BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ben Rothlesberger is a better quarterback than Tony Romo

The steelers do not win games purely on Ben Roethlisberger. The Steelers defense right now has the highest ranked defense in regards to points allowed. The defense has allowed the least points to be scored on them so it makes it easier or the offense to win because they do not have to score as much. We are talking quarterback skills, not how good the team is. My opponent gives Ben Roethlisberger all the credit for the Steelers success when anyone who watches sports can say that the defense is what got them those superbowls. 2005 which I do not see how it has any relevance to Ben's case at all, but in 2005 Ben Roethlisberger has almost zero impact on the team. He missed 3 games, threw for under 3000 yards and under 20 touchdowns. How is a guy who throws for under 3000 yards and 20touchdowns great?! Tony Romo's lowest statistical totals are when he didn't get to start till 6 games in and he still threw for more yards and touchdowns than Ben Roethlisberger in a 10 game stretch than Ben did in a 12 game stretch. Ben's success purely rests with the defense. Ben's Touchdown-interception ratio in the superbowl is 1 touchdown to 3 interceptions. A quarterback who gets that usually would not win the superbowl, but why is ben the exception? It is because Ben Roethlisberger has one of the greatest defenses of the decade. There are 5 probowlers alone that stands on that defense. (Harrison, Farrior, Woodley, Polamalu, Hampton) My opponent has given too much credit to Ben Roethlisberger for the success that rightfully belongs to the team effort. Ben has been overshadowed by both his wide receivers in both those superbowls. Ben has started for a longer time than Romo, but Romo has made it to more pro bowls which recognizes individual achievement. Tony Romo's quarterback rating over his career proves he is a better quarterback than Ben Roethlisberger. My opponents only points are Ben's success as a quarterback which are those two superbowls, which rightfully should belong as a team effort. If Harrison did not intercept Warner and returned it for a 99 yard touchdown the steelers would not even be champions. Ben has the better team, Romo is the better quarterback the ratings don't lie. http://www.nfl.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ben Rothlesberger is a better quarterback than Tony Romo

I would first like to make a correction in my opponents argument Ben was out only four games and the lost in week four to the Ravens so this means they were 3-1 not 4-1. During the 2005 season it seemed as if the Steelers hopes for playoffs were all but dead. Then in week 13 and on it all changed from there. The Steelers won every game after game 13 and had advanced to the AFC wild card. They beat the bangles scoring 4 touchdowns in the game and a field goal. My opponent states that Romo is a better QB, but why are the cowboys 1-6? Ben Rothlesberger may have the weaker arm but his speed and agility make up for that. He is able to move about the pocket and make some fantastic plays. My definition of a QB is one that can make good plays not the fact that he has a good arm. The Steelers have seen more success under Ben than Romo under the cowboys. I ask the readers of this debate to read these arguments and think who is better Rothlesberger or Romo? Who has more Success?
Ben Rothlesberger is a better quarterback than Tony Romo

Ben Roethlisberger only played in 2 games this season and it was against teams with bad pass defenses. Ben won two superbowls, yes this is true... but Ben did not do very well in those superbowls. The first one he threw 2 picks with no touchdowns, 2nd one he threw one touchdown with 1 interceptions. Ben Roethlisberger is not the sole reason the Pittsburg Steelers won those superbowls. The Steelers defense, as well as a great receiving corp(Both superbowls the Wide Receiver took the MVP award) helped Ben win those superbowls, even the defense scored as many touchdowns as Ben Roethlisberger in their last superbowl victory. The Steelers also prided themselves on a strong running game throughout the years with Jerome Bettis said by NFL analysts as one of the greatest powerbacks of all time, Willie Parker a Pro Bowl Runningback, and Rashard Mendenhall now. May I remind you, Ben's importance on that team has not be proven. The Steelers have went 4-1 in this season with him being suspended. Tony Romo on the other hand is shown the be very important to the Dallas Cowboys. Last week when he got injured the Dallas Cowboys could not throw the ball at all anymore. Steelers are a better team that is why they win superbowls, every year they are in the top 10 for defenses of the year and low rating for offense. Tony Romo has a higher passer rating which means he is a better passer. The role of being the quarterback is being the passer, so that means Romo is a better quarterback than Ben Roethlisberger because he got a higher grade with a higher passer rating.
When in conflict, personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security

