BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Free Marke is the supperior economic system

1. Again, the happiness index you provided takes GDP into account. We should completely discard this sort of argument, as it bases itself off the pretense that GDP has effects on quality of life. I wish to bring up the more reliable index, which takes into account: Environmental care, personal rating of happiness, social equality and generosity[1]. Again, I've already criticized HDI as being useless, as it takes into account GDP per capita. 2. You commit the no true Scotsman fallacy here. Example: A:No scotsman puts sugar on his oats B:I am a scotsman and I put sugar on my oats A:Well no TRUE scotsman puts sugar on his oats. The definition of a free market:'A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation. In financial markets, free market stocks are securities that are widely traded and whose prices are not affected by availability. In foreign-exchange markets, it is a market where exchange rates are not pegged (by government) and thus rise and fall freely though supply and demand for currency.'[2] Again, I assert that the UAE fit into this category as their transactions are not intervened from the side of the government.[3]. 3. Not true. A free market economy guarantees pressure from the economy and the market itself. 4. This is not the argument I made...Exchange value is the objective value of a commodity based off its use value, which is based off quantity and quality, no argument here. Any proof here? Yes it does. The producers can set their own value, that's called exploitation of value...Value is objectively based off labour, irrelevant what the actual PRICE is, the exchange and use value is based off labour. Not in Marxist theory, but let's just grant you this, We can use worth as a synonym with value now. 5. False. Marx never stated that prices are necessarily based off labour, he said VALUE was based off labour. Please understand that the law of value takes this into account. The labour time, the difficulty etc. The problem is exploitation, which measures prices of commodities with different parameters, not its objective labour-time value. 6. One word to describe this argument:Irrelevant. The free market entails that ANY transaction is allowed without ANY government regulation, meaning that anyone could do anything with the environment... 7. Irrelevant, prices change, values change, times change, society changes, the dialectic is constant...The Paris commune also significantly lowered the values of living... Sources: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.investopedia.com... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Free Marke is the supperior economic system

1. Education and average health are both dependent on the GDP of a country. It's all circular and rather pointless. I maintain that the enviroment and human satisfaction are superior to GDP and HDI. Again, socialist countries like Vietnam and Cuba have a very high rating of the happiness index.[1] Sure, correlation indicates a link, I'll admit to that, but again, it's circular logic. HDI is measured by mostly GDP and then you present GDP as correlated with HDI, which it is, but not indicative of a strong correlation of development with income, as the HDI is a useless index. 2. Very well then, Norway might be a bad example, as it does have a mixed economy. Let's look at the United Arab Emirates. There is no VAT tax in the UAE, there isn't even business tax. [2] The UAE are an ideal 'free-market laissez faire' society. The UAE have a high GDP and a high HDI, yet the prices remain extremely high. 3. Life is measured in happiness and education, not income...You may live unopposed, but not with the free market system. 4. That's...not the argument I or Marx made. How does use value measure itself? Through exchange value. How does exchange value measure itself? From product quantity and quality, measured in labour. The more labour that goes in it, the larger both will be. Value is measured like this, not 'worth'. Worth is a completely irrelevant concept. 5. Value IS subjective...I'm saying that the absolute product of labour is relative to value of a product. The point of the law of value is that labour cannot be dependent on values and vice versa. Exchange value is measured in the quantity and quality of the product. The product is produced through labour. Unequal prices are the problem. People tend to charge more than it's actually worth...that's the problem of the free market. 6. That's a terrible argument. If there is no regulation, there are no limits, meaning that anyone can do anything to the enviroment...People are stupid. If they could buy enviroment-friendly products, they already would... 7. The fact that needs are not satisfied is part of the problem. Food is beneficial, political freedom is not. As soon as every person has access to food, education and a home, we'll have a socialist society, even if it's not politically free. Thank you, comrade. I do not condemn you for your opinion. Your second round was much better than the first. SOURCES: [1]ghttp://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The best Jazz Guitar performance during one song that can be found on youtube

John Scofield video youtube song EuroFunk in D is the best song played by a Jazz Guitarist I have foundon Youtube. the song in question can be viewed The John Scofield Organic Trio - Jazzwoche Burghausen 2013 at 1 hour 15 minutes into the video the youtube address of this song starting at the proper time is https://youtu.be... My claim is this is the best single jazz song by a guitarist that can be found on youtube. In your response please provide a link so people can view a competing video. One of the reasons I did this debate was so I could share a good jazz video with people and could learn more about jazz guitarist from other people sharing a different video or competing video.
In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult

To restate my final facts about this topic. Juveniles ought to not be tried as adults for the mere facts of age regression in the mental state of the brain, the law that juveniles can NOT be tried as an adult UNLESS they commit murder with a certain type of weapon and, the possibility of their environment affecting their judgement of what is right and wrong. Juveniles to first state that if they were to be tried as an adult under the age of 12 can not be sent to jail for the mere fact that they are under the age of 12. They may go to detention centers which were created for juveniles under the age of 18 and for rehabilitation of their actions and crimes. If a juvenile was to be sent to jail, in that environment it could corrupt their learning process and affect the juveniles future actions due to the fact they are still in the learning stages of life and most likely will become repeat offenders. The state of their minds is also a main reason why they should not be tried as an adult. The growing stage or age regression allows the mind to compensate and they go back to as if their were possibly 12 and under mind set. Also affect the reasoning part of their minds and causing them to questions what they were told to believe what's right and wrong. Once a juvenile was to be tried as an adult, they lose all juvenile rights and therefore and on considered an adult and must always face legal consequences that could then affect the juvenile and their family. The law prohibits juveniles from being tried as an adult for the mere fact of "what's best for the child". Juveniles have more potential to change because they are in the learning stages. They are still being taught right and wrong and reasoning in situations. Where adults have already mainly learned that if I attack someone enough it will cause injuries and kill them. And we daily teach juveniles what's right and wrong. I Would like to also state this, I merely did this debate for the fact of me to learn what its like to be under this pressure and have someone question your knowledge. I am a first time debater and my first one is in two weeks. I thank you my opponent for the value of your resources and opportunity to learn from my mistakes. I do realize I have much work with my debating and hopefully will be ready. I do thank you again and you have done a far greater job then I have seen with this topic before.
In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult

-IQ test change every year and possibly could be bias and they test basic knowledge. - During the age of regression the brain goes into a state of growth for our brains to compesatate with the growth and this study has been prove to end around the age of 22. - schizophrenic take medication but can not fully be cured therefore they can not be questioned on their ability to change. -I would like to point out that my opponent has used "I" during this debate and therefore they had a very personal point if view on this topic. - its against the law to prosecute a juvenile as an adult unless they commit a murder WITH a certain type of weapon. - they may commit a violent felony but that is the only way they may be tried and the the judge will question the authory figures and the juveniles environment and psychological standpoint in "only the best for the children" rule - 7 years of age is the only proof and legal age they could be QUESTIONED with criminal intent - What does mentally disable people do with juveniles and adults in the criminal justice system? -intelligence level can be question and juveniles can be questioned on their view with right and wrong.
In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult

To define the statement, juveniles are from the age of 18 and under. They are not trialed they are considered "informal hearings." Felonies range from a Class E (1-5 years) to Class A (life or death penalty). Felonies also include murder, kidnapping, arson, crimes against children, armed robbery, aggravated assault, rape, firearms in certain cases, or possession of firearms in certain cases. Juveniles should not be trialed as adults if committing a violent felony. The Mind of a juvenile goes into a state of regression from the age 13 to the end of their juvenile years. They are not capable of making correct decisions. Under the age of 7 a child can not be charged with crime including murder because a lack of criminal intent. a child under the age of 12 can not be sentenced to a secure detention facility. Majority of juveniles commit status offences. During a court care a juvenile has no constitutional rights to a jury trial, therefore they can not be fully defended in their case. Juveniles sent to detention centers are for rehabilitation and they need that opportunity to have that rehab. " two guiding beliefs about young people have prevailed: first, that juveniles have different competencies than adults ( and therefore need to be adjudicated in a different type of venue); and second, that they have different potential for change than adults (and therefore merit a second chance and an attempt at rehabilitation). States have recognized that conduct alone-- that is, the alleged criminal act-- should not by itself determine whether to invoke the heavy hand of the adult criminal justice system". (USA Today)
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

