BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
German Automakers Make the Best Automobiles

You continue to say: "Define Best." I will. German automobiles are some of the world's safest automobiles. German automakers pay special attention to detail. This includes detailed, highly advanced safety systems. German motorways are high-speed. We frequently drive speeds in excess of 130 kilometers per hour on our motorways, and most cars cannot be safe at those speeds. Many Japanese and American cars have single-layer, thin-steel or aluminum bodies. These frames may be acceptable for low-speed driving, but we Germans have set a higher standard. All Audis, for example, are built with double-layer, all stainless-steel frames. Very few other automakers even have one car that is built to this level of strength and safety, let alone an entire line. German cars are also some of the best-appointed automobiles in the world. We Germans enjoy driving, and expect our automobiles to be of the highest quality. We pay attention to detail, and demand the details to be perfect. That is why we have engineered many features that are innovative and user-friendly. These include auto-tilt headlamps, auto-dim mirrors, intelligent climate-control systems, intelligent keys, and all sorts of compartments that serve a multitude of functions. Many automakers have copied our designs, but they are followers. We Germans continue to be automotive pioneers. Our cars are also built to perform. Germans enjoy brisk driving, fast stops, and accurate steering. Our automobiles deliver all of these. We also have very low city speed limits; most city streets have limits of 30 kilometers per hour. German engineers have designed cars that perform equally well at high and low speeds. We pioneered high-compression engines, which allow high performance at high speeds, while keeping the automobile drivable in the city. German cars also are designed to last. The stainless-steel frames and bodies on German cars are some of the most corrosion-resistant automotive components manufactured. The German standard has long been a 27-step paint process; most other manufacturers use just a 12 or 15-step process. This keeps our paint in better condition for longer, inhibiting corrosion. German car manufactures have also long used aluminum engine blocks, which are only now catching on in other markets. This is evidence of the long tradition of excellence in engineering that characterizes German automaking. Germany's automobiles are at a low point, however. We need to continue to ensure that only the highest quality components go into our automobiles. Nevertheless, the defects are in the add-on equipment, not in the structural or mechanical systems of the automobile. Even American automobile reviewers always have favorable comments about German mechanical engineering and the performance of German automobiles. Automaking is much more competitive than it has ever been, but Germany still designs the world's best performing automobiles.
German Automakers Make the Best Automobiles

Yes, what are your parameters for "best?" Germany does not make the best cars in the world. Porsches, BMWs, Mercedes-Benzes, and Volkswagens are good cars, and in some cases great cars, but it is arrogant to claim that they are the best in the world. According to J.D. Power and Associates, Porsches are the cars with the fewest problems per 100 vehicles. However, BMW, Volkswagen, and Mercedes-Benz are near the bottom on the list (1). Therefore, quality-wise, German cars are far below average. Motor Trend Magazine has a Car of the Year contest every year. A German car has NEVER WON. When they had a "foreign" category, German cars won five times out of thirty. ONE SIXTH. According to Consumer Reports "European makes account for 17 models on the Least reliable list. This includes six each from Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen/Audi." While this is fewer than American cars, it is far more than the Japanese. Of course, in your first argument, you said you would not accept facts and figures, which tells me you're unable to negotiate, which tells me I'm wasting my breath.
German Automakers Make the Best Automobiles

I was a fool last time I proposed this debate topic because I made it a one-round debate. I will now instigate another challenge that will allow me to respond. German automakers make the world's best cars. A primary facet of the overwhelming load of evidence supporting this conjecture is that German automobiles are designed to perform at a multitude of speeds with minimal compromise made to any speed range. No other group of automakers offers this design. I will elaborate further in later rounds, but German automobiles are clearly the world's best-designed, best-built, and best-appointed automobiles in the world. Other nations' automakers' cars may sell better, be more popular, or better rated by some organizations, but the overwhelming load of evidence will show that Germany, my homeland, makes the best automobiles.
Donald Trump IS the Illuminati

Since my opponent has not contested with their burden of proof, it remain on them to prove that Donald Trump is the illuminati. Due to the fact that all they have done so far is make an assertion this is not sufficient evidence to suggest that Donald Trump really is the illuminati. Illuminati: "a Bavarian secret society founded in 1776, organized like the Freemasons." [1] The society's goals were to oppose superstition, obscurantism, religious influence over public life [2]. Donald Trump is a Presbyterianism [3] and is therefore religious. Due to the fact that Donald Trump is religious this tells us that his beliefs do not coincide with the illuminati's goals. Since my opponent still holds the burden of proof (which is unfufilled) at this point I am winning the debate. Conduct should be awarded to Con due to the forfeiture by Pro. [1] https://www.google.co.uk...; [2] https://www.google.co.uk...; [3] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
all countries have to denuclearise

