BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
curb your enthusiasm is better than Seinfeld

1. Awards do not recognize quality. Was TITANIC really the best movie of 1997? Of course not! Awards merely reflect attempts by the leftist elite to gauge the supposed preferences of the "common people," which they do not even begin to understand or identify with. You use awards as a criterion? I think you've already lost with that. 2. Seinfeld is a show about nothing (you admit), with no redeemable social value. CYE has everything good about Seinfeld and more, including plot and social criticism. 3. CYE is hilarious and the YouTube you provided only affirms this. 4. All the characters you cite as being so great were entirely created by Larry David, and his immense talent is what makes CYE so great. As stated earlier, the Jerry character is a composite of Jerry and Larry; George is one aspect of Larry's real-life persona; and the real-life Kraymer was real-life Larry's neighbor. CYE has even better characters, such as Susie the foul-mouth harpie, Jeff the fat and philandering agent, and Richard Lewis the paranoid recovering alchie. Season 6 introduced the Blacks, including the hilarious Leon. And what's more, Ted Danson and various other celebrities make frequent contributions, mocking themselves as liberal Hollywood deserves to be mocked. 5. So you admit you haven't even seen many CYE episodes. Ah ha! Watch them all and you will be converted. Again, popularity is no measure of quality. Is Britney Spears's debut album one of the twenty greatest in history? Of course not! And speaking of that last Seinfeld show, IT SUCKED, and almost everyone agrees. The last show of each season of CYE is hilarious, and if Season 6 is the final season, the ending was PERFECT.
curb your enthusiasm is better than Seinfeld

I negate "curb your enthusiasm is better than Seinfeld". I will present my offense and be vague and get into more detail in later rounds. 1. Seinfeld has many awards. From http://en.wikipedia.org... Seinfeld was an Emmy Award-winning American sitcom that originally aired on NBC from July 5, 1989 to May 14, 1998, lasting nine seasons. Many of its catchphrases have entered into the pop culture lexicon. The show led the Nielsen Ratings in its sixth and ninth seasons, and finished among the top two (along with ER) every year from 1994 to 1998. In 2002, TV Guide named Seinfeld as the greatest American television program of all time. Seinfeld has become a pop culture phenomenon. When I say 'No soup for you', I can guarantee 4/5 people would know where that is from. It also has great one liners such as 'anti-dentite', 'these pretzels...', 'Vandelay industries', and 'not that there's anything wrong with that'. 2. Seinfeld is a show about nothing. You can watch it whenever you want, and you don't have to start at the very beginning of the show to think it is funny. Most people appreciate random comedies, because they are not the same old recycled jokes, as in Curb your Enthusiasm. 3. CYE (Curb your Enthusiasm) is not even that funny. I am not going to say it doesn't have a funny line here and there, but overall, it's not that funny. The show uses red faced rants with interchangable swear word after interchangeable swear word to appeal to viewers. Take this- http://www.youtube.com... Is that really funny? There's not even any jokes. It's just some woman yelling at her husband. If I wanted to watch someone scream at someone, I could do it in real life. And this, same deal- http://www.youtube.com... 4. Seinfeld has many well defined characters. Jerry co-created the show and puts many of his own jokes of it. When you get parodied so often, it is safe to say you are a character. And George. Everyone can relate to George, and he just makes every other character better. And who can ever forget Kramer. His crazy antics, his outrageous comments, everything he does is funny (on the show). 5. Seinfeld appeals to more audiences. Not many people, like myself, have HBO. I haven't seen too many episodes of CYE, but I've seen almost all Seinfeld episodes because I don't have cable. This is also a more family show. Even 12 year old kids can relate to some of the stuff they say, like the fork and cookie. I would never let my kids (when I have some) watch CYE. I guess people have shown this, seeing as how 75 million people watched the final episode. I look forward to your response.
curb your enthusiasm is better than Seinfeld

