BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cleveland Cavaliers are better than L.A. Lakers

Better stats." Well, prove it. Still, stats do not determine how well one team can play against another. Anyone can bring their A-game on any given night. You still haven't provided verifiable statistics. "Healthier team." Well, prove it. Both teams have most of their starters playing anyhow. You still haven't provided valid evidence for you claims. "Overall taller." This doesn't mean too much. For all we know, "overall taller" may be by a couple of inches. Still, this "argument" does not hold up - height advantage does not make a team better than another. Even if Cleveland had a height advantage, you could say that LA has a speed advantage. "LeBron James." Bryant, Gasol, Fisher, etc. Make your point. My opponent really has not substantiated his claims. Thus, I have nothing more to negate.
isabella latuga is a really anoyying and stinky person!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hello voters! Hopefully you enjoy this, because it really upsets me whenever someone creates useless debates like this. Mind you, the only reason why I accepted this is because I want this trash to stop wasting away in the "challenge section". Without further ado, I offer you the "arguments": __________________________ Proof: My opponent, being the person in favor of the topic, has the burden, or obligation, to prove to you that Isabella Latuga is truly an "annoyying and stinky person". His argument consists of a claim that Isabella is a silly and easily distracted person and that is why he doesn't like her. Whether or not this is true, this analysis does not offer insight upon whether or not Isabella really is an annoying and stinky person. The only thing we learn from my opponent's opening statement is that he does not like Isabella. Since my opponent has yet to offer any sort of proof for as to why the topic is actually true, you must default CON. ____________________________ Flaws within the topic itself: • The term, "annoyying" does not exist within the english language, therefore the topic is inherently flawed, thus negated. • The punctuation, "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" does not exist within the english language. Wikipedia lists the following as proper punctuation's within the english language: apostrophe ( ' ' ) brackets (( )), ([ ]), ({ }), (< >) colon ( : ) comma ( , ) dashes ( ‒, –, —, ― ) ellipsis ( …, ... ) exclamation mark ( ! ) full stop/period ( . ) guillemets ( ï¿½ ï¿½ ) hyphen ( -, ‐ ) question mark ( ? ) quotation marks ( ‘ ', " " ) semicolon ( ; ) slash/stroke ( / ) solidus ( ⁄ ) http://en.wikipedia.org... An "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" does not exist on this list, nor within any other lists that I have found. Therefore, the topic is inherently flawed once more, thus negated. • My opponent describes the term "isabella" as a student, by definition of student, my opponent would be referring to a specific person. Proper nouns must be capitalized, yet "isabella" is not, therefore, since "isabella" is not a proper noun, it cannot be a person, hence it cannot be a student. __________________________ In conclusion, you ought to vote in my favor because my opponent has not proven the topic true, his argument has correlation to the topic, and on top of all of that, he makes three critical errors within the wording of the topic itself. This is enough to vote CON. I reserve the right to bring up new arguments in my next rebuttal.* Thank you voters for your consideration, - Protagoras of Abdera
Overwatch VS TF2

It's been a marvellous debate which I have enjoyed immensely, so thank you very much. +++Rebuttal+++ 'mods do shouldn't count' This sounds a lot like special pleading to me where Pro is moving the goalposts. This was not defined at the beginning (mods will be disregarded) and therefore this is unfair to me and I would ask the voters to disregard this entire rebuttal. You can also do this fiddling with the crosshair and changing the colour 'in the actual game' [1] in TF2 as well. The summary made by Pro is all personal opinion and can be safely ignored. +++Summary+++ Team Fortress 2 is more customizable both in mods and the game, more competitive, longer-lived, more balanced, less forgiving. And all these things make the game great. Vote Con. <3 1.)http://tinyurl.com...
Overwatch VS TF2

So I've been really, really busy the past few days and I only have time to say a few things and then ill just do a conclusion. 1: You say there's no penalty for death besides wait time. I already explained that wait time is a huge penalty but I've also thought of another, if you are Zarya you will loose all of your particle cannon charge (even if a mercy revives you I think) 2: You said that TF2 is more customiazble with mods... That's the problem "with mods" is not part of the game. It is outside the game and basically irreverent. However when it comes to Overwatch you can modify each Heros controls individually, change each Heros crosshair individually, and change the color of that crosshair in the actual game. Which ends up making Overwatch the more customiazble one, because mods do shouldn't count in this debate. And finally I'll do a quick conclusion: I think that Overwatch is much more polished then TF2 and that the gameplay, menus, and match making are super crisp clean and easy to use, where as I think TF2 is a little more messy. I feel like when the devs behind Overwatch say they're going to do something, they do it as soon as they can and they make sure to test it with the public and that they really do listen to feed back. The team behind TF2 does listen to feedback yes but I feel like they take way to long to actually come out with valuable updates. For instance it took them a year to come out with competitive and when they released it it came out very poorly with lots of people having issues. Tl;dr: I really like Overwatch because its clean and polished that give you lots of incentives to actually play the game and learn every class and most importantly learn how to co-operate with your team. However TF2 feels very messy to me with inconsistent aspects that just make the game confusing (I still like TF2 though) So sorry I couldn't write more or cite any sources but I just don't have the time, hope you understand :/
Overwatch VS TF2

