BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tiger Woods Will Eventually Surpass Jack Nicklaus' Record for Most Majors Won All Time (18)

First of all, I would like to point out that my opponent misinterpreted my original post. I did not state that golfers were becoming more physically fit as he suggested, but merely that the advanced training and technology of today would allow golfers the opportunity to play longer than they had in the past. In addition, these advantages being available to everyone does not give older golfers an advantage over younger ones, but that wasn't my point. My point was not that Tiger Woods would have an advantage over the younger players, but that he would be able to play for a longer amount of time, thus increasing the likelihood of him winning nineteen majors. It is also true that Tiger and Jack both suffered major droughts throughout their respective careers, but the fact that Tiger's most recent drought came as a result of personal problems does not make it any more severe as you have suggested. You claim that Tiger Woods has clearly not returned to the level of play we saw from him earlier in his career, but Woods has already won two events in 2012 with four finishes inside the top three. That's a career for most golfers, yet Tiger Woods was able to accomplish it before the second major of the year. This drought also comes at a time when Tiger is in the middle of his third swing change, intended to take the pressure off of his left knee and thus increase the length of his career. The last time he made a swing change, he ended up winning two majors in 2005 and two more in 2006 before winning another in 2007 and yet another in 2008, this time on one leg. Clearly, his new swing is working well for him, as evident by his nine under par performance at the Memorial this weekend. The argument that you have presented here seems more like a critique on the current state of Tiger's game than an explanation of why he will not surpass Nicklaus' record for the most majors won all time. Clearly, you must do a better job of proving this in the second and third rounds if you wish to walk away with a win on your first debate.
Tiger Woods Will Eventually Surpass Jack Nicklaus' Record for Most Majors Won All Time (18)

You have a flaw in your reasoning. A large part of your argument is that the golfers are becoming more physically fit. If you were to say only the older generation is becoming more fit then this may help your cause but because the entire field of golfers, young and old, are becoming progressively better at golf and progressively stronger there would be no possible change in the outcome. You also stated how Jack Nicklaus had a draught in winning a major as well as Tiger, but may I remind you that Tiger had some personal problems in which he stopped golfing competitively and therefore lost production where as Jack Nicklaus continued to train and get better. Also in this argument you made, may I remind you Tiger Woods was injured he has yet to return to the old Tiger we are used to seeing. You can see now that as you stated neither Tiger or Jack had an advantage on each other at this point in life yet as I have shown Jack had a sleight edge over Tiger mostly because Tiger took a break in golfing and he has yet to look the same ever since. You have presented a very compelling argument but I must say you have some logical inconsistencies in your argument as I have pointed out here. :)
Tiger Woods Will Eventually Surpass Jack Nicklaus' Record for Most Majors Won All Time (18)

