BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Process is More Important Than the Result

Result and process are two fundamentals when one is pursuing a goal. However, People tend to weigh these two differently. While the result gives us guidance and inspiration, The process makes sure we go through the journey and learn along the way so that we can have more experience. I believe one should be more process-oriented than caring so much about the result. Whether the result is good or not, Experiencing or actually enjoying the process is always valuable. For example, This February I went to a "business hack-a-thon" and I was very excited the night before because that is what I always really wanted to do, And I felt confident that I should and I could win this. However, During the hack-a-thon, As I reviewed what other teams had as their projects and their ideas, I gradually noticed that my team was not the best one. I was struck because I wanted to win so badly at the time, I continued to work hard with my team only for the purpose of achieving a victorious result, Without much regard for the process. It was finally our pitching time and the judging round. My team didn"t do very well and obviously, The result ended up with us losing. I was floored because in the very beginning I thought we could win and I was so excited about this, But later, I realized that as the hackathon was progressing, I started to gradually ignore the fact that I decided to enter the hackathon because I wanted to learn more and see how other people were doing and just simply to spend more time with my friends. Later, I reflected on myself and learned that I should just enjoy the hackathon and not to be so single-minded about winning, Because it was also a great experience of learning overall when I think back. Nowadays in society, People are drastically more result-oriented a lot of times because they are ambitious and really want to achieve some goals. How they care about the result can inspire and really encourage them by making them see the great future when they succeed. However, The problem appears "when we become obsessed with the results we want and forget about the process that will get us there", The thing that initially motivated us to take action, Said by SJ. Scott from Success Habits. The process is what first gets one inspired to start doing something valuable. While during the process, They will be attracted by the result more because of their increasing ambition as they do more. This is important because everyone can relate, And people always face this kind of problem between focusing more on the process or the result every day. Being process-oriented is better because when you focus on the process, The result will be automatically as fantastic as one expected initially and plus the experience is important as well. Thanks.
Aviators is the Best Artist (Please be kind and thoughtful!)

Round one is for acceptance only. Please, anyone accept this debate EXCEPT Blade-Of-Truth. Please. I've had enough with that guy (after just one debate, SHEESH!). If he should somehow accept this debate anyway, or stumble upon it, tell him to PLEEEEEASE be considerate of my feelings and beliefs and what I really love. Thanks! If you're not interested in this debate, feel free to check out Aviators anyway: http://soundoftheaviators.com...
Aviators is the Best Artist (Please be kind and thoughtful!)

Pretty sure I don't need to say much to this. My opponent has admitted that he is stalling for the last round because he is busy and he wants to reveal some surprise at the end. He has also conceded the debate. Let's see how."I shall now change the topic of this debate to the subject of Aviators having the POTENTIAL to become the best artist."My opponent has given up saying that Aviators is the best artist and is trying to move the goalposts to Aviators having the potential to be the best artist. He has in doing so conceded that Aviators is not the best artist. Look, here he admits that he cannot prove Aviators is the best artist!"My point is, sometimes because of my autism I tend to not think things above and beyond (pardon the irony) and did not think at all if I could prove that he IS the best artist, and did not realize it until later on. So I changed it up to now fit my true point and claim that RIGHT NOW, AVIATORS DOES HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SOMEDAY BECOME THE GREATEST ARTIST THIS WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN. (I seriously doubt I can stress that any more strongly)."I cannot stress strongly enough that Pro is trying to move the goalposts and in doing so is abandoning his burden of proof of proving that Aviators is the best. He should lose the debate as he has abandoned the main point he set out to defend. I'd also like to say I don't really appreciate being attacked for using logic and reason and not being a brony. Pro should probably lose the conduct point too. He isn't helping his case by complaining that my logic and reason are defeating his case so much that he needs to move the goalposts. ConclusionPro is trying to move the goalposts. Pro has abandoned his burden of proof by deciding not to defend the contention that Aviators is the best artist. Pro should lose the debate.
Barrack Obama is the AntiChrist

