BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Team jacob: In both of their entirety's the wolfs are better than the vampires

Wow i'm impressed i'm still relativity new to this website. but i will try to give it my all. thank you for excepting my argument 1 looks- well that may be true. but the wolfs can just throw on some nice cloths and look just as refined. since vampires are mystical as you can see by there various powers, i find the aphrodisiac appeal not a fair tactic in this. the same way the Greek goddess of love would make any man bow to her feet because she is mystical. not comparing gods to vamps here but just saying 2 the sparkles- lol im part of the scoffed group. also vampires are cold while werewolfs are warm. on a nice cold winters day u wouldnt wanna cuddle with a vampire. 3 the size- lmao XD well i have not seen breaking dawn part 2 yet so i should have waited a while. and that is also kind of unfair because anyone can be a vampire. werewolfs has to be passed down. similar to a saiyan. that gives it a more unique and traditional flavor to them. and even though there are less of them they still can do damage. as u can see the vampires dont take them lightly 4- who would win. and besides the new born thing which is only a special condition for the fight. the wolfs as i said before would be a problem. imagine a regular human trying to fight a wolf. it would be extremely difficult. but not impossible because wolfs are relativity small. now since they are basically even in physical strength. the wolfs also have a size advantage. i am a wrestler and we face people our own weight and sometimes strength. in my case i was a lot bigger then my opponents because i was mostly muscle. my size advantage benefited my greatly. kinda somewhat same situation here. also the wolfs where now taught how to fight vampires so that helps lol 5. life Span- werewolf's can die peacefully and not have to move from place to place and change their identity also they can pass there legacy to there children. that is somewhat better 6-Detection- detected by who? and in any case if they are detected then they will have no problem fighting then it would go back to #4 7-Ability's - once again vampires have powers to do that kinda thing so.... hmm well ok u still make a good point. but in the trailer i have seen- Edward throws Jacob at a wall. im pretty sure Jacob is gonna eat that. hmmmmm well i think im losing but personally warm tanned fast healing athletic social werewolfs are better. thats one point right there they are social and good companions. due to there wolf like traits and will protect you no matter what
john the baptist

I was going to post a more through refutation of my opponent's case, and then I noticed that it is self-refuting.First he says: "ritual of purification to be done after any activity that would be considered to make one unclean"Then he says: "repentance of sins"Both are cited as definitions of mikvah. Now, what activities make one ritually unclean - sinful acts or righteous acts? Of course it is the sinful acts. Now what is repentance? Repentance is an action - one must "repent." A series of acts is called a "ritual." Removing sinful acts through the means of a ritual is called "purification."Therefore it follows that the two statements are logically equivalent. It is only different words expressing the same idea. My opponent's argument fails because he admits the Jews repent their sins.The bible does not say the ritual cleansing was ATONING for sins. Atoning is something different from repenting - repenting is acknowledging the sin, atoning is putting it right. John did not do atoning, he did mikvah, repenting. His call was "Repent!" not "Atone!" My opponent gives no analysis that John preached atonement through baptism.And so, ladies and gentlemen, the moot must fall.
john the baptist

ah yes mikvah, the jewish ritual of purification to be done after any activity that would be considered to make one unclean, for instance the emission of semen, abnormal bodily fluids, menstruation ect. ect. I feel the best argument for this is to quote the bible its self. mark 1:4 says "john the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance of sins. And there went out to him all the country judea and all the people of jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river jordan, confessing their sins." The jewish people did not use mikvah to atone for sins so to believe that all of judea and all of jerusalem came out to an upstart to participate in a foreign practice is naive.
john the baptist

First, the Gospel of Mark was probably written 40 years after the "fact." Some evidence exists that the Q source for Matthew and Luke was in circulation 25 years after. These were both in turn based on fragments - some written, some oral - which went even further back. That was well within the living memory of his followers. So far as we know, not one person doubted one element of the narrative.As to baptism, John practiced the ancient Jewish tradition of Mikvah. The word used in the original Hebrew for "baptism" is Mikvah.I look forward to hearing what my learned opponent brings up next.Sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
john the baptist

