BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
u.k vs united states!!!

free education is not always a good thing as it creates far more competition public/private and stigma too EMA's are also reducalus i got hounded by first class scum who never achieved anything in school because they didn't want to and they went for 5th and 6th year of school wasted time and teachers resources just so they could earn easy money . Free school meals america has food stamps if we have better employment rights why are so many people going on strike against government proposals and the unemployment ratings getting dangerously close to 3 million with youngsters hit the worst that is being cut and it is only some public sector jobs plus it also gives lazy people a free ride and makes those who cant aford to take a sickie do far more hard work than they should yeah the benifit scheme is what is attracting so many foregin nationals to our country and most turn up and cant find work and take up more of the governments resources by claiming all the benefits britains don't like work that's what everyone forgets if we can get away with it we will and the government just wastes money complying only the one percent live in london and earn a good pay we hate the one percent come and live in the uk and you travel on our busses the transport system is constantly coming under fire from the public with people being forced to resign because it is so bad in a america presidents can only do so many terms in the white house meaning any damage can be contained quicker un like us with tony bliar and margret thatcher america is so much better scotland is in dire straights and london had to bail our banks out england has now raised university tuition fees to 8 grand and most scottish universities are following suit britain is being pushed out of the euro zone and we don't have the power to fight back america has the power it just doesnt always use it right it is still better than britain though
u.k vs united states!!!

Free Education all the way up to university! (If your on a low income the government will pay for the university fees) If your child decides to go to college at age 16 the government will pay them ï¿½30 a week to stay in education till they are 18 via the EMA program (again depending on your earnings) Schools are generally smaller and education standards are pretty good - schools are inspected by Ofsted regularly to ensure good standards. Primary and Secondary school meals are free if on a low income Better employment rights - http://www.direct.gov.uk...; Including a minimum of 28 days paid annual leave each year. The government will pay you Sick Pay if you are ill and your company offers no sick pay scheme. If you lose your job you can claim benefits - Full rent and council tax payments will be made for you while you look for work! Plus you'll be given a small income to help you support yourself while looking for work. You can earn a good salary if you live in London. (Wages are generally higher in London) Transport isn't too bad (you find londoners complain alot about transport but I've certainly seen worse)
u.k vs united states!!!

I live in Britain and the NHS is a joke. The treatments are adequate once you are actually seen by a doctor and they are overloaded by idiots who get hurt doing stupid stuff usually while drunk or on drugs it also means that the government has to spend a lot of money on health treatments fpr a very unhealthy nation when they could use it better on education. Every country has a history the american civil war is a brilliant part of history the public transport is horrendous just look at the tram fiasco in edunburgh and snow and rain causes our networks to come to a grinding halt america has so much more to offer in terms of diversity and better universities because it is so much bigger they have so many more mini cultures that create a really atraction to tourists britain can't do this because we are so busy trying to appeal to this tea drinking good humour society that is out dated and constrictive
u.k vs united states!!!

uk has Free Health Care (NHS) - bad teeth you say? Dentists and Orthodontists are free, so that's a load of bull, Decent Tea, British Humour - Monty Python, Black Adder etc, History - you hear about 1066? My church is probably older than most American 'ancient' monuments. the London Underground - public transport in the UK is just better I think, Higher Life Expectancy does us have any of this no!!!!
As Christmas draws near, the "War on Christmas" gets harder. Stop the "War on Christmas"

We live in a very diverse society. In such a society, it is important for people to celebrate both our American culture and the diverse cultures and beliefs that comprise our country. Saying "Merry Christmas" ignores the possibility that the recipient of the greeting may not celebrate, or worse may be offended by the statement. You must recognize there is a significant risk of possibly offending someone by wishing them "Merry Christmas" during a sacred day in their faith (like saying merry x-mas during Hanukkah). Why risk such a social blunder? Simply say the all inclusive "Happy Holidays", unless you know that your audience will not feel disrespected by the alternative greeting. Saying "Happy Holidays" does not take anything away from Christmas, it simply allows others to feel included in the well-wishes. Because I know you do celebrate x-mas, I would like to conclude by saying, Merry Christmas to you. Happy Holidays dabate.com members!
As Christmas draws near, the "War on Christmas" gets harder. Stop the "War on Christmas"

