BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Allen Iverson revolutionized the NBA more than any other player

Reasons Pro has given about how Allen Iverson "revolutionized" the NBA 1) First "small" player in the NBA 2) He has a "dark side" to him / introduced cornrows, tattoo's etc to the NBA 3) Very loud / had a bad attidute 4) Didnt like the dress code Thats literally it. Argument 1) Small players, First off, Allen Iverson doesnt even place in the history of shortest players in NBA history http://en.wikipedia.org... Secondly, the pioneer of short people playing in the NBA was Spudd Webb, Spudd Webb was 5ft 7, his career ended 1 year before Iverson's even started, and Spudd Webb won the slam dunk contest in 1986, making him the shortest player to ever win the event. Therefore my argument is that Allen Iverson did not pioneer short people coming into the NAB because even before Iverson started playing on the court, short people were already making a legacy for themselves without Iverson's help Argument 2) Cornrows and Tattoo's Iverson wasnt the first to bring funky hairdo's into the NBA... The great Julius Erving was one of the first players to introduce th Afro to the NBA so Iverson did not introduce creativity in hair-do's into the NBA, he only became famous for introducing ONE of them.... http://nbahoopsonline.com... Argument 3) Bad attitude If I pulled up a slideshow about 25 NBA players with the worst attitudes, Allen Iverson would only come in 25th, and im not making that up because when I looked up "NBA players with bad attitude" Allen Iverson only ranked 25th overall. http://bleacherreport.com... Players with worse attitudes then Allen Iverson include Gilbert Arenas, Stephon Marbury, and Eddie Griffin. However the slideshow doesnt even include Rasheed Wallace, Charles Barkley, or Ben Wallace, so we can conclude that Allen Iverson was neither the first to have a bad attitude in the NBA, nor did he have the worst attitude among NBA players. Argument 4) Didnt like the dress code How is being a sh*tty dresser count as being revolutionary? Here are a list of players who revolutionized basketball more than Allen Iverson Dr James Naismith (He invented the game so I think he gets more credit for revolutionizing the game than anyone else) Shaq (Hes the reason why the NBA has reinforced its basketball hoops, because he broke so many) Michael Jordan (For obvious reasons) Wilt Chamberlin (One of the first big centers in the NBA, he was the reason the NBA implemented the 3 second rule and widened free point shooting lanes) Chris Ford (Shot the first 3 pointer in NBA history) Bob Kurland (First player to Dunk) Julius Erving (Stylized the modern Slam Dunk) Drazen Petrovic (First eastern European to enter the NBA which opened the doors for half a continent to chase their NBA aspirations) Magic Johnson (the first large point guard in the game, if you include him and Larry Bird then you have the first great rivalry in basketball) http://rayonsports.com... http://www.csncalifornia.com... So Allen Iverson deserves credit for trying to be a thug (not the first thug or the best thug, just a thug) but there are numerous other players who revolutionized the NBA WAY more than Allen Iverson did
school shouldn't be able to tell you what to do

Imagine a world where there were no rules. You could do anything you wanted. If your school has outdoor time and no rules, they'd let you run out on the street and probably get lost, and who knows what might happen next? If you're in middle school and there's no rules, then a few things that would be allowed is bullying, slacking on work, and possibly even so far as murder. That's why rules exist, to keep you safe and to make sure you're learning, which is kind of the whole purpose of school.
Resolved: There is no need for testing on animals when there are 30 million Bieber fans available

I concur, what Pro said is incorrect and he has failed to even mention 1 example of a Belieber learning. It's clear that Belieber's cannot learn once they become beliebers however they can learn before they are Beliebers. They are brainwashed however they don't learn once there Beliebers, Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez take control of there bodies, then they are forced to spend all there cash on terrible CD's. I believe you haven't proved my knowledge point wrong, but simply ignored it, and I urge the voters to think has there ever been a smart Belieber, and if not there is still need for some animal testing?
Resolved: There is no need for testing on animals when there are 30 million Bieber fans available

