BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Michigan vs Ohio State is the best rivalry in college football

1) History of both rivalries(This is the more minor argument, the major argument is in the next point)Alabama and Auburn have played 79 times, with Alabama leading the series 43-35-1, winning about 54% of the timehttps://en.wikipedia.org...Michigan and Ohio State on the other hand have met 111 times, with Michigan leading the series 58-48-6, winning about 52% of the timehttps://en.wikipedia.org...So while both rivalries are nearly statistically equivalent in terms of evenness of the rivalry, meaning both sides in both rivalries win fairly often, Michigan and Ohio State have played each other more than 30+ times than Alabama and Auburn have (30% more games between each other if you do the math). This gives the Michigan and Ohio State rivalry an edge in terms of history of the rivalry over the Alabama-Auburn rivalry simply because Ohio State and Michigan have played each other more often than Alabama and Auburn have, and by a substantial amount as well. 2) Caliber of both teams in both rivalries(Main argument)Since both rivalries are historical and now take place annually, the main focus of the debate is now focused on just how good each team in the rivalries are. When we examine the statistics, you can see that there is a substantial gap between the caliber of Ohio State and Michigan, and that of Alabama and Auburn (particularly Auburn)Alabama and Auburn rank 7th and 19th in terms of overall wins, and rank 5th and 13th in terms of winning percentage (not counting Div II and III schools) in the link belowMichigan and Alabama on the other hand rank 1st and 6th in terms of wins, and rank 2nd and 3rd in terms of all time winning percentagehttps://en.wikipedia.org...So while Alabama is arguably of equal caliber of the football programs of Ohio State and Michigan, Auburn simply is not, and the statistics of the programs back this up. Michigan and Ohio State overall have a bigger history of being better football programs than Alabama and Auburn do. As mentioned before, Michigan and Ohio State have combined to win 19 national championships, have 10 combined Heisman winners, 157 combined All Americans, and 79 conference championships between both schools. Alabama and Auburn on the other hand have combined to win only 17 national championships (only 2 from Auburn), have just 4 combined Heisman winners, 125 All Americans, and just 40 conference championships between both schools (half the total of Michigan+Ohio State)https://en.wikipedia.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...So while Alabama and Auburn are two very respectable programs by themselves and compared to most other schools, they simply do not compare to the combined might of Michigan and Ohio State, which outranks the Alabama-Auburn rivalry in terms of how historically great these programs have been int he past nearly across the board by wide margins. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Michigan vs Ohio State is the best rivalry in college football

As pro I will argue that the Michigan vs Ohio State rivalry is the best rivalry in college football. Con will select a DIFFERENT rivalry and argue that THEIR choice is the best rivalry in college football. 3 rounds, 4000 characters a round, 24 hours between rounds. http://www.youtube.com...Arguments:1) The length of the rivalry spans over a centuryMichigan and Ohio State first played each other in 1897, before Teddy Roosevelt was ever elected president. Other rivalries like UCLA vs USC and UM vs FSU didnt first start until 1927 and 1951 respectively https://en.wikipedia.org...The age of the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry stands as a testament for why it is the best rivalry in college football, since few other rivalries can match the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry in terms of age and historic qualities. 2) Annual matchupThis rivalry is played annually on account of how both the Wolverines and the Buckeyes are in the same conference (The Big 10). Many other rivalries though are NOT annual events, such as Michigan-Notre Dame, or Miami-UF. Since the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry takes place every year, that gives the rivalry a bigger presence over college football than rivalries that take place only sporadically, since the annual face-off has dramatic implications for who plays in or wins the Big 10 conference championship, and even the Rose Bowl itself, since the winner of the Big 10 conference championship is automatically considered to get a spot in the Rose Bowl game. https://en.wikipedia.org... 3) Caliber of both teamsMichigan and Ohio State are two of the most prestigious football programs in all of college football, which cannot even be disputed. Michigan has the most wins of any college program and has the second highest all time-winning percentage, with Ohio State having the 6th most all time wins and 3rd in all time winning percentage right behind Michigan State. Few other rivalries can match the win-percentages of both teams in the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry. https://en.wikipedia.org...Michigan and Ohio State have also won 19 championships combined, and have appeared in 88 bowl games combined, which only further exemplifies just how prestigious these powerhouse football programs are, and how important the rivalry between both schools are both for the schools themselves, and the rest of college football.https://en.wikipedia.org...Michigan and Ohio State also have a combined 10 Heisman winners, 157 All-American trophy winning athletes, and 79 combined conference titles under their belts, which no other rivalry in college football can match:https://en.wikipedia.org...Conclusion: The extensive history of kicking a** and taking names that both Michigan and Ohio State have, combined with the age of the rivalry and the implications that the annual rivalry has on the rest of college football itself, are the pillars that support the only logical concl
Why shouldn't gay marriage be legal

