BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Money runs the world - the rest is just details

I agree with you partially, but I still believe you are missing the point. You still haven't recognised that there are forms of power that don't involve money. This is shown by the fact that most politicians have very little money compared to the amount of power they have, whereas most billionaires have lots of money but very little power in comparison. Even in most of the examples you have put forward, it is clear that that power not held in the form of money was the driving force. Look at OJ Simpson as an example of this. He almost certainly got off due to his fame rather than his money, meaning it was fame that gave him his power rather than money. This is reinforced by the fact that he still owes some of his legal fees today (so he clearly wasn't the extremely wealthy person you make him out to be). Clearly OJ Simpson was acquitted due to forms of power other than just money. Another example you stated was that "bums on the street" have no power because they have no money. Sure they have no money, but they have no other forms of power too. Most of them instead have mental illnesses and drug issues, and are unemployable. You will not find a single "bum on the street" that is a good public speaker, respected community member, or a renowned thinker. Clearly "bums on the street" are on the lowest rung of society due to there lack of power, not just their lack of money. Now I've debunked some of your examples, I will now put forward my own. Nelson Mandela. Famous for being South Africa's first black president, Nelson Mandela was one of the most powerful people of recent times, especially in South Africa. However, throughout his life he had very little wealth. This example clearly shows that you don't have to be rich to be influential and powerful, and that not all people in power are rich. Now that I have rebutted the arguments you have finished making, let me reinforce my point about the world being run by power. Power is defined as "the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events.". Now I consider the "running" of the world to be the manipulation of people and events. Therefore, power, by definition, runs the world. What's more, I previously said that people desire money because "they can exchange it for the use of human labour, or for goods that have been produced with human labour". Now you will notice that this fits in with the ability to influence the behaviour of others part of the definition of power, but not the part about the ability to influence the course of events. Clearly, the world is run by power, and by definition, money is only a component of power. For these reasons, I am proud to debunk the moot that "Money runs the world - the rest is just details". I bid the Pro side good luck in round 3, and once again, I cannot thank enough everyone who has taken the time to adjudicate this debate.
Money runs the world - the rest is just details

Those are some excellent points and I do agree with you partially, but motivation, greed and decisions in life are all based on money. Money is a token but it's also the driving force behind power. You get power by getting rich with money. Perfect example, any celebrity, their status is based on the money they make. Take any celebrity for example and have them commit a crime or DUI offence, because of their money, they will get a great lawyer and in the end they will get off with probation and a large hefty fine or charity donation because they have the money. Now take an average Joe and he commits the same offences, now he can't afford the big shot lawyer and ends up in jail because he couldn't buy his way to freedom. Just look at OJ, he was rich, got Johnny Cochcrane to defend him and got off with murder. It's all about money. Power comes from having money, but first you need the money to have power. Donald Trump got 1 million dollars from his father to start his business, then he got the power once he bought all his businesses and casinos and his fortune grew and that gave him power. Picture for a moment you are an average Joe, all of a sudden you win the Power Ball, now you are rich, you can buy anything, you hire people, you become the man of power as you command others to do work or security or whatever you need for you. The people who work for you look up to you as their boss, leader or whatever because you are paying their salaries, essentially providing their livelihood. Therefore you just got power from commanding the group of people, where before you won the lottery you had no power. Money = Power. Money is still the main factor for all decisions in life. We all need to eat and a place to sleep and provide for our loved one, money does that, so we will do what it takes to get the money. We will move across the country for a job, contract killers kill people for money, cartels traffic drugs for money, because money provides you your basic means of life and luxuries. Unfortunately many who get a taste of a lot of money turn to greed because once the money is blown they need more. And this is where murder, robbery, fraud come into play. Without money you have no power, that is why a bum on the street has no power at all and is the lowest on the rung of society. The people in power are all rich, see the correlation there. Lets continue debating LOL
Money runs the world - the rest is just details

