BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever.

As my first debate this has been very fun. Once again I would like to thank my opponent, he clearly did good research and knows the game of basketball. I should have made this five rounds. But anyway, in this round I will only discuss points already made and not bring in any new information. The era Jordan played in was much more difficult than Wilts. While it's true Wilt played with alot of top 50 players, Jordan played with top 10 players. Players like I mentioned, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul Jabar, Shaq (briefly), Kobe Bryant (briefly). Jordan also went up against the best perimeter defender ever in Gary Payton. The only top 10 player Wilt played against was Bill Russell (Where he would get dominated every match-up. ) and Kareem Jabar towards the end of Wilt's career. To say that if blocks had been recorded for Wilt he would have had a better PER than Jordan is untrue. Blocks are only a small portion of the PER formula and whether that had been recorded or not Jordan would still lead him in it. Jordan was more efficient, had more rings, better competition and played in the hardest basketball era.
Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever.

It's completely hearsay to argue the fact of what Wilt would average during this era. Without mentioning what Jordan would. The game has changed dramatically sense he's played as well. Exactly my point with the Yao Ming. He had a lot of injuries, it is incredibly hard for bigger man to play at a higher level to measure in size. Dwight Howard himself has injury problems despite the fact he is strong. Shaq had his. Considered big man problem in the NBA. The injuries that would usually slow down the bigger man's career. Okay you want to factor in the efficiency then you have to take out some statistics that weren't available back then. Credited under the picture for Wilt blocking a shot on: http://www.nba.com... On the right side of the info. "If blocks were counted before he retired, this list might be longer." So you can see, Not everything that was measured during Jordan's time was measured in Wilt's so efficiency ratings for Wilt could surpass Jordan if it was. Statistics keep changing and different variables are being added always. If you do that then you'd have to go back and see what's accounted for back than as well to argue the fact that Jordan is better than Wilt. Sad to say those statistics weren't accounted for and Jordan has been accredited for more things. Still scoring and rebounding is not one of them. The Big Dipper (Wilt) takes the cake. Like I said, all the information you put in that about it's very diverse to todays basketball. The athletes back then, paved the way for the people today. If it wasn't for Wilt and the others that defined that era than Jordan wouldn't even seize to be half the man he is today. He'd still be trying to play some baseball. Yeah Jordan dominated his era. Wilt didn't dominate his? His Era 1959-1973 includes 50 of the greatest people of the era part he dominated, His scoring slowed down in his later years around late 60s early 70s but he was still pretty good at rebounding. The people that made the top 50 list in his own era Includes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar when he played for the Bucks (1969-1975), Nate Archibald when he played for the Cincinati Royals / KC-Omaha / Kanasas City Kings (1970-1976), Paul Arizin he played for the Philadelphia Warriors (1950-1962), Bob Cousy: Boston Celtics (1950-1963), LAL (1969-1970). Bill Russel Celtics: (1956-1969). Go down the list and there is plenty more of the top 50 Greatest in NBA history that played at least 3 or 4 seasons at the same time as Wilt and also even more than half of their careers. http://en.wikipedia.org... If you want to go by how hard it is how come the outstanding players of today that play on such a high level isn't already the top 50. The competition level increases many argue but the facts are the facts so many of the greatest players of all time NBA history come out of Wilt's Era though. Case closed. Very good debate though I must add on to it. Kudos.
Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever.