I agree with my opponent's definitions. Contention 1: Economic security is a foundation of a good life For most of us, school is a lot of hard work. Not only are we not allowed to spend the time at school as we wish, but after school, we must do a lot of time-consuming (and mostly useless) homework. It's obvious that school restrains our personal freedom. Why then do most of us attend school? The answer is that school promises us a well-paying career (a.k.a. economic security), and a well-paying career promises a luxurious life. Thus economic security is more valuable than personal freedom. Contention 2: Economic security is the limit of personal freedom What you have limits what you can do. No where is this concept more prevalent than in finances. Those who have money can build giant buildings, make multiple movies, and buy whatever the heck they want. Those who don't have money can only watch enviously. Since personal freedom is a measure of your liberty to do the things you want, it makes sense to state that economic security is a measure of personal freedom. Thus economic security must come first. Contention 3: Independence depends on economic security When a person without money wants to accomplish something that is above his/her financial means, he/she has to borrow from people who have money. The person without money is dependent on the people with money. If that same person had adequate financial means, he/she would not be dependent on others, and thus would be independent. Thus economic security is more important than personal freedom, since without economic security you cannot be truly independent, and without independence you cannot truly be free.
Sentient Fruit Fighting

look, you say that "sentient" things can smell, well, yeah, maybe that's true. but why can't big ones move then? If it's sentient, and has senses, it should be able to move. besides, smell does not injure something, only annoy. Let's say the durian does outlast my big old pumpkin. even if it does, it will still be trapped by my pumpkin's rotting glop, so it will have to stay in there until it rots too. since the pumpkin started it all, even though he dies, he does technically win the fight. you say that being morbidly obese isn't charismatic, but being a killer isn't exactly charismatic either, and while your durian is banned in some places, my pumpkin can roll any place he wants to, because, you know, he's the world record pumpkin, and he's a big celebrity. Maybe he could roll into a restaurant, and ask the cook to put him in the fridge so he stays nice and fresh, while your durian isn't let in by the bouncer, and has to sit out there until he rots. Your durian has the flaw of impatience. my pumpkin has the attribute of patience. my pumpkin is stronger, and much larger. in the pumpkin world, obesity is actually considered a good thing, because, you know, people like bigger pumpkins better than little ones. Fruits go by completely different rules than we do. weight is actually considered attractive with pumpkins.
Sentient Fruit Fighting

