BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Michael Jordan is better than Kobe Bryant if they where both in there Prime

I thank you for showing your side of the argument - I do accept that you will neglect the championships and assist stats b and the gold medals I do not think that blocking should be taken by means a grain of salt because it is his personal accomplishments blocking people like shaq already shows you that he is a better blocker than Kobe http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... Plus at jordan's time the defense was much better with people like kareem abdul jabar,david robinson,Shaquille O'neal,and much much more great blockers and stealers - - Kobe had not only shaq robert horry and alot more better players than Jordan had Jordan had Bj armstrong which had mental problems they had a center that only got 2 rebounds in 3 games Lakers they where the best team for 3 years in a row if I remember while Jordan had pippen alone so Jordan did alot to make the bulls one of the greatest teams ever known at that time - - Jordan and the Bulls did not have any where near the dream team if they had the dream team they would have had charles , kareem , shaq , and alot more great players that Jordan had to face Jordan and Pippen was called the dynamic duo while Kobe had shaq horry and alot more better players that the bulls had - - 1.The so called famed fade away jumper was copied from Jordan and Jordan has blocked people before 7 foot people jumping in fact so you cannot be sure he cannot block that plus the defender did nothing to contest that shot 2.Ahhhm the guy did see him and kobe has done faster but Jordan has been even faster he was able to pull a jumper off larry bird do you know who larry bird is 3.Look at the countless times Jordan has crossovered fast opponents blocked 7 footers and has stollen 3 ball possesion and made 9 points in no less than 30 seconds - - Jordan has been proven to be the top 3 greatest basketball players of all time BIRD JOHNSON JORDAN While Kobe is still on his way Kobe has been playing in the NBA one year longer than Jordan but still JORDAN BEATS him in almost all aspect pointing to personal stats like blocks rebounds and steal so in a 1on1 match Kobe will be not out classed but will not win Kobe also says it himseld he got his skills from Jordan himself which means Jordan knows his own moves and can do it better especially if he was younger HIS TALENT EXCEEDS KOBE http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... kobe calls jordan a goat (greatest of all time) Old Jordan beats kobe in 1 on 1 this is 39 year old Jordan versus kobe in his prime http://youtu.be...
Michael Jordan is better than Kobe Bryant if they where both in there Prime

I assume Pro meant that he WILL show THEIR personal STAT's First I would like voters to neglect assists entirely because this is a one v. one situation. Also NBA championships and Gold medals should be neglected since these are team statistics. I will try and make the case that all statistics should be, if not ignored, taken with a grain of salt. Since basketball is a team game your statistics often are skewed based on your teammates and the other players who you had to play against. For example a case could be made that Jordan had better teammates and defense was much worse during his career than during Kobe's. If we must examine statistics let's examine this, Kobe Bryant has won five championships with Derek Fisher being the only consistency on all of those teams. Whereas Jordan had Scottie Pippen for all of his (an upgrade from Derek Fisher to say the least) and Rodman for three of them. For God's sake Jordan had the "dream team" for half of his championships. The closest Bryant ever came to that was Shaq, and that is a two player combo not a starting roster full of all-stars. With all of this said I would like to argue that Kobe was the "X" factor for the Lakers during their last five championships and Jordan was simply a product of his star studded environment (not to take anything away from him). My second argument is that Kobe is a better shot creator. I will be referring to the following video -http://www.youtube.com... 1. At 37 seconds in Kobe shows off his famed fade away jumper, a shot surely not even Jordan could block. 2. At 1:50 Kobe blows by a defender before his man can even notice. 3. Look at the countless times defenders are draped on Kobe and he simply pull up over the top of them. Specifically at 3:15. Unfortunately my youtube stopped working at 5 minutes in and I need to get this round posted before I have to get off the computer but you get the point. In one on one situations Kobe has proven himself time and time again. If you need more evidence of this watch any game from the Lakers last title and you will see Kobe single handedly make Paul Pierce look like a weak defender over and over again.
Michael Jordan is better than Kobe Bryant if they where both in there Prime