Resolved: Tiger Woods, should he remain on Tour for a similar length of time as Jack Nicklaus did, will eventually hold the record for most majors (consisting of the Masters, US Open, Open Championship, and PGA Championship) won by any single player. From 1997 through 2008, Tiger Woods won a total of fourteen majors over the course of twelve seasons on Tour. Since 2008, however, he has failed to win a single major, missing a total of four due to injuries. (The 2008 Open Championship and PGA Championship and the 2011 US Open and Open Championship.) As it stands, Tiger Woods needs another five majors to surpass the record of eighteen majors currently owned by Jack Nicklaus. Here is why I believe that Tiger Woods will win at least five more majors over the course of his PGA career, thus surpassing the number of majors won by Jack Nicklaus. First of all, it should be noted that Jack Nicklaus did not win his fifteenth major until he was thirty eight years old. Tiger Woods is currently thirty six years old, meaning that if he wins a major in 2012 or 2013 he would be ahead of the pace set by Jack Nicklaus despite going four or five years without winning a single major. All he would need to do after that is to keep pace with Jack Nicklaus by winning four more majors in the next eight seasons. Considering that Woods once won all four majors consecutively, winning four total majors over an eight year period should be no problem. (He also won every major at least twice in the eight year period from 1999-2006.) Second, it should be noted that Jack Nicklaus won a major at age forty six in 1986. Given today's advanced training methods and technological advances, it is very likely that we will see players contend well into their forties, possibly into their fifties. One needs to not look back very far to see that this is already happening- Tom Watson nearly won the 2009 Open Championship at age fifty nine, and fifty two year old Fred Couples shared the thirty six hole lead heading into the weekend at this year's Masters. Since Tiger Woods possesses a greater degree of talent than either Watson or Couples (as evident by his superior achievements) it is safe to assume that Woods will compete in majors at least through age fifty. That gives him fifteen seasons, including 2012, to win five more majors. Since, as noted above, a major every other season shouldn't be a problem for Woods, a major every three seasons shouldn't be either. Tiger Woods will surpass the majors record currently owned by Jack Nicklaus because he is immensely talented and has many years of competitive golf ahead of him. If someone would like to debate this, they must claim that either a.) Woods is not talented enough to win five more majors or b.) Woods does not have enough time left to win five more majors. I can argue both contentions.
Should Marijuana be nationally legalized? (US)

Please notice my opponent has brought up medical marijuana although this debate is on the of legalization of recreational cannabis. First my opponent has said that cannabis prevents glaucoma. Yes this a positive effect but does it prevent any other illnesses itself will cause of course not that would be fictional or rather unscientific. Second, my opponent has not showed me any other substantial evidence to show marijuana would be a positive for the us and I could imagine his/her argument would persuade you either. As I still stand strong behind my argument and I can only infer voters are to I still believe legalizing marijuana would effect the us negatively. (Also take into effect that my opponent has cited a study on rats but he doesn't realize rats are not humans nor are they in the same family like we are primates.)
Should Marijuana be nationally legalized? (US)

I would just like to point out that my opponent has broken the format of the debate, for which I urge the readers to take off points for. But nevertheless, I will stick to the format. I will first begin by pointing out the benefits of the medicinal use of marijuana. Medicinal Marijuana has been PROVEN to prevent glaucoma, which is an eye disease that damages the optic nerve resulting in a loss of vision. According to a 2003 study, Marijuana can help control epileptic seizures. In the 2003 study, Robert J. DeLorenzo gave marijuana to epileptic rats. The effect rid the rats of seizures for 10 hours. If a similar affect can be used on humans it would be revolutionary for epilepsy treatment. It is also important to mention that it has also been SHOWN that a chemical that is found in marijuana can stop the spread of cancer. This chemical is called cannabidiol. Cannabidiol stops cancer by turning off a gene called Id-1. Cancer cells make more copius of the Id-1 gene than non-cancer cells, and helps them spread throughout the body. There are much more benefits and use to medicinal marijuana than I have just stated, these are just among two of the many benefits that medicinal marijuana can offer to patients at a hospital. I also believe that recreational marijuana should be nationally legalized in the United States. Marijuana is statistically the safest drug one can use. Alcohol is currently legal in the United States for anyone over the age of 21. Alcohol is much more harmful to the body than marijuana is to the body in large amounts. Also, the cost of alcohol abuse is a greater cost to society than marijuana abuse.
Should Marijuana be nationally legalized? (US)

I can see where you are coming from marijuana could help out the economy but there is a worse negative effect if marijuana is legalized. First, legalizing marijuana would be bad for our nation because, while marijuana has some positive effects the drug can kill brain cells and I'm sure it negatively effects the resepatory system. Although, I'm not a doctor it is common sense that this drug like any other can cause medical issues. Second, if we did legalize cannabis then that means that it would be available to minors with the inference there would be no age restrictions. So, with that our children will get addicted to this drug and get addicted and not only will they become mentally dependent they will become physically dependent on the drug. Third, with legalizing marijuana I will refer to the children's book if you give a mouse a cookie has gonna want milk. Same rule applys here if we legalize one drug then users of other drugs are going to want their drug legalized to. Next, marijuana is a gateway drug meaning non-drug users will use this drug first and go up the later of drugs from cannabis to heroin cocaine morphine etc until they become ill or in most cases over dose and die. In conclusion, legalizing , marijuana will give to the us more problems that already has.
Should the us have responsibility in aid and resolve conflicts abroad in different countries.