I know everything you have just told me. I have debated points I don't agree with. However, as I voted for Barack Obama and will again in November, I don't wish to say any unnecessary (as well as ignorant) about him. Besides, I'm an Atheist. If he was the Antichrist I'm pretty sure we'd go Salsa or something. As the debate was my first one ever on here, I didn't realize what I was accepting until after I had. If I had known I was on the Pro side, I would not have accepted. I'm a noob to this website.
Barrack Obama is the AntiChrist

"Either way, I don't think he's the antichrist and if that's what I just agreed to debate, I unfortunately can't continue :(" I don't really feel I need to argue. I believe my opponent just conceded the entire debate to me. It isn't about what you believe to be true, it's about being the better debator and producing your case better. An example of a debate I did not want to debate: http://www.debate.org... I am a Christian but I argued the better case and therefore, I can honestly say that even though I didn't agree with my position, I defended it. Please, in the future, check your position, review whether or not you want to debate under your given position, and if you don't believe in it but you think you can win, do so. Thanks, -EG
Female priests.

If what my opponent is saying were true, then his argument would make perfect sense. However the church is not a "female" neither in the literal sense or figurative sense and Con cannot prove it to be so. The evidence he offered in reference to the church being female was the term Mother Church, but in terms of the church's "sex" that is irrelevant. In fact the term Mother Church is used to describe the first church of a particular city or region. This doesn't suggest that the church is "female" but rather it was the first and that's just the title given for a little play on words so to speak (suggesting it spawned other churches maybe? lol). It isn't an anatomical reference or even a figurative one. This is very similar to the term "Father Winter." People understand that the term is just a play on words, not even figurative- winter is not a male and nobody considers it as such. The Mother Church can also mean the church of most importance in a particular region, or the "highest" church in the region in the sense that other churches assemble there for important gatherings and what have you. Also, I acknowledge that Catholics consider the church to be the "Bride of Christ" and therefore one would assume that the church is female. However this does not make sense, as Catholic theology suggests that Christ is not only a man but God incarnate. That means Jesus/God can love anyone regardless of their gender and so can the Church, figuratively speaking. Check this out- "Most Christian theologians teach that the term bride of Christ is a metaphor for the Church, particularly in that Jesus as God is not a man, God is far beyond our limited understanding, and any relationship between humans and God can only be hinted at and poorly described using any Earthly terms." So the earthly terms of bride or mother do not apply and therefore my opponent is incorrect. There is no "homophobia" in this instance but rather sexism. My argument rests on the fact that Catholics are simply sticking with tradition on this one and that's understandable but not right. Anyway my points completely negate my opponent's argument and therefore he has given no good reason why female priests should not exist in Catholocism today. Also he has not touched upon my points that there are female altar servers where there weren't before and that other Christian denominations who also believe and worship Christ have female priests. Also I would like my opponent to possibly touch upon why Priests should be considered higher than nuns as explained in my Round 1, thanks.
Female priests.

Thank you for starting this debate. This should be an interesting one. I love doing theological debates. First off, let me say that I am an Atheist, but one of my friends is a devout Catholic. He is quite intelligent, and we have debates all the time (real, in-depth debates), so I do know enough about the Catholic faith to be able to debate, at the very least, this topic. Also, since I am an Atheist supporting a standard in Catholicism, I'd like to remind everyone to vote for who they thought had better argumentation, not just what they agree with. With that in mind, let's begin. For this debate, and I assume my opponent will agree, we are dealing strictly with Catholic theology. So, if I can show why, according to Catholic theology, women shouldn't be priests, I should win. This debate shouldn't be judged on any standards other than Catholic theology. If my opponent can prove how this theology is unjustified or contradicts itself, he should win. Otherwise, you should default CON. Something that you have to accept for this argument is that Christianity and the Bible view homosexuality as wrong. I'll return to that idea later, but this is something that you really can't debate. I can't refer to the verses off the top of my head, but, if it becomes a question, I'll look them up and prove that Christianity does not endorse homosexuality. This isn't saying that homosexuality is wrong, just that Catholicism views it as wrong. Now, what are nuns technically supposed to be? Brides of Christ, no?They are, in theory, married to Jesus. This is why they are unable to marry another person, and the reason for celibacy of nuns. It isn't because it is unclean in and of itself to be non-celibate. It is because it would be, technically, adultery. Moving on to priests. The reason why women can't be priests is because priests are married to the church, and the church is viewed as a female (hence the phrase "Mother Church"). This is also the reason for clerical celibacy. Now, since priests are married to the church, and since the church is female, then allowing women to become priests would be endorsing homosexuality, which is decidedly not only un-Catholic, but un-Christian. It's not a matter of sexism, it's a matter of viewing homosexuality as sinful.
Female priests.

