BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal rights is an unjustified ethical doctrine.

To put it simply, it seems that Charlie here is one of the more prominent PETA advocates on this website, with his slew of PETA debates. Since it seems to be quite evident that he is in favor of PETA, one can easily draw the conclusion that he is also an animal right's activist - after all, if he isn't then he'd most likely be a hypocrite. That said, the purpose of this debate is to explore the moral background of animal rights, which I contend to be empty and unfulfilled. With that in mind, I have specifically made this debate 4 rounds. The latter 3 rounds will serve for the normal 3-Round template, but the first round will be my introduction round and my opponent's argument. By argument, I desire for my opponent to lay out his arguments for animal rights, since I want to address not animal rights activists in general but my opponent in specific. So here are the definitions: ==================== Definitions ==================== [Animal Rights] [. http://www.peta.org...] "People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her). " The rest of the resolution should be pretty clear - it seems unanimous for both my opponent and I that semantics are unacceptable. I await my opponent's response with due interest.
Larry Brown is a Better NBA Coach than Phil Jackson

So far, Pro has based his arguments on the fact that Larry Brown didn't have better players. Even though that argument itself is very arguable (see my earlier argument), this doesn't correlate to Larry Brown being a better coach. There are many factors that could affect the teams performance. Team trainers, assiantant coaches, veteran teamleadership, team chemistry also play a factor, and Pro didn't mention these factors in his argument. The 2004 Pistons had very good team chemsity and this also lead to them winnning the chanpionship. Since, the BOP is on Pro, It is not required of me to prove that. Howver, I'll do it just in case. Kobe Bryant has been known for not playing co-harmoniously with other players. So, I think we can team chemsitry didn't play a factor. Also, another point I would like to bring up is Kobe's playing style. Kobe has been critizied for being a ball hogger, and taking a numerous number of shots. In fact, he holds the record for the most shots missed by an NBA player. Jackson however, utilized Bryants style of play, and implemented it in a way the team could suceed far in the Playoffs. Not my teams get far in the NBA, when the team constantly depends on one player. Con argues that Brown brought the Bobcats to the playoffs. Keep in mind, that the Eastern Conference is not as competitive as the Western Conference. If the Bobcats were in the Western Conference, they would have placed 11th. Also, the Bobcats were swept 0-4 in the first round. Its true, Brown lead the Clippers towards the playoffs, but if you look at the record, you can see a 45-37 record isn't that impressive, but rather mediorcre. . http://espn.go.com...;
Larry Brown is a Better NBA Coach than Phil Jackson

I would like to start by saying Larry Brown is overall a better coach because of what I said earlier: accomplishments with the talent he had. Jackson coached three of arguably the top Ten best ever to play, Jordan and Kobe potentially top Five. Brown's best player was Allen Iverson, and their off the court battles are more likely highlight Brown's 76ers tenure than their success itself. Con argued that Brown did not lead the Pacers deep into the Playoffs during his tenure as head coach. In the four years Brown served as head coach: he missed the playoffs only once (his final year in '96-97) and was eliminated in the First Round in the 1996 Playoffs. The other two seasons, Brown led the Pacers to the Conference Finals, losing to the New York Knicks in 1994 and the Orlando Magic in 1995. Con also argued Brown did not have any success in Charlotte. Brown spent two full seasons in Charlotte, and although he parted ways with the team 28 games into the '10-11 season, Brown led the Bobcats to their first playoff appearance, in franchise history, 2010 with a mediocre lineup headlined by D. J Augustin, Gerald Wallace, and Boris Diaw. Brown was also amassed in a circus in his one season with the New York Knicks, battling players, especially Stephon Marbury, and having to battle with the Front Office, headed by Isiah Thomas and James Dolan. Brown would also take a struggling L. A. Clippers team to the Playoffs in both seasons he served as head coach. As I conclude I again thank my opponent for this highly interesting debate. Throughout his career, Larry Brown has shown he can do less with more. From his recent short lived successes in Charlotte, to his two Finals runs in Detroit, to his improvement of stars such as Reggie Miller or Allen Iverson, there is no doubt Larry Brown "The Ultimate Vagabond", who did more with less, is better than Phil Jackson: a man who inherited Michael Jordan from Doug Collins and the Shaq and Kobe Lakers when he arrived in L. A, while on his way to Eleven World Championships. . https://en.wikipedia.org... . https://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.basketball-reference.com... . http://www.basketball-reference.com... . https://en.wikipedia.org...
Larry Brown is a Better NBA Coach than Phil Jackson