Before i begin my speech i would like to say this speech is for fun and if you make lets say a round mistake its okay its just to start a good debate just to see how my opponent will feel on this problem. We have our own problems, and no one else is helping us with them. There are people right here at home that are homeless, poor, starving, unemployed and dying that need help. Since the resources that the government is giving away to other countries is collect by American citizens from American citizens, then it should first be used to help an Americans that may need it. If we help all of our own citizens and get all our problems taken care of, then by all means help other countries that need it. But we need to take care of our own first. Our Foreign Policy states that the government is pushing to maintain U.S. safety and world peace and to maintain a balance of power in the world. What about the balance of power right here in the States? People here are not completely safe, crime rates are outrageous. We also have a huge amount of debt that needs to be paid back. We are giving out supplies and resources that we just don't have to give. What happens when other countries decide they want their money and they are tired of waiting for it? Who is going to help us when they take action? No one. No one sends us supplies when we have a natural disaster. But they all expect it from us when they need it. You can't buy friends in real life and its time our government learns that they can't buy friends and allies. We need to fix OUR OWN problems before we should even consider taking on someone else's. And even then we should only help if we are asked to help.
Women are inferior to men

Once again, my opponent failed to post any valuable argument whatsoever. Vote con! This has nothing to do with "Islamo-Feminism" as you called it(besides, muslims shouldn't have to fight for women's rights as Islam is supposed to already provide that). This is to do with the fact that society as a whole accepts that women are capable of doing things men do. Women can be doctors, construction workers, politicians, etc just as well as men can. Sarah Palin ran as John McCain's running mate and will be running for president in 2012. This is some proof that women can perform well in politics. If this wasn't the case she would still be stuck at home in the kitchen cooking for her husband and kids. There are also high-up women CEOs in various companies.
Women are inferior to men

First, I don't give a poop about the Canadians, they wear strange hats. Second, men have higher IQs and larger brains that women Third, the intellectuals deserve more than the dim-wits. Forth, men are more muscular that women and are better at hard labor. Fifth, hard workers deserve more than the unproductive weaklings Sixth, whether islam is sexist or not is of no concern to me, I'm not muslim.
Women are inferior to men

My opponent failed to address the topic of focus as to women being inferior to men so I'll provide more reasoning as to why I don't believe this to be true. I'll like to point out the status of women in various Islamic religious scriptures. First, the Qur'an states: "O you who believe, it is not lawful for you to take women as heritage against their will. Nor should you straiten them…." Surah Al-Nisa:19" Which proves that women are not the property of men as was commonly believed in many western cultures. And a Hadith: "O' ye men. Fear Allah and treat your women with kindness." (http://www.answering-christianity.com...) Also, from a secular point of view: According to the Canadian Constitution of 1982, both sexes are equal and it has been semi-successful in striking down discrimintory laws. There has also been many successful women throughout Canadian history. http://www.mta.ca...
Women are inferior to men

Well considering we have a sexist troll here I'll like to see what he has to say about the status of women. I argue that women aren't inferior to men. I will like to present to my opponent, Queen Elizabeth I of England, the sole monarch of Britain from 1558 to 1603. http://en.wikipedia.org... During her reign she accomplished such tasks as defeating the Spanish Armada and brought about the golden age in a male dominated world. More to come next round...
Imabench Hates Me More Than I Hate Him

