BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Steve Nash is the greatest point guard of all time

Magic Johnson is the greatest Point Guard of all time Steve Nash has won the MVP title two times, Magic Johnson has won it 3 times. Steve Nash is a 7 time all star, Magic Johnson is a 12 time all star Steve Nash has never won a championship in his career, Magic Johnson has won 5 as well as finals MVP 3 times Steve Nash Career Assist Total: 8,397, Career Average: 8.3 Magic Johnson's Career assists Total: 10,141, Career Average: 11.2 Steve Nash total career Points: 14,773 Magic Johnson's total Career Points:17,707 Magic Johnson is clearly the greatest Point Guard of all time. If not the greatest he is greater than Steve Nash.
Abortion

I had a similar debate, granted it was my first one and I was rather inexperienced. But, I feel as though I am better "equipped" now as it were to tackle the subject. Now, I am going to work backwards with your opinion. The last thing you said was that women should not have the choice to abort the baby or not? What about the case of extreme deformity? Granted every living thing should have the right to enjoy and experience life. And I believe it's horrible for people to choose to get rid of a child who not even has had the chance to take his or her first breath. But what if that child was unable to live his or her life independently or with some amount of assistance (In cases of permanent hospitalization) because of the that deformity? In which the child would live a meaningless existence Here's some examples: Brain Dead Children Mental Retardation to the point of hospitalization for life Mutated and Abnormal arrangement of organs that cause extreme pain and difficulty And what about in the case of rape? If a woman is impregnated with the child of her attacker and she is forced to raise the child on her own would that be right to tell her she has to raise the child of her attacker? Granted I don't like the idea of that you would be able to take the life of a child who had nothing to do with the horrid event that had taken place. But, that would not be our choice to make. As for the fact as someone would have an "accident" (I apologize if that term is offensive) and end up pregnant after unprotected sex. That is an unacceptable reason for people to have an abortion and I'm glad we can agree on that. A life should never be taken because it inconveniences someone else's life. The people who choose to do so are by definition, murderers. (murderer: someone who commits the act of homicide Homicide: The unlawful killing of another living human)
Abortion

Abortion is basically like committing murder. Why would you decide to have intercourse, and then have an "oops" moment when you find your pregnant? Isn't that what intercourse is for? Reproduction? Why should women get to irresponsible idiots, not using protection, and then decide to kill a baby? Especially when there are people out there who are dying just to have a baby of thier own? I think a women should not have the right to have an abortion. I think the women has the right to put it up for adoption.
Hindu's are stupid because they don't eat bacon (Pro) Hinduism is a stupid religion (Con) Its okay

I will be debating that Hindu's are not stupid and a matter of fact Hindu's do eat bacon. Firstly Hindu's do eat bacon, it is the muslims that do not eat bacon. Hindu's do not eat beef. "Pigs are not forbidden by Hinduism except by those sects that ban all meat."[1] As stated here hindu's eat bacon, with the exception of vegitatian which is no different to anyother religion or any normal person. "When those categories are adjusted slightly, the data revealed that 84% of Hindus have "at least some college" degree (compared to 50% of all Americans) and 80% have a family income that exceeds $50,000 a year (compared to 48% of all Americans)."[2] This report details that Hindu's are potentally smarter than the average American. Hindu's are not stupid and they do eat bacon! [1] http://www.clovegarden.com... [2] http://www.firstpost.com...
Hindu's are stupid because they don't eat bacon (Pro) Hinduism is a stupid religion (Con) Its okay

Hindu's are bloody stupid because they don't eat bacon. They are making themselves miss out on one of the best things in life. The social pressure that they would get from other Hindu's would make it hard to escape the cycle without being disowned by everyone you know, even though it would be totally worth it for bacon. Also they miss out on things like ham and cheese croissants and bacon pasta. Hinduism is a dumb religion, as there is also no legitimate reason to not eat pig products. It would not harm them in any way, and I don't care if you think cows are sacred in your country. Maybe if they ate more bacon Vodafone tech support would be a bit better.
Clowns are weird.

