BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Eli manning shouldn't of won super bowl 46 MVP

Eli Manning did not deserve the super bowl MVP. He had a good game but not a great one. Eli Manning only had 1 touchdown pass which is not MVP worthy. Also, Manning had just under 300 yards (296) and the average yards per game for a quarter back in the NFL is around 260 yards. So, he was not that much over the average. He did come up clutch in the super bowl, but so did Mario Manningham. Also, Nicks had 109 yards! The average yardage for a wide receiver (Nicks being a wide receiver) is just under 80 yards. Also, Ahmad Bradshaw had a great game with 72 yards which is just under the average yardage but he did have a good touchdown. A player from the opposing team also could win the MVP. Tom Brady of the New England Patriots had a better game than Manning by having 276 yards and 2 touchdowns. The MVP is also decided on big moments/plays in the game. Mario Manningham did not have a great game statistically speaking but he did come up with a clutch FINGERTIP catch deep in the forth quarter of the game winning drive. He caught the ball off of double team coverage and battling the twelfth man (the sideline) and caught the ball off his fingertips, tight roping the sideline, to come down with the catch. That catch later set up the game winning touchdown. Eli Manning did not have a stellar night and just because he was the quarter back does not mean he deserved the MVP.
Gay (Same-sex) Marriage Should Be Legal

"Where do you get your morals from that two sexual perverts should be treated as normal people and allowed to invade the institution of marriage, which has the primary purpose of procreation?" Where do you get your morals from that homosexuals aren't normal people? This is a legal debate, not necessarily a moral one. Marriage is simply a union between two people. Homosexuals are still people. We should extend marriage rights to them as well. Their desire is simply to be happy with the person that they love. The three "unalienable rights" listed in the Constitution are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The freedom to marry someone of the same sex falls under both Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. While some religions object to homosexuality, there is no reason that this should influence legislation. The first amendment explicitly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The founding fathers also strongly promoted a separation of church and state. Therefore, religion has no place in this debate. Marriage has traditionally been between a male and a female, but this simply because the majority of the populace throughout history A. was heterosexual and/or B. believed in a religion which prohibited same-sex marriage. However, many today do not object to homosexuality. While procreation is certainly a big aspect of marriage, people do not marry simply for the purpose of procreation. Most in America marry for love. That is the purpose of marriage - to show a bond between two people. I see no reason why we should not extend this bond to homosexuals. Some have a moral objection to homosexuality. However, these morals tend to be based on very weak grounds, often in religion. As I explained earlier, religion should not be a part of this. A large majority of people in America do not think that same-sex marriage should be illegal. [1] Therefore, it would be inappropriate to enforce these anti-homosexual morals on others. For as long as we tolerate different religions, we have to tolerate beliefs that don't agree with some of our religious teachings. I think that this applies very strongly to gay marriage. Source: [1] http://www.isidewith.com...
Gay (Same-sex) Marriage Should Be Legal

You claimed that the moral basis for pervert marriage is the "right to happiness", that one has the right to do whatever they wan to make themselves happy. Well, if that is true and what makes me happy is rape and murder your child, then I have right to rape and murder your child. It is not a straw man. It is reduction ad absurdum, showing the world how foolish your immorality is by exposing where it goes if one is consistent with it. I am sorry that consistent is not part of the thinking of the sodomite and their sympathizers.
Gay (Same-sex) Marriage Should Be Legal

"So if it makes me happy to rape and murder your child, I have the right to do that? You are the typical brain-washed, pro-sodomite non-thinker." This is a textbook example of the strawman fallacy. My point was that marriage is a bond between people that shows their love, and is backed by the constitution in its belief that liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights. There is nothing inherently wrong with marriage, so because it makes people happy, it's backed by the constitution. My opponent misconstrued this point by implying that I believed that anything that makes people happy should be legal, including rape and murder. This could not be more blatantly wrong. My opponent then claims that they don't have to refute my points, which is simply incorrect. The burden of proof means that I have to provide evidence that helps prove my claims, and you have to try and refute my points. That's how debate works. You have to offer rebuttals.
Homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible

Thank you CON for replying and accepting this challenge, It does clearly state in the Bible in 1Corinthians 6:9 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God" And also more clearly stated in Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." More references to this can be found here: http://carm.org...
Homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible

I look forward to the debate. I expect PRO and I agree on many issues including my belief that homosexual SEX is condemned in the Bible. I disagree with PRO"s position as the word homosexuality generally refers to more than just the act of homosexual sex. By way of definition lets use any English translation of the 66 books included in the Protestant canonized scriptures. Lets avoid paraphrases of the Bible. Lets define sin more narrowly for this debate as anything explicitly prohibited by God or explicitly called an offense or abomination to God. I think this definition of homosexual is a good place to start. - . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Definition of HOMOSEXUAL 1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex I will be stressing that the any act of sex outside of a male female marriage is specifically forbidden in scripture. Homosexual temptations (orientation) are not a sin in themselves. Blessings in the debate.
Homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible

Since pro did not post to round 3, I will simply summarize his and my argument. Definitions Homosexuality - 1. Sexual attraction or desire for the same sex 2. Sexual intercourse or sexual contact with the same sex Sin - Any offense to God or His standard Bible - The 66 books of the protestant Christian Scriptures PRO claims that "Homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible" I agree with his claim that homosexual actions are forbidden in scripture. I refute his claim (According to the definition above) that the attraction and temptations to sin are sin in themselves. I have a temptation to gluttony - it is only sin when I give in. I have a temptation to dishonesty - it is only sin when I give in. If I have temptations to sex outside God's boundaries - it is only sin when I give in. I want to state in the strongest terms that temptation is not sin. Judgment comes the choices we make. Homosexual temptation is no more a sin than temptation to gossip, slander, steal, lie, or any other temptation. It is our choices and actions that define us. I am disappointed that PRO did not show up for round 3. It would have been fun to hear his position.
Kirby vs. Superman, kirby would win!

I've been jonesing for a debate and GeneralPlatypus was kind enough to provide. Enjoy, everyone! My position is that the Superman would defeat Kirby in battle. Since my opponent has not provided any information beyond the resolution, I'll lay the framework: - The characters being discussed are the standard interpretations of each [1][2]. Special or enhanced versions of either do not apply. - The intent of each character is to defeat the other in combat. A character will be considered defeated if they are killed, permanently immobilized, or otherwise incapacitated. - The battle consists solely of Superman and Kirby. Outside participants, equipment, forces, etc. do not apply. - The battleground is neutral to each character's abilities and weaknesses (e.g. not atop a kryptonite mountain, in outer space, etc). I'll keep my opening arguments short and sweet. 1. Superman's abilities are far superior to those of Kirby [1][2]. Superman, who possesses super speed, strength, invulnerability, flight, ice breath, and heat/telescopic/x-ray vision, can defeat opponents from any distances at any speed. Kirby, who can swallow enemies, copy abilities, and fly for short periods of time, requires proximity and time to use his powers. Superman would end this in moments. 2. Superman's attributes outclass Kirby's. Superman is 6'3", an experienced fighter and tactician, and has a genius-level IQ. Kirby is roughly 8 inches tall, has the mindset of a child, and is largely driven by hunger. Kirby is simply not prepared to face such an enemy. 3. Experience is on Superman's side. Whereas Kirby has never faced an enemy with abilities even close to those of his current opponent, Superman is very familiar with ability-copying foes. For example, Superman has defeated Parasite [3], an enemy capable of draining his powers, on multiple occasions. I'm sure the audience is as eager as I am to see my opponent's arguments, so the floor is all yours =D ::References:: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(Nintendo) 2. http://dc.wikia.com...(New_Earth) 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...(comics)
The Pope lifting sancions on the Itlalian priest who sexually abused 5 children.

I find it highly disturbing and very baffling that people can continue on about this with such a nonchalant attitude. You see, the thing of holding a caliber of high power in a brainwashed and ignorant society is that people justify and are okay with the ill-actions of someone; based on their political and religious hierarchy. If we held people responsible for their actions and prosecuted correctly, hopefully, we would see less of these atrocities.
The Pope lifting sancions on the Itlalian priest who sexually abused 5 children.

I read recently where the Pope Francis lifted sanctions on an Italian priest (Mauro Inzoli) who was in trial because of sex crimes against 5 children. Given the fact that this has happened before in the Vatican and Catholic religion, I'm curious as to if the Pope was right on justifying the heinous crime of Mauro Inzoli. You can agree or disagree, it doesn't matter, I just want to hear other opinions. SOURCE : http://metro.co.uk...
The USFG should eliminate its nuclear-armed ICBM force

One should not get confused between weapons and weapon launching platforms. If a nation has decided to strategically use Nuclear weapons for its defence, then it will be imperative for it to construct and maintain appropriate launching platforms. For a country like the USA, which was in the forefront of developing Nuclear weapons, it would be immature for it do away with its ICBMs when its adversaries still hold them. The triad for launching Nuclear weapons, ICBMs, SLBMs and Missile launchers from the air, are absolutely necessary to maintain a credible defence. Removing one of the legs in this triad will weaken them considerably. It does not make sense for them to weaken themselves in an increasingly unstable world. Coming to the point of vulnerabilities in the security of ICBMs. If the ICBMs have been poorly secured and are at the threat of being captured by unscrupulous elements, such threats would be applicable for any such weapon platform. How could SLBMs be more secure than ICBMs? Imagine a submarine being hijacked by pirates! It is a realistic threat, although the probability of such an occurrence is minimum. One should not forget that ICBMs are probably the easiest to operate. They could be used to launch missiles from roads, on back of trucks, rail etc. It is a simple, yet efficient and proven defence. In summary, It would not be sensible for the US to unwind its ICBM program till there is a consensus on reduction by all concerned. The security concerns to ICBMs mentioned in the argument are there for every other strategic weapon platform. The simplicity of ICBM defence would be difficult to replicate with other options.
The USFG should eliminate its nuclear-armed ICBM force