One more argument I will add towards the opening argument from Pro.He asks why a country should nuclearise. This isn't really a question related to the debate itself, since the debate is about denuclearization, but a strong argument in favor of nuclearization is that the term does not expressly imply weaponization of nuclear fission technology.All applications of nuclear science require enrichment processes, generally involving cyclotronic acceleration of subatomic particles before directing them at high energy towards a selective element or molecular solution. This process is conceptually identical to the creation of deuterium as a prelude to the creation of heavy water. Heavy Water can be used in nuclear reactors as well as for a catylitic effect in the production of enriched nuclear fuel. Enriched fuel is generally called 'weapons grade' fuel due to the fact that it is so unstable at high pressure it can go into proximity-induced fission (a critical mass chain reaction decay process). For high-power long-life nuclear reactors such as those used in space, enriched fuel is also required. Power output is directly associated with the mass and efficiency of the reactor. For small reactors, such as the one aboard the Voyager spacecraft, highter-purity fuel is needed to generate sufficient energy over extended periods of time due to the half-life of the fuel and limited collant cycling (it's hard to bleed heat in space). Thus a very small amount of highly refined nuclear material is easier to keep cool and generate power with than a larger amount of lower energy fuel that must be kept cool by an equally larger amount of water and a more complex pumping system.None of this fusion mass can be used for reaction mass (thrust), so the more the power generator weighs the more geometrically costly (in terms of fuel) the launch and every vector change and acceleration boost will be.As I already stated, other uses include nuclear power generation on earth. Dependance on more developed nations for fossil fuels (coal and oil) is a common problem for countries with no nuclear programme. In this way the restriction on nuclear research is also seen as a conflict of interests problem for economics as well as military.Finally, nuclear enrichment processes are directly linked to an entire branch of medical science: nuclear medicine. These include PET scans, chemotherapy and other decay-based treatments.Finally, there's future research potential. Besides CERN, there are quite a number of QFT and QM research projects that depend on decay-based nuclear interactions for their research data.
all countries have to denuclearise

You are a good debater.well the meaning of the debate was that nuclear weapons are dangerous. So all countries have to denuclearise. Remember the incident in Nagasaki, Hiroshima and chernaboyl? I agree your arguments had good points. But you please answer me directly in the last round that 'do we need those nukes? If yes then why?'. I am against nuclear weapons not against nuclear power. Nuclear energy is necessary in this world of resourse depletion but not nukes.
Resolved: Mario wouldn't win a fight against Sonic the Hedgehog

Sonic would win in a fight hands down. point 1: Sonic has faster reflexes. It's what he is known for. Mario has no actual ability. point 2: Ever since the beginning of sonic, he has had the ability to become invincable when aquiring the emeralds and becoming Super Sonic. point 3: Sonic has a friend for just about any task that can't be accomplished, and I won't even bring them personally into the argument, but they could do stuff for sonic before the fight had sarted. It's easy to see, Sonic would beat mario. Any one like to disagree?
Resolved: Mario wouldn't win a fight against Sonic the Hedgehog

I know it is mortal sin to bring up more points in a final conclusion of after much over night thought I have decided it best that I do and give these final points for you to debate and the voters to consider. counter counter counter point 1: By running, sonic is not running away but only dodging an attack. He doesn't have to go far, if anything he could run circles around Mario and would never leave the area. counter counter counter 2: I disagree with taking invincibility out of the debate for the fact that Sonic has more of a chance of being invincible then Mario. Also this point previously brought up the fact of the many force fields Sonic may use and if you take these away you would also have to take away the power ups you have brought up. counter counter counter point 3: I didn't like the idea of having friends in this argument either and this is why. Without the help of his many, many friends in both paper Mario games, you could not get to the power ups you need, there fore making paper Mario power ups inferior. In this, I agree that friends should not be a part of this debate. counter point 5: I don't think you understand how fast the speed of sound is (769 mph) you could slow him down by 600 mph and still have trouble catching him. I don't know, but I doubt the lightning bolt could do too much to him. Same thing for slowing time, and a speed flower doesn't make Mario the speed of sound, or anything close. Also, Sonic has a trick called Chaos Control in which he can teleport wherever he wants, slowing down time won't help you here. counter point 6: I think we can both agree that we should put this in a world evenly matched for both characters. I think sonic could make do with a flat planed land and Mario really wouldn't survive in Sonic's world where there are loops that Mario could not get past. point 7: "Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door" was not a game about Mario, but a game about a BOOK about Mario, a point I will let the voters decide is important or not. My final argument and my conclusion. Sonic has met and triumphed everything you have thrown at him in this debate. I HAVE shown you that sonic can defend against anything Mario has but also I have have shown you what sonic is better at. It's not necessarily a fight of better power ups, but of skill, and ability. You can talk all you want about what Mario could do IF he was around one of those power ups but the truth is that doesn't always occur, Sonic has better skill and ability with out anything fancy. He is altogether stronger as a character and better than Mario when it comes down to a point. Once again I would like to thank you for such an exciting debate. Win or lose, this has been much fun for me. .. .. VOTE PRO! .. . PLEASE!
Resolved: Mario wouldn't win a fight against Sonic the Hedgehog

