BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Facist economics vs Capitalist economics

Obviously, my opponent is over-idealistic and under-realistic. What he fails to realize is that the government has great power over the economy under fascism and that this is a risk. I understand that my opponent would LIKE the government to weed out bad companies and make everything perfect but this will not happen. The government is run by human beings, who are naturally selfish. Those human beings, who only have to appeal to the majority of voters, have unlimited power and can use it for professional and/or monetary advancement. This is called "corruption". Pro did not consider that if the government was able to do anything, regardless of individuals' rights, this may lead to a greedy, self-serving government. If it is in the state's interests to nationalize 7-Eleven and Costco Wholesale, they will do it and can claim it is for the "common good" any which way. Most people (especially under fascism) would not question the state's decisions and therefore this sort of thing would happen all the time. In fact it did happen all the time. Nazi Germany saw it in the state's best interest to slaughter those who opposed the will of the mighty fascist government and in fact nationalized businesses, land, natural resources, homes, and other things because they could get away with it. That's the way that all big leftist governments work. And it's why all governments that are allowed to do anything for the "common good" do so. Pro has confused my comparing communism to fascism for changing the debate's premise. I compare these two systems because they lots in common. If Pro doesn't understand this, as I'm sure everyone will soon, I will point out some facts: -Both share the goal of "collective efficiency" -Both share the idea that man's sole purpose is to work -Both share the notion that the government should have greater power than any individual -Both share the same economic premise that "efficiency and greatness can only be achieved through big government control. -Both support the idea that individuals are less important than groups, this idea has hindered progress throughout history. -Both support an attack made against people of different religions, races, and ideologies in order to "further mankind". -Both only support institutions that are good for everyone, even if it means tearing down great institutions and replacing them with government-run institutions. -Both pick equality over freedom and security over privacy. -Both prefer increased government surveillance. There are more traits shared but that is probably enough. Even if Pro would like fascism to be efficient, as it is on paper, he fails to consider human nature and therefore does not recognize the reality of the situation.
Facist economics vs Capitalist economics

My opponent has absolutely no care for using correct grammar and spelling. This renders it hard to read and so I urge Pro to consider looking at the screen as he types from now on. Thank you. Anyway, capitalism allows unrestrained competition in the market, which we know leads to more innovation. A fascist government would stifle any invention it deemed not in the state's best interest. All decisions, in fact, would be made in favor of the government. A free market makes decisions that are best for consumers, this seems to work best. Under fascism, the government would nationalize most companies in order to create a monopoly, so that it has more control of prices and can make a bigger profit. Things like Costco Wholesale and 7-Eleven would be taken by force and the government would become communist. This is because fascism is a system that allows the creation of a socialist state. Nothing would be efficient, because the profit-incentive would largely be erased. The book "We The Living" shows how this would work. I suggest you read this. The reason why capitalism in it's pure form is not being used currently is because it is hard to achieve, and since governments are being run by Republicans and Democrats but not Libertarians. This will change in the next fifty years, but until then we can only theorize. Fascism had it's chance and the first half of the twentieth century was devoted to testing socialism and fascism while the second half was mostly devoted to taking down the out-of-control experiment that had resulted in communism. Obviously, fascism works to begin with but slowly degenerates into something less efficient. Thus, fascism, which can make trains run on time by the power of soul-crushing policies and the nationalization of Costco Wholesale and 7-Eleven, becomes inefficient quickly. Along the lines of environmental protection, I do believe that in today's day and age a fascist government would adopt environmentalism as a way to gain control of private property and the means of production. So yes, with the current (but soon-to-be-fading) green fad, I'm sure fascism would do a good job making the economy efficient by regulating the production of gasoline and driving up the cost of gas to $5.00 a gallon.
Facist economics vs Capitalist economics