Height doesn't measure talent. By that logic Yao Ming should of been more dominating then anyone of his era. Being the fact he was 7 foot 6 and the closest person to him maybe 3 inches shorter. Not to mention the college baller Kenny George 7 foot 7 hasn't even made it to the NBA. Which goes into logic about the fact that having such height does require skill in order to dominate the game. What has Michael Jordan dominated over Wilt like Wilt has dominated over Jordan statistically. Nothing. Rookies doesn't make fourth a great basketball player. By that standard a rookie year could make anyone the greatest ever just given they put on the best rookie year, Even if they don't later on. Jordan went to college, yes and he learned more about the game than LeBron. Given the opportunity LeBron went to college and did the same. Then LeBron would be in way greater his rookie year considering the fact that he keeps getting better, but that's hearsay. Basketball is still a team effort more than a individual effort. Your going by rings although clearly Jordan benefited the Bulls tremendously it is still a team effort. He couldn't of earned those championships without the great players along side him. It's a ongoing thing, Kobe had Shaq and in later years Pau Gasol. Plenty more examples I don't think it needs to be identified seeing how if you know basketball, it is true. But going to rings, Jordan doesn't have the most rings. Bill Russel has what 13. To argue the fact that they weren't as athletic back than is merely hearsay. The people in the earlier years paved the way for athletes today. If they weren't as athletic they wouldn't be athletes.
Cartesian Dualsim (Theatre)

"I argue against Cartesian Dualism." I argue for Cartesian Dualism "I am open to debate whoever wills, as long as he/she is not so intellectually deprived." The only intellectually deprived here is you and your pea-sized brain. "I don't care for semantics, so if you want to be a pedantic prig and define the terminologies then by all means do so." [b]Snob[b/[ BRING THE PAIN
The United States should not provide aid to Japan

It has already been shown that Japan's economy is tied to our own. Therefore, helping them will help us (because we are tied together, as shown, and not refuted). Providing help to them is helping them (indentity principle and a tautology). I'm not required, by this debate to show that a particular form of help will be successful, since the OP already stated that we are "helping." So if helping Japan, helps us, then we should do it, since we like to help ourselves. Thank you.
The United States should not provide aid to Japan

My opponent just "moved the goal posts." The original debate was whether we should help or not. Not whether a particular type of help will ultimately be benefitial. There are many, many forms of help, some which are benefitial, some which are not. Since my opponent accepts that the damage to Japan has harmed the US, he accepts that helping Japan must, in turn, help the US. Whether help plan A or B is better or not, is not part of the original debate. Extend previous arguments.
The United States should not provide aid to Japan

My opponent has provided a good piece of evidence, however, i would like to point out that it has nothing to do with this debate. He has proven that the US has been harmed a little bit, but he has not shown how the US's presence in Japan will help the US. We are not arguing whether or not the US has been harmed because of the earthquake, we are arguing whether or not the presence of the US will give us anything in return which it hasnt and it wont.
The United States should not provide aid to Japan

First of all, our trade hasn't been hindered since the tsunami hit Japan. Therefore, all the money that is being pumped into Japan from the US doesnt help the US. My opponents 2nd point says that we will recieve more than we give, but we aren't recieving anything by helping Japan since I have already proven that trade has stayed consistent. Finally, my opponent previously stated that the earthquake was the worst in history, but the tsunami actually affected Japan and didnt do a lot of harm.
The United States should not provide aid to Japan

1) the US is benefiting for aiding Japan. We trade a lot with them. The faster they recover, the better for our economy. Remember, that we are in a global economy and have many trade dependencies with Japan. Their pain is our pain because of that link. So it is in our interest to help. 2) We can weigh how much help will "harm" us to how much it will help Japan (and in turn help us through trade with them). 3) His final point only adds to mine. That it was more than a common disaster.
The United States should not provide aid to Japan

My opponents first argument supportes my 1st argument which means that I win this aspect of the debate. He also states the more people that help, the better it is for everyone, but the US is not being benefitted by aiding Japan. My opponents second point is that the US does have the abilitiy to help. But the more we help, the deeper we go into debt which will increase inflation and interest rates. Finally, it may have been the worst earthquake, but the tsunami was what caused the damage.
The United States should not provide aid to Japan

I will take the view that we should not be REQUIRED to help, but that we should help anyway. 1) Japan can help itself, but the more people that share the burden the better it is for all (health insurance is a shared burden which is mutually benefitial). 2) The US does have the financial abilities to help to some degree. And finances is not the only type of help. 3) Worst Earthquake in Japanese history, and one of the most powerful disasters in the world. All points refuted.
The existence of God = Undeniable

