BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
World Wide Unemployment Benefits.

https://thenewdaily.com.au... As we here in Australia pay 27% of our income below $1000 per week in tax and then there's 10% GST on want's not needs as to say even more on fuel and beer and cigarettes, all money earned over $1000 per week you it's 50% tax rate and guess what we Australians don't give a f#ck if we do because that's the price we pay for living in this lucky country where we don't feel like heartless f#cking seppo's that let there own people die in the streets or off to jail goal tale your pick to stay alive and work as slaves to make the rich wealthier and to impossibly make your country safer. But as sad as it is we are following your idiotic rule of enterprising off a privatized prison system as the poor man cocaine ice epidemic is out of control. F#cking profiteering off an others misery must be the American way I suppose. Every American that I have meet here in Australia doesn't want to go back to your country of misery. So they find some Australian women to marry and stay. I do wonder why that is stupid is as stupid does?
World Wide Unemployment Benefits.

Do I honestly have to argue that this is about Worldwide Unemployment Benefits and why they should/should not be implemented? Please stay on topic. You can message off-topic communications to be me personally, and I can reply. Thank you. Perhaps one sentence sums it up best: When you give out free money, you inherently make that money less valuable... which means you have to make more money, which means you make that money less valuable, and ad nauseaum. See for example post WWI: http://www.usagold.com... So either you end up paying 5-20% extra on your income tax or going with less coverage or going into debt. Your choice. America is 21.2 trillion in debt just from paying its ordinary bills. And BTW, before Australia got its brand of republicanism from us, you got governed by your "people within positions of power are either narcissists, sociopaths or f$cking power hungry ego maniacs" without safeguards. Yes, go back to that age. (Off-topic) *Anyways, you are either criticizing yourself for being part of that group of "either narcissists, sociopaths or f$cking power hungry ego maniacs" or you are admitting you have no position of power whatsoever. So either you can change things and you're not willing to, or you're powerless. Either one isn't the best.
World Wide Unemployment Benefits.

As we move forward and robots become Charles Darwin's parasitic wasps. The majority will become the minority the unlike s of today's, majority that suffer because of a minority. Wall E the Walt Disney movie is closer to tomorrow then people think and the only answer to any of this has been sang over and over again and again. But nothing ever changes when the wrong people are in charge. dito So how about we put someone like Malvina Reynolds, Glen Campbell or Tom T. Hall, in charge and we can all sing together the people of the mother Earth. The 1% didn't listen when these fallen heroes sang for us, too the 1%. Have the 1% ears or are they just painted on?
Evolution has been proven false by scientific facts

Thanks, Pro. Burden of ProofMy opponent argues that I am responsible for shouldering the burden of proof. This is incorrect. As my opponent's own source states, "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. " As it is my opponent, not myself, who is asserting a claim in this debate (this claim can be found in the debate resolution- "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts") it is my opponent who will be responsible for shouldering the burden of proof. As such, if he wants to win this debate, he needs to provide some sort of justification to support his asserted claim that "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts". Until he is able to provide such justification, he cannot win the debate. Forfeited RoundI ask readers to consider the round which was forfeited by my opponent when judging conduct. SourcesPerhaps the biggest issue argued in this debate was that of the reliability of sources (both my opponent's and my own). My opponent argued that my sources were unreliable because they conclude that evolution is a sound theory given current scientific knowledge. I, on the other hand, argued that my opponent's sources were unreliable because they came from biased creationist websites without any sort of academic basis. It seems that this is an issue which readers will have to decide for themselves. When comparing widely accepted academic scholarship against creationist pseudoscience, however, I really don't think it's difficult to see which sources were credible and which sources were not. ConclusionsI won't respond to my opponent's most recent rebuttal because I think it would be unfair for me to make further arguments when my opponent wouldn't get the chance to respond (in addition to the fact that we seem to just be repeating ourselves at this point). Recall my opponent's assertion (found in the debate resolution) that "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts". In order to win this debate, my opponent was responsible for providing justification for thinking that his assertion is true. It seems to me that no adequate justification has been provided. Whereas my opponent's arguments have consisted of referencing unreliable and biased creationist websites, I have provided sound reasoning backed by numerous academic sources for thinking that the debate resolution is not true. As such, I think we can reasonably conclude that the debate resolution asserted by my opponent is false; evolution has not been proved false by scientific facts.
Texting is better than Instant Messaging