Rebuttals1. Assuming your pumpkin is sentient, it would have to smell. A sentient being, feels and perceives thing." A sentient being is one who perceives and responds to sensations of whatever kind - sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell." [1]Your pumpkin has to smell if sentient therefore it would smell my durian.2. Your Pumpkin cannot move due to it's enormous weight, therefore it cannot chase around my durian.3. So you claim your pumpkin would last a week after Halloween, so let's say your pumpkin lasts a week after the start of the battle. My durian which has a harder protective shell, would rot slower, allowing it to win just by waiting a week.4. Who said the shell would be thicker on that pumpkin then normally?Here is the world record pumpkin: https://img.washingtonpost.com...It is clearly obvious that the innards are weighing down the shell. If something tryed to pick it up, the innards would break out of the shell, effectively killing the pumpkin.-New Arguments:1. Dangerous FruitIf you ever visited Southeast Asia and went to a bus stop, this is a normal sign that you would see:https://www.themindfulword.org...Yes, the durian is banned in certain places, even in it's home countries. This fruit apartheid has done two things for the durian:- It has shown that the durian is so dangerous. Why else would they ban it? They are afraid that if a sentient durian got to do regular activites with people it would snap and kill everybody, so they ban it from public places.- This fruit apartheid has both physically and mentally hardened the Durian. Everybody hates him, and he is not afraid to dispatch those people without mercySo in conclusion, My durian who be much more hardened, physically and mentally then a pumpkin. This gives it a advantage in a fight.2. Durians are Ruthless MurderersFollowing up on the previous argument, durians have killed people, without mercy. Just look at this quote for proof." a 1-month-old baby named Mohd Yusuf was killed when a durian fell on him while his mother was carrying him through the yard. She had stepped out of the house to collect the laundry at around 3 p.m. when the 2 kg (4lb) durian struck the baby on the head." [2]As sad as this is, this just proves they are ruthless killers. This durian killed a infant, what fruit would do that? Defiantly not a pumpkin. Here is another time a durian fatally killed."Lam Fook Chee, age 68, lost his balance while transporting a large basket of durian on his motorcycle near Raub. The durians fell on his head, killing him on the spot." [2]Yes. These durians are ruthless. mercilessly dispatching human after human.This shows my durian is not only trained for battle, but is trained to kill mercilessly. Your pumpkin wouldn't stand a chance. Also, I think voters would probably vote for my durian, as it seems more charismatic then a morbidity obese pumpkin. It also has a cool shell, increasing it's charisma.Anyways, we have seen that durians dispatch people mercilessly, and are trained to kill, giving it a massive advantage over your untrained pumpkin.Vote Con![1] https://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.yearofthedurian.com...
Sentient Fruit Fighting

the smell of the durian does not affect my pumpkin at all, because pumpkins cannot smell. being smelly does not win a victory in this case. The pumpkin does not need to chop the durian up, instead, it sits on it, waiting patiently until the durian has rotted to death. Pumpkins can have a very prolonged life. my pumpkin always lasts for about a week after halloween. and yes, the weight of that pumpkin is real. it is the current world record for the weight of a pumpkin, so yes, they CAN grow that big. The thicker the shell of a pumpkin, the longer it will last. if the durian somehow manages to get out from under the pumpkin, the pumpkin can chase it around for a little while until it's tired out and gives up. I hope you can conquer that. The voters will probably vote for my pumpkin. after all, he's much more charismatic because he doesn't stink.
Sentient Fruit Fighting

Pumpkin SizeMy opponent chooses his pumpkin to be 2624.6 pounds. This is obviously a extremely large pumpkin. To large to move in-fact. This pumpkin could in no way, shape or form move without any assistance without internally collapsing. My durian would roll over your pumpkin over and over piercing it to death. Even if your pumpkin could somehow move, my durian would be multiple times quicker, due to size and weight, easily rolling around your pumpkin, striking it blow after blow, until your pumpkin was no more.2. The Durian's Secret Attack. The Durian emits a putrid smell, so bad people compare it to the likes of raw sewage. "The smell evokes reactions from deep appreciation to intense disgust, and has been described variously as rotten onions, turpentine, and raw sewage. " [1]This putrid smell, would lower the pumpkin's morale, disgusting it. Since your pumpkin can't move it would sit there, being struck and struck, smelling the worse smell of it's life. Your pumpkin may even give up on life, and commit suicide.3. The Pumpkin's DownfallLet's say that somehow your pumpkin is able to move, despite it's weight, and crushes my durian. My durian wouldn't be hurt, it would break through the shell of your pumpkin, due to the weight of the pumpkin falling upon it. This would leave my durain in the innards of your pumpkin, allowing it to roll around without having to defend itself. It would quickly obliterate your pumpkin.4. Cultural DifferencesThe Durian originates in Southeast Asia. This gives it a huge advantage. My Durian now knows martial arts due to years of observation. "Southeast Asia generally encompasses Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and the Philippines. Important martial arts that take their histories from the region are pentjak silat, arnis/escrima, kali, muay boran, krabi krabong, muay Thai and vovinam" [2]So my fruit knows 7 martial arts. The pumpkin which (surprisingly) originated from Mexico would only know 1 martial art. "Yaomachtia is supposedly a Mexican martial art used by the Mexican military in ancient times. Yaomachtia translates into " warrior teachings" [3]So, my fruit knows more martial arts then yours, making it much more battle-trained then yours. 5. Video Evidence of the Durian's Power! Watch this video (only takes 6 minutes): So in the video, it takes them minutes to open up a durian using a sword. A sword. A pumpkin would be easily chopped up. This shows the strength of the durian's shell. It is also noted many times on how smelly and pointy the fruit is, even prompting the grandfather to go berserk on it. This truly shows the strength of the durian. Thank you all for reading. I'm done for now, and wish my opponent luck. Vote Pro, would you kindly? [1] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.blackbeltmag.com...\[3] . http://www.martialplanet.com...[4]
Sentient Fruit Fighting

