BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Australia is a better place to live than the USA.

I do not have alot of time so I will make this quick. My opponent has NOT eliminated the SUBJECTIVITY!! Again,.. the topic of this debate was "Australia is a better place to live than the USA." My opponent fails to understand that it is personal preference to "like" where you live. Australia is better place to live than the USA,.. to who? Those who are currently deciding to leave their native lands for another? Obviously not, as they are choosing the USA. To who?,... the American farmers that harvest high yields from some of the most fertile lands in the world? And not not the vast dried up lands of rural Australia! To who?,.. the American athletes that have more leagues and programs that lead and develop and train the greatest athletes in the world! 974 Olympic gold medalists!!! Most of any nation in the history of the Olympics! To who?,.. the actors, singers, movie makers, that enjoy the USA pop culture as a multi billion dollar industry, and the world wide standard and manager of such! To who?,.. the secondary education instructors that find work in the USA because it is home to the most colleges and universities (post-secondary) schools! gotta go,.. but you get my point! My opponents topic is obviously subjective, simply because it is of personal prefrence,.. I feel that the USA is better place for me to live,.. and my two close Australian born, raised, and educated friends that have moved to the USA and have been living and loving in the USA for 32 years for one, and the other over 40!
Australia is a better place to live than the USA.

First I will state that I feel Australia is a great nation. The topic of this debate is subjective,.. or of personal preference. For instance one that has lived in Australia and has "roots" in Australia may feel more comfort in Australia therefore claiming Australia to be the better place to live. Certainly the nearly the 1.27 million annual immigrants that choose to leave their native land and live in the United States obviously feel the USA is a better place to live for them. That alone speaks volumes for the amount people that CHOOSE the USA to live in, making it at least the popular choice. In terms of "quality of living," which is what I predict you will arange your platform on,.. we first must put the 2 nations in to context. USA population= over 300 million Australia population= approx. 20 million Being that the USA is about 15 times as populous as Australia, makes the fact that the USA is #1 in the world for GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (the value of all final goods and services from a nation in a given year,) even more incredible. Lets also not forget purchase power parity per capita which is the average net value or earnings of each nations individual citizens. The following is already converted for monetary comparison. GDP (PPP) Australia= $35,000 (ranked 17th in the world) GDP (PPP) USA= $46,000 (ranked 4th in the world) As you can see the average American earns nearly $11,000 more per year than an Australian. A fact that is even more impressive when you take into consideration the gross population difference. Quality of life,... Not only does the USA earn more PPP than Australia, but Australia pays some of the highest International trade expenses of any nation. Australia pays much more for the same goods and services of the same proportion when compared to the USA, which only adds to the quality of life for Americans. USA citizens have typically more money to spend, thus, large houses, vacation homes, boats, travel, and other leisure activities are seen more commonly in the USA. Toss that in with the fact the the USA is the most culturally diverse nation with largest amount of immigration annually,.. a world leader in science, technology, music, movies, sports, agriculture, charity, economics, finance, health, etc etc etc,... makes the USA by popular ideal, the better place to live by those whom partake in the above characteristics.
Australia is a better place to live than the USA.

Yes, Australia is a better place to live than the USA. By 'better place to live' I essentially am referring to living standards. This refers to the living standards of the country as a whole, as in, just providing an example of one person living happily does not make any country a better place to live than any other. This debate is 4 rounds. I will demonstrate that A) The living standard in the USA is comparatively poor to Australia B) The living standard in Australia is superior to that of the USA Affirmative burden- To demonstrate that Australia is a better place to live than the USA Negative burden- To demonstrate that the USA is a better place to live than Australia. Good luck.
Minimum Wage

Thank you for your acceptance and arguments! Let's get into it. "When workers struggle to make ends meet, productivity sags, absenteeism increases, morale suffers and turnover rises because workers are constantly hunting for better opportunities." I totally agree, and in my view, having a minimum wage creates this exact issue and makes it worse by not providing any "better opportunities". Why? If there's a minimum wage, all the companies just pay that minimum or perhaps just above it. "At the same time, as employees" pay stagnates or declines, fewer households have money to spend, meaning businesses see fewer customers. Consumer spending"which makes up 70 percent of the U.S. economy"is weakened, and more people go into debt or turn to government assistance just to get by." Though I don't know where you got that 70 percent statistic (and "economy" is awfully general in that case), I agree with this as well. "Unless it is periodically raised, a larger and larger segment of the population sees its living standards decline, in spite of a growing economy." Precisely. If the minimum isn't flexible, problems arise. Abolishing the minimum wage solves this problem as there will be constant competition, constant opportunities and no "floor" for every company to stand on. "But research has shown that modest increases"like the proposed raise to $10.10"have little to no effect on employment and that affected businesses can absorb them with negligible price adjustments." Could you provide a source for this please? As I was reading your argument, I realized you provided an argument for both sides which is a bit confusing since you're supposed to be arguing that the minimum wage should be raised. Issues raised in your second half of argument pretty accurately reflect what I was going to say. The first half assumes that either: a) I am arguing that people should be paid less b) Abolishing minimum wage will lead to lower wages However, the first is simply false and the second is something you must prove. If we look at things "theoretically", allowing for companies to decide their wages completely will create competition among companies to provide good wages and if workers aren't happy with it? They can actually go out and try to find an employer that will actually pay more for their work. If we look at things on a "practical" level, we see that Switzerland voted to abolish the minimum wage and the result was actually an increase in average salaries. http://www.fff.org... Raising the minimum wage will push mechanization of companies, as mentioned by your second half. Why should McDonald's hire 5 people and pay everyone more, when they can just install a few machines and pay one manager? I await your response.
Gun Control is illogical

