BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitalism Vs. Socalism

What you have to remember is that any time that you see a socialist movement come forward, it is because the government has had to step in because the capitalist market has not worked. If you look at how the United States was run, especially in the industrial revolution it becomes evident why these so called socialist programs came to be. Capitalism has never succeeded without great loss in human rights. When people talk about how the economy was booming in this country in the 1800's and 1900's, you have to consider that the millions and billions did not go to everyday people, it was going to the Vanderbilt's and Rockefeller's. I would say that there has never been a successful Capitalist state. Think of it like this, John Doe is born in Northern California to an upper middle class, he is encouraged to attend class everyday by his 2 parents living in the same house, he goes to college and graduates debt free. He gets an desk job at a private firm in Los Angeles and begins his life, this cycle repeats for this family for generations. Now you have Jane Doe, she is the child of a run away father, mom is working hourly at your local restaurant, no one tells Jane to go to school, no encouragement, she has no insurance so when she gets sick she just stays at home and does not get any better. She gets pregnant at 16, just like her mother did, and so she drops out of high school to raise her baby. Her mother is fortunate enough to get Jane a job at the same restaurant, no college, no desk job. This cycle also repeats. What you have hear is a world of no programs. It is not true that these so called "handouts" lead to laziness. They are just to support someone until they can support themselves. Now we have many socialist programs in effect in this country, and that means that Jane's child has a chance, a chance to go to the doctor, get help by going to college. And Jane gets the help she needs to take care of her daughter through other welfare programs. It is also not true that a persons drive to work goes down when they are taxed more for it. Are you saying that a person would rather make $55K a year so that they pay less in taxes than make $250K per year. The idea that higher taxes stunt the american dream is also false. People will always want to make more.
Capitalism Vs. Socalism

Capitalism is better than Socialism in many ways. First and foremost Capitalism gives power to the people and Socialism gives power to the Government. I hate the Idea of people living in poverty and going to bed hungry. Socialism is not the answer to these problems. The distribution of wealth does not work, it rewards people for minimum amounts of work, eventually you will run out of other people's money to use. Capitalism rewards the people for working hard. I like to think of these two ideals as a piece of pie in Socialism people believe that they are only allotted a certain piece of the pie. However they are unaware that Capitalism allows the pie to grow so everyone gets more of the pie. Another analogy is a simple classroom analogy representing Socialism The professor said that all grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name calling all resulted in hard feelings as no one would study any longer for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because under capitalism when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when the government levels the playing field and takes more of reward away; no one will try or want to succeed as much as before.
do you think it is ok to burn the USA flag

1) Freedom of expression "My opponent made a good comeback but when talking about George Washington and the Flag do you honestly think that he would want the flag burn the father of our country would want to see the American Flag burn even if it is the Freedom of Expression The father of our country would never want that." Do you honestly think that the American forefathers, who died to protect our rights, would want the country to become a place that barred freedom of expression? Just because somebody disagrees with one's opinion's does not mean the opinion should be banned. 2) Property rights - Extend Arguments. CON makes no rebuttal. 3) Good for the economy - Extend Arguments. CON makes no rbuttal 4) Campire - Extend Arguments CON makes no rebuttal. Rebuttals 1) It is our heritage Heritage =/= Good or moral. Extend arguments. CON does not address 2) People have died for the flag CON's main argument is about respect here. People have died BECAUSE of the flag. This shows that people have good reasons to disrespect the flag. CON does not dispute this. CON's main assertion is that my articles come from wikipedia, which makes them wrong. My question is: Why would Wikipedia be worse than any other website? Any person can create any website. Wikipedia cracks down on vandalism and false information is removed. Hundreds of people contribute to the article, and fact check it. Information is sourced. It adheres to a a neutral position and is the most widely used source. However, just for the fun of it, here is are other sources the also state the same thing as the Wikipedia sources. Con then makes a long list of what you should not do with the flag. These assertion are not backed up and have nothing to do with the resolution. They are blanket statements. All these statements do is decrease freedom of speech, damage the economy by restraining on what people can sell, and go against property rights. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...[1] http://www.georgewashingtonsociety.org...[2] http://www2.gwu.edu...[3] http://www.nybooks.com...[4] http://www.vietnampix.com...[5] http://www.opendemocracy.net...[6] http://www.gwu.edu...[7]
do you think it is ok to burn the USA flag

