BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mike Trout is better than Miguel Cabrera

Mike Trout of the Los Angeles Angels is the best all-around ballplayer in the MLB, even better than the media-enhanced legend Miguel Cabrera of the Detroit Tigers. Miguel Cabrera is a veteran who has been around since 2003. Mike Trout played in 2011, but broke onto the scene in 2012 with a slash line of .326 /.399 /.564 with 30 homers and 83 RBI (Baseball Reference.) He lost MVP honors to Miguel Cabrera, and people argued about that for months after. Who is better- Miguel Cabrera or Mike Trout? Miguel Cabrera can hit any baseball. Fastball, curve ball, inside, outside... you just cant get anything by him. This is said by this unbelievable ball he squared up against Phil Hughes that would be un-hittable by almost any other batter. Mike Trout is equally as good in the aspect of hitting. Maybe even better. He has power to all fields. His speed makes him able to leg out infield singles and stretch doubles into triples. He may have less power- but he's only going to get better as he gets older. But hitting and power are only two tools of baseball, and the ONLY two that Miguel Cabrera has. Here are the five tools of baseball: Running, Arm Strength, Hitting for Average, Hitting for Power, and Fielding. Miguel can only hit for power and hit for average. But Mike Trout has ALL FIVE of those tools. He also displays them regularly. Mike Trout also has a higher WAR in 2013 than Miguel Cabrera (9.2 to 7.2.) Not only that, but Cabrera ranks FOURTH in AL WAR (Cano, Donaldson, Trout.) This is likely because Cabrera can't stay healthy. He faded down the stretch in 2013- sealing Mike Trout's case for best all-around player. Sources: 1. www.performancebaseball.net/html/5tools.html 2. http://www.baseball-reference.com... 3. http://espn.go.com... 4. http://www.blessyouboys.com...
God Supports Cannibalism, Infancticide and Genocide

Sorry about the briefness of this argument. This entire debate, 4 redundant rounds, you were saying that God is good. You said it at least once in every argument. But this debate isn't about whether or not he is good. Then you started to say that he is too good for genocide, infantcide, and cannabalism. THEN, in an ironic twist, you say that he should not be judged by our standards. Am I the only one who sees this hypocrisy?
God Supports Cannibalism, Infancticide and Genocide

A couple of points, and then you may have the last word. If we are arguing using the Bible, we must stick to what the Bible says about God. The Bible's standard is what we use; we cannot use God's actions as described by the Bible, compare them to our own standards, and use that to accuse God of wrongdoing. If we accept the Bible as authoritative on the character of God, we must measure God by the Bible. God is good. He is what defines good. He is what defines righteous. Thus, all morality starts and ends with him. He is our definition of morality and goodness. If we are to use the Bible for a debate, this must be what we accept. What this means is twofold: 1) God defines what actions are righteous and what are unrighteousness (sinful) 2) God defines (pay attention to this) what is acceptable punishment for sinful actions. How can we judge God and call his punishments immoral if we are but men? Does God support Cannibalism, Infanticide, Genocide? Does he support death? I have demonstrated that God's ultimate will is life. I have shown that any death in this world is because of our own sin. I have shared the story of Jesus Christ's death and how God gives every person a chance to repent and receive eternal life through his name in spite of what we justly deserve. Could we ask for a more definitive answer?
God Supports Cannibalism, Infancticide and Genocide

How can you morally kill someone? You say that God gave life, so he can end it. Are you saying that a parent can murder their child because they "feel like it?" I am not going to bother addressing your other arguments because your reasoning is very circular and there is no point in arguing. Sorry for the conciseness of this argument, I am trying to be clear and short because I do not have enough time. I look forward to your argument.
God Supports Cannibalism, Infancticide and Genocide

I am going to narrow down what the gist of your argument: God has a reason for killing people. Now, using the verses I have shown, I will show why it is immoral for God to do such things. It is commonly know that: Eating your children if you do something bad is wrong. Killing children is wrong. Killing anyone is wrong. When God killed people in Noah's floo
God Supports Cannibalism, Infancticide and Genocide

