BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Manchester United have the best list of players play for them than any other club in the world

During the 2008-2009 season Manchester United broke the premier league clean sheet record against West Ham United, as well as the entire english league clean sheet record against Everton, a large part of that was due to the greatness of Edwin Van Der Sar. As well as having Edwin Van Der Sar Manchester United also had a great backup Goalkeeper in the form of Ben Foster, who was Manchester Uniteds hero in the Carling Cup Final against Totenham. Saving several penalties as well as keeping a clean sheet across the 90 minutes. Defense Next up to talk about the man utd defense first off center backs, you have arguably the best center back pairing in premier league history in Ferdinand and Vidic. Ferdinand was the calm collected defender who would pass the ball out of defense, make the perfect tackle during the run of play and back in 2008 was the faster center back of the two. Vidic was the rough, strong defender who would put his head anywhere if it mean't clearing the ball. He was the brave centerback who would do anything to prevent the opposition from scoring. Then there were their backups, the versitle John Oshea and the young Johnny Evans, who to be honest only did a decent job when called upon. Then there are the starting full backs Evra and Neville, The spirited Captain Gary Neville, he wasn't the best right back ever in terms of skill, but he gave his all whenever he ever played. Then there was one of the best premier league left backs of the last 10 years Patrice Evra, he could do it all, defend support giggs when attacking, he was fast strong and had all the attributes that you could want from a left back. These defenders skill was also a big reason why Man United set the clean sheet record. Next I will talk about the strongest part of this united teams in my opinion the midfield. First of all i'm gonna bring up the best premier league player of all time, CRISTIANO RONALDO. What can i say that others haven't, he was a beast in 2008, scoring 26 goals in one season, while also consistantly playing out of this world during the entire season. Then theres the midfield legend Paul Scholes, whose passing skills where still sensational even in his old age, and even if he wasn't on form Man Utd could play the highly underrated Michael Carrick who like rio is a calm midfielder who could create chances even when surroundered by the opponent. THen last but not least the UNited LEgend Ryan giggs who along with ronaldo, rooney and tevez the big four in united. THen theres the strikers, three names Rooney, Tevez and Berbatov each great in their own ways. Rooney is a high energy team player, who can go back and defend while also going back up front and scoring goals consistantly, Tevez is an extremely great forward who could score goals at will. then theres Berbatov who could dribble the ball with the best of them and when he was on form he could create chances for rooney and tevez. Here are the trophies for uniteds 2008 squad won. 2008 Premier League Title Champions League 2008 Fifa World Club 2008
Manchester United have the best list of players play for them than any other club in the world

Well this is new for me a Sports Debate. I will be deabating that out of all clubs in the world Manchester United has the best all time roster. For those that don't know what that means that means all the players that have ever played for a club is there all time roster, and i will be debating that Manchester United have the best group of players. 1. Round 1 will be acceptance as well as telling me what football (european) team you have chosen. 2. Round 2 will be making a case as to why your chosen team has the best all time squad. 3. Round 3 will be countering the points of your opponent, having a bit of banter and just trashing the other team LOL whoever accepts have fun and i hope for a great debate
Atheists lack morality

"Ah, its a philosophical argument you want? This will not be hard, as I studied philosophy under the the tutelage of the esteemed Jonathon Westphal. I feel that you have breached the integrity of this debate by changing the item being debated from atheists lacking morality because they are atheists to the existence of morality in general." Actually the title of the resolution, necessitates this form of argument. Every one has a moral code, so if you weren't planning on debating the existence of morals than what were you trying to debate? "Morality exists in so far as the sun exists. The word "sun" is a purely human and social construct, a word used to define a ball of gas and plasma floating in the sky, that existed long before we had a word to define it. It may just as easily have not existed at all, as is true for the meanings of many words existing in the English and other languages." False analogy. The term sun is used to explain an observable phenomenon, not a human construct. Right and wrong are not actual tangible things. Right and wrong are statements about whether you approve of an act or not. This means that morality doesn't actually exist. It's just a term used to describe the extremely subjective views of individuals and whether they approve of stuff. Either morality is objective or it is subjective. If it's subjective than it only exists in the mind of an individual and in fact the word moral would have a unique meaning for everyone and in essence become a pointless term. "One example? The word respect. You can not hold respect, you can not see respect, and in many ways, respect is nothing but a concept invented by mankind, but it still exists because it is a concept known to man and it has meaning that can be explained in terms of behavior and thought processes." Respect can't be objectively measured either and means something unique to each man. When you state somebody has disrespected you it's the same thing as stating their action is immoral. It means; I don't approve. Look, despite the fact we all have unique opinions of right and wrong, morality can't be demonstrated to existed. The fact we approve and disapprove of things can be demonstrated but that is far from having an objective right and wrong. Without the ability to objectively verify what is in fact right and what is in fact wrong, than we can't determine that atheists have morality. Hell, we can't even demonstrate morality exists. Vote me
Atheists lack morality

