BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Boxing is DEAD: Prepare the way for Mixed Martial Arts

Allow me to dissect your argument so i can point out each weakness. "Boxing is one of the most popular games, especially in Europe and the Americas." Pay-Per-View UFC gets more viewers per event broadcasted than a Pay-Per-View Boxing match will get all year. This is due to the fact that boxers are much more pampered when it comes to their pay checks. They only have to fight once a year if they wanted to. Where as Chuck Lidell has had over 4 major fights this past year. Not even comparable. "Ask any one on the street in America to name you at least two famous boxers and i guarantee you that they will give you at least three." Guess what? All of the boxers that they will name are either retired or dead. I can think of maybe one exception and that is Mayweather. This proves that boxing is on the decline. And also it depends on the residence of the people you ask. If you ask someone from Ohio, Illinois, or Pennsylvania, they will be able to tell you 3 famous Olympian wrestlers. It all depends on where you poll. Your argument should be null and void at this point. "Its a multi-billion dollar corporation that brings fans from around the world together to watch two contenders duke it out." Yeah so is the UFC. Only when they say duke it out, they don't mean limited ducking is out. They mean really duking it out, like no referee to stop them from **hurting** each other once they get in a clinch. It incorporates all fight sciences. "I want to ask the people reading my argument... when was the last time you saw a major MMA fight on PPV? or sponsored by multi-million dollar corporations?" The Ultimate Fighter tv show and UFC 77, 78. I watch both. And there were neighborhood parties that hosted these events too so everyone could come and watch. The answer to your question, not even a month ago. "It was also popularly played in Greek and Rome. The rules were crude then and boxers often indulged into lethal boxing rounds with leather taped on to their bare hands." The ancient Greeks in their Olympics also had their own version of a no holds barred fighting sport. This is where we get greek legends like Arrichion, the fighter. Don't pull out a history lesson if you are ignorant of history. All of you points in fact don't prove anything about an underscoring argument about which is harder. and that is obviously MMA.
Boxing is DEAD: Prepare the way for Mixed Martial Arts

Boxing is one of the most popular games, especially in Europe and the Americas. Legends like Muhammad Ali, Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Benny Leonard, Mickey Walker along with many stars have brought worldwide fame and recognition to the sport. Boxing was earlier known by the name Pugilism, meaning sweet science. Ask any one on the street in America to name you at least two famous boxers and i guarantee you that they will give you at least three. Ask them to name you at least one famous MMA fighter and they will have a blank look on there face. Boxing is alive and would never die out. Its a multi-billion dollar corporation that brings fans from around the world together to watch two contenders duke it out. Last major event was in Las-Vegas between Floyd Mayweather and Ricky Hatton in which 25,000 Brits descended upon the strip to root on the British native. MMA although very fancy and sweet dosn't really get pulled off in the streets as much. I want to ask the people reading my argument... when was the last time you saw a major MMA fight on PPV? or sponsored by multi-million dollar corporations? Only time i actually witnessed a MMA fight was on a set of a Hollywood movie that i happened to stumble upon when i visited L.A. Historical evidence lead to the fact that boxing was prevalent in North Africa in 4000 BC. It was also popularly played in Greek and Rome.The rules were crude then and boxers often indulged into lethal boxing rounds with leather taped on to their bare hands. It was much much later However, the more recognizable development occurred during a time known as modern era in boxing. In the year 1866 and thats when the Gloves came on along with a set of rules and ever since boxing kept growing and never stoped since.
Cars should be banned from use.

REBUTTALI cannot access any of the links you have given. For example when I try to open http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov... an error occurs. As the character limit is 2000, I cannot post the error in my argument, but I will post it in the comments.So convenience is more important than say... having a habitable planet to live on.Again, law could be used to limit but not ban cars which will drop down pollution levels WHILE still keeping the convenience of cars. For example, one family could be limited to one car and the world could be persuaded to use other modes of transport instead.Close to 30,000 people die every year in car crashes.30,000 is nothing compared to the nearly 254,000,000 people that drive cars in the US.Once again I am glad all the hard work of those engineers won't be wasted as 30,000 people die each year in car crashes and 1.5 Billion metric tons of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere at the same time. But at least we have air conditioning and really cool radios. Why won't the hard work of engineers be wasted? You have not supported that argument with reasons. If you are saying that so many cars have already gone to waste, 30,000 is not much compared to even just the US! Also, your greenhouse gases argument can be met with limiting cars.CONCLUSION There are many reasons why cars should be limited but not banned. One reason is it's freedom and convenience, banning it would mean people would have to catch a bus, train etc which are much less convenient. Limiting it would limit global warming, while still providing convenient travel. Also, with air conditioning and radios there is relaxation.I would like to thank my opponent for her time and arguments.Thank you.
Cars should be banned from use.