This is a result of an exchange that took place in the comments section of this debate: http://www.debate.org... Clarifications: - I am against this resolution, RealSpassky will be for it. - The God talked about here is the God as described in the Bible. - The Bible will be the only reliable source of evidence for the character of God. Rules: - Round 1 will be acceptance and restatement of the argument and verses as stated in the comments section of the debate aforementioned. - Round 2 will be continuation of argument and supporting evidence. - Round 3 will be reserved for rebuttal. - Round 4 will be continued rebuttal and closing arguments and remarks. - I would hope this wouldn't have to be said, but civility is the order of the day. No personal attacks or unprofessional remarks (bad language, etc.) TheRealSpassky will be arguing for this resolution, I will be arguing against. I will leave it open to him to propose definitions for the terms in the resolution (namely Cannibalism, Infanticide, Genocide) minus God, as he has already been defined as the God of the Bible. I reserve the right, however, to question and argue against these definitions if they are unfair for the debate. RealSpassky, I pray you do not take this the wrong way. This is by no means a personal attack, but instead a defense of the God I love and serve. You have accused him of incredible evils. I pray the truth of his love, mercy, and justice come out today. I will not take this personally and will remain civil and respectful; Jesus is my example.
Existence of God

First I will lay out a rebuttal to my opponent's argument. Commonly known as the problem of evil, the argument dissolves when you add a proposition to the argument. The argument is often put like this: (1) If an all-powerful perfectly good God exists, then evil does not (2) Evil exist (3) Therefore, God does not exist The preposition (1) fails if it is logically possible that (1.5) God has a moral reason to allow evil This preposition is not dependent on our ability to understand that reason, only that it is logically possible. I will lay out these three arguments for my opponent to rebut: The first argument is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The premises of the argument are as follows: (1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause (2) The universe began to exist (3) Therefore the universe has a cause (4) The cause of the universe must be causeless, immaterial, timeless, changeless and personal (5) This uncaused cause is a description of God (6) Therefore God exists The second argument is known as the Teleological Argument which states that the constants for the universe are finely-tuned for the existence of life. The premises of the argument based on these findings are as follows. (1) There are three possible explanations for the fine-tuning of the universe; necessity, chance or design (2) The fine-tuning is not due to necessity (3) The fine-tuning is not due to chance as the probability is vanishingly small (4) Therefore the fine-tuning is due to intelligent design The final argument is the Argument from Objective Morality (1) Without God, objective morality can not exist (2) Objective morality does exist (3) Therefore, God exist I await to hear my opponent's refutations!
Existence of God

Based on my opponent's opening it appears his/her's epistemological basis is the five senses; sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. The premise: (1) We can only know things from our senses is a self-refuting statement. The question that demolishes this epistemology is: How do you know that is true? It is impossible to taste, smell, see, touch or smell that premise therefore how can we know its true? Problem of Evil We can drop this argument now as it only leads to the occurring question. It appears, however, that my opponent is trying to pin me down on this argument when in round three it was my opponent who presented it. Cosmological Argument The title of this argument is "The Existence of God" It is not "God exist". Therefore the burden of proof does not solely rely on me. My opponent, in taking his con stance, is making a similar claim to knowledge which is: "God does NOT exist. " Therefore my opponent must erect in his case an argument for the non-existence of God while at the same time tearing down my arguments FOR the existence of God. The debate should not end in a constant shift of burden of proof. I do not have to prove that everything that has ever existed has had a cause. The reason being is that by DEFINITION a cause must be antecedent or simultaneous with it's effect. ^1 By definition as well an effect must have a cause. ^2 Based on Big Bang cosmology the universe must have had a beginning. ^3 It appears my opponent must not be up to date with with the latest scientific knowledge. I am not trying to determine the rules of the universe, merely listing the basic principles of philosophy and the world itself. Teleological Argument Since my opponent will not take the time to read the source I provided I will not dignify his claim that every atom in the universe is infinite. I will explain however that actual infinites create mathematical impossibilities. For example Infinity - 2 = infinity. Objective Morality My opponent appears obsessed with scientific reference to God however I refer to my epistemological issue at the beginning of my round. My opponent illogically ruled out all my arguments by saying "the universe has infinite possibilities" Unless and until my opponent explains what that means my arguments are valid and you should vote PRO. My evidence is based on the arguments I laid, it appears my opponent is ignoring these evidences and then asking for evidence? This is tautological.
Existence of God

