BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Better QB: Dak Prescott (pro) or Russell Wilson (con)

"I agree, the Cowboys offensive line is a great line but that helps ezekiel elliot out more than Dak" Directly, yes of course, but when we look at the indirect effect, there is nothing better for a quarterback than a good running game. It forces the defense to play the run seriously and it allows for play action, which are the best things for an inexperienced qb. They cant run complicated pass defenses as often because they have to dedicate the effort to the run. "Dak Prescott led a broken down team in a broken down city to the #1 seed in the NFC" Well no, that team had high expectations and was considered a decent team with the issues being on defense which showed up more than most people thought. But as it is look how russel wilson played this year despite being hurt most of the year. He led his team to a 10-6 record with the team falling apart around him. Wilson wasnt mvp caliber but neither is dak. If russell had the pieces around him that dak had he would have made the superbowl but I dont think dak could say that for seattle. " He will grow and mature into one of the greatest QB's to ever lace up." Ok but this is not a debate on who has more potential this is about who is a better overall player. (BTW Russell wilson is 4 overall points higher than dak on madden (1)) Russell has proven himself and dak has not yet and russell does not have all the advantages that dak has.
Better QB: Dak Prescott (pro) or Russell Wilson (con)

Thank you for taking this debate up. I agree, the Cowboys offensive line is a great line but that helps ezekiel elliot out more than Dak. I'm not saying it doesn't help a rookie QB but the offensive line has given elliot better opportunity than any other team in the league can including New England. It takes so much more than just time in the pocket to be a great QB though. I'm not even talking about his number of receptions and yards he has put up over the course of his rookie season. I'm talking more of how he took a team that had so much hope behind them as they were finally getting their star QB back from a terrible season last year and now, they were finally getting hope. Tony Romo got hurt in the Pre-season(how?!?) and all hopes for a good season for the Cowboys had gone down the drain. Dak Prescott stepped up and said that there is potential in this team and that they were a playoff team despite the Giants some-how great season despite a shaky QB at best. Dak Prescott led a broken down team in a broken down city to the #1 seed in the NFC. I don't blame Dak for losing that game the other day...he's a rookie in one of the most critical spots in the league, of course he wasn't going to win the super bowl. As for Russell Wilson...yes he is a super bowl champion but how long did that last? He has proven in this last year especially that he can't make his team better than what they are. He can't bring his team hope or bring life back to Seattle. A great QB is not just made by statistics or numbers or even an offensive line. A great QB is made by giving life back to a team that has none and bring a city to it's feet when no one thought it possible that a fourth round draft pick could lead a team with broken defense and only average receiving team to not just the playoffs and not just a bye week in the playoffs but as the number 1 seed in the conference. You can't compare the leadership ability of Russell Wilson to Dak Prescott...we have to take into account that he is a rookie and we can't expect a Super Bowl ring out of him. He will grow and mature into one of the greatest QB's to ever lace up.
Better QB: Dak Prescott (pro) or Russell Wilson (con)

Wow where do I begin? You called a rookie quarterback a legend, and insinuated he was a better quarterback than a superbowl champion, even though he has yet to prove himself in a big game, even with him having a much better team around him. Dak was unable to lead the cowboys to a win in a game they were favored in, and got put to shame by aaron rodgers, who is a great quarterback, but who was missing both of his top 2 recievers. Will Dak win a ring? I don't believe so, but its more Jerry jones' fault than dak's "Dak has overcome more challenges and has made himself more valuable to his team" Well that is absolutely absurd, first of all the mvp on the cowboys is the offensive line, if you watch the games dak has so much time in the pocket. If you want to call a quarterback great, put them through this test, could they be placed on the worst team in the league, and make them at least a playoff contender? Aaron rodgers can, I think Russel Wilson can, but there is no way that Dak Prescott would do so. "Dak has put up better numbers than most past qb's" In what stat exactly? Also you are taking such a small sample as he has only played one year, we see plenty of players who are one and done's, who play great one year and then disappear into obscurity. (Peyton Hillis anyone?) Am I saying that Dak is going to do this? No, but to call him a legend already and to compare him to nfl greats is premature.
Better QB: Dak Prescott (pro) or Russell Wilson (con)

I think that Dak Prescott is the better QB of the two because Dak Prescott (though a hard loss to Green Bay) has overcome more challenges and has made himself more valuable to his team than Wilson. Dak Prescott has put up better QB numbers than most past QB's in NFL history and will continue to play as a legend. Id Tom Brady can win 4 Super Bowls(probably 5 after this season) then Dak Prescott will be Lord of the Super Bowl rings by the time he even begins to think about retiring.
the death penalty