A sin is anything wrong or that is not pleasing in gods eyesight ok God does love every one. Did he not make adam and eve or adam and steve it takes a woman to produce a child not a man thats why he did not make two men because they were not capable of producing a child. Its still Gods law no matter how you put it i cant begin to tell you that homosexuals have a huge affect on alot of people and if your not sure read THE FIRST OF THE BIBLE PAGE AND IT TELLS YOU BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY AND THATS IT MY NOT SEEM SO WRONG BUT WHEN YOU PUT IN THE WORLDS EYES BUT IN GODS EYESIGHT A SIN IS ASIN AND HE LOVES EVERY HE DOESENT LIKE THE SIN BUT HE LOVES THE PERSON NOTHINGS WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALS ITS THE SIN THAT THERE DOING THAT IS WRONG
Why shouldn't gay marriage be legal

First of all i would like to nicely ask for you to review your post before you post it because it's kind of hard for me to read and im not really sure what exactly you were saying. I think that maybe this debate isn't going to work out very well because no matter what i say your going to say "god is law". Im not completely sure what the bible says about homosexuals word from word. But i don't think and im not sure about this but i don't think that it says being with the same sex is sin? Correct me if im wrong please. I really don't understand as to why someone else being gay would affect anyone else but them?! That is there own decision and they should get the same rights that anyone else should get. If they want to get married and adopt a baby then they should be able to, but like i said i already know what your response is going to be and thats going to be "god is law". So like i said im not really sure how to go on with this debate.
Why shouldn't gay marriage be legal

your right about not killing and its wrong too the bible also says judge not and you cant say that your country doesn't have people who kill other people and your comment and be fruitful and multiply makes no sense because you said " just because your nation observes religion it doesn't make it a law" NOT IF YOU BELIVE IN GOD. "GOD IS THE LAW" JUST LIKE IN YOUR EVERY DAY LIFE YOU JUDGE PEOPLE JUST LIKE PEOPLE GET SENT TO JAIL AND HAVE TO GET LETHAL INJECTION ahhhhhh duh ( the bible says you should not kill either so you think about it next time you hear off a judge making person DIE just because THE GOVENMENT SAYS SO SINCE WHEN DID THEY BECOME MORE PRIVILEGD . iF THIS NATION IS UNDER GOD THEN IT SHOULD ABIDE BY GODS RULES. THANK YOU
Why shouldn't gay marriage be legal

"be fruitful and multiply" although same sex couples may not be able to actually conceive and give birth to a baby, they are completely capable of adopting a baby in need of a home or having a woman carrie one for them with artificial insemination. and just because our nation observes religion doesn't mean it's law. the bible says something about not killing and we have violent wars and the death penalty. and supposedly your "god" loves everyone right?! well the whats so different between homosexuals and you and i.
Jimmy Carter: Best President Ever

You appear to brag that Carter was the only President not engulfed in war. That is not the case as JFK led the United States during the Cold War and dodging the war to the end the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis. There is no other President in our great country's history that would have even matched JFK's success, especially Carter. Carter did a fantastic job of appeasing the Soviet Union during his Presidency and would allow dictatorships to prosper in North Korea, Cuba, and Iraq. And yet it still does not matter about what he did, the man still lost his re election. If the American people were happy with his first four years surely they would have elected him like they did dozens of times before and a few times since. http://www.sfgate.com...
Jimmy Carter: Best President Ever

