BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Aviators is the Best Artist

All righty then. I argue that Aviators is the best artist for many, MANY reasons. I'd give you all of them, but time is of the essence, so I'll just state the main points of my argument. One of these reasons is because, well, he is a Brony. And almost all of the MLP (My Little Pony) music I've listened to has been really inspiring, ESPECIALLY Aviators'. In fact, he was SO awesome and inspiring that he was the only one I thought of researching on other places other than Ponyville Live. And that, my friend, is probably the best thing in music I EVER possibly would have done. It started with the pony music, but later on I started listening to his non-MLP music, which is also very great; beautiful and awesome, such as one of his songs from "From All Sides": "Lights feat. Feather", which, to me, is the most beautiful love song you could ever listen to. Another reason is the TALENT of that man. The guy started playing the violin when he was 4, then kept doing it for eight years before picking up the guitar and starting his musical career. He thought that playing the violin would keep him from reaching his dreams, but boy, was he wrong. So, yeah, sometime in 2005 he fiddled around with the stuff he had indie-rock style and the few songs he was able to belt out he said himself were "absolutely horrible" but to me (you can find those songs on Grooveshark), those songs were just awesome and groovy. His album after that, six years later, which is called "Reflections of a Dream" was pretty good. REALLY good. And then...PONIES. Ever since he became a Brony and started belting out some pony music, the guy's just been a huge fandom sensation. He's got 3 albums full of pony music as of 2012 (two of them EPs, but it doesn't matter), and then, after some time of creating non-pony music, he came BACK with his biggest album yet, "Mirrors", which has the most awesome pony song I have heard in a while. I'd tell you so much more about the music, but there's just too much great stuff to talk about. Aviators has been working with almost every single genre you could think of, sometimes even putting them all into the same songs. And that to me is one of the most important reasons why he is the absolute BEST artist in the world. Nothing further; I shall wait for you to respond.
Aviators is the Best Artist

Unfortunately that information is top secret, plus it doesn't really matter who I think is better or the best because this is not an (x) vs. (y) debate. In this debate, you must prove why Aviators (b. Tyler Shaw) is the best musician in the world and I will be providing evidence to prove that he is not the best musician in the world.Taste and preference in music is an extremely subjective matter, with literally multitudes of people liking different types and genres. I believe I have listened to him enough for a legitimate argument and still stand by my position that he is not the best musician in the world. I eagerly await your argument.
Do anything

Contention 1: Wage Increase=/= More Jobs The effects upon the rich are vital as they lead the Private sector and the private sector provides a large amount of jobs for the US. Raising the minimum wage would harm these owners and cause less jobs avalible as shown by the CBO report. If we gaize upon graph bellow we can see that the Private sector will be the most affected by this changed and with there being a ton more private sector jobs than public sector jobs then this can only spell dissaster. Now to address the Fair Minimum Wage Act, my opponent has stated that Congress has passed it, but that is incorrect as that bill hasn't even left the Committe that it was sent to. Plus we can see that further proof shows that the minimum wage hasn't increased at all, but only that of Public sector wokers due to an Executive Order passed ealier this year. (. https://www.govtrack.us...) Though increasing the minimum wage may increase their demand since they have more money then logic would say that they would spend more correct? That is true and it's because of the inflation of goods and the harming of the buisness as shown by my CBO graph that we would loose a ton of American Jobs and this would also lead to inflation as busness owners have no choice, but to fire wokers and raise prices to make up for profit losses as I have shown in my previous rounds and has gone uncontested. My opponent also said this will lead to 85,000 more new jobs. That may be fine and all, but when we do the math and take it from a nonbiased and non patisan group you can see that negative 1 million jobs added to a gain of 85,000 jobs still leaves us in the hole by 815,000 jobs. Which if my math is correct is still a huge job loss and economic harm. Contention 2: Inflation I still extend across my argument on increasing the minimum wage will cause a 25% product inflation which hadn't been refuted all debate. My opponent also drops my argument of this causing a viccious cycle of inflation and minimum wage increases that leads to the devaluation of the dollar which also had gone uncontested this entire debate. Contention 3: Effects on the Global Market. We would still be spending more and more money on foreign imports deapening our debt. Not to mention the US interest disadvantage that I had brought up my last round which had also gone uncontested which shows the US will go into an economic reccession at the least due to this harm caused on the foreign debt. Not to mention that my opponent has dropped my economist evidence showing that rising the minimum wage causes these effects. We can concluded that raising the minimum wage will harm more then help the American economy as it will cause a major job loss, massive inflation, and cause economic downturn due to it forcing the US to raise our bond intrest rates to levels that we cannot fully handle.
Do anything

