BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tom Brady is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning

Manning may have better stats BUT Brady puts more heart into the game. If Manning is so good, then why can't he win at least 2 Super Bowl's? WHY? He has had Harrison & Wayne for the longest time and he still can't bring them to the Super Bowl, never mind WIN. Brady has put so much hard work into his football career and he has managed to take them to the AFC Championship almost every year and he has 3 rings that he obtained with who?... Those C+ wide receivers? C'mon. Manning may have better stats because of his great offense but when it comes down to the Red Zone, BRADY, ALL DAY! Just remember, you could give Belicheck a toddler and Brady would make it rain with him. Brady can do it all day every day with anyone.
Tom Brady is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning

I would like to start off by noting that as The Instigator and Pro, my opponent has the Burden of Proof to show that Tom Brady is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning. If I am able to prove otherwise, then the resolution shall be negated. I shall begin by defining some terms: Tom Brady- American football quarterback for the New England Patriots of the National Football League. better- of superior quality or excellence. quarterback- a back in football who usually lines up immediately behind the center and directs the offense of the team. Peyton Manning- American football quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts of the National Football League. Here are some one-on-one career stats: PASSING: PEYTON MANNING > TOM BRADY PASS %: 64.4 > 63.0 PASSING YARDS: 45,628 > 26,446 YARDS PER GAME: 259.2 > 234.0 TOUCHDOWNS: 333 > 197 RATE: 94.7 > 92.9 RUSHING: PEYTON MANNING > TOM BRADY RUSHING YARDS: 717 > 533 AVERAGE: 2.3 > 1.9 RUSHING TOUCHDOWNS: 17 > 5 FUMBLES: PEYTON MANNING > TOM BRADY TOTAL FUMBLES: 52 < 65 LOST FUMBLES: 17 < 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Peyton Manning clearly has better statistics than Tom Brady. Some more facts: Peyton Manning: 9 time Pro Bowl selection Tom Brady: 4 time Pro Bowl selection Manning: 4 time First-Team All-Pro Tom Brady: 1 time First-Team All-Pro Manning holds NFL records for consecutive seasons with over 4,000 yards passing and the most total seasons with 4,000 or more yards passing in a career. Manning holds the highest career passer rating among active quarterbacks and his 94.7 rating puts him second all-time behind only Steve Young Peyton Manning has more experience and leadership qualities than Tom Brady. He has been in the lead longer than Brady and possesses extreme leadership in choosing which plays to perform seconds before the ball is snapped during game play. I have posted enough facts this round to adequately prove my point. Tom Brady is not a better quarterback than Peyton Manning. My opponent has the burden to try and prove otherwise. I heavily urge a Con vote. P. S. Sorry if my facts are really close to one another. My computer will not separate them further. Sources: 1). http://www.nfl.com... 2). http://www.nfl.com... 3). http://en.wikipedia.org... 4). http://en.wikipedia.org...
The International Community should ban nuclear powered spacecraft.

Second, I will be going into refutations. Their refutation about a journey to Mars was essentially that a nuclear powered spacecrafts are not required to make a journey to Mars. However, my opponent does not show one reason why we SHOULD ban a nuclear spacecraft, and since he is not affirming the resolution, you as the Judge have to default NEG. Second, as a human mission to mars has not happened yet, it is safe to see that today's technology, without the use of nuclear fuel cannot bring a human to mars. If my opponent can provide evidence showing that Their second refutation against my argument about Curiosity was that Curiosity could dig with alternative power, some which could be accessible in the future somehow. Again, my opponent gives no reason on why we should band nuclear powered spacecrafts. Second, we are talking about whether or not we should ban it now, or in the future. We cannot rely on some type of power transporting machine that we do not even know is possible to create yet. Also, I am sure the scientists at NASA would have chosen alternative fuel if it was possible. However, they chose nuclear fuel, knowing full well that it was the only way to get a rover to Mars. That covers my opponents refutations. I would once again like to take note that my opponent has no argument proving the topic true. Second, my opponent has completely disregarded my 1st, 3rd, and 4th points. Judge, our first argument covers how more nuclear powered spacecrafts can lead to more jobs, with a whopping number of 500,000 jobs in the next 10 years. Our 3rd argument is probably the most important. Judge, only a nuclear powered spacecraft could stop an asteroid that could hit the Earth at any time. This asteroid could cause the damage of 700 simultaneous Hiroshima sized bombs. Judge, this is the MOST IMPORTANT impact of the round! This is why you are going to vote for the Negative. Lastly, my opponent dropped my 4th argument This law that will take place if the AFF wins will be extremely hard to enforce. If someone cheats or breaks the law, there is no way to find without breaking that country's sovereignty. As breaking someone's sovereignty is against the UN charter, and the Intl community is defined as the UN, there is no way to enforce this law. For all these reasons, please vote Negative
The International Community should ban nuclear powered spacecraft.

