BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Adidas Is better than Nike

Here's why I think Nike is better than Nike 1. Nike has the most dynamic logo on the planet It"s simple, Looks great on a shoe or anything else and suggests activity, Arousal, And victory at the same time " perfect for a sports brand. 2. Nike started with running Nike started out as a running company " and not just track-and-field running. Co-founder Bill Bowerman recognized the potential of "jogging" in the early "60s and published a book with that title in 1966. His ideas led to the creation of a running shoe that would ultimately be named the "Cortez" in 1968 3. Nike has Jordan Despite its roots in running, Nike has been synonymous with basketball " and basketball is Jordan, To some extent. Together they formed the cornerstones for the rise of a global sneaker culture. 4. Nike has Back to the Future Nike"s use of this movie wasn"t just smart product placement but arguably the most brilliant and long-term marketing move of the millennium, Spanning three decades in the rollout. First: presenting the Nike Bruin in part 1 in 1985 " in one of the most iconic pop-cultural movies ever. Second: Fictionally imagining how sneakers would evolve 30 years later in part 2 and introducing the Nike Mag. Third: actually releasing that shoe as predicted in the movie " finally with power-lacing and endorsement by Michael J. Fox " no other company even comes close. 5. Nike owns basketball Not because of names like Michael Jordan, Lebron James or Kevin Durant but because the Swoosh owns the category " today. With a market share of 95% in the U. S. There"s no way around the fact, Although Adidas is making a lot of right moves at the moment. 6. Nike owns collaborations Although you will find single collaborations from other companies dating back to the 1970s or even before, Nike invented the collab game as we know it. From late "90s releases like the Wu-Tang Clan X Nike Dunk High or all of the St"ssy collabs from the early 2000s up to the whole Nike SB program including all the Supreme Dunks " Nike got the ball rolling. 7. Nike invented limited edition retros It"s hard to imagine but back in the days, A shoe was done when the next model came out. Thanks to a few east coast US retailers, Nike realized that there was a potential in retroing the Air Force 1 in a limited edition "color of the month" program. Watch the Air Force 1 documentary for the complete story. 8. Nike has the most famous designers Even beyond the famous architect-turned-sneaker-designer Tinker Hatfield, There are other designers whose names have become synonymous with sneaker culture " like Bruce Kilgor (Air Force 1), Sergio Lozano (Air Max 95), Eric Avar (Air Foamposite One) or even Tinker"s own brother Tobie Hatfield (Nike Free). Fragment Design"s Hiroshi Fujiwara should also be mentioned because of his close ties with Nike. 9. Nike has the best ads in the archive Marketing has always been Nike"s strong suit. Just look through their archive and relive the gems they"ve produced over the decades " from beautiful vintage running ads to the ever-so-classic "Bo Knows" campaign. This is brand-building at its best.
Adidas Is better than Nike

I believe that at a quality point, Adidas is better than Nike, Here are 3 points why; (1); Nike is getting lazy Nike has quantity over quality, And Adidas has lots of shoes, But they focus more on quality, For example, The pure boost uses modern technology, Making it easier to run, You also get better shoes and it is easier to pick one that suits you. (2); The websites While browsing the Nike web page, I found myself getting lost, And It would be hard to decide what to buy, As there wan't much information, And no reviews, Where as the Adidas web page had lots of informative information and lots of meaningful reviews, It was easy to navigate and could be easily trusted by a customer. (3); The design Adidas has developed their technology over the years, And recognized what could be improved. Nike has their boring old plain shoes and haven't changed much. So that concludes round 1. By the way, This is my first debate so if I get anything wrong, That's my fault.
Adidas Is better than Nike

Are you sure Adidas is more popular? Nike sells 25 pairs of kicks every second. For a total of about $9. 1 billion dollars yearly. Adidas only makes about $5 billion a year. Nike almost doubles there shoe sales. Btw Nike has well Nike, And Jordan, And Converse, And Hurley. Giants in the shoe market. You think Reebok can compete with Converse and Jordan. HA! Sure the micro pacer was the first with computer technology, But the mags. The mags. Please tell me what "big effect" Adidas has on sports. And "Adidas has also achieved that with other celebrities. " which celebrities huh?
Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti

The reason it's so easy to misunderstand you is your argument in Round 1 is just so confusing. What actually are your points anyway? You go from one thing to another thing, first talking about aseity and what not and suddenly jumping to the bible etc. You don't seem to have any clear structure. This is not a debate about the truth of Christianity. I did not say I will be lazy in my argument. I said I will be lazy to actually copy and paste links. As you can see, I actually am putting up quite a good effort so far despite having to deal with your idiosyncrasies. "Why on earth did you accept this challenge?" Err, well I think that's none of your business. If you are debating on a website like this you should expect to have all kinds of people to debate against and you don't get to decide how and what I should do. You then go on to say how we can observe some things and how we can't observe some things. Bla bla bla. Yeah, of course you can't observe numbers. It doesn't mean it doesnt exist. It's a concept that helps us deal with everyday transactions and life in general. Is believing in numbers the same as believing in God? Of course not. A number is a concept or a tool that you use. A God is not a tool. You are literally putting your trust in something that as you say is beyond the scope of human observation. If I believe in a creature that science says does not exist such as unicorns it's the same thing. I am believing in something that is also beyond the scope of current technology because who's to say that unicorns don't in fact exist in another universe or another dimension? We don't even know much about life in other systems and galaxies. Basically your argument is We can't observe god=God must be real. EVEN IF GOD IS REAL, I am arguing that believing in God is literally the same as a kid believing in magical creatures. Both of them saying "We can't see him/them. But we have faith that they exist." You finish off by saying I am too lazy to read a debate that's thousands of years old. Yes, I am. You are also obviously too lazy to bother explaining it, instead just merely copy and pasting some articles and some youtube videos for us to watch. How convenient. Despite all this, you are proud of your so called intellectual capacity. Using terms and phrases that sound so fancy so that you appear to know more.
Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti

Well thank you first of all for telling everyone how lazy you will be in the argument. For example, you misquote my arguments from Round 1. "No one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers"...is a reference to Virgil and the litany of other writers, not as a reference to the New Testament. It should also be noted that you are misappropriating a passage referring mainly to the "New Testament" and not as the Bible as a whole. I agree with you, the Bible is less of a book and more of a library that spans thousands of years, multiple genres, and cultures. And to be fair, the quote I provided has little to do with our actual argument and more to do with giving you something to gnaw on. It's also from a book about Catholics dialoguing with "Fundamentalist" Christians. If you cannot be bothered to cite sources, read things on your own, or even seriously look at what I've provided you, then why on earth did you accept this challenge? Why do you expect us to take you seriously? Why is the Theist being more intellectually responsible than you? Moving on to your arguments... Let's use your definitions of creatures. The CREATURES straw-man argument proposed by modern "New Atheists" like Dawkins and Harris, is exactly that...a Straw-man argument. And you are falling for it head over heels. The idea being, that we cannot see or "know" the CREATURES scientifically, nor can we "know" even the Catholic concept of GOD, therefore they are equal ideas. False. Tell me....are abstract concepts real? Are numbers real? Can you show me an abstract concept like a number? Can I observe it like I would a creature? Without bogging the debate down with many more examples of abstract concepts that we take for granted everyday, I'll just cut to the chase. I can observe a creature and know it exists. For example, I know the CREATURE of man exists, and it exists apart from the CREATURE of dog. I can observe this, I can know it through my senses and interactions. I cannot observe numbers. I cannot observe consciousness or sentience. I cannot observe "liberty" in the same ways, (i.e. through out senses) as we do observe or BELIEVE in creatures. So no, believing in any observable creature, is not the same as being in a Being under the precepts of "Aseity". Because God, as in "the perpetual act of to be" or "the first cause", is beyond the natural scope of humans to "observe scientifically", believing in GOD is not the same as believing in a creature that can be observed naturally. This is not a new argument by the way. These issues have been dealt with by even the Pre-Socratic philosophers, but I suppose you would be too lazy to read up on a debate that's already thousands of years old.
Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti

From the previous round, my opponent claims that I am agreeing with him. This is because I said that believing in numbers is NOT THE SAME as believing in god. A reminder that in this debate, I am arguing that believing in god is the same as believing in mystical creatures. My opponent, in his typical simplistic mentality thinks that I have conceded the debate by stating that believing in something that can be observed is not the same as believing in something that cannot be observed. If I indeed said that believing in something that can be observed is not the same as believing in something that cannot be observed, then it's probably fair enough to say that I have conceded this debate. However, the question is, "Did I ever say that?" In Round 3, my opponent clearly said that numbers are abstract concepts. An abstract concept cannot be observed while creatures can be observed. In other words, Numbers ARE NOT THE SAME AS CREATURES. I agree with what my opponent said here. So when I said believing in numbers is not the same as believing in god, my opponent suddenly became excited and thinks I have conceded. Let me remind everyone that numbers (as my opponent first defined it) is an abstract concept. God is also an abstract concept. So when exactly did I say that believing in something that can be observed is not the same as believing in something that cannot be observed. What I did say was believing in ABSTRACT CONCEPT 1 is not the same as believing in ABSTRACT CONCEPT 2. I think my opponent needs to reread. At the end of the day, my point was to say that just because John believes in numbers (ABSTRACT CONCEPT 1) does not mean he should also believe in god (ABSTRACT CONCEPT 2) nor is the believe that John has for numbers the same as his believe for God. But, if John is convinced that unicorns exist (OBSERVABLE CONCEPT BUT LIMITED TO OUR TECHNOLOGICAL ABILITY) then his believe is the same as someone else's believe in God (ABSTRACT CONCEPT) because at the end of the day, even an abstract concept is only abstract because we still have not yet had much scientific evidence to prove or disprove it. My opponent continues on in his frustration until he had to post stuff in his comments. This reflects his poor structure of argumentation throughout this whole debate. He just writes down everything he needs to rant in a mess of paragraphs that you need to analyse. This reflects poor communication and a state of mind which is confused. It all sums up in his last sentence in this debate "Thanks you playing." Thanks you playing Thanks you playing Thanks you playing Yes, thanks you too. :) :)
Should middle schoolers be able to watch r rated movies in school that go along with books they read