I believe curb your enthusiasm is the greatest show in the history of television, but that is not the topic of this debate. Instead, I'm arguing that it is better than Larry David's other show, Seinfeld. This is a two-round debate. Here are the reasons curb your enthusiasm is superior to its more-popular cousin: 1. Larry David is awesome and Jerry Seinfeld is annoying and lame: Larry David was the brains behind the Seinfeld show. The character of "Jerry" is actually a composite of the real-life Larry and the real-life Jerry. For example, the real-life Kramer was Larry's neighbor, not Jerry's. Many of the incidents that happened to Jerry on the show actually happened to Larry in real life, not Jerry. And finally, George Cstanza is much funnier than the Jerry character, and George is based entirely on Larry David. 2. curb your enthusiasm's HBO format allows more explicit hilarity: Usually, cursing is a short cut to laughs that covers a lack of talent. But in the case of curb your enthusiasm, the swearing is used creatively and the results are hilarious. Imagine the character of Susie Green if she were on Seinfeld -- that would suck. But HBO's format allows for the hilarious, foul-mouth character we all love. 3. curb your enthusiasm is "politically incorrect," which makes it much funnier: There were almost never any black people on Seinfeld. They lived in New York City but there were no blacks? WTF? curb your enthusiasm, on the other hand, features many black regulars and random characters, too. Larry's character always manages to say something stupid around African Americans, which is inevitably hilarious. In particular, the "adoption" of a black hurricane-refugee family in Season 6 explored racial issues that a PC network show like Seinfeld would have never been able to do. 4. curb your enthusiasm has more cultural value: For the reasons cited above, but also, the show explores "Jewish" issues and also deals with the hypocrisy of modern liberalism. 5. curb your enthusiasm is just more creative and entertaining: Each season has an "arc," whereas Seinfeld was a show "about nothing." Though they are somewhat similar, curb your enthusiasm makes Seinfeld look lame by comparison. I know plenty of former Seinfeld fans who, once they watched curb, could not go back to Seinfeld. If you are not familiar with curb your enthusiasm, rush out and buy Season 1 on DVD today!
The voucher system of education would be better for the US than it's current education system

The Pro has the burden of proof. abstract: The voucher school system is quite wonderful, it gives government grants to citizens who wish to send their children to a private school, however it is a fallacy to think the grant will guarantee that they'll get in the private school nor does it guarantee a better quality of education. The voucher system lets parents children attend religious schools which are a direct violation to the 1st amendment separation of church and state. They are designed to give vouchers to some students at the worst schools. The vouchers will drain money from schools that need it most. Deplorable conditions await those doomed to be left behind in already struggling schools whose financial problems would be exacerbated by vouchers. Public schools must accept everyone regardless of disabilities, test scores, religion, or other characteristics; private schools can show favoritism or discrimination in selecting students. I will post my arguments in round 2 after you post yours the above as you've already guessed is an abstract of what my arguments will consist of (they may change,my arguments).
The voucher system of education would be better for the US than it's current education system

This debate will consist of 4 rounds with three days to reply to each round. I will take the position that the School Voucher would be a better system for this country than the current one. If you accept this debate than you will defend the US's current educational system. You have the choice of either starting the debate in round 1 or I will begin it in round 2.
Our reality is an illusion to test our will for the afterlife

Good argument, but your forgetting that one thing is true in the statement that illusion is noun 1. something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality. 2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension. And that reality is something that exists independently of ideas concerning it. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive. Therefore my competitor you cannot state that illusion is reality, and if you did I would win this debate. There is a constant circle that doesn't stop and that is the Illusion of reality is fake. So nothing is everything and the world is in fact a illusion to test our worthiness for the afterlife. I thank my competitor for excepting this debate and look forward to any who want to challenge me. "Dictionary.com - The World's Favorite Online English Dictionary!" Dictionary.com. Web. 06 Apr. 2016.
You can not prove or disprove the existance of god.

Audience, this debate is over. My opponent has supplied no real argument in his last round, but he merely reiterated his previous claims. He has still yet to leave the muck of the definition of "prove", and I'll just respond to his several of his misunderstandings ========== Definition of "Prove ========== We have been over the definition of "prove". Even if my opponent desired for another definition of "prove, he failed to do so in his first round, so defining the terms was left to me. [quote]"Now this itself says that if you was to supplied me with some information that you say "proved" God was real or not real and there is a chance that it is wrong because you obtained it via logic, and maths then therefore it is not "Proof". Because it does not give me "Ground for Belief" aka "Evidence". No Evidence sufficient to establish a thing is true then no Proof."[quote] My opponent misses the point. Showing that something is highly likely to be true IS GIVING EVIDENCE. As I said before, nothing empirically known can be 100& by virtue of brain-in-a-vat scenarios. My opponent has completely dropped this point and focused onto semantics. [quote]"In the end this would come down to own personal choice and what you see as evidence."[quote] Personal choice? What "you" see as evidence? Is this quote at all relevant? Because if it is, my opponent is basically saying we can arbitrarily determine what is evidence - something quite ridiculous. ========== Conclusion ========== My opponent has offered no real argument for his final round. He has attempted to change the definition of "prove" when it has already been set, and he has completely dropped my argument pertaining to how empirical evidence has some possibility of being false. This debate goes to CON - no doubt about it.
You can not prove or disprove the existance of god.