Unfortunately, as much as I believe in progress, nuclear is not the answer. A nuclear fueled spacecraft isn't required to make a journey to mars. A journey to mars is caused by an escape orbit from Earth which would intersect with Mars and allow the spacecraft to travel freely along this "line to mars". In other words, rockets do not fire fuel constantly to move because energy is not lost due to friction in space. Space exploration is possible without nuclear fuel, and actually it could be possible for Curiosity to dig using alternative power sources, namely solar and radio-transferred power, which may be possible in the future at some point. Also to be noted is that Mars One is a mission to mars using current technology.
God does not exist

I am not familiar with the Judeo-Christian God, so I have no response to that argument.In the Old Testament, Jesus had not died on the Cross yet, which washed everyone of their sins. And in the Old Testament, the people of Earth were much more sinful and vicious, causing God to punish them for their sins.Lastly, Honor Killings were invented by the people to keep their families 'clean', it was not invented by Allah.So yes lol there is a God.VOTE FOR CON!Dylip
God does not exist

Well first I want to say that I used to be a religious Christian but now I'm not anymore, I have embraced physics and astronomy instead of being a sheep who believes in superstition and heres why. First there can't be a god because god is sentient Another reason why the KCA is invalid and refuted is because it can be expressed in a competing syllogism. (P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause. (P2) The Judeo-Christian God is said to have sentience. (C) Therefore the Judeo-Christian God has a cause. This syllogism can easily be ported to any god, since most, if not all gods, are said to be sentient in some form or fashion; and all referrals to reality, attest that sentience does not arise without antecedent causation. http://rationalwiki.org... Second there cant be a god because god is said to be all good when there isnt a reason to even think god is all good. Richard Dawkins said "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal"." http://theatheistaltar.blogspot.com... Third there cant be a god because god says to do bad things like kill your family. For instance in Islam there is a thing caleld "Honor killings" Honor killings are the socially and religiously sanctioned abuse and murder of family members, most often women, who are seen as bringing disgrace upon the family due to perceived[1] behaviors of that family member. The "dishonors" can range from being seen talking with a westerner,[2] dressing inappropriately, kissing the wrong boy,[3] expressing interest in being educated, or simply stepping even slightly out of line of the community traditions.[4] Honor killings are not new, and they are not reserved to Islam. http://rationalwiki.org... So no lol there is no god.
God does not exist

I will kindly defend my religion of Christianity, but I would like to inform my opponent that there is only 3 rounds in this debate.So, this debate will be more like this.Round 1-Acceptance/Small ArgumentRound 2-Rebuttals/Argument Round 3-Rebuttals, Ending ArgumentI would like to let my opponent know that religion was actually not invented to control people, the first religion (well, I believe it's the first religion), the belief in Greek Gods, was invented to explain nature, death, weather, and so forth.Christianity was built on the Miracles of Jesus Christ, God's only son. Despite the fact the Bible contradicts intself, it was made upon letters of people who witnessed the events.I will not allow my opponent to make his argument (or elongate it).
God does not exist

I think God does not exist because there is no evidence for his existence and so there is no reason to think he exists. All religion was invented to control people and is actualy not the intervention of any gods. People often do not realize that they reject other gods saying things like 'that's a ridiculous myth' well I say the same thing to anyone who belives in God. I invite someone who beliefs in God to debate me on this topic. Round 1: Arguments Round 2: Rbeuttals Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Rebuttals Round 6: Rebuttals and closing rebuttal
March Beginners Tournament : The United States should place a ban on all semi-automatic weapons"

This will be round 1 of the 'March Beginners Tournament', where I will take on OreosAreCool on the topic "The United States should place a ban on all semi-automatic weapons". I thank Bsh1 for hosting the tournament and I wish good luck to my opponent. If there are any concerns with the rules and definitions put forward, please make sure they are brought forward before acceptance of the debate or the first round by con is posted. Con should not challenge the definitions or rules put forward by the time he posts his first round and upon posting the first round it should be assumed (if Con doesn't state it himself) that he accepts all definitions and rules presented. Definitions -Should - What the United States should enact based on the weight of the arguments brought forward rather than the obstructions or impediments that may be presented by it. Ban - Officially or legally prohibit, a ban that would take effect in all 50 states of the United States of America. Semi automatic weapon - Partially automatic, requires a squeeze of the trigger after each shot, which is more specifically referred but not limited to semi-automatic pistols and semi-automatic rifles.
March Beginners Tournament : The United States should place a ban on all semi-automatic weapons"

I accidently got my argument wiped in the process of writing it, unfortuantely with my commitments in RL I do not believe I will be able to continue in this tournament even if I emerged victorious. As such I give the win over to side con, apologize for the sad ending but I could maybe continue this debate some other time after the tournament ends.Thanks and good game.
Social networking sites boon.