Alright I see where you're going with this. You stated, "Mobile texting is a dying communication medium. IM is faster, cheaper, and easier to have a conversation with. Its the way of the future." I have a chart to prove how drastic a change from being on the computer to talk than using texting (this was 2006) http://www.mmaglobal.com... -"Use of text messaging has risen five percentage points from May to October of this year. Meanwhile, usage of mobile instant messaging has remained flat." Another statistic of texting is : http://cellsigns.com... " As of June 2008, over 75 Billion text messages are sent every month compared to just 18 Billion in December 2006." Graph from the previous link: http://cellsigns.com... So, your statement of texting becoming a dying trend is false. People who have down time at work that dont have access to computers can have important conversations without being disruptive, and with texting, you dont have to worry about someone being on to contact them immediately. It's no surprise that texting would be used more: 1. People are always out on the go and don't have the time to sit at a computer - as for IMing on the phone, yes, people do use that but sending a text is quicker because you dont have to sign into an account and wait to see if someone is online. Just send a quick message to the phone itself. 2. How long are people on the computer at night. maybe 3-5 hours. depending on age range. If it's night most people sleep. 3. Also, the technology of phones is skyrocketing and new forms of phones are coming out. So you can check emails, facebook, myspace, etc. 4.Texting has advanced now as well due to full keyboards on phones. PLus the phone with the dial pads have the feature of iTAP/T9 (quicker spelling and formation of words) rather than spelling it out with ABC. Not to mention the fact phones come with already made messages (quick text) like, Hey, what's up, Let's do something tonight., Meet you there, etc. - Perhaps one day phones will replace computers all together minus the fact that the screen wouldnt be the size of an actual computer just the features may one day be comparable if not identical if current trends in technological advancement. In using the AIM feature on the phone, you now have to make sure that person you want to get in contact with is even on. Why waste the time in doing so or waiting for them to be on rather than text a quick message and find out in half the time what you need to know. Also, I dont see the need to make plans at night at the last minute on AIM when you have all day to text anyone and make plans. So your point in making plans on AIM at night shouldnt even have to happen.
Texting is better than Instant Messaging

I assume you are talking about text messaging on mobile phones. You do realise that you can also IM on your mobile phone? It is much cheaper than text messaging and faster . With IM you can talk in close to real time and can have an easy flowing conversation. To do the same with texting would be very expensive and would be very start-stop. Ever tried to have a conversation with text messages? it takes forever. If you are trying to compare texting off mobiles solely to IMing on computers I would say that texting takes time from social interactions between people during the day. Its socially easier on a person then a phone call which is generally why so many people do it. Its socially bad for people because its less risky and socially demanding then telephoning someone and stumps emotional growth. Iming on computers is usually carried out by people at night so they can easily talk and plan with their friends. Rather than taking time away from activities during the day like text messaging does. IMing is just as widespread as texting. Find me statistics to the contrary. Mobile texting is a dying communication medium. IM is faster, cheaper, and easier to have a conversation with. Its the way of the future.
Texting is better than Instant Messaging

Texting is now IMing on the go. Simple, fast reliable and fun. It's done all around the world such as Philippines and Lebanon. Kids, Teens and Adults all use this form of communication. Im all for this because I love to text. I'd rather Text someone than talk on the comuter, and sit in one place for several hours. I can talk to more people through texting and continue conversations for hours and anywhere I go. Computers I like to use for watching videos on youtube or downloading new music. So I challenge whoever to tell me how IMing is better than Texting.
A victim's deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence.

It is generally recognized that deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to deadly force exerted against oneself, or even when one determines one's life to be in imminent danger. However, a slight controversy exists when extending this precept to a concept like repeated, but nonlethal violence. No doubt my opponent will immediately point out that the repetitious nature of the violence gives the victim ample time to seek relief from the proper authorities. However, while this sounds plain in the abstract, in practice this is often not possible. Consider that the victim may not be physically able to GET to the authorities, or may be scared to report the abuser under threat of further violence. In the end, one might even consider the victim to have the mentality of a scared, trapped animal. Philosophically, the resort to lethal violence is a testy area. The just-ness of the situation revolves around the remuneration of the type and level of violence. Is it just to take an eye for an eye? But then again, is it just to take an eye for three fingers? If a person is beaten severely multiple times, then they are justified in seeking retribution roughly equal to the punishment they have endured. At this point, one might point out that taking a life is a permanent retribution to a non-permanent problem. However, this is a flawed way of looking at the problem. One might think of the situation in numbers. If death constitutes "100" retribution, than it is acceptable for one to resort to lethal violence when one has received 6 sessions of "20" abuse, then one would be just in seeking the lethal retribution. Another consideration lies in frequency and severity. The resolution simply states repeated violence. This of course would be tempered by the severity of the violence. It would be ludicrous to suggest that lethal force is just to a weekly slap, and likewise to suggest that it is not for daily beatings. My point in bringing this up is that I am arguing the middle road - in general, repeated domestic abuse, which tends to be more than a simple slap or hit, is enough to make an individual legitimately concerned for their health, if not their life. So is the deliberate use of violence justified? I believe so - the fact that there is a repeated risk to one's health means that removing that risk by any means possible is a primary concern. As discussed before, this may mean calling the police, but it could easily also mean killing one's attacker. In a case where one may fear for their life, it is of course legitimate I believe a more in-depth argument will evolve with my opponent's opening argument and case. I eagerly await rebuttal.
A victim's deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence.

