BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Leonidas was a better leader than Alexander the Great

Strictly militarily speaking; Alexander succeeded at all forms of war, including siege and guerrilla. He conquered the greatest power, and never lost a battle. His army only tired after thirteen years of fighting, and only then was it a plea to return home, which is not the same as wanting to dispose their king. But even so, Alexander still has the record of being a uniter, which is shown most impressively by his policies of cultural fusion with Greek & Persian subjects. In comparison, Leonidas has not nearly as many accomplishments; where Thermopylae ended in military defeat for the Greeks. Though Leonidas's sacrifice at Thermopylae was commendable, historians also need to remember the limitations of Leonidas's leadership in that battle. The last stand of the 300 was still made in conjunction with a simonataneous last stand at sea with the Athenian navy. And the ultimate reason perhaps why Greece still lost was mainly because Leonidas had failed to persuade Sparta to send all its army.
Leonidas was a better leader than Alexander the Great

Now for the final round. The Spartan culture is not a big part of this debate. Leonidas did not put this into effect, it had been around for centuries before him and lasted well afterwards. Now looking back to round two, we chose to define leader as military or political; I think it's fair to say both of us focused on the former. Therefore, we need to look at how both men exemplify a military leader, but Leonidas does a better job. Leonidas led through his charisma and likable demeanor, Alexander, as shown, would sometimes revert to fear. Alexander pushed his men too far. A great leader would know the limits of their troops. When Leonidas asked his men to jump they said "How high? " but Alexander asked his men to jump higher than physically possible. Leonidas' men followed their leader to death. Alexander's men revolted before he could even finish the campaign.
Leonidas was a better leader than Alexander the Great

The ability to spur the minds and talents of people beyond their innate limitations has always been the hallmark of a great leader, where I strongly disagree that battle fatigue was a result of poor leadership. It may be said Alexander's ambitions bit off more than it could chew, but it can't be said that Alexander himself was not able maximize the skills and efforts of every unique soldier under his command, considering his army accomplished more and conquered more land than any other army in history (Mongols excepted). If Alex is to be faulted at all, then it should be for attempting to achieve impossible goals with imperfect people. And I’d be weary to claim that Leonidas did not also lead through intimidation. Sparta’s adherence to strict discipline and honor during battle could be especially severe on anyone not up to snuff. Also to consider is Spartan treatment of the helots (who were at Thermopylae). Finally, Leonidas (like Alex) did inherit an army and did marry into royalty.
Leonidas was a better leader than Alexander the Great

I'll concede that Alexander fought in the battles, my mistake. When we talk about Alexander's success, we need to remember he was set up for it. He was the son of a king, and tutored by the greatest philosophers and strategists of the time. Leonidas worked his way up the ranks, becoming king with his ambition and charisma. And though you state that his troops' fatigue was not his fault, in a way it was. Alexander pushed them past their limits. You also failed to include that the incident ended in a mutiny. He tried to get them to continue, and when they revolted, he gave in. Leonidas' soldiers followed him to death, while Alexander couldn't even get his to finish the campaign. On top of that, Alexander faced another rebellion, which was handled even worse. When men were dissatisfied with the job Alexander was doing, he ordered their execution without any warning, trial or any other such opportunity. A good leader doesn't need to manipulate fear to keep men in line. Sources in comments
Leonidas was a better leader than Alexander the Great

Actually, Alexander did participate in his battles and even led some pretty spectacular cavalry charges. And if Leonidas deserves credit for delaying the greatest power of his day, then Alexander deserves credit for conquering it. And if you want to believe the ancient sources, then Alexander at the climactic Battle of Gaugamela was outnumbered 47,000 troops to 1,000,000. Though those numbers themselves are obviously an exaggeration, what isn't an exaggeration is that Alexander fought against some of the largest deployed army formations in human history (Persians, Indians, and Greeks), and inevitably, was nearly always outnumbered. But unlike all other great captains in history, including Caesar, Napoleon, Frederick, Hannibal, and Leondias, Alexander never lost a single battle. Despite being a REAL suicide mission, Alexander’s dreams of world conquest were only stopped when his men became too tired to continue on, which can hardly be noted then as a personal failure on Alexander's part.
Leonidas was a better leader than Alexander the Great