The topic of this debate refers to the Roman Catholic faith. I don't know enough about any other religion to debate about it. If my opponent wishes to debate outside of the Roman Catholic faith, please do so elsewhere. Also, "clergy" in this debate will refer to priests, not nuns. My position in this debate is to recognize the male-only clergy rule as sexist and outdated. I was taught that priests have to be men because Jesus' apostles were all men. Even if that were true (there is some speculation that Mary Magdalene was an apostle afterall), what do the gender roles of 2,000 years ago have to do with the gender roles of today? In this day and age we try to limit sexism and sex barriers as much as possible. Why should the roles in a religious institution be any different? Tradition is not a good enough excuse for women to be ineligible to be ordained. Afterall there are women priests in other Christian denominations so why not Catholocism? Also when I was a kid there were only altar BOYS. Now there are altar boys AND girls. This is probably due to the lack of interest in becoming an altar boy- they had to get young girls to help fill this role. But similarly we are experiencing a shortage of priests. More and more we are looking to other countries and conversion practices in an attempt to bring priests overseas here to the U.S. Why not just allow women to become priests instead? Priests and nuns live a very similar lifestyle. To discriminate against nuns because of their sex by not giving them the same rights and priviliges such as performing a mass or hearing confession is wrong. It goes against the CRA too. I want my opponent to prove to me that ordaining female priests as part of the Catholic faith is wrong. Tell me why it is taboo and still being enforced today. If you fail to convince me and the people on this site that only men should be allowed to become Catholic priests, I win.
Lebron is better than Kobe Bryant

First off, when Shaq left the very next year they did make the playoffs. The lost to the eventual champions The Spurs. The next year after that, they went to the finals and lost to the Pistons. So, your facts are incorrect. As far as being the better offensive weapon, ever see Lebron put up 81? Didn't think so. Yes Lebron has more PPG than Kobe does, but he plays more minutes. Per 36 they both average 25. Also their 3pg% is the same. Again, your facts are wrong. You're right, Lebron doesn't hit many walk off shots. That's because he doesn't take them. He is a pass first player in the 4th quarter. In my book, taking over the 4th quarter is exactly what makes a player clutch. Yes, Lebron was able to get out of the first round of the playoffs every year. Lebron also plays in the East, the easier of the two conferences. You said "Kobe has had Shaq, Gasol, Bynum, all this great talent around him, and you can't deny when Kobe got handed the team, he was not able to win.", but when Lebron was the man on his team he couldn't win either. Yes Kobe has had Shaq and Gasol (give me a break with Bynum), but for Lebron to win he had D Wade and Bosh...at the same time!
Lebron is better than Kobe Bryant