Ah, its a philosophical argument you want? This will not be hard, as I studied philosophy under the the tutelage of the esteemed Jonathon Westphal. I feel that you have breached the integrity of this debate by changing the item being debated from atheists lacking morality because they are atheists to the existence of morality in general. This forces me into a position where I either participate in a new argument about the existence of morality, or I forfeit. In this case, my personal beliefs are in line with yours, that morality is a concept that does not truly exist, but I will play along and argue against your point that morality does not exist. To say that morality does not exist, one must decide what morality is. Is morality a meaning---the difference between right and wrong---or is it a word with the definition of the difference between right and wrong? Perhaps it is both, but the truth of the matter is, morality exists, in that it exists as a concept. Allow me to clarify. Morality exists in so far as the sun exists. The word "sun" is a purely human and social construct, a word used to define a ball of gas and plasma floating in the sky, that existed long before we had a word to define it. It may just as easily have not existed at all, as is true for the meanings of many words existing in the English and other languages. One example? The word respect. You can not hold respect, you can not see respect, and in many ways, respect is nothing but a concept invented by mankind, but it still exists because it is a concept known to man and it has meaning that can be explained in terms of behavior and thought processes. Morality exists as a social construct. It has force over people and their behavior. It is so much a reality, in fact, that it actually influences what people decide to do, because it exists, if no where else, as a reality within the brains of individuals using it to guide them. We can only be here discussing the possible existence of morality because morality exists as a concept for us to discuss. Morality IS the network of possibilities of actions between individuals and groups in which some have been deemed by some or all of society to be right or wrong. Morality is a human concept that exists within humanity.
Atheists lack morality

Atheists lack morality because morality doesn't exist. Morality according to most definitions is values concerning right and wrong but right and wrong not actual values but just abstract ideas which are completely unfounded. P1- There is no objective way to conclude if something is right or wrong. Right and wrong are value statements which are completely subjective and with no inherent meaning. P2- If there is no objective way to determine right or wrong then morality doesn't exist. C1- Morality doesn't exist Since morality doesn't exist, it's clear that atheists lack them as they are a non existent property and merely an artificial construct. "Some religious people argue that atheists completely lack morality because they do not have a deity or religious compass to guide good acts." That's nice but it's also a strawman argument. 's not what I'm arguing. " I argue that atheists are in some ways MORE moral because they do not need their good acts to be dictated and they do not need heaven as an incentive to do good things." They can't be more moral because morality is an artificial construct, has no inherent value and doesn't exist in the real world.
Is Graffiti Art or Vandelism? WHY ? x

Welcome to DDO ! !! ! (I noticed that you joined only 2 days ago). 1. My stance is that the type of graffiti my opponent is referring to is vandalism. 2. My opponent has conceded that graffiti is vandalism. "i kow that it is vandelism" 3. Then she goes on to say that "but i think it looks amazing" 4. Even in the scenario where all or most graffiti looks amazing, it still is vandalism 5. My opponent agrees "i kow that it is vandelism" 6. I don't have to give sources and lengthy arguments because my opponent has admitted defeat.
is jesus actually the son of God

con just gives some off the cuff reasons he thinks God wouldn't have a son. there could be plenty of off the cuff reasons for him to have a son though, such as to be mroe like us, etc. but the main point is the witness of the early church, not just hte bible, but including the bible, says that Jesus was the Son of GOd. if that is true, what reason should we have to question it? con didn't really give a reason. he just say blind faith is no good. but this isn't blind faith. and it doesn't offend reason to think God could have a son. the proponderance of the evidence, then, goes to saying Jesus is the Son of God.
is jesus actually the son of God