Look at this sap, he rhymes man with man! Such terrible raps should earn you a 2 year ban Mad skills on the mic? HA thats a tease The voters are out yelling 'OH GOD NO MORE PLEASE!" Your rhymes may suck but your tempo is from hell I can barely read your raps without losing brain cells Take a break and glance at Alex Jones in the corner He hung himself with a rope to end his horror If rap is an art, then dude youre no artist Youre not even good as a conspiracy theorist! Obama didnt write sh*t, my raps are all mine Now go back and stand in the unemployment line You hate drones, the government, and anyone who is gay Did you forget to take all of your medications today? I do that sometimes and when I do it gets bad Most of the time it ends with me fighting with my dad I gotta go now im up past my bed time If im awake after 8 then Ive committed a crime I know im 14 and I act like a bada** But secretly im gay and like to take it in the a**
Imabench Hates Me More Than I Hate Him

1) I am very easily hated"Why would I start a troll debate if I did not like trollish antics?"My trollish antics are only ONE of the things people can dislike/hate me for. You claim to not hate me for me trolling, but its still more then plausible you can hate me for other reasons such as the weekly stupid, causing dozens of flame wars, or just for being famous/infamous around here. 2) Debate History"If I should beat imabench in debates but people still vote for him, then this is evidence that he is more likable than me"Yes, I won debates against you despite my arguments being inferior just because im likable. Thats a very solid reason to hate me. 3) Me pleasuring myself to Rational_Thinker"thus I concede the point"^ See guys, he honorably conceded the argument rather then drag it on out like any other person would. Isnt he so dreamy? 4) He had sex with my mother"When we went back to her house, she used to much teeth while I was receiving fellatio. I had to give her a rather strong backhand, then proceeded to, as the kids say, "beat it raw". "Sounds like you had a good time! :D5) Peeing in my chocolate milk"After I had sex with the older woman, I went downstairs to urinate in the chocolate milk due to the previous use of her teeth."But I live in a one story house.... Therefore you couldnt have been having sex with my mother and the older women you banged was just some old woman. But you peeing in a strangers chocolate milk is hysterical! I wish I thought of doing something like that! Youre so creative and smart and spontaneous. Excuse me while I go wank again. 6) He Farted In my Fruit Basket"As I returned upstairs I saw a door open with a Debate.org website up on a computer monitor that had "imabench" as the user name"But like I said, my house only has one floor. Clearly you were at someone elses house who somehow managed to hack into my account on DDO(Note to self, change password from 123456 to anything else)Conclusion:Rational Thinker has plenty of reasons to hate me like many other people, his debate history shows a motive as to why he may also hate me, he has gone out of his way to try to have sex with my mother, he tried to pee in my chocolate milk which I had already peed in myself, and farted in a fruit basket too. Judging from his accounts of the acts though he clearly wasnt at my house and all of these acts he committed was against someone who hacked into my account. That means he was going after someone posing as me, which means by trying to attack me he has actually helped me, and now I love him that much more for it! Basically, He has a reason to hate me, has a motive to hate me, and has tried to f*ck up my life, but he accidentally f*cked up the life of someone else who happened to be trying to impersonate me and now I only love him more for saving me!
Imabench Hates Me More Than I Hate Him

