BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
College Players Payment

Hello Wyattcodered,I understand some of the greatest players in the NFL played at the college level. Think about this though. Players are sitting out of bowl games because they will still get drafted. Players don't want to play in College. They want to be playing with NFL greats like Charles Woodsen before he retires. If they play in college they will never have that experience. Here is 2 example from the NBA. Lets first travel to Sacromento where we can talk about NBA player Skal Labissiere. Skal was the projected #1 player in the country for his high school level. Then he went to Kentucky. He dropped in stock and went in the 2nd round. Another prime example is Nerlens Noel. He got injured in college(ACL Tore) and so he dropped in stock. His NBA career was affected by the injury. If he went straight to the NBA from high school this injury may of never happened. Players should be able to go straight from high school to the pros.
Zaradi's Prized Tournament: Resource Extraction in Developing Nations

PrefaceThis is for the second round of Zaradi's Prized Debate Tournament [1]. I think this should be a fun debate, and I look forward to have an interesting and engaging discussion with bossy. I also want to thank Zaradi for hosting this tournament, and for all of the effort he put in, and is putting in, to this endeavor.There is a 2,500 ELO floor for voting on this debate. I would also ask that bossy wait a full 48 hours prior to posting his acceptance in Round 1 (he can accept before then, just note post his acceptance before then.)Full TopicDeveloping countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict. TermsShould - expresses desirability, expediency, or correctnessEnvironmental Protection - "a practice of protecting the natural environment on individual, organizational or governmental levels, for the benefit of both the natural environment and humans." [2]Resource - a natural resource; industrial and raw materials supplied by natureAdditionally, a list of developing nations can be found here, and are classified as either landlocked developing countries, small island developing states, or least developed countries. [3]Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. With undefined words, both debaters agreed to use standard meanings of the words that make sense in the context of the resolution and the debate8. The BOP is shared9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Constructive Cases are PresentedR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's CaseR5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both CrystallizeThanks......once again to Bossy for accepting this debate and to Zaradi for instigating this tournament! I look forward to a good round.[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] https://www.google.com...[3] http://unstats.un.org...
Zaradi's Prized Tournament: Resource Extraction in Developing Nations

PRO has completely obliterated my case by showing the contradictions inherent in supporting free choice and property rights in conjunction with choice-restricting and rights-violating resource extraction procedures. I cannot even begin to rebut his counter-arguments, so I must concede. Full points to PRO. It was, regardless, a fun debate. BSH has made me critically evaluate my position, and I can now see the glaring flaws in it (that may well be unrepairable). Props!
Bonnie is better than Foxy

I accept. The full burden of proof falls on PRO to prove that Bonnie is better than Foxy. If, by the end of this debate, you are unsure or PRO has failed to establish this resolution, I win by default. Let me spell out PRO's burden with variables.Bonnie = X Foxy = Y PRO must prove objectively that X > Y If, by the end of the debate, I have either proven that X = Y, that Y > X, or that these are still plausible options (i.e., PRO has not disproved them or established that only X > Y is true), you're voting for me by default. You'll note, also, that I do need to establish either of these to be the case in order to win, but only to refute PRO's argumnts.In order to establish objctively that X > Y, PRO must also fulfill the following: P1) If X possess A, B, and C qualities, it is objectively superior to Y P2) X possesses A, B, and C qualities C1) Therefore, X is objectively superior to Y In other words, he need only needs to prove and to evidence his position as well as his assertions, but he needs to establish an objective framework for comparison--otherwise, comparison of quality, of tastes, of preferences are inherently subjective, and we cannot make objective comparisons, in which case PRO would have failed to uphold his burden of proof and you vote CON. PRO states, "Bonnie is better than Foxy mainly because of his route and the way he moves." He does not evidence this position or explain how this can make one superior to the other. This is nothing more than a subjective opinion and, thus, cannot establish the resolution.Back to PRO.
Make the most profound Christian freestyle

Ok, this dude comes online, tellin' me opposes what God has in store for my soul It's determined who in the heavenly realm, over all, who plays the right role Can't point to a religion,, claim that it's divine, without a sign probability can't be found in a dime, all is predetermined, like this rhyme No sneak dissin', didn't come here to disrespect the Koran is based on the Old Testament, if you checked Eternal reality is found everywhere, look and search through a microscope Got God's blessin on me, i don't even need a pope I can draw so many conclusions from studyin' Jesus n' Muhammed Both were seen as superhuman, Checkin' these truths, be honest I strongly oppose those who ignore the experiences I have seen that inevitable light in all it's brilliance The name of God in Hebrew is a man with a nailed hand We were movin' to hell, now we turnin' round to the holy land Who knew that God would come as a man to cleanse humanity of it's sins I just finally need a way to seek redemption other than savin' these skins
Make the most profound Christian freestyle