I would like to thank CON for accepting this debate I will not show there personal states-- JORDAN BRYANT 6'6 6'6 215 POUNDS 205 POUNDS--OFFENSIVE END JORDAN BRYANTSCORING AVERAGE PER GAME (CAREER) 30.1 30.0SCORING AVERAGE PER GAME (BEST SEASON) 37.1 35.4ASSISTS PER GAME (CAREER) 5.3 4.6ASSISTS PER GAME (BEST SEASON) 8.0 6.0OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS (CAREEAR) 1.6 1.2OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS (BEST SEASON) 2.0 1.6-- DEFENSIVE END JORDAN BRYANTSTEALS PER GAME (CAREER) 2.4 1.5 STEALS PER GAME (BEST SEASON) 3.2 2.2BLOCK PER GAME (CAREER) 0.8 0.5BLOCKS PER GAME (BEST SEASON) 1.6 1.0REBOUNDS PER GAME (CAREEAR) 6.2 5.3REBOUNDS PER GAME (BEST SEASON) 8.0 6.9--ACHIEVEMENTS JORDAN BRYANT NBA CHAMPIONSHIP 6 5NBA MVP 5 3NBA ALL STAR (#OF YEARS) 14 10 DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR 1 0OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALS 2 0 I CHANGED SOME OF KOBE'S STATS TO THE LATEST STATS LIKE HIS MVP'S CHAMPIONSHIPS AND OTHER STATShttp://www.squidoo.com...
Who is better Naruto or Goku (for Naruto)

OK first of all yes i am a Naruto Fan which is why i for him. So lets get started. I believe that many people look at gokus ability's when it comes to destroying galaxies and start to forget other characters ability. IL start by stating Naruto's power's- Sage mode-Immense amount of Ashura's chakra-Control of Nine-Tails-Befreindment of Nine tails -Sage of Six Paths body power (truth seeking balls)People seem to forget that Naruto has control over many truth seeking balls which nullifies all attacks, can be expanded and shaped into any shape and size and when touched by somebody other has a similar effect as particle style which allows it touches whatever it touches to dust.All Naruto would have to do is cover himself over by the Truth seeking ball to block out all attacks no madder how strong it is. And Goku being the idiot he is would probably attack the truth seeking ball directly into the ball which would turn him into dust.Not only that anybody with basic genjutus could kill him such as kurenai and even Naruto since he could summon the frogs Ma and Pa and while waiting in the ball they could prepare the genjutus and kill him right there.
Big Bang + Evolution (Pro) vs. Theism (Con)

Thank you for starting the Debate. Evolution: 1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. synonyms:Darwinism, natural selection 2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution" (https://www.google.com.br...) I am a believer in Christ and rely on the Bible as my source for information regarding the origin of the Universe. I do not believe that God used evolution as understood today by science and that most evolutionists confuse evolution with adaptation. Evolution has many applications and it sometimes gets too generalized to mean only one thing. Other possibilities of observable evolution (taking the word solely by its meaning) is a baby that evolves into a fully grown human being. However, that does not prove evolution from one kind to another is true (fish to human). A certain kind of entity can exist and adapt to its surroundings but do not necessarily change its kind. This is not proof of evolution but adaptation. Evolving from some cell to a fish to a human being requires a change of kind. It is not a variation of specie. As for the Big bang, the Bible gives a more reasonable explanation of how everything originated than merely saying something came out of nothing. The Bible identifies a cause whereas evolution does not. Accepting the theory of Big bang is based on faith. Every scientific theory possible to explain the Big bang is believed but never been observed. That is faith. According to atheistic reasoning that should disqualify the theory of the Big bang as well as evolution, because evolution relies on it to explain its origins. These are the inconsistencies usually found in atheistic reasoning when they rely on science to support their claims. What they use as support for one argument discredits a different argument. Apart from the above, evolution is not very practical and fails to explain simple questions like how certain kinds of species actually survived. Certain kinds of species cannot survive from an infant condition without the care of a parent. This should be evident in that no human infant left outside in the cold without someone to feed him or her can survive. The only logical way a human infant can survive these type of circumstances is if they adapted or evolved (if you will) to withstand hunger and cold. Since we are both humans, we both no that never happened. As you know evolution says the egg came before the chicken whereas Creationism says the chicken came first and took care of the egg.
Big Bang + Evolution (Pro) vs. Theism (Con)