(1)So convience is more important than say... having a habitable planet to live on.http://www.ucsusa.org...; http://www.epa.gov...; http://www.epa.gov...; https://www.fueleconomy.gov...; I will keep in mind what a convience it is to be driving a mini van away from rising ocean waters.(2)Close to 30,000 people die every year in car crashes.http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov...;That is hardly just a few isolated cases.(3)Once again I am glad all the hard work of those engingeers wont be wasted as 30,000 people die eeach year in car crashes and 1.5 Billion metric tons of greenhouse gasses are released into the atmosphere at the same time. But atleast we have air coniditioning and really cool radios.
Cars should be banned from use.

REBUTTALYou are basing your argument on nothing. No resources - No data... Carbon monoxide punch? What are you talking about? -- Did you read any of the links I posted? Even one of them in its entirety? http://www.abe.iastate.edu... Relaxation? Are you tripping on something?The examples you have giving are very rare cases, where the drives are negligent. In such as cold climate where the videos have been featured, a heater would definitely be helpful. If driving really wasn't a relaxing experience, no-one would be using it.Bicycles take up less room, they more energy efficient-in-fact, the most energy efficient method of transport known to man. No carbon footprint... all of this is laid out in the link I posted in the last round which I am at this moment certain you did not read. The bus system we are talking about wont run on Gasoline. The page you have provided for the bus system is not valid or I cannot access it. Also, the convenience of cars far exceeds bicycles which are much slower. People can be encouraged to use bicycles, but banning cars just takes away a convenient choice.ARGUMENT If cars were to be banned, what would all the billions of cars on Earth be done to? Well, it's illegal to use the cars so it's basically a useless piece of junk which are either going to be thrown away or recycled. Both of these options are detrimental to our society; dumping cars causes dangerous pollution from the metals and waste of precious materials, while recycling the materials still wastes the years of engineering used to produce all the cars and some material is also non-recyclable. Recycling the materials also needs money.http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you.
Cars should be banned from use.

(1)You either completely mis read my argument or are deliberately attempting to mislead readers. (2) You are basing your argument on nothing. No resources- No data... Carbon monoxide punch? What are you talking about? -- Did you read any of the links I posted? Even one of them in its entirety? (3) Relaxation? Are you tripping on something? ;... Yes nothing is more relaxing than dirving. ; Because we are always in control of our vehicles. the weather doesn't effect our vehicles at all.And Humans are always responcible when operating Heavy vehicles traveling at great speeds. Totally relaxed.Biclyces take up less room, they more energy effcient-in-fact, the most energy effcient method of transport known to man. No carbon footprint... all of this is laid out in the link I posted in the last round which I am at this moment certain you did not read. The bus system we are talking about wont run on Gasoline.
Cars should be banned from use.

REBUTTAL You have suggested letting people walk, ride a bicycle or go on a bus to anywhere within 50 kilometres. That may be okay, but it definitely will take way too long for urgent situations. A 8km ride will take up to 30 minutes, which is sometimes just too much. And, travelling on foot for one hour to get somewhere? No thanks. You have claimed that "With very few other vehicles on the road ways, our bus systems can travel faster and much more efficiently and this will make them a much more desirable option for traveling in this capacity with a range of anywhere from say 8 to 80km". However, people will be hovering around all the time, with bicycles cramming for space as well. Buses then come by and give them all a big carbon monoxide punch. That is not good for the environment. ARGUMENTS Another argument of why cars shouldn't be banned is because they have built in relaxing functions that we use all the time such as radio, air conditioners etc. You might not realise how important these features are, air conditioners prevent you from getting heat exhaustion on a hot summer's day. Radio delivers you your news and music all the time. The world would suddenly seem hot, boring and weird if cars were banned. Thank you.
Cars should be banned from use.

There are two criteria that a new transportation system needs to meet. It must serve two areas of our needs as a civilization. Local travel and Long distance travel. For local travel I will say is travel with in around 80Km which is aprox.50mi. And long distance travel which is anything further than 50km. Lets first adress local concerns. For travel of 0~3km you can travel on foot easily enough, for travel of 0~ to 8km ( 5 mi) A bicycle will do. For a healthy adult to make a round trip of 8km is no problem. This is more than enough to get you back and forth to stores, entertainment and etc if you live in an average urban enviroment, which the bulk of our population does. This is typical european system, most people travel by bike or by motorized scooters which are also a good option for getting around town and have a better reasonable range of travel. Than we have the need for cross town travel or cross county travel. For this, a Bus system will survice. With very few other vehicles on the road ways, our bus systems can travel faster and much more effciently and this will make them a much more deisrable option for traveling in this capacity with a range of anywhere from say 8 to 80km. Further reading ion the benefits of travel by bicyclehttp://www.ibike.org...For further reading about what kind of bus system we can have with modern technology:http://www.path.berkeley.edu...;Now for long distance travel. You maybe expecting a bullet train but I have something even better.Introudcing, ET3 ;Main website: http://et3.net...Our technology has advancaed much further than many beleive, you may-or-may not have a mistake beleive that the free market system would build these thigns if they could be built, but that is a falalcy I will have to adress ina future debate. The technology noen the less is here and now. ET3 has already conducted sucessful trials.
Cars should be banned from use.