With nothing to respond to, I fear I must fall back on what I have previously asserted - part of the conclusion of my last argument. The forfeit was unfortunate... I was hoping for an excellent closing clash... ******************************* Overall, my opponent focuses on disabling the abuser instead of alternate methods like going to the authorities. I would submit that this indicates that my opponent believes the use of violence is justified as long as it is nonlethal violence. Thus, we have determined that violence is justified, and that the determination of whether or not lethal violence is justified is dependent upon the circumstances of the incident. However, I also submit that in at least some cases, lethal violence is the only way to stop an attacker. Nonlethal violence may simply enrage an attacker, and adrenaline is a powerful stimulant that may make the situation where one attempts to use nonlethal violence into a situation where there is an overwhelming need FOR lethal violence.
if imagination is real then i am a god of nature

I will start by defining the word IMAGINATION. the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses. From that i will say any ideas you have wondering around your head is already real to you, the thing that make the different is that you have not act on it yet. But you can see it in action you can envision it on the real world. This is the same mechanism that governs your body movement. You can move your arms up and down and in any directions you want by simple imagining it happening. Now you can imagine your arm to move up, and at will you can choose to cancel that movement, this is how real your imagination is. Your physical body is govern by your mental activities. If you think you are a god of nature, and if you believe that, then no doubt to you, you are indeed a god of nature, but you have to convince someone else out of mind to believe that. And how you do that is totally up to you. But remember just like how you are able to believe you are a god of nature, some one else is able to believe that they are a god of anything they want and believe. I being the third person can not just walk in and say no you are not a god of nature, philosophically i will be wrong, because i do not know what a god of nature is unless i can somehow experience what is in your mind.
God/ religion

PrefacePlease note that the BoP is shared – and Pro has failed to fulfill their share of the BoP, as I will note later. Pro also drops my argument from atheism being the default a priori position, so presume Con. Theological Non-Cognitivism“Saying that God is non-existent because he only possesses secondary traits of values is in itself flawed. As humans have give the definition of these words, it's entirely understandable that we could not understand their true meaning in the eyes of God.” This is a logically airtight argument, i.e. if the premises are true, the conclusion follows. As such, it doesn’t suffer from any formal fallacy. But Pro just denies the conclusion without denying the premises. Unfortunately, in a logically sound argument, regardless of any problems with the conclusion or any separate arguments against the conclusion, if the premises are true, the conclusion is undeniable. Take the gibberish term ‘jill’. A person asks, “What is ‘jill’?”, and the only response is: “Jill is 40 lbs.” That is clearly not a sufficient response, but if 40 lbs is the only way to describe the term ‘jill’, and all other definitions are impossible, then the term ‘jill’ is incoherent and doesn’t exist. = Rebuttals =Pro’s only argument is that the Big Bang has some flaws and fails to explain the origin of the universe, so God exists. This employs a flawed form of reasoning called ‘God of the Gaps’. “God of the gaps is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.”[https://en.wikipedia.org...] Pro challenges the existence of an actual infinite, and argues that singularities are, thus, impossible. This is flawed as observations of the WMAP have proven the universe itself is spatially infinite – so an actual infinity is possible.[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...] Furthermore, singularities are even found in black holes, thus are proven to exist.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] Secondly – the Big Bang doesn’t talk about the cause of the universe. Evidence from special relativity suggests that time is another spatial dimension, the passage of time is illusory, and that the past, present, and future are all equally ‘real’, a position called eternalism.[ http://plato.stanford.edu...] Under eternalism, change doesn’t ontologically happen, and it shows the universe never “began”, thus couldn’t be caused. As such, there is no cause of the universe. The resolution is negated.
God/ religion

