can prove it through ethical sciences, the physical realms manifestation, and through specific examples of behaviour. Care to stop being wrong, when you talk to yourself and other's who you discredit out of spite for God not killing all adulterers? Accept ma challenge.
should gay marriage be legal

You're correct in some sense, there is no significant proof that a child would experience difficulties with two parents of the same gender but it is a known fact that males and females have different physical and perhaps mental abilities, neither gender is better then the other but when it comes to what they are 'good' at, they are different. Which means two parents of the same gender attempt to parent a child there are certain things this said child will be missing out on, in most cases. For example males are generally more capable to maintain physical exertion to a higher level and longer than females due to their larger muscle mass and greater lung capacities, therefore while the child is being raised if it has no father, it may struggle to be raised psychically healthy, its not a certainty but the chances of an unfit child with two mothers is greater then not. Males strive for dominance and therefore struggle to maintain the ability to cooperate, if a child is raised by two fathers there is a fairly large chance that the child will grow up struggle to cooperate appropriately. Nevertheless there is no significant proof due to the lack of same sex parents around the world. Marriage can also be considered to be more then a revokable privilege then a "constitutional right", you mentioned that marriage, in your opinion, is simply a promise. In that case you can act out a marriages, making your promises without the legal documents, in the end what does it prove? Just because two people of the same sex can not be bound my marriage it doesn't mean that they love each other any less then two heterosexuals, therefore what does marriage prove and why is it a necessity in a relationship? ~ I haven't proved that it isn't invading constitutional right (yet), but I have questioned why it is important for homosexuals to be bound legally by marriage? Answer me this :)
should gay marriage be legal

This is my first debate as well. I'm terrible at it, have to get better some day. I'm not homophobic either but I just couldn't believe what they were doing. Also apologies for the miscommunication. That's not what I was implying. What I meant was that straight couples get married and divorced all the time, gay couples just want their right to get married. Dictionary.com states that,"(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities". In my opinion marriage is a promise, so yes they will be married. Like I've stated before not allowing gays to get married is taking away their constitutional rights. If they were to have a child it is not scientifically proven that it would a negative on the child's life or that it is not healthy to have same sex parents. Straight parents abuse and neglect their children all the time , just because the couple is the same sex doesn't mean that it would a negative effect on a child. Children have been through the worst if their an orphan or foster child getting adopted by a straight or gay couple would be a dream come true. Since same sex couples can't have a baby by themselves I doubt if they would do anything to harm that child. As I repeat myself your taking away their rights, that is illegal. Good luck to you too :)
should gay marriage be legal

Whilst I hate to argue against gay marriage I've chosen to accept this debate due to your paragraph seeming incorrect in some sense. I'm not homophobic and I generally have no opinion on the matter but I think I can fight against the legalization of gay marriage. (and to be completely honest I got bored of waiting for an interesting topic, first debate for me :) ) You made the implication that all Gay couples will only get married once with your statement, "PEOPLE that are straight get married and divorced all the time gays just want to get married once". How could you be so sure? You said that love is love and while I agree, people are people and there is an equal chance that gay people will divorce just as much. You have absolutely no evidence that straight couples would get divorce more then gay couples. The definition of the word 'marriage' is "the formal union of a MAN and a WOMAN, typically recognized by law". Notice how the definition clearly states that marriage is the legal combination of two persons of opposite genders. So even if "marriage" was legalized for gay couples, they would not be getting married that would simply be legally bound. The act of a woman and woman or a man and a woman being bound by "marriage" will most definitely have a negative effect on a child if the couple chose to have one. It will negatively affect the child due to it being denied either a father or a mother, his is a very generalized statement due to some children growing up without one parent and turning out just fine but nevertheless it is not as healthy as having a good relationship with both a mother and a father. Having said that it has been proved that children should grow up under the influence of their natural mother and father due to the evident difficulties that "parents" are faced with when raising an orphan, a relative or a foster child. Good Luck!! :)
Gun Laws should be Stricter

Since you have left the actual terms for winning said argument completely open by not specifying any sort of terms that i need to prove wrong. I will start my argument by stating that a gun is a mere tool like a hammer. A good doesn't kill people by itself just like a hammer doesn't. However A hammer could be a fairly efficient killing tool in the right context but it also has a lot of valid day to day uses such as building. Like a hammer I could use a gun to kill people and it would do a fairly good job of it ,but there are many day to day recreational uses for guns also. I assume you created this debate in slew of recent events and were planning on talking about assault weapons. Now you might be asking how I validate the need for a 30 round clip and a red dot sight on my Ar15. Its simple really a gun is a tool and it is very multipurpose. I choose to use my Ar15 to hunt coyotes and sell their hides for 25 bucks a pop. This stimulates a lot of my extra income just like a hammer or any other tool used to complete a job does. If you were to restrict guns you would be restricting the livelyhood of many People. If you are merely talking about banning guns outright and not just restricting them then I must say it would not remove guns anymore then outlawing marijuana removed it from your local highschools or proabition stopped moonshiners. People will always break any restriction a government implements so why remove guns from hard working honest people when the very ones your scared of would not be affected. Removing guns would not stop criminals it would merely stop the only people able to protect themselves from doing so. Please specify what exactly you want done about gun laws your debate is very vague.
Rustlers microwavable burgers can be eaten cold

