BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Urban Living vs. Suburban Living

Thank you for responding to my argument in quick haste and speed. In such manner, I will apply myself to the task at hand: this debate. A few problems I have seen is that my opponent, though he has posted evidence, there are no links, sources or any factual evidence of his claims for his argument. This presents a loophole in everything you have said so far. How can you be so sure that there is more racism in the city when you don't even have EVIDENCE to back it up. All of your arguments seem to have this problem leading me to state that ALL your claims are completely biased, and based on personal preference. However, I have continued to back my clarifying statements up with factual resources you can find on the web. Now, onto another point. You yourself said that: "Based off personal experience, I prefer suburbs, because they have cultural centers and pools, which are much better because then you can meet people and have fun." Notice the key words there: "I" not a "you." Debates are supposed to be about convincing the audience, not merely saying things that you think are good, or you think are bad. The point of a debate in to take those personal opinions, clarify them, and present them in an orderly and structural manner that compels your audience. Also, the city has local pool that you can get in for free. You pay for them in a small tax that comes with your yearly taxes. Also, in places such as New York, Or Philadelphia, you have MUCH MORE diversity as you can literally walk a block and find an ethnic restaurant or deli. There are people of all kinds in the city: diversity is high where population is high. It's as simple as that. Though there may be growing ethnic communities in the suburbs, cities with high population (100,000 and over) are bound to have racial diversity galore. Thank you for your time and patience. P.S: The city has farmers markets, where you can, again support local business, whereas in the suburbs you have that Kroger across the interstate!
Urban Living vs. Suburban Living

First off, the suburbs are not rural. Such areas are distinct from more intensively settled urban and suburban areas. These areas are mostly sparsely populated areas. Inhabitants live in villages, hamlets, on farms and in other isolated dwellings. Would you like to live in small apartments or large houses. As for cost, that depends on the city. In some cities, they are better, but in some suburbs, it is better. Based off personal experience, I prefer suburbs, because they have cultural centers and pools, which are much better because then you can meet people and have fun. Suburbs are amazing because they are comfortable and people-friendly. Honestly, it's just a matter of preference
Urban Living vs. Suburban Living

Alright. I would like to start off my second argument by saying thanks to my challenger for being courteous and responding quickly. Now, I would like to point our a few (if not many) inconsistencies in your argument, if I may. First off, you said, in your exact words: "the suburbs are safer. There are more cars in the city, so there is more of a chance of an accident. In the suburbs, we actually can bike on the road with less of a chance of being smashed into by a car." Well, actually that statement is completely untrue. According to a scientific study done by the University of Stanford, 66% percent of vehicle deaths occur on rural roads (where the suburbs are) and that non-city residents are TWICE AS LIKELY to die in a vehicle accident. Also, I would like to point out the fact that in 2013, a study by the Annals of Emergency Medicine found that the risk of DEATH from violence or accident is 20% higher in rural areas (again, where the suburbs are) than in the city. So, the city might actually be SAFER, on many levels, than the suburbs. And can I point out the fact that the city usually has public transportation, which according to the American Public Transportation Association, saved 865 MILLION HOURS in travel time and nearly 450 MILLION gallons of fuel from polluting the earth. It's cheaper to live in the city because of this: public transport is cheap, compared to filling your car up with expensive gas every few days. Also, using public transport put less Co2 in the air, slowing the affects of global warming. And now to top it off, it's actually CHEAPER to live in the city and not the suburbs! You can actually save thousands of dollars a year in some cities! A joint study conducted by Zillow and Care.com Found that: "Living in urban Philadelphia saves a family $13,849 compared to the suburbs, and Baltimore's 'burbs are $10,790 more costly than the city. Urban living is cheaper in Cleveland ($9,034), Las Vegas ($7,318), Cincinnati ($5,514), and Denver ($3,635) as well. New York's eye-popping discrepancy can be chalked up entirely to housing costs. In fact, the study found annual childcare costs for two young children were actually lower in New York City than the suburbs ($21,568 vs. $23,253)." Thank you for your time and patience and I am excited for your rebuttal.
Urban Living vs. Suburban Living

