BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The New York Times Best Seller

1. The titles of "New York Times Bestseller" and "New York Times #1 Bestselling Author" are in no way misleading. A bestseller is the book that has sold the best, plain and simple. If the New York Times was labeling books on their bestseller list as "New York Times Most Awesome Book of All Time Ever" then there might be an issue. The New York Times even has a separate title for books it considers noteworthy; these books garner the title of "New York Times Notable Book of the Year." Also, it is the choice of the publisher to label bestsellers with the title; The New York Times cannot force a book to display this designation. As for the notion that these books get an unfair advantage, I cannot see what is unfair. It is a simple economical idea that better products sell better. No one would recommend and try to sell a book if it was terrible (except the author and publisher, of course, and even then, why would a publisher accept a terrible book?) Some books may make the bestseller list because of the author's name or because it is one book in a series. But these books don't gain any unfair advantage by appearing on the list, they would sell anyway for the reasons stated above. [1] 2. The title of "New York Times Bestseller" may not hold as much credence as a book earning the Newbery Award and a "New York Times #1 Bestselling Author" may not be remembered as long as a winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature. But New York Times Bestsellers certainly holds equal weight. Much of the public uses the New York Times Bestseller list as a standard for quality and a reference for which books to purchase. [1] Also, the list is formed based on quantitative data: the number of books sold to a large group of the public. The Nobel Prize and Newbery Medal (and other awards) are awarded based on the subjective opinion of a select group of people. The New York Times Bestseller list is indicative of the opinion of a greater group of the public and therefore holds equal merit to that of other literary accolades. 3. I'm not sure how my opponent knows that the system is flawed or weak because the exact qualifications for books appearing on the list are not public information; more specifically, the exact stores analyzed for books appearing on the list are not publicly known. [2] "The New York Times best-seller list is based on weekly sales reports obtained from a scientifically selected sample of bookstores throughout the United States. The sales figures represent books that have actually been sold to the public." [3] Sources: [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly...
The New York Times Best Seller

As Con, I will be arguing against the notion that an acceptance into The New York Times Best Sellers List is prestigious and that the list helps authors to increase their sales in the United States. I feel that 1) the title of "New York Times #1 best selling author" or "New York Times best seller" for authors and books, respectively, are often misunderstood and misleading, because they are based of sales to the public, not on the books quality and merit. Thus, books with these labels printed on the cover get an unfair advantage, relative to other books of the same caliber. Also, I feel that 2) the titles are not very prestigious, as compared to other literature awards. Lastly, 3) the system that determines whether a book appears on "The New York Times best sellers list" is weak and flawed.
The Lego Movie is Better Than Aladdin

Composer Alan Menken and songwriters Howard Ashman and Tim Rice were praised for creating a soundtrack that is "consistently good, rivaling the best of Disney other animated musicals from the '90s. Although fourteen songs were written for Aladdin, only six are featured in the movie, three by each lyricist, 1. better music 2. Broadway material 3. its not piece trash dish out by storyline. Aladdin is better
The Lego Movie is Better Than Aladdin

look Aladdin is better. plus Lego movie is stupid and don't make sense . "Aladdin" was one of 10 films released during the "Disney Renaissance," a 10-year period from 1989-1999 during which animated Disney films regained critical and financial success. "Aladdin" has proven to be one of Disney's most successful franchises, spawning video games, theme park attractions and direct-to-video sequels. Fun fact: Dan Castellaneta, the voice of Homer Simpson, replaced Robin Williams as the voice of Genie in the sequel, "The Return of Jafar."
Segregation Equals Success In The US & Abroad

As the title states, Segregation equals success. Just taking a good look at all of the issues in the US and from around the world, It's clear that one group of people is the problem. Not to be mean to anyone but Europeans have ruined the earth & the majority of people on the planet would surely agree. I think that all races of people should live in their natural homeland. Whites should stay in Europe, Blacks in Africa, Hispanics/Latinos in the Americas, Arabs in the Middle East etc. There shouldn't be any trading or conducting business with each other if it's possible. On the other hand, The US would greatly benefit from segregation because these whites have destroyed the country thanks to being so damn greedy/evil. I don't want to hear that "we are all one race" because that's false to a degree. From a foundational standpoint, There never was any real unity among black/white people & we can clearly see it in their hypocritical actions. They love to hide their racism with false patriotism and they never wanted an equal playing field, Which gives them success. I don't want to hear an idiotic comment like "we work hard" because history proves otherwise. I'll easily destroy your lack of argument with rock-solid facts if you go the "we work hard" route. Whether it's on a domestic level or it's on a global level, Every race of people should split up the land equally and keep to themselves. If you disagree with what I've said then prove me wrong with (Facts) rather than emotional opinions.
American public schools should not lead recitations of the current Pledge of Allegiance.