I'd like for everyone to consider the following 1) have you seen god? 2) have you heard god? 3) is there a real life photograph of god? 4) is there an audio of god? 5) has god published any literature? I could go on and on with these questions, but the answer to them all, is no. And since there is no documentation of god's existence, then there is no proof of a god The problem of evil The difficulty with this argument, is that my opponent must first prove there is a god, then he must prove that he has a moral reason to let evil exist. Cosmological Argument First off, he blames me for having no evidence, when one- this is his claim, and two, as the instigator, he has the bop One, you must prove that everything that has ever existed has had a cause. two, you cannot prove that the universe wan't always here. Third, why is he dictating the rules of the universe, he says that the universes purpose cannot be caused or material or time or changing or personal. first off, what study has proved this, humans are not the deciders of the universe. And, my opponent is consistently trying to put the BOP on me, but he is the instigator Teleological Argument The only explanation is what I said in my previous speech. It is random. And it's not like it's on a universal scale. Since you were conceived, it's all been highly unlikely that you would be born, but you beat the odds. This is able to proven. God is not. However, I may not have a source, but my opponent claims that one man was able to calculate every atom in the universe that's funny considering that it is infinite. Objective morality Alright, even if there is a god, there is no example of a universe without it. Since there are no studies or examples to support his claims, the argument has no weight. also, his deductive reasoning fails because, when talking about something as infinite as the universe, you can't just eliminate 2 choices and have your answer, the universe has infinite possibilities. therefore, all arguments above are invalid, and there is no proof of a god. Vote Con also, based on my framework, since there is no evidence and he never provided a counter-framework, then I win. (sorry, I meant to correct that, the post hoc ergo procter hoc were notes for a class, that I put on here to make it look like I was interested)
Existence of God

Pardon the forfeit, I was (ironically) at a debate tournament. Everything you just stated is so fallacious. mine is simple, you're claim is, that there is an omnibonevolent god, if that is what you say, why does god allow bad things to happen. Also, you cannot prove that god has a moral reason, because you cannot prove there is a god Kalam is flawed because 1) you can't prove I that everything needs a cause, that's fallacious 2) this argument makes no sense 3) use some data to back this claim up. or there is no proof The second argument is also false, because the whole idea behind evolution and science is that life occurs from the random disasters, with non-random consequences. If an earthquake kills slow animals, it creates faster ones and they breed to make faster animals. (simple law of natural selection) The final argument is jumping the gun. If he cannot prove that god exists, then you must vote for me. that means that morality has existed without god, so his argument is invalid. And he has no proof. My opponent lacked proof the entire round, therefore, you cannot assume there is a god. All his arguments are fallacious (post hoc ergo procter hoc)
Abortion should be completely legal in the United States.

