BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
KU is better at college sports than MU

You are correct in saying that MU is better at football currently, and is higher in the Capital One Cup standings at this time. However, we are talking all-time here, therefore I will explain KU and it's rivalry with MU. First let's start with the championships. MU has 2 all-time championships in all sports, with the most recent being in 1965. Therefore, KU has more championships in Basketball (5) than MU has in all other sports combined. I believe that our sometimes bad performance in other sports is more than made up for by basketball, as this stat proves. We also claim the inventor of one of the most popular sports in the U.S. This would be with James Naismith and Basketball, of course. If you look at MU, however, they cannot lay claim to the invention of a sport. Now back to the championships. KU has 13 overall national championships, with most recent being in 2013, in Women's Outdoor Track. Quite a bit more recent than 1965. Now, let's move on to the fans. One of the things that makes up a good college team is their fan base. KU's best fan base is in College Basketball, and that leads me to saying that Allen Fieldhouse has been rated as the top College Basketball Arena/Venue by Andy Katz of ESPN. We have been sold out in every single home game since around the 2002-2003 season. This makes all other teams in our conference pale in comparison to us. Mizzou's most loyal College Basketball fan base is the Antlers, a student group. They have recently been kicked out of MU's arena 2 consecutive times, and have known to do terrible things in the past - Voters, look them up. Arguably, MU's best fan base is in College Football. However, they pale in comparison to the rest of their league. Let's just say that they are in the SEC, and are competing with their fans. To wrap this up in order to save time, I give my final points. KU rightfully claims Basketball superiority, as their all time record vs. MU is 172-95, KU leading. However, MU claims Football superiority. They have been dominant as of late, but if you look at history, they are fairly equal. The all time record is with MU leading, 56-54. Not so dominant. For these reasons and many more, I respectfully ask for a Pro ballot in today's debate.
KU is better at college sports than MU

Missouri is coming off a 12-2 football season, including a trip to the SEC Title Game [1]. Kansas is coming off a 3-9 football season [2]. Therefore, Missouri is better at football. Also, Missouri is higher in the Capital One Cup standings [3]. Sources [1] http://espn.go.com... [2] http://espn.go.com... [3] http://www.capitalonecup.com...
zimmerman shouldnt be found guilty of murder

"To begin with when you say, "there are credible witnesses who say martin was on top of Zimmerman. martin only has his friend to say otherwise". That's not true, in the sense that, yes, Martin did have a friend as a witness however, so did Zimmerman. His witnesses, were all friends/neighbours. Same quality of witnesses in that regard. zimmerman has lots of witnesses, even if some of them might be bias. surely they aren't all going to lie. martin has a friend who could say anything. "The serious injury is another matter, one of the few convincing pieces of evidence. something. No blood was found on Trayvon Martin. (None of George Zimmerman's I mean)If he bloodied up Zimmerman like that wouldn't he have had blood on him? he has cuts on his head and face, blood on his body doesn't necessarily exist for it not to be serious. he was getting his head beat with concrete, and he was the one with the serious injuries. not Martin. ths is all erasonable doubt enough that he acted in self defense. if you add to it that Martin had a tone to him as well "weird as$ cracka", and using racial undertones, not Zimmerman, and you see perhaps Martin was quick on the draw. Zimmerman shouldnt have approached, and all the peices not only to Zimmerna's account being most probable, it is at least reasonable doubt. You could argue it was self deefnse of Martin, but you could also argue a lot of stuff. it can't stick to zimmerman cause tehre's too many realistic scenarios, and the evidence mostly helps zimmerman. it's not the defendant's burden of proof here. it's teh prosecutions. it doesn'[t matter if manlaughter or 2nd degree are 'heat of passion' or passion crimes, and that just because zimmerman was passioned doesn't mean it was a crime, if it was only passioned as self delfense. which we again have reasonable doubt to think happened.
zimmerman shouldnt be found guilty of murder