-"Wow! Some actual points from the frenchmoose"- orly? - -"This website I just posted shows a typical pair of clown shoes. You can observe that they are clearly not the type of shoes a regular person off the street would wear"- But yet clowns wear them and (as we all know) they are people too therefore people do wear "clown" shoes (which are just shoes anyway). . just not the majority. .. - -"Most shoes do not change in their sizes through the shoe parts. "- On the soles of most shoes you will see that shoes do change shape for certain parts. . the center (where your arch is) is almost always thinner then the front side or back side of the shoe. - -"Well, yeah, this is pretty obvious, but not the kind of wigs that clown fashion demands. "- A wig is a wig whether it look funny or not, and people do wear wigs so. .- -"And since their clothes don't correspond to the general public (the definition I gave of normal previously), they're not normal, which means they're abnormal, AKA weird. "- Lets compare for a second. . I could take and put into a room: -one so called "gangster" (with their baggy as all heck cloths)- -one businessman (with their suits and what not)- -and one clown -Now if we were to compare these 3 people we would find that they are all different in the way they dress. Based on what your telling me, anyone who dresses differently from the general public is "weird" when in fact everyone from the general public dresses differently and act's differently from one another. - -Saying someone is weird because they wear different cloths and act differently is just ignorant. . because everyone dresses differently from one another in the general public, there is not just one trend that dominates over all others. Diversity is good. - -My opponent states in response to my beat boxer statement "the sounds they make can be just as strange as clowns, but that's irrelevant. "- I would like to know how this is irrelevant. . you stated that clowns laugh is a weird noise when everyone in the world can laugh. . meanwhile we have people making insane noises with there vocals to simulate what to some people can only be made with machinery. - -"Normality depends on your actions and movements. "- Not everyone in the world acts the same. . there is a mass diversity on how people act and to each of those people, the way that they act as individuals is what they call normal. - -Normal is a word that to what it means is based on what you believe. My definition of normal could be playing video games all day while yours could be playing sports all day. . if we met we would call each other weird.
Clowns are weird.

Wow! Some actual points from the frenchmoose! :D Alright, let's get to business. "Clown shoes are just shoes." http://weeksaway.files.wordpress.com... This website I just posted shows a typical pair of clown shoes. You can observe that they are clearly not the type of shoes a regular person off the street would wear. The ends extend out longer than regular shoes and have a huge gigantic curve. Most shoes do not change in their sizes through the shoe parts. "People do wear wigs." Well, yeah, this is pretty obvious, but not the kind of wigs that clown fashion demands. http://images.buycostumes.com... This picture shows the head of a clown. As you can see, clowns can contain rainbow colored wigs and various other types of bizarre, wacky colorful wigs. So overall, true, people do wear things that clowns wear, but what the clowns wear are extremely exaggerated. And since their clothes don't correspond to the general public (the definition I gave of normal previously), they're not normal, which means they're abnormal, AKA weird. "I urge you to go listen to one of the worlds famous beat boxers and then come back here to talk about "strange emitted noises." Okay, not the entire public is part "famous beat boxer." And even then, the sounds they make can be just as strange as clowns, but that's irrelevant. If you dragged someone off the street, he would not laugh like a clown, and once again, there is the definition of normal. Normality depends on your actions and movements. Some normal people can become weird and abnormal, by choosing to commit an action such as murder, like you said, and can separate themselves from the normal public. So thus, the weird killed clowns have become even more weird. I look forward to the next round.
Clowns are weird.

-jees such a long speech -_-.. oh well- -"Obviously, the public does not run around in clown shoes or wears wigs and silly clothes."- How to say... clown shoes are just shoes, yes people do wear wigs, and wether the cloths clowns wear is silly or not is an opinion of the viewer.. As a matter of fact, this entire debate is 100% opinion O.o.. Clowns can be weird,funny,stupid,freaky,normal and any other variety of words used to describe others. I could say more but ill hold off.- -"clowns are not normal in any way"- They have 2 legs, they have 2 arms, they dress in shoes, pants and, shirt, they eat, they sleep, they breathe (which is completely unhealthy), etc. The last thing to say to this statement is... O RLY!- -"Clowns are weird for many reasons. They wear gigantic shoes, have red noses, silly costumes, white make-up, fake wigs, and other bizarre equipment."- Shoes are shoes.. a grown mans pair of shoes would look abnormally big to a child.. does that mean that the grown man is weird? Costumes are worn by actors for stage performances and many other reasons; but I guess there all weird too. Wow I don't need to explain make-up enough people wear it :P.- -"As I have previously stated, if they were normal, they would go with the public"- Most clowns are paid to do what they do.. act in front of a big crowd for the same entertainment that you or I would go to a movie or a play for.. also they do go out into public; you even said so yourself with them in the streets. They do have lives :P (normal ones at that).- -"All Movies Written About Killer Clowns are Probably Based on True Stories. In all seriousness, there was probably at one time or another a heroin-addicted clown named Shakes who was also, strangely, Bob Goldthwait." They would be called "murderers" you know the kind of people even some of the "normal" people are... I think that covers that whole paragraph.- -"Who in the world laughs a clown? Seriously, have you ever heard a normal, mentally sane person emit a laugh that sounds like their starting the engine of a Model T car? No, really, other than Goofy – who is a 6 foot tall animated Disney Dog who wears pants."- I urge you to go listen to one of the worlds famous beat boxers and then come back here to talk about "strange emitted noises.- - I look forward to my opponents response-
Clowns are weird.