The death penalty should not be used as a punishment for a number of reasons. The two I will be focusing on in this debate are listed below. 1. The death penalty has the potential to cause the death of innocent people if it is incorrectly applied. The justice system is not without flaws, and suspects are often wrongfully convicted of crimes and later released. In a case where the death penalty is carried out, the penalty can never be reversed. 2. The death penalty is murder. Murder is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought." Therefore, the only difference between murder and capital punishment is the term "unlawfully." The punishment itself is the crime that it is being used to punish people for. 3. Advocates of the death penalty sometimes cite the deterrent effect of the death penalty, but I challenge anyone to find reliable evidence to support this. The types of crimes committed which are punished by the death penalty cannot be deterred. A murder can be a crime of passion, in which case it cannot be deterred because it is impulsive. A person who commits a murder in the heat of the moment does not think about consequences. A murderer could also be motivated by profit. A criminal of this type almost always operates under the assumption that he or she will not be caught. If you don't think you'll be caught, they are unlikely to seriously consider the consequences. In general, the type of criminal that commits a murder is not deterred as easily as other criminals and ordinary citizens.
the government should not be involved in the energy market

The government should NOT be involved in the energy market. The best way to determine which energy source should be used is through the market - then prices can tell us which form of energy is the most economic. When you get the government involved you start making decisions for political reasons - i.e. the subsidization of ethanol because Iowa plays an important role in the primaries. The market, not the state, is the best determinant of which energy sources we as a society should use.
Religious Morality is invslid

The resolution of this debate is that morality is objective, that that morality does not require the existence of a God, and that morality derived from religious belief is false and invalid. Objective morality will be defined as an objectively proven set of standards whereby we can measure human behavior. Since these standards are not physical things like a rock or a pencil is a physical thing, but rather ideas, they cannot be proven in the physical realm but rather in the philosophical realm, using self evident rules and concepts. I will prove objective morality through logic using Aristotle's 3 Classical Laws of Logic, these are: 1. The law of identity Everything is equal to itself, 1=1, 2=2, and so on. 2. The law of non-contradiction:Truth does not contradict itself- if an idea is contradictory, it is false. 3. The law of no Middle: Either something is or it isn't- either A is real or it is not. People have come up with a number of arguments against these, but these generally require some confusion about the claim in question- as long as their application is well defined, these laws cannot be worked around. My opponent believes that morals cannot be objective if there is no God because he derives his standards from an anient book of fairy tales, and so he thinks tht the only possible source of morals is an ancient book of fairy tales. Because we atheists do not have any ancient book of fairy tales, he believes that we cannot have morals. However, just because an ancient book of fairy tales says something does not mean that it is objective or true. And even if there were a God, how would his opinions be suddenly objective? If the source of morality is God, and it isn't, that would mean that morality is subject to God, and therefore subjective not objective.
Religious Morality is invslid

Salutations! This is my first debate so I'm excited about a respectful fun debate and thoughtful decision! I apologize ahead of time for the grammar and spelling. I will convey my promise from a Protestant-Christan point of view. 1. Morality is from God 2. Having an Aethistc "morals" are not truly moral 3. Therefore, a set moral standard can only come from God. Once again, thank you for this debate. Very interesting topic. It will be a good debate.
Ugly People Should Be Segregated From The Rest of Society

Introduction I propose that people who are deemed to be ugly ought to be separated from the rest of society to live in a society of their own, for their own benefit and for the benefit of normal society. I think there is nothing really wrong with this idea. People who are ugly live worse lives anyway. I think segregation could actually help improve their lives, as well as contribute to a better society overall. Round 1 is for acceptance only. Opening arguments will be posted in Round 2. For each round, you have only 48 hours to post your argument.
Ugly People Should Be Segregated From The Rest of Society

Con has asked me how I define an "ugly person." I think everybody knows what they think of as "ugly," but that's a matter of opinion. It's a scientific fact, however, that there are certain features that most people agree on when it comes to beauty, and, likewise, ugliness. If we identify these features, we can find an objective definition of what an "ugly person" is. But I think it's safe to say that anybody with a major facial deformity or disfigurement would be aesthetically undesirable. So for the purposes of this debate, I will propose that an "ugly person" is "any person with a severe physical deformity, abnormality, or disfigurement that renders them repulsive or offensive to one's sense of beauty." According to Google, the "Golden Rule" says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." But why exactly should we do this? If a man has everything he wants and his life is perfectly fulfilled, why should he concern himself with those less fortunate than himself, rather than simply enjoy his own fortune? The Golden Rule is a moral principle that tells us we should treat others equally and with empathy. But let's be realistic. Not all people are created equal. Some people are born smarter, stronger, more attractive, more talented, etc. These qualities are valuable because they are worth something to society and because of this they bring happiness to the individuals who have these qualities. People who are attractive have a much higher chance of being successful in general than people who meet our definition of "ugly." So why should we give these ugly people false hope by telling them they have the same chances as anyone else? Personally, if I were ugly, I would not want to display myself to the public and be judged negatively and constantly rejected. I would not want to consistently try and fail just because somebody thought it was right to give me a chance. I would rather be part of a group where I was surrounded by people at the same level as myself.
Ugly People Should Be Segregated From The Rest of Society