We'll use military and political. Thermopylae was a coalition, rather than the Spartans alone, as many believe. Leonidas was chosen as the coalition's leader not because of Sparta's military prowess, but rather because of his charisma and reputation among the ranks. Leonidas hand-selected his troops. He made his ranks of fathers only, so that each of his men would have an heir. Outnumbered 20-1 by the greatest army in the world, Leonidas prevailed in holding off this massive force for three days, long enough for the rest of Greece to rally their forces and evacuate their cities. This was not, however, a suicide mission, as many believe. The forces at Thermopylae were led believe that they would have reinforcements, though other city states failed to follow through on their promises. Leonidas continued to fight despite this. Leonidas also fought in the battles, unlike Alexander. Sources: historynet.com/battle-of-thermopylae-leonidas-the-hero.htm spartareconsidered.blogspot.com
Leonidas was a better leader than Alexander the Great

Leonidas (King of Sparta) was a better leader than Alexander the Great (King of Macedonia). The challenger will attempt to disprove the claim. No new arguments in the final round, only rebuttals or summation of the debate. First round is acceptance of rules and making any definitions or observations as the challenger sees fit. The second round will be construction of each person's arguments, and ensuing rounds will be rebuttals.
Abortion

Contention 1: "In your first argument you mention that if we make abortion illegal people will seek abortion through the black market. This can easily be prevented by putting more support centres and giving people more humane and less violent options that will not harm human life. "The only option other than abortion is to not get an abortion. That's essentially it, and certain people do not want to have the burden of carrying a child for 9 months, neither do they want the burden of having to carry a child that could potentially be detrimental to the mother's health, or be conceived out of rape or incest. Additionally, support centers are a much more constly response to a procedure that would be much better financially. Contention 2:"You also mention that unexpected pregnancies happen in low income neighborhoods. We can prevent this with more education and support for people in this community. "This is not changed by the fact that abortions are still done by people in other socioeconomic backgrounds, such as middle class women that do not have the need for more children. Contraceptives do not always work, and neither does the idea that one must not be allowed to abort a child that they did not want to have in the first place. If pregnancies weren't such a physical and mental strain on the mother, as well as their significant other, then the debate would go much more smoothly. However, they last 9 months and those months are filled with excrutiating pain and various financial burdens. Thus, in the cases of maternal illness, rape, unwanted pregancies, and most importantly, birth defects to the child, abortion should be legal in at least these cases, if not more. Contention 3:"You also mention that " so long as the dead specimen in question is not considered a human, it legally is not murder". First of all there have been studies that the "specimen" is in fact human. "The federal definition of human is "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. " [1]This means that according to law, fetuses are not considered human, making your argument bunk. Sources:[1]. https://www.law.cornell.edu...Conclusion:My opponent has failed to cite and how a SINGLE credible source, therefore I can only assume that he does not have one. Additionally, he has argued irrationally and illogically, and presented arguments that I have disproved in my won contentions.
Abortion

First of all thank you for your response. In your first argument you mention that if we make abortion illegal people will seek abortion through the black market. This can easily be prevented by putting more support centres and giving people more humane and less violent options that will not harm human life. You also mention that unexpected pregnancies happen in low income neighborhoods. We can prevent this with more education and support for people in this community. By educating people more on unexpected pregnancies we can make people aware of preventing unwanted pregnancies. It's not the child's fault so why are they being punished. In your second argument you give a definition of what murder is. You also mention that " so long as the dead specimen in question is not considered a human, it legally is not murder". First of all there have been studies that the "specimen" is in fact human. "At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG)." " Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto Having administered anesthesia for fetal surgery, I know that on occasion we need to administer anesthesia directly to the fetus, because even at these early gestational ages the fetus moves away from the pain of the stimulation," stated David Birnbach, M.D., president of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology and self-described as "pro-choice," in testimony before the U.S. Congress.
Abortion

Abortion is a tough topic. I believe that abortions should be illegal. There have been proved studies that show during abortion the baby feels pain. It has been proved that 20 weeks after conception a baby can feel pain. Pro will argue that the methods that abortions performed are humane. But there are abortions happening that are far from humane. One type of abortion that is performed is a tube is put into the womb and sucks the baby into it breaking it' s limbs. People would not do this to humans why would they do it to babies? There are other better ways to handle an unexpected pregnancy like giving the child up for adoption.
Senator Joseph McCarthy was a hero