I can see why the Pro side believes that money runs the world, but I can also see that they are making a giant mistake. It is not money that runs the world, it is power. I pose you all a question: Why drives a man like Donald Trump run for the US presidency? Sure, he gets an annual salary of $500,000, but he could make far more money with far less difficulty if he wanted to in the time it takes to perform the duties of a US president. Clearly, the driving force behind his seeking of the US presidency is power, not money. When you are the US president, you are arguably one of the most powerful people in the world. The uses of this power extend vastly beyond anything money could buy. Don't believe me? I ask you all another question: Why do people desire money? It's a very vague question, but I challenge people to come up with a better answer than this: people desire money as they can exchange it for the use of human labour, or for goods that have been produced with human labour. In essence, people desire money as it is a token for power over mankind. Money is in effect, simply a token for power. From this, you can clearly Donald Trump's presidency is driven by a desire for power, not money. One interesting example the Pro side stated was that JFK's assassination was centred around money. I disagree. Any monetary factors in JFK's demise were clearly about power, not money. Business tycoons that benefited in money were really benefiting in power (given that money is simply a token for power). However, figures such as Lyndon B. Johnson (who became US president following JFK's death) benefited almost exclusively in power, not money. You can clearly see that the common driver in JFK's assassination was power, not money. Now every issue you analyse will at it's core be about power, not simply money. Power can exist without money, but money cannot exist without power. Money does not run the world, power does. Money is simply token for power, one of many forms of power that is used in the running of the world. Money is by no means, the sole driver of the world. In the words of Frank Underwood, "Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries". For these reasons, I am proud to debunk the moot that "Money runs the world - the rest is just details". I bid the Pro side good luck in round 2, and I cannot thank enough everyone who has taken the time to adjudicate this debate.
Money runs the world - the rest is just details

Every decision, law, employment, war, occupation, murder, etc etc. is why people do what they do, is based solely on money. Money is what makes the world turn. Everything that happens, any unexplained event you encountered was because of money in one way or another. JFK assassination, wars, sport teams winning championships, laws all of it is based on money. If I have enough money I can make you do anything. Everyone has a price. You don't believe it, then lets go, and tell me I'm wrong. Lets Get Ready To Rumble!!
Debate.org should maintain it's policy of deletion

In the forums, my opponent has contended very strongly that DDO should implement a policy he terms "Free debates" where no debates or threads are deleted. I invite him to defend this proposition. Since my opponent is the one advocating a change in the status quo but I'm the affirmative, the burden of proof will be shared. What a shared burden of proof means is that rather than the judge defaulting to one side, both sides are obligated to present reasons why their world is preferable. The first round is for acceptance. The second is for constructives and the third and fourth are for rebuttals. Good luck.
THBT protecting the enviorment is more important than developing the economy

Preface: - Pro has provided definitions of Environment & Economy which are consistent with mine, thus we are on the same grounds concerning terminology. - I should remind the voters that the BOP is on Pro to establish how protecting the environment is indeed more important than developing the economy. Case: - My position will not exactly be the contrary of Pro’s position. I will be taking a more subtle approach: I. Matters are to be judged in light of their objective. Thus the preservation of the Environment & the development of the Economy are each to be judged in light of their objectives: moral & substantial. II. The development of the Economy & the preservation of the Environment are both important, though, not necessarily one is more important than the other. III. The preservation of Humanity is from the preservation of the Environment, for humans are an essential part of the Environment. Rebuttals: - Pro’s entire case seems to be about the fact that developing of Economy at the expense of preserving the Environment is detrimental to the human condition, not about how protecting the Environment is actually more important than developing the Economy ; there certainly are a lot of ways to do both. Due to limitation in available time, I’ll delay the full demonstration of my case to the next Round. Back to Pro, & good luck.
THBT protecting the enviorment is more important than developing the economy

Resolution: - Protect: keep safe from harm or injury, aim to preserve [*]. - Environment: the natural world, as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity [*]. - Important: marked by or indicative of significant worth or consequence [1]. - Develop: to make active or promote the growth of [2]. - Economy: the wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services [*]. BOP - The burden of proof is on Pro (for he is making the affirmative claim) to prove that, indeed, protecting the environment is more important than developing the economy. [*] Google Definitions. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Western RPG's are better video games than Eastern RPG's

