BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The New York Rangers are a better hockey team than the New Jersey Devils.

The Rangers currently are a better team than the New Jersey Devils, record-wise, but overall the New Jersey Devils franchise has proven to be a more elite sports team than the New York Rangers. The Rangers have won four Stanley Cups while the Devils have won three, although, three of those championships were won before 1940. Only seven teams were in the league at that time(excluding the Devils). When the Devils have won all of their Stanley Cups, they had to compete against thirty teams to be named Stanley Cup champions. The devils have what many consider to be the best goalie of all time. Martin Brodeur has been in the league for nineteen years. He has accumulated the most wins, losses, shutouts, and games played in that time period. He is also a ten-time all star. The Rangers are currently better and they have proven to be better against the Devils head to head but a teams accomplishments against a specific team is not nearly as important as the rest of the season. This season, the two teams have squared off against one another four times and they split the games two each. Only time will tell who the better team is this year, and in future seasons.
The New York Rangers are a better hockey team than the New Jersey Devils.

The New York Rangers are a better hockey team than the New Jersey Devils for many reasons. First off, the Rangers have what many consider to be the best goalie in the NHL right now, Henrik Lundqvist. They also have the best defense team in the league. This is supported by their goals against average, which is one of the lowest in the NHL. The Rangers lead the league in hits, which proves they are a very aggressive team, and they are also one of the top teams in blocking shots. All these attributes are related to a great defensive team, and great defense usually wins championships. As a whole unit, the Rangers are a team with passion. The chemistry between the players on the ice allows them to work together to the best of their playing abilities. Each player supports one another, both on and off the ice, and that's what makes a team strong. A good defensive line, passion for the game, and players who reinforce one another all make it obvious as to why the New York Rangers are the first place team in the Eastern Conference, as opposed to the Devils who are currently in sixth.
The New York Rangers are a better hockey team than the New Jersey Devils.

Saying that you feel the reason why the Devils are able to beat the Rangers because the Rangers don't give it their all when versing them is ridiculous. The Devils have talent, and are worthy enough for the Rangers to actually play on top of their game. If this wasn't true, there wouldn't be such a rival against the two teams. Both teams have their strengths and weaknesses, and in my opinion, the Devils have it more together than the Rangers do. Their team consists of players who have been in the league for quite some time and have more experience in the game. More experience leads to better players, which the Devils do have. Overall, the Devils may not be ahead of the Rangers in the NHL standings, but their team as a whole and throughout history has lead them to become a strong and powerful force in hockey.
Comic books are more effective storytellers than novels

My opponent has informed me that he was unable to finish his last posting due to inexplicable and unavoidable circumstances. As a measure of good faith I will only refute what he has given me. First of all. Any intelligent person can see that manga is the highest form of comic book storytelling and that if it cannot overcome the excellent medium of the novel (as I have proved) then all comic books therefore fall short of that expectation. Finally, as to my first point. While he attempted to discredit my sources in this debate, I have proven their validity in my comments on this debate. My opponent didn't provide any other reason as to how my first argument was wrong therefore it flows through. I now strongly urge voters to vote for me, as the more successful debater in this (and all other) rounds of this debate.
Comic books are more effective storytellers than novels

I would like to remind my opponent that this debate is entitled "Comic books are more effective storytellers than novels", not "manga are more effective storytellers than novels". My opponent began to attack my case by saying "As to his beginning stipulations, I am an avid reader of both manga and novels". This debate encompasses ALL comic books, including both manga, and comic books. My opponents' lack of insight into the American comic book industry leaves him at grossly underqualified for this debate. Statement 1: "Displaying emotions and thought processes that characters undergo." Although the meaning of the sweat drop in Japanese manga can be overused and have a large variety of meanings, a veteran manga enthusiast can easily combine both the context of the situation and the dialogue between characters to discern the emotions being displayed. Furthermore, you must also consider that the famed abnormally large sweatdrop is rarely used in American comic books such as X-men. In issue X-men: Annual ShatterShot Part 2 (an issue from my own collection, there is no use of the sweat drop at all, as opposed to the countless number of sweat drops in manga such as Love Hina. Please note that my opponent's support for his statements are accompanied with no citations of any sources whatsoever. Statement 2: "Descriptions of places, people, objects, etc..."
Comic books are more effective storytellers than novels

