BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialism vs Capitalism Which is better

Socialism- : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods Capitalism-an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. Both definitions provided by dictionary. com The definition of socialism provided has no implication whatsoever of stealing from rich individuals to give to poor, rather administration and distribution of goods. Use my definitions for the round to analyze socialism because mine are supported by actual references. Capitalism creates economic inequality Since capitalism is controlled by private powers the public good is not of importance. The supreme allocation of wealth creates a monopoly where a few elites control all the wealth. Since their is a very limited amount of money in any economy's circulation if a few people hoard a lot of the wealth that means there is very little to be shared with the multitude of masses. This creates economic inequality in which we get the introduction of poverty. Poverty limits human choices and lessens the quality of life It is no secret that poorer people are constricted in the options in which they are viably able to make. Choices in education, health, and entertainment all become close to zero. A lack of resources endanger the possibility to live life and negates a reason to exist. A study enacted by Bristol University found that "The highest rates of suicide, attempted suicide and psychiatric illness were in Bristol's inner city, and the research published in the latest British Medical Journal suggests a strong link between areas of poverty and the incidence of suicide and attempted suicide. " . http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk... Beyond suicide people in poverty are more likely to die early. According to thinkprogress. org "Although life expectancy has been rising for Americans as a whole, the people who live in this country aren"t necessary sharing those gains equally. Wealthy people are enjoying longer lifespans than lower income Americans, according to a new analysis from Brookings Institute researchers, and the gap is threatening to get wider. " Socialism solves for these harms and this is why we should prefer socialism. Since socialist policies would be community efforts as a whole we can devise policies for who needs what. Since theoretically we would have what we need economic inequality would cease to exist. From a lack of economic inequality comes a assuage in poverty which lessens the probability of suicide, poor quality of life, and shorter life. For these reason we should prefer socialism. Ps Dubai is in a debt crisis thanks to that libertarian economy Source empirics
Socialism vs Capitalism Which is better

Hello, I believe that capitalism is better than socialism. As requested, here are my arguments: 1. Socialism makes no sense. The arguments for socialism is that everyone must have an equal chance to succeed, therefore we must steal from the rich and give to the poor. This is thievery. I don't care how unequal the world is, stealing money from people's hard earned money is wrong. 2. Dubai has a libertarian economy, and its economy is very successful. If this is not proof that capitalism works, than I don't know what is.
catholic church has not contradicted itself

The Catholic Church is a contradiction in and of itself. Keep in mind I am making these statements under the Catholic premise that the Pope is infallible. The Pope, as head of the Church, is the person who ultimately decides what is wrong and what is right within Catholicism. Because of this I need only point out ONE retraction of Papal Edict to prove the Catholic Church is an institution rooted in contradiction. For instance- the claim that only Catholics will be saved because they posess the "keys to heaven". According to Catholicism, certain acts must be performed, prayers said, etc. in order for you to be forgiven and saved. YET at the Second Vatican Council (1963-1965) it was decided that this belief was incorrect, and it is now accepted within Catholicism that non-Catholics can be saved. Not only is the reversal of this belief a contradiction to the belief, it is a contradiction to the infallibility of the Pope and of the Church. Furthermore, if non-Catholics can be saved then nothing Catholic is essential, and nothing in Catholic theology is infallible. None of the rituals performed by priests, rights of passage, baptisms, etc. are essential if non-Catholics can be saved, and if these doctrines are not essential- again, the Church and the Pope are not infallible- this is the ultimate Catholic contradiction.
catholic church has not contradicted itself

catholic church has not contradicted itself if the catholic church CC is true, you'd think there'd be a contradiction in its teaching. the teaching has to be from the pope. you cannot include the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, no salvation outside controversy for this debate as i feel i am aware of the ramifications of this debate. i tend to think it has contradicted itself, but want some other proof. http://www.justforcatholics.org...
catholic church has not contradicted itself

Dairygirl, I forfeit this debate. I don't see myself getting any headway- after reading comments from Catholics and your own rebuttals in past debates- with the Catholic contradiction issue. There are things that are plain, simple, and logical to non-Catholics that Catholics will always find an excuse for, and rather than get into a heated debate over it I will just let it go. I have nothing against Catholics or the Catholic Church, and I respect Catholic loyalty to their church. I would implore you to really investigate the contradictions within the Catholic Church. For instance it's adaptation of pagan beliefs, while Christianity teaches against it. I know you will provide Catholic rebuttals to accusations of idolatry, the adaptation of the cult of Dagon, doctrines like the "virgin birth", "immaculate conception", etc. that are rooted in Babylonian religion and Zoroastrianism, as well as the position of Sumo Pontifice whic is also a pagan adaptation not rooted in Christianity or Judaism (the root religion of Christianity). Your faith prevents you from having an objective debate about the obvious, and for that I am sorry. I do not wish to spend time researching your sources, rebutting, etc. because I am already convinced of my position, and you of yours. ..
catholic church has not contradicted itself

