BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vince Carter is the best dunker of all time

Overview: Pro claims Vince Carter was the best dunker, yet he rejects my reasons for disagreeing, while not rejecting my criteria for doing so. This results in a fully subjective apraisal of Vince Carter's dunking ability. -Pro said, “You base your reasoning that Jordan was a better dunker based on two criteria”No, I based it on three criteria: statistics, style, and cultural impact. Statistics: the dunker who wins the most contests that demonstrate the highest proficiency in the art of the slam dunk is key, because they have many world-class players, they are judged by several judges that give scores for each participant’s dunk, and they are indicative of the very essence of an athletic and revolutionary dunker. This acts as a check on our outside subjectivity.Style: the dunker who has arguably the more fluid, revolutionary, and talented style is the better dunker because dunking is not simply an athletic venture, but a beautiful thing to watch.Cultural impact: a great dunker, especially from the NBA, necessarily causes a cultural impact with his style of dunking. This acts as a check on our subjective tastes because, for example, I may think death metal music is the best type of music, but most people find it physically and psychologically repellant, as well as the people who do work in the fields of music theory, composition, and arrangement. Mozart, Charlie Parker, and Led Zeppelin each had a great cultural impact because, when taken as a whole, people welcomingly received their styles of music as the highest forms. Similarly, a cultural impact in athletic and stylistic dunking ability is indicative of a general regard for a particular dunker.-My opponent claims, “[Michael Jordan] actually got these deals because of how great of a player he was not because of how great of a dunker he was.”That’s why on the side of each shoe is a picture of MJ shooting a 3-pointer? No, he is doing his famous dunk that allowed him to garner the name “His Airness.” As Sports Illustrated writes, “Jordan soaring toward the rim tongue extended remains one of the most enduring images in sport.” -My opponent comments, “Your second reason puts a ton of emphasis on winning dunk contests.” Yes, because the one of the best methods for ascertaining who the best dunkers are is through the process of holding a formal contest with critical judges in the sport of basketball. MJ scored more perfect dunks than VC even when adjusting for the discrepancy in years in the contest:PERFECT SCORES (50) ON INDIVIDUAL DUNKS Vince Carter Third Dunk First Round 2000 Michael Jordan Third Dunk Semifinals 1987 First Dunk Semifinals 1988 First Dunk Finals 1988 Third Dunk Finals 1988 http://www.nba.com...;
Vince Carter is the best dunker of all time

Thanks for the "free" round. I have not much to add to round two other than reiterate how MJ only revolutionized the dunk more than Vince because he came first, but without a doubt VC is the best dunker of all time. (I just found this Bleacher Report who puts MJ at number three. http://bleacherreport.com...). I will also repeat that just winning dunk contests is meaningless, ESPECIALLY in this case since there was no way anyone wouldn't vote for MJ. He was the face of the game, and to not have him win would have clearly upset everyone (not to mention one year he won was in Chicago). Just Like this past year when Javale McGee showed up Blake Griffen, there's no way Blake will lose, that's just the way it goes. Anyways, Vince won 100 percent of the dunk contests he participated in, so there. If VC decided he wanted to dunk on you, he would. It was that easy for him. In his prime (and even years after), he could easily dunk on anyone in the league with either hand at will. As evident by his game winning dunk against the Rockets in the 1999-2000 season, Vince could take anyone to the hoop any time he wanted. He had one of the most explosive last steps in the game. His finesse is unparalleled. VC wouldn't just dunk whenever he wanted in game, but he would dunk it with a windmill, 360, or double pump, many times OVER defenders, and this happened on a nightly basis. If you watch the video posted above, you'll see what I mean. Frankly, once you watch that video it should be plain common sense that the stuff Vince does in that video has never been done by MJ, Dominique, or Dr. J, and for this reason Kobe agrees with me that Vince is the greatest dunker of all time (also see video above).
Vince Carter is the best dunker of all time