Hopefully. :-| My opponent has stated that it is we who are the strange or weird people. And he has given the examples that those who eat McDonald's and laugh at the clowns are the strange ones. Let me get this straight. America is not filled with a population that eats away at McDonald's. Some people do, but they're regular people looking for a meal and becoming addicted to salty foods. Also, since you are arguing that clowns are "normal," here is a definition. Normal: conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm. (wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn) Obviously, the public does not run around in clown shoes or wears wigs and silly clothes. Thus, clowns are not normal in any way, and the opposite of normal, is weird. Own Contentions 1. Clowns are weird for many reasons. They wear gigantic shoes, have red noses, silly costumes, white make-up, fake wigs, and other bizarre equipment. As I have previously stated, if they were normal, they would go with the public. However, they are still out on the streets preaching their wild "clown acts" and asking for money in return. They even act out in the public and you can obviously see the differences. 2. All Movies Written About Killer Clowns are Probably Based on True Stories. In all seriousness, there was probably at one time or another a heroin-addicted clown named Shakes who was also, strangely, Bob Goldthwait. And what else happens in Derry, Maine if not for a child-killing clown named It? But perhaps no movie was more scarring to the reputation of clowns than the 1988 classic Killer Klowns from Outer Space, a likely true story about puke-inducing alien clowns with pointy teeth and evil eyes who trap their victims in cotton candy cocoons. 3. Who in the world laughs a clown? Seriously, have you ever heard a normal, mentally sane person emit a laugh that sounds like their starting the engine of a Model T car? No, really, other than Goofy – who is a 6 foot tall animated Disney Dog who wears pants. I look forward to the response. I think.
Clowns are weird.

-"Hello, I am XStrikeX"- yes we have met in combat before. -My opponent claims that clowns are weird.. This would be false for it is the opposite way around.. you see clowns are the only normal people on this earth.. it is us people that wander the streets eating mc'donalds and laugh at the pain clowns inflict upon one another.. that my friend is weird even by your definition.
Clowns are weird.

Hello, I am XStrikeX, representing the Proposition for the topic, "Clowns are ugly and scary." I will open up with a few definitions of 'ugly' and 'scary.' According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: Weird: "of strange or extraordinary character" For everyone to truly understand the concept of the clown and the image of a clown, I'll post a picture. http://janeheller.mlblogs.com...
Keeping the Arts Program in schools

If the school runs out of money, Or hypothetically runs very low, It should not include any Arts/Music programs. Let me argue with your arguments in order. "It gives students the opportunity to show there talent and there love for music. " Yes, But if the school had no money, Wouldn't it rather be teaching academics instead of music? "Yes. . . Sports are important. " Yes, They are. So, Let me ask you this question, Why do arts programs get a higher degree of importance than sports? "But if there taken out because the school thinks that art programs won't get enough money or as much money, What will happen to the kids that love the Arts program? " What will happen to the kids in the Sports programs? What will happen when the school lowers the budget for academics, And everybody fails life? Hardly anyone goes into the arts. Academics are the MOST important.
Globalization will be the best solution to the uneven distribution of internationla wealth.

Trade benefits all those who are participants in the trade -- otherwise the participants wouldn't take part in it. Global trade increases the number (and quality) of goods and services produced, thereby reducing their cost, and thereby benefiting those who earn/have less. Expanding markets for labor provide more opportunities for third-world workers. You are entirely wrong as to the causes of income inequality. Central banking and fiat-money credit expansion, NOT free trade, are the causes of increasing disparity. When central banks create more money, they dilute the purchasing power of existing monetary units (dollars, euros, whatever). The new money created is doled out to political elites and the rich, at the expense of the poor and working class. This has literally zero to do with free trade and it is THE cause for growing income disparity. Free trade is a counterbalance to fiat-money central banking, and in its absence, the disparities would be even worse. You fail to see that I'm using baseball cards, comic books, etc., as examples. The same principles apply. They are both commodities and the rules of trade apply to them just as they do durable goods, consumables, raw materials, etc. Individuals only engage in trade when it is mutually beneficial for them to do so, and thus, every individual is better off as the result of every trade. Every trade we make makes us all richer. This raises living standards, but also reduces income inequality, since the bulk of that inequality was/is achieved by non-market, non-competitive means. In a regime of global free trade, one must produce something in order to trade it for something else, whereas in the current regime, the rich create money out of thin air to enslave the poor. So what is your goal? Perfect equality? If so, then global Marxism (Trotskyism) is your solution. But if you want rising living standards and a meritocracy (vs. the current financial aristocracy), then global free trade is the way to go. You say my arguments are weak, but that's because you lack the intellect to follow my purposely dumbed-down examples. Your arguments aren't even remotely coherent and are full of mere platitudes. I am confident that anyone who has actually read the debate (which you challenged me to, mind you) will agree and give me their vote.
Globalization will be the best solution to the uneven distribution of internationla wealth.

