BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Quran is the word of god

Hello! I look forward to a civil debate with you Pro, and would like to state in the begginning that I am Catholic, not Muslim, but that I will conduct this in a tolerant and respectful manner. Again, I look forward to this debate and eagerly await your reply! Good luck and God bless you! حظا سعيدا وبارك الله فيكم Nicholas (Please call me Nick)
Charm is the key to starting new relationships (Fallacy Debate)

First, I would personally like to say that I have been having a hard time recently because my dog went missing. It's been very difficult adapting to life without him and his big ears, but I've slowly been putting the pieces back together. This debate was one of those stepping stones to get involved with society once more and for that alone, deserves at least the conduct points, if not arguments as well. As I'm sure the sharper of readers will immediately notice, Pro has consistently failed to provide good reasons why charm is the key to good relationships, thus proving my point that honesty must be. Pro mentions in the first round that 'if you aren't alive, skinny, and gay, you can't start a new relationship', and I'd like to point out that Pro thinks he can win by stating the obvious. Clearly, because we are discussing the key to 'new relationships', then, by definition, that implies we're talking about people that are alive, skinny and gay. I'd like to ask Pro in the future not to state obvious facts, for example, 'herring is a fish', and 'red is a color', just to fill up character spaces. In addition, if Pro is taking a position against honesty, then everything he says in unreliable. Bear that in mind when voting. I implore all intelligent voters to delve into the most intimate depths of their hearts and seek out the truth that lies within by voting for Con.
Charm is the key to starting new relationships (Fallacy Debate)

Pro doesn't seem to know what he is doing but he has been called a professional by other debaters in debates of this category. Con may or may not be a professionalEither the case that pro is not a professional and deserves points in conduct for continuing to challenge con on this issue or it is the case that pro is a professional and con is not a professional, so pro deserves points in argument as well points in conduct. Con defers to pro's previous arguments as being called a professional, therefore subjecting her own arguments to that of pro's. Thus making the case that pro is a professional and deserves both conduct and convincing argument points as per the previous conclusion. or it is the case that con's deference is unreliable because pro is not a professional and con is still subject to pro's previous arguments, thereby making Con unprofessional and points being given to Pro in the category of reliable resources, convincing argument, and conduct. Pro and Con both believe in Disney and agree that Disney has created Prince Charming, but has not created Prince Honesty. If Prince Frank is created, he will not be Prince Honesty, and he will be in a perpendicular relaxed position, just as my opponent is.
Charm is the key to starting new relationships (Fallacy Debate)

Before we look at my opponents arguments, let's take a look at who exactly Josh_b is. He recently voted on a debate where he wrote, 'I... care for vote bombing.' (http://www.debate.org...) So we can see that he is the type of person who likes vote-bombing, making anything he says unreliable. In addition, he clearly uses fallacies in every one of his arguments, providing further reason to distrust his logical authenticity. Basically, Josh_B's main argument boils down to the ridiculous assumption that if charm isn't the key to relationships then we will have to terminate the production of Disney movies. That's nonsense, as I will allow Disney to continue producing movies even if truth is the actual relationship builder. I will allow this because Disney can then come out with another movie with a character named 'Prince Frank', who tells the truth. The vast amount of arguments my opponent presents ensconce an amalgamation of ostentatious idiosyncrasies, indubitably designed to imbue a premonition of disconcerting diffidence, thus causing me to capitulate to his arguments. It will not be effective, though. Besides, how do you know charm is the key to relationships if you haven't tried honesty? And if you have tried honesty, then you would know charm is not the key to relationships. The major problem with my opponent's argument is that, ultimately, most people would rather have authentic relationships with a small number of people then artificial charming relationships with everyone. "Charm.... is... no...t... the key to starting a new relationship." My opponent ultimately concedes the debate to me in Round 2, and his arguments are ridiculous to a degree of deserving medals, so I don't actually see a point in addressing his other arguments.
Charm is the key to starting new relationships (Fallacy Debate)

I am totally insulted. This was a debate about using fallacies, not about using your professor from college. No true professor would ever claim honesty as a key to starting relationships. He certainly must be as susceptible to dementia as any other person if he says something so ridiculous. Honesty was a really good subject for a debate concerning the key to sustaining good relationships. Unfortunately, the key to starting relationship is either charm, or respect. And since honesty is neither charming, nor respectful, it is not the key to starting relationships. Honesty is the same as death, and therefore only dead people can start relationships with honesty. Every president that has ever been a minister to France claims that “Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.” Can you see how they never talk about the key to starting new relationships? Honesty is completely subjective to the best evidence that can be provided. If you provide the best evidence, charm will always be the most honest answer. Honesty is manipulative, and self serving.
Charm is the key to starting new relationships (Fallacy Debate)

