BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Democratic Socialism (Pro) vs. Free-Market Capitalism (Con)

"On the contrary, according to the Heritage Foundation (A think-tank and self-proclaimed advocate for free enterprise and limited government) the USA has the 10th most free economy in the world. In addition, it also states that from the period from 2001 to 2006, the USA had an incredibly high 'financial freedom' score of 90, despite the previously mentioned interest rate lowering (followed by an almost immediate rise)."The heritage foundation is simply one in many advocates of free market idealism and their single advocation shouldn't be taken as gospel. "However, surely Wallstreet's ability to lend out risky amounts of capital is not so much to do with interest rates, but with regulations on the financial sector?"More circular points. Also begging the question a bit much? As said earlier regulations were one aspect but the ability of the federal government to set proper interest rates to encourage proper credit was the solution and they failed. "Note that in my previous argument, I referred to the US healthcare system as "free-market dominated" not "free market". In addition, the fact is that unlike countries such as the United Kingdom and Sweden, which do have socialist healthcare policies, the US has over 1,000 healthcare insurance providers, competing for service with one another. And as the Con said in his first argument,"Oh please stop with the semantic dancing. If you are unable to be that clear you should have specified earlier instead creating a strawman platform for rebuttual. "Am I right in thinking that the Con believes that too much government intervention is detrimental to a country's system of healthcare? If so, then how is it that Sweden's system, as I have previously demonstrated, which effectively has 100% government intervention, outperforms the USA's, which is fundamentally composed of a myriad of for-profit organisations?"And again I said before your comparision was fallacious which you have convienantly ignored. "Since many advocates of total free-market capitalism often like to claim how restrictive regulations are to the economy, I believe the best way to counter this is with an example of when a lack of regulations did not (as in my example of the 2008 financial crisis) cause a banking crisis that spiralled into a huge recession, causing millions around the world to lose their jobs and homes, but caused an explosion at West fertilizer chemical plant in Texas, killing 14 people and injuring more than 200- according to the Royal Society of Chemistry," And as I described and sourced earlier so is overregulation in relation to the US Healthcare system and many other sectors of the US economy."Unregulated capitalism, at its worst, does not only cause recessions and people's livelihoods, but also their lives."Putting up strawmans like, "Since many adocates of total free-market" make this debate fallacious on your end. I never claimed regulations where the death knell of an economy. Regulations are fine but over regulation as listed in my economist article in the previous round explains why too much is simply too much regulation.
Democratic Socialism (Pro) vs. Free-Market Capitalism (Con)

I would like to begin by saying that free-market capitalism was responsible, for a considerable part, in causing the global financial crash of 2008- deregulation, an ideal of the free market system, permitted the banks not only to practice Subprime lending, but also to package these loans into mortgage-backed securities, effectively packaging a huge number of high-risk loans into a complex financial product. Not only has the free-market system permitted large corporations to wreak such havoc in the economy, but also compelled us, as taxpayers, to save the 'too big to fail' financial institutions: in the USA, the government was forced to pay out over $120 billion in order to keep Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae afloat; in the UK the government spent "37 billion bailing out RBS, Lloyds TSB and HBOS. It is evident that Free-Market Capitalism is responsible for this deregulation, and deregulation for the financial meltdown we are still reeling from today: in 1982, under Ronald Reagan, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was passed, which effectively propped up under-capitalized banks, and doubled the ceiling on direct investments by savings companies from 20 to 40%. Both these measures have augmented financial instability: the latter permits extremely risky trading; the former encourages it. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.marketoracle.co.uk...
Creation vs evolution

There are literally a hand full of young earth creationist or just plain creationist in this world that hold doctorates. You postulate that the opinions of two are evidence? Michael Behe I knew about and have seen many of his horribly put together arguments and misconstrued view of Darwinistic Evolution. I would like to state that this does not dismiss their claims. Although I know it does influence it. The polonium you speak of requires quite an understanding of geology, radiation physics, and minerology. I am not adept at these. You need to present peer reviewed articles that have been tested independently. Thankfully Gentry's work is being peer reviewed and the findings are not good for Gentry nor are they good for Michael Behe in any of the 'evidence' he has set forward. This is because it is just plainly not factually accurate.
Creation vs evolution