Here are the arguments I extend -- 1. The ICBM force runs on outdated technology and has severe security lapses, that open the gates to nuclear terrorism. 2. The triad budget is very high. It's seriously outdated and needs renovation, and the renovation would cost up to $1 trillion per estimates of multiple esteemed researchers. This will result in a nuclear budget crisis that will end up in the elimination of the ICBM force anyway, and fast cuts to the nuclear deterrent that put the US in threat of nuclear war. 3. Since #2 has established that something in the triad must go, the ICBM force is the best one to be eliminated. The Air Force has lost faith in the ICBM force and isn't going to significantly maintain it. The SLBM's and bomber force are required for nuclear de-escalation in a situation of pending nuclear war, and if an ICBM is launched, it cannot be recalled. The latter two are critical to save millions of lives, while ICBM's aren't a sufficient deterrent and will end up risking lives.
The USFG should eliminate its nuclear-armed ICBM force

Resolved: The United States federal government should eliminate its nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile force. This is a "policy" topic, meaning the Pro side offers a plan, and Con must negate the plan. If Pro wins that the plan should be passed, then the resolution is affirmed. Opt-in standards for judging apply [http://www.debate.org...] First round acceptance only. BOP is shared.
Super Mario Run OR Pok"mon Go

First of all, I just wanna say that im an 8-month old child prodigy who goes to yale. please excuse any typos that my tiny baby fingers have made. I would like to start off my argument by saying that I LOOOOVE MEXICANS. Obviously, super mario run is WAY better than "pokemon go" because it is more than just VR effects and battery-draining balls. It encourages hand-eye coordination rather than animal captivity in undersized balls. And the 8.99 dollars? well, its better spent than paying for data so you can run around swiping your finger. Super mario run also encourages "thinking outside the box" and strategic timing. i really like yams. Also, the goal is to rescue a maiden in distress, unlike pokemon go whose goal is to catch all the aimals and force them to undergo countless hours of intense, violent training so that they may fight against other cruelly trained animals. Sincerely, Theanonymous8monthold p.s. Butts
Super Mario Run OR Pok"mon Go

Poke'mon Go encourages players to go outside and get exercise. Though Super Mario Run does not,It is only played with one hand. Pok'mon Go can be played without spending any Money, Super Mario Run Requires 8.99 Dollars or pounds to play the 2-8 worlds. Poke'mon GO has been around for a few months now, Super Mario Run has only been around for a month.
Rap should be considered music.

Rap should not be considered music since it has no tune or melody; it is simply words spoken in a rhythmic pattern. The definition of music is a group of sounds that have rhythm and harmony (1). Music is supposed to be beautiful, and it is meant have a harmony and a melody. If music has lyrics, the lyrics should be meaningful, and the song should not just be about lyrics. Rap in general is only lyrics, with maybe some rhythmic qualities thrown in. Usually the lyrics have little significant meaning, although there are some exceptions. (1) https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Musicians is controlled y the illuminati and Satanists.

Well nice argument and I was really busy yesterday, sorry bout the rebuttl part My argument is this you say if someone has intercourse with Illuminati their Illuminati right, well how have proven Jay-Z is Illuminati...and not just a guy from his hometown messing with people heads, have you seen it personally, do you even atleast have the courage to without a shadow of a doubt prove, you couldn't could u. Like i said also Jay-Z would have to give alot credit to prove it...and many musicians in the same field as Jay-Z admitted that "street cred" is everything in Rap/Hip Hop. And an Illuminati belief assuming that their is one, a gospel singer would not care. No they are still having a family still talking to their family..and maybe having fun on music at the expense of others superstition. And why wouldn't an artist makes lyrics that wouldn't get more ???s asked, sales is everything in music. And if u give people an excuse to have their heads spin alot then you would make that same song. See Music has labels and categories, but sales are a concept that have existed since the dawn of time. And heck what if some hacking prankster was really behind the Illuminati myth just to scare people. Sites have a similar concept as the true value of a site is how many visitors a site has. More people viewing=more referrals, right? And internet has always been like TV, sale myths to people and get support. In short FakeAmericansUr :)
Musicians is controlled y the illuminati and Satanists.