As you noted in the comment section, this contradiction was not to be included. But, The main arguments that have been used by the catholic church to respond to this point are.... while the text appears rigorous, the subtext was that the popes were talking to people who knew about the CC and yet refused to be catholic. this means, not all are damned bc not catholic, but only those who refuse.... and so those who don't know any better are not necessarily damned. This is how vatican II and other newer councils explain the apparent discrepency. the argument is augmented to the fact most of the rigorous statemetns from the middle ages were in response to the French and others who were trying to get out of the church, or wondering if htere were legit alternative ways to get to heaven. There is a lot more academic stuff I'm not going to bring up, but that's the essence of hte argument. I don't buy the argument, but i am not so dull as to think it's not possible that they're wrong. not everything must mean what it appears to say if it's not explined extensively. still though, saying things like "absolutely necessary" to be catholic, is pretty strong. not necessarily conclusive depending on hteir context, but. so anyway, we can argue about this if you want, but it does't appear there's much to debate. if you can find another contradiction, i'm all ears.
THBT the Salem witch trials were a true parallel to the McCarthy investigation.

Unlike Senator Mccarthy, you do not seem to have been silenced by a vote of censure or anything parallel to it, but by your own volition or laziness. This is a sign that one has abandoned one's position for lack of evidence. You were online a day ago, so we know that you aren't having computer problems sufficient to cause your forfeit- only more logical problems. :D
THBT the Salem witch trials were a true parallel to the McCarthy investigation.

" The proposition is not so much dependent on whether or not witches and communism were metaphysical or not, but rather, the true analogy lies in the willingness and the ease in which the judges and the public were willing to believe that there were." Willingness to believe a truth and willingness to believe a falsehood do not make much of a good analogy. "his reinforces our point on the willingness of Danforth (the judge) and the government of Salem in believing the accuser without much question. Likewise, this is also the case for communism. In both cases we see examples of mass hysteria that perpetuates rumours." No, you already abandoned that case, don't bring it back now. Hysteria: "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, esp. among a group of people : the mass hysteria that characterizes the week before Christmas." The threat of communism was not exaggerated but simply reflected in the excitement- and the excitement was not in fact "uncontrolled," people like Mccarthy controlled it quite carefully. "We see the willingness of the general public and authority (Salem theocratic government represented by Danforth/Hathorne, and the US Government) to believe these rumours of witchcraft/communism without any substantial evidence." We had subtantial evidence then that communists were present (including the uncoerced declarations of communists), and that they were engaged in criminal activity (including the declarations of the foreign councils who were made for the explicit purpose of inciting such activities). Soviet records have since confirmed this evidence. Truth and falsehood are not "true parallels."
THBT the Salem witch trials were a true parallel to the McCarthy investigation.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to emphasise that our definition of the 'Salem witch trials' are from reference to that of the book "The Crucible by Arthur Miller". However, fear not, the events from the book do not deviate from the real version of the events very much. The proposition is not so much dependent on whether or not witches and communism were metaphysical or not, but rather, the true analogy lies in the willingness and the ease in which the judges and the public were willing to believe that there were. In the Salem witch trials, the victims, or more appropriately accusers of witchcraft did not really believe in witchcraft at all, e.g. Abigail Williams and the other girls are fully aware that their 'confessions' to witchcraft were done entirely in pretence. What is to be noted is the PUBLIC opinion and the prosecutors and judges who have so willingly believed in what the accusers have accused. As John Proctor supports this point by directly quoting: "Are all the accusers born holy in the name of God's fingers?" This reinforces our point on the willingness of Danforth (the judge) and the government of Salem in believing the accuser without much question. Likewise, this is also the case for communism. In both cases we see examples of mass hysteria that perpetuates rumours. We see the willingness of the general public and authority (Salem theocratic government represented by Danforth/Hathorne, and the US Government) to believe these rumours of witchcraft/communism without any substantial evidence.
THBT the Salem witch trials were a true parallel to the McCarthy investigation.