First off, murder is a general term. It can mean a lot of things. Ie: 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder, Manslaughter. Since this was not premeditated, it could not have been 1st degree murder however it was 2nd and 3rd and here is why. To begin with when you say, "there are credible witnesses who say martin was on top of Zimmerman. martin only has his friend to say otherwise". That's not true, in the sense that, yes, Martin did have a friend as a witness however, so did Zimmerman. His witnesses, were all friends/neighbours. Same quality of witnesses in that regard. The serious injury is another matter, one of the few convincing pieces of evidence. something. No blood was found on Trayvon Martin. (None of George Zimmerman's I mean)If he bloodied up Zimmerman like that wouldn't he have had blood on him? Now let's start with the charge of Manslaughter. This one for me is the most obvious. Zimmerman initiated the conflict by following Trayvon Martin. And he was recorded saying: "Those ****ing punks, they always get away". Zimmerman said he was afraid as he got out of the car, but then instead of following Trayvon as a vigilante, call the police instead. But he didn't therefore if he had not gotten out of that car, a life would have been saved. A 17 year old's life I might add. In conclusion the charge of Manslaughter. Here is part of a legal definition of manslaughter: "In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice." Link is here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 2nd degree murder, Trayvon was heard to have said by a friend on phone with him: "A Weird a**cracker is following me" Or something along those lines, Trayvon would have seen Zimmerman's gun. Opening up another defense: Even if Trayvon had a scuffle with Zimmerman, you could argue it was self defense on the part of Trayvon Martin. Another thing, why couldn't Zimmerman have shot for the leg or just wounded Trayvon? Why did he have to kill him? In short 2nd degree murder. I want to point to the fact that TRAYVON MARTIN IS JUST A KID. He was just a kid eating skittles, just think about that as we move forward with this debate. -Habermas
zimmerman shouldnt be found guilty of murder

prosecution must show that zimmerman acted, beyond a reasonable doubt, wrongly. in this case, zimmerman was shown to have a bloodied up nose and head. concrete was shown to have been used by martin, it wasn't as if he was truly unarmed. martin on the other hand showed none of these things. the screams are too uncertain to tell who is who, and whatever the case, we can't prove who initiated deadly force, other than to note that zimmerman is the one who showed serious injury on his body. also, there are credible witnessess who say martin was on top of zimmerman. martin only has his friend to say otherwise. given zimmerman can't be show to have murdered martin beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution's case fails. sure, there are valid doubts about zimmerman, but nothing beyond a reaonable doubt, the standard used against the prosecution.
zimmerman shouldnt be found guilty of murder

To begin with, lets say there was a scuffle and there is evidence there was one. And there was fight. And Martin was the aggressor. (I'm not saying he is, and there is not enough evidence either way). Even then, did Zimmerman have to shoot to kill? He couldn't fight back? He is a grown man for gods sake. He did not have to shoot an unarmed teenager! Doesn't matter if it was a more violent fight, he could have shot him in the leg or something. You said this: "you see perhaps Martin was quick on the draw." Then later you said this: "why should being quick on the draw be justified just because he was being followed". Feels a little Contradictory, just wanted to point that out but to awnser, that you didn't respond to the part of the violence. If I was a black kid being followed by a white man and I saw him with a gun, I would be quick on the draw. Besides, my point is I think Zimmerman above anyone else was quick on the draw. He sees a kid and starts following him with a gun? Oh wait it makes sense now, that kid was black. I disagree yes a lot could have happened but, lets look at what we know: A white man says "Those F***ing punks, they always get away." And gets out of a car and starts following a unarmed black kid just eating skittles. He then comes near him a scuffle starts, Zimmerman gets hurt and then a kid gets shot and killed. That's what we know. From what we know 100%, it seems like manslaughter. From the simple fact that if he had not gone out of the car, a life would have been saved. I'm not saying it was passionate or not but what I am saying is that, if he had not gone out of that car, Trayvon Martin would still be alive. If he had called the police instead of following him, Trayvon Martin would still be alive. "In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing." From my earlier quote, aditonal circumstances, let's say, seeing a black kid thinking he is up to something following him with a gun? That does not excuse a killing. By the way, you never awnsered my challenge to name the witnesses. There was only a few last I checked. In Conclusion, I think Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter and maybe 2nd degree murder. Thanks for debating with me, I enjoyed it I hope we do another debate eventually.!
zimmerman shouldnt be found guilty of murder