In my argument I as (Con) will tell you how social networking is good and beneficial. You stated that "Social networking sites nowadays are used for stalking, committing cyber crimes and other frauds" Now sites such as Facebook, twitter and instagram have privacy settings. This is where you can choose what information about yourself can be publicized. Some people choose to give out there personal info, this is there fault, not the social networking's fault. How is it beneficial? People use allot of social networking sites to connect with people. I will be giving you some examples. *Social networking sites spread information faster than any other media. *Law enforcement uses social networking sites to catch and prosecute criminals *Social networking sites help students do better at school *Social media sites help employers find employees and job-seekers find work These are just a few beneficial examples.
The sword is mightier than the pen.

"The pen is mightier than the sword" is a proverb indicating that communication (particularly written language), or in some interpretations, administrative power or advocacy of an independent press, is a more effective tool than direct violence and military prowess. https://en.wikipedia.org... In the upcoming rounds, I will be arguing that the sword is more effective. I will begin the discussion in Round Two upon my opponent's acceptance.
theism is atheism, both are wrong

Your argument is incomprehensible. "yes=1-5 fingers behind your back vi, no=1-5, maybe=1-5, so, what position does the gay have saying no vi, you are not holding 3 or any fingers behind your back?" This makes absolutely no sense to me, or to anyone who speaks English. I have stated and restated my position, yet you ignore it. Your initial definition of atheism was wrong, yet you continue to use it. Once more. An atheist does NOT say "No god or gods exist." He DOES say "There is a LACK OF EVIDENCE to support a belief in god or gods." There is a difference. Therefore, the theist's position is more extreme, in making a pretty wild claim. The atheist is simply challenging the claim. I repeat, the atheist is NOT saying god doesn't exist. So, it isn't a "guessing game." The atheist examines the evidence and says we need more. I will try to communicate why I believe there is a lack of evidence. Why is there a lack of evidence? I will say concisely that pretty much the only evidence presented by theists is anecdotal, god of the gaps, or the Bible, none of which is convincing enough to me or other atheists. Anecdotal evidence doesn't work because it's biased and differs from person to person because each person has a different experience. Also, conflicting religions give similar stories, showing that the anecdote doesn't really prove anything. God of the gaps never proves God's existence; all it does is point out holes in science, which are being filled. A lack of an answer does not mean that God did it. Moreover, the Bible has many conflicting and/or impossible claims, and it contains a circular argument. "The Bible is divine because it was ordained by God, and we know about God through the Bible." There are probably other points brought up by theists, but what I'm saying is that we need more. Maybe if we weren't a speck in the universe, made out of the most common elements there are... I'm pointing out a lack of evidence, not a belief that God doesn't exist. The theist's assertion that he DOES exist is more extreme and carries the burden of proof.
theism is atheism, both are wrong

Ok, so I get the sense that you didn't actually read what I wrote, and I also don't understand your analogy. When someone is asked to guess a number of fingers someone is holding up, "yes" and "no" aren't even available answers. You simply guess 1 through 5, and anything else is nonsensical. Given this analogy, the theist would claim to know the amount of fingers, by faith or intuition or whatever unprovable yet unfalsifiable reasoning. The agnostic would say he didn't know how many fingers, and the atheist would see the theist's claim and say there is a lack of evidence to support it. Remember, the claim made by the atheist is not a positive claim saying that god doesn't exist-- instead, it is a challenge of the theist's claim. The burden of proof lies with the theist and not the atheist, since the theist is making the claim. Your claim that atheism is the same as theism represents a misunderstanding of the terms, claims being made, and burden of proof.
theism is atheism, both are wrong

Hello. I would like to start by saying that I believe you have misrepresented the key terms of the debate. Your explanation of "theism" is fine enough by my standards, but your assertion that the atheist's position that no god or gods exist ("atheism=no=opposite yes position") isn't really true. It is impossible to technically disprove the existence of anything, including unicorns, the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus. However, one can use logical and empirical reasoning to deduce that there is a lack of evidence to support those beliefs. This is different from making the positive claim that they don't exist-- it is simply saying that the differing claim has a lack of evidence. Agnosticism answers a different question entirely-- whether or not someone "knows" if gods exist. To put it simply, the atheist answers "Is there evidence to support belief in a god or gods?" and the agnostic answers "Do you know if there is a god or gods?" The atheist answers his question with "no," which logically leads to a lack of belief. Why believe in a god that there is a lack of evidence to support (according to the atheist)? Only the strongest type of atheist will assert that no gods exist for certain, but this type of atheist is rare, extreme, and can't really prove his point. Overall, atheism isn't as extreme as theism, because atheism has no dogma, tenants, or doctrine. Agnosticism is a question of personal or societal knowledge, and almost all agnostics are technically atheists (except for the religious agnostic, who grants that there is no evidence to back his position, which is purely by faith), and almost all atheists are agnostic (except for the strongest type of atheist, who asserts that no gods exist, instead of a lack of evidence). At large, it isn't sound to equate the extremity of theism and atheism. The theist has the burden of proof, while the atheist does not.My definition of atheism came straight from https://atheists.org... agnosticism: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The black bear is the best kind of bear.