The existence of God=Unprovable 1. Flowers create pollen, bees need flowers to survive, bees pollinate our plants that we eat. Without bees, our plants would wither and die. Therefore flowers do have a purpose. Why does the existence of flowers prove there is a God. There is not really any correlation between the two. 2. Thunder is charged particles falling from the sky to strike the nearest thing that reaches the ground. What you hear has nothing to do with feeling strength or power. If we all felt strength or power whenever we heard thunder, wouldn't we all want to live where thunderstorms are? Thunder doesn't really have anything to do with proving Gods existence. 3. Babies did not just suddenly appear in evolution. It was an extremely slow process. You cannot prove the existence of God. Just like you cannot prove the existence of unicorns. Until there is actually living proof that someone saw or found evidence that goes beyond a doubt, you cannot prove the existence of God.
The existence of God = Undeniable

God = 100% confirmed real, for the following reasons. 1. Flowers Today there exist hundreds of thousands of species of flowers. These flowers serve no purpose but to make the world look good I'd like to see your petty evolution pull of some aesthetically pleasing stuff. Only possibility: GOD 2. Thunderstorms Go out and listen to a thunderstorm. Hear its power. Feel the strength of God flow over you. Do you really believe that such majesty can be on accident? Or that it was evolved??? I dont think so. Only possibility: GOD 3. Babies Babies are incredibly beautiful but helpless. If evolution was real wouldnt babies be able to survive on their own in the wild? Thats right they cant. Only possibility: GOD I look forward to hearing a mature rebuttal.
The death penalty should be banned from a form of punishment.

I am not really sure as to why you used the quotes from "God" and how they are relevant to this debate? You have stated the issue of religion but different religions have different beliefs concerning capital punishment. Even individual religions have contradictory beliefs. For instance, the Bible clear states the death penalty as valid and just, yet at the same time murder is not allowed and salvation must be offered. Since not everyone is of the same religion and each person can even interpret the same religion differently, the role of religion concerning the death penalty is very unclear. This is why governments should separate state and church. The death penalty has many effects on society. The death penalty is itself a premeditated murder. This is unacceptable even it is inflicted by state authority as it lowers the value of life. In fact, such act can only brutalize the society. "Revenge is essential" can become a society attitude. In conclusion, capital punishment is a moral dishonor. The mockery is that the very civilizations that have no right to impose it, are in particular leading the traditions of capital punishments.
The death penalty should be banned from a form of punishment.

The death penalty was first instituted by God Himself in Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Man didn't invent the death penalty, so man has no right to abandon it. We live in an age when everyone is far too concerned with "human rights", and God has been practically ignored, as if He had no rights at all. The death penalty also helps the enviornment, according to God: "And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him. But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him." I am excited to hear your answer, it has been a pleasure debating with you. Thank you.
The death penalty should be banned from a form of punishment.

I do believe the death penalty does but fear into people from committing the crimes. Having said that, the fear of rotting away in jail (in my opinion) is more scary. Just like I have stated before, the death penalty is a horrible thing, but rotting away in jail for life is much more horrible. People have time to think years upon years of what they did wrong. Capital punishment is not always just and appropriate. Usually, it has been seen that poor people have to succumb to death penalty as they cannot afford good lawyers to defend their stance. There are very rare cases of rich people being pronounced capital punishment. Also, an individual from minority communities are more likely to be given death penalty. Every human being is entitled to receive a second chance in life. Putting a convict behind bars is always a logical option than killing him, as there is a chance that he may improve. People who have served life sentences are reported to have bettered their earlier ways of living and have made worthwhile contribution to the society. It is reported that there is no relation between capital punishment and crime rate. There is no credible evidence giving death penalty does not decrease crime rate in the society. Crimes are prevalent in countries where capital punishment exists and also where it has been abolished.
The death penalty should be banned from a form of punishment.

It is believed that keeping harsh punishments like death penalty conduce to fear in the would-be murderer's mind pertaining to their future on being caught. If people know they will only face life-imprisonment, they will take the legal system casually and commit all the crimes they want. This increases the rate of homicides. By instilling death penalty in the legal system, people will not dare to murder that easily. Thus, death penalty is considered as an essential tool to fight premeditated murder. Since life is so precious, the punishment for taking somebody's life is paying the price with your own life. Thus, death penalty is nothing but just punishment for those who have taken another individual or individuals lives. Keeping the death penalty will scare people even more into not committing the crime.
The death penalty should be banned from a form of punishment.

Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death. Many states require any jury members to be polled during the pre-trial examination to be sure they have the stomach to sentence someone to death before they're allowed to serve. Even if they're against the death penalty, they still may lie in order to get on the panel. The thought of agreeing to kill someone even influences some jury members to acquit rather than risk the death. Some prosecutors may go for a lesser charge rather than force juries into a death-or-acquit choice. Obviously, in all these situations, justice may not be served. The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process. One victim's innocent family is obviously forced to suffer from the crime the person had committed, but by enforcing a death sentence, you force family to suffer even more. While the families loved-one is in jail, it ensures the victims family can rest peacefully, but also ensure that the person in jails family gets to see him/her at least. Mentally ill patients may be put to death. Many people are simply born with defects to their brain that cause them to act a certain way. No amount of drugs, schooling, rehabilitation, or positive reinforcement will change them. Is it fair that someone should be murdered just because they were unlucky enough to be born with a brain defect. Although it is technically unconstitutional to put a mentally ill patient to death, the rules can be vague, and you still need to be able to convince a judge and jury that the defendant is in fact, mentally ill. -More than 1,000 people had been put to death in the United States since 1977. Many of these people had histories of serious mental illnesses, either from before the crimes for which they were convicted, or at the time of their execution. (http://www.amnestyusa.org...) It creates sympathy for the person who committed the crimes. Criminals usually are looked down upon by society. People are disgusted by the acts they commit and feel tremendous sympathy for the victims of murder, rape, etc. However, the death penalty has a way of shifting sympathy away from the victims and to the criminals themselves. An excellent example is the 2005 execution of former gang leader "Tookie" Williams. This is one of the original members of the notorious Crips gang, which has a long legacy of robbery, assault, and murder. This is a man who was convicted with overwhelming evidence of the murder of 4 people, some of whom he shot in the back and then laughed at the sounds they made as they died. This is a man who never even took responsibility for the crimes or apologized to the victims.
The death penalty should be banned from a form of punishment.

DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. One of the biggest arguments against the death penalty is the possibility of error. Sure, we can never completely eliminate all uncertainty, but nowadays, it's about as close as you can get. DNA testing is over 99 percent effective. And even if DNA testing and other such scientific methods didn't exist, the trial and appeals process is so thorough it's next to impossible to convict an innocent person. Remember, a jury of 12 members must unanimously decide there's not even a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. The number of innocent people that might somehow be convicted is no greater than the number of innocent victims of the murderers who are set free. Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. Perhaps the biggest reason to keep the death penalty is to prevent the crime from happening again. The parole system nowadays is a joke. Does it make sense to anyone outside the legal system to have multiple "life" sentences + 20 years or other jiverish? Even if a criminal is sentenced to life without possibility of parole, he still has a chance to kill while in prison, or even worse, escape and go on a crime/murder spree. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. Prisons across the country face the problem of too many prisoners and not enough space & resources. Each additional prisoner requires a portion of a cell, food, clothing, extra guard time, and so on. When you eliminate the death penalty as an option, it means that prisoner must be housed for life. Thus, it only adds to the problem of an overcrowded prison system. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. The number of criminal cases that are plea bargained (meaning the accused admits guilt in return for a lesser sentence or some other concession) can be as high as 80 or 90 percent of cases. With the time, cost, and personnel requirements of a criminal case, there really isn't much of a choice. The vast majority of people that are arraigned are in fact guilty of the crime they are accused. Even if you believe a defendant only deserves life in prison, without the threat of a death sentence, there may be no way to get him to plead guilty and accept the sentence. If a case goes to trial, in addition to the enormous cost, you run the chance that you may lose the case, meaning a violent criminal gets off scot free. The existence of the death penalty gives prosecutors much more flexibility and power to ensure just punishments.