Thank you for responding dukeblueinmyveins, as this is also my first time posting on this website.1) Age restrictions are logicalI believe I was not very clear when I started this debate, and I would like to apologize. I do agree with the fact that age restrictions are logical. By gun control I meant the assault weapons ban which is infringing the 2nd Amendment and the ridiculous "7 bullets per magazine" and assault weapons ban in New York. (1)2) Universal background checks for mental illness are logicalWhile I do agree that background checks make sense, it will not stop the mentally ill. One schizophrenic passed a background check from federally licensed gun dealers, and was able to use the gun to kill his mother. (2)A background check did not save Gabby Gifford's life. (3)What good are new background checks if the current ones are not even being enforced? Putting that aside if one were to think about it carefully, most violent mentally ill people would not even consider a background check and just buy one illegally. 3) Among competent adults, having less restrictive gun laws is associated with greater incidence of suicide and overall gun death rates. Anyone that wants to commit suicide will take anything that is available, that is not a matter of guns.A great example of a crime filled city is Chicago with 40 gun-related homicides per month. Guess what? It has one of the strictest gun laws in the nation. (4)Criminals are going to break one law in order to achieve the breaking of another one, (They're criminals, duh,) proving once again background checks are useless. And just a question. Suppose you are a criminal intending to kill children in a certain school.Would you enter the school with a sign that says "Gun-free zone" or would you enter a school with a sign that says "Warning, staff is armed, anyone attempting to harm any students will be met with lethal force. 1.http://www.governor.ny.gov...2.http://www.cnn.com...3.http://www.newsbusters.org...4.http://www.nytimes.com...
Gun Control is illogical

This is my first debate on this site, and I am looking forward to a rigorous discussion. Eminentend intends to argue that gun control in general is highly illogical. Below, I provide an initial counter. 1) Age restrictions are logical -Very young children should not be able to legally have access to guns, because they may not understand the effects of using them. The National Rifle Association advises parents with "very young children" to "discuss gun use on television as opposed to gun use in real life," because very young children have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality when it comes to gun use (. http://eddieeagle.nra.org...). They may see actors killed on one show or movie only to find them perfectly fine in another show or movie, making the effects of gun violence appear more benign or impermanent. -Very young children may not be able to safely handle guns. Even in the U. K. , where kids are allowed to use shotguns if they have a license and adult supervision, the youngest child to be granted a license was seven years old. Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting, lead spokesman on firearms legislation for the Association of Chief Police Officers said that evidence on young people obtaining shotgun certificates does not give cause for concern, but even he acknowledged that there should be an "absolute minimum age" of 10 (. http://www.bbc.co.uk...). -Laws restricting gun access to children reduced unintentional gun deaths in the United States among youth aged 14 to 17. (. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). 2) Universal background checks for mental illness are logical -Mentally ill persons may not have the lucidity to know how to use guns safely, so access to guns should be restricted for persons known to have diagnosed, serious mental illness. Mental illness is associated with increases in suicide, and, in the United States, more people kill themselves with firearms than anything else (50.7% of all suicides in the U. S. were committed using firearms in 2006). Even the National Rifle Association President, David Keene, is in favor of background checks to block people who may be mentally ill (. http://www.cnn.com...). 3) Among competent adults, having less restrictive gun laws is associated with greater incidence of suicide and overall gun death rates -In states where firearm laws are modest or unrestrictive, men and women have higher suicide incidence rate ratios than in states with restrictive firearm laws (. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). -Strong gun laws are associated with lower gun death rates in general (. http://smartgunlaws.org...) Given the above, it is my contention that while not all gun control is logical, the idea that gun control in general is highly illogical is an overstretch.
L is more intelligent than Light but Light is more efficient at using his intellect

If you have not seen the anime series Death Note, please do not debate. This is based on the anime, not the manga comic books. I believe that L is more intelligent than Light Yagami but that Light is able to use his intellect to a greater extent than L. Con has to take ONE of THREE stances, if you can't pick one, don't accept the debate: a) L is not more intelligent than Light. b) Light is not more capable of using his intellect as L. c) Both I shall state definitions. More: in greater quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number. [1] Intelligent: displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment. [2] Efficient: performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort. [3] Intellect: the power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one wills; the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring knowledge. [4] Sources: [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
In defence of Theism, Prove me wrong.