I recently left my religion (Islam) and became an atheist. I would like to discuss the naturalistic viewpoint about Big bang and Evolution with a theist. 1 - Acceptance + Pro arguments 2 - arguement and rebuttals. 3 - arguements and rebuttals. 4 - solely for rebuttals (no new arguements) This debate is religion-neutral. I do not care what religion you are as long as you can defend God. BOP - shared even though it should not be.
Big Bang + Evolution (Pro) vs. Theism (Con)

This debate is ridiculous and a waste of time. You do not provide proof for your standpoint so you do not meet the BOP. Your only arguments against my evidence is red herring, straw men fallacies or just flat out personal attacks like "expect to get bitten or this is a sign of stupidity". Your argument against the big bang is that it is speculation when I told what a theory in the scientific world means. You do not even understand evolution by natural selection. No time for this ridiculous debate.
Sex education should be mandatory in schools.

Throughout this entire debate I've noticed that you never justified WHY sex ed should be mandatory. I've been explaining my reasons, but it seems to me like you've spent most of your time just refuting my claims. I'm not mad or trying to bash you or anything, I'm just wondering why you spent most of your time rejecting instead of EXPLAINING to me WHY sex ed should be mandatory and WHY you're not convinced otherwise. I may not have had the strongest arguments, but I at least explained in detail why I felt a certain way. Again, not trying to bash you or anything, I just think you've spent your time disagreeing and refuting rather than explaining YOUR side. Anyway, why don't we finish this shall we? Another thing that may serve as a good reason NOT to have sex ed be mandatory, is money. I noticed that you never stated money in the beginning, which is very crucial. In order to be able to have certain classes, schools must have a certain amount of money. I also noticed that in the beginning you stated that "I will argue that sexual education should be taught at all schools, not only in the United States, but in schools in every single country". This means that you stated that this should be implemented in every school in every country. The problem with that argument is that not every school is going to have enough money to implement this class, and since you didn't address this in the beginning, this counts as a valid flaw. You need money to buy technology, books, desks, not to mention teachers. Problem is, not every school in every country can afford all of this. And again, with my last argument, students should be able to take whatever class they want to. Classes like sex ed should definitely be more of an option, especially if you consider that some schools have health classes which ARE mandatory, and DO teach lessons about sex. Maybe not in as much detail as the sex ed would, but still enough to get you through life. And as I've stated earlier, don't forget about the students and how they would feel about this. They might not want to take sex ed if they are staying abstinent or just don't like the idea of having sex, and if that's true then I'm 100% sure that they won't take too kindly to being forced into taking sex ed. Again, sex ed, a nice idea yes, but do we really need it to be mandatory? And one more thing, that 'condition' you made earlier about: "sexual education is not the only thing that is mandatory. Counseling, parent conferences, and experience are among the solutions." That is technically an invalid condition because you did not state it in the beginning, and you used it as a defense to my other claims. If you would've mentioned it earlier, I would've avoided my initial argument overall and choose a different point of view. Remember to state all of your conditions before starting the debate. Well, that's all I want to launch for this one. I really enjoyed this debate. This is actually my first one. See you! And may the better man win!
Sex education should be mandatory in schools.