Oh, God. Im very very very sorry for leaving this debate for so long. I had an important family emergency which could not wait. Sorry. Anyways, Thank you for your argument. Firstly , I would like to point out a serious issue. This is the issue of blind faith, which is very prominent in christianity. I believe this is a factor in the belief of jesus having a father, which is why i brought this up. You cannot simply have blind faith without reason. You NED to fully understand the principles of the belief , to eliminate doubt. If you have just faith , you don't fully understand the belief. In blind faith , you can't haver real trust , and will lack the ability to defend your xcause. An atheist could easily refute that thought. Logic is there to increase our understanding of things , so that we can properly decipher their purpose and use , and apply those concepts to our sdaily lives. Everything must have a reason , if not , you are denying its rationality , and it is subject to doubt. To truly understand something , apply reason. If you blindly believe in God , then that worship cannot be whole hearted because you do not properly ubdertsand your Lord. Now for Jesus being gods son. I don't bthink it's possible. How can God have a son? That is indicating the need of succesion , and And omnipotent God has no need for that. That is saying that God needs a helper. He is God, and he needs no such thing. Saying that God has a son makes God look weak. We are given children for many reasons , and one of them is to help them. God is not an old man. He is everlivving , and all powerful. Also , Jesus prayed for and fasted for God. A son does not do this for his father. God also doesn't have a son because that indicates human desires , and mortal-like traits. God isfar , far above the need for that. He does not desire like that. GI'd cannot be given the traits of a normal human. That is not right.
Cooperative individualism(pro) versus your choice of economics(con)

I agree the it would be worth while to try new economic theories and am in no way opposed to worker co-ops. I only believe in our modern society that it is more practical to incorporate (pun intended) a Social Market Economy. I would like to address the "too big to fail" issue again. If these corporations were to fail it would not just be a economic depression. IT would be a world wide trade collapse. Governments would crumble, or at least be severely crippled. Many nations, no all nations rely on this international trade facilitated by these large capitalist companies. Nations would starve, literally. Nations like Britain, small and isolated with large populations, and third world nations need international trade to support the nutrition requirements of their peoples. Many of these countries themselves struggle even with international support. The alternative is to increase regulations on these corporations, do not allow them to fall, but instead make them reach down to the level of the "little guys". They need to have their wealth distributed into public programs and humanitarian relief efforts. Their extreme wealth and power could be used to better the world, where if they fall so does the world trade.
Cooperative individualism(pro) versus your choice of economics(con)

I agree that the form of economy that my opponent is talking about is the most successful one that has ever been attempted. But that's just it: not all economic theories have been attempted. Cooperative individualism could be so much better, but we don't know for sure since it's never been attempted. Based on the facts of worker cooperatives that I brought up previously, it wouldn't be illogical to conclude it would be better though since worker cooperatives are better quality, can help bring people out of poverty, and seem to be morally superior as I argued before, than traditional businesses which would still exist in the form of economy you argue for. Defense against opponent's rebuttals:In regards to how the earth would be severely damaged environmentally, I'm not so sure it would be. Perhaps this would happen, but it could be possible that people would realize what is going on and start giving business only to businesses that are environmentally friendly. If this doesn't happen, I suppose we could maintain the environmental regulations and just scrap the other regulations. That would probably still be sufficient for convinving other people to form worker cooperatives and possibly put traditional businesses out of business. So yes, I agree the environmental impacts, if they were to happen, would be too detrimental, and we might need to keep at least the environmental regulations.As for the too big to fail businesses, I still think we should let them fail. As a society, we are the ones to blame for capitalism. We need to feel the consequences of letting such a system exist, that way we learn that we need to go to another system. Sure, we may have a deep depression happen, but I believe this is necessary for people to finally wake up and realize we need socialism through cooperative individualism.
Cooperative individualism(pro) versus your choice of economics(con)

