BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
USC (Southern Cal) in the Pete Carroll Era has become the nation's premier college football program

I post my opponents statement as for the reason he loses this debate:: ""PREMIER team of the PETE CARROLL era (multiple years, not individual years, like my opponent seems to ignore.)""~You! He fails to realize that An era is made up of individual successful years! A statement like "multiple years, not individual years, like my opponent seems to ignore," is silly because individual years are how you make up multiple years. Being that neither of us are going to fold on either side of the debate. Let's go over the main voting issue. 1) The fact that he feels USC does not have to be ranked #1 to be premier. I understand that you're talking about a certain period of time. I also understand that you may not mean all-time within this certain period of time. However, I think you fail to realize that this "era' is still in session! They aren't ranked first this year, last year, the year before that, the year before that, OR the year before that! The team characterized as the number 1 ranked team in college football is the team who wins the national championship! Hands down that's how it goes. The only team with multiple uncontested national championships over this era is The University of Florida. So, how can you say they aren't premier, and a team with one national title and one shared national title is the best? You say they aren't because of record, but fail to realize USC is in a conference where they are the only perennial powerhouse. The Florida Gators are in a conference where all but 2 or 3 have a chance to go to the National Championship every year! AGAIN, I'd like the audience to note, "How can something be premier, If it doesn't fit the definition?" Answer is, it can't be. I assume you didn't answer because you knew you wouldn't be allowed to say it and still be in this debate. If you aren't ranked number 1 at the end of the season in 6 of the 8 years out of the era, only have 1.5 out of the 8 championships (with another team having more than you and another being tied with you), and you can't make it out of a weak conference undefeated while other teams are doing it in the toughest conferences there are [....] How can you think you have the right to be crowned number 1? You can't feel that way, and even if you could, your injudicious imbecillic thoughts would be picked apart by the polling system. Which it has. RESOLUTION NEGATED
There Are No Reasonable Arguments for a God

The aim of my opponent in this debate should be to attempt to prove me wrong by showing a reasonable argument in favor of the existence of a god, and I will reply accordingly. I am eager to find a good argument, and I have tried to formulate my own, so I am reasonably open-minded about this issue. A god would be roughly defined as the creator of the universe. He does not need to be necessarily omnipotent, perfect, or benevolent, but my opponent can argue for that or similar concepts that resemble my definition. I have extensively thought about all the arguments that have been proposed to prove the existence of a god, at least the ones I was able to find. So far, I have found all of them utterly unconvincing and logically fallacious. The ontological argument is circular, the cosmological argument is special pleading for god, and the fine-tuning argument is also special pleading for god. Those were the three chief contenders for a proof of god. Other arguments, ranging from religious experience to alleged miracles, are so naive that I don't even pay attention to them anymore. Can anyone solidly argue in favor of any of these arguments? I will provide my detailed objections to them further on. My opponent's Round 1 post should be a presentation and an argument for god.
There Are No Reasonable Arguments for a God

I will do my best. I will argue mainly for the monotheistic God. While I am a sort of Christian and read the Bible, my main reason is not that source. 1. I believe that the universe has a source. All of these awesome complex life forms cannot logically happen by accident. That is like saying a car built itsself. 2. My statement is in the form of a question: If the big bang happened, who or what made it happen? I await your response.
Short Story Challenge

Greetings. This is the first actual short story/essay debateni have ever done and hope this catches on. In this challenge, pro will throw out a few writing areas and topics for each one. (3 to be exact) Con will then choose a topic. The simple way to vote is: Spelling and grammarv is literal. Conduct is the relevance to the topic. Best arguments will be to the better story in the opinion of the reader. Sources shall be graded on the amount of rhetoric used by the author (I.e. Tricolon, anaphora, anecdotal synapses, etc.) Round 1 is the presentation of topics and round 2 is the posting of the story. Dialogue is allowed. As pro, i offer the following topics to choose from: -Science Fiction -Memoir -Fantasy I look forward to a connosieur of rhetoric and writing, like myself, to accepting the challenge and showing what they got! Good luck and buena suerte!
It's time to crackdown on misleading theme park advertisements