First of all we seem to have gone of topic. My argument is "You cannot prove or disprove the existence of god." And my opponent seems to have jumped around the word "prove" What do you call "proof"? Well my opponent seems to believe that proof is something that shows that God most likely or lest likely exists. (And tried to apply this belief to other aspects of life, when the issue of God cannot be.) My opponent is significantly wrong here. Proof is however = "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth." http://dictionary.reference.com... What evidence is there that the existence of God is true? What evidence is there that the non-existence of God is true? Evidence being = "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof." http://dictionary.reference.com... Now this itself says that if you was to supplied me with some information that you say "proved" God was real or not real and there is a chance that it is wrong because you obtained it via logic, and maths then therefore it is not "Proof" Because it does not give me "Ground for Belief" aka "Evidence" No Evidence sufficient to establish a thing is true then no Proof. In the end this would come down to own personal choice and what you see as evidence. ========= My video was placed there for people to understand the theory of Relativity if they wished. It was not significant.
You can not prove or disprove the existance of god.

No problem Wanted797, you'll get the hang of it ;). Anyway, onto the debate: ========== Proving something doesn't mean it has to be 100% ========== My opponent's attempt at re-defining the word "prove" is at best, half-hearted. First, his definition of empirical is somewhat wrong. Empirical means to rely on experience and experiment, NOT THEORETICAL[1], which is much different from theory. [quote]"So first you say you can prove something without it being 100% but then you say that something proven by experiment and experience has at least some degree of being wrong so therefore is not proven."[quote] When did I EVER say that? That is a strawman - you have misrepresented my argument. I argued that to be "proven", in the way I defined, does not be 100% as in mathematics or logic, but only to be shown highly probable. This is because anything known through empirical means has some degree of fallibility (aka being wrong). For example, we can all be hallucinating right now, or in a dream. And while that may be VERY VERY VERY unlikely, it's still POSSIBLE. Take this analogy to the concept of God. While we can't know 100% about his existence, we can know whether it is highly probable or highly improbable. ========== PRO Claims: Nothing can be proven 100% unless we see it, seeing is 100% ========== My opponent states that seeing something is how you can be 100% positive of it. This is, quite simply, a ridiculous claim. If my opponent is not aware, then it should be known that SEEING is using one of your five senses, sight. By definition, sight falls under the category of empirical evidence. So by pure definition, my opponent has contradicted himself. Empirical means is not 100%, sight is empirical, therefore sight is not 100%! Now back to the elephant. Let's say you do visually verify something. But does that mean you have 100% knowledge that it exists? Of course not! There's still a chance, no matter how low, that perhaps you are hallucinating. Perhaps everyone is hallucinating. Perhaps you are dreaming. Perhaps everyone is dreaming. The possibilities are endless, despite how unlikely. [quote]"But think for a minute of the belief of God.......a invisible man/woman/thing that is everywhere and magically created everything."[quote] Yes, God could've just done everything (in this case, in place of fairies), but that's part of the point. Knowledge of his existence is at best empirical, but that doesn't mean we can make an intelligent estimate on his existence. ========== Conclusion ========== I'm sorry, but I cannot view my opponent's video (my computer is messed up). If the video is on the theory of relativity however, and not so much agnosticism, then I don't think it even needs to be a part of this debate. If it was something vital to his side, then I urge him to just type it next time. That said, the rest of my opponent's argument is, at best, a red herring. ---References--- 1. http://www.merriam...
You can not prove or disprove the existance of god.

