BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wolverine vs Batman WOLVERINE WINS!!!!!

Sorry Batman but I gotta take the man with the claws!!! Ok so this is why wolverine would win 1. Wolverine can stand up to Batman weapons because he can heal. 2. Screw martial arts all wolverine has to do is put three claws in Batman and he's dead. 3. Batman has never faced a man so powerful with rage and being strong and somebody that can heel himself. 4. I can't thing of one thing Batman has in his weapons or tactics or anything that could kill Wolverine
The New York Yankees are currently better than the New York Mets. (based on last season)

Since my opponent has forfeited the round, he has conceded all of the arguments i made in the 2nd round I would like to extend my value of team record, value criterion of statistics, my arguments against his points against my justifications, my own justifications for the Value criterion, my burden which my opponent has failed to respond to because she has forfeited, all four of my contentions, and my responses to her contention. Voting points: My turn against her contention, my burden against my opponent, my contentions. my value and criterion is to be used for judging this round.
The New York Yankees are currently better than the New York Mets. (based on last season)

I affirm resolved the New York Yankees are currently better than the New York Mets. (based on last season) My value for the round is team record, because to be better than another team in the MLB, your team needs to have a better record than them. My value criterion for the round is statistics, because to reach a better team record you need to have good statistics backing up your players. Justification 1: Statistics directly affect how well the players on the team play. For example, how well the team is hitting effects the amount of runs score, which leads to games won, which leads to a high record, which leads to the team making to the playoffs, etc... Justification 2: The statistics of players help the coaches choose who is playing well, so that they can be put in the lineup. As a result, the players on a hot streak can win the games for the team, rather than the slumping players, and statistics help the right players be put into the positions needed to win the games and get the better record. BURDEN: The negative has to show empirical evidence using the team records and players to prove that the Mets are better than the Yankees. The affirmative needs to show empirical evidence using the team records and players to prove that the Yankees are better than the Mets. Contention 1: The Yankees have a better record than the Mets. The New York Yankees this season ended up with a record of 103 wins and 59 losses, which incidentally ended up as the best record in the MLB. The Mets ended up with a record of 70 wins and 92 losses. As a reulst, this proves that the Yankees are cmore accomplished and as a result, a better team than the Mets. Contention 2: The Yankees won the World Series, while the Mets didn't even make it into the playoffs. This arguement is self explanitory, because the Yankees made it farther and won the World Series compared to the Mets who came fourth out of 5 teams in their division and as a result didn't make it into the playoffs. Contention 3: The Yankees have more depth on their roster than the Mets do. Since the Yankees have more money, they can afford better players than the Mets and they can have a better depth chart. I can give examples if asked by my opponent. Contention 4: The Yankees have a better starting rotation and bullpen than the Mets. If my opponent even feels like this is possible for him to argue against, then i will argue him back, btu the Yankees with C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, Andy Pettite, Joba Chamberlain, and in the bullpen with Mariano Rivera and Phill Hughes and co.
Hitler's rise to power.

Now, I'm no Aryan, so get that out of your system before you start to read, and I am in no way demoralizing Britain, but If Hitler admired the British, and copied their idea of concentration camps, and also copied a 'master race', then who's the most to blame for loss of life? Hitler for using ideas, or Britain, for fueling them? I personally think that Britain are the most to blame. Reason being that Britain use these concentration camps in Africa during the Boer War, forcing many innocents to either work, starve or dehydrate to death. Africa is a very hot country, and working for a scrap of bread and a little bit of water per day, for example, is nothing worth working for. Now, some may argue that Hitler had more harsh conditions, but in History during school, are you ever taught about how the British treated their prisoners of war? I was never taught that, and through my own research I found out that Hitler is no worse than Britain at the time.
Religion Is a Tragic Misstep in Human History

RULES: NO SOURCES! I want this to completely come from you based on your own philosophical views There will be profanity There were be no trolling No attacking eachother Enjoy the debate and Thank eachother for the debate in the last round Religion Is a Tragic Misstep in Human History......I understand that some of you may be offended by that bold statement. However, it is my statement. I view human history as a tragedy. Religion (as a whole) proves that. We go through life thinking nothing besides what sins we make and how we can prove, "God (Allah, etc..)," that we are worthy to go to heaven. We judge others by their religion and not by their character. We see people who believe things differently and scrutinize them accordingly to suit our own beliefs. We judge people's sexuality to better suit what is said in a, "Holy Book," that was written by a mere mortal like you and I. How many wars are there going to be that are going to be declared in the name of, "God?"
rap battle

