BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marxism is better than capitalism

Thanks again for accepting my challance con. I will refer Marxism to Karl Marx ideology, and capitalism to adam smith ideology. I will bring 4 arguments in total which I will divide on the second round and third round. Here we go. As the motion stated. I would be a pro for Marxism compare with capitalism because : 1. Capitalism has given us a lot of contribution in producing goods and services before. But when the production of the goods and services reach a level where it is too much for people to consume the whole created products. Capitalism could no longer efficient. We should stop producing somehing we already produced enough and we must give it a chance for people to start producing other goods that are needed but less profitable. Such as, we should slow down the research on make up and start to boost the research on cancer. In capitalism where the decision of production is given to each individuals, we can not control the use of resources that can benefit the majority needs. The resources being used is to obtain the most profitable goods and services. Not the most beneficial goods and services for majority. 2. Marxism will provide a true competition. The ultimate jargon from capitalism is for individuals to have "free fight liberalism". But in reality, is it true that people will have a fair free fight? if we want to have a fair competition, each fighters must be equiped by the same equipment. Take example,In reality when a state can not interfere the market, people with less money can not obtain the same quality of education with people with more money. We need more government role to control economics. That is to ensure the poeple to have same equipment to fight. So the system will allow that the people who will take home more money are the ones who deserve. We need a well rationally planned economic system instead of a total anarchy economic system like it is under capitalism. The accumullated capital will have no human conscience. Every decision being made will only have 1 consideration. That is, How much profit that we will get.
Homosexuality Should Be Banned

Okay, just for the record I do not endorse homosexual marriage or relations. I am also a Christian which is one of the reasons I am debating right now. I am a Christian who believes that there are a lot of individuals who are born gay. I see tons and tons of news stories about children showing early signs of homosexuality. I am not judging these children I am just pointing out what I know about gays. There are people at my church who are gay and I do not mind at all because they are nice people and choose to serve the lord which everyone should be aloud to do. I think the Bible points more to homosexual relations rather than homosexuality itself as being sin. Everyone sins and all sin is equal in God's eyes so I do not think it is okay to judge homosexuals for something we all do. Saying that homosexuality should be punishable by death is an awful thing to say because a lot of them are very nice people. Since when did it become sin not to have children, and all types of sex can lead to AIDS not just sex with homosexuals. Once again I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I do not judge homosexuals for being what they are.
The Holocaust happened

To prove the Nazis employed gas chambers to murder Jews, my opponent cites the testimony of Henryk Tauber.Is Mr. Tauber credible? Allegedly speaking from personal experience, he stated: "there were five furnaces in Krematorium II, each with three muffles for cremating the corpses"(1) "On average, we incinerated 2500 corpses a day."(2) This implies each muffle cremated 7 corpses per hour. According to funerals.org, cremation today "usually takes from two to four hours. The cremated remains are then pulverized to break up larger bone fragments to a granular texture." This means that if Mr. Tauber is correct, Nazi cremation technology from over 70 years ago was over 1400% more efficient than today's!Literally incredible.Pro's own source has this to say regarding the 2500 number: "This figure is unrealistic (and is connected with the propaganda of the immediate post-war period)"(2) So the website which hosts Pro's testimony, and which he linked us to himself, challenges the credibility of his witness. Now that his eye-witness has been utterly discredited, as well as having been labeled a propagandist by Pro's own source, does Pro have any honest witnesses of his purported gas chamber homocides? The second piece of evidence Pro cites is a Nazi document referring to a "gassing cellar."(3) But this is not proof of homocidal gas chambers; the Nazis referred to delousing (lice-killing) chambers as "gassing rooms."(4) Why must we accept that this term must refer to homocidal gassing cellars, instead of the more innocous delousing rooms which everyone acknowledges existed?(1) http://www.holocaust-history.org...(2) http://www.holocaust-history.org...(3) http://codoh.com...(4) Archiwum Państwowego Muzeum w Oswiecimiu, nr. neg. 1034/7, page 5.Barely relevant Hitler photo:
The Holocaust happened