Dear Liberal, Yea...there are those Christians that will be like that. You can be Christian and a Democrat. You can be Christian and Pro-Life. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant on the subjects (including Christianity) and wrong. I am a Christian too. I believe that I am a fairly strong Christian too, but there is the Religious Wrong who call themselves the Religious Right. They make me smack myself against the wall because I fear that I might somehow be grouped with them by another person when I am no where near them. But I do want iterate that I never argued my point from a religious stance. I did it from a completely secular one. I argued abortion within the boundaries of our U.S. Constitution and our governing bodies. I did mention the social contract being there to protect our life and liberties. And I never mentioned any Bible verse on how God knew you in the womb or whatnot. My logic for life beginning at conception was Aristotelian and how conception is a fundamental part of life. Without conception, there is no life. You say, "All I am saying is that you have to look at abortion from all angles!" I believe I do within a legitimate sense. I look at it within the realm our what is consistent with our social contract and governing bodies. ALSO I do consider the point-of-view of the mother. I did this in the later points of my opening argument. I know that there is a great burden to having a child, but convenience should never outweigh life. I do and did look at abortion from all angles. I appreciate you accepting this argument and await your rebuttal! Sincerely, Paleoconservative/Libertarian
Abortion should be completely legal in the United States.

Dear Paleoconservative/Libertarian, That first sentence was a typo, excuse me! As you might have picked up, I am a big christian and a pro-choice liberal! I actually got asked by my girlfriend's mother "how can a christian be a democrat?" INSANE! However, that is beside the point. All I am saying is that you have to look at abortion from all angles! Well, I hope to talk to you soon or debate you soon! I am sorry I could not debate you the proper way! I wish you would debate this issue with someone else! Howerver, I have work in the morning and have to hit the sack! I am truly Sorry! Sincerely, Liberal
Abortion should be completely legal in the United States.

I was slightly nervous because I thought I might be really putting myself out there on such a hot topic. There are many, many emotion surrounding the issue and I hope to anger no one. I hope this is a good debate and not just some screaming match. In your opening statement, you say, "If the United States was to ban abortion entirely, this country would be worse off if abhortion was illegal. " I just want to say that the word completely was in the statement above. If you read my whole argument, I never advocate that the U. S. should make abortion completely illegal. I just oppose it being completely legal and I emphasize this in my second to last paragraph. Then your logic behind that opening statement is, "Alot more women would be getting alley abortions which would lead to the spread of disease. " This is a claim, but you use it as logic. For a claim to be justified it needs data and warrant to be somewhere near it. You just throw that statement out there-- in any debate, that is not good. You can't just make claims and then say you are right. I challenge the actuality of that "logic. " After that, you then go on some religious, Christian logic for being Pro-Choice. You go from Adam and Eve to Jesus' sacrifice to Pro-Choice. I think you are saying that Jesus died for our sins and our sins our between us and God and not the government. The notion that because abortion is viewed as a sin by Christians the government has no say in the matter is wrong. Our government is a the result of a social contract and that social contract is their for the protection of our life and liberties. When it comes to abortion, in those regards it does have a say. Our government addresses the sins of stealing and murder. .. it can address others. That is botched logic you present. Otherwise, I believe that we shouldn't put any "electrical barrier[s]" around life and those who happen to jump over get to live. I await your rebuttal. Sincerely, Paleoconservative/Libertarian
Abortion should be completely legal in the United States.

Dear Conservative, I dearly disagree with you on this subject! If the United States was to ban abortion entirely, this country would be worse off if abhortion was illegal. Alot more women would be getting alley abortions which would lead to the spread of disease. Anyway, in religous talk! And by the way I am totally against anyone choosing to get an abortion, I just feel that it should be the mothers choice! Anyway, back to religion, God gave Adam and Eve the choice to pick from the tree in the garden in even. He didnt put an electrical barrier around the tree. He gave them the CHOICE, this choice was a sin but thats why Jesus died on the cross, so that we could be forgiven of our sins! Women should not be told what to do with their own bodies especially in the United States, knowing that throughout the bible people had choices! Sincerely, Liberal
Reduce homework, lengthen schooltime