I noticed that within your response was no rebuttal to my original arguments. However, whether or not you would like to counter any of my arguments is completely up to you. Now to address your discourse. It is true that different people have different dominate senses, which allow easier comprehension using specific methods that include use of visual or auditory aid. However, your argument strays to a tangential matter; this debate is concerning comic books and novels, thus this discussion remains in the realm of visual learners ONLY, there should be no discussion of visual and auditory learners since, unless your book is more like a video game, there is no auditory or kinesthetic aids present. I would like to point out that the written word was developed through the metamorphosis of the first REAL forms of writing: Cuneiform and Hieroglyphics. For those of you who are not familiar with Cuneiform and Hieroglyphics, they were developed around the 30th century B. C. and began as systems of pictographs. Hieroglyphics have been known to chronicle the rule of various pharaohs and records stories of the gods such as Ra, and goddesses such as Iris. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The statement, "The novel has long been the main form of storytelling rather than pictorial epics. .. " is false. As for your artists. .. Your argument vague. If the passage is as descriptive as you say there really shouldn't be too much variation in the drawings. Unless you documentation of a specific instance when your theory was tested and confirmed, any speculations on whether or not the artists would, ". .. draw a scene completely different from the other. " or if the drawings would be able to, ". .. fulfill the author's distinct vision for the story. " are invalid. Whether or not their work is to be interpreted by the reader or laid out before them is up to the author. But keep in mind: where a readers interpretation can become complicated and confusing, physical pictures carry immutable meanings and offer more security for the author.
Comic books are more effective storytellers than novels

Now on to the issue at hand. I believe that comic books are not a more effective form of storytelling than novels but are instead of the same effectiveness as that of a novel. I have two reasons at to why my position on this issue is correct. Reason 1: The effects of different forms of storytelling vary drastically between each and every person. Reason 2: Some ideas can only be expressed through a novel, and visa-versa. Now back to my first argument. The effects of different forms of storytelling vary drastically between each and every person. The US department of education did a study that proved that every student and therefore every human being has different ways that they learn. Some learn visually and would therefore prefer a comic book over a novel. Some learn the auditory way and would therefore prefer the novel over the comic book. Some can even learn kinimatically (action based) and would much more prefer a more interactive form of story telling such as oral tradition. Since the only way to say that one is better than the other is by opinion then the only resolution to conflicting ideas is a draw between the two. And now for my final argument. Some ideas can only be expressed through a novel, and visa-versa. The novel has long been the main form of storytelling rather than pictorial epics because it allows the readers to draw their own conclusions. If you ask two people to read a very descriptive passage from a novel and then ask them to illustrate it in detail (assuming they are of the same artistic talent) they will each draw a scene completely different from the other. While both scenes are different they both will fulfill the author's distinct vision for the story. And both artists still are satisfied that their picture is their most accurate. Comic books, on the other hand provide a given visualization for readers who don't like having to tie up the loose ends themselves. It also gives the storyteller the opportunity to show exactly what they are thinking to their readers. As I have proved there is no way to prove that the one is better than the other. Therefore I urge a vote for CON. ()__() (='. '=) (")_(")
Comic books are more effective storytellers than novels

If you want to debate on this topic, you should probably have read at least 1 comic book and 1 novel before; I hope I'm not asking for too much. Ever since I started reading comic books, from the Silver Surfer to Eyeshield 21, I have found that comic books are more effective storytelling devices in comparison to text heavy novels in terms of: -Displaying emotions and thought processes that characters undergo -Descriptions of places, people, objects, etc... -Smoothly and clearly moving through transitions between periods of time. From my own experience I have found that characters' thoughts and emotions are all more engaging when accompanied by pictures rather than descriptions, mainly due to the fact that our brains are able to process images faster almost simultaneously as we decode the words at a considerably slower pace. This allows a more perceptible view of the physical and mental developments of complicated characters when experiencing anger, joy, stress, or anguish. Quite simply, I believe that words can never truly take the place of a drawing from the hands of a talented artist. Transitions between scenes of comic books are varied because the free flowing template of comic strips allows the author to do so. Japanese "manga" serve as a great example of the abstract interpretations of comic strips, evolving beyond the simple uniform 6 box construction popular in America. Having box sizes in correspondence to the significance of each event allows the reader to fluidly read through a series of events in a similar fashion to the way that they occur; if there is a long inner monologue explaining characters thoughts, text boxes are often larger and take longer to read, whereas smaller boxes containing only images or sound effects allows the reader simply glance at each picture box to assisting the author's task of captivating his audience.
Late term abortion is wrong, and ought to be illegal