zimmerman had marks on his body. and all witnesses on both sides say there was a scuffle, and the recording showed a scuffle. martin's body doesn't need to show anything for a scuffle to be established. and hs lack fo marks doesn't indicate anythign else, except that zimmerman was being seriously injured. why should being quick on the draw be justified just because he was being followed if that's what happened? it doesn't justify it, if that means initiating a fight. and seeing a gun doesn't justify it if that's what happened. and, we shou7ldnt have assumed he saw anything, it's again the prosecutios burden. tehre is a lot of things that could have happened, jut as many helping zimmerman. all i'm saying is i dont know why you think a passioned crime without self defense existed... it may have been passioned, but there was too much reasonabel doubt and factors making it look like self defense. if that exists, that's an absolute defense. following Martin with a gun eosnt constitute self deefnse.... i enver said that. but teh reasonable doubt that Martni attacked Zimmerman exists, with lots of evidence. proseuction didnt meet its burden of proof. if at the end of the day all we can get zimmerman on is that he shouldnt have followed martin, that's not enough to get murder or anything else, especially when there's so much evidence in zimmerman's favor.
zimmerman shouldnt be found guilty of murder

Zimmerman has lots of witnesses" I would like evidence of those "lots of witnesses" that you describe. "he has cuts on his head and face, blood on his body doesn't necessarily exist for it not to be serious. he was getting his head beat with concrete, and he was the one with the serious injuries. not Martin. this is all reasonable doubt enough that he acted in self defense." Yes but if Trayvon did seriously beat George Zimmerman, and with all those cuts, he must have at least some evidence of some kind of a scuffle on Trayvon. Blood or a scratch on Trayvon, something! "if you add to it that Martin had a tone to him as well "weird as$ cracka", and using racial undertones, not Zimmerman, and you see perhaps Martin was quick on the draw." Granted, I don't like the racial undertones about that either but since Zimmerman was following him, and the history of violence against Blacks/Racial Profiling/This is Florida, would suggest that Martin would be right to be quick on the draw. Also think about this, Martin may have seen the gun on Zimmerman as well. "You could argue it was self defense of Martin, but you could also argue a lot of stuff. it can't stick to Zimmerman cause there's too many realistic scenarios, and the evidence mostly helps Zimmerman. it's not the defendant's burden of proof here. it's the prosecutions." True, however what I am saying in this section of the debate and the previous round is that I am not just arguing but giving substantial evidence in favor of that. "it doesn'[t matter if manslaughter or 2nd degree are 'heat of passion' or passion crimes, and that just because Zimmerman was passioned doesn't mean it was a crime, if it was only passioned as self delfense. which we again have reasonable doubt to think happened."First off a claim that manslaughter or 2nd degree murders are heat of passion doesn't matter is absurd. It does matter simply because that is one of the options that can be charged as Manslaughter, or 2nd degree murder. Also when you say passioned as self defense, first off little confused on what you mean by that but also, Zimmerman was following Trayvon with a gun! I don't see how that constitutes as self defence. I'd like to end this round of debating with another thing to think about. Trayvon Martin, saw and was freaked out by a white man following him with a gun. Now when I say that remember the history of violence towards Black's, and the racism Trayvon almost certainly experienced. Again think about that as we move forward.
The iPhone is better than the Samsung Galaxy.