Here is some information you can use. Take a look at doctor Robert Gentry's work with polonium isotopes found in granite rock. Doctor Robert Gentry found polonium isotopes in the basement layers of granite rock all over the world. polonium isotopes only last for a few minuets before breaking down. If evolution is correct and the earth started as molten rock and slowly cooled, then these polonium isotopes could not have been found in granite rock to date. Also the cells found in our bodies have organelles which act as the cells organs. Cells are made up of hundreds of these organelles, which without even one, the cell could not function(irreducible complexity). Definition of organelles: specific subunit within a cell that has a specific function, and is usually separately enclosed within its own lipid bilayer. Organ: Confined functional unit within an organism My cell information comes from research done by Biochemist Michael Behe and his arguments for "irreducible complexity". Also Dr. Robert Gentry and his discovery of polonium in granite rocks. www.infidels.org www.halos.com
Creation vs evolution

First thank you for excepting my challenge. Also thank you for your service I am also in the military. Evolution has been proved false in many ways over the past 150 years. Science wont except this because it is the only reasonable theory science has. Also museums do not give definitive proof that evolution exist. I am assuming you are talking about fossil records in the museums. Really, museums and science use circular reasoning when dating the fossils. They state that the layers of the earth date the fossils and the fossils date the layers of the earth( Glenco Biology pg. 306-307). Most theories that you described except the ones dealing with evolution can be observed and even tested but to this day you cant test macro evolution or observe it definitively. Also in Origin of Species Darwin wrote " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could possibly have not been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down." Science found that organism in the cells of different organisms.
Creation vs evolution

Secondly, I'd like to apologize because there is no direct challenge to debate. If you are saying that the Scientific Theory of Evolution. One that has withstood 150 years of trying to be falsified is some how debatable. Or does not have sufficient evidence then I'd like to direct you to any large museum in the free world. I would also submit that as a self proclaimed 21 year old history professor that an fence sitting on your part seems ridiculous. Scientific Theory - comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. Some other Scientific Theory's Astronomy: Big Bang Theory Biology: Cell theory — Evolution — Germ theory Chemistry: Atomic theory — Kinetic theory of gases Climatology: Climate change theory (due to anthropogenic activity) Education: Constructivist theory — Critical pedagogy theory — Education theory — Multiple intelligence theory — Progressive education theory Engineering: Circuit theory Control theory — Signal theory — Systems theory — Information theory Film: Film Theory Geology: Plate tectonics Humanities: Critical theory Literature: Literary theory So please be more precise. I can infer with the topic that your question will be along the lines of, but hope not to hear, "How did we come from nothing? " "How do we know radio-active dating is correct? " "Since when, if ever, has mutation created something positive in an organism. " If you would like to debate on the Scientific Theory of Evolution then make it specific, understand what the theory poses, and please check this reference. . http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Villains are better and cooler than heros

I'm afraid that because my opponent hasn't addressed the arguments I posted in the previous round, I'm forced to repeat my previous arguments, as they also happen to coincide with the points made by my opponent in this round. You've provided multiple instances for heroes that depend on the existence of the villain, and now you've also given examples of villains that depend on the heroes. However, how does either of these demean the "coolness" of the hero? This goes back to the central idea of the debate. Which one is cooler and better, the hero or the villain? Your examples do not address this question. Another argument you have presented is that the limitations placed upon the heroes, for being human, also inherently make them uncool. However, as I have argued before, their human nature is what MAKES them cool. One of the character traits that appeals to humans the most is how well you can relate with that person. For example, for the average person, it may be hard to empathize with a billionaire who had just lost half of his fortune to a thief. That's because the average person is not a billionaire. This notion can be applied to heroes and villains as well. Heroes who fight for the good of the people can be related with, and that's because they represent the average person. Ultimately, this is why people typically root for the hero, instead of idolizing the villains. Villains may have the upper hand on superpowers and gadgets, but those abilities ultimately make them lose their appeal. I would like to sincerely thank my opponent for allowing me to debate with him and for being as respectful as can be. May the best debater be victorious.
Villains are better and cooler than heros

I'd like to point this out, since neither one of use has already. While there are some hero's that do what they do what they do because of said villain, there are villains being there because of said hero. For example, the reason why Lex Luthor does what he does (fighting Superman) is because he see's Superman as a mountain in the road of humanity's progress in life. The reason why the Joker is a think is because Batman was involved in the man who then become the Joker in fall into the bat of chemicals. If GLADoS (I forgot if its a capital A or O) wasn't at Apature, Chell (I think) would probably to more likely be dead. Regarding the gadgets, some of them are justified. For example, Dr. Wily has his robots because he convinced them to join his said so they won't go past their expiration date, and Megaman was already outfitted with all of stuff he has. Ganon has all the magic powers while Link has his sword, bow and arrow, bombs, etc. The reason why GlaDOS (I think its like that) has all the stuff it has is because it controls the entire facility. Also, I just like to point out the fact that the reason the hero's win so much is because they were meant to. If it was a fight to the death and both villain and hero had what they would normally have (basically something DEATH BATTLE would do) and had them fight till someone dies, the outcome would more likely be the villains coming out in first. Again, it all comes down to a more stylistic choice. Also, I just like to point out this argument that I pull up. Would you rather be a Jedi or a Sith. Would you rather be someone who can't let their emotions (something all humans have) get the better of you can have amazing powers, or be someone who can let them have emotions and have amazing powers as well. Would you rather be a wizard under the control of the Ministry of Magic and have rules to follow, or a Death Eater not wanting to follow the rules and do what a normal wizard couldn't. Seriously, being a hero really limits what you can do while being a villain allows you to do what you do.
Villains are better and cooler than heros

