BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Soccer is better than baseball.

What's America's favorite pastime? Baseball. Baseball is a sport that has been proven to be fun to everyone. It's a sport that anyone can watch and won't be confused by because it is very straightforward. In soccer the pacing is way too fast that a person that wants to relax and watch it couldn't keep up with it. Also in soccer all you do is kick a ball back and forth which is extremely boring to watch after 5 minutes. Also one of his arguments is that the mid, left , and right fielder don't run, but actually they do run. In the MLB there are many hit baseballs that go out into the outfield. These outfielders are doing work to help their team win.
Soccer is better than baseball.

Rules: 1. No sources 2. No bad words 3. Write at least more than 300words. Did you ever think that soccer is the best sport? Soccer is better than baseball because in baseball, if you don't hit a ball you can't run. Otherwise, in soccer, even you didn't put the ball into a net, you run every single minute. Also, the left, right, and the center fielder doesn't get a lot of chance to run. My arguments told you why I think that soccer is better than baseball.
gaddafi is a hero rather than villain

Gaddafi was a tyrant who upon receiving absolute power in Libya used it to create his own warped idea of an ideal society instead of a society for the people of Libya. During his rule here is what occurred in Libya. 1) Expulsion of all Italians from Libya and later 30000 Palestinians from Libyan soil 2) Created unelected committees to rule locally and report only to him, these committees were installed to prevent and suppress any form of opposition or democratic movement 3) Openly denounced democracy, capitalism, and the free media and created laws that forbade them 4) Has declared and fought wars with Egypt, Israel, and involved Libya in conflicts such as the Chad Civil War, 5) Openly supported and funded terrorist organizations 6) severed all diplomatic ties with Britain for allowing Libyan freedom protests to occur 7) Viciously tried to put down the 2011 revolution 8) Heavily invested the limited resources he had into creating weapons of great destruction (mostly chemical weapons) http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://www.spotlightofpeace.com...
Gun Rights

I accept the challenge. Well, why don't you think about it? Allowing gay marriage will, if anything, REDUCE the number of deaths in the country. Teen and even adult suicide caused by people bullying others because they are gay will be reduced as the government itself accepts the concept of people being gay. Looser control on guns will INCREASE the number of deaths. Don't bother giving the argument that people can prevent a shooter from killing them or somebody else if they have a gun. A study was conducted and found that usually when an armed citizen attempted to stop a gunman, they were usually mortally wounded or killed. Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a gun rights expert also says that when civilians try to involve themselves they end up spilling more blood. Face it, a lawyer or scientist by profession is very likely to have less good aim than a police officer. What if they missed? How many more people would die? In other words, don't try to be your own police force. About the Constitution, the right to bear arms is one of the only ones that people have not made exceptions to. Take an example, the Constitutional right to practice whatever religion you want. There are restrictions on that right that you are choosing to ignore. If someone was practicing a religion that involved human sacrifice in the US, they would be in jail, even if they claimed that they were just practicing their religion. The freedom of religion does not extend the whole way. Neither should the right to bear arms. Now, I have a few points of my own to make 1.) Many gun accidents do not happen on purpose. There are many horrific stories out there of little kids finding their parent's weapons and killing somebody accidentally. Innocent bloodshed is routine in gun accidents. 2.) Many mass shootings such as the Sandy Hook school shootout and the movie theater tragedy used registered guns. How many tragedies does it take for you to realize that guns, even registered ones do not help anybody? In 2010, 31076 Americans died as a result of guns. This is 85 deaths EACH DAY and over 3 gun deaths EACH HOUR. Think about it. 3.) With guns comes an increase in homicide and suicide. Quoting the Daily Kos "Children here in the US are on average ten times more likely to kill themselves using a gun, and nine times more likely to die by accidental firearm injury than children in other wealthy, industrialized nations." 4.) The US is the country with the most guns in the world (yes the WORLD) with approximately 88 guns per 100 people. The country with the second most guns is Yemen, and they aren't very close. They have about 54.8 guns per 100 people, which is significantly less than 88. Are you are suggesting we allow people to buy more guns? I don't think so. So this proves that the more guns, the worse the heartbreak. The US leads the world in gun ownership and gun tragedies. Doesn't that show something? Sources http://www.motherjones.com... http://www.theguardian.com... http://smartgunlaws.org... http://www.nber.org... http://www.dailykos.com...
Gun Rights

I am challenging my opponent to a debate on Gun Rights. I noticed her post on a gay marriage issue claiming that gay marriage should be allowed because everyone has certain rights in a free country. I am alright with her argument of gay marriage. Shortly thereafter, I noticed that she was against gun rights. I find it puzzling and ironic that she proclaims marriage a right, even though it is NEVER mentioned in the Constitution, but she is willing to ignore our 2nd Amendment Rights.
The death penalty Deters crime and saves lives