I used to believe that charm was the key to relationships. Then I met a well-respected scientist who proved that all good relationships are founded upon principles of honesty. Based on tremendous fortitude and integrity that any good-hearted person would admire, he came up with the following statistics, (backed by much of the scientific community): He calculates that the President of the United States is the most influential and respected man in the world. George Washington was honest, and we all know this indisputable fact from the famous story of when he admitted to having chopped down a cherry tree. He later became the president of the United States. Presidents of the USA have been known to have approval ratings of even up to 90%. (http://www.gallup.com...) If people approve of you, you can make good relationships. So if you're honest not only can you make good relationships, but you will even become the President of the United States of America, and even get a 90% approval rating! Honesty is for the righteous and the irrelevant. We know that people lie in their graves. They lie in bed. Lying is very prevalent in society. But we must say 'enough is enough'! We must face adversary in the face! We must be strong and worthy! Lying is for losers! I mean, frankly, who wouldn't want to be honest? Only a dishonest person would, and we all know that dishonest people can't be trusted. Besides, whoever doesn't agree with this premise can just emigrate to another country. I personally have experienced moments in my own life when telling the truth was beneficial to me (like writing answers on tests) and I have gained so much from being honest that doing anything else, especially in relationships, just isn't worth it. You might end up with someone who thinks you like tuna fish if you don't tell the truth. And that would be tragic.
Charm is the key to starting new relationships (Fallacy Debate)

Prince Charming is the most widely known Disney Prince. There a ton of other Disney Princes, but none are so prevalent as Charming. That is absolutely because charm is the most sought after quality in starting a new relationship. No one looks for phillip, or eric, or florian as a character trait when starting a relationship, they just aren’t important. Every girl wants a Prince Charming. You must be curious as to why. You want him because Disney tells you that you want him. Disney tells every single girl that they are poor and worthless and no one will ever want them unless it happens to be a rich single bachelor who has a TV show on their network channel ABC. You can have all the men you want, Disney says, but don’t even look at them because they are old dogs trying to catch a cat, or mice beneath your feet. Disney doesn’t tell you the reason why Cinderella was such a catch for this Chief of Charm. It’s her nature to be on her knees all the time…scrubbing the floor. But I digress; let’s talk about the real meaning of charm. Charm is a puppy waiting be picked up. It’s so cute until it pees on you. Charm is the feeling you get right before you vomit. Charm is the moment when everything feels so right and you have no idea why. It happens when a guy tells a girl makes fun of a girl for having big ears and then asks her on a date. How could a guy possibly know to make fun of the one thing a girl is sensitive about and then have the nerve to ask her out? It’s charm. Josh_B, why are talking so bad about charm? Didn’t you call it the key to starting new relationships? I did call it the key to starting new relationships and it is. The three fundamentals according to a Seventeen magazine October 1949 are vigorous aliveness, appealing to good looks, and the ability to meet life gaily. So if you aren't alive, skinny, and gay, you can't start a new relationship. http://www.virtuousreality.com...;
Charm is the key to starting new relationships (Fallacy Debate)

This is a fallacy debate using all fallacies.Voting for this debate is based on the adequate use of Fallacies not the actual content of the Debate as identified in this Forum:http://www.debate.org... Round one is for Acceptance--The acceptor of this round must provide a reasonable claim of the Key to starting new relationships which is not Charm. Round 2 is for imperial evidenceRound 3 is for Refutation of the opposing debaterRound 4 is for Conclusion and appeal to votersNo Rebuttals.Do not Identify the fallacies you are using in the Debate.
olajuwan is the greastes center of all time

Olajuwan is the most talented offensive and defensive center ever. from Lagos, Nigeria Olajuwan dominated from the moment he stepped on an NBA floor. As a rookie he turned the Rockets from a 29-53 joke to a 48-win playoff team, Six times an All-NBA first-teamer, Olajuwon was also a fixture on the NBA All-Defensive team. The man known as "The Dream" won two Defensive Player of the Year awards. He came in second in the MVP voting in the 1992-93 , and won the award in 1994. Averaging over 20 points and 10 rebounds in each of his first 12 seasons in the league, Hakeem's numbers are out of this world. As the NBA's all-time leading shot-blocker and eighth on the career steals list (by far the highest for a center), "The Dream" is the greatest defensive center ever.
olajuwan is the greastes center of all time

