BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ask why religion causes so many problems

Finally time to end this. Won't ever be debating someone like you again. "I didn't read anything else beyond that" What a surprise. "because that only proves that you are NOT VALID." LOL. "You didn't pay attention to the rules as ALL videos perfectly intertwine" No they don't. Almost all of them were irrelevant to our debate. Most tried to disprove God's existence, and a small minority actually related. "within them slaughterhouse nose ahchoo! RD1 in which your beady little smoggy eyes were so miserably focused on" What? " was just an example of religion (god) not being inspiring, does cause problems, and offers no hope. Duh." Restating your argument, over and over again. How convincing. (Irony) " And you just like nearly every christian has proved butter lumps to skate upon with your beady scrotum soda bald head. " WTF "soda bald head"? And like I've said before, I'm not Christian. "This debate is now over. You lose." It IS over. Any rational person would vote for me over your garbage of arguments. "You like nearly every christian I've debated here obviously has no genuine friends." LOL. "What do I mean by genuine?" Who gives a flying f*ck what you mean? "AND I'm far too good for you. Bye." Sounds like you're asking me to ask you out. No thanks, you're not my type ;) To everyone who might vote on this, here's why I feel I deserve to have a win: 1. Before we both descended into personal arguments, I was being respectful and polite while he/she was already in an aggressive, biased viewpoint. 2. My line of reasoning was better, with more accurate sources from peer-reviewed science - not random YouTube nonsense like Pro did. 3. My conduct - up till we both devolved into maniacs - was more respectful, I feel, overall. Hence, I believe I deserve the vote. Thank you for anyone who actually watched this nonsense - and what a terrible way to start my first debate on this site. :)
Ask why religion causes so many problems

"1. Your videos are NOT VALID" I didn't read anything else beyond that because that only proves that you are NOT VALID. You didn't pay attention to the rules as ALL videos perfectly intertwine within them slaughterhouse nose ahchoo! RD1 in which your beady little smoggy eyes were so miserably focused on was just an example of religion (god) not being inspiring, does cause problems, and offers no hope. Duh. And you just like nearly every christian has proved butter lumps to skate upon with your beady scrotum soda bald head. This debate is now over. You lose. You like nearly every christian I've debated here obviously has no genuine friends. What do I mean by genuine? Those that would go way way wayyyyyyy out of their way to help you out in time of dire need and NEVER ask you a single question. For that I cannot even pity you. But you did it to yourself. You flat out deserve it. At the rate you are going, you will die alone. That is a huge giant red flag. And if you really wanna beat me and win, so what, you cannot get to me which is your main squatting puff of smoke goal. Sorry scummy. I'm far too good for that. AND I'm far too good for you. Bye.
The United States should abolish the capital gains tax.

The government get's money a lot of other ways then just capital gains taxes. your showing a same part. The capital gains tax harms economic performance. It turns out that there are many reasons why the capital gains tax harms economic performance. Clemens, Lammam and Lo explain the "lock-in effect." "A capital gain (or loss) generally refers to the price of an asset when it is sold compared to its original purchase price. A capital gain occurs if the value of the asset at the time of sale is greater than the initial purchase price. ...Capital gains taxes, of course, raise revenues for government but they do so with considerable economic costs. Capital gains taxes impose costs on the economy because they reduce returns on investment and thereby distort decision making by individuals and businesses. This can have a substantial impact on the reallocation of capital, the available stock of capital, and the level of entrepreneurship." Subpoint A:higher rate would have negative effects on the economy by reducing U.S. investment or driving it overseas. If firms pay more in capital gains taxes in America, they would make fewer investments -- especially in the businesses or projects that most need capital -- and they would hire fewer workers, many of them middle-class. Subpoint B: Higher capital gains taxes would reduce economic activity, especially financing for private companies, innovators, and small firms getting off the ground. Taxes on U.S. investment would be higher compared with taxes abroad, so some investment capital is likely to move offshore.
The United States should abolish the capital gains tax.

Only certain types of businesses can TAKE advantage of this tax. That being said, Not all businesses can take advantage of this beneficial 20% rate. C corporations, for example, are not able to leverage capital gains , unlike an S corporation or LLC, the income does not flow through to the shareholders or members on an individual level. Instead, the capital gains tax is taxed on the business level at the ordinary (higher) corporate tax rate. Before you sell an asset which you anticipate earning a profit on, it is always worth speaking with your accountant or financial advisor to understand your options and the implications that the sale will have on both your business and your personal income tax rates.
Soccer is a better sport than Hockey