For the fact that he commanded the world"s largest and most lethal military for four years without "dropping one bomb, launching one missile, or firing one shot," if you've ever seen War Inc" Nuff said. War is a BUSINESS. And the military industrial complex CONTRACTS companies who support them, like Blackwater. He was a PEACE President, and America has a war on everything, war on education, war on drugs, war on terror, war on fill in the blank. America has NEVER been in a time of Peace, except under him. You want war, go ahead and make your argument. As far as all you wanna talk about with the economy, that has more to do with resources and corporations and supply and demand than Presidents. Gas shortages were not his fault, there is plenty of oil. It has to do with OIL COMPANIES. Same with mortgages, had to do with BANKS. You can"t blame the government or it"s executive chief for the economic market. And just because he didn't win his second term doesn't mean anything. People in this country don"t have control over who their president is. Just look at how Ron Paul was shown to have ZERO votes in Ohio and lots of people came out and said, "I voted for him." As far as the Iran Hostage Crisis, you didn't really make a point, other than the finger you point, like you did with everything else. If you want to say he"s responsible for something, like mortgage rates or gas shortages, don"t just say he did this or he did that. PROVE IT. Back up what you say. I could say Peter Pan was responsible for Hook losing his hand, but what if it was just karma and the crocodile of fate? I"d have to show you evidence that Peter Pan cut off his hand and fed it to the crocodile, wouldn't I? As far as I see it, you"re not really making any specific allegations, just general ones that are out of a president"s control. Situations arise and we as humans deal with them the best we can. He seems today to be a legit humanitarian with regard to his ACTIONS in my best estimations and because he was the only President to never declare war or act hostile to anyone I consider him to be the best, though I"m sure anyone profiting from the military industrial complex and war companies that sell bombs, you might have a different view, since he didn't put any money into your pocketbook.
Jimmy Carter: Best President Ever

Jimmy Carter by far is one of the worst Presidents ever. Besides fumbling the Iran Hostage Crisis, in which he made the United States look foolish, Carter caused economic issues galore in the United States. He caused mortgage rate hikes that went fluttering causing many Americans to lose their homes. He is responsible for the gas shortages which caused many to suffer hardships. The only positive coming from Carter is that Ronald Reagan was elected to fix his messes. Ending the Cold War, stabilizing the American economy, and resurrecting America make Reagan a better President than Carter. Oh if he was the best ever, why did he not win his second term?
Jimmy Carter: Best President Ever

Jimmy Carter: The only President to not wage war (although I'm sure there were some going on while he was Pres.) Put up solar panels while he was Pres on the White House to show his support of free energy, which Reagan promptly removed. Wrote a book about how Israel was stolen from Palestine (even though America was stolen from Indians). Seems like a great, common sense guy, still alive at 90. Are there any who would disagree with the proposed suggestions and say that Jimmy Carter was a bad person or is?
Jimmy Carter: Best President Ever

First off you should've been able to read that I mentioned George H. W Bush and the Gulf War not his son George W. Bush. Secondly I cannot give you the positives of the Carter Administration cause frankly there aren't any. Raising the gas tax, the failure that was Iran-Hostage Crisis, and the mortgage issues I do not consider to be positive accomplishments. You could mention the return of the Panama Canal to the Panamanians however I do not consider that to make Carter the Best President ever. Also a question to pose to you as I leave this debate: If Carter was the Best ever, why was he so easily defeated by Ronald Reagan when he ran for a second term?
Jimmy Carter: Best President Ever

Oh please, don"t try to stear this conversation into the arms of George Bush. He was terrible, passed the Patriot Act. That"s what he"ll be remembered as, an ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST. Look dude, Carter was a great man and you should show some RESPECT. I challenge you to show the pro side of his presidency. If you had to say something good about him, do it. It is a debate, but if you had to say something good about Carter, what would it be? Because I don't think you've considered, though all people have positive and negative qualities. So what would you say was his positive? You've already expressed his negatives in your opine.
Jimmy Carter: Best President Ever

I do not understand the logic of your argument. You are discussing their lies and potential flaws yet all that matters is their Administration's accomplishments. Lincoln freed the slaves and united a divided nation hence he is highly respected. H.W. Bush about raising taxes yet his administration will be best remembered for the successful Gulf War. As I said before, this argument should be based on successful administrations. Jimmy Carter does not have a successful administration. If you choose to believe it was successful, surely not as successful as Lincoln, Reagan, JFK, or H.W. Bush.
Jimmy Carter: Best President Ever

Well if we are looking at it from a philosophical point of view, what makes a great president OR great anyone doesn't necessarily mean what the popular vote supports. Look at how Obama got re-elected. People thought they were gonna get free phones and their mortgages were gonna be wiped clean. It was of course a total joke, yet people called him the greatest potentate ever even before he was elected. It was gonna be a real change. But everything he said and promised turned out to be double-speak. So just because Reagan and JFK are looked upon as "great," doesn't mean they were just because the majority thought so. Because not only do people believe what they want to, they believe what they are told (propaganda), because the Truth is difficult to accept. It's like trying to empty the Pacific with a paper cup. There is a huge difference between what people want and what people need.
Jimmy Carter: Best President Ever