I don't know about you, but I have never had a Muslim say "Have a blessed Ramadan". It is a holiday their religion, but you understand that it would be odd if they wished you a blessed one. Christmas is the same thing, the only difference is the fact that Christians are the majority in this country and Muslims are not. Everyone does not say "Merry" or "Happy" whatever holiday they celebrate when that holiday is not reconizedrecognizedby the Christian majority in this country. To do so would subject one to strange looks and the possibility of evoking a theological debate between faiths. It is just not socially permissible for non-Christians to celebrate their holidays in the same grandious grandiose as Christians. Furthermore, why wish someone Merry Christmas when the day means nothing to them. Jews, for example would not be as inclined to care about Christmas because to them, Christ was not the Messiah. No one has said that you do not have the right to say Merry Christmas. The First Amendment protects speech (both verbal and symbolic), with the exception of speech that conveys obscenity, fighting words, incites violence, etc. So unless I am mistaken, you have every right to say Merry Christmas. You do not, however, have the right to dictate what people should not be offended by. Christmas eclipses most other holidays between November and December, so when someone says "Merry Christmas" they reiterate the fact that the Christian holiday is seemingly more important than other holidays. "Happy holidays", on the other hand shows that you are trying to be respectful of the person you are talking to by acknowledging whatever holiday their religion celebrates (if any). This is not about restricting free speech or brainwashing. It is about respecting your fellow Americans beliefs and traditions- even the non-Christian ones.
As Christmas draws near, the "War on Christmas" gets harder. Stop the "War on Christmas"

Any person who celebrates a holiday would say Merry or Happy -whatever holiday they celebrated. They wouldn't say Merry Christmas. Why can someone tell me that I don't have the right to say Merry Christmas? I always say it. Never Happy Holidays, Happy Holidays is dumb. If you are offended by that then you belong in some dicatorship ruled country. It's even odder that people are offended if they don't celebrate a holiday. You don't, that's fine, but if you don't, you can't expect me to just not say Merry Christmas to anybody because some people will go home and "cry" about it. Why are people trying to brainwash the christians with this "Happy Holidays" crap?
As Christmas draws near, the "War on Christmas" gets harder. Stop the "War on Christmas"

Of course, "Merry Christmas" is not an offensive phrase by its very nature. It is completely appropriate to say to friends, family, and others who you know either celebrate the holiday, or are not offended by the phrase. However, it must be understood that the so-called "war on Christmas" is not related the the realm of these private relationships. Rather, people become offended when "Merry Christmas" is uttered by politicians, teachers, and other public figures without giving any thought to people that may celebrate other holidays or no holidays at all. For example, in Mike Huckabee's Christmas campaign ad, he wishes everyone "Merry Christmas", and goes on to remind us that the Christmas season is about celebrating the birth of Christ. http://youtube.com... This is offensive because he is running to be the President of all of the people, but only seems to be addressing those that believe in the importance of Christ, as he does. Why use a greeting that only speaks to certain people, when there is a much more inclusive greeting available? "Merry Christmas" is an exclusive phrase because it ignores Jews, Muslims, etc. that celebrate holidays other than Christmas. It should not be difficult to imagine why it may be particularly offensive to say "Merry Christmas" to a Jew on December 10th while they were actively celebrating Hanukkah. Such a greeting would be like a French person wishing an American "Happy Bastille Day" (celebrated the weekend closest to July 14th) on the Fourth of July. Essentially, Christmas has the ability to dominate the holiday season, even on the actual days of other religious holidays. It is not a sound argument to say Christians should be offended by "Happy Holidays" because unlike "Christmas" the word "holidays" is inclusive of everyone, regardless of religious conviction. Of course you could say "Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanza, etc", but why bother when you can just say "Happy Holidays"?
As Christmas draws near, the "War on Christmas" gets harder. Stop the "War on Christmas"

It is complete bull that people are offended by "Merry Christmas". Maybe Christians should be offended by "Happy Holidays" as then it shows that someone actually believes in the nonsense that it isn't okay to say Merry Christmas. Welcome to America, where freedom of speech, "thrives". Not in schools, workplaces, in the news, on most online sites, near foreigners who might celebrate other holidays, in restaurants, public places, or the like of course, but it "thrives" everywhere else. I think it is anti-christian to say you are offended by Merry Christmas. Someone says "Happy Hanukkah" I won't punch them in the face and say, "That's HOLIDAYS to you buddy." I'll gladly accept and say, "you too.". In my eighth grade english class, my teacher made us write Holiday cards to the troops. She said, "Whatever you do, don't put Merry Christmas." Me and my friend happily put Merry Christmas, along with every other holiday greeting we could think of(hanukkah, etc). I then asked a girl sitting next to me why she wasn't filling out a card. She replied, "I'm Jehovah's witness, and I don't celebrate any holidays, and I don't support the war." "That's complete bull." I replied. "You don't have to support the war, OR celebrate any holidays." She insisted that you must, so I gave up. My teacher, being the politically correct chicken that she is, just ignored it. THIS WAR ON SAYING MERRY CHRISTMAS HAS TO STOP!
people hate hate

Just because they have not thrown me off of a building does not mean that I should feel that doing things like that is ok or justified and it does give people reason to hate them. Also there are twice as many radical muslims as there are people in America so people have a reason to be scared which is interpreted to be hatred by some people. You have still yet to clarify your argument or really state what is so I do not understand what you hope to achieve from this.
people hate hate

