BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Peyton Manning is an overall better quarterback than Tom Brady

Howdy, Dan you still don't get it. Postseason is were people make there name. With out postseason regular season is pointless. Do you know why Donavan McNabb was really never included with the greats of our time? Because of his failure in the postseason. He didn't do as bad as Manning but until 04 be choked everyyear right b4 the Super Bowl. your point: "but if you are not good in the regular season, you will not even be in the post season. YOu have to play well in the regular season just to make it to the postseason." Is true, But you assume tht "manning" is the only one who pulls through the regular season. Brady is equally successful in the regular season. The thing that rises him above manning is his postseason record. Which even you can't doubt is WAY better than Mannings. just go back to my "Manning to Brady" stats in my last debate. o.K. Manning didn't choke for 1 year when he got to the playoffs but that 1 year is nothng compared to all of Bradys years. Brady has done what Manning did (1 time) 3 times. To the stat about the 3rd down percentage that has nothing to do with the Qb its the Dfense. that only goes to my side of the debate. Like in all his years Manning has had plaYERS backing him up. Brady had to suffice with 3rd rate receivers who only got elevated to the next level by Bradys work while Manning through out his career had talent behind him. (Harrison, Wayne, Clark, Edge James, a great D) Brady hasn't had any of that and he has pulled it off. Manning didn't choke in the Super Bowl. clap clap clap. BRADY HASN'T EVER CHOKED IN A PLAYOFF GAME NEVER MIND THE SUPER BOWL. Whoo. here we go ahhh BRADY HAS NEVER CHOKED IN A SUPER BOWL HE WAS PULLED OF COMEBACKS. WITH TEAMS WAY BETTER THAN THE BEARS! sorry for the loud voice it was nessisary (lol)
Peyton Manning is an overall better quarterback than Tom Brady

Hey Kev, Again, I have to disagree with you on the point that the postseason is more important than the regular season. Of course, you have to play well in the postseason to win it all, but if you are not good in the regular season, you will not even be in the post season. YOu have to play well in the regular season just to make it to the postseason. Manning can always come through and make it to the postseason. Ill admit that he has choked alot once he has gotton there, but aren't we forgetting last year? Manning had to pull out some close games. For example, the Colts beat the Patriots just 28 to 24. In that game Manning out passed Brady 349 to 232. That was a very close game where on the last play of the game with only a couple minutes remaining, Manning had to march his team down the field for the game-winning touchdown. Also in that game, Manning had a 53% third down efficiency, when Brady only had 35%. Also, in the Super Bowl, although the Bears hadthelead the whole first half Manning wasable to dig deep, take the lead, and hold it all the way to the end.
Peyton Manning is an overall better quarterback than Tom Brady

First Philly, You think postseason is where it matters, but to get a regular season MVP you have to play good all season. To win a super bowl MVP, you only have to play one good game. Also, if you win, the winning quarter back is 3 times out of 4 going to win the MVP. Also, yes manning has a weaker running game, which means he has to do more to help his team. Brady has less pressure because he has all those runners in the back. Manning has to carry his team all by himself. He has to singlehandadly march his team down the field for a score every drive. Last, I am talking over all his career. You can't say manning is bad just because he had a couple bad games this year. Look at all of Peyton's amazing performances in the past.
Peyton Manning is an overall better quarterback than Tom Brady

Hey, Dan I will acknowledge your points of "Peyton has 2 regular season MVP's and Brady has none. Although Brady is, I'll admit, playing amazing football now, over their careers, Peyton is an overall better quarterback. Also, Peyton currently still holds the record for most touchdowns in a season, and his team didn't have to run up the score for him to achieve this record." And I will pick each point apart separately. For the MVPs, yes, being a MVP is an honor but, postseason is were it really matters. Contrary to Manning's 1 Super Bowl ring Brady has 3. Yes Brady is playing great but Brady has always played great. Manning, though not a lot, has been inconsistent at few points in his career. Like the last two weeks against San Diego and Kansas City. Brady no matter the situation has played great always. Peyton yes holds the record but that was with no running game. Brady has always had a running game to even it out. With Corey Dillon, Kevin Faulk, or Laurence Maroney. Manning had Edgerin James for a bit and only now he was one in Joseph Addai. Also, Brady has done good with no receivers. Brady up until this year has had 3rd rate receivers yet has still dominated. Manning has always had great receivers but now when Harrison is injured yet he still has Clark and Wayne he struggles. But, your point about the score I must admit is true.
Jesus was the Son of God.