Sorry I took so long, I was out of town :PAnyways Ill get on with why RT must hate me more then I hate himArgument 1: Im very easily hatedLets see, countless flame wars, derailing/hijacking multiple debates, making dozens of troll debates, the weekly stupid.... There are tons of reasons why people could hate me, and the fact that several people openly call for me to be banned, censored, etc is a testament to the fact that im easily hated. Therefore its plausible that RT could hate me for any number of reasons.Argument 2: Debate history between me and RationalThinker highlights how he could dislike mehttp://www.debate.org...^ This is a troll debate I made regarding the existence of God that Rational Thinker accepted. Naturally I used idiotic arguments that had they been used by anyone else, it would have easily been a win for the con, who in this case was Rational Thinker. However, the debate ended in a tie, even though Rational Thinker clearly had wittier and funnier arguments in the debate. He lost a debate he easily should have won, but he lost, because it was against me. This could be evidence for why Rational Thinker dislikes me. http://www.debate.org...^ This debate was a contest about who could be more random.... I won it by a score of 31 - 26 thanks to several questionable votes, and this could be more evidence that he does have reason to hate me. Argument 3: I love Rational Thinker and frequently think of him when I wank it. Just look at him! Hes canadian which is something I always look for in a man. Hes openly liberal which is another thing I think about while wanking it. He has a pretty decent win ratio which is VERY seductive. And have you SEEN his profile picture. Look at him lean seductively against that wall while wearing dark shades and showing off his amazing facial hair.... Excuse me I gotta go wank real quick, im getting turned on by all of this. Ok Im back. I basically painted the wall white. Four times.... Anyways, on top of all those things I said before, me and Rational Thinker agree on a whopping 86.21% of big issues, in fact we only disagree on four different issues. How can I NOT like him???
Imabench Hates Me More Than I Hate Him

I am in the mood for a troll debate. I was thinking, "who better than imabench!".Rules The burden of proof is shared. Imabench must show that I hate him more than he hates me. I must show that he hates me more than I hate him. The first round is not for acceptance, as imabench will start right off the bat with an argument. I want the last word however. Therefore, in the last round, imabench will simply put:"No argument will be posted here, as agreed."If he is a master troll, he should have no problem giving me the last word!Or, are you chicken Mcfly?
Imabench Hates Me More Than I Hate Him

Why Imabench Hates Me More Than I Hate Him. He did not even have enough respect for me to post his raps in the proper debate, only someone with content against me would do such a spiteful thing.. It took Con two days to accept this debate initially. Only hate for me could account for this.. I had sex with his mother, urinated in his milk, and farted in his fruit basket without knowing it and laughed about it when I found out he lived in the home (I do not care enough about him to hate him). He obviously hates me because of these acts: it would not be reasonable to think otherwise. . Con lied about how many floors his house has, and he lied about someone hacking his account. He obviously does not like me if he is willing to lie to me!. Con is envious of my good looks, because he is not good looking (which is why his DP is of someone else). This envy has clearly lead to hatred. Resolution affirmed.
Is Marxism on the rise once again.

-Either way I have forbidden the use of that language, and telling me that I "jerk off" is considered as a profane language. Either way, my opponent hasn't posted his argument, he is continuing to post counterarguments. I have also noticed that you have ignored some of my arguments. There are people protesting in Russia, France, England, and U.S. There has been a five day Marxist Festival in London.
Is Marxism on the rise once again.

A profanitey is using vulger langauge. I did not use any type of bad language just suggestive. One can use all the words like "jerk" and "pants" and no one will get mad, ohhh but put them togeather and we have pro throwing a fit. Why would you prove marxism is on the rise by interviewing marists. LOL, good Skywalker. Its like interviewing a bunch of non-jedis to prove jedis don't exist. Sure these marists have circlejerk fests, like Marxcon but that isn't because it's on the rise, these Marxists are attracted to that. Vote me.
Is Marxism on the rise once again.

-My opponenet has lost the debate according to the rules. My opponenet has been using excessive profanities, such as, "jerk it to Karl Marx's picture all day" and " The onlything thats rising is that thing in my pants." My opponent was supposed to write out an argument NOT the counterargument. But I will still argue with you just to give something for you to feed off, comrade.The RiseFirst of all, it is happening in New York, there have been interviews with these Marxitst-thinkers. New York is a place full of culture and different minds. Secondly, if you have read the Guardian Marxism isn't only rising New York, there will be a Marxist festival for five days in London, people are protesting in France, Russia and many other countries. Lastly, the Marxist website isn't my only source. I've used sources like, http://www.allaboutworldview.org... explain the Marxian economy and give an introduction to the the Communist utopia.