I will admit I hold Hakeem in high regard, and I personally rank him 2nd on my all-time list. However, I believe Kareem beats him out as the best center of all time. I will continue to build my case. "Keep in mind that Kareem also played over 300 more games in a 3 year longer career so these total career show his durability in the NBA, not necessarily how he is better. Instead lets look at per 36 minutes statistics and how they both impacted the game. I'm doing per 36 min because Kareem averaged a little over 2 min per game than olajuwan"Longevity is a very important factor into calculating a player's importance to a team. One of the reasons Kareem was so skilled was because he continued to play at a high level for 20 years. I extend my statistics from last round, as I find it more efficient to compare a player's statistics from his entire career, rather than at a per 36 minute system. Why should we punish Kareem for keeping his body in shape to play more minutes per game and playing more seasons. "Now also dont forget the great playoff runs olajuwan put together against some of the greatest big men to play like robinson, ewing, mutombo, and even consider malone. The clutch playoff numbers olajuwan put up are even more impressive than the statistics from before. "Kareem had to play against more skilled big men during his tenure as an NBA center. Some of these men include, but not limited too: Wilt Chamberlain, Robert Parish, Bill Walton, Moses Malone, Kevin Mchale, Artis Gilmore, and even Hakeem Olajuwon. Once again, my opponent has decided to post playoff numbers using a per 36 minute system. I will provide career playoff numbers, as I believe they provide a more clear picture as to who had a better career. PointsKareem-5762Hakeem-3755ReboundsKareem-2481Hakeem-1621AssistsKareem-767Hakeem-458BlocksKareem-476Hakeem-472*Note blocks weren't recorded until the 1973-4 season. Kareem would of had at least 100 more blocks had they would of been recorded. FG%/FT%Kareem-.533/.740Hakeem-.528/.719*This stat shows that not only did Kareem score more, but he did so more efficiently RankingsOf the websites who cover the NBA and have ranked all-time centers, these have ranked Kareem over Hakeem. http://www.hoopsmanifesto.com...http://bleacherreport.com...http://msn.foxsports.com...http://sports.espn.go.com...http://www.geoclan.com...ConclusionMy opponent has dropped my "Career Accomplishments" arguments, which is the core of my argument. Unless it is addressed, I have clearly provided the evidence needed to affirm Kareem over Hakeem. I will not allow my opponent to construct his argument.
olajuwan is the greastes center of all time

I was hoping my oppenent wouldnt choose Kareem because he is the most annoying to debate against, but i still firmly stand on that Hakeem is the greastest center of all time. Keep in mind that kareem also played over 300 more games in a 3 year longer carrer so these total career show his durability in the NBA, not necessarily how he is better. Instead lets look at per 36 minitues statistics and how they both impacted the game. Im doing per 36 min because kareem averaged a little over 2 min per game than olajuwan PointsOlajuwan-22 Kareem- 24BlocksOlajuwan- 3.1 (leading shot blocker of all time)Kareem- 2.6 Steals (an important statistic you seem to forgot)Olajuwan-1.8 (Most steals by any center by alot. also 8th all time on the steals list)Kareem-.9 ReboundsOlajuwan-11.2Kareem-10.9 Now also dont forget the great playoff runs olajuwan put together against some of the greatest big men to play like robinson, ewing, mutombo, and even consider malone. The clutch playoff numbers olajuwan put up are even more impressive than the statistics from before. Playoff points per game Olajuwan-25.9 Kareem-24.3Blocks per gameOlajuwan-3.3Kareem-2.4Steals per gameOlajuwan-1.7Kareem-1Rebounds per gameOlajuwan-11.2Kareem-10.5There is not much more to be said than Kareem being better than Olajuwan other than scoringOlajuwan made one the worst teams in the NBA into a champoinship team with very little help from his team. Olajuwan is the only player to win 2 champoinships while being the only all star on the team.
olajuwan is the greastes center of all time