The dimensions of the iPhone 6s are 5.44 by 2.64 by 0.28 inches (HWD) with a weight of 5.04 ounces. The Samsung Galaxy S6 is a bit bigger with dimensions of 5.65 by 2.78 by 0.2 inches (HWD), but it's lighter at 4.87 ounces and slightly thinner.In regards to the camera, the iPhone 6s has a 12-megapixel rear-facing camera with f/2.2 aperture, True Tone flash, and 4K video recording, as well as a 5-megapixel, front-facing selfie camera. The Samsung Galaxy S6 has more raw megapixels in its rear-facing camera"16 megapixels with optical image stabilization to Apple's 12 megapixels"but there's little doubt that Apple puts some of the best-optimized camera sensors on its devices with excellent post-processing. Samsung has caught up lately, and the Samsung Galaxy S6 camera is fast and crisp, but the improvements to the iPhone 6s are likely to push it over the edge. When it comes to display quality, the Galaxy S6 is the clear winner. The device has a 5.1-inch Quad HD Super AMOLED display covered with Corning Gorilla Glass 4 and sports a resolution of 2,560 by 1,440 and 577ppi. That doesn't mean the iPhone 6s display is bad"the 4.7-inch Retina HD display with a 1,334-by-750-pixel resolution at 326ppi is better than the one found on the iPhone 6. However, the raw pixel density of the Galaxy S6 can't be matched and Samsung excels in creating gorgeous displays.
The iPhone is better than the Samsung Galaxy.

Hello segregory, I am happy you accepted! First, I will start off with my rebuttal to your first point then I will provide my first argument. Firstly, you provide no sources and battery life does vary greatly depending on how much you use and what you use your phone for. Also, the iPhone is slightly smaller than the Samsung but that does not matter simply to the fact that people have different opinions whether they like bigger or smaller phones. Finally, both phones could hold the same amount of storage but for the Samsung galaxy s6 it is easier to replace the storage SD card. My argument: The iPhone is a much simpler, easier, and a more supported device. - More developer support of apps, games, tweaks, and music - Jailbreaking. iPhones have the ability to be jailbroken, which I have, so I can modify anything I want with my Phone including changing fonts, designs, and functions. - Everyone can use it, easily. My parents had samsung galaxies and they do not know how to do anything except call and text. Then they switched to iPhones and bam, they can easily do everything any iPhone user can do, due to the simplicity of iPhones. Good luck.
Religion does more harm then good in the modern world.

If religion does more harm then good then we as a society should do everything we can to discredit and discourage the practice of religion. Society should do everything possible to prevent all kinds of arguments and violence that can lead to war and the destruction of the human race. We have a situation where there is such a powerful belief in something that can be interpreted in so many different ways and too many of those interpretations are dangerous to mankind. When something does more harm then good the logical thing to do is stop doing it.
Religion does more harm then good in the modern world.

Religion does more harm than good in the modern world. Does this mean that religion shouldn't exist? Of course not! Religion is supposed to be a beautiful thing, but when two different ideas meet, arguments and violence might happen. Because there's no actual honest way to say which religion is the correct one, people are mainly left up to personal experiences and imagination to use as evidence. Because both sides have both of those, arguments are made. In the real world, this happens on a larger scale. Radical terrorism can be caused by religious beliefs, or ideals that you're supposed to kill people who do not have the same beliefs as yours, and that is why a lot of mass shootings and tragic events occur. In society, religion doesn't actually have the biggest effect. In most situations you don't even need to tell others your religion, because most people don't care. The modern world isn't affected by your beliefs unless you actually make a big deal out of it by trying to force your belief on others and using violence. It does more harm then good. It doesn't matter till the violence kicks in, then people will start turning heads.
One Point Nine Repeating is Equal to Two