Kobe has been blessed to be drafted to the Lakers. Going to another team, he is a more glorified Allan Iverson. The fact is his first three titles, were carried by Shaq, who was the driving force of those titles. What happened when Shaq left, and the team was handed to Kobe? They missed the playoffs the first year and were one and done the next two. Lebron went to a Cavs team that was god awful, and you can't even dispute that, for 4 years straight Lebron led them o 60 plus winning seasons and then fell off too an under 20 win team. Lebron was able to get them out of the first round every year, and took a horrible team to the finals, was Kobe able to do that when it was him as the leader and had a better team around him? No. Who has Kobe ever made better? No one. Also to the fact that Kobe has only one MVP in 17 years, Lebron is about to get his fourth in 10. You want to talk about being a better offensive option, yet Lebron has better PPG, APG, better FG%, and better 3ptFG% in there careers. The only thing Kobe has on him is he is better with the walk off winning shot, and a better jump shooter, which he is a SG I would hope he does. All because Lebron doest hit many walk offs does not mean he isn't clutch. How many times has Lebron scored to put away a game, how many times has he played very clutch defense? All his career. And you want to talk about Kobe staying and Lebron leaving, Kobe plays for the Lakers, the NBA richest francise., Lebron played for the Cavs, one of the poorest. The best player Lebron ever played with there was Mo Williams. Kobe has had Shaq, Gasol, Bynum, all this great talent around him, and you can't deni when Kobe got handed the team, he was not able to win.
Lebron is better than Kobe Bryant

On Michael Jordan's 50th birthday, we had Kobe and Lebron go heads up in the All Star Game. Queue Lebron with the ball in the 4th, the reigning MVP, looking to bring the East back. He goes up or a jumper and...gets blocked by Kobe which leads to a fast break and a dunk by Durant! Later on in the quarter, James goes for another jump shot, and gets his shot swatted again! This time by...Kobe!!! Jordan said he's take Bryant over James. And on his birthday, we were all witnesses to reasons why.
Lebron is better than Kobe Bryant

Kobe is better than Lebron. Kobe is the better scorer. Kobe is better in the clutch. Kobe has more championships. Kobe has never done a show called "The Decision". For all these reasons, Kobe is the better player and has had the better career. Kobe's scoring has been truly amazing to watch sometimes. His 81 point game against the Raptors was a clinic. He was tenacious and efficient (28-46 and 7-13 from 3). He's won 3 scoring titles. He's averaged at east 30ppg 3 times in his career and over 35ppg once. At 34 years old is still averaging 27ppg. Kobe is a flat out scorer. When you need a bucket, you go to Kobe. He does not shy away from the 4th quarter like some people (2011 Finals anyone?). Kobe wants the ball in his hands with the game on the line. He takes more clutch shots, he makes more clutch shots. Plain and simple. Kobe has five rings. Lebron has 1. Pretty cut and dry here. Yes, Kobe had Shaq and later Gasol, but it was always Kobe's team. Every superhero needs a sidekick. Lebron had two when he won his lone championship (in a lockout shortened season no less). Kobe has stuck with the team that drafted him thru thick and thin. That says a lot about a player in my book. Lebron couldn't win in Cleveland so 'he took his talents to South Beach'. The decision to do "The Decision" was a poor one. If you are going to quit on your home team, don't do it on national TV. All these things bring us to the conclusion that even his Airness himself agrees with. Kobe>Lebron
Lebron is better than Kobe Bryant

You are correct about when Shaq left. My mistake. But your facts are all messed up. You were incorrect about the 3fg%. You just posted yourself, .336 for both of them. And James did not take them to 5 straight Eastern Conference Finals. In 07-08 and in 09-10 he lost to the Celtics in the 2nd round. So he went to 3 ECF not 5. When he did go to the finals against the Spurs his ppg dropped 3 points in the series, his rebounds dropped by 1 a game and assists went down by 2. How is that clutch? He did the same thing against the Mavs in the finals. He disappeared. He finally got his championship in a lockout shortened injury riddled season with another top 10 player on his team. Lebron shot .188 from behind the arc and shot less than 50% from the field in that series by the way. Clutch? Batman? You say his legacy will pass Kobe's (which you admit Kobe's legacy is better now) if he wins three or four more championships. That's a big if. Let's ask Dominique Wilkins, Patrick Ewing, Reggie Miller, John Stockton, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Pete Maravich, Artis Gilmore and Elgin Baylor how easy it is to win a title. To sum up, Kobe has 5 rings. Lebron has one.
Lebron is better than Kobe Bryant