I see your point in "ugly people". But how do you define an ugly person? http://t3.gstatic.com... Is this person ugly? What if you are ugly yourself Pro, & your own debate backfires you? Ugliness is defined on the inside reflecting personality as for the entire world is beautiful. The Golden Rule shows how not one person should be neglected because they can ensure success in general & or be active in just about anything. The sterotype of "ugly people" is wrong. Some ugly people tend to become very successful. The motivation of all the negative impacted towards "ugly people" makes them stronger & can sometimes turn into CEO's or even doctors. This debate is hard, sorry I took so long but I'll come out stronger next round.
Ugly People Should Be Segregated From The Rest of Society

Here are my key arguments for why I think ugly people should be separated from other people: 1. It will make their lives more enjoyable. Many people who are ugly experience a lot of emotional pain because they are bullied, shunned, degraded, and rejected by beautiful people. They constantly suffer for this, compare themselves to beautiful people, and wish they were beautiful. But they never can be. Some people end up committing suicide due to the social ostracization. This is the unfortunate reality for a lot of people who are aesthetically disadvantaged. However, if these people were to be reintroduced into a community of their own where they were welcome and among equals, this problem would be eliminated. They would have nothing better to compare themselves to, and they would not be pressured to look a certain way, and would not suffer from a lack of confidence. They would be in good company. 2. Normal people will not have to be offended by ugly people. Almost every society in the world (if not every one) values beauty. Why? Because it is good. Beauty is inherently a good thing. It brings people together. It makes people happy. It inspires people. It has value and is respected. On the other hand, ugliness is the opposite of beauty. It is inherently bad. Therefore, ugly people are bad for society. They offend people's good taste. However, if ugly people were to be separated from normal society, this would not be a problem. 3. Ugly people would contribute to society and the economy better. If ugly people had a community of their own, they could serve as a valuable organized workforce. They would be perfect for manual labor jobs that more attractive people wouldn't want. 4. They could receive better care and special benefits. If ugly people were an organized community then they could have the benefit of receiving better health care, education, and general welfare from the government than they otherwise would. Think of it as the government compensating them for their disadvantages.
Judaism (Pro) vs Christianity (Con):

Forget it, I wish to redo this debate I backed down when I should have provided sufficient evidence for what I believe. I challenge you now to consider what YOU used to believe. You let satan sway you. He whispered in your ear to get you away from Jesus an you listened because your root was weak. In Matthew, Jesus speaks of seeds that were planted. Some were tossed on the road, where they were gobbled up by fowls of the air. Some fell among the shallow soil, where they sprang up, but when the sun came, they withered in the heat. Some fell among the thorns where they were choked when they grew. And then, some fell on the good, nourishing soil. They sprang up from the earth in multitudes and lived. Do you understand?
Judaism (Pro) vs Christianity (Con):

Well no, I CAN change my mind, I was born in a Christian family and converted to Judaism because I was provided with enough proof to change my beliefs, besides, it is YOU who has nowhere to go and no way to prove me wrong, not me. I have provided proof for my claims, you simply stated that you cannot defend your beliefs anymore because I have proven them wrong, but it is ME who has a hard head and is being stubborn, stop with the backward logic.
Judaism (Pro) vs Christianity (Con):

Christianity is based on the soul value that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Messiah. That he came to die for our sins that we may be saved from the bondage of sin and death and so that we may live an eternal life with the Father, Yahweh. Judaism is the foundation of the Christian principle. Before there were Christians, there were Jews. That is to say, Jews are not incorrect about anything--except the fact that they do not believe that Christ was the Messiah. For Jesus to have fulfilled all of the prophecy's would be like dropping a red colored coin into an ocean of coins. Reaching down with your eyes closed and just so happening to pick up that red coin would be nearly impossible.
TROLL DEBATE: Jesus Christ Cannot Possibly be Omnipotent

REBUTTALS1. Judea WAS in Asia. But it's not in the new Asia. Thus every argument concerning what Asains can do is debunked. THE OLD ASIA WHICH JUDEA IS IN THE NEW ASIA WHICH JUDEA ISN'T INhttps://www.google.com... 2. Jesus Ate Potatoes But before he ate any potatoes, he wasn't omnipotent. In fact, he was so stupid that he tried to eat these potatoes... And he couldn't find the fork in time, and KABOOM!! He blew up. Thus, he couldn't obtain omnipotence because he was blown up beforehand.3. Jesus Controlling the NSA See? Julius Sharpe doesn't agree. NSA can't do At and T because "those people can't complete calls". Even if I took your word that Jesus controlled the NSA, he still can't track AT and T.The argument is refuted, and you have yet to show that Jesus CAN:-Be the exception to everything-win by doing absolutely nothing-Avoid crucification by cross
TROLL DEBATE: Jesus Christ Cannot Possibly be Omnipotent