In all past debates and the confines of this one, any actual contradictions in the Catholic Church you have passed off and claimed invalid. You want to debate that the Catholic Church has never contradicted itself yet refuse to accept data on the subject of the very point on topic and have created a bias to the very foundation of debate. So according to the argument, as Con I must argue the contradictions, but I'm not allowed to state the contradictions and, you, who are supporting the CC, have set rules to refrain from using the bible, the foundation for all of the Church's teachings. "i get people like you who have sheer stubborness alone, no substance." "[...] cause almost all of those debates were the same old b**ching without substance that you are doin now," - I think that should be teaching you something by now. If I need to sum up any argument you've had: Instigator [YOU]: I am here to debate an evidently false viewpoint, as told by history and common sense. If you say anything, I'll pass it off and say you're wrong. Afterwards, I'll say that any source you have is invalid. There is no way to argue with you, no reason to argue with you and I'd just like to ask that you stop. Why debate when all you seem to want is "hey, this is a debate where you have to agree with me to win." Why debate when it seems like anything we give you isn't enough and turns into a "that's not what I'm looking for" game? Apparently you have a graduates degree and work in a legal occupation. With your level of debate, that is highly unlikely. If you want an argument, make a debate and stop trying to tell people what they can and can't use simply because you see something dangerous to your faith and try to say "oh no, no; invalid!" You evidently do not understand the Church yourself and do not understand whatsoever how debate works. Surely the topic has changed, but the topic wasn't up for debate in the first place as a result of your own introduction. Now the argument is what your problem is, why you continue to push a lost cause and why you continue to take debate, snap it in half and go "agree with me because I am right" without a first thought as to what you might be wrong about.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

then your ultimate argument, like oh so many others, is a data dump. id also question your understanding of the issues, cause almost all of those debates were the same old b**ching without substance that you are doin now, and didnt actually fulfill the criterias of contradiction. that you can't find even one example and debate it shows your lack of understanding, and superficiality. if you wish to continue, just to waste time, go for it. but it cant be said it's anything to do with substance, since youve yet to touch substance with a ten foot pole. all your tactics do is prove my points.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

The reason I beat the dead horse of ranking is because you've argued this so much that I've come to question why you bother with creating more. At which point, the topic has trailed to you and what your affinity is. If anything, I simply accepted this to purposely waste both of our time as a service to DDO members and get this debate off of the Challenge Period page. I've seen you debate before and it's not worth it. You want arguments? Check the links in my original post. I will spend this round and next round purposely wasting this debate to get it over with. Anything I could say would be passed off or has already been said before.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

this is why i dont really lose the debates. i get people like you who have sheer stubborness alone, no substance. you did not bring up one single point, except to cite a bunch of old debates. people have visceral responses to this and many other debates, so all they have to do is troll hard and automatically get points, without really even addessing anything of worth in terms of substance. much like you are doing now as to my rankings, i get a lot of repeat offenders voting for me, folks who have debated me before, i have controversial debates, and i dont bother with grammar and formalities too much. i note that youve yet to win a debate, and have a percentage ranking that is significantly less than mine. i get lots of ties on complex issues with smart people, global warming, out sourcing etc etc, along with the occasional win in that regard, so it helps my ranking. i didnt say you couldnt cite old arguments. just be ready to defend the point, specifically, not just data dumping. my boundaries are reasonable. for example, that the popes sin don't mean anything if it doesn't have to do with a teaching, pesonal sins. even Peter denied Jesus three times, and other sins the apostles did. that doesn't mean we dont take their teachings to be infalllible, the bible etc. i could go on and one defending further my parameters of the debate. i can somewhat see the "limbo" and "no salvation" point, but have my reasons for wanting to include them, and personal reasons i might not see them as bad as most people think. we should be able to find something else to talk about right? that you added zero substance yet again for a debater just solidifies that, one, most people are clueless when it comes to the catholic church and teachings, and two, that there must not be any other official contradictions if no one can find any. might not be true, but it remains to be seen
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

I am here to debate the title argument, "From an official capacity, the Catholic Church has never contradicted itself" This should be the part where I provide my three keys, but I can't being as you've narrowed any chance of debate. You, who have a win ratio of 9.41%, have consistently argued this debate in the past and continue to also argue that the bible is insignificantly contradictory. You, in laying the confines of the debate, have honestly stated that any argument provided in past debates that have continued to beat down your argument is not allowed. You, who continues to lose the same debates over and over again, stubborn to your losses, lay the confines to say "I have lost many times before, so I won't let you use any winning arguments." Should I need any sourcing done here: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... As much as I would love to stick to conduct, you, through the confines, have thrown conduct out the window. How many debates must it be before you give up? As much as I would love to provide an argument here, you, through the confines, have barred me from almost any significant argument and left me to pick up the crumbs where they once stood and transform them into something usable. I in no way mean to be malice (and I accept this debate), but I, right here, will now point out that I will be ignoring your rules for they are barring, narrowed and an evident plea to stop the never-ending cycle of losses that have plagued you. I apologize for all ad hominem.
The Earth is Flat