Actually, the fact that the heroes never have cool gadgets like the villains reinforces the notion that the heroes are cooler. This is something I touched on in my first argument. The fact that the heroes don't rely on any elaborate weapon or gadget means that they have much more raw power. In other words, while on the screen it may seem as if the villain has the advantage, we all know that if it was a true man to man battle, the hero would easily win. The hero always has much more will power and compassion than the villain. That's the reason why so many people look up to comic book or video game heroes, because their will and motivation inspires us to follow the same path. An example would be Spiderman. Nearly all of his enemies are a result of some science experiment gone wild, or some sort of insane mutation, like Doc Ock. Doc Ock may have an insane looking gadget to back him up (literally), but in the end, it's Spider Man's drive that leads him to victory. While it is true that most heroes exist only because of the villains, that only adds to the appeal of comic book heroes, or video game heroes. It's because of a hero's reliance to a villain that the audience wants to imitate them. Because the audience sees the evil that goes on in the world, and they want to become the hero. That's the reason why they're so appealing.
Villains are better and cooler than heros

Yes, getting the girl is a point on the coolness board, but you also have to take into account other stuff, like powers and gadgets and their plans, ect. As well as an overall opinion on the villain and hero. If you think about it, guys like Mario and Link would only be out on their adventures if it wasn't for the bad guys. Also, personal preference. Who sounds cooler, a giant turtle that can breathe fire and has a spiked shell, or a plummer who eat mushrooms when he needs health. A guy with a piece of the Triforce that grants him power, or a dude with a sword with another piece of the Triforce that can give him courage. A guy that feel in a thing of chemicals turning him into a psychopath, a murderer, and a joking clown in three different versions, or a rich dude in a bat suit with no parents. Now for their plans, while it my seem generic, it can be effective. For example, Darkside, from DC, wants to take over all of existence. I guess you can see this as more of a stylistic thing. Also, you need to take into account if the villain knows what he's doing and can he be effective at it. Or, in simpler terms, if the villain is smart and not an idiot.
Villains are better and cooler than heros

Villains may be cool, and they do satisfy a human's natural tendency to want to see destruction. However, when it comes to coolness and power, it has to go to the heroes. We all know that when it comes to being cool, you MUST get the girl, and you MUST have a crowd of people on your tail when you're done accomplishing a heroic act. For instance, in The Legend of Zelda, Link UNARGUABLY gets with Zelda. And again, getting the girl is the absolute BIGGEST coolness factor. Additionally, the hero is always the one who has the people on their side, making them "the cool guy". Like in Pokemon Ranger: Shadows of Almia, where you defeat Team Dim Sun and the entire region parades and celebrates your act as you ride a Doduo back home. Furthermore, while the villain has the coolest gadgets and the seemingly most powerful abilities, the hero always juxtaposes those abilities with an immense amount of will power and raw ability.
Villains are better and cooler than heros

I personally love villains. Villains seem to have better powers, back stories ( if there's one), and has a coolness factor better than a hero's. Regarding powers, Ganondorf is really good at magic and has the TriForce of Power, making him, well, powerful. While Link has the TriForce of courage doesn't really do any of that. In fact, it just gives him courage, and turns him into a wolf in Twilight Princess.
Giving Away Foreign Aid to Africa is a Good Idea