I'm having trouble with this argument because you have not really defined mandatory or what grade this would be applied to (middle school, high school, collage, in general?). Also, I've looked at your previous points, and in round three, you added some conditions that should have been stated earlier in round one by stating: "That point is valid, yes, but it can be resolved. Sexual education is not the only thing that is mandatory. Counseling, parent conferences, and experience are among the solutions. " I think you should state all of the givens before debating, just to make sure there is no confusion. AND, what I was saying was that it is good to gain some knowledge about sex in school, but primarily it is the parents' job as far as introducing you to it and making sure you're aware of sexually transmitted disease and how to prevent it, EVEN IF parents may sometimes avoid talking about it. If that was the case, I still don't think that's the end all be all. There are many other ways to learn about sex (Internet, doctors, health teachers, etc.). If the person was that interested, he/she would ask their parents if they could see a doctor to discuss it, ask a health teacher, or simply search it on the Internet. Learning about sex through all these resources only to have to learn about it again in school is just overkill, given the amount of resources outside of school you have. Now, let's discuss the benefits of not having it be mandatory. If a person is still curious about sex, then that person would have an option of whether or not they want to take sex ed or not. If they feel there is no need, then they won't have to waste their time taking it. You see what I'm saying? Your proposal doesn't offer enough flexibility. Forget I even mentioned the health class, I know it's not valid at this point. Getting back to responsibility, sex ed would be a great reminder of the responsibility that comes with sex. However, so will all the other sources I've mentioned. A doctor WILL talk to you about the dos and don'ts. A parent MAY mention them, but like you said not all parents will. So, a doctor may be your best bet. OR IF you have a health teacher, or know one, ask them. OR a counselor. OR a school nurse. OR someone you know that has or knows someone that has a sexually transmitted disease (given he/she feels comfortable talking about it) . There are even ads about these types of diseases. So really, there are other sources outside of sex ed that will give you what you need. Most if not all of them will warn you about how to stay away from these diseases. This makes your statement about sex ed being a reminder of the responsibility you must have valid, but not the end all be all (Hopefully you understand what I'm saying now).
Sex education should be mandatory in schools.

I see your points. However, that does not mean I agree with them. I will point out some of our disagreeances: You wrote:"Again, while it's good to learn sex ed. I feel that people won't use this knowledge effectively."That point is valid, yes, but it can be resolved. Sexual education is not the only thing that is mandatory. Counseling, parent conferences, and experience are among the solutions. I would love to make additional points, but I have other things to take care of now. Please give me an opportunity to continue my argument in the next round.
Sex education should be mandatory in schools.

I'm going to take a different approach to this argument by first stating that we do technically learn about most of this stuff in health class. And I have to say that just because you are properly educated about sex does not mean you will be responsible . I know it could go with both arguments, but it's true. Proper education about sex will teach you about the diseases, how to protect yourself, etc. But it won't necessarily make you more responsible. Erasing everything else I've said so far, education will make you more aware of what and what not to do, but it won't prevent you from making the wrong choices. It is YOU that must be responsible and make the right choices. What you do with the knowledge you acquire is again, up to you. That's why I see no point in this. There are people with proper education about sex that still make the wrong choices. Regardless, of what they've been taught, people still have sex with out wearing a condom. I know this is unrelated but, this is just like the issue with smoking. Schools provide education about smoking yet people still do it. Again, while it's good to learn sex ed. I feel that people won't use this knowledge effectively.
Sex education should be mandatory in schools.

DonWon, I must say, I am opposed to your view. I have a sophisticated argument supporting my view:Parents/Guardians don't always fulfill their duties and they don't always enact their obligations to their children. Some parents ignore sexual education for quite some time and they do not educate their children. Now, sex education should be mandatory in schools due to the guarantee that children are exposed to the facts they must know. I am aware that many children learn sexual education from their parents, but sex education in school would serve as a reminder. You wrote: "Not to mention, as far as the responsibility in having sex goes, parents have a better time explaining since they've already experienced this before."That point can be valid at times, but it is invalid in many cases. You are aware of the teen pregnancy issue in this country, right? Teen parents absolutely cannot educate their children about sex. They just cannot. Additionally, you write: "Second, I don't think that students will feel very comfortable learning about this topic through their teachers..."That is an invalid point. It may be true, yes, but it is irrelevant. It is not a matter of comfortablity. It is rather a matter of gaining the facts you require for a successful life.I await your response.
Sex education should be mandatory in schools.