So, you say that suburban is less communication. First off, now, there are phones. You can call. And houses are close enough together that you can still say hi to friends and neighbors. And playing? There are parks and playground nearby, and at parks, we actually have areas for games like tennis and soccer Also, the suburbs are safer. There are more cars in the city, so there is more of a chance of an accident. In the suburbs, we actually can bike on the road with less of a chance of being smashed into by a car. And, there are less factories, so there is less pollution. As for the houses, that is untrue. Each house is different, and they are bigger and less crowded. We also have yards. the size of a yard in the city compared to one in the suburbs is so small, you might as well not have one. I know my opponent hate the suburbs, but, I know him, and he has never lived in the suburbs. There, the cost of land is cheaper, so you have more space. Plus, you don't have to be woken up by the sound of cars. In the suburbs, we also actually have trees. I rarely see them in the city. In the suburbs, you can see at least 2 in your back yard. Most jobs are in the city, but the suburbs are a much more kid-friendly place, where a car won't be your alarm clock. Also, in the suburbs, we have more racial diversity, leading to more understanding and less racism.
Urban Living vs. Suburban Living

Let me start off this off by saying that I am thankful for the challenger to have accepted this debate. Now, all accordance behind us, i will attempt to make my position. My first argument of why Urban living is better than Suburban Living is that the Suburbs (American Suburbs) have been designed in such a way that it removes a few of the basic human community principles: 1. Walking from one place to another on two legs. The majority of the time, you need a car to get around the suburbs. You cannot walk from one place to another, such as in the city, because usually there will be a giant interstate blocking your way, or the distance is "too long to walk." With the removal of walking in communities like these, it is removing a basic way to stay fit and healthy. 2. Communication with other human beings. The suburbs have large fences, hedges and barriers to keep other human beings out. People don't communicate regularly in the suburbs, because the long, winding streets of the suburbs, while they may be good for cars, are TERRIBLE for humans. Rarely will you see two people just walking on the street and say "hello" to each other: the suburbs remove the essential communication factor in humans. 3. Play. Now, `this may sound silly, but in the city, kids play more. They don't have to have a prearranged play date or event, they don't need a parent to play with them, and they don't need some screen to keep them "distracted." In urban life, you can take your kids to the playground, where they will play and make new friends fast, or, if they are older, they can just hand out with friends on the streets, doing fun things that the city can offer whereas the suburbs cannot. Which leads me to my next point... The suburbs have some entertainment, but regards to the trampoline park and maybe the one laser tag arena. In the city, to name a few things, there are: Parks, Theaters, Local Bakeries, Local Cafes, Community Gardens, Street Murals and Art, Museums. Just to name a few. Also, the suburbs have virtually no local businesses. Also, why is it that the houses in the city usually look different, but in the suburbs, they are all the same? Because suburban designers wanted to be cheap and save money, so instead of making a well designed house, they literally just clicked "copy and paste" a few hundred times. Now, Differing, there are some, (but few) suburbs that are actually done well. Like in Sweden, dense forests, plant life and giant lakes make up only a few things that a regular suburb has. These are beautifully done. The real problem lies with the American Suburb: How they are cheaply made, poorly designed, and impede social science. Thank you for your time and I look forward to the second Argument.
Federally-Held Corporations are the best method for administering social programs.

Efficiency is the key, you are entirely right. As I said in the second round "Acting in an independent capacity, such as the Federal Reserve, the company would execute it's charter." This would solve your problem of having any decisions bounced between congressional committees or the departments of the executive. Any decisions that would affect the fundamental character of the corporation, found in the charter, would have to be altered with public assent due to contract law. The best of both worlds is indeed found. The actual operation of the corporation would be handled by the Board of Directors but any change in it's contractual relationship with the public would be under the direction of Congress. To sum it up: Board of Directors: Appointed by the government and handles regular corporate operation. Provides insulation from political winds. Congress: Holders of all corporate stock and can make alterations to the charter if necessary and if it does not violate contract law. Public: Receives services for paying into corporation. Alterations to corporation-public relations cannot be made other than when service contract is up for renewal (specified by the charter). The beauty of the system is that if the corporation is that if it ever becomes inefficient to the point that a private insurance company can step in again and be more competitive it will happen. If run efficiently the federal corporation will naturally out compete the rest of the market because it doesn't have to meet the profit margin. Any alterations to the charter which would make the corporation less efficient would be extremely unpopular with the electorate. The corporation must remain dynamic to out compete the rest of the market. It must be efficient because if Senator-so-and-so messed it up he won't get reelected. It must be efficient because it will be out competed privately if it is not. It must be efficient because it is independent enough to fire and hire the employees it needs to. It must be efficient or it will die.
Federally-Held Corporations are the best method for administering social programs.