It doesn't matter what middle-schoolers do with their parents' permission on their own time. Whether some of them watch rated R movies or deal drugs, it does not pertain to the topic at hand. This topic is about if schools should show rated R movies that go along with the books they've read. It is true most rated R movies don't have books, or at least ones that are suitable for children. But I am confused about your next line. "Not watching an R movie would make it so that they have to watch something else." This is not true in the slightest. There are alternatives to watching movies to get information from a book, as I have already stated in the last round. Debating with other children, doing projects that pertain to the book, or even having the teacher explain things that are important for students to know can be alternatives to watching inappropriate movies. Many movies based on books do have movies rated less than R, but we are not talking about those books. Having two different movies, with one movie in color doesn't mean it is easier to figure out than the one without. Those two movies are two completely different movies, and have different interpretations of the book and its contents. There are many things wrong with showing an R rated movie to children under the age limit, even if their parents signed a permission slip. Many children goof off while reading, but that does not mean the school has to cater to these children with a movie that is inappropriate. If they miss things because they goofed off, whose fault is it but their own? Every kid can need an extra push. If they don't understand things they can ask a teacher or guardian about them, or participate in events that I have stated before. Movies can be important, but they aren't necessary for children to understand books. There are alternatives that can be used with little to no risk at all of a child's mental, physical, or psychological state of being. Rated R movies are just too big of a risk to children of that age when you can avoid the risk altogether. I would argue that PG-13 ratings are fine for them, but not R.
Should middle schoolers be able to watch r rated movies in school that go along with books they read

Children in middle school watch R rated movies a lot. With a permission slip teachers can show the movies. The movies that would be the worst to show kids in class either don't have a book or the book would be inappropriate as well. Not watching an R movie would make it so that they have to watch something else. Many movies that are rated R now and based on Classic books have a movie rated something less than r. An example from "The Lord of the Flies" movie is there is a pg-13 movie as well as an R one. The pg13 movie is black and white. Most of it is hard to tell what is going on. The r movie is in color and therefore it is easier to figure out what is going on. Let's face it, there is nothing wrong with showing an r rated movie that parents gave teachers permission to show. Sometimes even advanced classes can act like children and good off while they are supposed to be reading. Sometimes middle schoolers in advanced classes need that extra push to understand things. A teachers job is to help children learn and understand the topic and they should be able to do that even for complex literature. Sometimes movies are important and that means ones rated r.
Should middle schoolers be able to watch r rated movies in school that go along with books they read

Movies are important to help children figure out challenging books. Many children can not understand complicated novels like "The Lord of the Flies," which is read in some advanced seventh grade language arts classes. That book can be hard to visualize and in that case you would need to watch the movie. The purpose of the movie is not to change your idea of the book but to pull the pieces that you missed together. It helps people visualize the book easier.
Fairy type is the best Pokemon type

In round 2 I will be posting my argument as to why dragon types are the best, in round 3 I will provide my rebuttal to your argument. Argument 1: The dragon type is statistically the best type overall in offensive capabilities, having many psuedo legendaries/legendaries with a base stat total of over 600. Also, while fairy does completely resist dragon type moves, there is only one other type that resists them, that being steel with a 1/2 resistance. Because of that fact, dragon pokemon can make good use of their high power moves + STAB Argument 2: Dragon types have the capability to deal with fairy types and steel types. Because of the huge move pool of many dragon type pokemon, as well as their tendency to have a secondary type, they still have the ability to counter steel types (With fire and earth moves such as earthquake, flamethrower, etc) and fairy types (with non dragon type moves). Furthermore, as many fairy types tend to have a below average defense stat, dragon types with powerful non-dragon physical moves can easily shred through them. Argument 3: Fairy type pokemon have statistically low base stats. Not including mega evolutions the average base stat total of fairy types is around 409.19. -- http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... Dragon types on the other hand have an average of 517 overall http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... Fairy types also typically have a slow speed stat, which can be easily abused by physical steel moves or any other physical move. Argument 4: There is a lack of particularly powerful fairy type moves. Yes, there are a few very strong moves that fall into the fairy type, but that is not the majority. There are very few powerful fairy type moves compared with dragon types. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...
Alcohol Should Be Banned