If you do not understand what I have said before, let me say this one more time. Trading does not necessarily increase the wealth of ALL people: it most likely increases the wealth of the rich, not the public. And that hits the point I have mentioned: the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer; it does not help even distribution of the wealth, which is, after all, globalization is failed to achieve. The goal of this debate is not the concern of people's living standard, but the uneven distribution of wealth. Division of labor and free trade are not effective because these practices have been used for years and one thing we observed, again, the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer. You accused me that my arguments were not cohesive. But I think you are actually off the topic. "I'm not interested in "forcing" anyone to engage in anything. Free trade is voluntary exchange. The government doesn't need to be involved in a baseball-card trade between you and me, regardless of whether we live in the same city, state, or country, or not." Who cares about baseball-card trading or any other local businesses under the spectrum of "international wealth?" Do you think "baseball" is everywhere? Do you think baseball-card can help the economy reform? We are talking about Macroeconomics, not your pathetic whining about baseball-card. We are talking about issues around the world; we need to debate on issues that mean something to the leaders around the world. Overall, your arguments are weak, pointless, and you have failed to provide evidence to support your side. If you think my arguments make no sense, maybe the problem comes from you. I am from Hong Kong, where many great economists described it as the place almost has free-market, which in your term, laissez-faire. I have experienced the realty of capitalism, free trade, or division of labor, and I need to conclude that these practices are not able to solve the uneven distribution of wealth. How can you claim that these practices can be useful in a macro-economic spectrum, the world? No one is interested in "New World Order" or any kind, one-world government is not possible. But we also need to look at the realty, which voluntary "charity" from business or trading is not going to work. How can you persuade me that globalization can solve the problem of uneven distribution of "international" wealth? Even if I believe in what you said about division of labor and free trade that can solve the problem, how can you guarantee that globalization is about division of labor and free trade? Globalization is a lot more than just division of labor and free trade; the side effects are unimaginable and that is why globalization will not be the best solution to the uneven distribution of international wealth.
Globalization will be the best solution to the uneven distribution of internationla wealth.

The examples I used were illustrative of the obvious point: Trade increases wealth. When two parties consent to a trade, they are both better off for the trade, or else they wouldn't do it. Furthermore, with division of labor, a greater number (and higher quality) of goods and services can be produced. The further trade is expanded (i.e. the fewer barriers to free trade there are), the higher living standards for all people will be. The solution is not for one government, or any governments at all to "be responsible for the actions [I] have mentioned before if the actions are not in effect and the people will not be benefited." (That sentence doesn't even make sense, by the way). The solution is for governments to get out of the way and let people engage in voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions. That's all free trade is. It does not require government, other than to enforce contracts and protect property rights. I do not agree that the "New World Order" elements are "essential to globalization" as we have defined it. Expanded global trade, lowering of trade barriers, and free exchange of ideas does not require international bureaucracy which is designed to do the exact opposite. Your arguments make no sense. They're just a bunch of words with no coherence. I'm not interested in "forcing" anyone to engage in anything. Free trade is voluntary exchange. The government doesn't need to be involved in a baseball-card trade between you and me, regardless of whether we live in the same city, state, or country, or not. Globalization, as we have defined it, leads to increased living standards and more freedom. It would do the most to alleviate disparities in wealth, which are caused by government anti-capitalist policies.
Spanking is child abuse.

I accept. I will debate how spanking is not child abuse, but a form of discipline, and a right of one's parents. My leading argument is that spanking is not intended to abuse one's own child, but to discipline them for an action that the parents wish for them not to partake in, or disapprove of. Spanking has been used as a form of discipline for many years [1], and was not intended as a form of child abuse. [1]: http://aolff.org... This is my source of this rebuttal.
Spanking is child abuse.

What if opposition is not forfeit?? o.O I missed this debate simply because I have been too busy for it, and frankly I forgot to submit it. Now, I believe that our parents have the right to touch or hit children in the form of discipline, as this is not 'wrong, or should be stopped', as they were the ones who gave birth to the person in the first place. It is a general idea that children will get into trouble many times during their childhood. What do parents do when their children have no way of communicating with them? Do they just waste their time trying to reason with this child or do they spank them, or slap their wrists and tell them no? Probably the second choice. Children will more likely remember a spanking (something physical that they can remember) rather then a conversation on why their deed was wrong (a conversation with effectively one side of communication). If this were the case, then why would disciplining their child in the only logical way,... be a form of abuse?
Spanking is child abuse.

I disagree. No one has the right to touch or hit someone else without consent. People have the right to feel safe in their bodies. I know what it is like to receive this form of abuse from my father. y father had no right to hit me. It is wrong to hit people unless it is self defense or defense of others. My body, my right, my choice. No one has the right to hit me. I have the right to feel safe.