Really mate? You realize that you just challenged Bill Gates. I'm worth more than the empire state building. That's not a thing that I would just fling around at some clown. Well actually I did, since you are bobo the clown. I just sent you packing back to your home town. Don't frown, I dislike frowners. They bring me down and the voters downer too. If you want to loose, then get on a booze cruise and never come back jack, it's as simple as that.
Australia is Better Than America

I hope my opponent is well. Since she has forfeited her round, I will start by showing why the United States is better than Australia:1) EconomyAccording to the World Bank the Gross Domestic Product of Australia is 924,843 million USD. The GDP of the United States is 14,582,400 million USD which is roughly 14 times as much.[1] The GDP of the state of California alone is greater than that of Australia at 1,911,822 million USD. The GDP of two other US states (Texas and New York) is also greater than that of Australia.[2] 2) Military strengthThe United States have more than 1.4 million people actively serving in the military, another 1.4 million reserve personnel (ranked 2nd in the world) and has an impressive array of equipment ranging for each of its divisions:The US air force has 5,573 aircraft, of which 2,132 are fighters, 450 ICBMs and 32 satellites.[4]The US navy has 286 ships and over 3,700 aircraft.[3]By comparison, the Australian Armed Forces only have 59,023 active personnel and a total of 44,016 Reserve personnel and is ranked 68th in the world.[5]3) Territory and PopulationThe United States has a total area of 3,717,813 square miles ranked 4th in the world and a population of over 300 million ranked 3rd in the world.[6] Australia on the other hand has an area of 2,969,907 ranked 6th in the world and a population of 22 million ranked 50th in the world.[7]4) Space TechnologyThe United States is the only country to have landed people on the moon with over twelve people from the United States walking on the moon between 1969 and 1972. [8]Sources[1] http://siteresources.worldbank.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Border fence

Since I am more familiar with the LD Aff. format I will present the affirmative case. NOTE: I really don't feel like looking up evidence so basically I'm going to wing it. Since my opponent brings up the call that Border Fences pertains to America,no other evidence relating to other countries should be brought up. If again other evidence rather then the America is brought disregards all contentions and evidences. Ok lets get started... 1C: Border Fences provide security The reason why the United States provides Border Fences is not to segregate the civilians. The reason being is because segregate is defined by Merriam Webster as (to cause or force the separation of from the rest of society) Again border fences provide a sense of security to the society of the United States and the other countries that have border fences. The America people don't put border fences to Hurt People or to even "might make the Mexicans mad". The reason why the government provides border fences is because they know that borders fences are effective. They don't put them up to spend the "governments money" again they put them up to provide security to the countries society. Which leads me to my next contention. 2C:Keeps illegal people out It is really simple people come and go but the reason border fences are provided is to keep the illegal people out. The people that are surrounded by the border are the ones that we try to keep from coming to the Americas. The reason we don't allow them to come is because they cause the problems, and the truth is we always have to be the situation. Also the government doesn't hurt the people the people hurt them self. They know the laws of the border fences and still people try to cross the border. Again it is simple we have to keep illegal immigrants out. The way we do this is by border fences. This leads me to my final contention. 3C: Also keeps the illegal drugs out If we keep the illegal people out then we can also keep the drug wars/drug lords out. just like 9/11 people can just come in an make a big mess. See if we restrict the drugs and the people from coming in it lowers the catastrophe from the income. Without the border fences drug dealers can come and go. This is the last thing we have on our laundry list, is for the people from other countries ruining the America civilization. So basically the one thing we want for the America's people is safety. We most certainly can not achieved that without out border fences. So in conclusion, vote in Affirmation of this topic... Border Fences do good rather then harm. Again they allow the sense of security,while keeping illegal people out, and keeping the drugs out from the Nation Which We Stand United. NOTE AGAIN: I didn't know if the pro. is to counter the con. Usually the pro presents his case and the con counters and presents case. Kind of confusing but yeah thank you for this debate.
Income inequality is not a bad thing

This is my first debate so please bear with me. The resolution is that income inequality is an essential feature of a free society. I am arguing for it. Definitions:Income inequality: disparities in the distribution of economic resources among individuals in a society. Free society: a type of society in which individuals act voluntarily and are free to pursue their own goals in a legal framework that protects each and every individual's rights. Essential: inherent or indispensable. In this context I mean that you can't have a free society without income inequality. Both stay or both go. Round 1 should be to accept and clarify the resolution and terms.
Income inequality is not a bad thing