Now before my opponent tries to condescend he should at least put himself in a high enough position to do condescend. And yes it does seem that my words were cut off at the end of lines by the strange mechanics of the site but it's easy to reform those words since they finish off immediately during the next line. Once again my opponent pretends that capitalism at its purest has taxes; it doesn't because those 'examples' of laissez-faire capitalism contain mixed components of other economic systems.Original Resolution- As stated in technical terms in the resolution, my opponent must prove why capitalism is more efficient than fascism. This means he cannot go pranting on about how capitalism has low taxes without borrowing from non-capitalist policies because it's simply pointless if not irrelevant. It doesn't prove capitalism to be more efficient than fascism at government related duties. Fascism with it's stronger government will obviously be more efficient in reagrds to government policies even if capitalism had low taxes, rendering my opponent's whole irrelevant argument entirely obsolete. Again with the environemental protection, fascism with it's stronger government will be more efficient with protecting environement. My opponent's attempt to prove that capitalism has lawsuits in now way shows that capitalism is more efficient with protecting the environment and is thus irrelevant.My opponent attacks society as a form of slavery but of course humans are social creatures and the progression of humanity required knowledge and ideas to be exchanged. This means fascism which enourages more cooperation will run more efficiently.YZ would both stay in simply because they all benefit if they all stay in and the net increase is best for all 3 companies if they eliminate competition.
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

Not so fast!While Montana won 4 Super Bowls, Young also won a Super Bowl, in far fewer starts AND was Super Bowl MVP 100% of the time.But, the larger point wasn't addressed. While counting Super Bowl rings helps, it makes Terry Bradshaw and Monatana equal in this category, yet, clearly Bradshaw wasn't nearly the QB Montana was.Also, compare Dilfer (1 SB win) to Marino (0 SB wins). Clearly, Super Bowl wins don't measure the best QB.After all, it's a team game.Therefore, I still argue the one thing a QB can control (completion %) is the besst measure of which QB is better.Also, MVP's of the Super Bowl only measure one game. Eli Manning is not a very good QB, if one looks at his body of work, but he was MVP for the 2 SB's he won. The argument about SB's falls flat.Elway lost 4 Super Bowls before he won 2 - does that mean he was a bad QB, then a good one? He was he same player!Plus, in his frist SB win, Terrell Davis won MVP. Does that mean Elway wasn't that good - until he won MVP the next year?>It doesn't make any sense to judge a single player for a team stat: wins, or, for one game (Super Bowl).In finance, for example, the best economist is the one who has consistent return, not one big - lucky - pay day.If we take any other field, consistency is the key.There is no doubt Montana was a great QB. The difference between Young, Montana, Brady, etc, is very small.I think is does a disservice to the great play they have all done by reducing "best" to one game.Again, I'd like my opponent to undermine my argument that the best way to measure the skill of a player is:How well they play their position over time, and measure what they can control. (While completions require good catchers (WR's, TE's, RB's), it still requires the QB to recognize who is open - or which player can best catch the ball.Also, I think we also need to consider audibles (recognizing the defense) and adding the threat of the run (whch Young was excellent at).Personally, I'm a NE fan and think Brady is GOAT, because of the things he has done with his limited skill set. His decision making (which feeds into completions) is as good as it gets, and he can play in big games (unlike P.Manning)One last note. P.Manning has won 1 SB and was MVP. Eli won 2 and was MVP twice. No one is going to argue Eli is better than Peyton, but my opponent's logic would require us to consider Eli a better QB than Peyton.Clearly, there is more to judge a player than by Championship wins and MVP's. To drive this point home. Was Montana a bad QB before he won a SB? My opponent would have to say "yes", which is clearly inconsistent.
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

Montana is the only player to have been named Super Bowl MVP three times. Montana had the highest passer rating in the National Football Conference (NFC) five times (1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 1989); and, in both 1987 and 1989, Montana had the highest passer rating in the entire NFL, So that proves he's a better quarterback. The 49ers retired his number 16 team jersey. And His Passing Attempts is 5,391 and His Passing Completions is 3,409.
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

Measuring a QB has a lot of immeasurables, but, when I thing of rating a QB, I mean by his ability to complete passes when he has to.Steve Young, had he and Montana had the same amount of years with the same team, Young would have completed more passes, on average.Since we can't judge whether those passes would have been in clutch circumstances, we have to say that - measurably - Steve Young was the better QB.Steve Young's passing rate: 96.8Joe Montana's: 92.3The job of the QB is to complete passes. The Offense is to score points, the D is to stop the other team.Games won is a team stat. TD's has to do with the reciever as much as the QB.The completion percentage is the only thing that gets close to measuring what a QB does, but the QBR is helpful because it combines relative weights of INT's, TD's, Yards, Completions, etc.
Should Drinking age be lowered