ADDENDUM: TheTroof has asked for a gas chambers only debate, so we'll do that instead. I am the most reasonable man in America. TheTroof has been been debating the Holocaust with a couple of people with decent knowledge of the topic. It's been interesting to read. I'm interesting in seeing whether he's interested in trying his hand with something with years of experience debating this topic and with sufficient expertise to have taught the topic at the university level and to have published scholarly literature. My terms are these * I want as long a debate as possible since I am exceedingly busy. Since only five rounds are currently available, we should consider moving to new debate as old ones expire or run out of rounds. Leaving the debate is equivalent to forfeit. * I want a judged debate. If possible, I would like an odd number of judges so that a clear majority must be convinced. I have added to this challenge the three top-rated judges. * The first round is only for TheTroof's acceptance. * The second round's opener will be determined by random number generation. The specifics can be discussed after acceptance. * Each of us can use his side as he wishes. I.e., he can rebut, make a new argument, ignore an argument, etc. As such, the opponent has the right to indicate that an argument has been ignored, a rebuttal has been insufficient. * Sources may be alleged within reason. I.e., if you cite a source, and that source is available online, you must provide a link. TheTroof is free to assume that I've read all the relevant literature. If I cite something that TheTroof does not have access to, I am happy to afford him additional time to consult that source if he needs it. Within reason, I am willing to provide him with offline sources, if possible. E.g., I have ebooks of most of the relevant texts which I'm happy to share provided that he deletes them after his use, per standard ebook copyright restrictions. I'm here if you'd like to test your mettle, TheTroof. I await your response.
Murder is evil.

In a debate on this site the definitions provided by the instigator are the ones used for the purposes of the debate. You have the burden of providing your own definitions only if the instigator fails to do so, regardless of whether or not you agree. Like I said, my challenge, my rules, including definitions. You don't seem to understand this. The challenge was for you to show that murder is not evil using the rules and definitions I had laid out, and if you can't do that, you can concede, or just say you didn't understand instead of throwing a hissy fit. Rebuttals: "If someone says they're going to murder you, you will die. " Not if you defend yourself adequately. But that's being semantic. "Murder is definite and more fearful than most other crimes - that is why it is necessary." Yes, it is certainly true that murder is more fearful, but rape, torture, etc. are still fearful enough to make people wary of who they interact with, thereby having the same benefit as murder without as heavy consequences. Also, if I accept the dictionary definitions, then this debate is even MORE one-sided than it already is. If we use your definitions, I could easily say "most people think murder is evil, so it is." Done, debate over, I win, that's it. You have actually made a case using my definitions-you have NOT been able to make a case using your definitions. Arguments: Extend all previous arguments, since they were not contested.
Murder is evil.

I want to go off on a tangent here for a moment and say that; it was not stated to me that your definitions were the ones that were supposed to be used. Also, the fact that you've, quite literally, stacked the deck in your favor by using non-dictionary definitions to enhance your point. If you would had said, in the Acceptance Round, that you were going to be using those definitions and those were the ONLY definitions that were able to be used: then it would've been a lot more clear to me to not accept this challenge. You simply said that they were "important definitions" and throughout the argument had absolutely no clarification that I was supposed to, without a doubt, use your definitions. I make a valid argument, to which you project your inadequate definitions of "murder" to rebuttal my point. That, sir, is one-sided if I have ever seen it. I'm still going to rebuttal all of your arguments, but to everyone voting, let it be known that: 1) I was given absolutely no clarification to HAVE to use Pro's definitions. 2) The definitions that were extending to me have stacked in Pro's favor. Honestly, this argument was completely one-sided. You're not allowing me to use the ACTUAL definitions for murder and evil, which is completely biased. Sure, this was "your" challenge, but it was not stated to me that I needed to use your definitions - I had assumed you put those definitions up in the "Acceptance Round" to clarify what murder and evil were. Now for my rebuttal: "I think you have "murder" confused with "death" here. Not the same. People can still die even without being murdered." No, I do not have them confused. The next part of that sentence was me saying that murder defines "trust". To carry on with what you had said after about there being different types of crime: There is rape, torture, and other forms of crime; but murder is flat-out in it's definition. You die at the end - if someone says they're going to murder you, you will die. Murder is definite and more fearful than most other crimes - that is why it is necessary.
Murder is evil.