You didnt even make a position so i had to try and guess what you were saying which is that people in america are hateful and only judge people based on their religion. I do not think that is always the case even though some religions are cancerous to society like cults or islam. I say that if people are going to believe in evil things that people have a good reason to be scared of them and to hate them. If I were a homosexual I would hate islam because if I lived in an islamic country then I would be thrown off of a building. Also if you could clarify your argument that would be appreciated because it's not making much sense.
people hate hate

I do not see much hate in my life, more I see a victimization narrative of certain people and I do not think that religion plays a big factor in that in the United States. People have legitimate fears about other people and that can at times come off as hate but the word hate is used way too broadly in society today. Someone that goes against the social norms is considered hateful because they do not agree on policy but in reality this is just a tactic used by people on the left to discredit the legitimate arguements of people that disagree with them. They claim the conservatives hate black people or hate islamic people when in reality the democrats are the ones who hate the black people and people in America have a right to be scared of islamic people flooding the country.
The American Indepenence was net harmful

ConclusionIf the U. S. had not gained inependence and had stayed a dominion much like Canada, the world and the U. S. would have benefited greatly, because there would have been much less imperialism in the world, as well as much better domestic social policy on the North American mainland. These would have provided greater net benefits to the American people and much less net harms to various Africans, Latin Americans, Asians and even Europeans. Pro arguments on domestic societal benefits in North America were dropped and are thus uncontested. The only arguements that con was able to muster were attampts at justifying violence and war crimes abroad. It should be clear that the pro argument shows that the promp carries much more net benefits than the status quo that the con argued for.
The American Indepenence was net harmful

Last round is rebuttal only, no new arguments/evidence. The American War of Independence is defined as the conflict that produced an independent state from British North American colonial holdings in the mid to late 1770's CE. Pro argues that the world would have had more net benefits if the U. S. A. had not won independence. This is to be weighed on net benefits, and is a factual debate. The burden of proof is shared.
final fantasy 8 is the worst game in the series

Well, it has too much focus on the main character, and virtually no characterization/development on the supporting cast. The main plot has an incredible lack of direction. Your goals change constantly, from "being a school student who graduates into mercenary" to "we'll do paid jobs now" to "well, our first job will last for the rest of our lives" to "let's free timber" to "let's not, better assassinate evil dictator" to "let's just hide and seek" to "let's just stop future witch from doing evil" to "let's do that but let's focus on loving rinoa better" and so on. It doesn't progressively change goals to adapt to the situation, it just goes all over the place, you never know what kind of game you're playing until it finally settles for the love story and then everything else it built up is shoved to the side. Convenient plot points get revealed and ignored in the span of 5 minutes (NORG for example). Mysterious occurences get introduced but the characters decide it doesn't concern them "Let's not think about that", which is terrible exposition. Some key points like the orphanage, while not a plot hole by any stretch of the imagination, it's completely stupid and unnecessary, also poorly presented. The only "hint" to memory loss is buried in an optional database in your computer at school, at the beginning of the game (where it's most likely not going to stay with you). There's no need in the plot for everyone to know each other, and it makes for a really stupid plot twist, so its inclusion doesn't really make much sense. It adds nothing to the game but problems. All in all, the biggest problem in my experience was that the initial focus of the game (first disc) was really intriguing, and when it shifted into a corny love story I just couldn't believe myself. Not only I don't find love stories particularly appealing (not to mention this one is so poorly done) but I also lost what was built up to me. I was expecting things to go somewhere from where they started, but they don't. Meeting Laguna isn't the "climax" of that plot point that's been built up since the beginning of the game. It's just a random event that plays out as a sub-plot at best. The villain is barely explained, not to mention we find about her like in Disc 3, which doesn't really make me care for the antagonist. The characters don't care anyway either, they just want to get the job done and let Rinoa and Squall live happily ever after. Friendship!
doomsday would beat goku in a fight.

Name: Doomsday Origin: DC Comics Gender: Male Classification: Alien Age: Thousands of years old at the least Powers and Abilities: Super strength, Super Speed, Durability, Endurance, Immortality via Reactive Evolution, insane regeneration, able to come back from "dying" (due to immortality) and become stronger than what has killed it, Reactive Evolution grants him new abilities such as controled bone growth, breathing fire, telepathic immunity, can harm intangible beings, etc. Weaknesses: No notable weaknesses Destructive Capacity: Star level+ Range: Planet Level+ Speed: Massively FTL reactions can tag superman Durability: universal+(His regeneration makes him nearly immpossible to kill, however he can be KO'd or incapacitated by lesser forces, but above what an average Kryptonian can dish out is required. He shrugged off Darkseid's Omega Effect.) Strength: unknown. Shown to outmatch Darkseid and Superman during "Hunter/Prey", and held the upper hand against the entire Justice League during "The Doomsday Wars". Stamina: can go on forever Standard Equipment: Nothing notable Intelligence: Capable of processing information extremely quickly and is able to adapt and evolve to whoever and whatever defeated it in combat. doomsday cant be killed the same way twice
doomsday would beat goku in a fight.