Saying that God is non existent because he only possesses secondary traits of values is in it self flawed. As humans have give the definition of these words, it's entirely understandable that we could not understand their true meaning in the eyes of God. God like infinity is something we can comprehend with out actually being able to understand its fill value. We can imagine a number that never ends but our brains can't actually comprehend the enormity of such a thing. You could also say the size of the universe also falls into that category. We can understand the concept that we live in an amazingly large place but we can't begin to actually begin to wrap our heads around the actuall size of it. These concepts are much like a God, we can understand the concept but we can't begin to actually visualize it. In regards to other theories of the origins of the universe, many of the excepted theories like the Big Bang theory defy the very laws of physics. The scientific community eve admits that they have no way to explain the conditions of the universe before the Big Bang happened. That's because the Big Bang defies the very laws of science. In the Big Bang theory, it is believed that all the matter in the universe was contained in a single point called a singularity and that this point began to rapidly expand. This already is nonsense because the definition of a singularity is a point which is infinitely small and a place where gravity takes on an infinite value. If this were true, then the Big Bang could have never happened because in order for the universe to expand there would have to be a force stronger than infinity, literally an impossibility. Also with the recent advance of science, we have found a few constants in the universe that are so precise that if they were even slightly different, the universe would have not formed the way it did and would esentialybe sterile of life. One of these numbers is the rate of expansion caused by the Big Bang. The rate of expansion according to physicists if the rate of expansion had differed by only .0000000000000000001 places, the universe would've completely different than it is today
God/ religion

Many people point to the recent advances in the understanding of evolutionary theory and Big Bang theory as proof that there is no God and we don't need, however many theories about the origins of the universe and the origins of life that are widely accepted by the scientific community have multiple problems. For example, the Big Bang theory by its own admission defies the current laws of physics and the theory of evolution fails to meet the criteria of the scientific method for multiple reasons. I myself am a Christian but I realize that blindly denying science and opting for faith alone is a very exclusionary view. I look forward to hearing your opinions positive or negative about the existence of a god and your views either religiously or scientifically on the origins of the universe and life.
Resolved: On balance, PETA has done more desruction to all living things (Read Full Res. Below)

"Resolved: On balance, PETA (the US non-profit organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has done more desruction to the well being and moral statures of all living things than positive impacts" I negate. Rules: -My opponent cannot be InfraRedEd -Stick to the resolution -Address both sides of the resolution -Place arguments in Contention format (Claim, Warrant, Impact) -I'll let the Aff propose framework (definitions & observations) but if it is abusive I will decline it and propose my own (aka, don't present biased or B.S. defintions) I will spare my initial arguments for the time being, the affirmative will present its constructive at this time. Good luck and thanks to accepting this debate. Don't forfeit any rounds so we can keep this debate popular! As for everyone else, click "like" on this debate!
Gary Johnson is the best presidential candiate for Nov 2016.

Opening StatementsMy opponent starts off stating that we should move only to gun control in this section of the debate considering Hillary and Johnson are nearly identical in most policies except guns. I should say that considering the topic of this debate is whether Johnson is the best candidate, and the proposal of my opponent to null the prior arguments can hurt his position. I'll now start with my rebuttals and counter arguments. Rebuttals and Counter ArgumentsPro starts off with the statement that "Trading freedom for security will not solve the problem, and may even make it worse. ", which is a fallacious statement and refuses to acknowledge my three sources in the previous round. He continues his argument with a quote by Franklin, a bias opinion from an individual known to radically secure his rights, but was a hypocrite enough to own two slaves [1], and while he did hop on the bandwagon for abolishing slavery, he never refused to believe that the black race was inferior (Refer to Source 1). The continuing arguments of my opponent is outdated considering the United States is far more stable and less likely to fall to a totalitarian monarchy then they were over 239 years ago [2]. There is no need for Americans to continue to own so many guns, considering it has become their own threat even when the 2nd amendment thinks firearms are the saviours of freedom. My opponent tries to dodge my argument of causation and correlation by stating the incident of what happened in France, although what happened in France was a terrorist strike [3], while the majority of the incidents in the US are homegrown psychologically unstable implosions [4]. My opponent states the statistics of firearms not being in the top 10 list, but digresses from the argument considering that heart disease and cancer doesn't have the potential of being banned or controlled. Lax gun laws can be changed, and international examples such as Japan, having one of the world's most powerful gun laws, rarely sees firearm related deaths or mass shootings [5]. I thank my opponent for this debate, it was fun. Sources[1] . http://www.pbs.org...[2] . http://www.theglobaleconomy.com...[3] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://csgv.org...[5] . http://www.gunpolicy.org...