This has been a hilarious subject to debate and I hope the readers are satisfied in reading it. My opponent has essentially conceded this debate by offering no rebuttal to my main point by either logic or factual evidence (short of personal objections). Furthermore many of his sources actually support my main point that females dominate the decision making process of the family. As I have stated these advertisements are not false in anyway for the current situation. That situation being that women as of today have more say than men in the decision making process of the family. Essentially women are the family. Since women make the decisions (or have the most say in making them), it is not at all inaccurate to advertise saying it is fun for all the family. This is similar as to many other advertisements. They pick a target audience (generally the one that makes the decisions) and advertises. When a family decision is made, advertisers seek to gain the approval of the woman. . http://findarticles.com... As is shown in this article it is proven that women make more of the decisions. Who then should advertisers target? Certainly not men. This fact should become obvious to everyone including my opponent when this fact is released. Women now have more control over the REMOTE CONTROL (meant to be underlined) than do men. Yes, I said it. Women now have more control over what is watched on tv. . http://foodconsumer.org... Working women are also weighing in with theme-park owners. They have their own money to spend, and like to spend it having fun. "That translates into increased buying power and leisure time, and spending more on leisure," says NormaLynn Cutler, president of Cutler Enterprises of Santa Monica, California, which designs marketing and advertising for parks. "Women are less likely to go with the flow. Instead they strike out on their own to choose the park the family attends. " Women typically take the lead in planning family leisure travel. . http://findarticles.com... As should be obvious women to all voters women make the decisions and therefore theme parks and ads are catered the needs of and desires of women. Because women are the dominant members of a family, women essentially are the family. Furthermore "fun for the whole family" is an opinionated statement. It obviously is not misleading because family's frequent amusement parks to be amused. If the statement was false then the amusement parks in question woudl shut down due to lack of participation and the ads would be removed. I'd like to thank my opponent for this excellent debate and I will enforce my TOS as explained in the Debate. org Forum under the thread "New TOS"
It's time to crackdown on misleading theme park advertisements

Many thanks to my opponent for taking up this debate - I must admit, I hadn't expected this novel, if perilous, line of defence! You see, my opponent's argument rests on his assertion that the woman of the house is the dominant member of the family. Sadly, this treacherous fallacy is gaining common currency because hard-line feminist extremists are exploiting the type of weak-minded husbands my opponent referred to in his response and, with all due respect, I should like to say the following to him: to perpetuate this myth is a damnable outrage, sir! Certainly, it would be foolish to allow ourselves be deceived as to the true nature of the radical feminist agenda. To quote writer Jilly Cooper: "The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." http://www.ureader.de... The truth is that leading women's rights campaigners are hell-bent on the destruction of the family. On page 67 of her book Women and the New Rage, Margaret Sanger wrote: "The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it." No, it's time reject the misguided principles of radical feminism and reclaim holiday activities for the people that usually pay for them, that is to say: the man of the house. Yes, we should fight for our right to live in a world free from anti-men theme park propaganda. After all, theme parks evolved from the medieval funfairs and carnivals of Europe – events that have hundreds of years of pedigree and tradition, none of which would have been complete without the drunken debauchery that kept the men amused while the womenfolk took the children to the merry-go-round, coconut shy and donkey derby. In the good old days, the missus would be waiting for the little ones at the bottom of the helter-skelter while dad would be in the beer tent cheering on the strippers. Now that's what I call a great day out for all the family. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.nfa.dept.shef.ac.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... The tame, sanitised, wholesome attractions offered by contemporary theme parks are all very well and good for the wife and kids, but dads and uncles deserve a fair crack of the whip as well, and theme parks that discriminate against blokes but don't disclose that fact in their advertising material should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Thank you.
It's time to crackdown on misleading theme park advertisements

Now my opponent seems upset about a recent experience he has had at a local theme park. Apparently the theme park lacked alcohol. My opponent's main premise is that theme park's give misleading advertisements when they say "fun for all the family" because they do not provide beer and strippers that perhaps provide "fun" for the men. It is unfortunate to see that my opponent does not comprehend fully what a typical family is. As my opponent fails to understand, a woman is the definition of a family. For an advertisement to be not considered false, it must be mostly true. As is obvious, women are the typical family. Example: . http://answers.yahoo.com... . http://news.bbc.co.uk... A study, which was just released, finds that wives have more power than their husbands in making decisions and dominating discussions. "The study at least suggests that the marriage is a place where women can exert some power," said lead author David Vogel, a psychologist at Iowa State University (ISU). "Whether or not it's because of changing societal roles, we don't know. " . http://newsmine.org... Wife power could signal a harmonious couple. "There's been research that suggests that's a marker of a healthy marriage—that men accept influence from their wives," Murphy said. The study, published in the April issue of the Journal of Counseling Psychology, was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health along with ISU. . http://query.nytimes.com... As should be obvious Women obviously dominate all aspects of a family and thus are the decision makers. While my opponent may have the false notion that he chose to go to the said theme park, it was really his wife's choice. Therefore these advertisements are not misleading to the real decision makers, women.
It's time to crackdown on misleading theme park advertisements

