BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Baseball is better than football

Football is better because it involves more team effort. It is also more exercise because you are wearing lots of pads. In baseball out have people running around on dirt getting their clothes dirty. And that is bad for whoever has to clean them. In football all you get is grass stains that are easy to wash out. And you don't have to worry about your pads shrinking. It is also easier to take care of the fields. Because in baseball you have to worry about the dirt washing away and there is a ton of grass to water. And that takes a lot of water. And more people get famous or football than baseball. Therefore football is better for the environment, easier for the people taking care of the field, easier to take care of the equipment, and less expensive. Football is better
Baseball is better than football

I think baseball is better than football because there is not as many injuries to deal with and it's much more fun. In football, if you are one of the worst on your football team, you barely play about 8 plays a game. In baseball, if you're one of the worst, you play 4-5 innings a game and that's still a lot of playing time. That is why I think baseball is better than football. Also, studies show that there is more than 2,000 concussions a year...That's A LOT!!!!
High-end fashion houses should not produce plus-size clothes for women

I am not prejudiced and I do realise that it's not a fat person's fault that they were born genetically greedy and lazy, but there is a treatment available – it's called "eating less and getting more exercise". But this cure doesn't come in pill form – it requires willpower – and sadly, for too many people, the attractions of TV and pizzas are just too strong to overcome: which is why so many women are overweight. At the end of the day (and I'm guessing here) sh1t with sugar on it doesn't taste much better than plain old excrement and the same principle applies to fat birds. No matter how much they spend on fancy clothes, posh hairstyles and expensive cosmetics, they cannot disguise the fact they are overweight. Let's be honest with ourselves here shall we? Which girl do you think a man would rather take home: a nice sexy slim girl wearing a cheap dress or a big fat ugly girl wearing an expensive dress? You see? And that's why it's a good thing that high-end fashion houses don't make clothes for overweight women – as well as damaging their brands' images, it would be a waste of fat women's money. Thank you.
High-end fashion houses should not produce plus-size clothes for women

Rolls-Royce don't make pick-up trucks. Le Manoir aux Quat'Saisons don't serve hamburgers and fries. Sunseeker Yachts don't make pedalos. Fortnum & Mason don't sell toilet rolls. Cartier don't make disposable lighters. Montblanc don't make felt tip pens. Chanel don't make air fresheners. The Ritz doesn't have strippers on in the Palm Court. And high-end fashion houses don't make clothes for fat women. When a German magazine dared to suggest that fashion houses should produce clothes for overweight women, designer Karl Lagerfeld branded the idea "absurd" and said that it was driven by "fat mummies sitting with their bags of crisps in front of the television, saying that thin models are ugly". And in June this year, British designer Julien Macdonald, who is a judge on the TV show Britain's Next Top Model, said that it would be "a joke" if a plus-size model won the contest. [1] However, Tamara Sender, Senior Fashion Analyst at market research company Mintel said: "Rising levels of obesity…mean that plus-size consumers are increasing and these shoppers are looking for improved choice in plus-size clothing and more fashionable garments" and with "nearly 40% of the female population wearing clothes sized 16 and over, there is growing demand for clothing more representative of the overall population." [2] Nevertheless, no major up-market fashion house has so far produced a range of clothes for ladies with fuller figures. And neither should they. Luxury goods are supposed to be attractive and aspirational and few would suggest that an outfit on a size 18 model would look more attractive than on a size 8 model - and very few women aspire to be fat! So if a high-end fashion house tried to cash in on the demand for outsize designer clothes they would immediately relegate their brand to that of a mainstream clothes manufacturer which would mean they could no longer charge premium prices for their goods. Look at it this way: people pay extra for a bottle of Dom Pï¿½rignon over other brands of champagne because of it's perceived cachet, but would they continue to do so if the company decided to produce a range of Dom Pï¿½rignon-branded alcopops as well? I doubt it! For the same reason, high-end fashion houses should not produce plus-size clothes for women. Thank you. Sources: [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Amazon is yanking our chains about that drone delivery system

Here I will list your arguments and give my feedback. 1: First off, that would be illegal. By that same logic, people could just shoot down the human delivering stuff for the "prize package". But you don't see that happening everyday. 2: To be honest I'm not sure how they could work this one out. That is a very good argument. Maybe the drones could be operated by humans, but I guess that would defeat the purpose of them in the first place. 3: Who's to say these little drones can't be weather proofed? I bet there's some heavy duty something out there that could protect these drones. 4: If someone is going to be ordering something via drone, then I thing they would be at the place the package is being delivered to. So, once the drone drops the package off the person can just go and pick it up. 5: As for the drones being able to avoid obstacles, they could put a camera on it so that it could see its surroundings and calculate its path. So, all of my arguments are just guesswork. Amazon may or may not go through with this drone thing, but I think it is a very intereting idea to look into.
Amazon is yanking our chains about that drone delivery system