The most important thing to know is that foreign aid is not merely monetary. The aid given to Africa comes in many forms and has yielded positive results empirically. With rejection of an affirmative ballot, you reject all aid given to the continent of Africa and thereby reject the needs of many human beings. Observation 1: Success "The largest U.S. foreign aid program fighting the AIDS epidemic has cut the diseases death toll by 1.2 million from 2004 to 2007 in a dozen hard-hit African countries, researchers said. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, started by President George W. Bush in 2003, lowered the AIDS death rate on average by 10.5 percent a year in those countries, said author Eran Bendavid of Stanford University in a study published online today in the Annals of Internal Medicine" http://www.bloomberg.com... Not only has the United States helped in the world of AIDs but in the world of malaria. Because of these things the people of Africa are finally feeling hope for once in their lives and with further public health assistance the continent of Africa may stand on its two feet with a functioning economy and a player in the world economy. Observation 2: They have oil Even if they are dependent on us, we can take their oil. They think were helping them out but we are really just taking their oil. This is a good thing for America and is therefore a good idea.
Giving Away Foreign Aid to Africa is a Good Idea

The bottom line is that I have proven aid to Africa is a good idea in multiple ways. Most of the arguments I made went completely unanswered. I am not tied down to a certain agent that must give the aid, these ideas for positive aid in itself win me the debate round. Look at the voucher system for ITNs. This idea embodies the overall fact that aid to Africa can be a good thing. Ignore the non-responsive negative arguments and look to the facts I have provided. When you do this, you see the only thing to do is vote pro. Thanks for the debate.
Giving Away Foreign Aid to Africa is a Good Idea

Backfire- We assume were talking about US aid. The aid can come from the hearts of the citizens, therefore government involvement becomes irrelevant. The government has been able to help out in the past and can help out in the future. That is a fact here today. These theoretical arguments he brings up and proven false empirically. Subsistence farming- No. I'm saying we can keep them alive, away from disease, therefore they can farm. If we dont, they will get sick and are not be able to farm. This has been proven to be true. This argument goes completely conceded and I win because of it. I have proven that helping fight disease in the country is good. UN fails- This doesnt mean that aid in theory is bad. Not only that, they may have failed on other instances but i have shown that they have done good things for africa in the past. This went unanswered. Bidding war- It is aid, even if it is just for selfish reasons. This is a good thing that comes because of the aid we give. On top of the increase in soft power around the world that went unanswered. The soft power we gain is also a positive to giving aid and proves giving aid is a good idea, if even for no other reason. I win on this dropped argument alone. "their gov gets more incompetent"- haha thats a big assumption. . Perhaps we keep alive the citizens who then have the power to overthrow their suppressive governments. It's not that the African governments are stupid as you seem to think. . But the governments are these suppressive machines that dont care about their citizens and hold them down so that they remain in power. Giving power back to the people is the only way to overthrow these governments. Voucher system- Is exactly what it sounds like. We give out vouchers to a bunch of people in Africa which allows them to redeem an ITN with only the voucher in return. The ITN company then gives the vouchers to the US representative that is in the area who pays the African company the money that each voucher is worth. This way the African company still makes the nets and money so that they keep all the benefits and we dont just flood the country with nets. The reason ITNs arent in africa without them being sent is because the citizens cant afford them. Giving them the vouchers allows them to get the nets that are proven to save their lives. By this point it is evident that aid can be good for the African people.
MMORPG's

My opponent explains that his/her friends and himself/herself do not enjoy playing fighting styled RPGs (which are a subsect of RPGs, as there are RPGs that are barely competitive in any whatsoever and some entirely uncompetitive ones where it is just you and your character, no leaderboards, nothing). Now, aside from the fact that my opponent has described only one type of MMORPG, is the further issue that he/her and his/her friends are a subjective, unverifiable and unsubstantiated source on the matter. The fact is that MMORPGs form a multi-billion, if not trillion, dollar industry collectively. You don't get that rich unless your customers are being pleased and satisfied, especially not in the luxury goods/service department (which MMORPG falls under as opposed to gas or water sellers who could be considered providers of essential goods and services). Everyone who plays MMORPGs lived before it never having played it and, unless they develop an addiction to the game, they remain never needing it for the entirety of their playing of it. The only reason the game makes money is they remain popular enough to either get advertisers interested in purchasing licenses or they offer premium membership which many players, out of sheer love of the game, purchase to expand their experience of it (and sometimes removal of advertisements is part of the privileges). How on Earth do they succeed if my opponent and his/her friends are to be considered the almighty source of taste in the gaming industry? The fact is they are in the vast minority, if anything. My opponent states that player-vs-player feels annoying and repetitive and that he/she dislikes players who abuse lower levels over and over to level up as oppose to constantly increasing the odds of losing or at least maintaining it by challenging higher levels sooner than is comfortable. My opponent's entire basis for this is that he/she doesn't happen to like it despite the billion-dollar corporations running these games having a massive userbase of hardcore lovers and loyal players. This is simply absurd and I hope to see something remotely substantial in Round 3.