"Come and visit {insert name of theme park here}" they say "there's fun for all the family". Is there? Is there really? Well yes, there are rides and parades and shows and stuff for the kids, I've seen those. And true, there are shops and tearooms and flower gardens and stuff for the mums and aunties, fair enough, I've seen those as well. But that's not "all the family" is it? What about the dads and uncles, eh? Aren't they part of the family? Of course they are! But have the theme parks laid something on for them as well? No they flipping well haven't. Honestly, it's true. They've got sod all for the average bloke in those places. I went to one and asked a member of staff where the pub was but he didn't seem to know what I was talking about. In fact, it was only after I had searched the whole park that I discovered that there was…NO PUB! Not one. Not a single pub. Not even one WTHOUT strippers on! Well, as you can imagine, I felt distinctly short-changed (and very sober as well). Ladies and gentlemen, these theme parks advertise attractions for all the family and that's simply not the case. It's false advertising and it's time the authorities cracked down on it – and cracked down on it HARD. Thank you.
Affordable education

1. Here the problem follows one another. Due to the fact that education is so affordable, the diploma is devalued. And as to get an education in our time, you do not need to work hard. Consequently, the quality of the knowledge obtained is not very high among the majority of students. Therefore, at work there can be much more problems about the competence of a specialist. -Of course, it is believed that education develops and expands our horizons. But at the same time, let's not forget that in our time most students are unmotivated. They came only for the diploma, and not, unfortunately, for the knowledge. And they do not expand their knowledge boundaries, because they do not need it. 2. The question is not at all in this. We do not make education inaccessible. The bottom line is that we would like to make it more qualitative and valuable. The world is chasing the number of qualified specialists, but at the same time the quality of education is lost. -Anyone who is inclined to study, even if he does not possess superintelligence, will achieve much by diligent work and perseverance. He will achieve a high level. And whoever does not want to lose the years spent in pursuit of a diploma, which in the end will not be useful to him. 3. That's it, that attention is paid to everything: installations, budget, reforms. But not knowledge and their quality. Nevertheless, still a lot of people have a stereotype that studying at the university is prestigious, but in a vocational school there is not. Although no one thinks about how much really need to study the guys. 4.Of course, we do not take what was several centuries ago. But it is obvious that the situation is changing with every decade. Now absolutely other professions are prestigious and highly paid, and, unfortunately, the teacher's profession is not on this list. It is also understandable why many do not want to receive it. But nevertheless, changes in this sphere are definitely needed.
Affordable education

I understood your point of view, thank you for the answer. 1. Of course, we live in a complicated world. Everyone needs to be able to think logically, to be able to compare facts, and we will not forget about critical thinking. Yes, higher education ennobles a person, but why is it necessary for a person if he does not even use his diploma in the future? Only the ejection of money, the time spent. You can develop yourself with the help of courses, thanks to life experience, and not only through higher education. 2. Nobody says that it is necessary to restrict a certain class of people in education. The point is that you need to reduce the number of places in universities. Yes, education conditions should be equally equal for all, definitely. Higher education is exactly what you need to strive for, what should be a reward for diligence. After all, if a student is motivated to gain knowledge, then he will work and develop, which will make educational institutions more effective, they will focus not on the average student, but on really tuned to high results of students. 3. There are a lot of graduates in the labor market, but not all of them are competent in their specialty. We can say that the choice, at the same time, is broad, but it's not up to anyone to choose. At the same time, there are not enough drivers, electricians, plumbers, builders and so on. Vocational colleges are considered non-prestigious, so few people go there. The question is also that these professions are simply poorly paid, although it is quite difficult to master them, but in society they are very necessary. 4. Despite the attrition of teachers, few young people want to master the profession of a teacher. The question, again, is in prestige and wages. It used to be difficult to become a teacher. It was a very honorable profession, it was there were the most difficult exams. But now it's very easy to enter a teacher. And there are those who just want to get a diploma. Looking at this situation, it becomes scary who will teach the new generation of children in the future.
Affordable education