Sorry, I missed the other round. I did not realize someone had finally accepted the debate. Not getting notices from this site to my email is not helping. Anyway, the reason why I don't think Amazon will ever implement a drone delivery system are the following: 1. The sky would be so full of drones, it would be great fun for bored people to shoot them down. They would shoot them, not just for the fun of it, but also for the prize package they would get. 2. How could drones possibly deliver to people living in condos and apartments? In most of those places, packages have to be taken to an office and signed for and the resident is notified that they have a package. A drone will not go through doors to find a desk clerk to get a package signed for and then exit. Not possible. 3. Weather. How is a drone going to deliver when the weather is bad? Rain and lighting cannot be good for a little drone with electrical components. 4. Even though a drone could find a residential destination, it cannot know where to drop the package. A human would know to leave it out of the weather elements as in under a porch to be protected in case of rain. A drone could leave it out in the middle of the yard only to get rained on (or stolen) before someone gets home. It is not going to ring a doorbell and wait for a signature. A drone can only see an address. It cannot know what it will find once it finds an address as far as cover or a good place to leave a package. 5. I could be mistaken on this part but how can a drone avoid trees and power lines? It may know exactly where to go but can it see any obstacles in the way? I doubt it. Your turn!
You simply can not justify being against capital punishment and being pro-choice.

Well, I really have nothing much to say. I would like to clarify something though. It suffices for me to refute whatever megan said by pointing out that she did not provide any reasons for her stance. That alone is enough for me to convince someone of my position. I do not have to go around spending time -- that could be used for something more constructive -- in trying to anticipate what questions megan may bring up and then answering them. She's the one that's supposed to bring them up (as opposed to me). Megan, I am so sorry you were unable to respond to that round, since it was pretty critical for your side. If you want to debate me at any other time, please respond in the comments section. I think it should also be a better idea if we have more rounds, since this issue needs a lot of consideration, besides being very interesting.
You simply can not justify being against capital punishment and being pro-choice.

Hi megan. Thanks for coming up with the topic. I am currently on vacation so I was unable to post a response sooner. Things don't always look the way they are. For example, in math, someone could think that there are more integers than there are even integers. But there are actually as many integers as there are even integers. In topology, using our innate understanding of what volume is, you would think that if you could perform a FINITE number of cuts to an orange, you wouldn't be able to reassemble the pieces to obtain two oranges. However, this is not true: you CAN get two oranges with a FINITE number of cuts. In fact, you can get as many oranges as you want! My point is that your first impression of something may deceive the mind, but when we analyze it carefully, we realize that it does make sense after all. Being pro-choice & against capital punishment Although the reasons for believing that the two views are hypocritical may appear obvious to you, you do not explicitly state what are your reasons for your claim. I could speculate and try to guess as to why you may believe that the two views are hypocritical, but there are many reasons I can think of for anyone to believe so. But if you claim that the two views do not make sense, you are the one that must provide arguments to back it up. Having said that, for the purposes of clarification, I would like you to elaborate on what exactly is hypocritical about those two views, and what makes no sense. Please explain your line of reasoning with as much detail as possible, since there is only one more round to this debate. The reason I mentioned integers and oranges is to try to illustrate why it is important to be careful by being explicit in presenting your reasons for believing something. If you just rely on instinct, you can never be sure that your initial impression makes sense.
You simply can not justify being against capital punishment and being pro-choice.

Some people claim to be totally pro-choice, but completely against the death penalty. That is two extremely hypocritical conflicting views. That makes no sense whatsoever. The opposing argument will probably be something along the lines of, "It is a person's choice to do what they want to their body." I am fully prepared to refute whatever my opponent has to say about this issue. In my personal opinion killing innocent babies, who have clearly done nothing wrong, is murder. Yes, it is the mother's body and she should have a choice, but the baby is a human too. The baby should have a right to life just as the mother does. On the other hand, a bloodthirsty murderous criminal will be humanely put to death by lethal injection, and the same pro-choice activists cry out about how wrong that is. Logically, these to opinions naturally contradict with each other, and I would be delighted if someone could prove to me that they do in fact coincide with each other.
Abortion should be banned nationally unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