Okay then it can be split into 4 basic categories for me, gameplay (includes story line), graphics, music and overall public opinion. The most obvious example is the Final fantasy franchise, it's worldwide and the story line although varies from game to game keeps me hooked the entire way through. The graphics used are of the highest standard, and a fortune is spent on them. An entire orchestra is made especially for them. It has been labelled best video game franchise and has 7 entries in the Guinness world records. A game called Dragon quest, which is the first RPG of its kind published in Japan was revolutionary to the way RPGs were designed and played. Not only through clever incorporation Eastern producers have started creating RPGs that involve not only action, but dating (not my thing) or academics. I'm not saying that western do not produce these types of RPG, but they produce fewer and of lower quality. Then there is one of the biggest RPGs in the world known as Ragnarock online. It has become so popular it now has its own anime. Although sprite based, the graphics are not terrible and the gameplay is amazing. It is certainly more popular than any other RPG worldwide that I know. I believe you may have the misconception that quantity outranks quality, western RPGs are released in the masses whereas with Eastern RPGs the best survive the filter and get into the UK, US etc. Finding a good western RPG will be easier because they haven't the filter process that a good eastern one may be subject too.
Western RPG's are better video games than Eastern RPG's

Hello! Thank you for checking out this debate. I have taken the position as the pro/for position the title statement of "Western RPG's are better video games than Eastern RPG's. " For the sake of definition, RPG stands for Role Playing Game. Western will be defined as North America to Western Central Europe. Eastern will be defined as Eastern Central Europe all the way through Russia and the continent of Europe. Please go easy on me if I happen to mess up my debating etiquette somewhere in my my arguments as this is my first debate on Debate. org. I obviously know that basic rules (i. e. basic spelling, don't insult your opponent ect. ) but if there is something I mess up (in relation to rules of debate. org) in my arguments, please feel free to point is out to me **in a constructive manor. Back to business, the debate is 3 rounds, your time to rebut is 24 hours, the maximum character limit per argument is 8,000, and the voting period is 3 days.
I am Koopin

Thank you for this awesome debate! KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC My opponent stated in round 1, "My avatar is the one Koopin would use. " He now does not have his chicken with a candy cane figure. Therefore, he is not Koopin. In round 1, you stated that you were Christian. However, on your profile, it states that you are not saying you religion. Therefore, you could be lying about your "Christian" thing. J. Kenyon has not changed his mind yet, so you are still an impostor. You stated that you were mighty. Yeah, right. If you were mighty, wouldn't that mean that you would win every single debate? Do you? No. Therefore, you aren't mighty. I would like the readers to buy some KFC while they read this debate.
I am Koopin

Lets begin! To respond to your note, I have to say that I am Koopin when one applies my definition. Koopin is a character which does certain things. So when I say that I am Koopin, I mean that I am a character which does certain things. The emphasis is placed on how one acts and not what one is. Which is why I ultimately win. Yes you too are Koopin though not as Koopinish as me. I can state what kind of character I am and still be it. For example I am an extrovert meaning that I talk a lot, now just because I said that I'm an extrovert automatically Im not? J. Kenyon should change his mind soon because I the mighty Koopin send few white vans near his house! Furthermore I am who I am and if someone says that I am not who I am that doesn't mean that I am who I am not. Note: I hope my opponent won't try to change the definition at the last round! Is that even allowed?
I am Koopin

Thank you for this wonderful debate! Note: The topic states, "I am Koopin" not "I am A Koopin." Therefore, you have to state you are Koopin, the debate.org character that has a 90.72% win ratio. Therefore, many of you arguments are useless. "My opponent is also Koopin." Thank you. You agreed to my point. Now, I will state why you are not Koopin. In response for his argument 1, since you stated, "I'm Koopin", doesn't that mean that you're stating, "I am Debate.org character...." Therefore, you are not Koopin. Your definition is false, (with your wording.) Look, I'm spamming KFC! J.Kenyon states that you are an impostor. KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC I rest my case. KFC KFC KFC. Thank you. KFC KFC KFC. http://www.debate.org... Logic
I am Koopin

Arguments: 1. My opponent is also Koopin 2. My home nor my age nor my look on big issues effect my position. The same goes for ones win ratio and name. Explanation: 1. I argue that I'm Koopin and by my definition there can be more than one Koopin. Indeed there is a little Koopin in everyones heart. My definition of what is a Koopin cited: "Koopin is a Debate. org character which tends to do certain things,". 2. These differences which you mentioned do not change the way I act. Since I tend to spam KFC [1] all the time and that is what a Koopin tends to do, I win. Q. Wouldn't that make some of your argument irrelevant? A. Indeed. Sources: [1]. http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... KFC and Vote for Koopin ! !! .. .. .. The Koopin who took the Pro side.
I am Koopin