PRO is for Overwatch, CON is for TF2. If you accept you will defend TF2 No trolling You have to have played both games for at least enough time to comfortably play every class in the game. My position: Personally I just think Overwatch is much more polished then TF2 and that the devs of Overwatch are constantly supporting the game with updates and improvements way more then TF2. They are also testing the updates a lot better to make sure they work. The only downside with Overwatch I see is that there is no map maker or community workshop but that may come in the future.
That loging is good for austalia

Umm... extend my arguments I guess, and this won't look well for his class if it really is for an educational purpose. My opponent's only real claim is that we will lose thousands of jobs if we shut down the logging industry. However, I'm not proposing that we screw over the free market by deciding which industries do and do not exist, I'm only saying that the logging industry is bad for Australlia, especially for the indigenous species there.
That loging is good for austalia

Sure, I recently ran out of most of my debates so I need to pick up some new ones. My negative constructive is based around the fact that if logging is continued in Australia, the cockatoo and numbats will go extinct[1]. It will also drive to the extinction of the Leadbeater's possum, which grows in Victoria's forests and nowhere else in Australia[2]. Because the loss of indigenous species is an undeniable effect of the logging species, it is not good for Australia. Works Cited 1.) http://www.abc.net.au... 2.) http://vic.democrats.org.au...
Young Earth Creationism is Possible.

Definitions: YEC:"the religous belief the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago."http://en.wikipedia.org...Possible:"Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances."http://oxforddictionaries.com...Rules1.Agree to the definitions.2.First round is for acceptance.3.The debate may go into a second "session" if the debaters are not finished in the 5th round, in which case we will urge the voters to vote this debate a tie and withhold determinging a winner until secondary rounds can be completed. Both Pro and Con must agree on whether or not to do so.4.New Evidence and contentions can be brought in anyround except the first.5.have fun! ~Alex
Young Earth Creationism is Possible.

Well, it seem that it's another forfeit; this is indeed a pity. Nevertheless, I will state now that I do not wish to continue this debate onto another page - so I will ask voters to vote according to this debate alone and not to expect another one. Extend all arguments and refutes.I would like to offer a big thank you to my opponent, PonticComet, for an entertaining and stimulating debate. I hope we may debate again in the future! Another thank you to the audience and the voters for taking the time to read this far - I will hopefully see you soon, too! :DSee you around, and with kindest regards,J
Can this work be considered better than "Fifty Shades of Grey"

Pro states: "con has not disputed the fact that the Guardian review said 'Fifty Shades of Grey' contains little sex" I dispute this in the following statements: "(quotes: http://www.theguardian.com......) '...in fact there is hardly any sex in this book.' (quotes: http://www.thefreedictionary.com......) 'erotic 1. of, concerning, or arousing sexual desire or giving sexual pleasure 2. marked by strong sexual desire or being especially sensitive to sexual stimulation' There is no sexual encounter in this writing. The only sexual content are metaphors referencing the common erogenous zones of the female body and, on occasion, male reproductive fluids." "Fifty Shades of Grey" contains significantly more erotica than Colin's work, which, from examination, is nil. Where "Fifty Shades of Grey" may contain little sex, Colin's work contains no sex. Pro states: "but this is irrelevant as the topic of debate is about a 'work' not about poetry per se con has not disputed that what colin leslie deans has written is a 'work'" "con admits the work by colin leslie dean is literary even though that is irrelevant to the debate" (quotes: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) "Work Something done or made" You have misinterpreted my intent. I am extending the argument "that, objectively, this work is incomparable to 'Fifty Shades of Grey'" ... I do so by noting that the work is not literary or erotic and therefore the comparison itself is entirely dubious. It also promotes itself as poetry and fails in even meeting the standards of its own identification, which ties in with my original extension. This carries into the original argument put forth by Pro: "Can this work be considered better than 'Fifty Shades of Grey'" It cannot because this work is not comparable to "Fifty Shades of Grey" as they are different in style and structure and do not carry the same attributes. Therefore I can conclude that this work cannot "be considered better than 'Fifty Shades of Grey'" because, "objectively, this work is incomparable to 'Fifty Shades of Grey'" as they have no significant, common features to connect them.
Can this work be considered better than "Fifty Shades of Grey"