I sympathize with your points on administration and finance. However the I would disagree with you to say you get the best of both worlds and ditch the problems. First of all I am sorry if in my first statement I did not make clear that the corporation in question would be 100% in the hands of the Federal Government. A charter for the corporation would be written, much like the Banks of the United States or the FDIC, outlining the specifics of what the corporation can and cannot do. Administrative decisions would be handled by the Board of Directors, all federal appointees and therefore under congressional oversight. Acting in an independent capacity, such as the Federal Reserve, the company would execute it's charter. Overall, social programs such as health insurance, workman's compensation, unemployment insurance would be handled by a citizen paying in a comparatively small premium in relation to tax dollars which can potentially go anywhere. Federally-held corporations offer efficiency and stability for the lowest possible cost. To specifically deal with your points: 1. Yes, the government can dictate policy but any major changes in the services rendered by the corporation would be a breach of contract, which is illegal. 2. The corporation in question would fall under non-profit tax law. While regulation could be an issue the FDIC has operated quietly for years without any major difficulties. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thank you for your clarification. While you have addressed a few key issues on taxes and management, you have failed to address the inefficiencies that would plague Federally Chartered or held corporations (whatever your name of choice is). Mostly, this deals with the terrible inefficiency that government management (which is already bureaucratic beyond belief) of a chartered company (which will make the inefficiency even worse because of all the regulations it must meet by being so) will create. Why are privately held companies far more efficient than the government will ever be? Because for privately held companies money is the motive: anything that will speed up earning money will be enacted. For the government there is no such motivation: setting up a chartered company will simply form a company that operates under federal authority so it will not be dynamic. How long do you think it will take for any changes in policy to take place from the time they are accepted until enactment? For a private company it can be minutes, for a chartered company it could be months while it bounces between the applicable government committees and departments. I agree that using the government to distribute social programs is an acceptable solution. If you are to do that, go with what we have now: it will be far more efficient than any chartered company. If not, go completely private, and now the consumer will win since there can be competition and competition only serves to help the consumer (well... as long as there is not illegal price fixing involved).
Federally-Held Corporations are the best method for administering social programs.

I sympathize with your points on administration and finance. However the I would disagree with you to say you get the best of both worlds and ditch the problems. First of all I am sorry if in my first statement I did not make clear that the corporation in question would be 100% in the hands of the Federal Government. A charter for the corporation would be written, much like the Banks of the United States or the FDIC, outlining the specifics of what the corporation can and cannot do. Administrative decisions would be handled by the Board of Directors, all federal appointees and therefore under congressional oversight. Acting in an independent capacity, such as the Federal Reserve, the company would execute it's charter. Overall, social programs such as health insurance, workman's compensation, unemployment insurance would be handled by a citizen paying in a comparatively small premium in relation to tax dollars which can potentially go anywhere. Federally-held corporations offer efficiency and stability for the lowest possible cost. To specifically deal with your points: 1. Yes, the government can dictate policy but any major changes in the services rendered by the corporation would be a breach of contract, which is illegal. 2. The corporation in question would fall under non-profit tax law. While regulation could be an issue the FDIC has operated quietly for years without any major difficulties.
Federally-Held Corporations are the best method for administering social programs.

Federally held corporations clearly are NOT the solution when it comes to administering social programmes. In reality, the United States would be far better off utilising either of the alternatives, as opposing as they may seem. The first way is to simply have the government reduce regulations for PRIVATELY held corporations: corporations that have the ability to operate far more efficiently than a company with the government holding it by the ear. So what's the difference with your proposal? Well... if the government allows private companies to administer social programmes and simply serves as a body that sets standards (and provides some basic guidance while doing so)and, moreover, provides reductions in taxes and fees that make operation not feasible, then the company functions in the most efficient way possible to conserve money (unlike a governmentally held company which will be plagued with paperwork of a calibre unimaginable by the human mind). Or... you simply stick with what we have today. Sure, it's not exactly "swiss quality" but full government control over social programmes has the advantage that congress and the applicable branches of government have the ability to dictate changes and have them realized rather quickly (although not as quickly as in a full private company). Furthermore, the general population's sentiments tend to drive federal programs' directions, something that usually prevents complete disarray. So why not the middle answer? It only seems logical, right? We have been taught as we were growing up that things are not black and white but usually somewhere in between. I'll tell you why Federally held corporations are a terrible idea. Instead of forming a glorious conglomeration of the benefits of each side (fully private vs. fully public) you simply mix the problems and ditch the benefits. In a federally held corporation the government owns the majority stake, so they CAN dictate policy therein. Notwithstanding this ability, the manner in which they achieve this regulation is first going through the upper echelon to get a change in a social programme approved, THEN going down all the way to the company management who will have opinions of their own (it isn't 100% government owned of course) and getting them to agree. After that, it will be subject to intensive government regulation and taxes (it is not officially a government department). It sounds like a good idea, and I don't blame you for thinking it is so, but in reality it is plagued with every inefficiency possible and thus not the best method for administering social programmes.
Federally-Held Corporations are the best method for administering social programs.