Sorry for the delay. Argument #3: The scoring The year is 2010 and the world cup is blazing off in South Africa. Come June 25th is a match between Honduras, two OK-level teams, and Honduras shoots TWICE in 90 minute, Switzerland shoots t the net five times. and whats the score? 0-0. In a hockey game the average amount of shots is 30 and yet the score is almost ALWAYS higher. What does this say about soccer? That the players are slacking? I think it says that the goalies of Hockey are trying harder as I see no beauty in a 0-0 game. Now. Jacobie1121 may say the goalies in soccer do work hard and that there are 0-0 games in Hockey as well. To answer the first rebuttal by repeating myself. SEVEN SHOTS TO 30. A goalie has to block 15 goals wearing tons of equipment but a soccer goalie has to block 2-5 goals with just a special goalie shirt and pants but yet the one who wears less and has to block less is the harder worker? No. Simply no. The second rebuttal would be that there are 0-0 games in Hockey as well. There are more shots in hockey, allowing there to be more opportunities for goals. Whether it's a close miss or an epic goal those shots are what brings us to our feet. Argument #4: Hockey is a better team sport In a hockey game the team is constantly changed around allowing for there to be more job opportunities and time to play while in soccer it's almost always always the same players. Because there are more skilled players in a lineup there is a greater chance of an exciting game because the talent changes quickly. Different players play with different styles which can be both bad and good. And we all love a good game-changer or game-destroyer! Argument #5: Diving I don't like to see others get hurt. But I HATE people who fake getting hurt for their own benefit. They are athletes. And being fair is a code that all athletes should follow. Why should reward those who fake? They get another player in trouble to give him/her a penalty or to get the person who was framed kicked out. Imagine you were a respectable player in soccer and someone pulled a dive claiming you tripped them. Would you say at least he did not get actually hurt? Or would you mention how unfair that is? The answer is obvious. I have no tolerance for cheaters whatsoever. I include a video about diving to see the sheer quantity of these fakers. I'm ready for your response
Soccer is a better sport than Hockey

I will NOT save my rebuttals for the end. I will Rebut my opponent's points now and give some more of my own: My opponent said that you could "play air hockey". The resolution we are debating has to do with if soccer is better "sport" than hockey. Air hockey is not a sport, no mater how awesome it might be. Also, my opponent says an advantage for hockey is fighting. Beating someone senseless does not seem like a great thing to me, no matter how much the fans like it. Take a look at this video where Kevin Westgarth of the Calgary Flames is fighting. He ends up getting a concussion: Anyways, back to the points. Argument #3: Popularity Soccer has a way bigger popularity and viewing rate than hockey. Here is a quote from fifa.com: "715.1 million people watched the final match of the 2006 FIFA World Cup held in Germany". Now, let's take a look at the numbers for the Stanly Cup: there was a average of 4.91 million viewers of the 2009 Stanly Cup Playoffs final round per game. What's more, most amount of people watching a single NHL game was between Chicago-Montreal in 1971 was 12.4 million. 12.4 million people versus 71.5 million people. Thus, soccer is way more popular than Hockey, creating a much better business from ticket buying and merchandise purchasing. Argument #4: Inclusiveness Worldwide Soccer can be played in so many countries, no matter the status. For Example, take the country Cameroon. They are not in the greatest situation for economy, yet still have one of the greatest National Teams in Africa. Soccer is also played in Canada and the USA, even though it might seem way to cold. Yet Hockey is only primarily played in North America and Europe. It is usually only in colder countries. Ever heard of a Hockey Team in warm Africa? At least I have not. Ever heard of a soccer team in cold Russia? Yes! Argument #5: Easiness to Learn Hockey takes a lot of skill and equipment to learn. First, you need a stick, a puck, skates and ice (if you are playing on ice, witch is the most common form of playing by far). Then, you need to learn how to skate, so you might take lessons. Lessons cost a lot of money. Then, you have to learn how to skate, shoot, and keep control of the puck at the same time! In soccer you need only shoes. My opponent might say: you have to run and shoot and dribble in soccer at the same time too, BUT, running comes naturally where as skating you have to learn and take classes. One more thing: Please take into account that in Debates you vote on a debater that has good points NOT the side you would personally take in a real life situation. Thanks
Soccer is a better sport than Hockey