My OPP stated, "At 18, you are given the rights as an adult. However, 18 year old are still underage to drink. That doesn't make sense." Answer: States feel people are still to young to be drinking. Though their are many people of the age of 18 that are mature enough, many are not mature enough to handle alcohol let alone not break other laws. Take a look around your local community, Their are plenty of white kids wishin their black kids and black kids wishing they were white kids, it's all backwards it's identity crisis. I don't blame the government for not allowing kids around the age of 18 not to drink alcohol, half of them do not even have their priorities straight. My OPP stated, "Reality: people who are under 21 right now, do drink. If the drinking age is lowered there won't be tendency for people underage to drink." Answer: This statement blows my mind! How can you assume this would solve the problem to underage drinking? You do realize that their are plenty of teens who begin drinking at the age of 15 right?!?! If the age is just to be lowered to 18, how much longer until the 15,16,17 year old people (In America) start debates like you are doing and begin complaining about how they are old enough and should be considered as adults. My OPP stated, "In other countries, where the drinking age is lower, it is not a big hype to drink for them. There is less abuse of alcohol." Answer: Yes other countries do have the drinking age lower then that of the United States, but you have not supported any proof showing that the abuse of alcohol is lower. After doing some of my own research I actually found out what you have stated as to be a myth. http://www.higheredcenter.org... My OPP stated, "When you are 18, in court, you are tried as an adult. However, if one still does not have complete rights. How can they be tried as adults?" Answer: You are tried in the full court system rather than in a juvenile court system just because you are 18. The point is that you take full responsibility for your actions rather than the system acknowledging that your immaturity may detract from your personal accountability and external influences may have influenced you, further eliminating your personal responsibility. No one is tried as an adult with out physiological testing anyways. Basically you are old enough to understand right from wrong, and understand what you were doing at the time, and understand the ramifications. Most "people" by 18 can drive, have a part time job, vote, and have the cognitive skills to behave as an adult though you may not have all the legal rights, such as renting a hotel/motel room or renting a car. Hit me when you coming!
Should Drinking age be lowered

I feel once you are 18 you are considered an adult. At this age, people start venturing on their own. At 18, you are given the rights as an adult. However, 18 year old are still underage to drink. That doesn't make sense. Reality: people who are under 21 right now, do drink. If the drinking age is lowered there won't be tendency for people underage to drink. In other countries, where the drinking age is lower, it is not a big hype to drink for them. There is less abuse of alcohol. When you are 18, in court, you are tried as an adult. However, if one still does not have complete rights. How can they be tried as adults?
The fine tuning argument is (still) a failure

I'd like to debate, once more, the merits of the fine tuning argument.The fine tuning argument for the debate is any argument that uses in its premises data about the 'fine tuning' or apparently narrow life permitting range of the various constants, and concludes with the existence of God. Examples would be Collins' work in the Blackwell Companion to Natural theology, Craig's argument, etc.I will attempt to show that any version of the fine tuning argument is a failure. An argument is a failure if it fails to raise the likelihood of the conclusion.I had the pleasure of crossing swords with InquireTruth last time. He is more than welcome to join again, but I made an open challange for anyone else who would be inclined to debate the topic.R1 accept, No new arguments in R4. References in comments fine.Best,Thrasymachus
Whole world is covered with fake democracy

Do you think countries like US, Russia, India are having democracy that talks what the people of those nations want? I believe it is only a matter of the person who is on top i.e. President, Prime Minister and Not about having a system. As we have seen with US, the opinion of the president is supreme, though he is not always allowed to do what he wants but it makes a great impact on what he thinks which may not necessarily be what people want. These people are turning more like a Monarch and if that is the case then we should get away with these fake democracies.
Drittes Reich perversen.

Out it came like a volcanic extrusion, Hot and sticky magma solidifying into a massive basalt column. They were held in awe and fear as those folds of soft white revealed it in tiefem staunen. Klaus was a driver, His machine was well greased and he got the job done efficiently. They feasted first. Frankfurter for supper boys, Heinrich would say and they had their fill. And Klaus drove hard throughout the night. He had a load to deliver and deliver it he would. And those soft strata bent to the will of those magnanimous intrusions. As the hot lava erupted forth and flowed freely and those immaculate voids overflowed. Krieg ist Krieg und Ekstase ist alles.
Drittes Reich perversen.