Ok I will accept. First, let me state right off the bat that I am a newbie to this. I signed up today and thought I would give this a try. Second, let me state that personally I agree with the Pro side but for the sake of debate I will try to argue the con side. That being said, please have patience with me as I engage in this debate. First, is appears that you are defining a "person" as someone who has "physiological complexity at which thought can occur." Please correct me if I am wrong. If this is the case then I would argue that the pro has a flawed definition of a "person". What about individuals that have mental retardation or people who are brain damaged (I guess to what degree would be of debate)? Are they a person and should they be excluded from human rights? Or what about animals (which I guess could include humans) do they have thoughts? Should animals have "human rights "and be regarded as a "person" according to this defintion? I would argue they should not. Secondly, who determines who has human rights? The government? Science? God? Who determines that human rights should be granted? I would argue that humans don't actually have rights. Further I would ask, is it ok to abort babies before they have "physiological complexity at which thought can occur?" My contention 1: I say abort the baby. The more babies aborted the more room there is for me to live. In short, it is population control. We have limited resources as it is. The more babies aborted the more resources we have for those who are already here. The more consumption on our resources (demand) the higher prices go. It is just better universally. I am sure I will have more arguments as soon as the previous questions are answered and we have agreed on a definition. Finally, Thank you for the opportunity for the debate. I urge voters to judge not with their emotions but on logic and the arguments presented. Please forgive me for the simplicity of this argument.
Late term abortion is wrong, and ought to be illegal

Reasonable arguments regarding abortion are arguments about rights. Pro-choice people claim that a woman's right to privacy, and right to act in regard to her own body ought to be protected. Pro-life people argue that unborn children have rights that must be protected as well I would argue that since late term unborn babies are developed to a level of physiological complexity at which thought can occur, their is no reason whatsoever that they ought not be treated as persons, and be acknowledged as having human rights. I acknowledge that women have a right to privacy, and to act in regard to their body, but submit that in this kind of case in which two peoples rights conflict, they must be measured and balanced. That is, it is not reasonable to simply ignore the rights of one party. In measuring the two parties rights, it becomes quite clear that simply allowing the killing of one party to avoid getting involved in the intimate affairs of the other is not a just solution. Babies of said development are already treated as people when they are born pre-mature. Not doing so for their un-birthed counterparts begs for an answer to the question: why? Their is no good answer. When people attempt to explain "why" they invariably claim that the babe is not deserving of rights because factors which lie outside of the physiological system in consideration (such as that system being dependent). Being that a person is deserving of rights based upon their being a person, That is, based upon their own internal characteristics. Arguments which claim outside factors as justification for the claim that such a babe has no rights are not reasonable. I claim that such abortions ought to be illegal on the basis that they are morally wrong in that they violate human rights. Additionally, despite the legally mandated impositions upon the mother such legislation necessarily imposes I take comfort in the fact that the act of childbirth is now rarely very dangerous due to the regular practice of C-sections. I hope that anyone who disagrees with me will jump at the opportunity to explain to me in just how many ways I am wrong. Though I must admit if we disagree on too much there probably won't be much "debate".
Democracy is the best known form of governance

Since there are only three rounds of debate, I will start with definitions and criteria here... Definitions: Democracy, noun, government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Best: In this case I will define best as in the most just, and beneficial to the people of a nation. Criteria: My opponent is making the claim that democracy is the best form of governance. To do this he must verify the following. For the set of all known governmental systems: Democracy is strictly better than governmental system x. I must try to verify the following claim. There exists at least one governmental for which: Governmental system x is as good or better than Democracy. If you do not accept the criteria and or definitions I have put forward for the debate please substitute your own, as well as justification for the change in your opening argument.
Democracy is the best known form of governance