I will save my rebuttals for the last round Argument #1: Many forms of Hockey Hockey is a family of sports, meaning there are several forms of the game, making hockey a much-better suited game to everyone. Have disabilities in your legs but love hockey? Then play sledge hockey! Don't want to move around much but still play a version of hockey? Then play air hockey! Don't have a rink? Play field hockey! Too cold/hot to play hockey outdoors? Get a net in your basement,some hockey sticks and a ball, invite a friend over and GAME ON!!! There are many more types of Hockey then soccer, allowing everyone to pick their preferred version while soccer is just two nets and a ball. Argument #2: HOCKEY FIGHTS!!! Some people come to see hockey games and enjoy the sport, others want to see blood on the ice and some want both! The penalty is small (To be exact 5 minutes) and the punishment will be increased if serious injuries happen. Saying that these fights are dangerous is untrue most of the time and serious injuries are rare. Ice fights are viewed by many as a tradition, getting to the point that Ice fights are included and detailed in hockey themed games like the EA NHL series where the game allows the player to throw and block certain shots, eventually causing there to be a winner and a loser of a fight WITHOUT a simulation. The popularity of fights have even ushered in videos just about hockey fights, like this! I could give more, but I got to do some chores Thanks and I await your response!
Soccer is a better sport than Hockey

I will start my first speech with two arguments on why the resolution "Soccer is a better sport than Hockey" must stand. Argument #1: Longer Games In a NHL, Olympic or almost every type of Hockey game the time frame is 60 minutes for a regulation game. Where as in MLS game or Premier League soccer game the time frame for playing is 90 minutes. This is good for two main reasons: first, this longer game makes it more enjoyable for the fans because the action is longer lasting with the game being a hour and a half. As a watcher of both sports, I can tell you that watching a 90 minute game is more enjoyable then watching 60 minutes of sports. Second, this longer game makes the soccer players have to play a lot more, which increases the stamina, toughness and knowing when to pace yourself a lot better for the player of soccer. Argument #2: Hockey Players are weaker/ break times I will again split this argument into groups, but this time three. First: Shifts. In hockey, a player is not out there for more than 1 minute 30 seconds at a time. They have to frequently shift, which shows weakness and low stamina. The average soccer player plays for 45 minutes straight, or until half time. What a shift! Second: Total play time. Some soccer players play a full 90 minutes where as the average defensive player in hockey plays around 25 minutes a game, and the average forward around 20 minutes. Thirdly: Intermissions. Adding to them not being able to play much at one time, they also have intermissions 3 times a game so they can rest. Soccer players only need one intermission, and that is after playing for 45 minutes. I would like to say that I will submit my references in the final round and thank Darth Kirones for accepting this wonderful debate!!! :)
Soccer is a better sport than Hockey

Lets get the points over with. Argument #6: Faster I'm going to be a bit hypocritical and break the rule that I set for myself that I will save my rebuttals for the end. The longest game of hockey would be longer then the longest game of soccer. Why you may ask? Hockey has unlimited Overtime Periods in the playoffs. Now, I know that totally contradicts my point, but I felt I needed to refute your first point right away. Anyways, my point. Usually a Hockey game is 60 minutes long with two intermissions. Not only the game is faster but the player moves faster and the pace is faster due to the small area of play. The speed causes more action because the players can catch up quite quickly to the puck. They also may know that due to the limited time frame they need to put on a very fast but entertaining show. The word "Longer" and the word "Better" are NOT the same. Argument #7: Promotion of Winter fitness We can all agree. Hockey is a winter sport. Whether your a Canadian like me or from Scandinavia or Russia or any where cold you know that it's difficult to do exercises because of the winter. You can't go jogging. Soccer and Baseball are much more difficult to play but Hockey? All you need is some gear, a puck and friends and your ready to not only have snowy fun but much-needed exercise. The cold should never stop you from being healthy. In fact I would say Hockey promotes fitness year-round. There is field hockey in the spring and summer, In the fall you can play street hockey and I am sure there are many more types of hockey that can be played! Now Jacobie, I can already here you typing "What about indoor soccer?' Well, do you get the full experience of the wind at your back? The sun shining on your face? Do you get that warm summer feeling in indoor soccer? Two letters: NO. I'm looking forward to your rebuttal my friend! Thanks.
Soccer is a better sport than Hockey

