BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why the Corvette is superior to the Mustang

I know! I just read a debate on how the Mustang was better in every way than the Corvette. They are in two totally different worlds! They are in two different classes. I love both cars but you can't just simply say one is better when they aren't on the same terms. But the Corvette is now more for racing. The mustang was popular but the Corvette in fact was more iconic. In 1958 the Corvette was created. It was the most purchased car that year. And I feel the Corvette represents America more than the Mustang. While Ford hides within America, the Corvette competes with foreign competitors. The corvette represents the American dream. The dream to create something that can still stay on top, even after all these years. At least the Corvette creators have the nerve to put their car out into the world, other than the Mustang creators, who only want to compete with other American and foreign sedans.
Why the Corvette is superior to the Mustang

this is the first time i have had this debate because, well these two cars aren't quit direct competitors. any person that follows the auto industry know that almost every thing said by the instigator is indeed true. (saying that the engine is just "better" is mostly a matter of opinion) these two cars are in a bit of different categorize. the mustang is a pony car (the first of its type). In 1964 the mustang distinguished self from other muscle cars by placing a good performance engine in a light frame that handled well. opposed to the muscle car that gave the option to have a massive engine in the same frame as the standard model (like the GTO first started in 1964 as well). the corvette started out as a sportster in the 50's to compete with cars in Europe on the circuit, and only later did it become the muscle car its now known for. today however these two american icon cars have come much closer together as the lines between pony car and muscle car have stated to blur into one, but quit frankly they are still in two different categorize. the mustang is a muscle car competing with camaros and challengers, while the corvette is a high performance sportscar competing with Vipers, Astons and Porshes. so if on a case by case basis the vette is faster than the mustang than why am I here debating that its not "better". well the mustang is an american icon much more than the corvette. it goes hand and hand with apple pie and Elvis Presley. the mustang made a new era of american cars while the corvette was just trying to get in the ring with Europeans. on a pure stat by stat basis the two shouldn't really be compared but as far as what there car is, the mustang is a car that a racer or artist would drive while a corvette driver is someone that works at the stock exchange and lives in suburbia, and probably goes to the country club with the fellas. mustangs are the
Why the Corvette is superior to the Mustang

for my last point i want to talk about the mustang itself because the mustang is no slouch. its come out with so many exceptionally well performing cars. The Shelby GT 500 last year had 620 horsepower and 600 LB/FT torque. That's a lot of power from an engine that's been in use since 2005. A 5.8 liter supercharged V8 that gets it to 60 miles an hour in 3.7 seconds. this years new generation will ditch the live rear axle for independent suspension and when the GT 500 comes out with that engine it will be one of the best GT cars in the world, not just america. this new generation will be one of the best of the cars history. this new mustang is now a modern and well made car that still respects the established roots.
is God real

Cons reasoning to prove that God does not exist is faulty. These are the premises and conclusion of his argument. p1 God is written in books p2 Superman is written in books C therefore, believing in superman is the same as believing in God If this were true than here's my argument p1 evolution has not been seen p2 flying trees have not been seen C Therefore, believing in flying trees is like believing in evolution I used the same reasoning as con did, so unless he wants to go on using these types of arguments we have to throw them out the window. Now into my arguments. My first one is that the universe is continually running out of usable energy. This has been happening for a long time. The universe could not sustain itself for very long without usable energy. This means that because the universe is still sustaining itself, there has to be an outside force providing it with energy. If you said another unknown source of energy provides energy for the universe, than there would really be no answer for how that source of energy got it's energy. There has to be an outside force that will never run out of energy. The only omnipotent force is God. God is what sustains the universe for all of these years. If there was no God, the universe would have run out of energy a long time ago. Here's another argument: p1 Life as a whole shows a whole deal of complexity with the many things a single life form does in such an orderly way to sustain itself. p2 This is either the result of intelligent design or probability p3 Chance would be unreasonable because chance cannot create life especially if all of the functions work together so perfectly within the cell. p4 This universe was created by intelligent design which requires a designer. C Therefore, this universe was created by an intelligent designer. To support my third premise let me just say this. There are so many functions a cell performs. A few are such as Osmosis, cellular respiration, intercellular respiration, reproduction, meiosis, mitosis, protein synthesis, aerobic respiration, anaerobic respiration, Krebs cycle, Calvin cycle, cellular diffusion, photosynthesis, and many, many more. It's unreasonable to say it came from dead matter that designed this cell so perfectly with all of it's systems working together. It doesn't make sense. To summarize my argument, the world must have a beginning that reflects the complexity of itself. If life was created from dead matter, than we would not be as complex as we are.
is God real