A Federally-Held Corporation would allow the government to both cut taxes and provide greater social services for a lesser cost. Let's take health care for example: The Corporation would operate like an insurance company. Every citizen would pay in a premium and then receive services. However, the rates would be the lowest possible due to the fact this Corporation only needs to cover its own operational costs. In addition due to its independent nature of the Corporation it would be under congressional oversight due to the federal government holding all of the stock but its budget would remain intact for its original purpose.
Jesus as a historical figure.

I have found no good evidence for the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. Pro will have the burden of proof, all I must do is refute his claims. First round is for acceptance. Pro may use first round to provide evidence, if he does he shall be obligated to post "No Arguments as Agreed" in round three. Rules: No using the bible alone as evidence of Jesus' existence. It is not a contemporary source and is incredibly biased on the subject.
Jesus as a historical figure.

The closest my opponent comes to an argument for his position in this round is that we celebrate christian holidays (what, america? And this proves what exactly and how so?) and that certain people in the past believed (excuse me, pro says "KNEW") that Jesus existed, yet all of his referenced individuals are not contemporary with the Christ character. They did not 'know' of Jesus' existence (as my opponent tries to beg the question within his own argument) but they very well may have believed. But a personal belief is hardly evidence. My opponent continues to offer no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus (although he seems convinced that his non-sequiturs some how qualify). The fact that Pro (nor anyone else so my contention goes) can not pull an actual case together and bring evidence to bare on this subject is sufficient to suppose that Jesus never existed. My opponent commits a fatal error. He expects me to bring testimony to this debate and I quote "Who cares if you are "only supposed to opposed pro's claims". Let me tell you something. That's sissy talk." This is either a shifting or more likely a base misunderstanding of the burden of proof. If this debate where about the existence of unicorns (which have a basis in fictional literature as does Jesus) would it be reasonable to ask someone to debate about their non-existence? To bring evidence that supports their fictionality? The best one can do is argue from the basis of no evidence, and that is just what I have done here today with Pro's help and will continue to do in the future. Because you can not prove a negative. You can only show it to be more likely than the positive claim. I urge the loss of conduct against Pro for the use of an unwarrented ad hominum attack on my person, but of course, the vote is your own.
Jesus as a historical figure.

Now you're just being cocky. You think this debate is a joke? You think that you can just narrate to the whole audience your victory? You can't even put up a fight. It's on, and it starts with the sources you had given me. I have nothing against your second source. Your first source is something I don't oppose either. In fact, it proves my stand-point of the argument even more. The first sentence is enough: "The Gregorian calendar, also called the Western calendar and the Christian calendar". I would like you to recall what holidays we celebrate that have to do with Christianity. For example: Christmas, Valentine's Day, Thanksgiving, Easter, and the list goes on. Our calendar isn't called the Christian calendar because they decided to call it that. Our calendar is called the Christian calendar because of the holidays we celebrate. Do you celebrate any of these holidays? Do you still think that Jesus was never a human being? Well now, let's go back a thousand years from now. In 1095, the first of the eight Crusades took place. The Crusades were wars against Muslim territory to fight for the Holy Lands. The Holy Lands were lands with in and just outside of Jerusalem, which meant inside the border of Judea, where Jesus was born. During the first Crusade, Pope Urban II was fighting with the goal that he must preserve the Holy Lands. If you think about it, you should be able to establish the fact that they were fighting for this land because Christ was born here. They knew that Christ existed. Also, think about it. Who, during the early A.D. years, also believed in some form of Christianity? St. Nicholas (Santa Claus), Constantine, Ignatius of Antioch, etc. These people wouldn't be recognized for what they did if they didn't know that Christ existed. It is only logical that Jesus Christ existed, and that you were an unprepared debater. The only thing that you have done was make a logical sense of time. You used your own sources against yourself when you thought you had it all, and you haven't even stated your side of the argument. Who cares if you are "only supposed to opposed pro's claims". Let me tell you something. That's sissy talk. This is my revenge towards you, and you're going to like it. How about you grow up, and speak with a purpose, and tell me why you think that Jesus Christ never existed. However, the pity of a debater you are, I don't think it's necessary. Jesus is a historical figure, and I have more than enough proof to say so, while you haven't said a word for your case. Speak up, or give up.