I will argue that there is exactly one form of Government better than a Democracy. A Republic. A Republic recognizes that all people have certain inalienable rights, that can not be taken by any just government. In a pure Democracy you have the risk of Tyranny by the Majority. If 51% of the people in a democracy do not like Joe, they can have him executed by a simple vote. A Republic recognizes that Joe has a right to live even if half of the people want him dead.A pure democratic system does not guarantee you any rights or freedoms, It only guarantees you those rights so long as you agree with the majority. In a Republic, however, You have a right to freedom of speech regardless if the Majority of people agree with you. You can be part of any religion, even if the vast majority of people don't like that religion. Because a Republic protects people from the Tyranny of the Majority, It is the only government better than a democracy.
Faith is active and visible, not something that just occures "in your heart".

Thank you for initiating the debate. Many people quote Eph 2:8 to say that we are saved when we believe, and no action is required on our part. I find this contradictory to other Scripture. Rebuttal: I would like Pro to define "action". The Bible does not state you do not need to take action unless Pro calls works action. In that case the verse quoted is better to be read with the next verse: Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. The second verse contradicts what you say because it states it is not by works if of course that is what you refer too. I would challenge my opponent to prove that Scripture indicates no action is required on our part to fulfill the faith portion of the passage referenced above. Rebuttal: To rebut what Pro is saying I would like him to first clarify what the action is he refers too. Can a lame man be saved? What action is he supposed to take for salvation? What about people without arms or legs? Or some senior citizens who are not physically capable of doing anything anymore? Is there salvation for them in what you believe? I, on the other hand, will prove that Scripture is very clear that there are certain actions commanded of us before we are united with the cleansing power of the Blood of Christ (saved). Rebuttal: Please do.
"The U.S. system of presidential primaries are contrary to democratic values"

First off Plato was against democracy, Plato (Republic, Book VI) argues that democracy is inferior to various forms of monarchy, aristocracy and even oligarchy on the grounds that democracy tends to undermine the expertise necessary to properly governed societies. http://plato.stanford.edu... Secondly, you still, keep saying that, the U.S., is not contrary, but you are saying, that everyone on in this country is brainwashed into thinking, they actually have a democracy. It is a oligarchy. I really don't know, what to say. Why would a political party, make primaries, if they did not start them until the 1920's? So they really did not need them, so why did they start them, to brainwash them some more.
"The U.S. system of presidential primaries are contrary to democratic values"

As, I said before, you are getting away from the main focus of the debate, values, you call it poetry, but that is what values are fluff, but you still don't get the point, if the U.S. does not uphold, these values, you call stupid, then they are contrary. Your hole arguement is Athens, but I am debating if the primary system is contrary to the values that are nation was founded on. These values are expressed through legislation. One example, of equality the 15th amendment was passed to free slaves to make them equal. Two, Federalism is in our government as well, States have their own different laws, just like very other state. You are getting away from the debate fast, I am debating athens democratic values and if you have that info post, so I can see it, but you still have not attacked any of my points, just democratic values, because you, keep saying ity is Athens. No, the resolution as interepreted is are the democratic values that made the U.S., that are expressed in the constitution contrary, so you lose, also, you said yourself, that primaries are contrary to Athens, so they are contrary, thus you lose. You lose, big time, you agreed to it being contrary, so I'm sorry, but your wrong. I did not want to get into a debate about, democratic values, that were not the core of the U.S.'s values. So honestly, voters out there, yes values are not always upheld, because no system is perfect, but my opponent just agreed to it being contrary, so I win.
yo mom is so fat

yo mom is so fat she left the house in high heels and came back in flip flops f f f f f f f f f f f f ff ff f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f h g g g g g g gg g gg gg gg g gg g g gg gg g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g gg g g g g g g g g g g g g gg g g g gg g g g gg g g g g g gg gg g gg gg g gg gg gg g h hh h h h h h hh h hh h hh h h hh h h h hh h h hh hh h h h h hh h hh h hhh h h h h h h h hh h h hh h j j jj j jj j jj jj j jjj jj