Firstly to address wage increases, the upper-class is irrelevant because THEY are not the ones who need wage raises. The poor are the ones in need--the ones that have the minimum wage increased to $10.10 would be benefited so much that they move out of the poverty zone. The Congress has already signed a Fair Minimum Wage Act (http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...), and it shows the benefits of the raising of the minimum wage. Again, I stress this, the more money people get, the more they can spend. I already said this in the previous rounds, and I'll say this again--this would only HELP my opponent's huge federal debt, NOT raise it. raising the minimum wage to $10.10 keeps the employees ahead of the game, and can out-weigh the inflation. As the previously cited website notes itself, "Raising the minimum wage boosts consumer demand, as low-income workers spend their higher wages at local businesses." And "Raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would generate more than $22 billion in new economic activity, translating to 85,000 new full-time jobs as higher sales lead businesses to hire more employees, according to estimates by the Economic Policy Institute." So we see here EVEN IF a ton of people do lose their jobs (for reasons my opponent has not even asserted), more people are helped, and THE GOVERNMENT is helped economically-wise as well. This singular contention can defeat both my opponent's first contention AND his second contention AND his third contention. All of them are null against the positive benefits of having the minimum wage at $10.10. In conclusion, my plan helps people get better life-styles, and boosts the government economy. Raising the minimum wage would HELP most people as my opponent proves himself with his own graph, which I picture again below: The poor people NEED TO KEEP UP WITH THE INFLATING ECONOMY. The minimum wage is ancient compared to modern prices. We should take action and put the Fair Minimum Wage Act to play so as to boost America's economy! Go, minimum-wage $10.10!Good debate. You almost won me over with the repetition of inflation, inflation, and pretty much nothing but inflation (because job losses were moot against job gains/raise of wage/improvement of life-style/draggin out of poor zone), but repetition does not make a point stronger. As much as you repeat, I know for sure that with the increasing amount of money, people will work harder to gain wages; people will spend more to consumer products and benefit the economy enough to defeat the so-called inflation. Vote me.
Do anything

1. Wage Increase = fewer jobs...?It is true that 500,000 jobs were lost, but there was the greater benefit within " A plan by President Obama and fellow Democrats to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would cost roughly 500,000 jobs but increase wages for roughly 16.5 million Americans, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday." Sure, half a million people lost their jobs, but 33 times more people got more wage and got out of the poor zone, therefore supporting my contention that the increase of the minimum wage would help more than NOT help. 2. InflationInflation is a big problem in society. However, it won't be a problem for this society because of two reasons. One, $10.10 is ahead of the schedule. It plans ahead and can take the inflation well-- as my single website from round two can support, $10.10 is actually the wage need for 2017. Nevertheless, even if we are a bit ahead of schedule, it will only help us--even if stores increase prices, $10.10 will be able to keep in pace. Not to mention as prices increase, the countering is that the wages will yet increase again. As the wages and prices remain to be in ratio, everything in my plan will stay beneficial. Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 for now does not mean making it stay there forever. Things change, but right not, $10.10 is the best starting point. Once again, I stress this, $7.25 is much too low. http://www.bloomberg.com..., tells us that"That amount, when adjusted for inflation, is actually lower than what a minimum-wage worker earned in 1968 and is too meager to offer anyone the chance to climb out of poverty, let alone afford basic goods and services." So we see politicians are too behind in the minimum wage policies. They need to make it $10.10 to keep up with modern day prices.3. Global trade My opponent asserts that if the value of the dollar decreases, people will buy fewer products. Yet he counters himself with a theory himself in contention 2 that proves that people will spend more when they earn more money. Why, buying more products can only help the economy! Spending more money means more money for the government budget! Irrefuted arguments:-Those employees in the bottom tier CANNOT afford even basic living, which they have the rights to (because of their rights of LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness)-The employees already earning $10.10 WILL BENEFIT AS WELL--Their wages will rise as well-Those employees, once out of the poor zone, will NOT need government assistance as much, THEREFORE leading to the government saving money-Richer employees means more taxes means better economy-Spending more money means the economy IMPROVES.Back to you Lannan13.
Do anything

I accept, here is the resolution, Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $10.10. Rules Round 2 is for contentions, no rebuttles. Round 3 is for rebuttles. Round 4 is rebuttles and conclusions No trolling. Wikipeadia shall not be an acceptable source for this debate. Should- Used to express obligation or duty (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Raise- To increase in size, quantity, or worth (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)
Religocity is simply bad epistemology