My opponent made a good comeback but when talking about George Washington and the Flag do you honestly think that he would want the flag burn the father of our country would want to see the American Flag burn even if it is the Freedom of Expression The father of our country would never want that. The Flag code says the flag should never be dipped to any person or thing. It is flown upside down only as a distress signal. The flag should not be used as a drapery, or for covering a speakers desk, draping a platform, or for any decoration in general. Bunting of blue, white and red stripes is available for these purposes. The blue stripe of the bunting should be on the top. The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations. The flag should never have placed on it, or attached to it, any mark, insignia, letter, word, number, figure, or drawing of any kind. The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything. there fore the first one says it should never be dipped upon anyone or anything there for it should not be dipped in fire besides you got your sources from wikipedia anyone can put something up there and it can be the wrong thing sources http://www.usflag.org...
do you think it is ok to burn the USA flag

Clarifications of my position: -I personally would not burn down the flag. However people have the legal right to do it, and it is not immoral. Contentions 1) Freedom of expression The right to burn flags is protected under the Constitution. [1] Our forefathers supported freedom of expression. ""If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. "[2] -George Washington The American government functions on dissenting opinion and protests. This is how change occurs, movements occur and reduces the threat of tyranny. Dictators hate freedom of speech since it allows dissenting opinion and creating movements against them. Through disallowing freedom of expression, one is going against everything this country is founded on. 2) Property rights Once you own something, you have the right to do whatever you want for it. This is the nature of capitalism I bought a flag. I can do what I want with it, including burning. 3) Good for the economy Many stores are struggling due to recession. These owners and workers work hard to sell these American flags so that they can support their families. However, these stores would not sell enough flags to support themselves if flag burner were illegal. 4) Campfire Let's say I want to start a campfire and I do not have enough wood. The American flag is a good source to burn. Rebuttal 1) It is our heritage It is also part of the American heritage of killing Native Americans, and owning slavery. Based on your logic, one should be able to do it since its 'part of our heritage'. The Nazi flag is also part of the German heritage but I'd burn that flag down if I ever saw one. 2) People have died for that flag People have also died BECAUSE of the flag. Here is a list of atrocities the American government has done. -Massacre of Native Americans that originally owned this land -US assistance of massacre in Indonesia which killed .5 million in 1965. [3] -Funding of Indonesian occupation of East Timor that killed ~150,000[4] -The killing of the Vietcong. The Vietcong were looking for independence. Total deaths= over 2 million. [5] -Funding of MEK a terrorism group dedicated to bombing and overthrowing Iran[6] -Financing the overthrowing of a popular elected ruler in favor of a dictatorship in Guatemala killing hundreds of thousands. [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[7]
do you think it is ok to burn the USA flag

CON has not addressed any of my contentions and all his points has been rebutted. Extend all arguments. "When you protest by burning the American Flag it is not saying anything expect that you are an idiot" Ad Hominem fallacy and non sequitur. In no way does CON address how flag burning makes you an idiot. idiot - an utterly foolish or senseless person. "Also George Washington even if he saw our country today yes he would be disappointed but he would never burn the American Flag he love that flag enough to keep it standing in battle and to dedicate most of his life to America the American Flag and our Constitution. " Which is why if he saw America turn out the way it has today, he would be against America. However whether Geroge Washington would or wouldn't burn the flag is an irrelevant argument since it is impossible to know whether he would or not. Nor is a logical argument point since it commits the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion and appeal to authority. Conduct -Tied Grammar/Spelling - Pro Con uses run on sentences. Ex: Because it is our heritage and so many people in America have died for that flag if we burn the American Flag we have basically just turned our back to all of them it is totally wrong to burn the American Flag This should be: It is our heritage and so many people in America have died for that flag. If we burn the American Flag, we have basically just turned our back to all of them. It is wrong to burn the American Flag Convincing Arguments - CON does not address my arguments, uses logic fallacies. I have made a rebuttal for all of CON's points. Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.
do you think it is ok to burn the USA flag

ok one thing porn is way different than the flag. And when you protest by burning the American Flag it is not saying anything expect you are an idiot. and also George Washington even if he saw our country today yes he would be disappointed but he would never burn the American Flag he love that flag enough to keep it standing in battle and to dedicate most of his life to America the American Flag and our Constitution. Our American Flag is a symbol of our nation and it does not deserve to be burned what so ever
do you think it is ok to burn the USA flag