My opponent has forfeited this round and still has no counter argument, which once again unfortunately leaves me with nothing to debate about in this round. *VOTERS* Please, vote according to who you think debated better, not on your personal beliefs (as I mentioned in Round 1, I also personally believe Jesus is the Son of God). The fact is, it is physically and scientifically impossible for this to happen, because God had no physical presence on earth. Therefore there is no way he could have impregnated Mary, which by definition, is the only way God could be Jesus' father. Thanks again to all of the spectators for their time and patience.
Jesus was the Son of God.

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. ***NOTE***: I am a Catholic, and I personally DO believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but I accepted this debate due to the fact that it CANNOT BE PROVEN. =Definitions= Jesus - Also called Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth. born 4? b.c., crucified a.d. 29?, the source of the Christian religion. http://dictionary.reference.com... Was - 1st and 3rd pers. sing. pt. indic. of be. http://dictionary.reference.com... The - (used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an ): the book you gave me; Come into the house. http://dictionary.reference.com... Son - a male child or person in relation to his parents. http://dictionary.reference.com... Of - (used to indicate distance or direction from, separation, deprivation, etc.): within a mile of the church; south of Omaha; to be robbed of one's money. http://dictionary.reference.com... God - the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. http://dictionary.reference.com... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since I am not a big fan of semantics, I just want to say that I am guessing that my opponent is referring to the Christian God and not some other god like Allah. To begin, I request my opponent show proof of verses that Jesus is mentioned to be the Son of God. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- =Arguments= In Christianity, we believe that Mary is the mother of Jesus. She was conceived by the Holy Spirit. So right off the bat, God is in no way the father of Jesus, because his sperm did not fertilize Mary's eggs. In fact, it's believed that no one's sperm was used in the conceiving of Jesus. It was a "miraculous" impregnation. If anyone should be called the "The Father of God" it should be Joseph. Joseph married Mary and when she became pregnant, everyone assumed that Mary had commit adultery since Joseph had never had sexual relations with her. When the whole town was going to stone Mary for her sins, Joseph had a sudden realization that Mary really was conceived miraculously. He then called of the stoning and loved her like a normal wife. Joseph was always a role model to Jesus when he was growing up; teaching him to be a carpenter, etc. It is safe to call Joseph a "father-figure". I will save the rest of my arguments for the next rounds. In conclusion, scientifically, there is no way Jesus can be the Son of God. God never had physical presence on earth. Thanks to the readers for their time.
Hirsch"s theory of pedagogy trumps Freire"s

The purpose of education is to teach people how to think for themselves, not just feed them with basic information that they wont know how to use when the time comes. Camaraderie comes in to place where student and teacher both work collectively, rather than a student being taught certain things as if they were being "programmed". Freire brings up an interesting point where he compares the love of the banking system much to the love for death i.e. necrophilia. As stated by Freire,"The necrophilous person is driven by the desire to transform the organic into inorganic, to approach life mechanically, as if all living persons were things"Memory, rather than experience; having, rather than being, is what counts." What he"s saying, in my opinion, is that in order to achieve true comprehension and education of all the matters in the world, one must simply experience it, not just be told facts and expected to memorize it. As humans, we can"t grow that way and the banking system cripples our students" ways of thinking and learning by forcing them to do just that.
Hirsch"s theory of pedagogy trumps Freire"s

The purpose of education is to teach people how to think utilizing the vehicle of learning things.(Psychologytoday.com) Proper education in areas such as reading and writing are essential for learning a language that is crucial for communicating. "1.4 Why is literacy so important in the modern world? Where communications fail, so do the undertakings (That is the moral of the story of the Tower of Babel.) The function of national literacy is to foster effective nationwide communications. Our chief instrument of communication over time and space is the standard national language, which is sustained by national literacy". If people are teaching each other and there is no authoritative person giving the instructions wrong information will be passed along and taken as truth. This can lead to bad reading, writing, and pronunciation. Teachers with certifications are assumed to have more knowledge than the students, that is why they are the ones teaching. A proper teaching of language is what enables people to communicate and understand each other. http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Hirsch"s theory of pedagogy trumps Freire"s