There is a term for your fallacy here, it's known as the "argumentum ad authoritatem." Simply because sparknotes says something does not make it so. Parallel, in the use the resolution is putting it to, means this: occurring or existing at the same time or in a similar way; corresponding. Now what happens when we emphasize the parallel, by placing an adjective like "True" in front of it? This would mean it would have to be especially corresponding, i.e. it had better be a darn good analogy. But here's the problem. It's not a good analogy. The Mccarthy investigations had a few highly important qualities that are not paralleled in the Salem witch trials. One, Communists (not just people with communist beliefs, but people actually affiliated with the Communist Party of a nation we were essentially at war with, i.e. traitors) were actually successfully and demonstrably discovered by the Mccarthy investigations- the investigators were acting on real-world facts with a real-world threat of people who actually intended to enslave them to a Communist government. Whereas in Salem, witches were evidently entirely imaginary, and the moral standard by which they condemned these "witches" was based on an imaginary metaphysics- Christianity. Any real witches (pagans) would not have moved to the Massachusetts Bay colony, they couldn't possibly be that stupid. Two, Communism kills. By the truckload. The only people who ever exceeded Hitler in number of deaths they are politically responsible for are Mao and Stalin. I have yet to see a death toll for tyrants motivated specifically by Pagan ideology, or any other form of "witchcraft."
Everyone's a little bit racist and discriminatory, even you!

Well, yes, of course, babies can't shout inappropriate language to someone who is black of skin. That seems rather logical, by everyone I mean children, adolescents, adults, elderly people and anyone who is old enough to comprehend what racism means. Of course, you must first understand what 'everyone' means, and what 'a little racist' means; but I am sure you are well aware what is meant. Discrimination is the prejudicial and/or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated." [1] What implies that I mean that no matter who you are, you always approach people with a feeling of superiority and valuing your own race worth more than the other person's race. As i mentioned, one sign of refusing to make a pluralistic approach is one i mentioned in the previous argument. The proven theory that an individual would rather be friends with someone who shares similar attributes than have an interracial friendship is one major sign of subconscious racism and discrimination. [2] An individual need not be actually harmed in order to be discriminated against. He or she just needs to be treated worse than others for some arbitrary reason. [3] We're subconsciously racist, and that is because we have always been discriminatory towards other groups, take for instance black people (I know I have been using black people as an example a lot, but I assume that they've been experiencing subtle and nearly unnoticeable racism far more than any other race because via TV and other media we sort of grow up with the subtle stereotypes of black men, women and children in a more obvious way), they've been subject to slavery and after that, they've been made fun of in so-called 'Minstrel Shows'. This was an American entertainment consisting of comic skits, variety acts, dancing, and music, performed by white people in blackface or, especially after the Civil War, black people in blackface. [4] These shows obviously had tons of parts that depicted in the inferiority of African Americans, which was basically the starting shot for stereotypes and subconscious racism. When the humor of black people turned a little more subtle, the stereotypes of black men were already well established. And they still float around in the back of our heads, for example, after September 11, polls reported that nearly 60 percent of American public favored racial profiling, at least as long as it was directed at Arabs and Muslims [5] [6] [7] In conclusion, YES, we do experience subconscious racism and discrimination. This was a very pleasant discussion and I hope to debate with you sometime later again maybe Peace be on you [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.lifehacker.com.au... [3] http://answers.yahoo.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://antiracistresistance.wordpress.com... [6] http://quod.lib.umich.edu... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Everyone's a little bit racist and discriminatory, even you!

However, I am going to show why the argument fails to establish the resolutionRebutting My Opponent's ArgumentsMy opponent claims that everyone is a little bit racist and discriminatory towards other races and sexes. This is backed up with studies that show how people associate words with races or sexist in a stereotypical fashion. However, the study sourced do nothing of the kind:". .. This leads scientists to believe that the very fast ‘gut’ reaction measured through response times doesn’t have much to do with the prejudice of the subjects, but a lot more with how often people have seen or heard these words paired over a lifetime. They also point out that response times were not correlated with the questionnaires about prejudice. "[1]. Pro's source does not support the resolution at all. The test results probably had nothing to do with actual racism, but with semantics dealing with word pairing. That does not show discrimination, just how the mind links words together. Also everyone is not a little bit racist. New born babies who cannot even comprehend the notion of race or sex, and thus do not have the capacity to be racist or discriminatory. They are people by definition, and belong to the set of "everyone". ConclusionThe resolution has been negated. Sources [1] . http://www.cos.gatech.edu...;
Everyone's a little bit racist and discriminatory, even you!

