BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ladainian Tomlinson is the Best RB in the Game today

-he has at least 1,000 yards rushing in every season in the nfl of his career -he has had at least 10 TDs in all his seasons and the all time record 28 TDs -he has had 50 catches in every year and he has thrown 7 passing Tds his entire career. -he is a great back because not only his stats r good he is a great roll model and leader and a great pass blocker
OOXML should not be approved as an ISO standard.

"Yes, yes. With no defined tags, each user must use a a custom or pre-existing DTD or XML Schema to be able to validate their document. The DTD or Schema can have any tags and attributes the author chooses. An XML document can be styled in a web browser with a CSS or XSL stylesheet. It can also be displayed by any program that is designed to support the XML markup. (As it happens, I'm currently working on my own XML format for book collections.) We know what it is." Huh? Ok i guess that all means i am right. ~~~ "Microsoft only bribed Sweden, but they placed representatives in the standards body of Denmark to influence their international vote, and blocked Norway's ability to vote "No" using a loophole in their rules. [http://www.betanews.com......]. They also (in violation of ISO rules) had several representatives (of Microsoft) at the ISO vote, one of whom voted multiple times [http://www.os2world.com......]. " Well, as I read, when the vote fails the first time, the ISO allows private open talks between countries and corporations. http://www.ecma-international.org... So what ever happens in those talks is legit. Furthermore, your sources only say that any of those manipulation schemes are possible. There is no proof. So you are drawing blank conclusions. PEOPLE DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THIS. He is simply playing off of conspiracy theories. "There are also a higher number than usual of countries attempting to get "P" (privileged (voting)) status in the ISO, and this is believed to be due to Microsoft's influence. Even just with the vote tampering attempts, OOXML should not be given a second vote, and should not be approved as a standard." Once again, all completely legit. You have not PROVED anything wrong with re-voting. And since you ignored my point that a true winner should be able to hold a re-vote proves that there is nothing wrong with a second vote. So your only argument now is that it is bad. You state that it does not make any sense. Lets look at two other standard systems. Inch Foot Yard Mile or Millimeter Centimeter Meter Kilometer One makes a lot of sense, one is nonsensical. But we still use it. So I don't believe some confusing language to a NOT bigwig nerd should fail something. You state that there are problems that Microsoft had announced. This is good. Why? So they can fix it. You can't fix something if you don't know what's broke. Any finally, like I said and was ignored, something has to be good about OOXML. I don't know what. I never heard of it before now. But there must be some reasons why about half of the people voted for it and only a quarter voted against it.
OOXML should not be approved as an ISO standard.

(XML: a general-purpose markup language. Its primary purpose is to facilitate the sharing of structured data across different information systems, particularly via the Internet) Yes, yes. With no defined tags, each user must use a a custom or pre-existing DTD or XML Schema to be able to validate their document. The DTD or Schema can have any tags and attributes the author chooses. An XML document can be styled in a web browser with a CSS or XSL stylesheet. It can also be displayed by any program that is designed to support the XML markup. (As it happens, I'm currently working on my own XML format for book collections.) We know what it is. (ISO: international standard-setting body composed of representatives from various national standards organizations.) Correct. The International Organization for Standardization approves submitted proposals as standard and gives them a number. We agree on that as well. ~~~ While looking for sources for the claim of bribery, I found that I was indeed confusing several issues. Microsoft only bribed Sweden, but they placed representatives in the standards body of Denmark to influence their international vote, and blocked Norway's ability to vote "No" using a loophole in their rules. [http://www.betanews.com...]. They also (in violation of ISO rules) had several representatives (of Microsoft) at the ISO vote, one of whom voted multiple times [http://www.os2world.com...]. There are also a higher number than usual of countries attempting to get "P" (privileged (voting)) status in the ISO, and this is believed to be due to Microsoft's influence. Even just with the vote tampering attempts, OOXML should not be given a second vote, and should not be approved as a standard. However, there are also several problems with the standard itself. There are the already-mentioned problems with "autoSpaceLikeWord95", as well as ""useWord97LineBreakRules", "useWord2002TableStyleRules", "lineWrapLikeWord6", and "suppressTopSpacingWP". It also uses a paper size format of numbering sizes 1-68, rather than using size names. It also uses non-standard formats for time, language codes, and colour codes. Although these would become "standard" if it were approved, it runs afoul of already-existing standards. It also has several partially-defined styles, such as "apples", "scaredCat", and "heebieJeebies". There are also problems, though easier to fix, with the writing of the standard. Over 10% of the WordProcessingML examples do not validate against the Schema, which means that they do not serve as valid examples of the language. It also shows that the standard was not thoroughly edited. There are also errors in the spreadsheet formula specification, which Microsoft has admitted to. There are also several instances of use of the Windows path format, rather than the platform-independent URI format. Furthermore, some attributes are undefined, or defined only with an example. For these reasons, it seems that an already-existing format, OpenDocument, is best to use, and that OOXML should not be a standard.
OOXML should not be approved as an ISO standard.