1. Jesus isn't the exception to everything.Jesus is white. Because such he can't possibly be Asain, making him completely out of the category "Mongols".Mongols are the exception to everything. http://www.youtube.com...Based on this logic, Jesus cannot do anything to the Mongols because they are the exception to everything. Furthermore, Jesus cannot possibly be the exception to everything, since he ain't a Mongol.2. Jesus Christ isn't LuigiJesus' name isn't Luigi. Only Luigi can do absolutely nothing and still win. Even Patrick agrees. Since Jesus cannot win by doing absolutely nothing, he isn't omnipotent.3. Jesus Was on the Cross Jesus must have been on the cross. It is a proven fact. The guy with the wine glass reported it himself to the cops, thus it must be true. Since Jesus cannot NOT be on the cross, he isn't omnipotent, as he can't even NOT be on the cross when crucified. As proved thus, Jesus has a load of stuff he can't do and as a result he isn't omnipotent.Onto you, con.
TROLL DEBATE: Jesus Christ Cannot Possibly be Omnipotent

Last time, I lose to the mighty CJKAllstar with a half-rigged resolution "God Cannot Possibly be Omnipotent"! I don't like loses, so this time, we do a similar resolution...under troll standards! Good luck to whoever accepts--and they must use round one to accept only.You must use troll arguments as do I. Burden of proof is shared, however.Omnipotent: all powerful, being able to do anything
Instant Replay should be used in Major League Baseball

This debate is about instant replays in major league baseball. Here is the debate format,Round 1- IntroRound 2- Own ArgumentsRound 3- Counter Arguments750 characters max for arguments1 month voting period24 hours to argueThe opponent is against, and I am for. Now the introduction: This house believes that instant replays should be used in MLB. For people who don't know what MLB is, MLB stands for Major League Baseball. MLB is unlike some other sports because baseball is one of the few sports that doesn't allow instant replays. But please note, baseball ONLY allows instant replays for deciding if a hit was a home run, or a foul. Also in situations where it is unclear if a fan interfered with a potential home run. First, I will be talking about how it makes sure the umpires make the right and accurate calls. Second, I will say why it is IMPOSSIBLE to always call the right call and instant replay is needed. Lastly, I will be arguing that instant replay will actually enhance umpires’ stature.
Instant Replay should be used in Major League Baseball

The use of instant replay in Major League Baseball should not be increased, because it would eliminate the human factor from the game. It is up to the umpires to determine whether a ball is fair or foul, or whether a player is safe or out. The controversy created when a call is disputed creates interest in the game and gets fans of both teams talking. Stopping games to use instant replay has other detrimental effects. The length of an average game would increase. The momentum a team is building could be disrupted. The pitchers would have to throw more to keep their arms loose during the added breaks. Instant replay could affect the outcome of a few games per season, there is not enough justification to increase its use. It is more important to keep the spirit of the game alive through traditional decision making.
Instant Replay should be used in Major League Baseball

I would like to start off by asking the opponent one question. Why do some sports use instant replays? Instant replay is perfectly fine in other sports and hasn't eliminated the human factor has it? The opponent said that the spirit of the game should be the most important through decision making. Indeed, the spirit is probably the most important thing in baseball. However, just because there are going to be instant replay, doesn't mean that the spirit will be lost. There is going to be fans even if there is actually instant replay allowed in Major League Baseball. And once again, I would like to point out that instant replay helps improving the calls that the umpires have. So I have told you that instant replay makes sure that the umpires are making the right call and then I told you that it is impossible for umpires to make the correct calls 100% of the time. Lastly, I said that instant replay is more positive than negative. For these reasons I am glad to propose.
Instant Replay should be used in Major League Baseball

First, instant replay makes sure that the umpires made the right call. The whole point of an umpire is to ensure that the player who is out is called out, for example, and that foul balls are correctly called as foul balls. As the official rules of Major League Baseball instruct umpires, “The first requisite is to get decisions correctly. .. . Umpire dignity is important but never as important as ‘being right’” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05). [1] Obviously, with instant replay, it improves the percentage of making correct and accurate calls. Second, it is impossible, I repeat impossible, for a umpire to call the right call al the time and therefore, instant replay is necessary. As you may know, mistakes happen. There are times when calls will have to be called from a significant distance. That is why we should provide the umpires with this tool. The technology is available for use, so why not use it?