I will be arguing Kareem-Abdul Jabbar is the greatest NBA center of all-time, surpassing Hakeem Olajuwon. I will construct my argument with three separate sections. CAREER STATISTICS -Over the course of both their careers, Kareem has put up statistics paralleled by none. Points: Kareem - 38387Hakeem- 26946Rebouds: Kareem-17440Hakeem-13748Assists:Kareem-5660Hakeem-3058Blocks: Kareem-3189Hakeem-3830*Note the NBA did not recognize blocks until the 1973-4 season. Therefore, any blocks recorded by Kareem during that time have not been documented. If his blocks had been recorded during this time, he would of likely surpassed Hakeem's totals. FT/FT%:Kareem-6712(.721)Hakeem-5423(.712)FG/FG%:Kareem-15847(.559)Hakeem-10749(.512) As shown above, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has shown he has played at a superior level over the course of his career than Hakeem Olajuwon. Abdul-Jabbar statistics: . http://www.basketball-reference.com...Hakeem Olajuwon statistics: . http://www.basketball-reference.com...CAREER ACCOMPLISHMENTSKareem Abdul-Jabbar has also proven to be more accomplished than Hakkem Olajuwon by accumulating career milestones and awards that far supass Olajuwon's. MVP awards:Kareem-6Hakeem-1NBA championships:Kareem-6Hakeem-2NBA Finals MVP:Kareem-2Hakeem-2All-Star:Kareem-19Hakeem-10All-NBA team apperances:Kareem-15Hakeem-12All-Defensive team apperances:Kareem-11Hakeem-9I think that is enough to show Kareem is a greater historical center than Hakeem Olajuwon. I will now await my opponent's argument. Kareem's accomplishments: . http://en.wikipedia.org...Hakeem's accomplishments:. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Giving Teachers Guns

You're completely ignoring the fact that police, the people who's profession is literally keeping the peace through the appropriate means, are by no means perfect. I'm not claiming "teachers would go out and shoot a student cause they're scared," I am saying that teachers can, and will, make mistakes of poor judgement and someone will get hurt. Yes most teachers will call the office if an altercation were to arise, but my concern is other teachers. We already as a nation have issues with inadequate or unsuitable teachers. Potentially giving them a gun is going to exasserbate the problem. Link here: https://www.usatoday.com... Also, teacher's don't "sit there while children get shot," they have lockdown drills to keep the shooter from knowing students are in a room or not. An excercise that is completely negated when a teacher pops open a door with the intent to shoot the shooter back. This idea also forgets that if the teacher misses because of being in a high stress scenario, or if the shooter shoots the teacher first, the students in that specific room are only put in more danger. We can't expect the individuals in a dangerous situation to "rise to the ocassion" every time and save the day. Do not glorify gun fights as a means to solve shootings as it will only lead to more deaths. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You quoted the intorductory sentence in my argument, not the conclusion. I am concerned about the bias that individual teachers have, racially, ethnically, based in gender, or otherwise. Of course teachers are people, that's the point. I also never brought up anything regarding the 2nd ammendment, that is a bigger argument that this one is merely a part of, in other words, only tangentially related to what I was saying. You also completely assumed my stance as I have said nothing about the 2nd or gun control laws in general. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, to start Israel is misused in debates like these https://www.timesofisrael.com... As stated in the article, armed guards are there for protecting the students from foreign terror attacks, not gun wielding countrymen. The reason for Israel's lack of mass shootings is because of their strict gun control policy, not because of some guards: https://www.nytimes.com... Note, they don't just have less school shootings, but all types of mass shootings. Also one armed individual isn't going to single-handedly save the day, there are several instances of school shootings where there were in fact armed guards or police officers: https://www.theguardian.com... https://www.huffingtonpost.com... This evidence is somewhat anecdotal however declaring Israel to be some sort of example of armed guards being the solution to our school shooting dilema is just misrepresenting the facts.
Giving Teachers Guns

Teachers would not go out and just shoot a student because they are scared. If this was a scenario then the teacher would instead call the office or police. Teachers may definitely make mistakes and may misuse guns but if it was a teacher against a student the teacher would not or should not be silly and pull out a handgun to shoot a student. Now, say the student has a gun. This is why teachers need handguns. If somebody comes in with a gun what can they do? Sit there while children get shot when they could be doing something? No. Teachers can take action on an active shooter and end the shooting. Now, you stated that "The idea also fails to take into consideration the fact that teachers are by no means saints who would never misuse guns". If teachers would misuse guns, any gun owner could misuse a gun. If that is the case, should we just ban guns altogether, causing a riot, a worse black market for guns, and protests? That would be going against our freedom and amendment two, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Teachers are civilians and people, too, meaning they should have the right to carry a gun. If teachers have not chosen this program then that is their choice. It will be putting teachers and students at risk but, if the teachers believe that way, we could always arm custodians, principles, or custodians, seeing as they are usually and if not always up and walking around the school, with handguns. But, let's say none of them are comfortable with a gun, since they would not be putting in the money for training for teachers, they could put in money for one or two security guards. I took a look at Isreal and how they prevent their school shootings. They have one armed security guard and have one had half a dozen terror attacks since 1974. Since that is one security guard, wouldn't that mean we only need one armed adult with a conceal and carry and training at schools? ( https://www.cbsnews.com... )