I accept your challenge. Please present your case in the next round so that I may begin to address it. I need to know how you take the Bible (what is literal and what isn't) and what your arguments for the existence of God are. In order to "prove you wrong", I need to know what your position is."And There is no evidence to suggest I am in any way wrong about my Religion or faith." Be careful, you are nearing a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof."Philosophically I am sound, with a Corner stone as my foundation with which I may crush my opponents." I can't wait to see that."I suggest you work in teams to mass your arguments." Unless someone offers to help me, I will be alone in this endeavour."Please bring the Atheists A game." I'll do the best I can.This is going to be fun. Let's begin!
In defence of Theism, Prove me wrong.

As a theist, A Christian, I have the universal cosmos on my side to defend this argument. As a Christian, I can not only quote the Quran but also Muslims in saying, that the Holy Quran supports me in my faith without contradictions. Hinduism, which via Sanskrit is argued to be Monotheist in nature, Supports all my claims. the Mythology of Europe, supports my claims, as well as all worldly philosophies. As a Christian I rely heavily on sciences and logic to defend my case. And There is no evidence to suggest I am in any way wrong about my Religion or faith. Philosophically I am sound, with a Corner stone as my foundation with which I may crush my opponents. I suggest you work in teams to mass your arguments. I am pleased to have this opportunity. Please bring the Atheists A game. As I am not a shark.
In defence of Theism, Prove me wrong.

The Undebatable Fact: God is without clear definition: What God's definition does include however, is that He is in everything and everything is within him: This statement is true for another thing. The Universe. as the Universe is a union of all things in reality. Even the Notion-verse is in reality, because by these things having the potential to be imagined they exist As 'the conceivable'. All essences of Reality; beauty, fear: exist as a part of both the manifest and unmanifest existence of the Universe, and these things to are in God. Although God may or may not be what you perceive to be what you are arguing about, By Definition All these things are inside him and he is inside them as well. Never claiming to know who God is or where his limits lie, He factually IS, Everything. And as the cosmos is self aware, for every reaction has a cause, and energies permit a map to be illustrated to measure the movement and potential of all matter, The Universe is all knowing. As well as being stable, in it's state of providing abundant amounts of stimulation and joys, indicating the Universe is loving. God is because the very word of his existence is not one of a debatable nature. -Notice I am not debating to support Judaism or Christianity, or Hinduism, or another, but the actual entity of God, who's voice with which hie communicates with the worlds is unspecified. There are moralities. And these moralities, as is the founding laws of physics in our world, are wise matters. The self aware universe has but one primorial substance, Wisdom, for had the beginning been different the Physical make up of the world would not be as such, Perfect in it's scientific foundations. And so Wisdom(Jesus, the Light of the World), the son of God is factual as well. [b]"However we can stipulate it is very easy to see that planets and moons orbit in a vortex, which is governed by the energies pools, leaving a path of least resistance for them to take."[i] It is very easy to stipulate anything, the hard part is to demonstrate the truth of those stipulations (which you have not done).[/b][/i] This is the same method by which scientists found all the theories they claim are facts, when they say Gravity is the factual cause of our observations.
In defence of Theism, Prove me wrong.

Thank you for your argument. I will address them paragraph per paragraph. I can easily dismiss the first paragraph, because you basically use a false dichotomy to present a non-sequitur and end up making a fallacious appeal to consequences; you say that if God doesn't exist then mathematics is all that we are left with (false dichotomy) which means that there is no free will (non-sequitur) and therefore we can not be judged for the actions that we make (appeal to consequences). Even if I were to grant that free will is ultimately illusory, so what? Punishing murderers and rapists is a practical necessity; it is a fact that society is better off when these people are locked up. This paragraph is useless and devoid of any argument. The same goes for this paragraph. The fact that religion X preaches a doctrine that is somewhat similar to religion Y is absolutely irrelevant; the truth of those assertions must be demonstrated. Mythologies are not all monotheist; the Norse mythology has many gods, so does the Hindu mythology and the Greek mythology. You seem to be under the impression that holy scriptures are evidence for the claims that they themselves make; they're not. Every religion that is not Christianity contradicts Christianity. Even within your own religion people can't seem to agree on various issues, which is why there are so many denominations of Christianity. Again, irrelevant. Consistency between religions does not tell you if any of them is actually true. Empty statement. Once again, no arguments were made in this paragraph. The Bible can not be evidence for its own claims. Reciting the story of Genesis is not an argument, its preaching. I have never seen a single scientific evidence in support of creation, whether it be the young Earth version or the old Earth version. The only thing that people can come up with is a couple of arguments from ignorance. The formation of planets is a well understood phenomenon that does not require any intervention from an intelligent being. Ever heard of gravity? I was not aware that we were able to observe the destruction of the tower of Babel. Sources please. And vague correlation does not imply causation OR truth. Carbon dating is in fact VERY accurate. The assumptions that you have to make are very safe considering what we know about the Earth. Moreover, the results that it produces are in line with other methods of dating. Carbon dating is indeed not the best method to date fossils because it only works for the past 50 000 years and the majority of fossils are FAR older than that. To date fossils, scientists date the rock in which they are found. Your parody of evolution is a waste of characters. Again, preaching. I am sorry that my rebuttals are extremely short, but you did not present anything of substance in this past round; you mostly preached and made unsupported assertions regarding science. In the next round, please remain on topic. P.S. Don't take this the wrong way, but could you please proof read your argument before posting it? The syntax of some of your sentences made it difficult for me to understand what you were saying.
Brooklyn (pro) vs Queens (con) rap battle