For reference, I shall be arguing against the increase of school-time to a 9 to 5 system, specifically against my opponent's proposal (hence my argument is a counterproposal for the status quo). Also, as my opponent was somewhat wishy-washy on this, I'd like him to make explicit what level of education we are discussing - from what I can grasp, it is definitely middle and high school, but possibly lower as well, which needs to be specified (also, beware that I may get Americanised terms like high school somewhat misplaced). Moreover, I expect my opponent to affirm teaching in the additional hours of school, not simply the inclusion of schools being "open" as many are open to and past five o'clock anyway.
Reduce homework, lengthen schooltime

Simply extend that which has been said. For those interested, I have another debate on this topic going . http://www.debate.org... , and I hope that I get a reply on that one as it has not come yet. For those interested, just leave a comment and I'll be happy to debate this, as long as we can do this debate before Christmas. Mr. Hawkins can take me up on this at any time.
Reduce homework, lengthen schooltime

It would appear due to extenuating circumstances that Con is unable to continue. I thank him for his notification of this - it's gracious and gentlemanly.To all readers, I'm attempting to debate this topic before Christmas. Stephen, if you want to debate this I'll be happy to do so.Finally, readers, vote Pro. Leave feedback on the quality of the R2 arguments in the comments if you wish; I'd be grateful for feedback.
First to know how then to wonder why.

1. Noticing that to comprehend the way in which a thing works is more essential than to know why it is working that way. This is for both safety and efficiency reasons.2. Therefore, questioning the need for comprehending the motive of an action in the first place.3. Nevertheless, recognizing that why questions have value but that in no situation is it less important to know how than why.4. Furthermore recognizing that 'why' fundamentally allows the answer to remain ambiguous but 'how' either creates a verifiable lie or truth from which the validity of 'why question' answers can be determined.5. Acknowledging that there is no such thing as a valid reason for a flawed system but there is such a thing as a flawed system requisiting reasons for going about things in less than perfect manner.In summary, the 'how' question should come before the 'why' both theoretically and practically.
First to know how then to wonder why.

My entire Round 1's points have gone unaddressed by Con.The argument by Con fundamentally misinterprets 'how' and 'why'.Con argues that one must first understand the physics behind the workings of a pendulum before working out how to make a pendulum.What Con is saying here is that one must first understand how something works before working out how to make it.This is firstly untrue as many drug suppliers (both of legal and illegal drugs) have very little understanding of how their drugs actually work to give the 'high' or 'rush' that they give to the addict/user.In the same way, many who understand the side of how the drug works, have very little idea of how the actual drug industry functions as a whole.
Vote-Bombing Contest!

You know what, nevermind. I'm doing the challenge. I'm just unsure because so many people hate me. Lets test that hate. Simple. Just accept. Then you have to try and get as many people to vote-bomb for you as you can and I have to do the same. Whoever gets more votes within 10 days wins the debate. Round 1 is for acceptance and round 2 is for any additional questions. I won't respond as quickly in order to give people time to see the debate. I think I will lose though...
Zionist-Jewish Networks Should Be Considered as Some of the Most Probable Perpetrators of 9/11

I was trying to "get on yo' level", homeboy. Clearly, your intellect exceeds mine so I thought I'd bring it down a notch and stick to what I'm good at: keaping it reel. Das how 2ba troo jeenyiss. Duh. Anyway, read the link in my first argument. It's pretty sweet. You can't refute it. The end. Bye.
Zionist-Jewish Networks Should Be Considered as Some of the Most Probable Perpetrators of 9/11

Investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center, the beneficiaries of 9/11, and other issues surrounding this event have demonstrated, clearly, the overwhelming flaws contained within the "official narrative". A much more plausible theory is that Zionist and Zionist-Jewish networks, who were directly involved in the companies and institutions surrounding nearly every major aspect of 9/11, were probably involved in the attacks in order to bring US troops into war against Israel's enemies in the Middle East. Some very significant elements of this theory are addressed in the following list: http://instablogg.com... My opponent must demonstrate that it is, at least, highly unlikely for Israel and subordinate Zionist networks to have had any major role in the attacks. Rules: - Standard debate conventions apply.