As I am the last speaker I will make this last round a summation focusing on two main points of clash: deterrence and saving lives as the motion of the debate would suggest. In the first round Pro made the case that it deters crime because humans fear nothing more than death. I agree that death is a capital fear but I pointed out that there are crimes that cannot be deterred simply due to the nature of the crime that Pro did not handle properly. Murder is a human act, as long as there are humans there will be murders nothing not even our fear of death can deter that. Also dealt with in the first round was the mechanistic problems such as accuracy. Pro made the case and later extended it that with advances in technology we are now able to handle evidence to such a high degree that the problem of an innocent death is no longer an issue. However I sought to disagree with many example of how a jury can be subjective and biased however hard we try to stop it. I also brought up the point later that we still make mistakes even with our modern technology and where there is still a chance for a mistake to be made it is too much of a possibility to let one happen. On the second point of clash Pro brought in an argument based simply on a study which suggested that every time the death penalty is used an average of 3-18 deaths are prevented I believe it was. This I regret to say I did not handle as well as I wished however I stand by judgment that one innocent life is too many to lose and as a brought in, perhaps too late however it is still a valid argument not properly dealt with by Pro, that we can save far more lives by identifying the root of many of the violent crimes that may be more affected by a deterrence than those that I had pointed out earlier. Gang violence is a very dangerous but prominent part of society and it tends to go hand in hand with violent crime. Using this example we can show that there are many other important factor in these crimes that were simply overlooked. Unfortunately the majority of many government policies tend to attempt to solve a problem but either scrape the tip of the iceberg or add to the problem and the death penalty does both in this case. The phrase Pro used was "all you have to do is not join a gang" this may be considered easier said than done to put it lightly. Just to add to this point, Pro's next piece of rebuttal demonstrates a lack of due thought for the complexities of a murder. There is hardly ever a time where there is a simple thought process that is simply deterred by our natural fear of death. For these reasons this motion should be opposed. Thank you.
The death penalty Deters crime and saves lives

Since my opponent thinks the debate is finished I will make this short. In the first few rounds I have shown why this is not going to work as a deterrence therefore I will strengthen my case for why this is not going to save lives. Say the police eventually manage to catch and convict a killer and the killer is sentenced to death. The sentence is carried out and what we have is one dead murderer and one or more dead victim(s). That is still a lot of dead people. Since there are still humans alive on earth there will be another person out there that commits a murder or is highly likely to. You give him the death penalty and we have more dead people. What if we give police more specialised training, better equipment and more resources? We know that a better police force stops more crimes and catches more killers usually quicker. This means that there are less victims if it is to be a multiple murder. This saves lives. What would save even more lives is if we do not kill the killers. What we need to remember is that many many people are forced into crime and fall in a downward spiral outwit the reach of any service that can help them before it gets to the point that they are forced to kill. My opponent says that there is no greater fear than death. That is not necessarily true. Gang crime is a good example Many young men and women are forced to gangs as a way of surviving because they are living in such poor conditions. When someone like a gang leader has you and those that you love in the palm of their hand most people subject to their will. What we see is that people have a desire to live but they also have the ability to love. Most people put in a situation where their loved ones are seriously at risk and someone is offering you a way to save them but it means you may have to give up your life most people will do that. What I am suggesting is that we deal with the social problems and gang crimes better it means that less people are likely to be forced down a life of crime preventing murders and many other violent crimes related to poverty and gangs which saves lives and shows that the state will not give up on any of its citizens, showing that their is another way that is possible, showing that we understand and want to help. This is more of a deterrence to crime because humans love. It is this emotion that keeps us string and it is these bonds that will help make a better society if the state steps up and provides the path needed for more to escape from lives of poverty and crime.
Samsung Galaxy S4 is better than the Iphone 5s

Thank you for accepting my debate, I would like to state my reasons that I will be bringing up in this argument. The Galaxy S4 performs better than the IPhone 5s: The Galaxy S4 and the IPhone 5s both use a A7 chip, that is manufactured by Samsung, but as many may know they have totally different operating systems. Samsung uses the 4.4 KitKat operating system while the IPhone 5s uses IOS 7. Although the public reaction was not very good for the new IOS version. The 4.4 KitKat version allows many more shortcuts to apps and other services. Samsung products, especially their phones are made to multi task. On the s4 you can text while watching a video, look up something while talking to someone on the phone, and many more other things that can be "mixed and matched" The IPhone doesn't have this great ability though. It may be able to run applications in the background, but it can not run two, on one screen, at one time, and multitasking is one of the biggest things that people look at when wanting to get a gaming system, TV, and of course, a phone. The Galaxy S4 meets consumer needs: Many people think that bigger is better, so what did Samsung do? they made a phone with a perfectly sized screen with a length of 136.6 mm (5.38 in), a width of 69.8 mm (2.75 in), and a thickness of 7.9 mm (0.31 in). while the IPhone has stayed almost exactly the same with a 4 in. (10 cm.) screen which is very visible of how small it is compared to the S4. Freedom of use and download: There are more apps and downloading freedom on the Galaxy mainly because it is an android, and if you understand code, you would know that writing code for an app it would be easier to write on the android system than the IOS system. Although the IOS system is harder to hack many people end up jail breaking their IPhones/IPods anyways so that claim is not very valid when talking about Mobile Devices. I would like to see your claim on why you think that the IPhone 5s is better than the Galaxy S4, KUBRICK.
Turtles are better than koalas.