There is not proof that god exists. There is also no proof that flying unicorns exist. Therefore believing in the existence of god without any prove is the same as believing in the existence of flying unicorns. The existence of god is written in books. The existence of superman is also written in books. Therefore believing in the existence of god, is the same as believing in the existence of superman. Therefore god is as real as real as flying unicorns and superman.
Should Video Games be Restricted by Parents

Should kids be restricted from playing video games? I believe that kids should be allowed to play video games for the following reasons; they relief stress, they are very fun, and they are educational. -Relieves stress -students come home after school stressed out -playing video games allow them to forget about their worries and relax -When all stress is relieved, his/her mood is back to normal and will do better in his/her work -Very fun -ex: Minecraft -You can play with other people from around the world in your games -You can go kill monsters and other players Educational -Sometimes includes lots of thinking -Makes your mind sharper -Can make your reflexes faster In summary video games are very beneficial. Video games can relief our stress, very fun, and educational That is why I believe that kids should not be restrained from playing video games
Should Video Games be Restricted by Parents

You said parents can stop this but how can you be sure that they have the time to do this, if they did have the time to do this why do you think there are minors doing drugs. and most of the parents don't know about it. The kid chooses a game not according to his likes alone it may be recommended by his friends too, so the parents can't always see to it that their kids are kept away from violent games.
Should Video Games be Restricted by Parents

Well yes. I agree with what you are saying. "games can be violent and lead to certain behaviors." That is VERY true. But, there is a certain twist to it. Those specific video games can be banned by the parents. If they have no control over this, this would be the child's decision if he/she wants to play those games. Its just like stopping people from taking drugs, smoking. I mean we just can't stop these things ether way. I suppose you understand my point. If this child chooses to play these video games, no one can stop that decision besides the parents or guardian.
Should Video Games be Restricted by Parents

I believe video games must be restricted by the parents to a certain extent, I am not saying completely it is true that kids come home stressed out after school, But one thing we have to keep in mind is that the video games the kids play influences them a lot. It can sometimes influence his/her character. It can take away his concentration from studies completely at times. Just imagine a kid is playing a video game which has not been recommended for his age for example games like Grand Theft Auto, Bullet storm etc. these games are all very violent they even have sexual scenes in them and also in these games they use a very vulgar language which aren't recommended for children, seeing these things in games they would want to try this out in real life. That can also lead to the kids under the age of 12 being exposed to drugs. For something silly a kid can even kill his own brother or sister without hesitation because in the games he has played killing people and monsters was " F U N". It is also not necessary for parents to buy them these games, it will be supplied to them by their friends. I would always recommend kids to play video games but thing is all must be careful because everything has its other side. So watch out ! and think again before buying Your kid a gaming console and a Game.
Totalitarianism or Anarchy

If you are con you are Anarchy as I am pro for Totalitarianism. With absolutely no structure people in the nation would go insane. When you look at the people around you tonight, if you are in a city look at how they will not move a muscle within a cross walk to cross the street in till it tells them to even though their is not a single car in sight for miles! My point is if people no longer seem to be able to make common judgment without instruction than I choose Totalitarianism over Anarchism.
I'm 4 billion years old

You have no evidence that your four billion years old and nor can you demonstrate it. In fact all evidence points to single cells hanging out around 3.8 billion years ago, it also goes to suggest you are somewhere between 3 to 130 years old, as we do not have any example of humans living longer with our current understanding of medical science. Evidence also goes to show this is a likely a joke debate, in that regard my cheese potatoes will fight your avacodos any day.
should call of duty continue making games

Well your main argument was that they were just making the same game an dnow your saying that they should just upgrade their graphics. And people who do want to play on bigger servers just go and play ground wars where there are 18 players. Lastly I do agree ghosts was bad but advanced warfare and Black Ops 2 are two of the most fun games in my mind where all they did was fix the problems in the game before in the case of BO2 and the game was great.
Being proud of our country, Great Britain.