So. If you are a normal person, you probably have asked yourself the question "If fruit were sentient, and able to fight, which fruit would win in a fight?". This is a good question, that we shall settle in this debate.Rules:- Pick any fruit on earth. Must be a real fruit. You cannot pick the fruit I pick.- We will compare the fruits in many different aspects and determine which would win in a fight if they were sentient.- We are not considering the coconut as a fruit in this debate. (It's a Nut!)- First round is only for acceptance and telling me what fruit you chose.I choose the Durian as my fruit.Picture: https://media.mnn.com...
Adam should be leader again!

Longer than one can throw a stone if they threw a stone as far as they could if they were in the center of Jupiter with the red storm all around them while Hitler was giving them a highfive all the way from the Philippines. But I digress. Let's all go and watch the greatest movie of all time, Garbage Pail Kids, together and then base an entire religion off of it. http://media.giphy.com...
Adam should be leader again!

"Most smartest." Construction workers are even less than prostitutes. They only do stuff that the regular person can do, everyone is just too lazy. Prostitutes give something that people can't often do by themselves and look good doing it. Besides, Jesus' buttcheeks were small compared to us, but back then, they were supa bigs. Besides, Will Smith hasn't been good since he got a son and he wasn't even in "I am Omega." I feel like we've diverged from our actual debate.
Adam should be leader again!

1) His hair is trash, as if he thinks Punk isn't a mainstream musical genre 2) His clothing style shows that he's a tool, even though his scarf is fantastic. 3) His booty is even smaller than a Jew in a Holocaust camp on a diet of air while also being a bulimic and anorexic. Besides, why would his bewty be a factor in a good leader. Hitler was a good leader and his booty weren't even up to white girls in a rap music video standard.
I became better at molesting children

I became better at molesting children I was walking around the town Children playing around empty buildings Then I saw a little girl, Maybe age 6 She walked alone inside an empty building I went after her, We met at the stairs I pulled out my penis and showed it to her She just looked it and then she walked away I was angry at myself, I could have done something more I could have stopped her, I could have kissed her I could have touched her by the a*ss Showing my penis to her wasn't enough From this experience I have learned I became better at molesting children I don't show my penis to them anymore I just approach and touch them I kiss them, I grope them When I touch children now They become paralyzed They just surrender themselves To my love, To my kisses I became better at molesting children And I am glad that I did I really like molesting children It is something that I want to do It is something that I have done It is something that I will do
More than one black family should be allowed per neighborhood