I added the "except to save the life of the mother" part really more to appease those who would say that it should be an exception, though really the only situation that I can think of would be an ectopic pregnancy. To solve that, it does kill the baby, but technically it isn't an abortion, just the removal of a tube. Mainly, I want to make it clear that there would be no exceptions for rape/incest, because the issue hear isn't taking responsibility for ones actions; rather it is out of respect for the sanctity of human life.
Abortion should be banned nationally unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

I think it should not be band at all how many moms do you hear any more dying from giving birth or having to REALLY give up there child before he is borne other wise she will die. It just dosent happen anymore Moms all over America can have there babies taken out at 6 months into pregnancy. Tis isnt the 1800 when moms are at risk of dying every time they have a baby we have proffesinal doctors that know a whole lot more about the human bodie and have medicines we can give them that will keep them alive. So i dont think motheres even die in giving child birth anymore it has now become a naturale thing when yor delivering a baby these day a dads not over there in the corner chewing his fingernails wonder if his wife will die or not. Maby on rare ecations do you have to kill the baby to save the mom these days.Are technoligy is just to good. And this is my point I agree with you that Abortion should be nationally band unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. But this is my point that that rarely ever happens usually if that does happen it is in 456 months into the pregnancy and by then doctors can take the baby out of there any ways.
Abortion should be banned nationally unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

The legalization of abortion in this country has resulted in the deaths of over 40 million unborn babies. This is due to the fact that many people in our society no longer view unborn babies as humans and see them as either part of the mother or not developed enough to be considered human. Genetically, from conception an embryo is separate from the mother. This can be seen through the difference in DNA code of the two beings. After all, is the penis of an unborn son part of the mother? Abortion in our society is similar to slavery, and we should put it in our distant past. Before the Civil War, states allowed for the legalization of slavery because blacks looked different than what "normal humans" were known to look like. The institution was upheld by a famous Supreme Court case as well. Furthermore, many people before the Civil War said that they were personally opposed to slavery but didn't believe that they could justifiably apply their morals to others. This argument has been used in the defense of abortion as well. The parallels between slavery and abortion are numerous, and it's time that we learn from history before we repeat the story any further.
Gun Restriction

As my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I will restate my earlier points. Gun restriction would clearly not limit our ability to thwart an invasion, and only puts more destructive weapons in the hands of ill-intentioned individuals. There is no need for semi-automatic guns for self-defense or hunting, so I don't see why anybody would want one. Under your assumption that the Chinese will invade, why not arm our citizens with much more powerful weapons? Gun restriction is necessary to prevent ill-intentioned people from obtaining such powerful weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill. I ask that you give me the conduct point for my opponents forfeit.
Gun Restriction

You are right, no guns would be a bad thing. However, I am curious as to why citizens would need semi-automatic weapons. It seems that a shotgun or a handgun would be enough to defend yourself against an attacker, and you certainly don't use them to hunt. If China did invade, it would probably be followed by a massive cyberattack which knocks out all of the power in the United States, people could quite possibly turn on each other in a panic and the stores would be emptied within an hour. It strengthens my argument that you point out that with the advanced weaponry we have today, a united militia against the Chinese would be almost useless. The country has become increasingly revolved around cities as well, of which the biggest ones would descend into anarchy as soon as the power went out, unable to be evacuated effectively. It would be easy for the Chinese to wipe out the largest concentrations of the population (NYC, LA, etc), although they ultimately may cause more harm if left alone. I ask you again, why would a citizen need anything more than a handgun to defend themselves? Assuming that our powerful military is able to ward off a Chinese invasion, there is no need for such violent weapons.
Gun Restriction

China has it's own allies to help them. I'm not saying that China is likely to invade, but I do think that during the Revolutionary War American militias could stand up to the Hessian and the British forces. I know that back then they didn't have any drones or smart bombs, but the right to have the comfort of our own weapons with no restrictions has always been the American way. To protect people against shootings at schools and malls, a sort of defense group other than the Police should guard citizens. Banning or restricting who buys guns is not going to stop someone from getting a gun. It's not always guns that are used either. A couple of years ago a boy with a Katana killed three people in his school. There should just be, as I said earlier, some sort of guard besides the police; The police don't act fast enough to stop a shooter, but an increase in public security would deter most would-be killers. I say guns aren't the problem ,the problem is the security of our public areas. I respect your decision to try and improve the safety of our nation. But I do believe that we could protect ourselves against shootings if we were allowed to carry our own weapons, as a defense. Or at least have an increase in Public security ,drastically.
Gun Restriction