I am not saying that my opponent is anti-Britain, but I do know that he is not proud of her.Now allow me to start...Britain is my country, and she is a great nation. We have the best scientific minds, from Faraday to Newton to Hawking. As a result, many great discoveries such as calculus, gravitation, electromagnetism etc. were made by our nation's greatest minds. Also, it is worth mentioning that many of the world's greatest inventions- TV, internet, lightbulb (Joseph Swan got there before Thomas Edison) were invented by brilliant Britons.Source: http://www.radiotimes.com...;It is not just the great scientific heritage of the British intelligentsia that distinguish her from other nations. British economist Adam Smith for example, came up with many sound economic theories which revolutionised economics-division of labour, supply and demand, market mechanisms etc. Here is a £20 note bearing his profile picture: Copyright: Governor and Company of the Bank of England 2006Source: http://www.banknotenews.com...;The caption reads: 'the division of labour in pin manufacturing (and the great increase in the quantity of work that results)'. Division of labour is what made British mass production possible and ultimately, the might of the British Empire, which once covered 1/4 of the world's land mass, as well as controlling 40% of the world's manufacturing output (source: H.J. Chang, 23 Things They Didn't Tell You About Capitalism). It was said that 'the sun never sets over the British Empire'.Also, Britain was among the first country to ban slavery, has one of the strongest trade union and an excellent welfare state. We have the NHS, built upon the socialist principles of our predecessors, caring for the poor. Also we're the home of democracy (and modern capitalism).I am very proud of this great nation, of her history and her legacy.I now turn to you, my honoured opponent...
Being proud of our country, Great Britain.

Hello there comrade Stottinator.I shall be challenging my dear contender to a debate. The topic will be about nationalism. As pro, I am arguing for reasons to be proud of our country and that our country is great, whereas con will be arguing the opposite (though not necessarily against Britain).Round 1 is acceptanceRound 2 is opening argumentsRound 3 rebuttals/new argumentsRound 4 Conclusions and more (counter)argumentsGood luck!
The American press has been bought.

Not me, personally. The public, as a whole, does need protection from itself. Certain measures must be taken to control the media and keep them from unintentionally rewarding murderers with attention. Certain amounts of privacy must be given up to allow the government to catch people like Cliven Bundy before he can succeed in creating a militia to insight civil war. It's impossible to argue that we wouldn't be better off if the government were able to extinguish these types of fires before they get a chance to do any damage.
The American press has been bought.

News companies would never exist if the government began taxing their revenue. They don't pull in the kind of advertisement money or ratings that other types of media can. Also, taxation of news companies would result in a government power over their profitability. That's not good at all. If the government applies our 90,000 page tax code to the news companies, the legal fees involved alone will be crippling to all news companies including smaller ones. It'll adversely effect the free market for journalism and completely destroy the freedom of news broadcasting that we currently have. It's such a bad idea to tax news companies. I don't know how you could possibly believe that being tax-exempt could create government influence. It aims directly at preventing government influence of the media through bribery. Also, if you're concerned about the influence government has over the media, you should be primarily concerned that they have direct authority to contain stories that involve government secrets (at a time when it seems as though everything our government does is secret, including the way they influence and utilize our corporations for surveillance and cyber-espionage. This, of course, is completely necessary for the government to protect us. Not only from terrorism, but also from ourselves.
Gary Johnson is our best choice for president

Graph should be below. As you can see, my opponent has stated the exact opposite of what is true in regards to climate change. Global warming is accelearting as opposed to my opponent's claim of decelerating. 93.4% of the heat from global climate change goes into the oceans. With this rate of warming, we need to do something. Even if Jill's plan fails with the solar panels, we will know one way not to save the enivorment. Furthermore, those coal power plants are burning less fossil fuels. So, even if you still need more power plants, they are burning less coal due to solar panels.Taxing the rich is an excellent idea, my opponent makes vague reference to the trickle down theory which is known not to work. $15 an hour will get people off of welfare and food stamps. They will be able to work only 40-50 hours a weeks to meet basic needs instead of many more. Thanks for the debate. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
Gary Johnson is our best choice for president

In fact, over the last decade, the rate of climate change has been declining, despite the fact that we use more Co2 emitting energy sources. Now, I believe that Co2 has a small effect on the climate, but there is simply no evidence saying that we will die. And fossil fuels can be used to make countries stronger in the face of the effects some scientists hypothesise will effect them the most. for instance, fossil fuels can actually be used to make stronger structures and communities that can easily bounce back from devastating natural disasters. For instance, there is a correlation between fossil fuel and clean water, this is because fossil fuel can be used to power refineries and the entire pipe system used to get water to the tap. Now, of course all this energy can be found in other energy sources, such as nuclear and hydroelectric, but I suppose that you want to talk about wind and solar right? After all they are free supposedly? Well, not true, in fact, it is quite pricy, just to get the rare resources to make solar panels. But in inclusion to the solar panels and wind power, you'd need a reliable alternate. After all, the sun isn't shining all the time and the wind isn't blowing all the time. This is why despite the fact that Germany has invested so much in solar and wind energy, they have more coal plants then ever. And this in turn has caused some to go in to "energy poverty" I hope this clears up why we can't elect a president with no experience just because of climate change. Now, I'd like to talk about the flaws in Jills other plans. She would like to raise taxes on the rich. Of course this sound like a great plan, after all, virtually everyone (including me) thinks the rich should pay their fair share. But the top 10% already pay 70% of government funding. And not only that, but research shows that the laffer curve for the rich indicated that the revenue collected from them INCREACES then taxes on them are DECREASED. Weird right? Well it turns out that when the rich know that less of their money is going to govt, they are far more willing to spend it. This also often indicates that they are putting money into their business, meaning they are probably hiring more people. And luckily for me Gary Johnsons tax plan will allow this to happen. And again, Jills environmental plan was tried in Germany, and as I said, failed. Her minimun wage of $15 will put far to may people out of work.
Gary Johnson is our best choice for president