Extend all arguments from Round 2. Not one of those arguments had been countered. "Why would you want to if you live in America and you love your country " This implies two things. One you live in America. Second you love America. The debate topic (more like question) is "Do you think it s ok to burn the USA flag?" includes everyone, not just citizens and those who live in the United states. Second off, those citizens that live in the United States have a right to protest against it. Just because you live in a country does not mean you love everything about about it. Emigration is a very difficult process. "Why would you want to burn the American flag?" Protest against what America has turned to and good source for campfire. There are many reasons to dislike America as shown in previous rounds. I have not even brushed on the many other reasons to dislike America including how the federal government has increased it's power over the year and has involved itself with unnecessary affairs. "Do you think the father of our countryould want to see the american flag burn yes or no?" I can not answer that, since I can not speak to them due to their deaths. However two things. (a) George Washington warned against the party system, accumulation of debt, and of foreign alliances. The united States Government has the biggest debt in the world. It is heavily involved in foreign policy to the extent we are called the "World Police". And the United States relies heavily on the party system. So if he were alive today, and saw what America had become, he might burn the American flag. (b) Just because I do not want to watch something does not mean one does not want it to be disallowed or against it. I do not want to watch gay porn (unless it's lesbian porn). However, I do not object to it.
Abortion is murder.

Sometimes those that get pregnant can take every precaution. No contraceptive is 100% effective, and accidents can happen. There are also the known cases of rape pregnancies, in which they have no control over conceiving. You can look at your ideal examples, but there will always be those that exist outside of them. Even within your examples. People who are reckless with contraception or parents who simply do not teach their children. Forcing them to bring a pregnancy full term is not the answer. Better education, yes. But not forcing a child upon unprepared and un-wanting parents. It is wrong for the parents with the potential of seriously damaging mental, and physical, health. It is also unfair for the child themselves. They can be born into an environment unready for them, with un-wanting parents who can go as far as to resent them. To condemn irresponsible parents as murderers is also wrong. Some parents, such as those with unplanned pregnancies that carried them to full term, simply weren't ready to be parents. The pressure of society to avoid abortion however can force them into a corner that is unhealthy for the child. Other parents simply need more help with educating their children. I've known fantastic parents with awful children. The parental environment matters a lot, but it is not the sole consideration when it comes to a child's upbringing. Whilst marriage is not a factor really in this debate, I will point out that there are amazing parents who are not married. Marriage is not required to stay together.
Abortion is murder.

I screwed this one up, as usual, judging by my record on debates. Irresponsible parents that do not tech their children the responsibility of creating human life, and look to .gov to govern and pay for their own irresponsibility are murderers. Good parents raise good children. It takes 2 parents to raise a child. Singly parents eff up A LOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Support marriage.
Abortion is murder.

As to whether abortion is murder, entirely depends on the opinions of those discussing. However you've raised the topic and I will answer. As for your allegation that I will 'quit this site soon', I find that highly doubtful. But for this current debate I ask that you remain polite and on topic if that is possible. Now, as you have not set any standards for this topic. I will begin in round one.My ArgumentClaiming that abortion is always murder, begs the question of what murder is. The oxford dictionary definition is as follows: "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" Following this simple definition, and running in counterpoint with your statement of "Killing a potential human is murder. Period." I have to question as to whether a cluster of cells, the blastocyst, in the fallopian tube is a 'human being'. At this stage, this cell cluster has indeed the potential to grow into a fetus, and then a baby. But can you define this series of connected cells a human yet? The chances of it implanting into the womb are slim, slimmer yet that it will grow to full term. Admittedly, abortion of a blastocyst is highly unlikely due to the extremely early stage in pregnancy. But even after which, can the growing cell count be determined as a human being yet? By lawful standards before 23 weeks. No it cannot.As for opinion coming into play. You, as previously mentioned, stated "Killing a potential human is murder. Period." I understand that any combination of a healthy ovum and sperm have the 'potential' to become a human. So does that mean every time a woman has a period, or a man masturbates they are committing murder? Does that mean the use of contraception is plain murder? Or because you do not deem them pregnant yet, they are now infallible to your death sentence to these people?
Abortion is murder.