"It's a scientific fact that Beliebers have no sense of knowledge, and have never been useful to society. However there are forms of testing that require knowledge and everyone knows that beliebers have absolutely no knowledge."Careful, Beliebers arent braindead, they are brainwashed.... Its a big difference. You know how North Koreans are brainwashed by their dear leader Kim Jung Un, or how people who watch Fox News are brainwashed by what Fox News Anchors call 'facts'? The same thing is happening to Beliebers, they do have brains, but are simply being brainwashed by their dear leader, Justin wont-hit-puberty-until-he-turns-30 Bieber.... And animals/people who can be brainwashed make FAR BETTER test subjects then those that cant. Also, not all experiments factor in intelligence. Since Beliebers dont have souls, they can be used for experiments that if animals were used would have caused protests. Now scientists can finally learn what would happen if we shot a living thing into the sun, or what would happen if someone was forced to let a large spider crawl in their mouth and lay eggs in its throat! If we did those things to mice or monkeys, people would be mad, but if we let spiders lay eggs in the throats of Beliebers just to see what happens, nobody would give a f*ck! Therefore, since Beliebers are complete tools who have no souls who nobody cares about, they make far better test subjects then animals, and therefore we dont need to test products and experiments on animals when we have 30 million Beliebers to work with instead :D
Resolved: There is no need for testing on animals when there are 30 million Bieber fans available

It's a scientific fact that Beliebers have no sense of knowledge, and have never been useful to society. However there are forms of testing that require knowledge and everyone knows that beliebers have absolutely no knowledge. Knowledge: a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique http://www.merriam-webster.com... How do we know the best way to teach animals and in turn teach humans, if Beliebers can learn nothing. Example: A scientist puts a rat in a maze, with water lined up to the finish line, the rat learns to follow the water, or it is put in a cage. While the Beliebers doesn't notice the simple pattern, so how would we know the best to way to teach Human maze memorization and/or patterns.
Resolved: There is no need for testing on animals when there are 30 million Bieber fans available

Resolved: There is no need for testing products, medicines, etc on animals when there are 30 million perfectly good Justin Bieber fans available to be experimented on instead. My argument for animal testing no longer being needed is because there are 30 million Justin Biber fans we can test all of our stuff on instead. Justin Bieber fans are perfect test subjects since: 1) They have no soul, no sense of reason, no ability to comprehend reality, and therefore arent human 2) Animals that are normally tested on pose no threat or burden to society whereas Justin Bieber fans do 3) The intelligence of an average lab mouse is > than the intelligence of an average Belieber, so its better to test on Beliebers than animals
Kurt Cobain is overated as a musician because of his early death.

"His name is regulary brought up with Morrisson and Hendrix. Being lumped in with those guys has done wonders for his legacy." Being lumped? I love Kurt Cobain, but he is nowhere near being as good as Morrison. Where do you get this stuff from? How am I bringing personal stuff into it? How do you know you listen to more Nirvana then me, or even music in general? I told you that if you really listened to JUST the guitar then you would hear the talent behind it. that isn't personal. it's just true. AC/DC sucks, if you didn't know. I used to think they were good, but that was before I listened to real music. Thunderstruck's guitar is mind-less. Nirvana is easy, but it defenitly isn't mindless. I don't get what about Pearl Jam you think is so great, but oh well. The Killers aren't that great either. How do you figure they are derived from the 80's? He could play lead, and he did it very well. You're not bursting my bubble, it's just your opinion, it's not like it means something to me, I don't even know you. if you have anything to say to this round then put it in the comment box.
Kurt Cobain is overated as a musician because of his early death.