I challenge to express my opinion regarding to the arguments by Pro for Round 4. Pro says that ``in open, globalized economies is inversely correlated to income inequality. That is to say, greater economic freedom leads to greater income inequality but also lower levels of poverty. `` We must recognize that today a national economy of the developed countries is closely linked to the global economy. I think this is very important problem. Pro points out the relationship about economic freedom and a lower levels of poverty. In my opinion the globalization of a economy contributes to eradicating a higher levels of poverty. The degree of poverty level is different from one country to another country. For example, China is enjoying a lower levels of poverty compared with some of the African countries by being integrated into the globalized economy. However, many American people are suffering from a higher levels of poverty these days. Many U. S. companies have been relocating their production facilities to lower-waged countries like China and India. Therefore, many people have been deprived of their jobs and some of them have been urged to accept lower wages or part-time jobs. This situation is harmful for their life. In particular, many U. S. managers are only interested in seeking for the short-term profit making. They have scant symphasy for the workers. On the other hand, ``Europe places more restraints on executive compensation, so its corporate leaders don`t receive the outsized packages than their American counterparts do. (Global income inequality: Where the U. S. rank, by Tami Luhby, . http://money.cnn.com....) And ``what`s unique to the United States is the relative lack of government support compared to Europe and Canada. Other countries provide more public services, including health insurance, higher education, daycare and pensions. And these benefits are provided on a more universal basis, rather than being dependent on one`s income level, as in the United States. ``(. http://money.cnn.com....) Recent budget cut(Feburuary, 2013) leads to acceralate income disparity between the rich and the poor further. Other factor play a role in widening the economic divide in America. The labor unions are losing their counter-vailing power toward the management. The important thing is that ``the decline of the U. S. unions as one cause behind falling middle-class income. ``(. http://money.cnn.com....) This leads clearly to widen the income inequality between the rich and the low-income workers. Income inequality is more serious in America than that of Europe. It seems that they come from the difference of social values. Europe places higher value on the welfare of the general public but the U. S. does not. It seems to me that in this globalized, free and capitalist society equalizing outcomes is very difficult to realize. I could learn a lot about income inequality in this debate.
Income inequality is not a bad thing

It's refreshing to be able to debate these topics without the usual rancor and ad hominem attacks. The resolution is that income inequality is an essential feature of a free society. Con does not disagree, as he writes: "We understand that we live in a free and capitalistic society, in which we can find a fierce competition among people to get higher wages and higher social status. As a result, a winner and a loser emerge and the income inequality takes place. However, this is not a reasonable and acceptable for creating a sound, peaceful, democratic and socially justified society. " While I differ in his zero-sum, winners and losers characterization of a free society, he is clearly stating that income inequality is inextricable from it, therefore agreeing to the resolution. As for the secondary claim that income inequality is bad, Con listed several social problems which he attributes to income inequality, but which I have provided evidence that they are either unrelated to income, or directly related to poverty, which in open, globalized economies is inversely correlated to income inequality. That is to say, greater economic freedom leads to greater income inequality but also lower levels of poverty. Imagine a society of two people, Jack and Jill. Jack makes $200 while Jill makes $100. People focused on the distribution of income would think it preferable that Jack made $100 while Jill made $80, making both persons poorer but materially more equal. This makes no sense to me. The choice we face is clear: our aim can be either reducing poverty or equalizing outcomes, but not both.
Income inequality is not a bad thing

I believe income inequality is unacceptable and harmful for a society. My arguments are the following. 1. Income inequality produces a bad effects on a society and human life among the general public. The most serious problem is that a poor family or low- income family can not get not only a healthy foods but a medical treatment. This brings about a devastating effects on the future generation of a society. For example, in 2007, ``the United States had the fourth highest rate of income inequality of all OECD countries.``(Why is income inequality bad?, June 26,2011,http://faireconomy.org...) There are a number of cases.(http://faireconomy.org...) (1) People in more unequal societies live shorter lives. The United States is number 50 out of 222 in the world in terms of life expectancy. (2) People in more unequal societies are more likely to experiance mental illness. In 2003, 17-29 percent of Americans suffered with mental illness. (3) More children die in infancy in unequal societies. The U.S. is number 176 of all 222 countries. (4) Obesity is more common in unequal societies. Obesity rates in the United States are the highest of all OECD countries. (5) Children in more unequal societies do worse in school. Out of 34 OECD countries, the U.S. is 14th in reading skills, 17th in science and 25th in math. Therefore, effective action must be taken before it is getting even worse. 2. Income inequality leads to the decrease the number of the middle class which is a core foundation of a national economy. For example, in the United States the middle class has been playing an important role in increasing and sustaining stable domestic demand. This has contributed to stimulating the private investment among many companies. ``Historically, the backbone of the U.S. economy, the eroding middle class has created an anemic economy, Berkeley labor economist Robert Reich recently wrote. He emphasized that the spending of the richest people alone is not enough to lead to `a virtuous cycle of more jobs and higher living standards.` ``( http://www.huffingtonpost.... com.) 3. Income inequality is undemocratic and is not compatible with the basic democratic values. Some of the rich people in the U.S. get their higher social status and reputation by hard work, talent and creative spirit. However, other group of wealthy people take a different route. Robert Creamer says that ``some of our most powerful citizens came to that station not because of their merit, but because they got it the `old fashion way`- they inherited it. That is directly contrary to our shared belief in a more democratic society- where power and opportunity are broadly shared- where no one`s power or station in life are determined by accident of birth.``( Why growing income inequality is bad for America, http://www.huffingtonpost.com....) From above arguments, I believe that income inequality is a bad thing and unacceptable for a society.
After-life doesn't exist