Thank you for accepting my debateCars are very important in modern life. Imagine what you could do without it. You would have to inconveniently walk to the train/bus station, and have to wait a long time for a train. Clearly, this is a strong inconvenience. Besides, it is even worse in the countryside. Only in rare occasions do buses operate there, and trains often take a long time to arrive. Even if you manage to get on a train, when you leave train, it is most likely you have to walk a long way to your target destination. This annoyance without cars all cause a car ban to be detrimental.
Cars should be banned from use.

Since I am arguing in favor of banning vehicles I will further define the term and establish the specific instance to which such vehicles should be banned._____________________________________ Further defined parameters of a ban: (1) Ban on the use of None-renewable fossil fuels from use in a compustion operated vehicles intended for private sale and use to transport indivual(s) or Goods across public roads and highways. Exempting commercial vehicles which underlaw require Classifcation B or A licences. (2) Ban manually operated vehicles intended for private use or sale to operate on public roads or highways by 2022, tobe replaced by Artificial intelligence operated vehicles. _____________________________________ Important distinctions:_____________________________________ (1) In the context of this debate, specifically proposed laws are intended and assumed to be inacted over a period of time leading to a full ban on manually operated, fossil fuel powered cars in the United States.(2) My arguments will focus on the replacements for such vehicles and their supperiority for various purposes over the existing Manually operated, fossil fuel powered vehicles. Look froward to having this debate with you.
Bush's U.S. stimulus package of 2008 will not be very successful.

Since the last debate on this topic was so miserably un-eventful, I decided to challenge Darkmaff666 to a real debate now (lets see if you really worked on your case like you said you would). Again, that the stimulus package as is will not significantly help the looming economic recession. I will prove I. That such a plan will not help II. That the waste of money will make things work III. Why it will not work and what Bush should have done His plan, like all his other plan for the economy, do nothing for those who really need the help and only provide small benefits to the middle class. House prices are falling, debt is rising, jobs are being lost, gas is outrageously expensive, and money is being squandered by the Bush administration. This so called stimulus package is just another example of that.
Bush's U.S. stimulus package of 2008 will not be very successful.

yeah well i would like say that this topic just isn't interesting only due to the fact that this president has made many mistakes before on more would hurt more...right...i man look the economy is slowly going into another great depression slowly "baby steps" right now all we could do is just know that it is and stop it..yeah im just saying...well sorry i didn't try and well good luck with any other debates u may have......
42 is the answer to life the universe and everything

I understand my opponent's accident and the explanation of the base 13 argument has been put in the comments section if one does not understand. I have nothing to refute. Another way that 42 is the result of 6*9 is the following. Six equals 1 + 5. Nine equals 8+1. So six * nine equals 1+5 * 8+1. 5*8 = 40. 1+40+1 = 42, the meaning of life. http://www.jayssite.com... Also 42 is a sphenic number, a Catalan number and is bracketed by twin primes. There are many very special things about the number 42, it is also what you get if you add the total of two dice. 42 as I have demonstrated is the meaning of life and everything if one checks the Google calculator, Bing calculator and many other search engines. In essence, our lives are so dependent on search engines because they provide accurate and relevant information. 42 is given as the answer to life the universe and everything. Why shouldn't we trust it? Secondly, 42 is the answer given by Deep Thought the universe's best supercomputer at the time. This supercomputer cannot find the answer but only the question. I choose to listen to that supercomputer. As I cannot refute any more points my opponent says (except comment section), I choose to ask him to prove that one is the first number in existence, and that one does not rely on any other number to exist. I also ask my opponent to answer "I ask my opponent to cite a source claiming that 1 is the answer to life, the universe and everything.". I have given quite a few during this debate. All and all, this debate was a blast and I hope my opponent has a good 2nd point. Thank you. PS I'm not going to ask anyone to vote any side because after reading a lot of debates I found that really annoying. :)
42 is the answer to life the universe and everything