Reading the Hebrew connects me to the language of the Creator Movin' through the mind of God, i find somethin' greater I heard that religion was man-made, that we are self paid My homies said "Words of wisdom" I say that's why Christ was slayed Light goin through my soul like the breath went through Adam's nostrils To save the weak, dyin', cryin', lyin', sighin' fiends in the streets n' brothels I see the faces of despair before me, drownin' in a molten sea I rattle this flow like i'm ballin' under the divine tree Illumanati seems to be takin' over the world, Satan king over the world But Jesus threw him out of power, like Jonah, out of a whale, he got hurled The enemy ain't neva waitin', lives he be takin' souls he still rapin' Into Gehenna i thought i was goin in, but i was escapin as God was savin' I should write divinely inspired lyrics like David wrote his on that lyre Back in the old days, the train filled the temple, now i'm on holy fire Back in sunday school, we were talkin' bout compassion My life flashin, body crashin', teeth gnashin' My pain God took when they took his body to the lashin' The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath Pharisees were on Jesus like evil men were on David, savages Man was made under one son, Lord Jesus Christ, one providence To be led away from all these intellect of flaws into one holy guidance I'm sick of all these man-made lies forged to bring one's own demise God essentially cast Satan out of heaven, let that be a lesson to all who defies You must realize that the darkness is only momentarily, but the sun rises to our eyes God commanded Israel to create no idols, there is only one image This is the Ha'mashiach of the holy one, neva will there be any breakage He will reign age to age in a rage against all who oppose his position as a sage God needs no armor, God is protection, God is a weapon, God is the Word of infinity Like a parent supports it's child, so is the man who places his refuge in his God, connection
soda is bad

Once again, plagiarism. Because of such, my opponent has committed a full forfeit, leading to an obvious 7 points to none other than me. Here is the source for this new plagiarism.http://www.today.com... And once again, it is also an unreliable source. This is also a blogging website, and the writter is a normal person. Furthermore, she claims a variety of studies have been done, but when looking close into it, none of these studies have ever been excecuted. This proves that all things in this article are false. Even if it was true, this doesn't make soda a bad thing. Something being bad is completly subjective. Perhaps someone thinks being unhealthy is a good thing, because it stregthens character when people try to oppose you. So in such a case, soda is a good thing. It is impossible for you to prove that soda is factually bad, since something being bad is completly subjective. Also, in order for you to even try, you should of made your own argument instead of plagiarising from unreliable sources. Not only has my opponent plagiarised all their rounds, or in other words forfeited them, but in doing so they dropped all my arguments. Soda saves the homeless, and is one of the main reasons humans are still alive today. Regardless if I continue this debate or not, it is obvious who won.CONTENTION IV: MORE MLP VIEWERS My little pony is one of the best shows loved by many. Not only is it fun and entertaining, but it teaches a variety of helpfull lessons. Various bronies like my self love watching MLP with a nice cold can of pop in our hand. So, soda brings in more MLP viewers! MLP teaches so many good lessons, especially on friendship. So, pop makes people happier, and have more friends. Eventually, pop will make the world watch MLP, and everyone will suddenly become friends! If everyone are friends, then there would be no war. No war allows more people to live, and less violence to be made. If everyone is friends, they will also have less stress. Studies show friendship relieves stress. [1] So everyone would be less stressed, and thus everyone will be hotter. So with soda, people watch MLP, and suddenly become uber sexy! CONTENTION V: SODA COMPANIES SAVE LIVES Soda companies like coca cola support wildlife. They help save animals like polar bears. Polar bears provide amazing sexy fur to wear. When people wear beautifull fur, they become less stressed because they are hot. This makes them even hotter. When men see hot women in polar bear fur, they express their admiration in an innapropriate way that relieves their stress. Then the men become hotter. Then, the women do the same, and become hotter. Eventually it becomes an endless loop and everyone is suddenly hot, and animals are alive.
soda is bad

First of all, your entire argument is plagiarized. Here is the source: http://beautytips4her.com..., this source isn't even reliable, it is a blog! No sources are provided to prove these facts. Since my opponent plagiarized, and even off a unreliable source, I urge voters to count this round as a forfeit on his part. In this debate, I have decided to be a troll.CONTENTION I: SODA SAVES LIVES, AND MAKES PEOPLE HOTTER Soda, along with many junk foods relieve stress. A good old nice bag of chips, or even a can of pop can relieve the mind. When people aren't stressed, they look better, it's a fact. So if people are hotter, they tend to get married. In marriage, you pay more taxes than you would if you were single. So, the more soda that is dranken, the higher the taxes will go to the governement. The governement pays for things such as hospitals and homeless shelters. These hospitals and shelters save lives. THEREFORE, SODA SAVES LIVES You see this beutifull couple? They would be dead without soda!CONTENTION 2: REPLENISHES THE POPULATIONAs mentioned previously, soda makes people hotter. When people are hotter, they get married. Marriage usually leads to children. As you can now see, soda gets people married, and thus boosts the population. Without soda, the population would be so slim, and eventually lead to no humans living at all!CONTENTION 3: IT TASTE GOOD nuff said.
God Is Omnipotent