To start, I just took this debate because I knew nobody ever would. Let me define some things for people XML: a general-purpose markup language. Its primary purpose is to facilitate the sharing of structured data across different information systems, particularly via the Internet Microsoft's XML is for electronic documents such as spreadsheets, charts, presentations and word processing documents (yes all i did was copy and paste wikipedia :) ISO: international standard-setting body composed of representatives from various national standards organizations. so what we are debating is if a certain computer-sharing language should or should not be approved by a world standards organization. This makes it easier for everyone to understand. So this is what my opponent said about OOXML should not be in ISO standards. 1. Standardization process 2. Not the best So to everyone who is not maxh, this is what happened in simple english. OOXML was submitted. It needed 2/3 acceptance with only 1/4 negative votes. It had over 1/2 acceptance and 26% negative votes. So it juuuuuust missed. it did make majority though. So the next step was Microsoft could go to the countries and legally talk to them about how they could get their votes by making amendments in OOXML. Nothing wrong so far. Where is your proof they bribed countries? If the countries re-vote then that's fine. You state that their should be no re-vote. Why? What if amendments are made? Think of it this way. Hillary Clinton is elected democratic nominee by a margin of 51 to 49 percent. then Barrack Obama calls for a re-vote. Should he be rejected? What if Clinton, I know she would, had slipped in votes and actually lost 25 to 75! I know this is a made up situation but Maxh gives support to Obama. You claim their is a superior thingy already. You are the only one who knows that! sooooo, obviously there must be some things good about OOXML if over half of the ISO members voted for it and only 26% voted against it. So I don't know why it is good, but apparently some bigwig nerds know. And you don't seem like a bigwig nerd. So I assume the ISO members know more than you. They see good in it. Why can't you.
OOXML should not be approved as an ISO standard.

Microsoft's Office Open XML format should not be approved as an ISO standard. Microsoft bribed several voting countries to vote "yes", and as such the format should not be voted upon again, and simply denied being a standard. There is also already a superior standard previously approved, Open Document Format. It is superior because the format is more self-explainatory. For example, it does not have such formatting as "autoSpaceLikeWord95" without explaination of what doing so consists of.
OOXML should not be approved as an ISO standard.

You argument here is that Microsoft bribed Sweden, and the attempt to bribe should stop a second voting process. Why this does not matter: The bribery was never actually money, but "market benefits and increased access to Microsoft resources". The discovered email never had money sent to Sweden or a money guarantee. It basically promised more Microsoft product usage (which makes sense sense OOXML is from Microsoft and would allow more usage of Microsoft products) and market benefits (which could simply mean cheaper costs of implementing OOXML, which in bulk, is what most companies do with products). So there is no CLEAR evidence of bribery in the manner of which you make it out to be. No I do not source from ISO because their website is mostly for products and do not post rules. But Ecma is currently working with ISO, if you read by source, in the OOXML voting process, so it is a legitimate source. ~~~ Like I said, i'm not sure what OOXML's new standards are, but on reading about it, It looked to me as if they were simply trying to improve upon the current standard by being more efficient and compatible with current Microsoft products. Please explain your last comment "Based on Microsoft's past actions, it is at best a mistake, and at worst (and most likely) a deliberate attempt to make OOXML difficult to implement." I don't see what this has to so with the debate. ~~~ If ODF was approved by ISO, and ISO does not specialize in this field, how do we know ODF is a good standard. Over half of the countries think OOXML is better than okay but so good it should replace ODF. If ISO members do not understand what they are doing, than the ISO is at fault, not OOXML. ~~~ I am debating on this because I knew no one else would.
OOXML should not be approved as an ISO standard.

Sorry for missing last round (grumbling about end of term skipped) ~~~ Although it is possible that not all of the happenings are not permitted, bribes are certainly not allowed, and that Sweden was bribed is a certainty (although they did, rightly, abstain from voting, the fact that there was an attempt at bribery should preclude OOXML from becoming standard). Furthermore, the link you provided is from Ecma International. Do you have a link from ISO? ~~~ Your comparison of the numbered paper size system and the standard paper size system with metric and imperial units is faulty. We use imperial units because we do not want the trouble of converting to metric. We already have standard paper sizes, and new standards should build on any applicable pre-existing standards, unless they intend to entirely replace the old standard for something better. This is not that. Based on Microsoft's past actions, it is at best a mistake, and at worst (and most likely) a deliberate attempt to make OOXML difficult to implement. ~~~ Your claim that ISO members are "bigwig nerds" is erroneous. The ISO works in many fields, so they do not all know enough about computers to know about file formats and Microsoft's past actions. Although I have no doubt that ISO members are quite good at what they do, they may not understand fully what OOXML is. Again, ODF was already approved by the ISO, so OOXML should have more justification for being approved than simply "it works okay". ~~~ Also, you admit to never having heard of OOXML before. Why are you debating on something you've never heard of before? Although OOXML seems perfectly good at an immediate look, having been watching the event almost since the beginning, I can say that OOXML should not be approved.
Firearm bans are unconstitutional and not effective.