I think my opponents first point is a great place to start this debate. I agree the story is documented in the bible,however most scholars believe that the earliest recordings of the new testament were not written until 90 years after the "fact". How could one record any event accurately after 90 years, especially in those times? I feel my answer to point one effectively covers point two so i will now tackle #three and four together as well. My opponent states that there is no written historical material or archeological evidence that contradicts the narrative. The fact of the matter however is that there exists numerous accounts of the religions in that area at that time and they say Judaism and the pagan cult of mithra were the dominant religions of that time. The jews do not baptize nor does the religion of mithraism, so the question presents it self, what was john baptizing people in to? Christianity did not yet exist so i really doubt people would flock to the river to be baptized by some bug eating anarchist.
john the baptist

I will argue that the story is not a complete fabrication, and is likely to be true. The story: That a man named John the Baptist went around the desert living simply and baptizing people into his religious ministry. He rebuked the established religious order who supported Roman authority, but baptized them anyway. He rebuked a preacher named Jesus, probably because he saw his ministry as a rival one, but baptized him anyway. He then changed his mind and accepted Jesus, citing a message from God. Finally King Herod got pissed off at him and had him executed. This was because his wife saw the dangers of a widespread desert cult that criticised state authority, and their marriage. He was beheaded. Here is my evidence: 1. That the story is documented in the Bible, written shortly after the event happened. 2. There are extra-biblical sources, Christian and non-Christian, confirming almost all of the elements of the story. 3. There is no written historical material that contradicts the narrative. 4. There is no archeological evidence that contradicts the narrative. I can provide further detail on the above if that's what you want. I look forward to my opponent's reply.
Resolved: Hurricane Katrina was an inside Job

Pro tries To list a scenario where apples don't necessarily go down, but he only listed one so this is cherry-picking. To find out what direction apples really go in, order one from a vending machine, although I warn you it's a waste of 20p. Katrina and Louisiana? They sound like perfectly innocent hard-working people to me. Bench must just have a dirty mind.About GWL-CPA, I agree not all his ideas are 100% correct or true, but overall he's a pretty intellectual guy. Just look at his debating streak!Summary: brother nature couldn't have done it because he isn't actually real! Haha! I tricked bench! I am a convincing liar, aren't I?Thank you.
Resolved: Hurricane Katrina was an inside Job

"Bench thinks that apple are the ones that are behind this, but I know they can't be because as Isaac Newton found out, the direction apples go in is down, not swirling round or side to side."Clearly you've never thrown an Apple into the Washing Machine in someone elses house and set it to max spin cycle....."Apple couldn't have convinced brother nature to do such an awful thing either, because as Isaac Newton found out, apples are a real pain because they fall onto your head and it hurts."Of COURSE Apple couldve convinced Brother Nature to send a hurricane Katrina at Louisiana..... The phrase 'Bros before Hoes' mean anything to you? Katrina and Lousiana both sound like some dirty stinky hoes whereas we both know that Brother Nature and Apple are really close bros. "In fact, apple is so faulty that I only asked them to make my main arguments zoom by, and they did nothing at all! "Well of course Apple couldnt make your arguments flash by...... Apple products dont support flash!;D"When people say "abort the mission", what they really mean is "KingDebater has won this one"Thats about as logical as saying "Youre really smart" what they really mean is "GWL has some valid opinions and totally isnt an idiot"..... Which we know is something nobody would ever say EVER. "But pro is correct about comparing babies and abortion with the weekly stupid and DDO, the situation is the same. Some people disagree with it, but it's all a bit of fun really."Of course its fun! Hell me and the girls like to go out every saturday night and stay up all night getting abortions!IN CONCLUSION: There are many different motives that exist for why someone would launch a hurricane at New Orleans, the most probable of which appears to be that Apple convinced Brother Nature to send Katrina at Louisiana because of the 'Bros before Hoes' pact that exists between all close guy friends. I rest my case.
Resolved: Hurricane Katrina was an inside Job