Okay, my case, then rebuttals. Religion, whether it is good or bad epistemology, is more than epistemology. It is a moral, cultural, and psychological system that has many uses in society. One use, charities. Many hospitals, schools, food banks, etc. are run by churches, mosques and synagogues. Whether their beliefs are right or not is irrelevant, the beliefs lead to charity. I don't see any atheist-only charities. Religion, however flawed it may be, serves that purpose. Also, religion serves as a system of ethical and cultural mores that help build a functioning society. I mean, what stimulates you to do good more, a promise of eternal bliss, or the fact that its the right thing. I think eternal bliss is much more enticing. Furthermore, governments throughout history have only been able to unite nations through religion. Chinese emperors had the mandate of heaven, the Anglican Church united the British Empire. Religion allows civilizations to grow powerful. Finally, there is the psychological aspect of religion, it allows people to cope with things they don't understand. There are studies that show deeply religious people are happier. Even if they are living a lie, it is a happy lie. My opponent's case: "1. Claims without evidence are not believed. 2. The degree to which one believed a claim should scale with the evidence." I accept these premises. "Evidence-insensitive belief or 'faith-only' is rules out by premise one. In almost any non-trivial circumstance, one should not (and empirically, people do not) believe a claim unless there is either a priori or a posteriori reasons to think it is true. Religion of this type is an unfounded exception, and so should be rejected." Okay, I agree with this, but obviously not all religions fall under this category. "Evidence-sensitive religious belief, I will argue, almost always falls victim to premise two. No existing religious book or body of evidence provides the necessary evidence to cash out the metaphysical claims of the religion." I'll give Christianity as an example of a religion with good evidence for many of its aspects. The existence of God has been logically proven (I'll elaborate if contended) by many philosophers, including Thomas Aquinas, Avicenna, and Anselm. The claims of Jesus being God's son also have evidence. There was a consensus by early officials, Christian and non-Christian that Jesus of Nazareth did indeed exist. Also, Roman officials acknowledged that his tomb was found empty after three days of him being dead, they just claimed his disciples moved his body. Obviously one could reasonably believe either claim, so religion has some evidence there.
Religocity is simply bad epistemology

I will defend that a reasonable epistemological stance includes two premises: 1. Claims without evidence are not believed. 2. The degree to which one believed a claim should scale with the evidence. Now, we have to distinguish between two kinds of religious belief: evidence-sensitive and evidence-insensitive. Evidence-insensitive belief or 'faith-only' is rules out by premise one. In almost any non-trivial circumstance, one should not (and empirically, people do not) believe a claim unless there is either a priori or a posteriori reasons to think it is true. Religion of this type is an unfounded exception, and so should be rejected. Evidence-sensitive religious belief, I will argue, almost always falls victim to premise two. No existing religious book or body of evidence provides the necessary evidence to cash out the metaphysical claims of the religion. This is a short summary. I will elaborate on anything contested. If you have questions, ask before jumping into a useless debate.
The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years.

In my opinion it depends what school a teacher is at- if they are at a ordinary secondary school then, I agree, most teachers would be left wing party supporters. But if the teacher is at a private school then, due to a more upper class view on life, they would most likely be a right wing party supporter. I do not know what year you know this ("most teachers are left wing supporters") from but as the years go on, our country is becoming more of a 'floating voters' nation where a citizen doesn't support a consistent party so not all politics teachers are left wing/ socialist party voters. If a 16 year old was to vote the government would pay more attention to them and maybe help youth un-employment, which has skyrocketed in the last few years. Your statement about "at school you might think illegal immigrants should be allowed to work in the country and then when you try to get a job you find that its difficult because of the foreigners coming over and working for half what you wanted" doesn't need a proffesional to answer it- it is simply become British people are greedy because they do not want to work for the minimum wage and also many British people are lazy as they can have a better life-style by living on the state benefits. The whole point of studying politics at school is so that you can gain an understanding of the past (or if you study history) politics and have a clearer view on it- so your final paragraph is not really that true.
The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years.

But without school teachers a pupil cannot gain information about the left wing parties, what is good/bad about them etc. Or if they were going to vote other than left wing they would gain knowledge of the left wings bad points. I do not agree with your statement that if anything we should raise the voting age to 25 or 30 as young people need a say in our country. At the moment it is mostly only OAP's that get attention as it is mostly them who vote- they get attention on pensions etc.
The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years.

18 gives youngsters more time to gain experience of the world outside of school which is important. School is biased towards Socialist/left wing policies and the effect of this on your rationality at age 16 is important. When people enter the working world they became more aware of how taxes are spent and how much they are having to spend. It would be better to raise it to 25 or maybe 30 in my opinion because of how much your opinions change over time as you are exposed to more of the world. You can't learn so much from school and teachers, there is a saying "those who can do and those who cant teach"
The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years.