Thanks for accepting and complying, Pro. Although my introduction mandates forfeiture, prayer can be accepted as it is not truly an argument but just a statement of belief fused with requests for god's assistance. I do not intend to be rude or insensitive, but prayer does not truly influence the actions of man (as various studies comparing praying people of various religions and atheists would show). I have not coerced my opponent to accept this debate and to do so was an act of faith as set up in my first round. Therefore, it is your duty as objective voters to vote Con (at least on argumentation). Thanks, Pro.
God Is Omnipotent

Dear g-d, your ways are hidden from me but i accept your judgment for i am a mere mortal of flesh and blood, i was made from dust and to dust i shall return, all of my wisdom was bestowed upon me from you, my compassionate creator. Dear g-d who has no beginning and no end, and after all is over, shall rule for eternity. Thank you for everything that i have, you owe me nothing yet you gave me life itself. You owe me nothing, you have created me from nothing, yet you not only give me life, you give me happiness, you give me love, but most of all dear beloved, omnipotent g-d, thank you for giving me the gift of free choice, for I know that you are infinite yet you made a place for me, out of your love to your creations you have given me the opportunity to give you satisfaction by revealing your presence on earth. Master of the world, mighty, omnipotent g-d, creator of the universe, my rock and salvation, most beloved. I beg thy mercy upon myself and my family and on the whole world.
God Is Omnipotent

I have made this debate short as it is fairly unpractical. I use it only to make a point. Today, we will be debating on the power of God. I assert that logic and reason are more powerful than "God's divine power". My opponent will forfeit both of his rounds in defense of faith, and only offer prayers to God. Unless God causes a miracle, I must win this debate. However, the Bible says with faith the size of a mustard seed you can move mountains. The conclusion I'd like all voters to ask themselves is this: why is this so absurd? If Christians and other religious people truly believe God can do anything, why not this? He says he wants us to know him and that is the very reason for our existence. But I have a stronger faith that God will not interfere on my opponents behalf, and that I will by necessity win this debate.
US Involvement, Georgian-Russian conflict

"Reader, is it moral for Russia to act in it's own best interest, and immoral for The United States to do the same? This seems hypocritical, but maybe I'm "just trying to give rationalization to the Bush administration".*Yawn*" You say soverignty should be respected, Georgia's, is why Russia should leave. If sovereignty should be respected,,,, then the US would be doing exactly what you're telling Russia not to do.. thus your hypocricy. In fact, the US would be sticking its nose in a situation that doesn't concern it. At least Russia has an arguable claim. It appears you are the true hypocrite. You didn't even address who is right or wrong other than to continue assiting one blindly help their friends no matter what. "stand by while your friend is getting stomped to the pavement" Your argument has never been that we fight to prevent them from being stomped into the pavement, per se. Your argument has been that we take sides. If the battle becomes them being stomped, then and only them would we intervene, as a humanitarian purpose. Not because of the purposes you say,,, ie, they are are friend and that's reason alone. So you're not only hypocritical, you're also inconsistent. "They are Georgian citizenship" You never used this as your reason to assist them. You merely asserted they are our friend. At least now you're getting to a significant point. But, still not enough. They may be of Georgian citizenship, but they dispute their status as part of that country. It wouldn't be analogous to some random state claiming they are independant off the wall.... their reasons are more complex and arguable. So your point is not analogous about Russia giving a state citizenship. It's not good faith disputed. There's a huge difference. Iran can claim that it owns iraq,,, doesn't mean it does. That could be how they view their status relationed to Georgia. ""That Russia supply or helped its allies with weopons etc doesn't mean anything. The US did the same thing, supplying taht stuff to Bin Laden in the nineties etc." Which is it: The U.S. was justified in supping Bin Laden or are the Russians unjust in doing the same thing? I'm pretty sure, the latter proves my point." No,, my point is that what Russia did in the past is history. If Georgia is attacking a country, what it did in the past doesn't have anything to do with the current problem. And more importantly,,, it was defending its soveriengty,, in a good faith dispute. It'd be like if Maine was in good faith disputing its status... and got in a heat with the US. And then China came and bombed the US cause it was picking on Maine and supplying efforts to thrwart them. How much sense does that make? none. I think you're just getting hung up on the fact that it's easy for Russia to beat up on Georgia, and you're blinded a lot by the fact that they are the little guy,,, not too concerned about good reasoning behind helping them. Your argument essentially boils down to they are our friends so we help them no matter what, practically. That's blind ideology if I ever saw it.
US Involvement, Georgian-Russian conflict