In this debate we're discussing the idea that everyone's a little bit racist and discriminatory towards other races and sexes. I am saying that this statement is very true, and that is because studies by Georgia Tech's School of Psychology have shown that for instance if you show someone the picture of a black face and the letters G-U-N scrambled on a paper that they are faster to find the word GUN than if you show them a white face and the letters G-U-N, which would imply we are faster to associate black people with violence than white people with violence, the same thing goes for women and W-E-A-K-N-E-S-S and old people with F-O-R-G-E-T-F-U-L-L. [1] [2] [3] Also, we also prefer white friends rather than black friends, proven by researchers from the Universities of Peking and Michigan, they had a theory that we only develop interracial friendships if we can't find anyone within our own race who shares the same interests; To test their theory, the researchers analysed friendship choice data from 4,745 American high school students spread across 172 US schools. They discovered that increases in total school size decreased the proportion of interracial friendships. [4] [1] http://www.cos.gatech.edu... [2] http://www.youtube.com... [3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [4] http://www.lifehacker.com.au...
Everyone's a little bit racist and discriminatory, even you!

"Well, yes, of course, babies can't shout inappropriate language to someone who is black of skin. That seems rather logical, by everyone I mean children, adolescents, adults, elderly people and anyone who is old enough to comprehend what racism means."Pro did not specify this in the first round. This means, my argument that new borns are not racist holds. Thus, the resolution that everyone is a little bit racist and discriminatory, is false. My opponent needs to be more careful with definitions and wording in the future to avoid this type of confusion. As it stands, the resolution has been negated."The proven theory that an individual would rather be friends with someone who shares similar attributes than have an interracial friendship is one major sign of subconscious racism and discrimination."It cannot be proven; because it is false. My two best friends are black, and it is not because white people do not like me. I have to fight off my white friends with a stick. My opponent presents a source[1] to back his argument up, but all it shows that is this theory only holds true generally and on average. It in no way shows that everybody would rather have white friends. This is the problem with all my opponent's arguments. These studies only show that people generally lean in a particular direction; not everybody. The burden of proof is on my opponent to show that everyone is a little bit racist and discriminatory. This burden has not been met. My opponent clearly wants to forget about how I completely demolished his previous argument by showing that the study he cited only showed that people link certain words together; not that they are racist. I take this as a concession on this point. ConclusionNew borns are people, but do not even have the ability to be racist. Thus, new borns negate the resolution alone because they belong to the set of "everyone". My opponent's study in the first round only shows that people associate certain words with other words; this does not show genuine racism. Also, the studies that show people choose white friends over black friends only holds true on a general level. We are left with no reason to think this holds true for everybody. My opponent had the burden of proof to show everyone is a little racist. This feat was not accomplished.I thank my opponent for this debate, however I think it is clear where Pro failed. Please vote Con.Source[1] http://www.lifehacker.com.au...
God Most Likely Does Not Exist

I am willing to have a fun and knowledgeable debate on god's existence with anyone who is willing to have one :). First Round will be Acceptance Second Round will be presenting arguments for one's position (No refuting of the other side's points) Third Round will be refuting the arguments presented by the opposite side Fourth Round will be showing how the objections/refutation to your arguments from the opposite side are not sound or good and you would explain how. Fifth Round will be the concluding round Let me define The God that we are debating here, We are debating the Monotheistic god like the God from the Bible or Koran, A All knowing, All Powerful, All Good and is the source of all morality , Is present everywhere, A Personal being who is interested in human affairs. If you would like to debate a different type of god let me know in your acceptance debate and define what the definition of the god you would like to debate would be. Good luck! and have fun :)
The wage gap between men and women is exaggerated

I am a firm believer that the so called "wage gap" between men and women is highly exaggerated based on the fact that men and women are inherently different and make different decisions career wise which effects how much money we make in a life time. Studies have shown some evidence to support my conclusion. Firstly, men work than women on average in the United States. The US Department of Labor Statistics released a study in which they found that men on average work around an hour longer a day on weekdays, which can make a bit of a dent in any average income per year gap there may be. Secondly, men on average are more likely to have some sort of college education, which leads to higher payed jobs. Thirdly, the social roles and expectations of men and women when in school, even at a young age, are completely different. Boys are more likely to be pushed towards science, math, and business, while girls, are more likely to be pushed towards social work, education, and nursing. I'm not saying that women are inherently worse at anything, they aren't, they are capable of anything a man can do, but the stats don't lie, women tend to work in different fields than men that are usually lower paying. Lastly, but not least, studies find, that if you compare a man and woman, same age, experience,and education, that women make 98 cents on the dollar, so there is a gap, but it's no as big as most people believe.