BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Eli Manning is not yet an elite quarterback compared to Brees, Brady and etc...

The definition of an elite quarterback has not been yet been defined. I can assure you that being an elite quarterback does not just mean coming out on top under pressure especially due to this years NFL season. Tim Tebow came out on top with pressure many times this season. How about Alex Smith against the the saints in the playoffs? If the definition of an elite quarterback is to come up big when the pressure is on Tebow and Alex Smith are elite quarterbacks in your definition. Lets put them right next to Brady and Peyton mine as well. Might as well add Mark Sanchez to the list. Clearly preforming clutch in crunch time is not an effective way in claiming this. When you look at the stats which are effective in assessing whether a quarterback is an elite or not its important to look at completion percentage. All the guys i listed in my opening argument have above a 60 percent completion percentage. Eli Manning does not have a career completion percentage above 60. He is actually 60th on the all time list which is sort of ironic. Tim Couch has a better completion percentage so does the backup quarterback to the lions Shaun Hill. Every guy I listed above is in the top ten all time and Big Ben is even number 11. If you look at the postseason stats it is different. Eli plays well in the postseason. But I also believe to be an elite quarterback you got to play well in the regular season. Even his completion percentage is just a tad over 60 in the postseason. When your versing Brees, Brady, or Rodgers you know its going to be a shootout and a tough game. These guys dont lose and rarely have a losing season. The word rarely actually does not even work! lets change it to microscopically. If i were any team I rather verse Eli then Brady and Peyton (before his neck injury any day). The reason why is Eli is the most consistent quarterback in the NFL. This looks like the con argument now but it inst at all. When Eli is on hes on. when hes not on hes not on. Many sports journalist have claimed this over the years. In 07-08 season he hit a hot streak this season he hit a cold stone streak and got hot when it mattered. One of his former teammates even stated this about him i remember vividly on espn I just cant happen to find the link. Lets be honest hear to does a nine and seven team deserve to go to the playoffs? last year almost every giants fan was bashing the seahawks for making the playoffs. Now it is alright to make it to the playoffs with an almost losing record? Another stat to look at is wins vs losses and winning percentage. Eli Manning is 69 and 50 as a starting quarter back. Since when does a 19 game difference and a 580 career winning percentage put you in an elite class. Look at all the legends. There way above the 580 mark. There are other ways to to be considered an elite quarterback but i can assure you being clutch under pressure is not one of them. In the 2007-08 super bowl did you ever consider the pass to Tyree as a clutch catch or clutch pass. It looked like the ball was well above his head.
Eli Manning is not yet an elite quarterback compared to Brees, Brady and etc...

Eli Manning is most definitely an elite quarterback. First and foremost why can't we compare him to his brother Peyton and Drew Brees. He's already matched Peyton's two Super Bowl appearances and one Super Bowl win, he's also surpassed Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers in Super Bowl appearances and matched both Brees and Rodgers Super Bowl win record. To not call Eli Manning an elite quarterback is ridicule, to be elite doesn't mean Eli has to be better than Brady or Joe Montana, to be an elite quarterback simply means you have to be able to come out on top when your pressure, in fact you have to be able to never be in pressure. Pressure's only there when you don't have any idea what you're doing. If you honestly think he can't deal with pressure and isn't elite then maybe you better consider this, Eli Manning is in the Super Bowl for the second time in his life. How many times have you played in the Super Bowl?
Eli Manning is not yet an elite quarterback compared to Brees, Brady and etc...

In the NFL right now a popular subject is the elite quarterback. People claim Eli Manning has reached the elite level along with Brady, Peyton, Drew, and Rodgers. There is not enough evidence statistically speaking that puts him in this class. Sure he is having a hot post season and has more then a decent chance in winning another ring. Even if he does win another ring I would still put guys like Big Ben in front of him. Its not that Manning is a bad quarterback because hes not. Its the fact that people put him in the same category as Brady and Brees. This will be a five round debate and will last the max 72 hours.
Germ Theory is the best explanation for the diseases it claims to cause

I was very interested to see Akhenaten's views on Germ Theory. So interested, in fact, that I had to look into some of his other debates. I would like to validate Germ Theory in this debate and allow Akehnaten to outline his views.in summary, I will argue that Germ Theory is the best explanation for the diseases it claims to cause and Akhenaten will argue that it does not. Round one is acceptance. Feel free to Make arguments as well, if you'd like.Hopefully, we can have a cordial, well-meaning debate. Thank you to Akhenaten.
Germ Theory is the best explanation for the diseases it claims to cause