Sorry, I didn't realize I was supposed to give an argument in round one. I'm still new at this game. You base your reasoning that Jordan was a better dunker based on two criteria: 1) His endorsements with Nike. You make it sound like his dunking is why he got these deals with Nike and other companies. He actually got these deals because of how great of a player he was not because of how great of a dunker he was. There are many dunkers who have no endorsement deals with any shoe companies,and the reason MJ had all these deals was because he was the best baller and had the biggest name in the basketball world BY FAR. Why wouldn't you want to give MJ an endorsement? He reached out to the most fans during his time. His shoes were called Air Jordans because once he got the endorsement they decided since he could "fly," Air Jordan was a fitting name. To say that since MJ got endorsements is no reason to claim he was the greatest dunker. 2) Your second reason puts a ton of emphasis on winning dunk contests. These mean absolutely nothing. You point out how Jordan won more. Well that's because Carter was only in one in 2000, which many people claim was the greatest performance in dunk contest history. In today's game, Lebron is arguably one of the best dunkers out there, but he has no dunk contest titles. He feels that he doesn't need these to show he's a great dunker, since he shows it every night on the court. VC felt the same way. Further, this may be hard to understand, but the media hyped MJ like crazy, yes he was a high flyer, but he didn't have the same flair and explosiveness that Vince "Air Canada" had. MJ may have been more revolutionary, but that was only because he came before VC, and that doesn't mean he was a better dunker. Vince would dunk on anybody in his way while MJ would focus more on just getting the ball in the hoop without trying to get on SportsCenter every night. VC has provided us with some of the best dunks in history. His dunk in the 2000 Olympics where he cleared a 7-footer on a fast break is considered by many the greatest dunk of all time. Further, you claim MJ was featured dunking on more highlight reels. There is no way to prove either way unless you count every play up, but I think MJ was featured overall on more highlight reels not for his dunks but for all his other plays too. If you look at just dunking, Vince Carter was on more highlight reels than MJ. VC used to sell out arenas wherever he went JUST so people could catch one of his dunks. Oh yea, and Kobe agrees with me (see video) http://www.youtube.com... I think it would benefit you if you saw what VC did. Take a look at this video, and tell me honestly afterwards that MJ was still a better dunker (see video). http://www.youtube.com...
1b. Abortion

Abortion is murder. I don't really understand all my opponents big words but he wants to murder innocent children. It isn't moral to murder children and he things that because God has blessed a woman with a child that she has it within her rights to murder that baby. This sort of I brought you into this world I can take you out mentality is one of the greatest sources of vice and problems in the modern world. He couldn't be further from the truth. It is ALWAYS wrong to murder a child. My opponent says that sometimes it is morally justified to murder if it is within our best interest. This is categorically false. There are certain unalienable rights of man of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and my opponent wants to put that aside and argue what is better for society. You know where murdering people for the good of society leads? There are vast numbers of examples. From Hitler, Mao, and Polpot to Stalin and Il, killing people because it's "good for society" is an immoral stance. Perhaps in self defense, but a baby is hardly trying to murder its mother. Abortions done by anybody would be a bad idea. I can sympathize with women who's lives might be endanger if they carried the child to term such as with an ectopic pregnancy. That might actually fall under the guise of self-defense. However, for the most part women get abortion as a form of birth control. The vast majority of abortions are by women who simply don't want children and so long as society condones the murder of babies just because they happen to be unborn doesn't suggest for a moment that it's a moral thing to do. Murdering, or allowing poor people to murder, poor children is an absurd argument to make. I murdered a guy, but he was a hobo so that's okay. You know what you get charged with if you murder a homeless man? MURDER! We should murder poor people for the good of society? Have you ever heard of eugenics? That's what you're advocating for. Good for society to murder unborn babies. Why don't you murder then after their born? Why not take an IQ test when they are five and chop off their heads if they don't do so well. It is not moral to murder children. Even if a society were to allow it, it's an abomination. It is never right to murder a child. Thou shall not kill. Abortion is wrong.
Commentator's Choice - 30 minute Rap battle (there was no 20 minute option)

A rap debate it is, my friendRounds'll be 30minutes end to endI'm not the best at improv rap I'll give it a shot, prepare for some mishapAnything goes 'cuz that's how I rollWhoever comes out as the ultimate foolWill be the loser to this little duel.Ready your brains, it's about to be blown.Let these words cut through your ears, let your mind be hewn.
Commentator's Choice - 30 minute Rap battle (there was no 20 minute option)

[To be fair to my opponent who did not have enough time since he had another committment, I will not post a large response, for his sake.]From the start, I had to accept,I told you your skills, were quite ineptThat means that you're quite unskilledYou got flipped over, Barbaque grilledCovered in ash, trying to attackI won't go hard, Cut you some slackAre you serious? You thought you'd be the winner? There's a reason they call this fool Beginner. - Shadow-Dragon -
Commentator's Choice - 30 minute Rap battle (there was no 20 minute option)

Catching up to you? I'm seriously laughingMy opponent thinks he's the hot stuff of rappingHis rap's so bad it needs his bragging'my raps are more fortified', see that nagging? Listen to that laughter, you're a clown, a joke.I can topple your rap with just a little poke.Your level of bad is way out of my reach.You fancy the moment you entered a breach.Breach means trespass and I see nothing of the sort. Nothing can't breach something, so don't make me snort.TO highlight how ridiculous my opponent can beLet's look at his argument against me shall we?He attacks my appearance not knowing how I look.I know you like to fantasize but that's just gross, even by the book.
Commentator's Choice - 30 minute Rap battle (there was no 20 minute option)