Bench thinks that apple are the ones that are behind this, but I know they can't be because as Isaac Newton found out, the direction apples go in is down, not swirling round or side to side. This is also why apple weren't the ones behind the speed of my arguments.Apple couldn't have convinced brother nature to do such an awful thing either, because as Isaac Newton found out, apples are a real pain because they fall onto your head and it hurts. Nutrition? Pah! I don't believe any of that.In fact, apple is so faulty that I only asked them to make my main arguments zoom by, and they did nothing at all! That's apple's skill - 0. Either that, or they're just too busy to help a teenage boy make some unimportant text whizz by in his troll debate, but I believe the former. Gay Marriage Legalization? I think that here, pro is referring to the combined farts of 2 people, which if they could pull off such a whopper, would be massive.When people say "abort the mission", what they really mean is "KingDebater has won this one", so it looks like I'm right on this point.But pro is correct about comparing babies and abortion with the weekly stupid and DDO, the situation is the same. Some people disagree with it, but it's all a bit of fun really. Sources[1] A textbook from a University in another country that my opponent has no chance of being able to read and therefore not being able to refute me[2] A site that touches on the subject we're talking about[3] A 30-page essay that has nothing to do with what we're talking about[4] Wikipedia [5] The truth
Resolved: Hurricane Katrina was an inside Job

1) MotiveMy first contention was that there are dozens, perhaps HUNDREDS of motives for why someone would launch a hurricane at Louisiana, and con has only offered excuses against these motives such as 'You cant control the weather', and 'that doesnt make any sense!'But as ridiculous as (some) of the motives may be, the point stands that a lot of people served to gain a lot from a massive hurricane decimating Louisiana and the city of New Orleans. "Hurricane Andrew was like the Hurricane 1, Hurricane Sandy was the Hurricane 2 and Hurricane Katrina was the Hurricane 2s. They're sort of like iPhones in that like iPhones, everyone is affected by the latest slightly different model."Iphones? Con concedes that the company APPLE may be the one behind the inside job behind Hurricane Katrina, who attempted to decimate the area to try to build a new market of available ultra-low wage factory workers they could exploit for iphone production. "As for all the other Hurricanes and such, they were caused by Brother Nature, Mother Nature's pesky son who sometimes messes around with the controls to see what happens."And who do you think has the money to pay off Brother Nature to do such a horrible thing?Thats right: APPLEThey were also probably the ones who figured out how to make the text in your arguments zoom by so fast!2) Hurricane Katrina was a fart"Hurricane Katrina was clearly a fart since a) it destroyed everything in its path, b) it was very fast, and c) its destruction lasts for ages!"Destroying everything in its path, very fast, and destruction that lasts for ages? Youre not thinking of farts, youre thinking of Gay Marriage legalization. "The hurricane was only a week old before it died (1), so it couldn't have been an inside job. Babies don't think about that sort of thing, you see. "Sure they could, what do you think people mean when they say 'abort the mission' ? Babies and abortion go together like the Weekly Stupid and DDO!
Resolved: Hurricane Katrina was an inside Job