I accept, and I disagree with the statement that turtles are better than koalas. There are several reasons to this claim.First, koalas are marsupials. Only incredibly cool animals hold their young in their pouches; turtles simply abandon their young and let them perish on their quest to the ocean. Second, koalas have developed a strong taste for eucalyptus leaves, something that the majority of animals cannot consume. This in itself is enough to show that koalas are better than turtles. Finally, koalas are able to climb trees. Literally climb trees. Turtles can barely crawl across the ground. Trees > Ground, therefore koalas are better than turtles. I would have expanded on this debate, but the time limit was only 10 minutes...Also, here are a few sources, so I should get points for sources. Arguments may go to me, depending on who you think had better arguments.I would also state that my opponent misspelled "enough" and instead resorted to spelling "nuff." This should give me spelling and grammar points.Thanks for reading, and vote con!Sources:http://www.animalfactguide.com...http://animals.nationalgeographic.com...
The quality of the Halo video game series began to fall after Halo 3: ODST

i definitely agree that the first halo games were unimaginably good but halo three offered a new campaign and (from campaign) The Co-Op Campaign mode is great fun. It makes the usually average campaign a lot more playable. Other than the drop-in/out issue I think it is the best thing about the game. the campaign is nice and short so you can complete it fast and still get the full spectrum of the halo games
The quality of the Halo video game series began to fall after Halo 3: ODST

For this round, I will be focusing on the campaign, and would prefer my opponent do the same. In the original Halo game, players were introduced to a knew world with unimaginable scenery, interesting characters, and an amazing plot line. In Halo 2, the story continues, delving deeper into the religion of the Covenant, and their intentions. Players were also able to play as a Covenant elite, which supplied an inside perspective of the Covenants desires. In Halo 3, the story continued in a more detailed and exciting way. Halo 3: ODST, though not a part of the main plot line of the original trilogy, complimented the games perfectly. However, as we progress further, Halo Wars gained a lot of infamy due to its difference in game play, converting from a first-person shooter to a strategy game. Halo Reach, though covering an interesting topic in the Halo universe, seemed to be too different from the original three in terms of composition and game play. Halo 4 added many things that many deemed unnecessary or even unwanted. These include the Spartan IV's, which many argued took away Master Chief's role as 'the last Spartan', which was stressed in earlier games.
Drug testing in Government aid

I believe that mandatory drug testing for government may seem like a good idea on the surface to some, but in reality, it is degrading. If you are from a poverty-stricken family, would you like for the government to assume that you are a junkie? I do know the damage that is done by some drugs, as a person in my family has had a drug problem, but it is degrading for the government to assume a bad intent for applying for government aid. Furthermore, you have not defined what government aid is. Could this include Pell grants? Should someone who is pursuing secondary education, someone who is clearly interested in securing a place in the middle or upper class, be automatically assumed to be nothing but a lowlife drug addict? I also would argue that drug tests would be redundant in some cases. Most government aid programs have a secondary education or work requirement. Almost every job requires a drug test. Secondary education doesn't need one - how would a junkie be able to afford their books, let alone tuition, if they spend all of their money on drugs? If they have that much money, then it is likely that they have enough that they do not need government aid.
Dubstep is music