[Consider the fact that my opponent only had 5 minutes for his because of time constraint's]Now, for mine....Every verse my raps are more fortifiedAnd the look on your face, shows you're mortifiedPlease, just look at my peersThey laugh at every singe one of my jeersYour appearance doesn't compensate for your bad rhymesMy raps make you speechless, just like mimes{It's about to get serious}The moment I enter this room, you call it a breachThat's because my skills are way our of your reachI'm gonna take over this battle by forceI'll be riding in on my horseDon't act all tough, I know you'll be hidin'And I'll be laughin' just like Joe BidenI'm gonna shut down this placeDebris will be falling down, right on your faceWe have a dillema here, so tie your shoelace,Because catching up to me will be quite a race.
Commentator's Choice - 30 minute Rap battle (there was no 20 minute option)

Shadow is here, back for some more You might get confused, I'll take you on a tour Because you're my opponent, you think your better? My raps are hot, like a cozy sweater My skills are so hot, this battle might incinerate You're response came just in time, though a little late Are you getting scared yet? I can already smell the sweat No cologne, Fear is shown Shadow is unknown, But this fool is alone Sweaty hand grabs the mouse Shadows in your room, all over your house Turn around, feel in it your hair Tell yourself, no one's there Deep down inside Within your mind Emotions cannot hide, what you can't find This battle was over, before it could start Go grab your things, here's a cart Not so smart, battling the master He had to face, another disaster.
Commentator's Choice - 30 minute Rap battle (there was no 20 minute option)

Look at this fool he thinks he can ruleWith those weak, whimsy words; what a tool.He thinks he's badass and doesn't play nice.Look at the way this kid scratches his lice.He's a bug you see, an insect but no king.This fly will be squashed, I'll tear out his wings.You call yourself a master? What an absolute jokeHe can't take my words, just look at this bloke:'I don't want to get blown' cries this weak little kidRun home to your mom, don't stop or you'll skid.This guy's so mad he's redMy words shot straight through his head.He will be eradicated, all his words disseminatedLook at his little kid's hatred This dipsh*t retard needs to get medicated.
Commentator's Choice - 30 minute Rap battle (there was no 20 minute option)

Thanks for this battle. Let's begin.... You challenged the master? I had to acceptI crush beginners, you seem quite ineptYou look shocked, you haven't sleptGet me a broom, you're about to get swept. I'm sorry. I don't want to get blown. It's only round one. Your weakness is already shownI tear down your castle, crush your bonesThere's a reason, I sit on the throneI'm the real king, don't back off nowOnly thirty minutes, that's fast for a cowAn insult to you? There's just so many. I'll give you some money. How about a penny?No words will be cutThe door is shutChasing cars like a muttRun from your hutI don't play nice, so back off while you canRun away; you can say, "I ran". Not the country, but rather the actionThis time you committed, a major infractionI would like to summarize, Fear in your eyesLight shines through your liesShadow-Dragon is here, It's time to cheerI come to town, and shut you downIn a river of disgrace, this Beginner will drown.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent's argument seems endless and confusing. Rather than trying to prove me wrong my opponent's aim is to make the problem more complex and cast doubt. I make only a few arguments and my opponent makes at least 4 arguments for each argument I make. Making the debate grow in size and complexity until nobody can tell who won. Even if I defeat one of my opponent's objections, he/she just simply moves onto another. https://thinkprogress.org...
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

Your first argument, "Carbon dioxide is at 404.48 parts per million and the temperature has increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880." That is not a scientific argument. It is a correlation. There is no REAL evidence to suggest that Co2 impact temperature. Especially when 25% of all Co2 produced by man has been released in the last 20 years and in that time there has been NO NET WARMING!!! You also make it sound like 1.4 degrees is what was predicted by the models showing Co2 causing temperature. I wasn't. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... You make a reference to cigarette companies. Please remember that we are talking about Man Made Global Warming, not cigarettes. Keep your own habits to yourself. Al Gores, "The Inconvenient Truth" predicted that all the arctic ice caps would be melted by 2013. In case you haven't noticed, the ice caps are still there. He also predicted the polar bears would all have died out by now. That hasn't happened. https://si.wsj.net... In fact, polar bear populations have risen by 20,000 in the last 55 years. Al Gores, "The Inconvenient Truth" was riddles with lies and misinformation: You should get your info from real sources and not manipulated scientific documentaries.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