My opponent has forfeited round 4. Unfortunately, it seems that my opponent has failed to rebut my last argument and also failed to provide a closing argument. I would like the audience to take into consideration that my final argument and rebuttals stand unchallenged by the opponent. I would also stress the importance of presenting valid information and the betrayal of that standard by my opponent in presenting mis-information to the audience in his last argument. Furthermore, the fact that he didn't even refute that or apologize is extremely telling of my opponent's character. In closing, I believe I have presented a valid case with reasonable points as to why alcohol should not be banned. I can only hope that my audience takes into consideration the points I have presented, along with my opponent's unfortunate forfeit in round 4 and his mis-information agenda. It was a pleasure debating this topic with my opponent nonetheless, and I look forward to any and all challenges in the future.
Alcohol Should Be Banned

Alcohol should be banned for numerous reasons. The first of these is that Alcohol cause 88,000 deaths per year through excessive drinking and many more through drunk driving. With 30% of Americans abusing Alcohol, this number is only going to go up. Also Alcohol is one of the leading substances that teens abuse.It isn't hard for teens to get there hand on Alcohol considering the fact almost every household in America contains at least one Alcohol beverage. Alcohol is also considered one of the most deadly drugs known to man, in fact some people rate it as the most deadly. Even though drugs like crack are more harmful to your body, Alcohol is considered to do more damage to society. All in all, I think Alcohol should be banned. Sources: http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.cdc.gov... http://drbenkim.com... http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
Rape Needs to be Taken More Seriously

I agree that there are other, more effective ways to prevent rape but that is not the point of this debate. The title states that rape needs to be taken more seriously. Con make valid points but they do not contribute to the argument I am trying to make. There are many effective and non-effective ways to prevent rape and I agree the one Con proposed is smart and much more effective but I want people to see rape as the disgusting thing it is. There are people who agree with me but there are also people who don't. In 2013, an unnamed minor was raped by his stepfather. The stepfather was arrested after many attempts and put in prison. But later, he was let out on "good behavior." Imagine having the person who has caused you so much pain and suffering to be let free, in the open, by the government that you are supposed to trust. Now, the debate of getting out good behavior is for another time, but why is rape so unimportant to the government that they let out a rapist with solid evidence. Rape is often brushed off and defended by people who aren't educated enough to see how serious it is. I'm not talking about rapists, as many of them are far past reasoning, but any normal person, victim or lawmaker/enforcer. Rape needs to be taken seriously by the common public so that they can care enough to help those effected by this terrible deed.
Rape Needs to be Taken More Seriously

Con is corrected in assuming that there should be more awareness regarding the negative effects of rape but, not to change the entire basis of my argument. People need to be aware of the seriousness of rape and the effects that come afterwards. This awareness causes a person to think about the topic more seriously and in-depth. I mean taking rape seriously as in understanding that no matter what the situation, the event of rape and the effects of it are not to be brushed off or defended. To further progress my argument, many people blame the victim for leading the rapist on, wearing showy clothes or being too vulnerable. But, no matter what the situation, if permission to perform intercourse was not given, it is rape. And rape is no one but the rapist's fault. Many people will say that if the rapist was the victim's boyfriend/girlfriend or spouse, then the rapist has the complete right to do whatever they want with their partner's body. But, just because you love someone doesn't mean you want to perform sexual intercourse with them. Rape isn't a right. Henceforth, people should be made aware of the negative effects of rape as to think about it more in-depth and take it more seriously.
Rape Needs to be Taken More Seriously

In today's society, many people think rape is "okay" and that "he/she deserved it." My argument is that rape is not something you should support or condone. No one deserves to be mentally, physically and/or emotionally abused. Physically: People who are raped have been exposed to possible STDs and other disorders transmitted by bodily fluid. Many rapists are rough and abusive, leaving bruises, scratches and sometimes broken bones. A female victim may become impregnated, causing much pain they might not be ready for. Mentally/Emotionally: Rape can lead to many mental disorders such as PTSD, eating disorders and anxiety disorders. Rapists often use abusive words to bring down one's self esteem enough to be vulnerable to the rapist. Again, a female may become impregnated, causing stress if the mother is not able and/or ready to raise a child. The stress of wondering what to tell their child about the other parent is also present. Rape is not okay and is not something to be taken lightly. It doesn't matter what the victim was wearing, under the influence of or what ethnicity they are. Rape is rape and it infringes on one's basic rights to have a sound body and mind.