Since my opponent isn't responding I'll make this as short as possible, Firearms have been banned before, like the assault weapons ban, making the banning of certain firearms legal, and constitutional. Just to clear it up, I'm am not arguing in favor of bans on all firearms, I'm arguing in favor of bans on certain firearms (which by the way is constitutional). To answer the second part of the statement, firearm bans have been proven effective. Just take a look at our neighbors around us (like Canada). If that's not good enough look at New York city, some of the strictest firearm laws in the nation, lowest crime rate of any major U.S. city. The proof is all around, and it can't be denied. My opponent has failed to prove that guns are effective, or constitutional. Two of the 5 rounds he hasn't even responded. I have presented many statistics proving my point, and my opponent hasn't been able to refute any of those numbers. I think it is pretty clear who has the better argument.
Firearm bans are unconstitutional and not effective.

I'll make this part short as possible. How are gun bans constitutional? By that, we aren't using a quote from a politician who drafted the Declaration of Independence as our Nation's guiding document. We have the Constitution for that. The founding fathers also drank quite heavily. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (A liberal source for your fancy) The Constitution EXISTS. When something goes against it, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That's the point of this argument, not what Thomas Jefferson said after a bottle of port. As for your Piers Morgan, I have a counter-statistic in video format, both enjoyable and factual for you and readers of this debate. http://youtu.be... So, it seems you are concerned with GUN CRIMES specifically? Why? Is it the horror of a number of people being killed in a very rare instance which could just as easily have resulted from a bomb? Or, is it prejudice against guns because they are the choice of both law abiding citizens, as well as cowards who use them for suicide and homicide? A gun IS easier but restricting them or BANNING them will only increase your other crimes (bombings, such as we saw in the 1990's, stabbings and other crimes of which we already see much.) So, I feel I have shown that firearm bans are both UNCONSTITUTIONAL and INEFFECTIVE. Now, I will side with you on the machine guns. I happen to work at a store that legally deals in the 250,000 or so remaining transferable ones in the US. It's just way too expensive to run through all that ammo at the range! Also, wondering, if you're just arguing for guns to be banned to prevent crime, how does this help you? " Japan is currently ranked 4th in total crime in the world. So they are not as moral as you would like to think. However, in gun crime rates, Japan is ranked 20th in the world. " Sounds like crime is crime. Pretty amazing they have any gun crime at all, when you consider the amount of OCEAN surrounding them. Perhaps banning semi-automatic guns will reduce mass-shootings in the United States. Of course, that would be a massive undertaking that would result in civil war, so I'm content that it won't happen. However, when you take away the guns from LAC (Law Abiding Citizens from now on) then you do NOTHING to stop killers, unless the killer happens to be the mentally challenged son of an irresponsible gun owning teacher...but I guess it was the fault of the guns that Adam Lanza's mother was an idiot who allowed him to gain possession of 2 HANDGUNS as well as the rifle. In summary, you have not shown how firearm bans are CONSTITUTIONAL, nor EFFECTIVE (effective is broadly stated here, but you like to use words however you see fit, so take it as you want.)
Firearm bans are unconstitutional and not effective.