The first point my opponent brings forward it that to the word "Prove" means "To establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic)" Now I agree with you here I however do not agree with "Proving something doesn't mean it has to be 100%" I will get to my point soon. You say "I contend that anything known through empirical means, aka observation has at least some degree of being wrong. " Empirical means = "Relying on experience and experiment NOT theory" What? You just contradicted yourself. So first you say you can prove something without it being 100% but then you say that something proven by experiment and experience has at least some degree of being wrong so therefore is not proven. Nothing can be proven 100% unless we see it, seeing is 100% If I was to tell you that I had an elephant in my car would you believe me? well no you wouldn't because though your logic and experience you know it would be near impossible for me to fit a elephant in my car. But there is still the chance that I did manage to somehow fit a elephant in my car you don't know for sure that I do not have a elephant in my car unless you see proof with your own eyes. If you think there is a way you could prove I didn't have an elephant in my car without actually seeing my car then let me know. Now this is a key point for proving the existence of God because we cannot actually see him/her/it. Your next point on Gravity. I agree with your concept of Gravity is most likely BUT there is still a chance that invisible fairies push the planets around, you may think this crazy to believe that invisible fairies are pushing the planets around, But think for a minute of the belief of God. .. .. .. a invisible man/woman/thing that is everywhere and magically created everything. And how can you say gravity is not unprovable we are talking about God here something we can't understand that defies the laws of physics also gravity works on the THEORY of relativity. For the theory of relativity see the video . http://www.youtube.com... Theory = Set of ideas to explain something; abstract knowledge or reasoning; idea or opinion. In Theory = in an ideal or hypothetical situation. Theoretical = Based on theory rather than practice or fact. I will expand my arguments in the next rounds. I await my opponent's rebuttal.
You can not prove or disprove the existance of god.

Since he has failed to define the terms, it is at my liberty to do so: ========== Definitions ========== [Word - God] Stemming from the comment section, my opponent has stated that God is "the Theorized Creator of all beings and elements". [Word - Existence] [Source - . http://www.merriam-webster.com...] The state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence. [Word - Prove] [Source - . http://www.merriam-webster.com...] To establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) ========== Proving something doesn't mean it has to be 100% ========== I contend that anything known through empirical means, aka observation, has at least some degree of being wrong. While we may be quite positive that the planet moves because of gravity, there is a slim but possible chance that the planets move because invisible fairies are pushing planets around. That being said, is gravity then "unprovable"? Of course not. It's still highly likely that gravity is the answer for the planet's rotation - not invisible fairies. Apply this concept with God. While it is still possible - whether you think it's highly likely or not - that God exists, it doesn't mean the probability of him existing is nothing. ========== Conclusion ========== I will develop my arguments after seeing my opponent's rebuttal.
I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind

Firstly, I'd like to present the evidence that you requested. [1] https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC3061347/This shows that children in foster care are very, Very commonly suffer from some sort of mental disorder. Of course, There are plenty of great foster parents out there! No doubt about it, And it's not always the fault of the foster parent. But it's best for a child to be raised with a happy, Full household. I do believe "development of the mind" is a significant option, And in fact, Is it not what makes us human. Chimpanzees have limbs and heads much like ours, But they aren't human. They haven't experienced the same level of personhood as us. It doesn't make their life insignificant, But if one had to choose to kill a human or a chimp, Odds are the chimp would kick the can. This debate is a weighing of moral significance, And I believe that con holds the preponderance. I'd like to review my points of today's debate- [1] Forcing women to bear children (especially for those with extenuating circumstances) is cruel. We should focus on giving women good lives. [2] Human fetuses, While still of significance and should be protected, Should not be weighed as a higher significance than the human mother. [3] Foster care is not an option for everyone- many children who are raised in foster care experience problems. We should not give more people into the foster care system than necessary. [4] The moral principles of others should not be forced onto the mother. My opponent stated that that there are no second chances. Well, Judges, A vote for con is a vote for a second chance for the mother to live a full life, And perhaps bear children when she's ready, And not when she's forced to because of one grave mistake. I thank my opponent for their time, Patience, And civility, And I humbly request of you, Judges, To cast a con ballot. Thank you!
I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind

By vegetables, I mean people that are in permanent comas. Fetus's start to develop different parts of the body on week one. I simply don't think whether it has "developed its mind" is a sufficient argument. You mention they don't "think" they're gonna get pregnant or drugs and alcohol takes advantage of them. But again, Those are all there choices, And they know the risks and possible consequences when they do those things. In life, You don't get a second chance. The fetus has a right to life, And even if it can't survive on its own, That shouldn't be the factor determining the value of it. As of the foster stuff and last paragraph, Can you cite those statistics? That is somewhat like suicide. People think they aren't worth anything and their life is miserable, But they shouldn't take their lives because of it. Everyone's life is worth living and everyone is special and has a purpose in life. I'm not sure how people would get illegal abortions, And it would be very cruel to kill even more fetus's in retaliation to new laws. This is also a prediction, And I'm not convinced that would actually happen. Thank you for your civility and your time. I will now pass the torch to you.