in conclusion I have shown that based on the idea that "Fifty Shades of Grey" is promoted as an erotic work colin leslie deans work is better as it contains more erotica con has not disputed the fact that the Guardian review said "Fifty Shades of Grey" contains little sex con brings out the definition of poetry "Though it is definitely expressive (and "distinctive style" is definitely one way of putting it), it fails to meet a rhythmic format or even a recognizable intent." but this is irrelevant as the topic of debate is about a "work" not about poetry per se con has not disputed that what colin leslie deans has written is a "work" con admits the work by colin leslie dean is literary even though that is irrelevant to the debate "Literary (of language) associated with literary works or other formal writing; having a marked style intended to create a particular emotional effect." deans work is "{"Though it is definitely expressive (and "distinctive style" is definitely one way of putting it), it fails to meet a rhythmic format or even a recognizable intent." thus I must win the debate as con has not dis proven my claim that deans work is a better erotic work than "Fifty Shades of Grey"
Can this work be considered better than "Fifty Shades of Grey"

Based on what I read in the link you provided (https://www.scribd.com...), I personally have no way of describing what I read other than incomprehensible. If we apply your argument to Colin's work: (quotes: http://www.theguardian.com...) "...in fact there is hardly any sex in this book." (quotes: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) "erotic 1. of, concerning, or arousing sexual desire or giving sexual pleasure 2. marked by strong sexual desire or being especially sensitive to sexual stimulation" There is no sexual encounter in this writing. The only sexual content are metaphors referencing the common erogenous zones of the female body and, on occasion, male reproductive fluids. This is where my second issue arises: it is very difficult to understand and does not appear to even follow a story as much as it is an antiquated rambling being promoted as erotic "poetry" (quotes: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) "Poetry Literary work in which special intensity is given to the expression of feelings and ideas by the use of distinctive style and rhythm" "Literary (of language) associated with literary works or other formal writing; having a marked style intended to create a particular emotional effect." Though it is definitely expressive (and "distinctive style" is definitely one way of putting it), it fails to meet a rhythmic format or even a recognizable intent. (quotes: http://www.theguardian.com...) You also quote a review by Jenny Colgan of "Fifty Shades of Grey" and are using the review to make a conclusion. This would be an appeal to authority and attempting to pass a subjective judgement for an objective statement. She even goes on to write "But I liked it, [...]. It's readable, and often funny; miles more enjoyable than those miserable 'literary' erotic books" If we're to believe she is an authority on this subject, then might I quote my important point: "It's readable" - a quality which I strongly doubt Colin's work has. (quotes: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) "Readable Able to be read or deciphered; legible."
Can this work be considered better than "Fifty Shades of Grey"

My argument Fifty Shades of Grey is meant to be an erotic novel http://www.theguardian.com... "Fifty Shades of Grey is the huge erotic breakout novel of the digital download revolution" so based on the idea that it is an erotic-see definition below- novel I argue that the work Chushing by Australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean is a better erotic work than "Fifty Shades of Grey" proof a review of "Fifty Shades of Grey" notes there is very little erotica in "Fifty Shades of Grey http://www.theguardian.com... " The sole "erotic" thing anyone ever does is bite or play with their bottom lip, and Christian, is, frankly, a bit of a nobber in both senses. in fact there is hardly any sex in this book. (Certainly less than in most Alan Hollinghurst novels.) There are pages and pages of obsessing over the relationship and getting drunk and having stuff bought for you, like the worst stereotypes of chick lit, with, very occasionally, a bit of zipless bonking." but if you read colin leslie dean work you will see it if full of erotic material http://www.thefreedictionary.com... erotic 1. of, concerning, or arousing sexual desire or giving sexual pleasure 2. marked by strong sexual desire or being especially sensitive to sexual stimulation thus seeing "Fifty Shades of Grey" is put forward as an erotic novel I say colin leslie dean work is better at being erotic than"Fifty Shades of Grey"-as it contains far more erotica
The earth is a sphere, or a spherical shape.

I do not see how video helps in this debate. I just watched Jupiter ascending. And I was a multimedia student. I can present more videos suggesting eh earth has a curve. but I reinforce my statement that distances between the southern hemisphere continents and the north are paralleled. My star premise that I wanted to discuss with you was a conspiracy theory, which I didn't want to bring into light in this debate. But since you preferred to attack me. I'll keep it to myself. Curves, Distances, History, International Cultural conformity (which defies all Human conflicts), and weather patterns regarding winds would be my primary arguments. and I stand by my position, stating that the evidence presented to me for a flat earth was unconvincing.
The earth is a sphere, or a spherical shape.