Supporting that life has metaphysical implications ; "I do agree with CON that every specimen leaves a mark/influence on the world. I didnt deny that. Thats the arrow of time. The specimen did exist somewhere in the past. His influence trueley does stay. He consumed food, made basic life, dies and gave his material for the cycle of the nature." Unsupported statement: "But mark/influence (a sort of legacy) of his life/living doesnt mean that hes still alive or in the after-life phase. Life does not continue in any way after death." -> My opponent is still vaguely referring to his premise that life can only be seen from a physical stand point which I have shown to be not so since there are also metaphysic (philosophical) implications. Therefore, these arguments are simply repeating his premise without supporting it and also without addressing my previous arguments. "And life, is a physical entity that makes basic self-substaining processes." -> This is the operational definition of a biologist which I at not point challenged since I retorted that life could be defined in both a metaphysical and physical what. From the Wikipedia Locked article of life: "However, determining when death has occurred requires drawing precise conceptual boundaries between life and death. This is problematic, however, because there is little consensus over how to define life." -> Because the article is locked it has reputability. In summary, my opponent has not proven his proposition that a spiritual God does not exist. While I on the hand have proven my proposition that the statement "The after-life exist" can be viewed as correct because of metaphysics.
After-life doesn't exist

Hi, for the final round. I do agree with CON that every specimen leaves a mark/influence on the world. I didnt deny that. Thats the arrow of time. The specimen did exist somewhere in the past. His influence trueley does stay. He consumed food, made basic life, dies and gave his material for the cycle of the nature. But mark/influence (a sort of legacy) of his life/living doesnt mean that hes still alive or in the after-life phase. Life does not continue in any way after death. What CON mentioned is that after death of every specimen, that specimen leaves a legacy. Agree, but the legacy isn't after-life. And life, is a physical entity that makes basic self-substaining processes.
After-life doesn't exist

My opponent is attempting to refute my claim that there is a metaphysical (philosophical) after-life. This however does not help him prove that there is not spiritual after-life. His premise: "Your statement that someone live in someone's memory is wrong." First argument: "Memory of a person is electrochemical data saved in the nervous system, in our brain. Memory doesn't survive death, except if you actually copy someone's memory (that technology doesn't exist jet). In fact it is saved as long as the nervous system lives. So after nervous cells die-off, your memory literally disappears. It's nothing new, every animal with a central nervous system loses all memory or experience saved there, after death." -> He is simply making the self-evident claim that at death a person physically dies. These are distracting arguments that do not address the issues. Restating his first premise: "You said that we live on in someone's memory. That's stupid. Your life doesn't continue there at all." Arguments: "The only thing is that a person knows that there was a other person." -> Nonsensical phrase. Clarifying his first premise: "Electrochemical data in the person's nerve system "memory" its not meaning that someone lives on." Argument: "The basic definition of life rejects that." -> Life is an ambiguous term that by its very nature cannot be definitively define. There is no definitive measure to define what should be consider life or what exactly life consist of. Therefore, definitions of life can have metaphysical (philosophy) implications or physical ones or both. "What if there is no one to remember you? And memory gets with time forgotten. And you don't remember an ancient bacteria from Kazakhstan? If you have a picture of a person, that died. The picture doesn't present his after-life, he doesn't live." -> After-life does not imply eternal life in some form, it merely implies that after physical death there is some form of life that persists whatever the time frame. Whether it lasts one second or a year is irrelevant it still persists after physical life. If no one remember you, you have still left your mark on the world which means that your influence persists in this world.