I would just like to remind Pro that since he is the instigator, the BOP is on him to prove that he is a better coach than Phil Jackson. I think Pro may have misunderstood me. I said Kobe Bryant was still developing. Not the team. Pro also says that the 76ers weren't all that good anyways, which is why they lost. This shouldn't matter, because Pro is trying to prove that Larry Brown was a better coach. If the 76ers got past all the teams in the Eastern Conference, then why should they falter when it came to the Lakers? To go to 2004, Larry Brown certainly did a good job coaching, but the Pistons had certainly had the better lineup, compared the the Lakers, even better than me comparing the 76ers to the Lakers. Billups was better than Fisher, Tayshun Prince was better than Rick Fox, and Rasheed Wallace was alot better than the aging Karl Malone. I would give the slight edge to Kobe and Shaq, but Shaq and Kobe were having problem in and off the court. Which correlated to their poor team play. If Larry Brown was as good as Pro says he was, he would have helped the Pacers get far in the playoffs, which they didn't. After 2004, his sucess with with the Knicks and Bobcats weren't to pretty, and his Bobcats tenture ended prematurely due to him being fired.Jackson on the other hand, fared much better. After SHAQ left after the 2003-2004 season, the team only struggled for 2 seasons, before making the playoffs in 2006-2007, for the next 4 years the team made it to the finals. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Larry Brown is a Better NBA Coach than Phil Jackson

First let me say that the Lakers were not still developing. Shaquille O'Neal was entering his ninth season in the NBA in 2000-01, usually the midway point of most NBA players' careers. Although the Lakers finished 2nd in the West, behind the San Antonio Spurs, the Lakers were the reigning NBA Champions, who defeated Reggie Miller's Indiana Pacers in Six Games the year before. The LA Lakers were not a young developing team, but rather a powerhouse on their way to a Three-Peat. I understand Allen Iverson is one of the Greatest to ever play the game of basketball, however you must consider the players Iverson had around him. Had Iverson been injured the 76ers would not have been as good as advertized. A team with role players such as Tyrone Hill and Kevin Ollie, players who nowadays we realize were not that great. The only weapon Iverson had was Dikembe Mutombo, a man best remembered for his defense, not his offense. Iverson's Greatest asset was his coach: Larry Brown. Also let's wind the clocks forward to June 2004, when Larry Brown led the Detroit Pistons against Phil Jackson's Lakers: Brown's Pistons were heavy underdogs and outclassed the mighty Lakers, winning in Five Games. The Pistons finished 3rd in the East and Brown led a squad of castoffs to the Promised Land. Guys like: Rasheed Wallace, Chauncey Billups and others who many felt would not make it in the NBA. Brown connected with those players and not only led them to a Title in 2004, but back to the Finals 2005, only to lose to a man he mentored, Gregg Poppovich and his San Antonio Spurs in Seven Games. http://www.basketball-reference.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.basketball-reference.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Larry Brown is a Better NBA Coach than Phil Jackson

While it is true, Larry Brown didn't always have the best teams to lead, However, in the 2001 NBA finals, both Larry Browns and Phil Jackson's teams clashed, with the Lakers (Jacksons team) beating the 76er's (Brown' team) 4 to 1. You can't argue that he had a crappy team, because if he did, they won't have made the finals. The 76er's also finished 1st in the Eastern Conference which proves my point further. Lets compare the starting lineups. At the time, the only all star the Lakers had was Shaq, Kobe was still developing, so he hadn't reached his potential. They also had Rick Fox, Robert Horry, and Derek Fisher. All these guys are just supporting players.The 76ers had Allen Iverson, arguably the greatest point guard/shooting guard at the time. Dikembe Mutumbo, a legendary shot blocker, who was capable of handling Shaq. So, if you ask me, The 76ers actually had more all stars, if I compare the players. However, that didn't correlate to a NBA title, which shows that Larry Brown was able to do a better job coaching than Phil Jackson.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://basketball.realgm.com...http://www.basketball-reference.com...
Larry Brown is a Better NBA Coach than Phil Jackson