From high altitudes, you are either looking out of a curved airplane window, or the camera has a fish eye lens, both of these cause lines to curve. Below is a video that does not use this lens, and the horizon is flat at any altitude, followed by a video that does, and you can clearly see the difference. https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be... Distances. Not sure by the wording, what you're saying, as you provide no sources, I'll ricochet this one back to you, maybe a source can help better explain this claim. Stars. Again, in not entirely sure if English is your first language, and I don't see how a private message will help you in this debate. Flat earth history On the contrary, the flat Earth theory was believed by many cultures around the world including Ancient Egyptian and Babylonian cultures as well as China up to the last few hundred years. Did you not see the official map released in the late 1800's? Also many books were written during this period on the subject. Even Tesla knew the earth was flat. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org... http://beforeitsnews.com... http://www.universetoday.com...
The earth is a sphere, or a spherical shape.

From high altitudes within the atmosphere, as I do not believe in space travel, You can clearly see a huge and very perfect spherical curve to the earth. The plane and boat trips from South America, to Africa, to Australia to South America Reflect the same distances of the Northern HEmisphere. The Stars: Conspiracy Gordon talking here. The distance between stars can be examined with as "suspicious" a glance as the Flat earth theory. I won't share it here. Message me in private to get a closer glimpse. AS your other arguments, if examined accurately support my argument about Distances, I feel uncompelled to examine the first clause. Flat Earth society is without scientific professionals, Globe trotting aristocrats or a serious academic foundation. To the contrary, The idea that the Earth is sphere is accepted by all religions and Cultures, which is soemthign it is difficult for people to agree upon. IN further addition, there is no evidence any country or peoples ever believed in the Flat Earth theory prior to this modern cult propaganda. NOt in any era.
The earth is a sphere, or a spherical shape.

Now I understand why you don't want to use math: Without having a visual observation to apply it to it remains theory regardless* Astronomy looks for patterns, but is it one pattern or another? If the earth was in fact flat, the applied formulas used to map the stars would simply be converted to interpret that the stars are all spinning in a hay-wire pattern - however no less factual. We can however determine that the globe is not flat by travelling by sea from Australia to South America. This was a common route for ships during world war 2. In addition Antarctica is well documented, and it is excavated and explored by groups funded for adventure and science, not political gain. The Idea that Antarctica is a giant icy barrier around the edge of the planet, does not account for the actual contour of the planet, the weather patterns, Routine airplane trips to and from Africa. However, continued sea faring in the Southern Oceans is the most prominent evidence. The distance between Australia and Canada demand there to be a Spherical contour to the planet., as well as the distances between Canada and China. Canada and Russia, Canada and south America's Cape Horn. The distances demand that you acknowledge that the earth is Spherical. Nothing indicates or supports otherwise. I would love to hear your half of the debate. As doubt is not an argument, ignorance is not an point of substance to defend your claim, and the nature of the debate requires you to support the contrary belief. I want to See Proof that you are write, not stipulations ~ or you trolled me to SH*t by bringing me into this crap-slinging contest. SO bring on the facts or yield.
New Pokemon Fighters in Smash Bros

Now for my defense. Defense Move Set: As my opponent said, my pokemon's move set does not have any flaws. The moves fit with the pokemon perfectly and would make a great contender in the game. Final Smash: My opponent mentioned in his rebuttal, "we're not sure if Mega Absol can fly. " I believe that my partner meant that Mega Absol can not learn the move fly in the pokemon games, because this argument does not hold much ground. There are plenty of pokemon that do not learn fly are still able to fly (i. e. Beautifly, Vespiquen, gliscor). No one is questioning whether these pokemon would be able to fly. Absol is no different. Reasoning: My partner previously stated, "As for being a fan favorite, I'm not sure, personally". I beg to differ. In a recent poll, from the fans of pokemon on which pokemon was their favorite, Absol came in 9th place while Sceptile came in 41st place. It is clear that the majority of people would like to see Absol make it into the Super Smash Bros franchise. "I do agree Smash Bros could use a 4 legged fighter. " So do I! Closing: Sad to see this debate come to a close, I remember seeing this topic and thinking that it would be a fun one and boy was I right. I could argue this point for a lot longer but sadly it has come to a close. I would ask that no one take the fact that I am new to this sight as a reason to vote for the opposition, because I am not at all new to debate in general. Just the sight. Thank you. source (1): . https://www.reddit.com...