Is that all you got suckaBrooklyn is harder than those Germanic Pagan mothaf--kasI got a style so hard, I make Martin Luther s--t on his pantsYou say you got Mets, yet we have the sitcoms that whip a--We got the hit "Seinfeld"You got "Friends" what the hella lame a-- show with one born in Queenswhining with those wack a-- lines that can't compete with the Gsknown as the "Seinfeld" gangtheir show was so hard! DAMN!Brooklyn's awesome sites will have those from Queens s--tingAnd will have the KKK from Queens b--chingYou say David Schwimmer, I say Jerry SeinfeldYou say Martin Tupper (the character "Dream On"), I say, "What the hell"?Queens is behind the timesBrooklyn is rocking at the drop of a dimeQueens with those broken down buildingsBrooklyn with the new hip buildingsThink you are the s--t now? No one will miss you"Seinfeld" (Brooklyn) is a classic. Raw TRUTH!Tell me about Howard's Beach you cowardWe getting fame, so you white ---es are just hurt lolI'm so damn terrifyingThat "Friends" fans and Queens suckers don't dare start s--twith the Brooklyn "Seinfeld" fan gangsta, called Adam Gand my tomboy friend Jasmine rockin'the streets of Bushwick and East New YorkI'll roast your a-- like a piece of porkwith the lyrical hardcore Brooklyn freestylethat goes harder than even "Seinfeld"Hirohito, Mussolini or HitlerTry to top that s--t suckaWe stole all your Queens girlsYour borough ain't nothing but segregationist dirt!
Brooklyn (pro) vs Queens (con) rap battle

Look dude, I can continue rapping all day any way. Brooklyn might have Barclays but that's all you have Queens got Corona, Mets stadium and US Open shows Brooklyn's sucking on opium will beat the Cyclones and send them back home If you're hard as Mussolini, Hirohito, and HItler... then you'll see Churchill, Stalin, and FDR! By the time this battle ends Queens is away on the plane while Brooklyn sobs in the rain!
Brooklyn (pro) vs Queens (con) rap battle

You say Brooklyn has more crimeThen why do blacks get lynched in Queens by the dimeQueens got nothing but hate crimesFrom the KKK to the Howard's Beach, wheres blacks diedQueens houses the bulliesBrooklyn houses the cool GsWe got Bensonhurst, Dyker Heights and Sunset ParkLike cowards, Queens Klansmen hide in the darkBrooklyn Gs say it straight to your face, howeverDon't even try a Brooklyn G, ever!"Seinfeld" beats "Friends" day after dayF--k around with "Seinfeld," and you'll payI rip the streets like the elevated trains, broI'm as hard as Hitler, Mussolini and HirohitoYou got the lame a*s KKKWe got the fascists that rock everydayBushwick is nicer than the old beaten down AstoriaBrooklyn rocks the bells, sonBrooklyn is better than Howard's BeachCome to Brooklyn and get your Jeep beat A little clariffication: my reference to Flash Thompson was a reference to the character and his buddies in "Spiderman," and they were all from Queens. Peter and his family was from Queens, but they are an honorary exception.
Brooklyn (pro) vs Queens (con) rap battle

KKK? What planet are you on? At least Queens doesn't have a Brooklyn high crime rateThis ain't even a debate Brooklyn doesn't have good sh*t on their plate even when their food comes lateQueens ain't going to waitWe drop the hatewhile Brooklyn doesn't know how to open a gate! Gunshots? You will only hear that sh*t in Brooklyn We have already put our scum down the bin Queens still has Rockaways, Bay Side, Whitestone, Fores Hills, compare that to Brooklyn's Red Hook, Bed-stuy, Brownsville When it comes to class, Brooklyn is weaker than glass!