I'm arguing that having the choice to abort is just and shouldn't be taken away from people. Of course I'm not citing against abortion.You can say that, but then again how many terrorists, murders, and rapists have been prevented? You can't argue that great minds are sacrificed through abortion without recognizing that the equally harmful may have been aborted. I think I have said enough, and this debate is starting to clearly get to you, so in conclusion.Parenthood is not always the right answer. Carrying a child full term is not always the right answer. Adoption is not always the right answer. There are times where the mother simply cannot carry the child for medical reasons. There are times where emotionally continuing the pregnancy can be damaging to both involved. There are times in which hardships will be placed upon a child if carried to full term. Telling someone they should have carried the pregnancy to full term, or that they are murders for choosing abortion is simply not your place to say. Only the people involved truly have the say in the matter and, as difficult a choice abortion is without the constant stigmatism that comes with it, it is their choice to make.I wish you the best of luck in the future, and that you might open your eyes to the people around you. Everyone has different opinions. Accept them and the world will be a better place.
Abortion is murder.

From your argument, I must suppose that in your mind all abortions are justified, as you have not cited a case where an abortion was unjust. Jesus was supposed to be aborted by whatever tyrant declared it. How many potentially great minds have we killed here, under liberal dictation? We will never know how great the mind could have been of the babe if we offed them. Many great minds have died in the womb, thanks to abortion. My next debate, and certainly indisputable. Keep shooting babies, dillhole.
Anti-Abortion Laws

I saw another debate Ragnar did on this topic. He was not given much of a challenge. While abortion topics are generally copy and paste affairs, and one can basically map out an objectivist's position on just about anything in advance (which is not an insult, but a testament to objectivism's simplicity and consistency), I decided this would be a good debate anyway. It is possible that Ragnar will give me something I haven't heard before, and judging from the responses he gave in the other debate, I certainly plan on making Ragnar work for anything approximating a victory. I won't be posting my arguments just yet, as they're more of a reaction against the other debate. I will, however, suggest a direction for the debate that Ragnar should be entirely comfortable with: I intend this debate to be about the nature of rights, personhood, and the untenability of Ragnar's position on each. So, Ragnar, if you would be kind enough to state why you believe a fetus has no right to life, the debate can begin.
Abortion is wrong and needs to stop please tell me im wrong.

Uh. .. It's still a fetus. A fetus is just a stage of development, not some sort off other species, so I don't get what you mean? I never rejected the idea that a fetus was a human :1 I also never said that human lives weren't being ended. .. I think you're missing my point here I. .. honestly don't know what to say this round, I made my points earlier and you've made no real attempts to refute them or provide evidence that goes against them, so I'll just leave it as is.
Abortion is wrong and needs to stop please tell me im wrong.

"Fetal abnormalities"- It's not a fetise. At the moment of conception a human child comes to existence. This new life has DNA and offspring of human parents, it can only be described as human life. "it is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception"- Dr.Micheline Matthews- Roth, Harvard Medical School. "... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of humanlife." - Dr.Alfred Bongipvami, University of Pennslyvania. "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." -Professor Hymie Gordon, Founder of the Mayo Clinic's Medical Genectics Program.
Abortion is wrong and needs to stop please tell me im wrong.

That would be 0.333%, just so you know But does that really invalidate my statement? It's just saying that a minority of abortions are cause by rape, there can be other reasons and 0.333% of a few million is still a big number :I http://www.angelfire.com... According to this suspicious looking website >>;, 95% of abortions are done as birth control, 1% are done because of rape/incest, 1% because of fetal abnormalities, and 3% due to the mother's health problems. So Technically, it's more like 1 out of 5 abortions, the way we're speaking of abortion. Which means something closer to 20% of a few million, which, if I'm not mistaken, is a pretty big number. And we can justify health problems too, I suppose, because a would you rather have one dead person, or two of them? Fetal abnormalities is also fair I guess, because it might die anyways :^