First, I must ask, how do you define gun restriction? Because that could range from guns being completely banned to more destructive guns being banned. You argue that if we restrict which types of guns are allowed in the United States, that China would be not be as hesitant to invade. The United States currently spends more than the next 5 countries combined [1] and has the best equipped military in the world, so even if the Chinese surpass us in military capability, the United States will still be extremely intimidating, and an invasion would be very costly (both in money and lives). Even if the Chinese were angry at our outstanding debt, an invasion would simply be foolish. The mock scenario would never happen, and even if it did, a small militia of citizens with guns would not be able to stop an organized military with capabilities far superior to their own. This also assumes that America's allies have just abandoned it, possibly in an attempt to appease the Chinese? If the Chinese did something so hostile as invading the US, don't you think that the world would be concerned? What is to stop the Chinese from taking their natural resources? Assuming that no other world power has stepped up to the plate by that time, China would disturb the natural balance of power, giving them the ability to intimidate and influence the world because nobody is keeping them in check. Yes, the world may be quite anti-American, but would they really prefer the Chinese over us? [1] http://www.un.org...
Gun Restriction

Gun restrictions will limit our ability to defend ourselves if the Military fails. Nobody would think that there are countries looking to invade America, but I believe that because of our debt to China they may become angry and want their money back. Except that we do not have any money for them to take, what's to stop China from getting the land equivalent to money. Maybe the Chinese government would invade just because they need more space for their overflowing population. If they over run our Military than the people and our weapons, our guns will be the only thing to stop them.
scientifically inexplicable things occur, apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

Well I would never try to convince someone miracles exist, and if that was what you wanted then I loose. But, the title states "scientifically inexplicable things occur, apparently supernatural, but not to atheists", and I chose to argue the point that miracles don't happen to anyone. It is still Con, and I see nowhere in your posts that says I am to find miracles happening to atheists. Also, if a miracles happened to an atheist (assuming miracles happen at all), they would no longer be an atheist. So I guess this turns out to be an argument over what the argument is about, and if I thought I was wrong I would concede, but I still think I held my side.
scientifically inexplicable things occur, apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

actually, you didn't do what was asked of you. i asked you to show examples of things that appear supernatural, as i have done with the theists. all you did is try to argue how it's not supernatural to begin with. even if that was true, you should be able to find the examples. as to multiple sclerosis, i have heard that it goes into spontaneous remission. im sure the medical books document it if that's true. but there's plenty of other diseases listed on there, eye damage disease, nerves, vessel damage etc. that do not have explanations. perhaps there are explanations, but again the point of the debate is for someone to show those sorts of things happening to atheists or in a nonreligouis context. examp[les of mutiple sclerosis dont count as ive acnowledged that science says it happens naturall sometimes. it was a simple request, and the whole point of the debate, and it wasn't honored.
scientifically inexplicable things occur, apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

I'm not sure exactly what you want from me. I am arguing that scientifically inexplicable things do not occur. Trying to find examples of such happening to atheists would be against my argument. Not only that, but it doesn't happen. As far as my previous point goes about there not being incurable illnesses, I was merely playing devils advocate. After reexamining your sources, the incurable illnesses that have been "cured", were either not cured, or falsely diagnosed to begin with. Many of these diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, often go into remission, sometimes lasting for life. This is not a cure, it is merely in remission. Again, not sure what you want, somehow I'm not honoring my side of the debate? We may have to rematch because as far as I'm concerned I've done what has been asked of me...
scientifically inexplicable things occur, apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

it was a simple request. i showed some things that could be said to appear supernatural happening to theists, and i asked for something similar happening to atheists. this wasn't done. even if there are natural explanations, there should at least be something equivalent looking happening to atheists. also, i showed plenty of credible links and organizations and people there. look closer if you dont see it, and search the internet for corraborating evidence of what's posted. your points. randi. he may have too high of standards for gauging the supernatural. if he expects reproduciblity it isn't somethjing that should be expected, even if miracles occurred. an eye might spontaneously regenerate, but that dosn't mean you can make it happen to someoen else. also, tehre is always a possible natural explanation, but to a certain extent it's going to far to think this should be the case. if the eye grows back, it defies all known laws. does that mean there are laws that says it could grow back? possibly. it could also possibly be a miracle. straightforward, that's what it looks like. "you say it shouldnt be hard to find miracle happening to atheists. i disagree" so where are the examples? they dont have be 'miracles' per se, but things that appear supernatural, something like teh examples ive shown etc etc. in any case, it was a simple request, and the whole point of the debate,.... and it wasn't honored.