The voting age in the U.K should be lowered to 16 years as once you are 16, you have to pay taxes so a view of opinion starts to form on politics. At this age you will be thinking of your future; what occupation will I want to have? How much will I earn? Will I be able to afford the cost of living? All these sort of questions and more will be in a 16 year olds mind- they should have a right to vote. I do not agree with the statement; “16 year olds are not mature enough to decide the country’s democracy” as surely, if you work (part time at 16) and pay taxes you have as much right as a 36-year old who does exactly the same things- don’t you think so? Not only will this, having 16 and 17 year olds voting increase the variety in election results so the popularity turnout will increase.
Spongebob Squarepants would beat the sh*t out of Patrick Star in a boxing match

Pro states I believe laws of the natural world apply to cartoons. I never stated that, I simple said it would be instructive to make an analogy using the laws of the natural world and applying them to the cartoon in question. I even went so far as to give my opponent another option if he didn't accept this analogy. His second choice was to prove the laws which do apply to the cartoon would affirm his resolution. These laws could only be derived from the mind of the creator of the cartoon. My opponent simple had to show that the creator of sponge bob square pants would have sponge bob beat the sh*t out of Patrick. He clearly did not do that. Pro also goes on to state that Con has a burden of proof to prove Patrick would win the fight. This is in no way correct and violates the basic tenets of debate. I have no burden of proof, it lies entirely with the Pro. As for the humor aspect, I think my arguments have been shining examples of ironic humor. While my arguments do not utilize superficial humor as used in the cartoon (and possibly championed by the the Pro), they showcase a type of humor commonly referred to as "high-brow".
Spongebob Squarepants would beat the sh*t out of Patrick Star in a boxing match

The Con still believes that the laws of the natural world apply to cartoons, However here is some evidence suggesting otherwise. In this video we see an underwater campfire, not possible in the natural world http://www.youtube.com... In this one we see soda being poured into glasses, but they are still underwater, not possible in the real world http://www.youtube.com... In both of these videos we can see sound being clearly pronounced by the characters who are underwater, however in the natural world this would be impossible since water does not clearly carry soundwaves, try saying one thing underwater, it comes out garbled and the only way the other person can comprehend you is if you scream it, enunciate, and are within close distance. In this video we see snow underwater, not possible in the natural world http://www.youtube.com... I think this is ample evidence to show that the laws of the natural world do not apply to the cartoon show, negating the Con's entire argument. We do not have to rely on the cartoon creator to create this scenario to prove i am right, I only have convince the voters of why Spongebob would win by offering evidence, your BOP is to convince them why Patrick would win, you have not done that. So without further ado here is why I think that Spongebob would beat up Patrick Star in a boxing match 1) Spongebob can throw a punch with considerable force (Con has not shown evidence against this) 2) Spongebob is very creative in how to handle situations (Con cannot deny what is proven) 3) Spongebob has very good aim (Con has not proven otherwise) 4) The laws of the natural world do not apply to the cartoon show (Con's entire argument is negated) Thanks for reading :D (I wish it could have been funnier to read though -_______-)
Spongebob Squarepants would beat the sh*t out of Patrick Star in a boxing match

My argument, thus far has 2 facets. Facet 1: By analogy from the Natural world to the "cartoon world" , applying the laws of physics to SBSP unequivocally refutes Pro's argument. Facet 2: If we accept Con's argument that laws of the natural world do not apply to cartoon, then we must rely solely on the cartoon creator to determine whether Pro's argument is valid. Pro has made a weak argument attacking Facet 1 and has not even touched facet two. Pro states my humor is warped because I have applied hard science to a debate about cartoons. I once again refer to the literary tool of irony, which results in comedy. I can not specifically cater my humor to satisfy the Pro. Only the voter can determine if I failed to meet the criterion of humor in the debate. Contrary to the belief of the Pro, I do not have to prove anything. I only have to show his argument is fundamentally flawed. With regards to Pro asking me to quit asking for voters to vote for me, I see nothing wrong with reminding voters of how I stand in the debate at that particular point.
Spongebob Squarepants would beat the sh*t out of Patrick Star in a boxing match

Con, the laws of physics dont apply in cartoons... ^ that right there completely defeats all of your arguments so far. P.S. How the heck does " because a body of a sponge lacks mass as a result of low cellular density the mass factor of the equation that basically explains elastic collisions (m1u1+m2u2=m1v1+m2v2) shows no momentum will be transferred from SB (sponge bob) to Patrick" count as humorous?? You must have a vary warped sense of what is humorous.... I only have to show evidence where if hypothetically Spongebob could beat the crap out of Patrick Start in a boxing match. The Con cannot simply hide behind the idea that in order for this to happen the creator of the show would have to make it happen. Even though I have the BOF I have shown evidence that shows how Spongebob could beat up Patrick Star, it is the duty of the Con to offer evidence proving otherwise, the Con has not done that. Quit asking for people to vote for you when there's still 2 rounds left.....