The resolution is: Senator Joseph McCarthy is a hero. Context- The debate is specifically about Senator Joseph McCarthy's action during the 2nd Red scare which took place in the 40s and 50s. Any events not pertaining to The Red Scare or McCarthyism should be excluded from this debate unless they somehow provide proper context. By hero I mean that McCarthy had the qualities of noble intentions and actions. Rounds are 72 hours long and 10,000 characters. I've made this debate so hopefully only Imabench can accept. If anybody else accepts then they willingly and knowingly forfeit. I'm issuing the challenge in this way to build interest as this may be something that interests those who've only heard 1 side of the McCarthy debate. Imabench is known for his trolling debates and he is so good at those that often times people forget that he's actually a really good debater. I look forward to debating Hall of Fame Member and Vice president of the site Imabench. Please let me know in the comments or PM if this resolution needs to be altered in some way or just the rules in general.
Marching band is harder than football. (High School)

All of what you are saying seem like they are personal confidence issues not team burdened responsibility. Here are some bigger x factors. -The stress of letting your whole town down after they voted to build your team a new 60 million dollar stadium. http://newsfeed.time.com... -wanting to play football in college but not getting any offers. 1.1 million high school football players, 67,000 college. That is a 16% chance to play and for quite a few that is their only way to college. http://www.businessinsider.com... -Having to go above and beyond in the weight room to compete with the rest of the nation. http://www.topendsports.com... -Having to fight for your position everyday, knowing that there are 80 other kids who are ready to play at any time. -Dealing with your school after you lose and everyone asking you what happened and you know you have to win the next game. -Competing with the movie Friday Night Lights. -The media attention and being 17. http://www.thestate.com... http://www.tribpreps.com... http://www.oaoa.com... http://www.latimes.com... -Putting on the homecoming dance, fun but stressful.
Marching band is harder than football. (High School)

I honestly apologize if I am just completely in the dark on this. When you made your opening statement I assumed that you implied comparisons. And judging the difficulty of something doesn't require them to be on the same level. The comparison between playbook and set book isn't that much of a stretch for comparison for instance. My comparison was based off of the similarities of football and marching band, and while they are two completely different things they are similar. Both are based off the memorization and execution of a script. Plays for football and sets for marching band. I attempted to break down these two in order to compare the aspects of each one, and then what would be stated in bullet points would be the X factors which I did admittedly try and compare, where I now see the mistake in. I have made my argument as to why Sets are harder to learn and execute than plays. You can rebuttal that argument and list your X factors, and here are the X factors for marching band that add mental stress -Competition pressure in which dozens of other marching bands watch and criticize along with judges -Unending pressure of staying in form while a crowd watches -Pressure to perform perfectly or risk being seen -Pressure that your pitch will falter hurting the sound - Pressure of how easy it is to see the slightest mistakes -marching band members are general smarter than the average student so increased work loads http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... these can be further broken down however I believe I have already stated most. But you say marching band cannot be compared to a sport, so if you wish to accept I would like to propose a new argument with you to prove that marching band qualifies as a sport, which would then in turn put it on the "same playing field" as football and others. This would allow my comparison arguments some merit, because while I have already proved similarity, this would put them into the same category
Marching band is harder than football. (High School)

"First off, I would like to say that this is a very open ended question that is similar to one like, which sport is better or is God real. I am saying that because you are going to get people like me who have played football for 11 years and know what football is like, and then people like you who play in the band. I state my case and you state your case, which are both right. So my argument against you will be based on the level of difficulty each taste will ensue" First thing I said. You have kept reiterating the same points over and over. I made it clear in my last post that you cannot compare these two, you obviously have never played a high school competitive sport and that is fine but to compare the band to any physical activity is stupid. Your last paragraph makes no sense you contradicted yourself. You still have not made clear what is so mentally challenging about the band. I have stated a bunch of physical and timing aspects but I want x factors what outside factors come with playing in the band that add loads of mental stress and anguish to the group as a whole? list them in bullet points not long drawn out theoretical problems, personal experience. Once you give yours ill will give you mine. And there is not a kid out on the field who is not proud of wearing that jersey.
Students should be allowed to do homework during recess