Hello everyone. My case is that public schools should not lead recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance as it currently reads. What this essentially means is that schools should not have teachers or administrators leading group recitations of the Pledge, as is often seen in the status quo at the begininning of the school day. Note that this does not preclude students from personally and independently reciting the Pledge on school property.
Animal testing.

Since my opponent has not adequately defined the resolution, I will elaborate: my opponent must prove that it is morally permissible to perform potentially harmful scientific experiments on non-human animals of the class mammalia (since when we refer to animal testing, what we really mean is mammal testing). I must prove that it is not morally permissible. ======== Contention 1: Animals are conscious. Conscious beings have the right to life; animals are conscious, and so animals should not be experimented upon. Contention 2: Animals are capable of suffering. All mammals can feel pain, have emotions, and can suffer. It is inhumane to conduct dangerous and potentially harmful experiments on beings that are capable of suffering. ======== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://encyclopedia.farlex.com...
God is be both omnipotent and omniscient

With BoP on Pro, They must prove, Beyond all doubt, That their point is true. Here they have only said that their thoughts are "purely a strong theory. " Pro claims that we don't have solid evidence for black holes. The following organizations disagree: NASA, Harvard University, Science Daily, HubbleSite. Pro claims that their God is supported by more evidence than any other religion or theory, Yet they don't provide a single modicum of such proof. Pro claims that reading The Case for Christ will help prove their point. However, This book speaks absolutely nothing on the topic at hand in this particular debate. Overall, Pro has refused to effectively refute any of the points I've made, Uphold the BoP, Or put forth a valid argument.
God is be both omnipotent and omniscient

The fact is, We don't have solid evidence for the existence of God, In the way that we don't have solid, Physical evidence of the existence of black holes. We see something that should be what we call a black hole, But we haven't actually gone to it and seen it in action. It's purely a strong theory. In fact, I can't really think of a scientific fact that can't be disproven at sometime or another. However, If you read the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, You'll find that God is supported by evidence much more than any other religion or theory. If you were to compile all the evidence from historical records, Seemingly supernatural miracles, And cross-reference them with the Bible, You'll find it the strongest source we have.
God is be both omnipotent and omniscient

Praying presupposes that God exists and has the power to know and answer prayers. Thus, It is a completely irrelevant point that completely begs the question here. If God is all-knowing, He would know you were going to miss that date. If he's all-powerful, He could answer those prayers and also know in advance what that answer would be. The existence of Heaven also presupposes such a God so the point is invalid. Stating that we must trust the Bible, Which also presupposes this God, Is a total non-starter and essentially concedes the point to me. It is equivalent to saying that we must trust Buddhist doctrine which states there is no supreme deity. Logic is the same, Conclusions are opposite.
God is be both omnipotent and omniscient

The one problem is that He is not in our human timestream. Say you promised to pray for something and then forgot to pray for it. The date has passed by for the event you were praying for, But you don't know the outcome yet. Yet you could still pray for it after it happens, And God might still cause a good outcome of the event due to your prayer. This goes to show, Time does not exist in Heaven. This is beyond our human comprehension, But it basically makes this whole argument irrelevant. The fact that God does not function inside of time makes it impossible to say "He was going to do this, But he decided not to and changed his mind. " To sum it up, We don't know. We must trust the Bible as our only source of evidence we can understand.
God is be both omnipotent and omniscient

This argument doesn't really make sense. Suppose you speak to God and ask him whether the Mets will win a World Series after 1986. "Of course not! " he proclaims. Perhaps they were going to win in 1987 and then he changed his mind. Perhaps they were going to lose in '87 and he changed his mind, Then changed back, Then back, Then back again. However, At the start of the '87 season, He decides Mets fans have suffered enough. If he changes his mind, He will show his omnipotence but defy his omniscience. If his prediction must be true and he cannot affect this change, He is not omnipotent. No matter what "God just knows what he will do, " "knowing" implies certainty which implies the inability to change which implies impotence.
God is be both omnipotent and omniscient