Okay, my opponent has not shown that Mario could triumph but only tie with sonic. Counter point 1. We have agreed that sonic has the quills on his back and that he has faster reflexes. He points out that Mario has the ability to jump, or stop on his enemies which is also an ability of sonic, along the other ability titled "spin dash" Also, There are many power ups that sonic may obtain. Take the Genesis Sega Game "Sonic 3" he has the power up to breathe under water, become a fire ball himself, or become electrical. He also has his own version of a star power that lasts just as long as Mario's, and, in almost all games, he has a temporary force field. In other words he evenly matches Mario (if not beating him in this section) but along with all of this, he has the quills and speed previously brought up. Also, isn't Sonic "faster than the speed of sound." Therefore, I doubt that Mario can leap in the air and land on Sonic considering Mario is just a normal everyday plumber with a few power-ups and good friends. Also, against his statement about Fire Flower consuming Sonic, I am pretty sure Sonic could run away from it and since u decide to go with any game made I will point out the tornado attack you can use in Sonic Heroes and the warewolf form in Sonic Unleashed. Counter point 2: Along with becoming Super Sonic, as I said in my last point; Sonic has many different types of force fields and his own star power. In superpowers I think we agree Sonic has it AT LEAST 6 to 1 (Fire, Water, and Electrical Power ups that work as force fields, his normal force field power up, his version of star power, and super sonic), Sonic also gets these power-ups by breaking capsules similar to Mario's blocks. counter point 3: I think we can both agree that Mario and Sonic both have an equal amount of friends to help them who could evenly match each other. point 4: Sonic has beaten what is known as the ultimate life form (Shadow the Hedgehog) and one of the smartest minds know to man (Dr. Eggman). Mario's biggest achievement has been defeating a giant horned turtle and global warming. I believe I have beaten all of my opponents argument and if not, I have atleast matched them. Thank you for taking this debte seriously by the way!
Resolved: Mario wouldn't win a fight against Sonic the Hedgehog

For the record, my opponent believes that, in a fight, Sonic the Hedgehog would triumph over Mario (presumably the ever-popular Nintendo character, and not the hip-hop artist), and I believe the opposite. There were also no constraints listed as to which game versions my opponent intends these characters to originate from, so I will assume it is all game versions. Let me begin: Mario would win in a fight, hands down. Counter Point 1: True. Sonic the Hedgehog DOES have faster reflexes, but my opponent's claim that Mario has no ability is false. Mario has the ability to jump and stomp on his opponents. Now you may say, "Well Sonic the Hedgehog has quills that would pierce Mario's feet and cause him to lose his powers, shirk, or die," but in Paper Mario, Mario obtains stone boots that allow him to stomp on sharp surfaces. Mario also has plenty of abilities acquired through power-ups. One example is his ability to shoot fire after acquiring a Fire Flower. According to www. iwantoneofthose. com/lifestyle-home/funky-home/hedgehog-excluder/index. html, hedgehogs are rather flammable, leaving Sonic the Hedgehog susceptible to combustion. Counter Point 2: Sonic the Hedgehog may be able to obtain invincibility through emeralds, but his invincibility is on a "1 ring per second" time constraint, and he may still be crushed, drown, or run out of time. Mario also has the ability to become invincible by acquiring stars that bounce around after he breaks certain blocks. Counter Point 3: Sonic the Hedgehog DOES have a companion for just about any obstacle he comes across in the Sonic the Hedgehog series, but the same goes for Mario. Mario has his brother, Luigi, that has helped him combat foes, and overcome obstacles on numerous occasions. He also has Yoshi, his dinosaur companion, that can stomp on sharp surfaces (like Sonic the Hedgehog's quills) and can eat and either spit long distances or digest into an egg, leaving his opponent trapped and vulnerable to attack. I believe I have countered all of my opponent's arguments. I now await his rebuttal.
Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students.