You accepted the definitions when you accepted my challenge. You do not need to give definitions except for things that I did not, regardless of whether or not my definitions are accurate. Now, the actual rebuttals: "If I am to follow your definitions, I will say that murder is a necessary action in society." No you wouldn't, because part of my definition is "unnecessary". "When people fear murder, people take life and make it seem more important. They strive to help themselves, protect themselves, and keep themselves safe in society." I think you have "murder" confused with "death" here. Not the same. People can still die even without being murdered. "Although innocent people are, unfortunately murdered on a daily basis, this gives society room to the improve [sic]" "Also, that type of fear, in most cases, defines "trust" and gives people a better definition of what "trust" actually is. In other words, people tend to be cautious and pick the people that they believe to be genuinely "good"." Not all crime is murder-there is still rape, theft, torture, etc. even if murder does not exist. These also give society room to improve and lead people to be cautious and avoid criminals. "So, with that being said, you're proving that definitions are subjective if you are using YOUR definition over the definition of a dictionary." Who said they weren't? Anyways, this was MY challenge, YOU accepted, so I make the rules-including the definitions (where needed). Arguments: Extend previous argument that went uncontested. Also, even if I use your definition, this debate becomes very easy for me: Most people think murder is evil, so it is.
Murder is evil.

If I am to follow your definitions, I will say that murder is a necessary action in society. Although innocent people are, unfortunately murdered on a daily basis, this gives society room to the improve. It'll make people stronger, it'll make places safer, and it is a learning experience that people need in order to strive through life. Going away from subjectivity and objectivity - murder is still something that needs to happen because, in order to live, we need fear in our lives. Why murder is more important than other fears? When people fear murder, people take life and make it seem more important. They strive to help themselves, protect themselves, and keep themselves safe in society. Also, that type of fear, in most cases, defines "trust" and gives people a better definition of what "trust" actually is. In other words, people tend to be cautious and pick the people that they believe to be genuinely "good". Your definition of "evil" is defined as something that harms a person or a group of people, but can something really be evil if it has so many more pros than cons in a situation? There are multiple pros to having murder in society; sure, there are cons, but can something be genuinely "evil" if it has good inside of it? No, it can't, because it helps more than it harms - ultimately, out-right, out-weighing it and allowing it to be a good thing instead of a bad thing. ...and, to clarify, I was only disproving YOUR definition of "evil". The actual dictionary definition of murder is: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. It has nothing to do with innocence, just the killing of an individual. So, with that being said, you're proving that definitions are subjective if you are using YOUR definition over the definition of a dictionary. Another thing, the definition of evil is something that is immoral. The definition of immoral is: not conforming to accepted standards of morality. The "accepted standards" are society's outlook on it; ultimately making evil, bad, murder, etc.. all subjective in itself considering the definition.
Murder is evil.

I assume you accepted without reading the rules, so let me repeat: 1. That was an acceptance-only round. You did not need to post your argument. 2. According to the definitions I laid out, your example is not murder because the person killed is not an innocent, regardless of whether or not he was discovered, he still would have committed the acts. 3. I stated that evil is anything which harms one person or group of people more than it helps any other person or group of people. This is a purely objective definition and is not dependent on societal ideals. 4. With regards to your falling in love, two people falling in love in no way means others are denied love. Love is not a finite resource. But since this is besides the point, I won't discuss this further. Now, my argument: A life is the most valuable thing a person can have, for without it, they have nothing else. Therefore, the taking of a life cannot be outweighed, except by the saving of a life. However, if this is the motivation, it would be necessary for the purposes of defending oneself or others, and therefore not murder.
Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is in place to prevent the catastrophe you are so vehemently describing. Without it in place overseas immigrants would have a huge advantage, but not because the race is smarter, the immigrants themselves are. If a man were a simple farmer, living in a country in the east, without the intuition and analyzing functions to ever be wealthy in a capitalist republic, he would never be able to come to America and his offspring would suffer the same fate due to intelligence being hereditary ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ) . But if another man were an engineer, already respected and wealthy with the brain power to seek and analyze, wanting to expand and grow he may move to the USA, where his offspring will be born with that same natural intelligence. Therefore, immigrants who do move to the USA will generally be smarter than those already here. Due to this in-balance Affirmitive Action stop colleges from being bias towards any specific race or ethnicity and allows a balanced number for each race into the school. It is based upon the current race over population percentages according to the US Census which indicates that African Americans have a population three times greater than that of asians who only make up 5% of the population in America. So in a college with Affirmative action in place, this would give all races an equal chance as opposed to them being filled with one or two dominant races. A great example of what happens when AA is not in place are some of the top grossing tech companies in the world, namely Google, Facebook, and Yahoo (http://www.usatoday.com...) each boasting over 50% white people and over 30% asian people in the workplace. Clearly a happy, fair world (a reference to your last line).
Affirmative Action