You said "In such a situation there is mutual learning, but false or inaccurate information can be mutually taught and learned". Whose to say that someone is right all the time just because they obtained a degree or certification. Problem-posing helps students prepare for the real world such as facing situations that require them to understand and think critically. The teacher should be cognitive in the sense that they should be helping the student by coming up with ways that they can do it better themselves, while at the same time the teacher is learning new ways to help the student. Thus, making them both able to learn from each other and both to be creative, in that sense.
Hirsch"s theory of pedagogy trumps Freire"s

You said, "the only right way to learn is through camaraderie and communication with a teacher, rather than to have one superior to the other". In such a situation there is mutual learning, but false or inaccurate information can be mutually taught and learned. How can someone teach another if they do not know the information is accurate. Where do either the student or teacher in the problem-posing acquire the information to teach another? In using the banking method the superior has degrees and certifications that allow them to teach. They went through years of learning to be able to teach. Hirsh states (6.2), "Our children can learn this information only by being taught ( referring to common knowledge) . Shared literate information is deliberately sustained by national systems of education in many countries because they recognize the importance of giving their children a common basis for communication". Common information must be taught by a superior who knows the information they are teaching.
Hirsch"s theory of pedagogy trumps Freire"s

Problem-posing allows people to develop their human natures fully because it depends on dialogue, recognizes the relationship between people and the world, encourages discovery and creativity, and leads to transformation. Friere states that the "banking method" is a way for students to be told information, not necessarily taught. He believes that the only right way to learning is through camaraderie and communication with a teacher, rather than to have one superior to the other. Freire states that to truly commit to ending the banking method, is if the students themselves reject it all together.
Hirsch"s theory of pedagogy trumps Freire"s

Cultural literacy is fundamental to establishing a strong communication between people. Cultural literacy is referred to "the network of information that all competent readers possess. It is the background information, stored in their minds, that enables them to take up a newspaper and read it with an adequate level of comprehension, getting the point, grasping the implications, relating what they read to the unstated context which alone gives meaning to what they read" as Hirsch stated. Literacy is essential for successful communications. Without cultural literacy communication will not be as effective as it should because things will not be understood. Literacy can only be learned if a higher individual teaches it as Hirsch said(6.2).
Globalization

IntroductionNo, you are not obligated to utilize the word "shall." If you desire to, you may. However, it is a word I personally enjoy using. This round and the next will indeed be used for actually debating. I simply yearn to have a short and simple debate for I have many obligations in my personal life. Arguments Globalization is the connecting, linking, cooperation, and trading of markets on a global scale. That is the simple definition. Now, why and how would this, in any manner, have a negative effect on the world economy? For example, businesses right here in the United States grow larger and more successful when they export goods to other nations. Businesses all around the world do the same thing and that benefits them as well. In the twenty-first century, we cannot be a nationalist, prideful, arrogant country. We must cooperate and trade with markets all around the world. Switzerland exports cheese; Japan exports technology. Every nation has a product or products that we need to prosper. The same is true for our relationship with other nations. The goods the United States produces and exports are necessary for other nations to thrive. In this young, new century, every nation upon Earth must trade with one another more than ever before. Globalization is particularly beneficial for countries that are still developing and growing. For your information, globalization does not mean shipping jobs overseas and neglecting economic growth at home. It means for all nations to cooperate and trade. Countries can trade raw materials in exchange for materials or products they require. My source says, "Virtually all economists agree that the large majority of residents of our shrunken planet are considerably better off through the growth of markets and the efforts of the GATT and its successor, the WTO, to keep them open. With ever expanding technology comes new markets, increased demand for products but also greater competition. There are now more people with computers connected to the world who are investing than ever before." Another source says, "Nothing is created within global trading but winners since selling products creates increase in demand for those products because the foreigners’ net demand will be added onto the domestic demand. So, with a demand increase, prices will rise. Still, purchasing products will create increases within product supply since net foreign supply will be added onto the domestic supply. Therefore, with this supply increase, the prices will drop. Nobody will lose. It is definitely a win-win situation for every country that participates." Now, please forgive me if my debate arguments are poor. I have been dormant for quite a while on debate.org. Maybe my skills have eroded over time. However, I believe I have made a good case for globalization. Citations"Benefits of Globalization | Benefits Of." Benefits of Globalization | Benefits Of. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Aug. 2014. <http://benefitof.net...;. "Globalization For the Benefit of All." David Kilgour. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Aug. 2014. <http://www.david-kilgour.com...;.
Globalization