Heinrich had a certain penchant. He hung around in stations and termini as the lads alighted. He let his good friend Klaus select. Klaus had a similar penchant and was nicknamed der Esel. Klaus playfully referred to Heinrich as der voyeur. Heinrich chuckled and Klaus grinned. Solid and well oiled, Klaus made them squeal and Heinrich had a job to contain himself. Tiefgrundige Ekstase in Hulle und Fulle.
Death penalty should be allowed

My opponent stated "A more recent study by Kenneth Land of Duke University and others concluded that, from 1994 through 2005, each execution in Texas was associated with "modest, short-term reductions" in homicides, a decrease of up to 2.5 murders."The issue with this statistic is that it is looking at only one state. Over all, when you compare all states without the death penalty, and those with it, those without the death penalty, on average, have a lower murder rate. There of course can be exceptions to this rule, such as Texas. Next my opponent used an article from daily signal. As you can read about here[10], they are known to have a strong right wing bias as well as having a "mixed" reporting record. Meaning, that some of the things they report on are simply not even true. Given that the article doesn't even cite the study they claim that they got the information from, it is very suspect.I thank my opponent for this debate, and wish them luck in future debates. To conclude, I believe that the reasons I mentioned above, how there can be innocent people who are given the death penalty, how the death penalty is more expensive(as my opponent conceded) and that life in prison without parole seems to be a better deterrent to murder than the death penalty, I believe it makes sense not to allow the death penalty. Sources:[10] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
Death penalty should be allowed

I'm sorry to hear that and I was too sexually mollested. Any ways, how could you forgive someone that killed your family meme before with reason or cause? So you said , "The absence of death penalty is synonymous to crime rate increase Again, this is something that needs facts to support it. While in the next sentence you do provide facts, it doesn't support the idea that without the death penalty, there would be less crime. It merely talked about the crime rate over all. It doesn't show, for example, that crime is low or high because of the death penalty. In fact, statistics seem to suggest the opposite. States that don't have the death penalty have fewer murders occur in them than states with the death penalty[7]. Now, I admit that this doesn't suggest that the reason for the murder rate being lower is because of the death penalty. Correlation doesn't equal causation. For example, there could be other reasons why the states without the death penalty had lower rates of murder. Perhaps it is actually the other way around: maybe they chose to have the death penalty removed because they had such a low murder rate and saw it as unnecessary. Or perhaps there is some other cause of the murders being lower. Who knows? Nonetheless, a logical conclusion that can be made from the evidence is that life in prison without parole might seem to be a worse punishment than death. I mean, life in prison might actually be a worse punishment. Who wants to spend the rest of their life in prison? You'd probably want to commit suicide if you were sentenced to that, so death would be a relief. Now, that is a logical conclusion, what you offered is not a logical conclusion because you offered no data that showed correlation between the death penalty and amount of crime." Death penalty does lower crime rates and here is a quote. " A more recent study by Kenneth Land of Duke University and others concluded that, from 1994 through 2005, each execution in Texas was associated with "modest, short-term reductions" in homicides, a decrease of up to 2.5 murders. And in 2009, researchers found that adopting state laws allowing defendants in child murder cases to be eligible for the death penalty was associated with an almost 20 percent reduction in rates of these crimes."(http://dailysignal.com...) This shows that it did in fact decrease and almost 20 percent reduction of crime rates. Yes lying is bad but the death penalty is a bigger issue than your personal life. Yes I must agree that it does cost more to use the death penalty than to hold them in prison . That's all I have to say for this round.
Death penalty should be allowed

https://www.biblebelievers.com... http://time.com... Yes I would would want to get the death penalty because I would deserve it and I wouldn't live with myself These are reasons that the death penalty should be allowed 1).The death penalty was first instituted by God Himself in Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Man didn't invent the death penalty, so man has no right to abandon it. We live in an age when everyone is far too concerned with "human rights", and God has been practically ignored, as if He had no rights at all. Killers are to be killed, and God's will has not been fulfilled until our governing bodies have executed wrath upon those who have killed others. 2).God has actually promised to bless us if we follow His plan of using the death penalty? Notice Deuteronomy 19:11-13. The death Penalty also brings closure for the people who got seriously injured or loved ones who got killed, their families will get closure. "Many in the survivor community feel like the death penalty offers a sense of justice being done. And that's what his sentence felt like to me. I hope it also brings closure to those who lost loved ones that day. There are, of course, many in the survivor community who feel that he should spend his life in prison and sit in a cell and think about what he did. I don't speak for everybody". Anyways, it also stops from the person from committing another murder/crime. And they deserve what they get and it pleases the Lord. Thanks for debating me:)