First the rebuttals. My opponent's logic is that since 1 makes up every number except zero, logically following it must be the answer to life, the universe and everything. As I have interpreted it, he is saying that every number is a compilation of 1's and thus if a number were to be the answer, then it would surely be 1. However, I offer a simple analogy to disprove his point. Thousands of years ago, all the materials needed for the Industrial Revolution or any other current device was already present. These materials, since they make up nearly everything in our life now, can be compared to a 1. On the other hand, a chair made of wood is not the same as a piece of wood. 42 made be made of ones but on the other hand, that does not logically mean that 1 would be the answer to life as opposed to 42. While this may seem philosophical, my opponent's comparison has some logic holes in it. Who made God? Can he really be the first thing created. We define created as "1. Bring (something) into existence: "he created a lake"; "170 jobs were created". " . http://www.google.ca... |en&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xF_5TPDzEue6nAfmvoizCQ&ved=0CBoQmwMoAA While this is slightly off-topic, I believe it requires some consideration. Anyways, I ask my opponent to cite a source proving that 1 was the first number to come into existence and not some other random number such as 42. 42 does not rely on 1 to exist because 42 is its own number. It is not called 42 1's. To my second point, it is known that the ultimate question from Author's subconscious is "What do you get if you multiply six by nine" . http://en.wikipedia.org... If one uses base 13, one does indeed get 42. Also, the world's bet supercomputer at the tjime Deep Thought came up with the answer of 42. While I do not exactly know how he or she was led to that answer, I know that the supercomputer is probably smarter than the average human by around 999999999999999999999999999999999 times. So, I choose to place my trust with them. I ask my opponent to cite a source claiming that 1 is the answer to life, the universe and everything. Thank you. PS to my opponent, have fun!
42 is the answer to life the universe and everything

To follow my opponent's format, I will also give one reason each round as to why 1 is the Answer. 1. All other numbers are encompassed by 1. If 1 did not exist, there could be no other numbers, as every other number except 0 is really just a compilation of 1's. Therefore, if indeed a number is the answer to life, the universe, and everything, it would have to be 1. I will make a comparison to a god. For something to be a god, it must be the very first thing created and nothing must come before it. Likewise, for something to be the ultimate answer to life, etc, it must be the first one and not rely on any other number to exist. The only thing that fits this description is 1, as it is a prerequisite to all other numbers. I await my opponent's response.
42 is the answer to life the universe and everything

I look forward to his points. I have three arguments on why 42 is the meaning of life. One will be given for each round. First, if one enters "the answer to life the universe and everything" without quotation marks on Google, and Bing, the result that one gets is 42. . http://www.google.ca...= . http://www.bing.com...= When one enters simple or complicated arithmetic expressions, the result is also given. (on Google and Bing) I have checked some of these equations and Google and Bing does get them right. Logically following, if Google AND Bing agrees with me that the answer to life, the universe and everything would be 42, who could possibly dispute that? An online search engine that provides services to millions of people is stating that 42 is in fact the the answer to life the universe and everything. :) I rest my case. I look forward to my opponent's points on why 1 is that the answer to life the universe and everything and remind him that he cannot refute my points until the next round. Good Luck!
42 is the answer to life the universe and everything

As one can obviously see, this is not meant to be a serious debate but merely a reference to "A hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy". To make this debate more fair, my opponent will choose a number of their choice other than 42 that is the answer to life the universe and everything. They must defend their choice. If they do not choose a number, they automatically forfeit. No evidence may be given in the first round to give your number beneficial information nor may any rebuttals be given to refute your opponent. "Evidence" only is presented in Round 2 and rounds after can have evidence and rebuttals. Also, you can have some fun with this debate, try to be comical but make your number seem special. Have fun! :)
I'm the biggest Tolkien fanatic!

Did you not pay attention to the requirements of this debate? I said, " I am the most fanatical about John Ronald Ruel Tolkien's mythopia on this website." Emphasis on "on this website" Tolkien died September 2, 1973. How can he be on this website and if he is then he should take me up on this debate not you, you smart Alek. :)
I'm the biggest Tolkien fanatic!

I am willing to assume that I am the most fanatical about John Ronald Ruel Tolkien's mythopia on this website. I believe I know more about it than anyone else (with the exception of being able to speak any of his languages). I would love to see someone beat me so I know I am not a loner on this subject. In the first round you must state 1. approximately how long you have been a fan. 2. what books you have read and how many times. 3. what nationality you are. I have been a fan from a young age 6 years, 1month, 21 days, and 16 hours since I finished the Trilogy. I have read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings 6 times, The Silmarillion 2, The Complete History of Middle Earth 1 1/2. The Unfinished Tales 1, The Children of Hurin 2, and The Tales from the Perilous Realm 1. I am an American born on the west coast but now lives on the east coast. I now leave it to whomever tries to outdo me. jrrjacques at you service.
I'm the biggest Tolkien fanatic!

Ahh...it is already round 5? I bet you all are waiting for my grande finale...Wait, you didn't think I was serious? Oh boy was I serious.For my grande finale I will have a massive 100,000 word essay on... wait, only 9,800 characters left? Oh. In that case I shall use pictures...After all, a picture's worth a thousand words! Sorry if I look insane. I was too fanatical about the trilogy.And that ends my conclusion!THE ENDVote Con!