Firstly, I am not interested in the voting results because I already know that this website is inhabited by biased and ignorant individuals.Secondly, I am only here to humiliate people who believe in draconian concepts like Germ Theory.1. Germ Theory has never been proven to be a valid theory. It was only accepted because it was a way of making money out of gullible people. Money talks, so it was accepted and a huge pharmaceutical industry has since flourished to cater for this pathetic theory.2. Luis Pasteur was a fraud and a hustler who married the rector's daughter and became a famous scientist by stealing all the experiments of other scientists. Thus, he was similar to Einstien in that he was dull and stupid in science but was clever in decieving people. Thus, both Pasteur and Einstein were both thieving frauds who stole all their ideas from other people.3. Antoine Bechamp was the real expert on Germ Theory. But his theory differed from Pasteur in that he stated that "germs are the result of a disease and are not the cause of it"4. Prior to agriculture, there was no disease. Agricultural products are the cause of 98% of all diseases. These products include sugar, grain and dairy. The other 2% are caused by dangerous chemicals such as chlorine, bromine and flourine. These chemicals are known as halogens which cause a disruption of the human hormone system. The hormone system is an iodine based system which is vulneable to disruption by rogue halogens as listed above.5. When Germ Theory was formulated nobody knew anything about hormones, gut bacteria and leaky gut syndrome. Thus, Germ Theory is a totally moronic theory which disregards all knowledge of how hormones work; how the gut leaks when agrivated by grain products and how bacteria enter the blood stream internally instead of externally. Thus, the internal leakage of bacteria is a more logical explanation of disease than the exterior invasion model of disease. Therefore, Germ Theory is false because it assumes that the germs come from exterior sources.6. Germ Theory is illogical. How do germs know when to attack humans? Germs have no legs to attack with, no brains to think with, no eyes to see with. Thus, they are conpletely incapable of even finding anything to attack in the first place. Note - The word "attack" is used repeatedly by the medical fraterity, so don't try to deny that this word is ever used.
A psychology course should be mandated for all high school students in the US.

I got this idea from a debate I saw between Logician and RoyLatham (1), who are both supreme debaters. NO ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE GIVEN IN THIS FIRST ROUND. The next 3 rounds will be the usual debate. I'll go ahead and define some of the more important terms. 1. Psychology - the science of mind and behavior; the study of mind and behavior in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity (2). -Therefore, the field of psychology can be argued in and of itself, or the effects of psychology on other fields (for example, business or politics) can be argued by both sides. Either side can argue why these things are good or bad. -For clarification, the psychology courses themselves will teach a range of different branches from Freud to body language and everything in between (although the Pro will go ahead and admit that the courses will heavily favor the two fields of Transactional Analysis and body language; the other fields will be included for fairness and for history's sake). 2. Course - a number of lectures or other matter dealing with a subject constituting a curriculum (3). -I originally wanted to say "class" instead of "course," but the definitions are pretty vague. This is the standard stuff, nothing funky going on here. Whatever is normally going on in a high school or home school classroom will go on here too. 3. Mandate - an authoritative command (4). -To make sure the course curriculum matches nationwide, the course will be mandated by the federal government. And that's pretty much all I needed to say. Although I appreciate semantics and understand why they're useful sometimes, I hate seeing a debate go off on a tangent because of them. This round is just a precaution against that. The Con's first round should simply be an acceptance statement (although I wouldn't care if they felt the need to thank everyone who's brought them this far, e. g. their parents, their friends, the Academy. .. ) The debate will start in Round 2. The Con is free to post any definitions and clarifications in Round 1 if it feels like it'll need more space in Round 2, but it should realize that it'll be opening up some clues to me. If anybody has any more questions, please ask them in the comments box. And besides the arguments the Pro has opened itself up to with the definitions above, I also wanted to suggest that maybe the Con could argue that a different class be mandated instead of psychology? That should give the Con its own chunk of advantage to argue from. (1) . http://www.debate.org... (2) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (4) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

I will be taking the side of the atheist. I personally take the stance that I do not know but I can make an argument why there are no good reasons to be a theist. You forgot to add the definition of reason I will do it for youReason: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defenseI chose C from Merriam WebsterPremise 1:Believing in God is illogical. God is given so many titles it would be difficult to explain how God exists or might even be impossible. Premise 2:All arguments for God are flawed. Lets take your Kalam Cosmological Argument. P1: Whatever begins to exist has a causeP2: The universe began to existC: Therefore, The universe has a causeCause is not sufficient grounds to explain the existence of God. Afterwards you did ask the question Where did the universe come from? This states that even you do not know what caused the universe which leads me to believe you went straight to God without explaining how it could be God. Premise 3:No evidence so it is a belief. Belief does not require reason and the definition I gave requires a logical defense or ground of explanation which I am assuming you cannot do. I will keep to these. Bear in mind Pro requires to give a logical defense for God. If Pro wants to know what I specifically want it to be reason it is evidence. If none is given then tell me how it is logical to base anything without evidence. If not then it is not reasonable to be a theist. Like the title of the debate by the way can be misleading but I will let it slide. May we both learn something newSource:https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/reason
You should follow Stoic principles