I will again start by refuting my opponents points then giving some of my own. Refute/Rebuttal My opponent desperately tried to think of ways he could stop a possible rebut that I might possibly say, yet failed to discern one thing. You know why there are less shots in soccer? Because defense plays way, way better, and has way more players so it is hard for an attacker to score in soccer. In Hockey there is only 2 defense that in some cases are complete flops. This is not to say that soccer defense players can not flop, they definitely can, BUT they have more players to back them up! Also, my opponent stated that Hockey is more of a "Team Sport". Well, in soccer you have an average of 420 passes per game. How is that not a team sport? And, if you want more of a "Team Sport", saying that having more shifts and different players does not make it more of a team sport but instead just switches the player talent around. Also, if you wanted more of a team sport, wouldn't you want more of the team playing on the field/ice at the same sport? One more thing: REFS CATCH THE FAKERS IN SOCCER. The players learn that this ridiculous. Yes, the players where faking it, but refs see through it, and give them penalties for "faking". Anyways, back to the points!: Point #6: Injuries In any league of ice-hockey, there is many, many injuries, because of the physical play of hockey players. Concussions, broken bones, ribs injured and sprains are very often, which makes the game way more risky. These injuries come from the constant hitting and fighting in hockey, where as in soccer, if you check or rough anyone you are given a yellow or red card. Injuries in soccer are usually minor sprains. In hockey, big hits lead sometimes to a life-ending injury. In this next video, Lars Eller of the Montreal Canadians takes a really, really nasty hit (the video commentator is french but the point is still made): Scary Right? THAT"S HOCKEY! Point #7 Goalies In Hockey, the Goalies are almost the size of the net, making it almost too easy for them to save a puck. They move rarely and have a very non-flexible job: SAVE THE PUCK. Where as in Soccer, as a Goalie, you have to dive for the ball, which takes skill, and in soccer, players kick the ball on spin so it is hard to read the play. Soccer goalies know this and have fine-tuned there skills to read plays. What's more, in soccer, the goalie has to boot the ball an incredible distance and they do it just fine. This goes to show that the Goalies in Soccer are way better. Thanks for this awesome debate, jacobie1121 :)
The Nordic Model proves Social Democracy can work

There seems to be a glitch i keep trying to post an argument and it won't let me, No system is pure socialist no system is pure capitalsist, I try to post links and this site gets all funny about it, The nordic model isnt socialism per say but if you went back in time most capitallist nations would seem very socialist by say 19th century standards before income taxes, Regulation, Or the welfare state. . . The nordic nations are very competive, Have high standards of living, And score high on both freedom indexes egalitarian indices. . According to a matt bruening who seems to know al ot about the subject they really are very close to socialist when you count government size the fact that one in three workers works for the state, Labour laws and the number of state industry in finland and norway. . And it works
The Nordic Model proves Social Democracy can work

Social Democracy is not quite Socialism, As many aspects of market capitalism remain in place, Yet it tries to alleviate the harsh aspects of laisez faire capitalism, And is the ideal from of government and economy, The fact it works so well in Scandanavia proves it is possible elsewhere in the world. It would not be aplicable completely to larger nations like the United States but many aspects could be adopted, For example their extraordinary efforts to stop corruption and be tranparent, Even with high taxes businesses like to work there because they know they can trust an honest government.
The Nordic Model proves Social Democracy can work

Hopefully my rebuts are more then sufficient in proving my case. "The fact it works so well in Scandanavia proves it is possible elsewhere in the world"If you mean being highly taxed then yes it works well. Why would you want to give the government so much power? No one should have that much power because it leaves too much to chance for authoritarianism to take place both the left and right. Hungary is one example of right authoritarianism. He used his power to ban gender studies. If you agree with free speech then it is a bad thing. We should not stop people making bad choices in life instead they should accept the consequences of their actions. If you restricts what people can do it can create an uprising. The other side Sweden. Use their authoritarianism to ensure equality for all citizens even if some of them do not deserve it. You might be familiar with No-go Zones (vulnerable areas more specifically). Instead of using their authority to enforce the law they do nothing. The two extremes but it proves that both sides are wrong. "extraordinary efforts to stop corruption"The burden of proof is on the person who is making the claim. "high taxes businesses like to work there because they know they can trust an honest government. "I am sure this is anecdotal or a survey which voices peoples feelings not facts. Burden of proof again. Businesses want to make money. That is their goal. The UK makes 5 times more GDP then Sweden. Meaning of all goods and services it is valued more in the UK then Sweden. More Value = More money for businessesClosing statements:I believe the government is inefficient and wastes money. If you want a clear example see how much more money the NHS needs. For health care there are only 2 options that can be picked from 3. They are Universality, Affordability and quality. I would pick affordability and quality because they are the most important. The only one that can deliver on this would be a free market (with regulation of course). Since there is a demand for health care universality should not be a problem because there would be a lot demand covering the supply of it. Sources:. http://www. Nationmaster. Com/country-info/compare/Sweden/United-Kingdom/Economy#2014. https://fullfact. Org/health/spending-english-nhs/
The Nordic Model proves Social Democracy can work

Social Democracy is not quite Socialism, As many aspects of market capitalism remain in place, Yoet it tries to alleviate the harsh aspects of laisez faire capitalism, And is the ideal from of government and economy, The fact it works so well in Scandanavia proves it is possible elsewhere in the world. It would not be apllicable comopletely to larger nations like the United States but many aspects could be adopted, For example their extraordinary efforts to stop corruption and be tranparent, Even with high taxes businesses like to work there because they know they can trust an honest government.