Thank you for your acceptation of this debate! I've never heard of some of those arguments before, but I'll do my best to offer up a solid rebuttal and arguments of my own. "2 - 1.9r = n N must be higher than 0 as proved by this equation. n + 2 = n + 1.9r If I was to subtract 1.9r from both sides I end up with an infinitesimal number. as supposed to 2. " n+2=n+1.9r if considered true only proves my point. When n is subtracted from both sides, you're left with 2=1.9r. However, if the equation is true, your statement "N must be higher than 0" must be false and n=0 because when you do subtract 1.9r from both sides, you're left with 2n=n, which is only possible if n=0. "1.9rs final digit is 9 and therefore it is an odd number. 2 is an even number. (if you don't rebut to that you then are a bit of a fail)" Your very first statement is false. Assuming you are correct and 1.9r is less than 2, 1.9r would not be an integer. Parities (aka whether or not a number is even or odd) only apply to integers so 1.9r is neither if not equal to two. "The factors of 4 are 1,4 and 2,2. 1.9r,1.9r don't give you the same answer. It is simply impractical to be precise. " The point I am arguing is that 1.9r=2, therefor anything divisible by two is divisible by 1.9r (see my arguments below). "Here is my most important argument though: Multiply 1.9r by ten and then it reduces in size one decimal place that means it is not infinitesimal and therefore it is definitely not the same. On the other hand 10(1+1) = 10(0.5+1.5) and therefore 10 X 2. For any two concepts to be the same you should be able to multiply them by 10 and get the same answer as proved. " Let x=1.9r Then, 10x=19.9r So, 10x-x=19.9r-1.9=18.000. .. So, 9x=18, which implies n=2. My argument applies infinitely. Meaning if a is any integer, a.9r=a+1. When you substitute our aforementioned x for a, 10x=19.9r, 10x=20. There are infinite numbers in existence, and yet there is no real number between 1.9r and 2. This is impossible, unless my previous statement and main argument is true and a.9r=a+1. My favorite point has to do with devision. 1/3=0.3r. This should mean 0.3r*3=1, however different calculators give you different results, and some say 0.3r=0.9r. I agree with both statements, as they're both mathematically correct. When you add one to each side, you're left with either (0.3r*3)+1=2 or (0.3r*3)+1=1.9r. Because of the law (if a=b and a=c, b=c), that means 2=1.9r.
One Point Nine Repeating is Equal to Two

Its recurring - not repeating. 1.9r is infinitesimally less than 2. I will use the following statements to prove it. 2 - 1.9r = n N must be higher than 0 as proved by this equation. n + 2 = n + 1.9r If I was to subtract 1.9r from both sides I end up with an infinitesimal number. as supposed to 2. 1.9rs final digit is 9 and therefore it is an odd number. 2 is an even number. (if you don't rebut to that you then are a bit of a fail) The factors of 4 are 1,4 and 2,2. 1.9r,1.9r don't give you the same answer. It is simply impractical to be precise. Here is my most important argument though: Multiply 1.9r by ten and then it reduces in size one decimal place that means it is not infinitesimal and therefore it is definitely not the same. On the other hand 10(1+1) = 10(0.5+1.5) and therefore 10 X 2. For any two concepts to be the same you should be able to multiply them by 10 and get the same answer as proved.
Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns.

This proves that a human is indeed defined by what he or she does exactly. Also, In this day and age humans are defined by what he or she looks like almost immediately. For example, when a person walks into a room we instantly judge them by their looks, taking in what they're wearing, what their skin color is, their physical shape, and of course, how beautiful they are in the face, or if they're wearing too much makeup or any makeup at all. Face book has become a very large social media source as well as snapshot and when we meet someone we immediately, go to their profile (not even on face book, but many other types of social media too) and try to see where their interests lie.
Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns.

Many rich people like Bill Gates and Werren Buffet are not lauded for their weath, but for their generosity and contribution to the common good. Bill founded the largest private foundation on the world, which has helped enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty globally, and in America, expand educational opportunities and access to information technology. While Warren Buffet give away his fortune to charity, with 83% of it going to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in June 2006, which was highly appreciated and honoured by many people.