Black people have indeed caused a lot of trouble for society. Black people are nothing but a bad influence on the world. Here are the facts about black people that we must seriously consider: 1 in every 3 black men will end up in prison. Many black families on being headed by single mothers making barely more than minimum wage. Those families often have kids and youngsters who get in trouble with the law. Many violence in public schools, especially in downtown and big metropolises, are inflicted by black students. Furthermore, there have been many incidents where white people were attacked, targeted, and assaulted by black people. If we completely segregate neighborhoods and cities into black people and non-black people, it is downright racist and cruel towards black people. The only way to prevent black violence from occurring, or at least to minimize it as much as we can, is to have and enforce a strict limit of one black/African family per neighborhood. Please think carefully about it: once there is already one black family in every neighborhood, what can we do with the remaining black families? We cannot put them in ghettos, because that would be very racist and reverting back to the 1950s and 1960s. Nor can we kill them because that is simply immoral. (I mean, isn't that what Hitler would do?) Instead, the best solution is to throw them in prison, and then let them out of prison once there is a neighborhood with no black family living in it. Furthermore, if we put black families to prison, we will put them under control. (I think we must segregate prisons by race too.) No offense and not at all being racist, their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, reducing the total amount of sunlight white people can harvest. And beyond that, throwing them in prison is a solution to overpopulation, because the world will be less crowded. You see what I am saying here? Now you might be thinking that it's racist and cruel, but it's not. Just read on. No, I am not being racist. It's true. How would you like to be assaulted by black people or a gang. You said that you are not a black person. Non-black people are vulnerable targets to black people. Since no people want to be assaulted by black people, but we cannot totally segregate the world based on race or skin color, the best way to combat black violence is to limit each neighborhood to one black family. If we throw remaining black families in prison, we are also combating overpopulation so they won't be crowding up the Earth. Now I want to here a convincing argument from you.
More than one black family should be allowed per neighborhood

I think Con is, in his usual racist fashion, lumping all "Black" people together when he means African American. No matter, this clearly bigoted argument needs to be taken down line by line. Crime - In a report released Thursday the DOJ"s Bureau of Justice Statistics found that a majority of most violent crimes are committed by people who are the same race as their victims. Indeed, the rate of white-on-white violent crime, it found, is about four times the rate of black-on-white crime. Arguably, white people cause more problems within their own "neighborhoods" as compared to blacks. Incarceration - Though this exact statistic is often disputed, it is certainly true that African Americans ("Blacks") end up in jail at far higher rates than other races. However, is this irrefutable proof that they are in some way "worse" or more dangerous? Could this not be related to bias in our justice system. A few stats there: - Once stopped, during traffic stops, 3 times as many Black and Hispanic drivers were searched as white drivers, - A recent report by Center for Policing Equity found that police are more likely to use force like Tasers, dogs, pepper spray and physical force against Black people than White people in making arrests. - Black youth are twice as likely to be arrested for crimes in school as white kids, over 2.5 times as likely to be arrested for curfew violations as white kids, twice as likely as white kids to be arrested for all crimes, and much more likely to be held in detention than white kids Single Mothers - Why don't we look at some of the most successful single black mothers of all time: https://madamenoire.com... Furthermore - if single black mothers are such a drain on society, is it not possible that involving the fathers may be a viable remedy or at least aide here? Surely the blame cannot all be placed on a single parent trying to raise a kid, race or ethnicity aside. Violence in public schools - Downtown and metropolitan schools are made up disproportionately by African American students, so any such statistic is completely invalid. White people attacked and targeted - It may seem like that from glorified news, but "Study: black people are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongly convicted of murder" Now let's more on to this ludicrous proposal about single-family neighborhoods. Patent racism aside, since we "cannot put them in ghettos because that would be very racist and reverting back to the 1950s" (as if the rest of this wouldn't), how exactly would you recommend we throw them all in prison? US prisons are at the highest capacity (over-capacity, rather) in the world. We by no means have the facilities to accommodate an entire new population in our prisons. Further, more, there are about 42 million non-Hispanic black people living in the United States. That would mean we'd need to create 42 million white-only communities and assimilate a single black family into them. Logistically, sociologically, racially, and across many other dimensions, I don't see that working well.