Having emotions is a part of being human. Showing emotions is a clear reminder that we can be different and show different moods in every day life. Epictetus says that life is like a dinner party and when something is being passed to you, you either take it when you have it or it continues to move on, and you may never know if you will get it back again. If we take hold of the things that we desire, we can show that emotionally can take whatever may come to us. But if it passes us and we may never know if it will come back again, it is alright to feel emotional or feel pain because it shows that it does affect us. Humans can feel any affects in life and just carry on. We will be upset about it and feel pain but that is what it is like for being humans.
You should follow Stoic principles

The Stoics believe in living life without emotions, so that we will not be affected by our feelings but rather we can life our lives with clear minds, and as sharp as we possibly can. Epictetus demonstrates that if we seek pleasure, or pain for that matter, that we will have destroyed our lives. If we seek pleasure or pain or allow these desires to affect us, then we will be pulled in various different directions, unable to control ourselves or live efficiently. The Stoic way of life is ideal because we will be healthier and live longer, since we will not be consumed with emotions.
You should follow Stoic principles

Stoic principles encourage us to seek pain and pleasure in order to live a good life. In life, we must strive to want something, whether it includes pain in order to seek what we want. Life is a never ending struggle and often does include pain and we must suffer and use that pain in order to get what we desire. Stoic principles are important and can relate to anyone's life, no matter what background we are from or what we seek in life.
You should follow Stoic principles

In order to live the best possible life, you should follow Stoic principles. If we live our lives seeking either pain or pleasure, we will have wasted our time, energy and ultimately our lives. Considering the words of Epictetus, he demonstrated the importance of detaching ourselves from everything in our lives, such as material possession and people. The basis of this idea is that we will not be affected emotionally or physically when this thing is no longer present. Another primary example from Epictetus is that if we take life as it comes and do not try and control things that we CANNOT control, then life will be better off for us.
Workers should get paid more than managers

"but workers should be motivated to work harder by giving them higher wages otherwise they would all leave and the manager will become unemployed." That not true. People are given lower pay so they can be motivated to work harder so they can reach the top. If workers are paid more they would be lazy because they know they don't have to work harder to become a manger because they already have enough money. Going back to your argument about how managers do nothing but be bossy. That's being stereotypical against managers. Managers are the reason you have something to do when your at your job. They have to do paper work make sure the work that is being provided to the normal workers are being completed and he knows how to do the normals workers jobs because he worked his way up from that position.
The Entirety of Logic is Circular

Yes a few more rounds would be nice. It appears that when you use the word Logic, you sometimes refer to the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is a Logical Process. For instance before setting out on the process a scientist conceptualizes a hypothesis A equals A. Makes a prediction of what a test result will be: If I have A it will equal A. Then performs the test to find out if A=A or A=/=A. But it is not the only Logical Process or only path to a understanding something true. There is Reasoning. Reasoning does not make a prediction. Deductive Reasoning. It seeks the certainty of Validity of a Truth statements on the premise that anything reasoned should match with prior experience. There is also Inductive Reasoning that seeks to establish the probability of a truth statements claim. For instance if I poke you in the eye, I use inductive reasoning to learn that this will probably hurt you because getting poked in the eye hurts me. I would say I can be 80% sure you will hurt. My truth claim This will hurt you is LIKELY and the reasoning for it is Strong Validly. But after I poke you, and you claim "ouch that hurts" is more than just deductive for you. It's a Brute Fact! The pain is unmistakable to you. To you the truth statement " I hurt" is 100% True. To me I can assume it is LIKELY to be true. Even tho my Claim "it will hurt you" has an assumption at it's root; YOUR claim "I hurt" is not circular. Can there be illogical things. Logic says "YES" because there are fallacies. There are lines of reasoning that we as a people agree can more often than naught lead to FALSE results. Logic as a study also states that one can logically infer currently from a set of premises a VALID Claim, even if all the premises are false. Logic says you can use the wrong numbers and still arrive at the right answer. I think much of this is off topic. Given Pro's Assertion "The Entirety of Logic is Circular" given the definition Pro established. I have already proved wrong that there is some Logic (I think therefore I am, Brute Facts, Inductive Reasoning, False Premise -> Valid Claim) can begin with no assumptions and not rely on the out come for the starting conditions to be present. Thank you for debating with me, I had a good time.
The Entirety of Logic is Circular