The Necessity of the Social Market Economy and its Practicality in Theory and Practicum I would like to state that my opening statement was not very well constructed and I regrettably did not explain my position very well. I support a socialist socioeconomic system, but this is not a perfect world and thus I must argue from a different point of view. I will argue not the superiority of my system as that would be futile and neither of us would have a chance to make a truly constructive discussion, but rather I shall debate the reality of our system and the practicality of a Social Market Economy or mixed economy. Without further ado, the Social Market Economy is in no way perfect and neither is any other system for the matter. It is merely a better choice and superior system to the currently capitalist market economies. Its practicality stems from its unique blend of socialist beliefs and capitalist free trade. It is a transitory socioeconomic system that would allow for a later implementation of a socialist system such as a cooperative individualist economy. This transitory stage is completely necessary and likely the most important stage to an economic reform. Our society has grown up around capitalist ideals in a capitalist society with an emphasis on capitalist narratives of socioeconomics. To transition from this capitalist free market to a cooperative individualist economy would surely be hard and foolish. In lieu of a complete switch a Social Market Economy should be implemented first. This would allow for the acclimation to socialist economic reforms and to give a still familiar sense of capitalist trade. After years of a Social Market Economy, I believe, many more people would be open and welcoming of a new socialistic socioeconomic structure. It is not a question as to whether each of our systems, but which is more practically implemented into our day and age. Sources: http://countrystudies.us... http://oecdinsights.org... Business Education in Emerging Market Economies: Perspectives and Best Practices
Cooperative individualism(pro) versus your choice of economics(con)

I would like to clarify just a few things here at the beginning as I'd rather be informed during the debate instead of blindly arguing my point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from your definitions of cooperative individualism are in theory and practice are as follows: "I am myself, an individual, part of a whole. This whole I am separate to, but I work for the better of the whole. " To me this seems to be much like my preferred economic structure, "socialism-capitalism". Socialism-capitalism is a blend of the values of capitalism and socialism as its name implies. Socialism- a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Capitalism- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. The True definition of a "socialism-capitalism" economy is a Social Market Economy. Many economies today are related to this economy though many are still very capitalistic. Social Market Economy- Social Market Economy (SOME) (German: Soziale Marktwirtschaft) (also called Rhine capitalism) is a socioeconomic model combining a free market capitalist economic system alongside social policies which establish both fair competition within the market and a welfare state. This means the economy though driven by the capitalist motives of profit and competition is also designed to regulate these big businesses and to establish socialist welfare and socioeconomic systems. I'm quite enthused to see where this debate goes and what new information we may both learn. Good luck and let the debate begin. Sources: . https://en.wikipedia.org... . https://www.merriam-webster.com... . https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Cooperative individualism(pro) versus your choice of economics(con)

Rules of debate:1) No ad hominem, insults, or personal attacks2) The total number of rounds minus one should be used for debate, since I am not using round 1 for debate. 3) The first round that is used for debate should just be your main arguments: no rebuttals to your opponent's first round of argument.4) The last round used for debate should only be rebuttals or conclusion, no new arguments allowed in this round. New facts can be brought up, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments5) Burden of proof is shared equally since we are both taking an affirmative stance.My position:Cooperative individualism would be better morally, productively, and democratically than your choice of economicsMy opponent's position:Their choice of economics(whether it be laissez-faire capitalism, state capitalism, feudalism, or whatever) is better than cooperative individualism. Definition of terms:Cooperative individualism: A type of cooperative economics that favors workers' cooperative societies. [1]Cooperative economics: a field of economics that incorporates socialist economics, co-operative studies, and political economy toward the study and management of co-operatives. [1] Workers' cooperative: a cooperative owned and self-managed by its workers [2]Cooperative: an autonomous association of people united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled business. [3] Con should offer their own definition of their choice of economics in the first round. Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Cooperative individualism(pro) versus your choice of economics(con)

Again to the "Too Big To Fail" issue. I would like to address that most of my economic collapse argument was based on inferences I made on the Great Depression and the market failure of 2008. I looked at how the world had been affected by the Great Depression, mainly the starvation and malnutrition, but its effects on other nations. I believe that since the world is so much more interconnected now, that these same effects would be greatly magnified across all countries with economic ties to these businesses. So unlike most of my other evidences, and I wish I could back it up better, I cannot find a study that shows the exact consequences of these TBTF businesses. As I have no more to say on in this debate, I would like to thank my opponent for his time and energy in this lovely and educational debate. He has been incredibly informative and well-mannered. Thank you to all who will no doubtedly vote for one of us in the upcoming voting period. It was my pleasure to research, brainstorm, and put my ideas and thoughts on socioeconomics into this debate. With out further ado, let the voting begin. I'm excited to see the outcome and votes no matter the results. Thank you and good luck to you, capistalistslave.