The Earth is flat. We have no proof that Earth is round. If it was round wouldn't everyone fall off of the earth and be floating around in space? The only proof I have ever seen is so-called "pictures from space", but that's impossible because humans can't breath in space. When you look outside you don't see the world curving downwards, you see flat. Take out a map, is it round? No. How can you make a map of the world if its round? Everyone has been lied to, and most of the people are stupid enough to believe that the world is actually round.
The notion that Al Qaeda is responsible for the fires in california.

I'm not one for ad hominem, but in both my opponents turns, he did post comments in the comments section, and he did continue on with some of his other debates. I ask myself, 'Why would Harlan not want to debate with me when he so passionately (as evident by his first and only post) believes that the fires were not started by al-Qaeda? He is obviously around!' And all the time I come to only one conclusion that he can not defeat my arguments. This is a done deal and the winner should be obvious. Let me quickly summarize how the debate has gone so far: ï¿½ Through extremely offensive sarcasm, my opponent, Harlan, attempted to make the point that the recent fires in California were not caused by al-Qaeda. Mind you, this is the ONLY argument he ever made in this entire debate. ï¿½ I made the point of a memo received by the FBI that said that al-Qaeda would maliciously cause fires in America, and hinted that this fire in particular were exceptional in the way of magnitude. ï¿½ My opponent forfeited his round. ï¿½ I then went on to discover that an al-Qaeda detainee even admitted to forging a plot to burn down California, and very vividly described how this was unlike any fire seen in California before. I also mention the adverse health effects of the fire. ï¿½ My opponent again forfeits his round. So you see, if you vote for Harlan, you vote for someone who has only brought sarcasm to the table, and has run away from the debate. However, if you vote for me, then you are not only pushing away from the pattern of debate.org's voters, but you vote for the sure fact that al-Qaeda started the catastrophic fires in California. Do the right thing.
The notion that Al Qaeda is responsible for the fires in california.

It seems that people in the comments section of this debate seem confused as to my real position on this issue. If you look further in the comments, you'll see my real opinions on the topic at hand. Thank you. ---- It's a shame that my opponent Harlan was unable to respond to my arguments. I was really looking forward to them. In the mean time though, I will introduce additional points to further strengthen my argument. al-Qaeda did maliciously murder three thousand Americans in a single day. That has been established. Knowing that, I then ask myself, "Could they have started the fires if they wanted to?" Of course they could! If they could hijack four commercial jet liners, three of them hitting and killing innocent civilians, they could easily start the major fires. And they really were MAJOR fires. Fires like this have not been seen in California, in a long, long time. One MILLION people were evacuated, destroying a quarter million acres of land. Hundreds of families' lives were ruined because of this. Harlan, you act like this was just any other fire, but it wasn't. This was catastrophic. To add to that, an al-Qaeda detainee even admitted to the fire plot! He told us that al-Quada was responsible: http://www.youtube.com... But the bottom line is this. There is no 100% way of knowing. At one point there was even speculation that a small child started them while playing with a lighter! So, what you are forced to do, is look at all the possibilities, and decide what is most likely. I'll briefly run through all of them. ï¿½ A small child could have started them, but with more evidence obtained, it was dropped. Not much media has really talked about it since then. This is the most unlikely. ï¿½ The fires could have been natural. However, there can never possibly be evidence to prove this. So, you must weigh this possibility other possibilities. ï¿½ The fires were maliciously cause by al-Qaeda. Evidence backs this up. A memo claimed that al-Qaeda would start major fires in America, and an al-Qaeda detainee even fessed up the plot. Only one possibility should stand out. Again, recall that these fires were one of California's worst. I live in Southern California, and although my house was luckily about ten miles away from any fire, I had a severe cough. Given that, not only can you say that the damage was to all the burned down homes, but to the health of the population from everyone around.