The main thing that makes debating this difficult is this simple fact: God is fully and completely outside of time. However, We can somewhat debate from a human standpoint, Inside of time. He knows what will happen and can see the changes that he will make, And He is not saying that "This will happen. Oh wait, Let me change it. Oops, I'm wrong now. " God just knows what he will do, And what he has done, And what is is doing, Therefore He is not wrong about anything. Going any deeper strays near predestination, And that subject is normally left untouched to avoid a complete brain scramble.
God is be both omnipotent and omniscient

If god were omniscient, He would be able to use the state of the universe at any given time to predict the state at any future time. However, If he were omnipotent, He could change that future in which case his prediction was wrong and he would not be omniscient. If he was unable to change the future, He would not be omnipotent. Another way to put this would be to say that, If God were truly omniscient, He would already know how we was going to alter the course of events in the future using his omnipotence. However, This means that he can't change *that* change, Which means he isn't omnipotent.
Global Warming is Real

Consensus? Many climate scientists don't agree with climate change as the 97% is total BS. And there are petitions being signed to say people aren't causing global warming. No, you dumb nut, it went UP 50%. It was 100%, now it's 150%. It grew by half of its volume. You don't get the point. Yes, some have been true and false. But the majority have been wrong. Again, "you don't get the point". Yes, again some have been right and wrong. But the majority have been wrong. I proved that there is a higher chance that global warming ISN'T CAUSED BY HUMANS. That's the main issue. Humans making climate change. I also showed you that it probably doesn't exist at all with the icecaps.
Global Warming is Real

Ok well if you really want to start this. 1. "There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man." You must not read a lot! There are a MILLION scientific facts about global warming. 2. "Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012." There, right there, you literally just proved my point that global warming is real. Arctic ice has been up to 50% when it should be up to 100%, but there, it's not. 3. Climate models may have been wrong over and over, but they have also been right over and over. Nothing you have said has disproved the giant hole in the ozone above the arctic. 4. "Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong" What predictions! There's been A LOT of predictions, some wrong, some right! Oh right, this "Sorry, I couldn't hear what you were saying. I think you were saying something about how climate change exists" Yeah, you probably couldn't hear what I was saying, because you didn't disprove anything!
Global Warming is Real

Well... 1. There hasn't been any global warming since 1997. - http://rightwingnews.com... 2. There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man. - https://wattsupwiththat.com... - http://www.petitionproject.org... - http://rightwingnews.com... 3. Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. - https://www.breitbart.com... 4. Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over. - https://dailycaller.com... 5. Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com... - http://rightwingnews.com... Some other videos: - - - Sorry, I couldn't hear what you were saying. I think you were saying something about how climate change exists...
Francis is not the head of the Catholic Church

I mean, this guy is just a troll. It's completely worthless. But i'll answer anyway for instructive purpose. He cut my citation of "Quanta Cura" to make it appear that Pius IX and antipope Francis are saying the same thing. The citation goes as follows: Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (# 3), Dec. 8, 1864: "... that erroneous opinion... NAMELY, THAT "LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN"S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY..." He put it like this: "LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN"S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY..." Notice that he hides the "that erroneous opinion "part. That's complete dishonesty to make it look that Pope Pius IX was promoting religious liberty. And a mortal sin, also. He still cannot understand the difference between being a Pope and being recognized as such. According to his line of reasoning, Jesus Christ was not the Messiah at the time of his crucifixion since the majority did not recognized him as such. He still cannot understand that, according to Catholic teaching, his "election" is completely worthless since he was already an apostate before being "elected". According to him it is reasonable to say that when Francis honoured deceased jews he still believed that they were in hell. He was comemorating someone's condemnation to eternal fire. This is bizarre. But even if it was the case, it would still be an act of apostasy since he was participating in an interreligious service. Except that it isnt.... Anyone who believes in God is a believer, but that doesnt mean calling someone a believer includes them into the Catholic faith like you claim." He is completely wrong. The Catholic Church considers everyone who has a faith other than the Catholic faith as infidels, and publicans. Look at how the Church treats those who have false faith: Pope Callixtus III, 1455: "I vow to" exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet[Islam] in the East." Pope Callixtus III calls the Mohamedans infidels, not believers. But what is also interesting about this passage of the Contender's "argumentation" is that it proves that he is not a Catholic since he considers that anyone who claims to believe in God is a believer. Which means that he considers someone who does not believe in the Trinity as a believer in God. I could go on but i'll not waste my time anymore. This guys is just a joke. Look at the about me of his profile: "If you look at my Bio it mentions trolling 8 times and my debating skills only once, so that alone summarizes what kind of member I am. I do a lot of trollish debates..."
Francis is not the head of the Catholic Church