1) I'm Christian, too! 2) I'm telling the truth. 3) KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC 4) My avatar is the same. 5) I love "Magic Dance. " My arguments: 1) My opponent lives in Russia, though Koopin lives in Georgia. 2) My opponent is 71 years old, though Koopin is 17. 3) My opponent has different sides to the BIG ISSUES than Koopin. 4) Koopin has a 90.72% win ratio. However, my opponent does not. 5) I am Koopin. I am 17 and I live in Georgia, unlike my opponent. 6) My name is Kevin! 7) KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC In conclusion, my opponent is not Koopin. . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... I thank my opponent for this great debate! KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC I rest my case. Thank you.
I am Koopin

I am Koopin and when writing this debate, I listened to this song: http://www.youtube.com... KFC. Definition: Koopin is a Debate.org character which tends to do certain things, for example Koopin is keen to say "KFC" regularly for no good reason, obviously that's not all Koopin usually does but lets not get into that. My arguments: 1. I said that I am Koopin and its more likely that I'm telling the truth. This is because people tell more truths than lies in general. 2. I said "KFC" Koopin tends to say this a lot for no good reason. 3. My avatar is the one Koopin would use. 4. I enjoy listening to "Magic Dance" like a true Koopin that I am! 5. I am a Christian, unlike those other non-koopins! 6. KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC In conclusion I am Koopin unlike my opponent who has yet to provide evidence that he is Koopin. Furthermore he has to refute my evidence.
The Legalization of Prostitution

As was seen with alcohol prohibition, the criminalization of a demanded vice does not remove it from society, it only funnels now greatly swollen profits into violent organized crime syndicates. As crass as it may sound, prostitution is an extension of capitalism; a service in exchange for capital, and violating this market has not stopped the market. The sex industry is very much alive in America and going strong with an estimated one to two million prostitutes on American streets despite the outlawry. Also, these prostitutes are no longer able to get the protection of the law since their very profession is against the law, leaving them vulnerable to abuse and assaults. The operating of brothels was actually legal until America"s Progressive Era (1890-1920) when the "white slavery" scare campaign began putting out that prostitutes were dying at the absurd number of 60,000 a year and needed to be replaced annually in order for the industry to continue. The actual case was much different, where brothels were allowed to compete with each other as free businesses they were forced to have safe, clean working environments in order to attract "employees". This plays out today where, in the rural counties of Nevada, brothels operate legally, quietly, and virtually free of disease. While the prostitutes there may face a just moral condemnation for their occupation at least they are there willingly. This is in stark contrast to the kidnapped, drugged, and beaten sex workers of Eastern Europe-one out of four sex slaves in the world originates from this bloc of countries where the industry is supposedly illegal! By making prostitution a black-market activity, the price of it is driven up enormously and the once expensive process of trafficking then becomes affordable. Legalization should not be confused with endorsement; legalization could and should happen for the sake of protecting women and respecting the individual rights of adults.
The Legalization of Prostitution

i. My opponent is confused and seems to be unable to distinguish consent from desire.ii. My opponent considers prostitution to be immoral and a vice yet he does not want it to be illegal.iii. He appears to be under the impression that alcoholism is a perfect analogy for prostitution. He has forgotten that alcoholism is a matter of choice (and even then most governments impose a heavy tax on alcohol as an attempt to counter its ill effects), while prostitution (in most cases) is a matter of helplessness.iv. He refuses to acknowledge the impact of such a situation on the community as a whole. For instance (and these are just the things that come to mind as I write), the psychological effect on children, impact on tourism (families might not wish to frequent such a place), healthcare (my opponent argues that competition will keep bad hygeine to a minimum and the government would not have to "bother", but I refuse to believe that once the government makes it legal- it is liable to completely wash hands off the matter (i.e.) the government still bears responsibility for it).v. He argues that the state should not "force" individuals away from prostitution, it should be a matter of choice. By the same logic, he should contend that murder should be made legal as well- in short, he wishes for anarchy.vi. My opponent, I assume, is not aware of the laws of state or perhaps he forgets that not every country has the same laws. I believe, forcing prostitutes away from "slavery" only to lock them up is indeed unreasonable, but that is an entirely different matter. It is a different debate- whether or not the law of "locking up a prostitute" is sensible.vii. It is my opinion that support groups like "Prostitution Anonymous" would never exist. What are they going to discuss in these groups? And who will be allowed to attend such meetings? The prostitutes or the clients? It is not an addiction (sans nymphomaniacs) and for the prostitute it is coercion by contingent circumstances.