DefinitionsGood day. I would like to debate the issue of globalization. However, I shall define a few terms first: Globalization - "the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign" Economy - the process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought in a country or regionIn this debate, I will argue that globalization has a positive effect on the world economy and the general welfare of the people. My opponent, on the other hand, shall argue that globalization is not necessarily a positive thing. Rules1. All sources will be cited. 2. There shall be no forfeiture.3. Proper spelling and grammar shall be used. RoundsRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsCitations "Globalization." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 27 Aug. 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com...;"Economy." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 27 Aug. 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com...;.
Donald Trump's Idea for a Border Wall is a Good Idea

The BoP for this debate is shared, meaning both sides will have to provide evidence to support their side of the argument. I will be arguing that Donald Trump's border wall is *not* a good idea, while my opponent will argue that it is. Round 1: Acceptance, opening statement Round 2: Opening arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Counter-rebuttals, closing statement No kritiks or trolling. Don't accept if you can't be sure you won't forfeit every round. By accepting this debate, you agree to these conditions. Opening Statement: Donald Trump's wall would be a waste of time, money, resources, and will do more harm than good.
Si Hay Una "Nube De Oort"

Qué linda historia, pero no nos has presentado mucha evidencia de esta "Nube De Oort." Tus solas "pruebas" de esta nube hipotética son las siguientes:1. Un par de hombres llamados "Morbidelli" y "Weissman" lo dijeron años atrás. Sin embargo, mucha genta ha dicho mucha basura, incluyendo los científicos (por ejemplo, la existencia del planeta "Vulcan" que realmente nunca existió).2. Solstation.com lo afirma. El problema aquí es que primero, este sitio no tiene credibilidad. Segundo, ni nos demuestra ninguna evidence de la Nube De Oort!"In short, although none of our craft have ever reached it due to it being so distant from us, we can measure the gravitational force this mass exerts on us and our surroundings, and thus know of it's existence."Sí sí, ¿cómo el planeta que se llama Vulcan? Claro.
Si Hay Una "Nube De Oort"

Ladies and Gentlemen, Senoritas y Senores, The Oort Cloud. The Oort cloud is thought to be a remnant of the original protoplanety disc that formed around the sun 4.6 billion years ago. Long ago, when our sun was still young and building up it's gravitational mass, it began drawing in various pieces of rubble like rock and stuff. This collection of debris began clumping together, forming the foundations for the 8 planets, 5 dwarf planets, and 3000 comets that line our solar system today. But... Some of the debris got flung thousands of miles away by super-gravity planets like Jupiter and Saturn, and over the billions of years, scattered in a semi even pattern almost one light-year from the sun [1]. This cloud is mainly composed of comets, totaling roughly five times the mass of Earth [2]! We can measure the background gravitational forces from the milky way galaxy and check the difference when examining known celestial bodies, and determine that there are additional forces left out of the equation, examination of this phenomenon shows that the outermost Oort Cloud actually curves towards the center of the Galaxy, the second greatest point of gravity [3]. In short, although none of our craft have ever reached it due to it being so distant from us, we can measure the gravitational force this mass exerts on us and our surroundings, and thus know of it's existence. Sources: 1 - Alessandro Morbidelli (2006). "Origin and dynamical evolution of comets and their reservoirs of water ammonia and methane." 2 - Paul R. Weissman (1983). "The mass of the Oort Cloud". Astronomy and Astrophysics 3 - "Oort Cloud & Sol b?" SolStation.