No offense dude, but get your facts straight and look it up. Shaq was on the team until the 04-05 season, in which his last season with that Lakers losing to the Pistons in the Finals and then got traded to the Heat. Look it up. Also your incorrect again, look it up (and to anyone voting on this, if you don't believe either side, just look up the facts first, and I assure you mine are correct) Here are Kobe's career numbers. 25 PPG 4.7 APG 5.3 RPG .838 FT% .336 3P% .453 FG% 1.5 SPG and .05 BPG and here are LeBron's 27.6 PPG 6.9 APG 7.2 RPG .747 FT% .336 3P% .489 FG% 1.9 SPG and 1.9 BPG (all stats provided from ESPN.com) The fact of the matter is in the 04-05 season, Kobe got handed the Team, Shaq had left to go play with Miami and it was Kobes time. The first season they went 34-48 and missed the playoffs completely, and the next two seasons going 45-37(7th seed) and 42-40(7th seed). Not records a supposed "top 5 player of all time" should be getting leading a team. Now I will give you that Lebrons first 2 seasons he did not lead the Cavs to the Playoffs, but the next 5 years he took to 5 straight ECF with his not that great off a team around him. Over all Lebron is a better basketball player. Facts speak for its self. Yes as of right now, legacy goes to Kobe Bryant. But he also has 7 years on Lebron, and lets face it, Lebron will always be the Batman role on a championship team. Not be a Robin in which Kobe was for his first 3. And one MVP in 17 years, vs 3 going on 4 in 10 also speaks volume. That alone will make it to where LeBron will only need to win 3 or 4 to surpass Kobes legacy, because he would then surpass him with finals MVPS as well.
If all of John's rabbits are white, and John has no rabbits, which colour are his rabbits? White.

My opponent has ignored my arguments in favor of his own. Very well. He asserts: >"This statement is theory. It is paradox." But it is not. According to Dictionary.com, Paradox 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth But there is no possible truth, there is only the oxy-moron. White-Nothingness. My opponent has demonstrated no greater truth to this impossible phrase, and no reason why "white" must be demonstrative of this truth. His justification seems to stem upon this assertion: >"I chose white because I believe that it is really asking 'If John had rabbits, which colour would they be?'" But not only does he provide no evidence for this rationalization of the statement, he provides the example of "Less is More" as his comparison point. But that example stems from a real and great truth that too much, drowns out. But rather than a "greater truth," even in his revealed rewording, there is only a re-written literal, simple, and non-universal statement. Consequently, the only conclusion is that the original principle really is simply an absurdity.
If all of John's rabbits are white, and John has no rabbits, which colour are his rabbits? White.

All of John's rabbits would not be white. The two givens are in contradiction with each other. The statement that John's rabbits are white presupposes the existance of rabbits. Furthermore, whiteness is actually the reflection of all colors from the object we perceive as white. Nothing can, of itself, intrinsically be white the way that it can intrinsically be another color. Rather, a whiteness of color depends on external perceptions which we do not observe. Consequently, if John has no rabbits, then the rabbits could not be white.
If all of John's rabbits are white, and John has no rabbits, which colour are his rabbits? White.

This is a quite well-known philosophical question, 'If all of John's rabbits are white, and John has no rabbits, which colour are his rabbits?' I chose white because I believe that it is really asking 'If John had rabbits, which colour would they be?' I think that what it means is that John does not have rabbits, but if he did they would have to be white. It is like saying 'You have to take your passport to the airport. Judy did not go to the airport. Does she need to take her passport to the airport?'
You do not worship god, you are gay, you curse at you parents, you are an adulterer, you WILL DIE!

Case proven. Pro's anger overbears their judgement and exceeds all rationale. Compassion is easy and flows more freely than disdain. Yet disdain outpours with wanton leisure. Has the mighty sword of logic smote a telling blow and cast Pro's demon army into disarray. They retreat in haste from this verbal battlefield. Slinging soft mud that washes easily with the cool rain of reason, not swift arrows of logic that should penetrate with burning precision.