This probably won't be the strongest argument, but it should not be mandatory and overall isn't necessary. Firstly, it's something that is already taught to people through their parents. With your parents, they know the type of person you are. They know whether or not you feel comfortable with the topic, and they can adjust accordingly. Not to mention, as far as the responsibility in having sex goes, parents have a better time explaining since they've already experienced this before. They also know the proper age in which you are to be told about the birds and the bees. Second, I don't think that students will feel very comfortable learning about this topic through their teachers, but I'll discuss more in detail about why in the second round. Your turn! :D
Sex education should be mandatory in schools.

I will argue that sexual education should be thaught at all schools, not only in the United States, but in schools in every single country. I believe that sexual education in schools will be a great reminder of the responsibility you must have. Discussions with your parents at dinner aren't enough. I look forward to debating anyone who does not agree with my view. However, I would like to implement some crucial rules before we begin:1. If there are any sources used, they must be cited correctly. However, sources are not required to make a solid argument.2. Proper grammar and spelling will be used.3. Respect and proper conduct will be implemented.I will begin making my argument in the next round. Again, I look forward to debating this topic.
HOF Players that used Steroids

Hi Again,There may be 150 sports Hall of Fames however there is one big one for each sport. Example, only one basketball Hall of Fame people know about, that goes for sports like hockey and baseball too. There is today a total ban however they may find out of it in a long time from now. You can not crack down on all the drugs used. There are some that are stilled used by professinal athletes today. they have not cracked down on all drugs.Take a look at the player, Alex Rodriguez. He may or may not make it to the Hall of Fame. He had an incredible career however he took drugs even when it was illegal. The Major League of Baseball found out but not until a long time. He had an incredible career but shouldn't be in the Hall because he took drugs.Therfore we don't know if some players are taking drugs today or not. Some of the best football players may be taking drugs. What if they are found out about in 5 years and they are Hall of Fame status. A-Rod should not be in the Hall as many others.We have to relize this and make the change to these sports.
HOF Players that used Steroids

Hello again. I have done a bit more research and found at least, 150 sports Halls of Fame worldwide. As I do not know if you are specifically referring to one particular sport. I will proffer a brief reflection on the use and issues surrounding the use of performance enhancing drugs, in sport generally. A quick analysis indicates that worldwide, there is now a total ban on the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport. Also testing for steroid abuse, especially at a professional level is now very vigorous. I would therefore suggest that it is unlikely that, any one inducted into a professional sporting Hall of Fame today, is unlikely to have slipped through the drugs testing net. It is fair to assume that a sportsman/woman inducted into a professional sporting Hall of Fame in the past, especially in the latter half of the 20th century was using performance enhancing drugs. Though we must pay regard to the fact, that the use of steroids to enhance sports performance, was not always considered inappropriate or illegal. Would it therefore be just, to retrospectively impose bans on our veteran sporting heroes and as a consequence, strip them of their Hall of Fame status? Con. Would suggest that we let bygones be bygones. Move forward and put our trust and faith in the ability of our sports governing bodies, to thoroughly and rigorously police our modern professional sports organisations.
HOF Players that used Steroids

Hello Sonofcharl,The HOF stands for Hall of Fame. This is where the best players are inducted because they changed the sport. If you take steroids it is wrong. I understand you can still be hardworking and that it is a mistake. However when you are put in to the Hall of Fame, you are taking away a place someone else would of been in. There can only be a certain amount of players inducted in to the Hall of Fame. Induct the one's that are deserving of it.