If the illuminati were real could they really be such a good secret. It takes special training and experience for that. Wouldn't Jay-z be too street to take orders from secret society, Jay-z would have to give up street cred to serve a political power. And Beyonce, wouldn't she be too christian for that. She got her roots from gospel singing right as well for destiny's child. She wouldn't serve the satanic illuminati. I mean If it exists why aren't they uncovered, I doubt the ruse could still be secret, someone would've proved their existence. I think some people might be jealous of musicians cuz they have talent. Any Pros out there, If not its kool :D I'm only asking one thing, for legitimate believers who can prove illuminate to everyone very well. :)
Musicians is controlled y the illuminati and Satanists.

Apologies for the delays. Objection One: FallaciesThe opposition has ignored my proof that Jay Z is Illuminati. The opposition has argued from genetics; as I have never seen personally these absurdities which the opposition describes, does not mean I am unable to conceive them. Nevertheless, the Illuminati controls the Music Industry wholly. The oppostion begs the questions, and his grammar is unconceivable by moi. He calls me a fake american. This ad hominem offends me, as it is wholly ignorant. Does America in his view consist of 6 billion people? Such absurdities may be proven wrong. I am not an American, so in whole, his misguided ad hominems should be discarded.Objection Two: SubjectivityThe opposition's beg-the-question depends wholly on one thing; subjectivity. His arguments are clearly subjective, and based on his opinions, and not supported by facts. His arguments are wholly invalid in the view of subjectivity!And an Illuminati belief assuming that their is one, a gospel singer would not care. No they are still having a family still talking to their family..and maybe having fun on music at the expense of others superstition.Whoever controls the media has the minds of the public. This is a self evident fact. My argument is this you say if someone has intercourse with Illuminati their Illuminati right, well how have proven Jay-Z is Illuminati.We have proven in my previous argument that Jay Z is Illuminati. The opposition accepts the intercourse theorem, so henceforth, via his logic, Jay Z and Beyonce are Illuminati. Other ignoratio elenchi may be ignored!Voting Issues:1. The opposition has not done anything but imply that his views are subjective and does not prove that the Illuminati's omnipotence excludes it from music2. The opposition has commited many fallacies in his argumentation.3. The opposition has no main premise.
Introverts should be locked up

Introverts should not be "locked up and extinct to society forever. " It is morally wrong and unethical. I would also like to point out that that is impossible to completely get rid of introverts, as even two extroverted people can have an introverted child, so there is no point in alienating the population of introverted people. And contrary to what my opponent has said it does violate the constitution, and I will try to state a few below: 14 and 15 Amendments-Citizens born in the U. S. have equal privileges. Brown vs. Board of Education (Supreme Court Case) furthers this amendment as to "stop discrimination. " Discriminating against introverts violates this. . http://www.core-online.org... . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... 8th Amendment-Stops the government from inflicting "cruel and unusual punishment. " It is very much cruel and unusual punishment to lock up innocent people because they were born a certain way. . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 5th Amendment-No person can be convicted of crime unless tried by a fair jury. At the very least, the innocent people would have to have been tried by a jury first before being convicted. . http://www.law.cornell.edu... These are just a few I tried to name-no doubt there are more. Conclusion: Let it be known to all that Pro dropped many of my arguments and gave very little arguments as a whole. Not to mention the absurd statement on which this debate was set on. Also, I want to be clear that introverted people should not be locked up ANYWHERE-not just in the U. S. It was an example on which I could set forth data, but it applies world-wide. I repeat, this applies worldwide. Your personality is who you are and you're way of life, without it you are not yourself. Taking that away or prosecuting that would be one of the greatest losses of the world, and I hope it never actually happens.
Introverts should be locked up

"Bribing, obviously."If my opponent wishes to bribe over the entire country, or at least the entire government on this topic by bribing, I wish them nothing but the best. I wonder how that will work out."Introverts are too shy and we need people to take charge."Contrary to what people think, being introverted does not mean you are shy. You can be, but introverted means that you prefer being alone, not in a crowd. The reason most people think they are shy is because they do not like to converse in small talk, but rather ideas.http://giftedkids.about.com...Arguments: 1. They love to write much more than extroverts, and the world needs authors. We will always need books to gain knowledge.2. Since my opponent is being stereotypical to introverts, I will be to extroverts. They tend to be louder, and poorer listeners. The world needs listeners to get anywhere and make progress, and people need to listen to learn. "Often the leaders end up doing a lot of the talking and not listening to any of the ideas that the followers are trying to provide" http://hbswk.hbs.edu...http://www.techrepublic.com...Introverts are looked down upon in society, which is really shameful because they are in-depth, smart, and all-around amazing people. Just look at our greatest heroes who were introverts:1. Abraham Lincoln2. Albert Einstein3. Bill Gates