"You are basically taking assumptions and being off topic." Why, thank you. Taking assumptions is what debating is about. Death Battle. Dragon Ball series. The Death of Superman. Superman / Wonder Woman. Google. Wikipedia. Stated my sources. "Goku can not reality warp and reality warp will just take him to another place." Your words. What about instant transmission? So he can grab Doomsday and take him into the void (a place of nothing, empty space). Namek blew up, and he survived for a year just traveling through space (Goku has a power of flight that can somehow propel him through space, like Superman.) Also, throw him into a black hole! Who knows where he will pop up. "Xbox is better because my dad said so". Actually, he plays PlayStation. And he doesn't care. Thank you for doing a great debate. KaaameeeeHaaaameeeeeHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Note: In the video I linked, Cell was considered invincible at the time. http://www.youtube.com...
doomsday would beat goku in a fight.

No what i am saying is how do we know your dad is 100% correct. You can say your dad but you have to back it up with facts. What do you mean no one can get involved? Any ways the people commenting are not debating so it really doesn't matter what they really say. What really matter is what we say . At the end it affects us. people can comment if they want. What does that have to do with the debate. people can vote which is extremely important. You are basically taking assumptions and being off topic. I never said that ,all i am saying is your dad is not a reliable way to show any proof. I am not trying to be disrespectful but how will you feel if your in a debate someone says, "Xbox is better because my dad said so". Please you can say your dad but provide sources to go with it. First off i always said it was hard to get rid of doomsday. You never stated anything to agreeing to it. First off how will goku take him to a void explain? Whatever else you said was irrelevant to the debate and not even a good reason for goku to win. You are little jumpy and off topic.
doomsday would beat goku in a fight.

How can my Dad, my closest source of information, not be counted in this? Every person has gone to their Dad for advice some time in their life. So by saying my dad cannot be involved in this, no other person can be involved either, as friends would be the same. In other words, people who are watching this debate, DO NOT make comments. DO NOT vote. This is what my opponent wants, the restriction of the freedom of the people. I say thee nay. I believe in fair debate, using outside sources and other people. Also, my Dad has been manager at the Comic Shop for over TEN years. He has heard the opinions of hundreds, even thousands of people. He can tell you what every comic, every one, is about BEFORE they come out. He works sweat and tears all day listening to the talk of madmen, organizing, and reading, every single comic from more than 40 years ago! He is a reliable source. "No you can really get rid off doomsday for good." Thank you for agreeing with me. "Goku can not reality warp and reality warp will just take him to another place." So he can grab Doomsday and drop him into the void, and go back. simple and done. And if the battle is in the Dragon Ball universe, then no one would really want to bring him back. Unless they were stupid, then Goku can have a drink and watch as everyone else tries to kill him. Then he can go somewhere else to live IF Doomsday destroys the universe. IF.
doomsday would beat goku in a fight.

Your dad is not relevant to this argument .how do we even no if your dad knows a lot about comics. Mindless in the fact that he doesn't care about nothing and he will kill anyone. No you can really get rid off doomsday for good. Why do you think no matter where he goes they always send him away to another place. doomsday right now is very durable he survive omega effect with ease. In case you don't no omega effect is darksied ability to dis-ingrate matter.http://www.comicvine.com... If doomsday killed superman what makes you think goku even stand a chance. goku can not reality warp and reality warp will just take him to another place. which will make goku look like he is trying to run away from the battle. you just make goku stronger than what he really is. Goku is really not all that powerful like you think he is.
doomsday would beat goku in a fight.

Sorry! I read the comments. I used the same source as my opponent, Wikipedia. I also used my even better source, my dad, who makes a living off of comic books. So he knows pretty well what is what and who is who. Also, if Doomsday is mindless, wouldn't that make him easier to manipulate into trapping (or killing) himself. Which it would take a while for him to regenerate. All life, except plants (not counting cells), have a brain. Term mindless would mean he is pretty much following instinct. All you would have to do is to give him a thought. An image. He would follow that image. Also the intelligent Doomsday is out of question, as Superman kicked butt. With Death Battle, Superman VS Goku, they were pretty well matched. They most likely have fought to a stand off if Superman did not go into the sun. This said, Goku could be able to take on Doomsday. Magic has always been energy. In all universes. Thor stated this in his first movie. Reality bending magic. So Goku can warp reality? If he can warp reality, could Goku just wipe Doomsday from existence, or send him to a "Limbo?" There is a limbo in DC, Read Final Crisis.