We can say that education is a vehicle for individual and social advancement. If we look back in time, we recall that earlier education was available only to rich people. Education was a luxury that not everyone could afford. But time does not stand still, the present education is open to everybody, the main thing is desire and diligence. But every year it becomes easier and easier to get higher education: the number of places is increased every year (though only for paid tuition). In this regard, the question arises: is it correct that higher education has become so easily accessible? Our education has become so depreciated precisely because it is very easy to get. The diploma has ceased to be appreciated, because everyone has it. It is not necessary to make huge efforts to receive it. At the same time, there are too many qualified candidates for work in the labor market, but at the same time there are few really capable and truly professionals, because the quality of education has been significantly "suffered" from so many students. Teachers simply cannot give proper attention to each student, not speaking about offering some advanced courses. Everybody strives for higher education, because it is prestigious, but no one thinks that besides this there are technical colleges, after which people also can find themselves in the real world easily. So, what do you think, is it ok, that it's very easy to get education?
poverty

Well, politics, especially in a country of Democracy will always have a big role to play. Our congress has carried the President by his hand through all of the troubles he's had. But with poverty, it's not all government. I personally believe people choose to be poor. Ever seen someone put their head down in the classroom? That person chooses to be poor, as a consequence of not accounting for their own education, that person is in the future becoming poor. Not going to College, not getting a good job and certainly not getting a good income. Tax dollars are meant to help the nation's treasury, which is why the President must continue to work on tax percentage. The Gross Domestic Product is very dependent on the tax dollars and tax returns of US citizens. Not everything we do is dependent on ourselves in comparison to what the government can control. But decisions we make like illegally immigrating to the US takes the debt ceiling into a higher level. Deficit and debt are what we are all drowning in. Because of Obama's ideas of 'tax the rich, not the poor', we make ourselves poorer! If all the taxes go to the rich, then the poor are not contributing tax dollars and are getting paid less money. Tax return going into a fat paycheck help individuals, businesses and more. But, America seems to rely on the government too much. Think about the 47% of people on Welfare for example. They need to cut their welfare services and get a job. Small steps in small businesses like supermarkets, fast food restaurants, and nail salons could use help and their taxes are low because they don't make much money. Once the company gets bigger, their taxes increase. More tax dollars, more paychecks. So, we the people, choose to be poor.
poverty

Politics are not what take care of the country in the Democratic nation of America. Do you really think the government helps us? The government, in all of its corruptness is certainly no help to anyone. I think that people need to rely more on themselves. If Obama's policies want to filibuster bills, drone strike for no reason, fund Welfare with most of our money, get involved in wars between countries we have nothing to do with, make a healthcare plan that's a loop hole and makes no sense with the consequence of fine if not followed, wants to allow illegal immigrants in for no reason, wants to help America be destroyed by economic recessive collapse and also wants to fund food stamps which then get cut off by the state governments, especially over here in Massachusetts. Yeah, with all of this going on, this clearly is a helpful government right? Everyday the president contradicts himself. And the people cannot depend on him for what he's worth. We, the American society, need to help ourselves by investing money in small businesses, or getting jobs, or getting money a different way that doesn't cost much money so you get a surplus profit in return. Are you aware of how much unemployment there is? Pretty much 1/4 adults I know are unemployed. Why? Because they leaned toward government-supplied jobs with very little knowledge of what was going to happen. Government-supplied jobs love laying people off where as jobs in good business like Bain Capital, once owned by Mitt Romney, that did no happen. You could say some of the president's acts, if anything are the exact opposite of what we need. Obama relies on his grandfather, Joe Biden (it's a joke) for most of what he needs to do. Here's how I imagine it: "What's going on, Barack?" "Oh, I need help with this." "With what?" "A decision of whether or not to bomb Iran." "Oh, just bomb those muslim stink bags!" "But, I need to save them! I still have Bin Laden in the basement!" "Yeah, but I was the reason you hid him there." That's how I imagine a conversation between them whenever a new policy comes in; Obama turns to either Biden or Congress asking, "what do I do?" It's ridiculous and why we rely on him is beyond me. We can't rely on Politics, let's rely on ourselves and change the type of government we have here to something else...But not Theocracy. I'm tired of relying ridiculously on the government for everything and that's why I stopped. Become an Entrepreneur why don't you? Make your own business, sell products door-to-door. Just do it, it's better than relying on government!
poverty

politics is such a place where politicians should take care about the development of the country as well as take care of people who are deeply infected by such poorness that they cant come out of it they need a hand to hand help ,see we cant say such a statement that people will want to stay as the same some want to some don't we cant let them to do so n where tax paying matter comes poor people should be given government jobs such as maintaining city clean n some other jobs where there is lack of works some thing like that ,By this they will come out of poverty , pay better tax, development of city as well as government.