The definition of music does not depend on vocals. Beethoven's 5th, Mozart's Nightmusic, the Star Wars theme, the Charlie Brown theme, and even Elevator music can be considered music. There is, however, a distinction between a piece of music and a song. A piece is a track that has no lyrics, and a song is a track that DOES. You Play a Piece (P), and you Sing a Song (S). Both pieces and songs are considered music. Remember, the definition of a musical instrument is arbitrary. The cowbell originated as a tool used to keep track of cattle (similar to the dog tag). The drum started out as a block of wood used for communication. The trumpet originated as a mating call. You can learn these things at a basic music class in Elementary. People actually made fun of the electric guitar. They said it was a toy, just a broomstick with guitar strings, until Les Paul came in and perfected it. www.theguardian.com/music/2008/jul/24/popandrock They don't use Microsoft Word to make dubstep. They use special applications that are technically musical instruments by definition. If Dubstep is just "pressing buttons", then Rock is just "Pressing down strings while plucking them with a triangle, and feeding the signal through a distortion box to make it louder." BTW I play the guitar, and I can tell you that it is actually harder to make electronic music (at least to sound good) than play the guitar. Skrillex didn't just hit play and stop. He constructed a piece on his computer. And with special equipment, it IS possible to perform dubstep live. Music: The arrangement of sound in a rhythmic, often harmonious, pattern Instrument: A device used to make music (Since the computer is being used to produce arranged sound, it is a musical instrument.) Piece: A musical track that is instrumental Song: A musical track that is sung Sure, almost everyone owns a computer, speakers, and a basic recording program (the very minimum for producing Dubstep). But even more people own a mouth, a set of vocal cords, and at least a harmonica, the minimum requirements for Country music. Plus, any idiot can buy a guitar, an amp, and a distortion (the minimum requirements for rock). But that doesn't make you a dubstep producer, a country star, or a rock star. You need one additional thing: musicality. A similar argument: "Harry Potter wasn't a real book because it was typed on a computer. A computer is not a writing instrument. A writing instrument is a pencil or a pen. You do not use your heart of you are too lazy to hand-write your book. Real books have at least 1 method of writing, all of which are done by hand. Real books are Shakespeare, and even Plato since they used their hand to form letters. JK ROWLING: I made millions, by pressing letters on a keyboard."
Dubstep is music

Dubstep is not real music. http://thebottomoftheinternet.com... This site tells you that Dubstep is not real because, It is made with a computer. A computer is a not a musical instrument. Also, most Dubstep does not have vocals. Real music is considered to have at least two musical instruments involved, including a microphone. Real genres of music would be Metal (all kinds), Rock, Alternative, Country, and even Rap and Hip Hop. and so forth. I really don't have time.. sorry i'll post longer ones next round..
We should allow gay marriage and equal benefits to them.

Thanks to my opponent for this debate :) In order for me to properly answer, you'll have to clarify exactly what you mean by "marriage". I'm going to assume you are referring to the Christian form of marriage, holy matrimony, etc. I choose Christianity not because of any form of discrimination on my part, but merely because I am most familiar with it. Ironically, the eighth of your points shall be the basis of my argument: 08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. (False we as America have many religions, and as our right we have freedom of religion... and freedom FROM religion) Obviously, I don't agree with the whole statement, and it is presumably (hopefully) intended as a joke. However, the Bible states that any man having sexual relations with another man should be put to death. I would assume that this extends to women doing the same. Many (note, I didn't say most) Christians still take this as God's word, although they generally don't go as far as to kill homosexuals. Faced with a religion that, in theory at least, abhors their sexuality so, why would anybody want a marriage endorsed by this Church? It makes no sense. Why would they even wish to be recognised as a couple by a religion that objects to both their love and their way of life? To use a British example that you may not understand, this would be similar to immigrants wishing to join the BNP. In answer to your request that I explain why gay marriages are "bad" in the eyes of religion without referencing the Bible: no. The Bible is, in theory, God's word. The Bible is the basis of Christianity, and from it Christians all over the world learn of Christ and the Lord. The Ten Commandments are in there, Jesus' parables are in there, prophecies are in there... In short, it contains almost everything that one needs to be a faithful servant of the Lord. So if this book is against homosexuality, Christianity should be. Generally, this is increasingly untrue. "God's word" is being diluted. Such an outright contradiction as gay marriage should not occur. If we can ignore the parts we don't like, why shouldn't I covet my neighbour's wife? I could use "Thou shalt not kill", but I think there are examples and there are exaggerations. I think that going against the word of the Bible somewhat takes away from the validity of the religion. You shouldn't pick and choose which parts you like. To be in a homosexual relationship is, by the Bible, to live in sin. Thus, same-sex marriage can even be called blasphemy. What I think is that civil unions should be given the same benefits, financially and otherwise, as marriages. This would be fair, and it doesn't violate any principles. Perhaps marriage should be done away with altogether, and civil unions instituted for gays, straights, lesbians, and everyone else. I also think it somewhat poor form that, as your initial statement, you refuted a series of what appear to be jokes. http://misslink.org...
The Bible is right.

Thanks for the debate! Definitions: The Bible: "the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments" (Random House Dictionary). I agree to my opponent's definition of "right." I will mostly be arguing that the Bible does not always advocate things that are "in accordance with what is good and proper," such as stoning disobedient children, and that the Bible is not "in conformity with fact." As long as I can prove that there is one immoral advocacy or one single incorrect fact in the Bible, I win. I now open the floor to pro, although since he has to disprove every objection I bring up, it might have made more sense to let me start arguing in Round 1. I look forward to the debate.