I would argue that the basis of logic is a priori truths or axioms. We cannot have conclusions that do not arrive from the idea that a=a (a here representing an idea, or Aristotle's "essence"). For example, an unmarried bachelor cannot possibly exist, because being a bachelor (a) means being unmarried (a), so a=a. We can reduce all logical claims to extensions of this idea. I now hope to demonstrate why a being a depends on the conclusion that that truth has already been found. My opponent has claimed that I am asserting that the illogical is impossible, when in fact my entire case rests on the ground that the illogical is possible, and thereby rendering logic fallacious. I could shift the BOP to my opponent and ask him to prove logical contentions to be true without using said logical contentions, but we are running out of debate and I should make my point. If we are to put forward the idea of a truth, then there must be an opposite contention that is false. When we say that a=a, that means that any situation where a is not a cannot exist. But what THAT means, is that if a was not a, then things could not be the way things are in reality. To simplify, the world that exists and the world without logic's inherent validity are not the same world. In a world without logic (which would have to be one that cannot exist) you can have a world with logic, because in a world where logic does not apply the truth of it being illogical no longer needs to true in order to be true. In a world where something can contradict itself, something can both contradict itself and not contradict itself at the same time. So, in a world where things can contradict themselves (aka a world that does not exist), there can be a world which can exist. So if in a world where the illogical is possible it is possible to have a world where the illogical is impossible, then you could hypothetically have a scenario where this exact world exists within a larger impossible one. So if a=/=a, then a (which is not a) could hypothetically be a because it isn't a. Logically, the illogical is not bound by logic, so any logical conclusions you can have about its inexistence are dependant on its inexistence. I really appreciate your time and wit.
The Entirety of Logic is Circular

Logic as you defined it is a path of reasoning within a strict code of validity. Having accepted the debate I also accepted the definitions Pro is outlining. Given so, My contention is with the first premise that "Logic relies on an assumption that nothing can be illogical". Later you state that within an illogical world a logical one could exist. This strikes me as fallacious because if you are asserting nothing can be illogical then there is no illogical world. Therefore your premise should follow Logic relies on assuming nothing is illogical. Therefore, a Logical world exists inside a logical world. I Don't agree with that inference either however. Circular being as you defined it "assumption of what is to be proved, and therefore fallacious" We both can come up with many examples. The Axioms of Math, the presuppositions of Science (Laws of nature acted the same through out all time, etc..) and so forth. I am Con to THE ENTIRETY of Logic... Much can be construed as circular. Hence Descartes reasoning "I think therefore I am" I would Argue the truest statement that can ever be made. In the effort to Logically ascertain the state of his own existence Descartes could find no deductive or inferred reasoning to absolute condition of his existence. But in the Action of thinking, and I hope to make this clear, the result of thinking can have circular logic and the reasoning can encompass assumptions, BUT the action itself is free from assumptions. Therefore With the action of thinking, it LOGICALLY proves " I exist". and is non circular by your definition. So the Entirety, 100% of logic, follows pros assertion is false
Poetry Competition

Firstly I apologize for the late entry, I was and still am facing writer's block. :P Of the horsemen I see but four, their mother besides them, that Babylonian whore, virtue has gone, illness has spread, the Antichrist, this Earth has wed! Lucifer sits, a crown on his head, proud of the army he so greatly led, martyrs lie below his throne, where is the savior man was sworn? He shan't come, all hope is lost, such is the result of men like Faust, God has left us one said with despair, his eyes had shed, many a tear. Not in glory, not in white, but in the hearts of those with light, came God's artful voice, and they did say Dominus Illuminatio Mea.
Poetry Competition

Hello there, and sorry for the delay. I decided to take a bit darker approach to this, a bit more abstract perhaps?none the less, here you go. :)To love, to call.Cold was in the hallowed hall, as I leaned against the wall.Heavy, broken, sold and eerie,never saw hope, but oh so dreary.I felt her hand, her hand so small-yet I had none to love, to call. Still I sat, I sat and wondered.Sill I sat and that I ponderedwhere my life had went and withered.And as I sat I shook and shiveredas my mind it starts to wander-why I had none to love, to call. recall her scent, her touch and colourher eyes, her smile, her skin and othersenses seemed to dim, to perishher face is what I yern to cherishher every 'brace, to feel, to smother-yet I had none to love, to call. I looked behind and walked the pathwayto love, my love that's to decay.As shadows fell upon the groundthe moon me swept and sorrow it foundAnd I felt I heard it to me say-Why I had none to love, to call It placed me there, to mourn the graveand as it left, it to me gavea smile, so cold, so long forgottena light that never had I gottenin hallowed love that me had slaved-for I had none to love, to call. I walked upon the open ground,expected her to sleep so sweet, so sound.But as I looked, I looked to see:I fell to terror, I wished to flee.As love was lost, had yet be bound:why is the corpse the one of me?-as I had none to love, to call