"Since my opponent refuses to deal with my argument and also insists to rest on the authority of of Wikipedia to determine to legitimacy of Francis as the head of the Catholic Church, I cannot continue to develop my case."Well if youre one of those dinguses who thinks wikipedia is good for nothing then allow me to present other sources Evidence that Francis was elected Pope:http://www.usatoday.com...http://www.telegraph.co.uk...http://www.theguardian.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://ncronline.org...http://www.nytimes.com...http://news.blogs.cnn.com...And here are numerous sources that explain why the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church:http://catholicism.about.com...http://www.dummies.com...http://www.catholic.org...http://www.catholicmissionleaflets.org...http://www.bible.ca..."Second premise: Jorge Mario Bergoglio (i.e. Francis) is a formal heretic."You kinda need evidence to back up such a claim. An no, your own opinion isnt a valid source :)"Francis called the rabbi Sergio Bergman a "believer". Francis therefore says that Sergio Bergman is part of the faithful, which is the same as to say that this rabbi is in the Mystical Body of the Church."Except that it isnt.... Anyone who believes in God is a believer, but that doesnt mean calling someone a believer includes them into the Catholic faith like you claim. "Francis took part in a interreligious cerimony to honor deceased jews whom rejected Jesus Christ. To honor someone who has passed away is to consider that that person could have been saved."Again it doesnt. Paying respects to those who died is simply paying respect to them, it doesnt mean that he was trying to save them like you claim. "Pope Francis - " promote religious freedom for everyone, everyone! Every man and every woman must be free in his or her profession of religion, whatever it may be.""Pope Pius IX - Liberty of Conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society"There is literally nothing contradictory about these two statements. Both are proclaiming that each man has the inherent right to worship, and it says nothing in either that they HAVE to worship God as the Catholic Church sees him.....===========================================================================================All of pro's claims that Pope Francis is a heretic are based on his own warped interpretations of Pope Francis's actions as that of heresy, which are no different then then the actions that many Popes have done before him. Pope Francis is not a heretic and therefore is the Pope, and therefore the head of the Catholic Church.....
Francis is not the head of the Catholic Church

The debate is about whether or not Pope Francis is the head of the Catholic Church, Its not about whether or not Pope Francis is leading the church in the right direction, about whether or not he will be overthrown from the papacy, about whether or not he SHOULD be removed from being pope, none of that. .. .. The debate is whether or not Francis is indeed the head of the Catholic Church. .. .. 1) Pope Francis is the Pope . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Francis is not the head of the Catholic Church

Since Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the newly intalled Antipope Francis, has deviated from the catholic faith prior and after his "election", according to the bull "cum ex apostolatus officio" of Paul IV that says that a election, even of the Roman Pontiff and even by unanimity of the cardinals, ought to be consider null and void if it can be shown that the person supposedly elected has deviated from the faith prior to his elevation; according to common sense that says that someone who is not even a catholic cannot be the head of the Catholic Church; and according to Innocent III "Eius exemplo" that says there is "one Church, not of heretics", we ought to conclude that Bergoglio is not a member of the Catholic Church and, as follows of course, nor Its head. Examples of the apostasy of Bergoglio can be found here: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com... Some examples are: He asked to a "protestant minister" for a blessing; he calls jews the "people of God" and teaches by his words and deeds that they don't need to be converted. He teaches that a Rabbi is our master and that he has a true spiritual ministry; he prayed that the ramadan could bring "spiritual gifts" etc, etc.
Francis is not the head of the Catholic Church

"I mean, this guy is just a troll. It's completely worthless. But i'll answer anyway for instructive purpose. "Just because youre being a complete idiot it doesnt mean you have to lash out to try to prove your case when youve already failed. .. "That's complete dishonesty to make it look that Pope Pius IX was promoting religious liberty"The way you quoted it implied that he was, dont blame me for your inability to cite sources properly. "he Catholic Church considers everyone who has a faith other than the Catholic faith as infidels, and publicans. Look at how the Church treats those who have false faith: Pope Callixtus III, 1455: "I vow to" exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet[Islam] in the East. "And if you cite evidence from Popes who didnt die over 500 years ago, then you could see why that claim that that all who arent Catholics are infidels is complete crap. =========================================================================The fact that pro has resorted to such pathetic measures to try to prove his case shows that his argument is completely false and that he knows it. The simply facts aare that Pope Francis was elected Pope, he still is the Pope, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, and Pope Francis isnt a heretic just because Pro thinks he is. Pro's claims that the Pope is a heretic are based on his own flawed interpretations of completely normal actions which means he has failed to prove his case.