There is so much information on the topic that rather than reiterate all of it I will make a short summary. Also burden of proof will be 51% on my opponent and 49% on me. Manmade global climate change is the general increase in temperature at rapid rates that is mainly caused by CO2 from industry increases. Carbon dioxide is at 404.48 parts per million and the temperature has increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. [0]Although 1.4 degrees doesn't sound much, it ends up being a lot. This is because not all areas of the world heat at the same rate and such a rapid change is hard to adapt to. There is no signs of relief from climate change. My opponent will attempt to deny climate change, but please remember how long the cigarette companies held out despite the science being heavily against them. Now we know as sure as the sun rises that cigarettes cause cancer. I can honestly state that as sure as the sun rises, global climate change is upon us and is a threat. Al Gore's inconvenient truth is still a master piece, and I will not accept defeat until my opponent can defeat the documentary. [1]Not watching Al Gore's documentary is no excuse. If your a serious climate change denier, it just makes you look uncommitted and shallow to criticize climate change without watching the premier documentary. Thank you for reading. Thanks in advance for accepting the debate. Sources0. http://climate.nasa.gov... 1. http://www.imdb.com...
Debunking the Old Testament is not Debunking Jesus as Messiah

Jesus challenged parts of the Old Testament, so I argue that anyone else's debunking of concepts from the Old Testament possibly makes their observations of the Old Testament similar or the same as Jesus' view on it. Perhaps even he felt some Old Testament laws, statements of fact, and commands were nonsense. Perhaps he felt that parts of the Old Testament were manmade manipulations of well intended words that were now being used to enslave the minds of men. He may have thought the original words of God were changed over time and had lost any divine inspiration and he may have believed they were poorly interpreted. The so named Son of God, if truely divine may have simply deemed the Old Testament as archaic, outdated, and not always useful when it came to the relationship between God and the modern, intellectual man. The Pharisees challenged Jesus and his apostles. Here are two verses from the New Testament's book of Mark describing the Pharisees displeasure. King James Bible Mark 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashed hands, they found fault. American King James Version Mark 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not your disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands? In this example the Pharisees were challenging Jesus and his apostle's ways of eating as unclean, thus meaning they were breaking commands of the Old Testament. These next two verses are examples of the Old Testament verses that the Pharisees were using to challenge Jesus and his apostles. Their claim was that the actions of Jesus and his apostles broke the Law of Moses mentioned in Leviticus concerning clean hands. Leviticus 15:7 King James Version 7Whoever touches the man who has a discharge must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Leviticus 15:10 King James Version 10And whosoever toucheth any thing that was under him shall be unclean until the even: and he that beareth any of those things shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. One might expect Jesus to bow to the authority of the Laws of Moses and the religious Pharisees' points, but Jesus responded by denying the logic of the religious laws and the points of the Pharisees by correcting them. Here are verses demonstrsting his defense of his personal practice. Matthew 23:36 American King James Version You blind Pharisees, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Matthew 15:11 New International Version 11What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them. This was my first point using examples to demonstrate that Jesus may have been a debunker himself, and if he truely was the Messiah or God the Son, his words give the Old Testament no full authority over the people of Earth.
Debunking the Old Testament is not Debunking Jesus as Messiah

Atheists constantly use the word "debunked" when referring to the Bible. I would say most if not all "debunking" claims are from the Old Testament. Furthermore, I challenge someone to prove that "debunking" the Old Testament proves "debunking" of Jesus as Messiah. To make the argument clear, let's say debunking the Old Testament is not debunking Jesus as Messiah. I pick the pro position since this is my argumement.
Debunking the Old Testament is not Debunking Jesus as Messiah

I will address the fourth rounds comments in the three separate points that were made at the end. "First, Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. With examples I have demonstrated that "the law" to Jesus is love your God, neighbor, and enemy." The love of God, neighbor and enemy are all rather vague, and seem reasonable enough if thats all that he was fulfilling. However, there are all sorts of ear marks if you will, on what those three things mean. It appears that you are well aware of the Sermon on the Mount, as you referenced verse 17 from chapter 5 of the book of Matthew; but I must ask, what would we be able to say about these laws if they were not originally proposed in the Old Testament? As for the second point, "Jesus said he came to fulfill the prophets. I've given exames and a link that cover claims of Jesus fulfilling prophecies from the Old Testament," I think you have proven my point for me here. Why was Jesus said to have fulfilled all these prophecies? Quite simply, because he had to fulfill them to be the Messiah. If the Old Testament were wholly false, or even nonexistent, would we be able to say that Jesus was the Messiah? No. There is no basis for such a claim; and if in the former case, the basis would be false, so at the most, as I have said before, he would be a false prophet or Messiah. On the final point, "Jesus challenged and ignored much of the other parts of the Old Testament. He never claimed that outside of prophecy the Old Testament was 100% true, useful, or had authority/power," the prophecies are the most important part of the Old Testament for Jesus; for without them, as I have said, he would in no way be regarded as the Messiah. The laws and the prophecies are the part of the Old Testament that are most necessary for Jesus to be the Messiah, without them, he is not the Messiah. In sum, I would assert that you would not need to go as far as "debunking" the Old Testament as a whole; rather, all that is required for Jesus not to be the Messiah is to find that the prophecies that he is fulfilling are false or that he never really fulfilled them.