It can be seen here that brown bears are smart enough to stay not only out of Illinois, but out of America in general! This shows them not only to be more intelligent than black bears, but Americans too (not really much of an achievement, though). All of the great nations of the world understand and accept the great might of the brown bear, with both Putin, AND Lincoln known bear jockeys. Besides, it is a well-known fact that Asians first learned king-Fu from pandas. You know where pandas learned it, right? You guessed it: brown bears, for it is a skill they are naturally born with. This opens another can of worms, however. Pandas are much more cuddly and cute than black bears, while polar bears are even more badass than brown bears (you have to be if you live within 100 kilometers of Inuits).However, we have (thankfully) been able to avoid angering the brown bears. In return, they have built us a machine made for carrying our injured in combat, the aptly named BEAR (Battlefield Extraction-Assist Robot). From this gift of charity, we can be assured our brown-colored ursine overlo- ahem, friends, have nothing but good intentions for us all.
The black bear is the best kind of bear.

A quick look at this map shows that black bears are better because they are too smart to live in Illinois. http://www.covebear.com... There is no way to tell from the map how many brown bears live there, but one can assume that the number could be in the tens of thousands. Therefore if a brown bear is dumb enough to live in Illinois, but the black bear is too smart to, one must concede that the black bear is better. Even logic dictates: Beauty is better Black is beautiful therefore black is better by extension Black is better Black bears are black Therefore black bears are better or conversely Black is better Brown bears are not black Therefore brown bears are not better. Below we see a brown bear giving up and admitting that black bears are better. http://3.bp.blogspot.com... And who took the picture? http://i.dailymail.co.uk... So it is proven," Black bears are the best kind of bear". Any further discussion would of necessity be futile.
The black bear is the best kind of bear.

Pro believes that longevity is not one way in which bestness is measured. This is a blatant lie in order to divert attention away from my substantial evidence. U-232 is better than TI-209 in terms of half-life. Because seeing is believing, here are some completely legitimate pictures of the Russian Ursine Cavalry. Do you see Russians ridind black bears anywhere? I didn't think so. And it is a well known fact that anything the Russians do is automatically badass.However, that's not to say that Brown Bears are solely bloodthirsty monstrous killers. Although they usually are. They can also provide comfort and joy to a little child, such as they do all aroud the world on a daily basis. Are Teddy Bears black? Sometimes, yes. But people vastly disprefer the black ones, due to their obvious inferiority.Why don't we take a look at pop culture, then? Films, music, books, etc...Baloo, from The Jungle Book. The Berenstain Bears. Little Bear. GoldiLocks. Yogi. Brown Bears have long been used to entertain and teach our children. That's not to say, however, that adults' shows can't have them as well, such as Maloy from Brickleberry, Naughty Bear, and Ted.As it can be seen, more poeple think that brown bears are better, so they're obviously right.
The black bear is the best kind of bear.

1) Since Con states that Pro's sources are not reliable, and then footnotes Wikipedia, Pro states that Jim and Dwight are no less reliable than Wikipedia Perhaps if one were to go a level above the salesmen, and listen to the Regional manager; http://www.youtube.com... 2)Con then states that Brown bears are better because they live longer. The debate is NOT about which bear lives longest, but which is best. That's like saying that uranium U-232 with a half life of 72 years is better than thallium Tl-209 with a half life of 2.20 minutes. 3) Con then states that Brown bears are better because they are bigger, Again the debate is Not over which bear is biggest, but which is best. Consider this situation. One is charged with packing the largest number of bears into a 10 cubic meter box. Clearly more black bears would fit into the box. 4) Con then uses a picture of a black bear near a fence and mocks his size. However a closer inspection of the photo shows that the black bear while smaller and shorter lived has other attributes. Clearly this bear had not only erected this fence, but had also parked his car neatly and set a camera on a self timer to take a clear picture of himself. Not to mention having to upload the picture to the net! Further evidence http://www.youtube.com... and further http://www.youtube.com... and clearly, the black bear is much quicker in an obstacle course as shown below where the brown bear always lags behind. http://www.youtube.com... Therefore the black bears is obviously best because A - Because they have shorter lifespans they pack more fun into fewer years B - Because they are smaller, more of them would fit into a clown car C- Because they run away from people, not at people D -Because they can smell salami from a long distance, which would make them good to have when looking for ingredients to make a sandwich. As in "Hey Black Bear, I have bread and cheese. Go find me some salami!" sources cited you tube you tube you tube you tube