http://www.youtube.com... Who could have done it? Fox News? No, because they're still figuring out the gramatically correct version of their name. It's "New foxes". MSNBC? No, because scientifically speaking, "msnbc" isn't an anagram of "Hurricane", "Katrina", or even "disaster", so that's a complete no no. Somali Pirates? Don't be silly, bench! Everyone knows that pirates' time is completely taken up by spouting cute catchphrases, such as "yo ho ho!", "R!", and "shiver me timbers!". US Government? No, because they're too busy making sure that the memory-wiping technology doesn't wipe the minds of the people who made it. Bahamas? Bahamas? Bahamas? Are you serious? The bahamas is just a nice place for your holidays and nothing more. God? Nah, he's done too much for us recently. #Same4rationalmadman Whichever entity manufactured Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Andrew Bingo! Bench is on the money! The entity we're referring to if Mother Nature, who causes natural disasters because she's the nature woman, who is nearly half as good as David Attenborough. Hurricane Andrew was like the Hurricane 1, Hurricane Sandy was the Hurricane 2 and Hurricane Katrina was the Hurricane 2s. They're sort of like iPhones in that like iPhones, everyone is affected by the latest slightly different model. Mother Nature is pretty angry at the moment because there have been no female presidents as of yet. As for all the other Hurricanes and such, they were caused by Brother Nature, Mother Nature's pesky son who sometimes messes around with the controls to see what happens. 1) How can Hurricane Katrina be an inside job when Hurricanes always happen in the outside? This is an important point. Hurricanes are very much anti-inside and prove this by destroying buildings and stuff. So, Hurricane Katrina can't have been an inside job. 2) People can't fart farts that big Hurricane Katrina was clearly a fart since a) it destroyed everything in its path, b) it was very fast, and c) its destruction lasts for ages! 3) It was very young The hurricane was only a week old before it died (1), so it couldn't have been an inside job. Babies don't think about that sort of thing, you see. They're all innocent (apart from being guilty of being really annoying). 4) What a Character "Katrina" has the same amount of characters in it as "Natural". 5) The almighty proof This is quite similar to the fourth argument. "Disaster" and "Hurricane" are related to each other, but neither of those words is realted to "Massive Conspiracy/Hoax". This is like a hurricane, this text It is very fast and very windy and it is a natural disaster it must be quite fun to be in one Nee-oww!!!!! weee~!!!! Sources (1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: Hurricane Katrina was an inside Job

The Resolution is that Hurricane Katrina was an inside job I am pro this theory, con believes the idiotic theory that Hurricane Katrina was just an 'act of nature' and that the subsequent devastation to the state of Louisiana was a result of 'damage suffered from the hurricane'. .. .. .. First round acceptance only. 4 rounds, 4,000 characters For those of you who are complete idiots and couldnt figure it out yourself, this is a troll debate.
The Abortion Debate

Thank you Lordess_2 for being my interlocutor in this debate. I greatly appreciate any critiques you have to my arguments against abortion. In my opening statement I said I would defend two main contentions. 1. There are good arguments that a fetus is a person and therefore has the right to live. 2. There are no comparably good arguments that a fetus is not a person and/or is able to be justifiably killed via abortion. From what I could tell in your arguments posted in your opening statement, They have not attacked either of my two main contentions or any of my premises in any of my arguments. I am afraid your arguments are attacking a straw man. I have not asserted that abortion should not be legal in the United States and is not the topic of this debate. I am defending that Abortion is unethical. I have not heard an argument opposing the person-hood of a fetus. I would like to ask whether or not you deny the proposition that a fetus is a person and if so if there are any criteria of person-hood you would like to bring forward to contend mine? Your arguments assert that abortion should be legal, But not that it is unjustified. Your arguments are analogous to things that are legal, However we know that there are plenty of things that are legal and certainly unjustified. The first conclusion we need to come to in this debate is whether or not a fetus is a person. If it is not a person then the pro life position falls apart, A woman can certainly have any abortion justifiably if the fetus is not a person. If it is a person then the pro choice position falls apart because then the woman shouldn't kill a fetus as a matter of personal choice; it is unjustified. After that conclusion is met we can hear if there is any argument from the pro-choice side that dictates justified killing of a fetus. Until this happens however, All of my arguments stand and my assertions uncontested. If my arguments remain unchallenged then the conclusion is that 1. A fetus is a person and 2. Abortion is homicide
The Abortion Debate