(this is a satire piece) To be concise, Affirmative Action is a policy used by major universities favoring African-Americans mostly over their Asian peers and other ethnicities during the college application process- and apparently there"s a huge controversy over the system. A pointless controversy, to be exact, because what else could possibly more fair than Affirmative Action? To favor one ethnicity or race over another is the most upright and unbiased policy that has ever been used in the United States, and the government even seems to agree, because they have done nothing but kept the policy, quite thankfully! Affirmative Action was created to increase diversity in colleges and to give those that don"t excel as well as their peers a boost during the college process, even if they didn"t put in as much effort or hard work. What does it matter, anyways? Not all ethnicities are created equal in America, the land of the free, and that goes especially for the Asians, who the colleges are most biased against. Scientists have claimed that Asians aren"t born any smarter, therefore not giving them an advantage over any other ethnicity, but that can"t possibly be possible! So the scientists are claiming that they"ve put in more effort and hard work than their other "disadvantaged" peers? Impossible- they must have done something shady with their grades- maybe they changed them all to straight A"s after stealing their teachers" gradebooks. Some crazy people even put in the "argument" that Affirmative Action is racist, discriminatory, prejudicial, and stereotypical- those are arguments that are just insane and foolish. What, in America, where not all ethnicities are created equal, Asians get an equal say and don"t deserve to be pushed and thrown off their track to success by one policy? Hilarious! I"ll be laughing at this in forty years when Asians begin working in cotton farms against their free will in order to spread diversity throughout this happy, fair world.
Gun bans and strict gun control increases crime and homicide rates.

I've heard many people who are in favor of the U.S having a gun ban or stricter gun laws compare us to other places like Britain and Ireland. People (like hmmmmm Piers Morgan) often point out that Britain has between 30-50 gun murderers a year while the U.S has 11,00 gun murderers a year. This is true but does it really matter?. To be frank it doesn't matter how many gun crimes there are or gun murderers there are. It matters how many crimes and murderers that are committed period. People seem to think that gun deaths the only types of death possible and with less guns less people will die. Statistics prove other wise. For example in Britain after the 1997 hand gun ban crime rates immediately went up 70% while murderer rates went up 50%. (Piers Morgan I'm talking to you) it doesn't matter that the countries gun murderers went down when overall the murdeer rate sky rocketed. Now England has the highest murderer rates in Europe. Crime only began to decrease in 2003 when more police officers came into play. Other countries with increased crime and murderer rates due to gun bans and stricter gun control laws include Ireland and Jamaca. Some American cities with higher crime and homicide rates but very strict gun laws are Chicago and D.C. Those cities saw a dramatic increase in crime rates and homicide rates after gun bans. Even though they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country they still have the highest crime and murderer rates. Does it really make sense to do something knowing it will likely bring crime and homicide rates up?. Please read Crime Prevention Research Centers article " murderer and homicode rates before and after gun bans". Look up " crime statistics in U.K after gun ban" on google and you'll find the article. Thanks for whoever debates this with me. Happy summer!.
Cloning should be legal and is morally acceptable.

I am perfectly fine with debating the legal side as well. If one was cloned, he/she would be granted certain rights, or new laws would have to be made especially for them. It sounds troublesome, but for the people of the world, it could be incredibly beneficial. The legality currently prevents cloning, especially in Germany. The scientists would have full control over this clone considering it is made by those scientists. It would be treated as a child made by two parents.
Cloning should be legal and is morally acceptable.

I accept the challenge. I don't actually believe in morality (I believe that our morals came from the evolutionary idea that for the best of the species, those within the species should not hurt one another) so I hope it's okay that we only debate the legal status of cloning. My first point is that if one was cloned, then would he be a free man (assuming he's in US)? Or would he be owned by the scientists who created him, or maybe even the government? That would get very messy. It seems that it would be much easier to just avoid the issue altogether.
Cloning should be legal and is morally acceptable.

First, the rules of this debate: 1. Science will be used. 2. Emotions may play a part, but you must not say the following: "I feel," "I believe," or anything in those parameters. 3. Language will be kept clean, child-friendly, and respectful. 4. No bashing the other person's beliefs by saying any sort of the following: "That's stupid to believe in," "You are an idiot," or "I am smarter than you because...", etc. 5. This debate will be friendly. 6. Other countries other than the U.S. will be mentioned, such as Germany, for the sake of this debate. 7. Use websites (will be cited) and in-text citations to improve your argument. Now that we have the rules out of the way, on to my argument! First and foremost, cloning can ultimately impact society in a positive way. Science has come to a point where we can now clone animals and plants for food, and humans for certain uses. Human clones can be used for transplants, limb replacement, blood transfusions, armies, and scientific testing.