It is true, that the Second Amendment does say "shall not be infringed", but there is no denying that there are restrictions, and there have been restrictions on weapons before. Last time I checked you can't walk into a gun store, and purchase a missile launcher. So it is true you can only have guns under a certain level of fire power. Also, Thomas Jefferson was quoted saying ""Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.". The constitution was constructed specifically to be changed, or else citizens would still be allowed to own slaves. Saying that Chicago and D.C. have high gun rates, and strong gun laws, is only telling part of the story. If you look at the states around Chicago and D.C., they happen to have some of the loosest gun laws in the United States, it is too easy to smuggle in guns from around those states. Regarding Piers Morgan, the statistics I showed you are 100% real, you can fact check them. Never once in our debate have I seen you introduce actual statistics. Also, if you look back on my first argument, never did I state that gun laws will reduce VIOLENT crime rates, what I did say though is that they will reduce GUN crime rates, which is a step in the right direction. You can cite Japan culture all you want, but I have actual proof that people in Japan are just as likely to comit a crime. Japan is currently ranked 4th in total crime in the world. So they are not as moral as you would like to think. However, in gun crime rates, Japan is ranked 20th in the world. The United States has only 3 times more crime than Japan, but when it comes to gun crime rates the United States has 198 times more gun crime. Also, in your argument you say that psychopaths go on stabbing rampages in China, but what you fail to recognize is that if those psychopaths had guns they could do a lot more damage. Think about it, would you rather confront a crazy with a knife, or a crazy with a semi-automatic weapon? I think the answer is pretty clear. Also, please think long and hard about when you compare El Salvador with the United States. El Salvador is a crime ridden country, run by gangsters, and thugs. I don't know how you could possibly argue that comparing the U.S. to El Salvador is more reasonable that comparing the U.S. to Britain. In addition, there is no reason a home owner cannot defend their home with a simple handgun, or an individual who enjoys shooting sports can't go to a range to practice their sport. Nobody is going to need 70 rounds of bullets to protect their home from intruders, and shooting sports are not a good enough of a reason to justify the need for semi-automatics. Furthermore, there have been 7 mass shootings in the United States in 2012 alone, there is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed. I never once stated that we should ignore mental health, and proper background checks. What I am saying though is that the banning of semi-automatic weapons is a step forward in solving the problem of mass shootings in the United States.
Firearm bans are unconstitutional and not effective.

Sorry, been incredibly busy selling a lot of firearms. I think you meant "proven" and not "proved." Anyway, just because something has been done doesn't make it constitutional. The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed." not "you can have guns under this level of fire power." So gun control is effective? Check Chicago and D.C. both with strong gun laws and high gun crime rates. Then, you quote Piers Morgan, who is an idiot and has skewed statistics. Though he is right that full-on gun bans will reduce gun crime, you should note that it does nothing to change violent crime rates. If you're going to cite Japan, well, I guess you've never been to Asia. In Asian cultures, there exists a homogeneous population which takes out the variables we have in the US. Like-minded for the most part in places like Korea and Japan, with a strong system of honor tied to morality (opposite of the gang bangers and thugs complacent parenting causes.) Then there's China. I guess you don't hear about how psychopaths go on stabbing rampages in China because their incredibly controlling government restricts guns (it's the psychos not the guns.) Let's go further into that. China is essentially a totalitarian government just recently accepting capitalistic practices. Japan is an island, making total firearm restriction possible, and essentially the same for Korea. Now, when governments do allow gun ownership but restrict it more severely...criminals just get illegal guns anyway. Take El Salvador, highest gun death rate in the world...and more restrictive gun ownership laws than the USA. http://www.gunpolicy.org... I'd further like to mention a full-on gun ban in the USA, a country founded with the help of privately owned firearms, would likely be impossible anyway (you'd never find the majority) and semi-automatic firearms have plenty of uses in the USA. Just because you don't enjoy the many different shooting sports and ability to defend your home from dangerous, law-ignoring criminals, doesn't make it ok for you to disarm me or anyone who does. Ever hear of fascism? Perhaps focusing on mental health and proper background checks, instead of blaming the massive community of responsible gun owners would actually work. Anyway, might not respond for a while, work is busy as can be!
Firearm bans are unconstitutional and not effective.

Firearm bans are constitutional and yes they are effective. First most fully-automatic weapons are already banned for United States citizens, so the banning of firearms has already been proved constitutional. Secondly firearm bans have already been proved effective in the world. As reported by Piers Morgan of CNN, Britain, who has strict firearm laws, in 2012 reported that the total number of deaths by cause of a firearm was 33. In 2008, Japan, who has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, reported 11 total firearm homicides for the year. In the United States the total number of deaths reported by cause of a firearm in 2012 was some 11,000. That is a horrifically larger number. So proved by other nations around the world firearm bans are completely effective. I'm sure Texas has seen less violence than other states regarding firearms in "gun free" zones, but not as much violence reduction as is possible. Instead of worrying about putting more armed officers in schools to confront psychos, why not make it harder for those psychos to get the guns in the first place. Would you rather there be a gun fight in a school, or would you rather there be no armed psycho near the school at all? Regarding AR-15s, when modified, semi-automatic rifles can behave exactly like fully-automatic firearms. The weapon used in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting was a modified AR-15 that unleashed multiple rounds into an unsuspecting crowd. It would be too bad that some Texans would have to give up hog hunting with semi-automatics in order to save some lives, but in a democracy there has to be sacrifice. Also, forks have a useful role in the United States, semi-automatic firearms do not. 1. http://www.gunpolicy.org...