Not bragging. Honestly I wasn"t even born yet. I do agree with you that JFK was also a great president. A lot of people hated JFK too from what I understand, and that could have been due to media bias. From what I understand JFK went against the big military industrial complex for the Cuban Missile Crisis. However he also created the Red Cross from what I understand, a Jesuit-Vatican organization, which, since all the CIA were Knights of Malta at the time, agents of the Vatican, who helped the Nazi"s escape, I don"t necessarily buy all the circumstances surrounding his death. Reagan was a movie star, so just because he lost the debate is arguable. There are too many "Secret Society" connections attached to JFK, a man who claimed to be against those things. He greatly expanded the covert operations he spoke out against through the creation of the Red Cross. There"s a good article you can read about this which I will provide documentation for if you"d like. JFK also was disloyal to his wife.
Altruism is Real. True Selflessness Can be Found.

Unfortunately, I see a lot of words but not much being said. Merriam Webster defined the word Altruism as said above. It is inappropriate to pick and choose what suits me out of the definition. In Round 1 however, you will see no mention of animals. If I had wished to argue that, I would have made a mention of it in Round 1 other than what was stated in an alternative definition. Since you are relentless in arguing a topic that is in no way related, I am forced to confront it. As I said to you in regard to animal examples: I would attempt to "refute at least a few of them" which is exactly what I did. Your entire argument is built upon 15 examples which were derived from a source other than your own brain. I am not willing to go through each one individually and explain to you why it is incorrect in my view, yet you obviously havent either. If you had read my rebuttle in Round 2 or even "your" own examples, you surely would have realized that there is something wrong with them. On to the intended topic of discussion: If you are so willingly going to sweep evolution under the rug, than so will I in respect to Jesus and his divinity. This is simply a belief. Now on to your "acts of altruism" All of these display motive as I stated in my first sentence of this debate. a. Prove to me that someone does not give money to feel good about themselves or become famous for doing so. Prove to me that one does not do this to make up for past wrongs or religious reasons. b. Prove to me that the husband did not do so in the hope that the wife would reciprocate. Prove to me that he does not do so in an effort to feel good about himself. c. Prove to me that one does not to this in an effort to be remembered as a hero. You have spent so much time trying to find irrelevant flaws in my argument that when it actually comes to producing a response to it, you have proven incompetent in doing so. Every one of your examples shows a possible motive. I asked you to prove to me that an altruistic action exists, therein without motive. What makes the printer example at all an act of altruism? It is simply the same as all the rest. What if he wished to impress a girl, make more money, feel good about himself, or maybe he did it for religious reasons? He could have done it so he didn't get coal in his stocking for Christmas. There are countless examples of motive that you have ignored. Perhaps you should have reverted back to Wikipedia for your answers. Motive is what makes humans unable to commit an act of true altruism. Pro has failed to show me that such an act exists. Therefore, and to my regret, I admit that humans cannot commit a true act of altruism. When it simply comes down to it, the topic over which the debate was designed was avoided by Pro until the last possible moment and then, when a response was finally given, it contradicted my very first sentence of the entire debate! Pro has failed.
Altruism is Real. True Selflessness Can be Found.

I apologize for my confusing wording. I simply meant to post all definitions that Merriam Webster states in regards to altruism. In reference to animals, I think what is important to take from it is the fact that it "is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species" and apply that concept to humans. Yet, I do not wish to waste the round. While you gave many examples of animals it seems only fair that I try to refute at least a few of them: -Most of the examples do not even relate nor apply to the above definition. The definition states "...that benefits others of its species" and most of your wikipedia examples are in reference to animals helping out animals of other species. -Many of these examples can be attributed to biology. Whereas it may be detrimental to a baboon to sacrifice himself in order to ward off a predator while the troop retreats, it is more beneficial to the community as a whole. Of course Meerkats can also be applied to this since if one Meerkat is standing guard, the rest benefit as a whole (which is not to say the guard will die due to starvation). -Dolphins, wolves, and apes are unique animals in the sense that they are seen as being caring. This trait has evolved to become this way since it has been beneficial. Just as buffalo protect their own from predators and wolves bring back meat for all members of the pack, these acts of kindness are done because in the past it has been proven to be evolutionarily beneficial. Alas I am not a biologist or animal expert by any means. Please do make an effort to see my argument from a human standpoint. In doing so, try to refrain from copy and pasting off of wikipedia as your argument.