Closing Argument: In my closing argument I will list some reasons for why standardized testing is an efficient way to reflect the academic value of students. 1. Gardner states "achievement data from tests provide teachers with valuable information to improve classroom and student learning". This is yet another quote that supports my claim that the tests to help to improve academics in class rooms. 2. Standardized testing is the best way to know how a student is doing. If schools were to go onto one on one testing it will incredibly time consuming. Also, my opponent said something about a child having problems at home. Believe it or not, a teacher can know if something is wrong from the results of an examination. 4. Standardized tests are also helpful in providing students with the pressure of taking education seriously. Many students want to go to college and they know that in order to get into a respectable college they have to score decent grades in the SAT. This "pressure" will cause them to take education seriously and will be beneficial in the long run. Now, I want to leave my opponent and all voters with this quote, "While there are many purposes that can be served by assessment, they are all secondary to the improvement of student learning." Thanks to my opponent for this great debate and I wish all voters will vote Pro. Thank you.
Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students.

I thank my oppenent for a great debate and a timely response. 1. Here we are agin debating the same thing in contention 1. My opponent does not undertsand/or cannot comprehend my first point. Although to him there is no reason for results to change if a student knows the material there is and I have already given evidence to support this. Perhaps re-stating it will help my opponent realizing regardless of his take on it the actuall results prove me correct: National Center for Fair Testing -"A test is completely reliable if you would get exactly the same results the second time you administered it. All existing tests have "measurement error. " This means an individual's score may vary from day to day due to testing conditions or the test-taker's mental or emotional state. As a result, many individual's scores are frequently wrong. " I hope this has helped my opponent understand and realize that I am correct. 2. "The Luck Factor" my opponent has repeatedly said that even if a student guess's correctly he needed to know some information. This is not inherently true. Even if a student closes his eyes and randomly circles A, B, C, or D there is a large 25% chance he will get the question right regardless of what he knew or if he made an "Educated guess" (which like I said earlier is still just a guess). I am not saying that students are going through tests guessing on every problem getting every one correct, but with such a high chance of getting one right if you do guess makes them unrealiable. 3. Pressure, again another point my opponent has not understood through the entirity of this debate. My opponent said: "I don't know what to say but we cannot just stop the tradtion and excellence of standardized testing for a handful of students who most of the time get through pressure with some counseling and help. " the debate is not to stop standardized testing but wether or not it accurately represent's a student's academic values. It is more than just a "handful" of students who do poorly under pressure. With so much on the line in standardized tests pressure and nerves are actually quite common. For some students there nerves get the best of them causing them to do poorly on the tests. To corrolate this with the resolution so my opponent can better undertsand: Pressure created by the importance and atmosphere of the test causes students to overthink questions causing them to get them wrong or "choke" under pressure. The tests are not really becuase in the cases of certain students the pressure they create is to much and the students un up doing poorly although they may have known the material thus giving an inaccurate representation. 4. My opponent has said that standardized testing can be used to determine areas that students need help in. In response I say the following: This is untrue, standardized testing can give many false readings. There are simply too many variables behing the score recieved on a standardized test to use it in order to judge areas that a student needs help on.
Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students.

First of all if you mean inconsistent in terms of a huge difference in results you are entirely wrong. Again, it will make no sense in the world for you to have major differentials between tests of the same subject. 1. Bruce Whitehead, author of "Using standardized test results as an instructional guide", states in his academic journal "One school was able to use standardized test scores to improve its curriculum as well as its educational policies." Extremely beneficial for schools and teachers are these tests. They provide a understanding of where a student stands. To my opponent, Tests are constantly worked upon to achieve perfection. Students themselves learn their weaknesses from examinations and use exams as a way to improve their academic standards. 2. My opponent does not seem to understand where im going with the educated guess respone. What I am saying is that students who do guess on tests do not do it for every single question and pass. Behind every guess is some strategy and something from a lesson must seem familiar to the student to choose his or her answer. Having to go to summer school as my opponent says, is not a curse. If you have to go to summer school is because you do not fully understand the material and your friend who made his guess and got it right most likely had some understanding of the question. Your friend had to have some background knowgledge of the material for him to even get close to passing the examination. 3. Teachers throughout the course of the year give students information as to what would be on standardized examinations and what to look out for. To those students who still feel pressure at the time of the test, I don't know what to say but we cannot just stop the tradtion and excellence of standardized testing for a handful of students who most of the time get through pressure with some counseling and help. I am happy you agree that it's silly. 4. Scores could with no doubt be used to improve teaching in the class rooms. The overall results of the class determine where they stand in general. Individually, students can be placed in classes with students who are also having a defiency in some aspect of the curriculum. Standardized testing proves to be efficient, not perfect of course, but a way to help students improve their academic value. Thanks to my opponent for this interesting debate. Vote for PRO!!! Good Luck 4.