I am arguing that Larry Brown is a better coach than Phil Jackson based on what he was able to accomplish with the talent that he had. First and foremost we should look at their respective resumes. Brown has one NBA Championship and won 1,098 games over his NBA career. Jackson himself won the gaudy eleven championships and 1,155 wins. However the facts must be taken with a grain of salt considering the players each coach had. Jackson won his titles with arguably three of the Top 10 Greatest Players ever in Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kobe Bryant, while Coach Brown, the ultimate vagabond, spent his career building teams such as the Clippers, Pacers, and in this Century the 76ers and the Charlotte Bobcats. Jackson will be cemented in history as the sport's greatest winner, but Larry Brown is Mr. Fix It in the NBA. http://www.basketball-reference.com... http://www.basketball-reference.com...
Drug Legalization

I hope it will be interesting and bring awareness. I hope this to be more concentrated on the substance abuse problems. 1. "The point here is that when one reaches a certain age of mental maturity, they should be allowed to the masters of their own body. " The point is some people cannot make wise decisions. Everyone is not capable of making decisions. Grown men and women are unable to make smart choices. (This can result in the taking of children, licenses, permits, rights ((For example, to vote)), and prison((Federal or non-Federal)) and/or Jail. ) Drugs affect the brain-(. http://www.ncbhs.org...) 2. "This is why there will be plenty of warnings (just like there are for alcohol for pregnant women). " This is true, but it is nearly impossible for the information to reach everyone. It would take years to get the message across to the entire world. How drugs affect pregnancy-(. http://www.americanpregnancy.org...) "Any drug, legal or illegal, that you consume can impact on your unborn child. If you swallow a drug, your body will deliver it to the baby through the placenta. If you inject a substance, it goes to the baby in larger amounts. Inhaling a drug has almost the same results. " . http://www.adoptionservices.org... Thank you.
Drug Legalization

I'll list my opponent's points and challenge each one: 1. "Drug legalization can make drugs available to children. " Drugs are already available to children, legal or not. There can also be an age requirement for purchase of each drug (just like there is for tobacco [18 yo] and alcohol [21 yo]). 2. "This can cause serious health defects in the body and mind of young children. " Nullified by point 1. 3. "Drugs can be deadly to adults as well. " Alcohol can be deadly to everyone, tobacco can be deadly to everyone, cars and guns and kitchen knives can be deadly to everyone. The point here is that when one reaches a certain age of mental maturity, they should be allowed to the the masters of their own body. The state can offer age restrictions on the product, they can offer information, warnings (like tobacco and alcohol), etc. People are obviously obtaining drugs illegally. Making them legal will make them safer (government can regulate them), thus legalization will be keeping users, who are going to use anyway, safter. 4. "Some people have certain health conditions (Pregnancy) that can severely effect ones health and mental state. " This is why there will be plenty of warnings (just like there are for alcohol for pregnant women). Raw fish harms pregnant women, but it would be rediculous to make sushi illegal because of this. People should be warned and educated and left to make their own decisions about their own personal health.
The United States Should Expand Immigration

Sadly, it looks like Lee has deleted her account. I really hope her decision to do so wasn't influenced by this debate. I am sorry if I was too harsh in my last round. I've seen some other debates of hers and she seemed liked a pretty good debater. She most likely didn't put too much time into this debate which is understandable. If it means anything to her, I think she could have made this a fantastic debate if she had the time to work on her arguments.
The United States Should Expand Immigration

Welcome. This will be a debate on whether or not legal immigration should be expanded in the United States. I will be supporting the expansion of worker visa programs and a streamlined process for citizenship. Con must not have less than 3 debates completed and must have knowledge that he or she will be able to complete the entire debate without worry. If you wish to accept this debate, then say so in the comments. People who have a higher elo than me are free to accept without requesting. Burden of proof will be shared. I must convince the voters that expanded immigration would benefit society, while con must convince them that it would be a disadvantage to society.The debate will be 4 rounds, with Round 1 being for the guidelines set on my part, and acceptance / first arguments from Con. Rounds 2-4 will be for arguments and rebuttals. I hope for a thought-provoking debate!
Uniformity ought to be valued above individuality

Individuality is essential because it enables us to be open minded. Individuality can be defined as "the assumption that natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now may be different from what we believe them to be." Basically, individuality doesn't seek to be "the same" for the sake of sameness as uniformity does. Both are mindsets that result in different consequences. Individuality is a superior mindset (and thus ought to be valued over uniformity) because it encourages an open mind. For example, Galileo believed that the universe was not geocentric––he challenged the views of the majority (uniformity) and stood out as an individual. We know (or at least we think we know) that he is right. However, we should always be willing to change our viewpoint if we have sufficient proof that an old viewpoint is incorrect. If everyone we know is incorrect, that's not an inherently bad thing. That just mean we need individuality to show us the truth.
Perfection (in some aspect of life) of an individual is achievable.