if it's legal to kill someone who breaks into your house, Shouldn't it be legal to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? If it's legal to swallow pills, Eat, And insert liquids into my body, It should be legal to remove a creature sucking off of the insides of my body. Basically, It should be legal have control over what's going on in your body. Let's say that abortion was illegal. Then what? There will be still be attempts at aborting and or terminating an unwanted pregnancy, Just a lot unsafer. If fighting to terminate sickness that consists of bacteria (which are living things) is legal, Because obviously it brings an unwanted outcome (possibly death), It should be legal to have an abortion, Because that too brings an unwanted outcome to many females. In which that outcome can possibly destroy their futures, Which also drags back the advancement of the human race, Because they are unable to get an education (referring to the teenage girls in this case). Back to you!
Why the steelers are the if not the best one of the best teams in the NFL today

honestly i have been debating ive told you why i think they are if not the best one of the best which is also what you are not reading, i didnt just say best team, i said one of the best and your just saying they aren't the best which dosent mean they aren't one of the best. your basically saying since the patriots had a better record then steelers then the patriots were the best compared to the steelers. The thing is are the patriots going to the super bowl umm no, and u didnt mention the patriots im just saying its like saying since they had a better record they are better than the team thats going to the super bowl.
Why the steelers are the if not the best one of the best teams in the NFL today

Clearly, we are currently lacking a standard with which to judge if a team is "the best". Online Dictionary reference defines "best" to be: "of the highest quality, excellence, or standing" http://dictionary.reference.com... It is my position that to be of THE highest quality, excellence, or standing implies consistency. Let's look again at the Pittsburgh Steelers. First, we see that the resolution if the Steelers ARE the best team or not. The definition of "are" [http://dictionary.reference.com...] implies the present tense. For this reason, if the Steelers won multiple past superbowls, the resolution is not in any way affected in terms of the Pro side of the resolution. Now, in the present tense (or, in the NFL context, the 2010-2011 season)... Throughout the season, they were not *consistently* the best. Throughout the season, the Steelers did NOT lead the league in any category. Throughout the season, the Steelers did NOT lead the AFC. Throughout the season, the Steelers did NOT statistically prove their dominance. ~ This debate has become rather frustrating. My opponent has not provided a single falsifiable argument that can be debated, while he is refuting my arguments by applying an impact-turn to my entire case without any rational justification. I hope my opponent will actually begin to debate in the next round.
Why the steelers are the if not the best one of the best teams in the NFL today

First everything you said goes towards the fact they are the best. You said they were tied with teams this year and didn't have the best record. Thats the thing the steelers can have the worst record or lowest record and go in and win the play off to superbowl. The steelers line sucks but there offense still scores. The steelers have the 2nd best defense in the nfl. They don't rely on luck. How many teams go to 7 super bowls and win 6 six. Your not supporting much against the steelers. They dont have to have the best record to win to steelers are the best.
Why the steelers are the if not the best one of the best teams in the NFL today

I believe the best way to analyze the resolution is numerically; typically, the best team is also the best team on paper. We look here [. http://www.nfl.com...] and find that the Steelers are not exactly the best team. The Atlanta Falcons and New England Patriots both had better records; furthermore, the Baltimore Ravens (from the same division) had the same record as the Steelers. So, in terms of W/L ratio, the Steelers merely tied for third this year. Then, we zoom in on the Steelers [. http://www.nfl.com...]. What we find is that their points, yards, pass yards and rush yards (all per game) are ranked 12th, 14th, 14th and 11th, respectively. Not a single statistic in the top ten. I'd argue that that removes them from contention for "best team". I believe that this is enough so far, as my opponent really has not given me anything substantial to refute. Aside from them having several super bowl wins (which means nothing; lucky draws in the playoffs do a lot and, this year in particular, they're facing a 6th seeded wild card in the superbowl), nothing has really been proven by the Pro side. I'll turn the debate back over to Con for now.