Very glad to be debating Logic on Rails and I think the outline and definitions of the debate are perfect. If I had to provide a definition for recess, it wouldn't be much different from his: "The 45-minute (or so) period K-5-grade students are given to play outside (or conceivably in an indoor gymnasium or playground of some sort)". I've always understood the time set aside for recess to be used for physical activity. I don't even remember if my Elementary school allowed students to do their homework or play Chess or something else of the sort, but I personally do not think such things should be permitted during this time. (Maybe a second recess period should be added to Elementary schools where students can play mentally-stimulating games, but that is another debate entirely.
Students should be allowed to do homework during recess

Arguments and source citations must appear within the four rounds of this debate only. Arguments and citations may not appear in offsite links, other debates, forums, or comments. Dropped arguments are not concessions. Arguments should be seen as whole units from opening to closing statements. Although R2 is not to be used for rebuttals, it is possible that my opponent’s arguments may lend themselves to countering mine naturally. This is allowed as it’s not a rebuttal per se. What I don’t want to see is a line by line refutation in round 2. All words are to take their standard definition. The only matter is what constitutes homework. A discussion of this is under the model outline section. To voters, please judge this debate based on this debate and not upon preconceptions you may have. Definitions / Clarification This debate originated from the rather lacklustre debate . http://www.debate.org... ; as per the comments of this debate ‘recess’ and ‘lunch’ are distinct terms. These 2 terms refer to the one hour of free time allocated to students during a school day. Note: Breaks moving from classes are not counted in this time. Recess is to be understood as the part of this 1 hour that’s not used for eating lunch. Let’s say that eating lunch takes 15 minutes at a reasonable pace. That leaves 45 minutes for recess. I’ll leave Dakota to elaborate and clarify upon what he understands recess to be in R1. Dakota, feel free to clear up any uncertainties present in my R1 prior to acceptance. I wish my esteemed opponent DakotaKrafick the best of luck in this debate. I’m quite curious to see what arguments he was going to spring in that other debate – that’s why I’m his opponent now!
The world needs to take measure to pressure North Korea for change.

Before I go onto Social..."Human rights in North Korea are heavily restricted. There is no right to free speech, and the only radio, television, and news providers that are deemed legal are those operated by the government.[1][2]It is estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 political prisoners are detained in concentration camps, where they perform forced labour and risk summary beatings, torture and execution.[3]"I never stated that these things never happened. However, you are missing my point. THESE THINGS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SANCTIONS UPON NORTH KOREA. THE SANCTIONS RELATE TO THE ECONOMIC AND MILITARY SYSTEM OF NORTH KOREA. HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS OCCUR IN MY NATIONS OF THE WORLD, YET THEY DO NOT HAVE SANCTIONS. Now, onto Social.While North Korea may have human rights violations, it isn't the ONLY nation in the world that these things occur. For the world to "pressure North Korea for change", the world would also have to pressure many other countries in the world, for it to be fair for these governments. Also, I noticed you used an example of execution in North Korea. Some "free" nations use execution as a sort of punishment, so that isn't a fair example. The death penalty is legal in some states of the U.S., as well as Japan, whom are both "free" countries. Secondly, there are still international examples of torture in Iraq and Afghanistan, perpetrated by U.S. military there. The pressure to torture there has proved so strong, that some personnel have committed suicide (such as Alyssa Peterson). "Black sites" or secret detention facilities also exist (which are run by the United States), while they're not necessarily within mainland U.S.A, they're still operated by the United States. Reports of torture and abuse also exist.Many "free" nations are similar to North Korea in their practice of torture and other degrading treatment, while it isn't as well-known or secret as it is in the "free" countries, it still happens. For the world to pressure North Korea for change, then the world has to change their own practices first. (NATIONS WHICH ARE REPORTED TO HAVE/HAVE HAD DETENTION FACILITIES RUN BY THE UNITED STATES:Thailand, the Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq,Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Cyprus and Cuba. In addition, individuals are suspected to be or to have been held in temporary or permanent U.S. controlled facilities in Indonesia, El Salvador, Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Israel, Denmark, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, Germany, and Scotland.) Also, I'd appreciate it if you actually wrote your own opinions and debates, instead of just copying and pasting directly from certain sites. SOURCES: http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...;