Huh… so it seems my opponent was perfect in not giving his second speech of this debate. Therefore, I ask the voters to flow through all of my last speeches arguments including the subjective view of the resolution. My opponent has not proven that we need to be objective when looking at the resolution and there fore we can say that someone spelt the word dog correctly and they WERE perfect in doing so… Even if you think for some reason that you have to be objective, you could STILL see that the person could have spelt the word dog right for their entire life. Furthermore you can see that God either exists or he doesn't (I won't determine any one belief) and he is perfect in doing EITHER one of those. Also flow through the argument that perfection can only be discovered by humans and not determined. Therefore, I do not have to determine if God is perfect (either way), all I have to do is say that either way, there is perfection that is achieved. In the end, perfection has been discovered to be achievable in some aspect of life… so please vote PRO! Thanks for this good debate!
Perfection (in some aspect of life) of an individual is achievable.

The beginning definitions are numerous and un-applied. Therefore, I really don't care about them. I simply claim the idea of perfect as without error… the common definition if you will… 1) What my opponent seems to be overseeing in the debate are the words, "in some aspect of life"… therefore, you have to see that in the aspect of spelling the word dog, the human was perfect. You admit that he was correct, but on top of that he was also perfect in spelling the word dog. I have never spelt the word dog incorrectly and therefore I am perfect in spelling the word "dog"… 2) I am going to accept the reserved right of extending my argument. Same person except I am changing what is perfect. That person is perfect in being a human (or at least an example of the average human)… You talk about everyone having imperfection… well of course, they are perfect in imperfection (or being a human)… 3) Within my opponent's last speech, he basically said that judgment determines perfection. HOWEVER, you have to see that this is not true. Perfection can be discovered by humans, but not determined. It's like if a dumb human thought that dog was spelt differently. Just because he thought it was spelt differently doesn't mean that it actually is. It's the same ordeal with the man in the desert. He doesn't determine if the sun is perfect or not… The truth of the matter is that he is hot and may not like the sun at that time, but if it weren't for the sun he would have been dead by the extremely cold temperature that is the lack of heat. The sun may not have "risen", but it was perfect in keeping all of us alive in that day regardless of if it goes away tomorrow or not. You CAN be perfect in a certain time frame and fail in another time frame but the question is if you were ever perfect in something sometime (in some aspect of life)… I'll offer a fourth way for fun… 4) God is perfect… Whether you believe that God exists or not he is still perfect. If you do believe then the perfection is inevitable but if you don't believe then he is perfect in not existing. But once again, humans can only discover perfection (some discover some don't) but we can NOT determine it… In the end, I have discovered 4 places where perfection exists. Therefore I urge you to vote PRO! Thank you… back to you brittwaller!
Perfection (in some aspect of life) of an individual is achievable.

Let me give some examples to start things off: 1) Kid spells the word dog correctly. He is perfect in spelling the word dog. 2) Someone is nice one day and a jerk another day. He is perfect in being imperfect. 3) The sun rises and falls. It is perfect for bringing light and heat for that day. Analysis: As in the individual (which is in the topic of debate), it is meant to show as a thing or person. Any external acts are not a part of the individual. So if the sun rose and fell, it would be irrelevant if there were clouds because the individual did it's job. Also, there is a meaning of the act in the status quo. In other words, future and past acts are irrelevant. Only perfection AT THAT TIME is what is important. I reserve the right to clarify, add to the list, and extend all of my arguments in rounds to come. Thanks!
Communism

Off course both China and USSR were opposed to religion, now I really only support communism due to the fact that it helps poor countries. After a country gets to the point where they are able to support themselves they should then they should slowly merge into socialism. Now the fact that communism says religion is illegal relives me in one way. No violence could occur. Look at Iraq, Ireland and America. In Iraq two separate forms of Islam has caused bitter armed conflict for the more than 1,000 years. Ireland is the same story with armed conflict from the Protestants and the Roman Catholics. Then there is America with the same story as Ireland, just without so much bitter armed conflict. The Ku Klux Klan shows acts of violence to Jews and Catholics. So maybe without religion around we would have less acts like this in the communist society. Of course after the merging to socialism then freedom of religion should be put back into act.