"Russians may have a with us or against us attitude, but that doesn't mean we should do the same. That's exactly the attitude, by the way, of Bush and Mccain." Never had I suggested the U.S. taking on a "with us or against us attitude", but rather the Russians have! I will then agree with my opponent that; Russia is taking a dangerously simplistic attitude towards "a complicated situation". I will show that full backing for Georgia is the correct answer towards U.S. involvement in this conflict. Not because of the politics of McCain or Bush, but because it is in the best interest of The United States. According to my opponent the best interest of the U.S. has "no point"(Who would have thought). Yet Russia hasn't "done anything wrong" because it has used its "autonomy too, to protect its interests". Reader, is it moral for Russia to act in it's own best interest, and immoral for The United States to do the same? This seems hypocritical, but maybe I'm "just trying to give rationalization to the Bush administration".*Yawn* My opponent give a metaphor in which, an individual, The United States, turns around whistling whilst their friend is being stomped into the pavement. She also intends the reader to accept massive Russian aggression as acceptable. Fire bombing buildings, that Russia occupied, not even located within the contested border regions. Acceptable? Defending democratic nations is necessary to ensure the security, economy, and society of the United States. I've made this clear in my earlier argument. "The broader issue of whether Georigia has rights to that country, is complicated, too. It's like the Israel situation. Most by far of the citizens are Russian citizens." Wrong. The majority of citizens in South Ossetia are Georgian. In fact, all of them are! What your referring to, just to inform you, is that Russia has granted citizenship to South Ossetians[1]. I wonder, if Russia granted all New Yorkers citizenship do they get that city too? "That Russia supply or helped its allies with weopons etc doesn't mean anything. The US did the same thing, supplying taht stuff to Bin Laden in the nineties etc." Which is it: The U.S. was justified in supping Bin Laden or are the Russians unjust in doing the same thing? I'm pretty sure, the latter proves my point. Every one of my earlier points remain unchallenged, and reinforced with my opponents own words: "We are friends with Georgia" and "You help your friend when they are in war." [1]-http://www.today.az...
US Involvement, Georgian-Russian conflict

Russians may have a with us or against us attitude, but that doesn't mean we should do the same. That's exactly the attitude, by the way, of Bush and Mccain. The bottomline is that it's a complicated situation, and "us or them" is exactly the attitude, and "full backing" is exactly the attitude we should not take. Your whole essay shows, that we are friends with Georgia. That's pretty much the extent of it. If your friend does something wrong, beats someone up,, that doesn't mean you stick up for your friend. Not that Georgia was beating anyone up,,, both sides claim the other fired the first shot. If your friend is in a fight, and you don't know how it started etc, then you just go into damage control. So, the initial fight itself, no sides should be taken. The broader issue of whether Georigia has rights to that country, is complicated, too. It's like the Israel sitaution. Most by far of the citizens are Russian citizens. There's no rights necessarily to Georgia, and to insist there are,,, is simply taking an arbitrary stance just cause they've bene friendly to you. Just because Georgia deserves autonomy, doesn't mean anything. Russia has autonomy too, to protect its interests, in that fought country. It's like if someone attacked Peurto Rico, or a quasi state in the US. The US would be up and arms. You have no point in pointing out the pipeline in Georiga, other than to say that we have an interest in it. If Georgia is otherwise unjustified in what they do, then the pipeline issues are their fault, not Russia's. That Russia supply or helped its allies with weopons etc doesn't mean anything. The US did the same thing, supplying taht stuff to Bin Laden in the nineties etc. You help your friend when they are in war. You've not shown how Russia has done anything wrong. They didn't out invade Georgia for example, or something similar. Had you shown that, you'd have a case. As of now, you have no case. You're probably just trying to give ratioanlizations to the Bush administration etc, who are continuing with their shooting from their hip, cowboy mentalities, alienating everyone with double standards.
should teachers be allowed to have cellphones at school

1) In the second round, my opponent has conceded that teachers will need cell phones in school to respond. Hence he/she has been convinced by my CONVINCING ARGUEMENTS. 2) I addressed my opponent as 'you' in the first round. I am new to this site and was not aware that they should be referred to as my opponent. I also referred to my opponent properly from the second round onwards. I would ask my voters kindly NOT to PENALIZE me on CONDUCT. 3) My opponent asked a question in round two and did not place a question mark. Hence, I appeal to voters to vote for me on the point of GRAMMAR. 4) (This is the most obvious one)My opponent has forfeited three rounds.