"And the environmental claims are one field, and an iffy field at that. The environment is something extremely hard to predict, and science often predicts it wrong. And while I don't personally believe that man made climate change is as big as you stated, but we do have an $8,000,000,000 department called the Environmental Protection Agency." Climate change is real and is a threat. We have already hit the 400 ppm CO2 mark. Temperature and CO2 have a strong positive correlation. Sudden temperature changes are correlated with mass extinctions. The global temperature is rising rapidly.
Gary Johnson is our best choice for president

I'm not against having a woman, but I always stand by having the most qualified person do the job, and that making sure we have a woman president shouldn't be our top priority. Now your claim that Jill Stein has a more prestigious degree is true in fact, but agin, its not a political degree, meanwhile Gary Johnson has a degree in political science. Would you hire a Harvard medical doctor as a lawyer? No, of course not, you would want someone who has a degree in the given field, right? And the environmental claims are one field, and an iffy field at that. The environment is something extremely hard to predict, and science often predicts it wrong. And while I don't personally believe that man made climate change is as big as you stated, but we do have an $8,000,000,000 department called the Environmental Protection Agency. Now onto the aspects that Jill loses to Gary Johnson, other than having no political degree and has never holding elective office. First, Gary Johnson will be for better at improving our economy, he would implement the same acts as he did while governor of New Mexico, which left the horribly budgeted state with a huge surplus. Jill has not proven herself prominent in this category, again, because she is not experienced. She also fails to address Americas terrible budget problem. The congressional budget office states that by the end of the 2016 FY, Congress will have gone $534 billion over there budget, as usual. What has Jill agreed to do?
Gary Johnson is our best choice for president

With the environment becoming increasingly an issue I think its a high time we elect a green party representative. The fact that Jill is both a woman and a Harvard graduate aids her. This is because she will be the first woman president if elected. I think it is high time we break the trend of all male presidents. A Harvard degree is no small task. "She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1973, and from Harvard Medical School in 1979." [0]Compare this to Gary Johnson's degree from the university of New Mexico. "While studying at the University of New Mexico, Gov. Johnson started a handyman business as means to achieve financial independence. After graduating with a degree in political science in 1975, his company, Big J Enterprises, expanded into remodeling and renovation, and eventually, construction. " [1]Therefore, there are three areas in which Jill has an advantage over Gary. First she focuses more on the enviorment than Gary. Second, she is a woman, which would make her the first female president. Third, she has a more prestigious degree than Johnson. Why is the environment so important? If we don't act soon, as early as 2034 climate change will be out of control. Meaning only a supreme being could save the human race at that point. "in fact, the report shows we might exceed a 2 C increase as early as 2034." [2]We have to act now. The end of days is upon us unless we get our acts together. There can be no liberty, justice, nor freedom for anyone under such conditions. Nevertheless, there is plenty of climate change deniers. Both in elected offices and the masses. [3]"63% of those with no post-school qualifications were unconvinced about the role of humans in producing climate changeUniversity graduates were much more likely to take the opposite view, with 86% agreeing that human activity was responsible" [4]This means 37% of people with no post-school qualifications don't believe in man made climate change. This is huge, we need to bring awareness to as many people as possible and act accordingly. Pope Francis believes climate change is a threat and so do scientists. Meanwhile, Gary seems to take a weak stance on environmental issues. If nothing else electing Jill Stein will send a strong message that climate change is real. The time to act is now before it is too late. Sources.0. http://www.jill2016.com...1. http://2016.presidential-candidates.org...2. http://www.businessinsider.com...3. https://www.barackobama.com...#/4. http://www.ecopedia.com...