Sources state your arguement is FALSE: Can I eat a rustlers burger cold? | Yahoo Answers https://uk.answers.yahoo.com... 30 Jun 2012 - As long as it has been store well they should be ok for a day or two, depending on the fillings. Hman. Rustlers & Feasters burgers " Digital Spy https://forums.digitalspy.com... " Food and Drink 4 Jan 2014 - 26 posts - R06;22 authors Eat it cold, tried heating it once and it tasted a bit iffy. See Undeniabley true sourceas agree with me none agree with you delate your account thx
Rustlers microwavable burgers can be eaten cold

This is what happens if you eat a cold rustlers burger, "Come on, you should have known that. You might not have long left, get yourself to the hospital and get treated under the SHFD (seriously harmful food diseases) unit and they might be able to save you. Don't eat anything else for 42 hours and drink only warm milk 6 times a day until you are out of danger. Make sure after you have been treated eat over a kg of bread each day to soak up the lactic acid inside your lungs and blood flow, thats really all the advice I can give you. To be honest you will be very lucky to live, send me a message if you survive so I know I helped. TO ANYONE ELSE READING THIS REMEMBER, PRE COOKED COLD FOOD CAN KILL" Furthermore it says on the packaging that they should be microwaved before consumption, everyone know that eating precooked food cold could be potentially lethal.
Abortion is wrong

Abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking a human life( which in this case murder is against the law in most places) Therefore abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life. For women who demand that they have complete control of their bodies, which should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception, or if that is not possible, through abstinence. In the problem of rape and or incest, proper medical care can ensure that a women can not get pregnant. Abortion again seems to punish the baby that has not fully developed who had committed no crimes, instead it is the perpetrator who should be punished. Therefore Abortion should be wrong.
Abortion is wrong

Unfortunately my opponent either closed his account or had it shut down. Anyway I responded to and refuted his arguments and he did not respond to these. My opponent did not show why either anything was objectively moral or why his subjective opinion was more right then my own. He also did not back up his claims of abortion being a crime against god with any evidence of god existing. This honestly seems like a waste of a debate, however I clearly refuted each and every one of my opponent's arguments. As instigator and Pro of this debate he has not upheld his BOP and so I urge a Con vote.
Abortion is wrong

My opponent completely ignored my call for him to prove that anything is objectively wrong and so we may assume that everything that he wrote was from his own personal and subjective feelings. Even though everything my opponent wrote was subjective I will refute his 'arguments'. Fetus' are "technacly" alive. My opponent claims that abortion is wrong because fetus' are alive and taking a human life is wrong. However my opponent still has yet to bring any reason to his argument why taking a life is wrong other than that the idea is "commonly accepted". I will givemy opponent the last round to prove that taking a life is objectively wrong. Until he can do this he has no argument. My opponent also completely ignored the part of my argument where I proved that abortion is in fact no murder seeing as murder is the unlawful taking of a human life and abortion is currently legal. Thus my opponent will need to not only prove that killing is wrong but that abortion is still murder. //"Abortion is a crime against against god! "//My opponent will need to first prove that his god exists before we can take a rule decreed by it seriously. After all, until my opponent proves that his god exists I can simply counter this argument by saying that not having an abortion is a crime against my god. I really do not expect my opponent to be able to prove the existence of his god in the next round however, that is what he must do before we can take his argument seriously. My opponent also tried to bring an argument against something that I said in a PM with him. To my opponent, that is not at all in any way related to my argument in this debate and even if it was your verse means nothing seeing as you have brought no reason for me to believe in your god. My opponent has brought no reason for voters to think that abortion is wrong.
Abortion is wrong

My opponent claims that muder is the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse. When a baby is being developed as an embryo inside the fetus, it is technacly alive because it meets the four critera of life, Thus it is a human being. Then this is still a unjust killing because it is taking another human's life.[1] The specific act of abortion is wrong as well as the other killings that go on everyday but is still the act of taking another life. Killing people in general is against the law and all other unjust killings should also be against the law. Abortion is not only a crime against humanity, in that individual human beings are denied due process of law, but it is a crime against God![2] Also for your agurment that the baby is a parasite in the messages you sent me. I will arugue that children are a blessing if you will take a look at this verse Psalm 127:3 [1] http://wiki.answers.com... [2] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...