"I agree with you about the morrison and hendrix thing, that is true. but just because they all died around the same time has nothing to do with his fame or why he is a legend." It has everything to do with it. His name is regulary brought up with Morrisson and Hendrix. Being lumped in with those guys has done wonders for his legacy. "Fast guitar=good guitar. if you can play that quick with that great of a sound that is talent. If you really listen to JUST the guitar then you will hear the talent behind it." I promise you i listen to more music and for that matter more nirvana than you do, so please stop throwing out personal stuff. Second of all i have learned to play a little guitar, very little. Guess what, i can play a lot of the stuff cobain did. Most of the song are 3-4 chords with simple easy chord changes along the way. There is a reason he hardly ever plays leads. Cobain played faster than most, he didn't play extraordinarily fast. Fast guitar does not equal good guitar. That's ignorant. AC/DC's "Thunderstruck" proves that point. I can play the intro to thunderstruck. "What does Zeppelin and sex pistols have to do with this debate? they are good bands, just like nirvana. technically, pearl jam is not classic. a song has to be 27 years old to be "classic". it's rock but not classic." Please read my argument. You were talking about all that Cobain did for grunge. What did he do for the genre? His band was big. That's it. There is only one huge grunge band. I would argue that nirvana did nothing for grunge except profit from it. They certainly didn't help any other grunge bands. Mudhoney was around before Nirvana and they are the only other grunge band that made it at all. Pearl Jam is classic rock, not grunge. "Classic" is a term applied to a sound as well as an age. In music it refers to the sound. Jet is another classic rock band as an example. So you are wrong again. My point anyway was that the thought that nirvana put grunge on the map is false. Nirvana is the only grunge band most people could name. "maybe grunge comes from punk originally but it is a lot different, if you REALLY listen to it." I do really listen to it. Just like the Killers are derived from 80's music but have their own sound, Nirvana is derived from punk. If you knew anything about Cobain, you would know that he idolized bands like the Sex Pistols and the Stooges. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but Cobain wasn't much of a guitarist. I thing to be a great guitarist you have to be able to play a lead well. Cobain can't play a lead. He's not that good.
Kurt Cobain is overated as a musician because of his early death.

I agree with you about the morrison and hendrix thing, that is true. but just because they all died around the same time has nothing to do with his fame or why he is a legend. Fast guitar=good guitar. if you can play that quick with that great of a sound that is talent. If you really listen to JUST the guitar then you will hear the talent behind it. What does Zeppelin and sex pistols have to do with this debate? they are good bands, just like nirvana. technically, pearl jam is not classic. a song has to be 27 years old to be "classic". it's rock but not classic. maybe grunge comes from punk originally but it is a lot different, if you REALLY listen to it.
Kurt Cobain is overated as a musician because of his early death.

"Kurt Cobain, is a rock god. you obviously don't listen to them" I have "Nevermind", "In Utero", "Incesticide", and "Unplugged". I also read the book about the conspiracy of Cobain's death called "Love and Death". I'm familiar with the band. That is also how I know that Cobain is a sub-par guitarist. Not sure you know this but true Grunge derives from punk. Punk guitar is mostly power chords and is known for easy to play guitar as most of the songs only have a few simple cord changes in them. Fast guitar does not equal good guitar. Punk is credited more for the drums. This hearkens back to my case that he was number 2 in his own band. "pearl jam didn't get the attention that nirvana did because they aren't half as good as nirvana ever did." Au contraire. Pearl Jam (and I don't want this to turn into a PJ-Nirvana debate, I use pearl jam because they are the perfect example) sold more records. Ten came out at the same time as Nevermind roughly. Ten sold more. Vs. came out at the same time as In Utero. Vs. sold more. It is clear that Pearl Jam was more popular at the time. Before his death he was a rock star like several others from Seattle. Since his death he has been elevated to legendary status. His legend has grown while he's been in the ground. Check out the Ten vs. Nevermind numbers. http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com... "Without nirvana, grunge probaly wouldn't exist without nirvana" I'll put the structure of that sentence aside for a moment. Grunge barely existed with Nirvana. That is another of the myths that has risen around Cobain. People give him credit for all of the music that came out of Seattle, when most of it sounded nothing like Nirvana. Here is a common misconception about grunge music. "Grunge consisted of bands from seattle in the early nineties. The big four of grunge were Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains." That entire quote is wrong. There are only 2 bands that made a name for themselves that were actually grunge are Nirvana and Mudhoney. Alice in Chains is metal. Soundgarden is metal and classic rock. Pearl Jam is classic rock. Like i said, Grunge derives from punk. Pearl Jam sounds a lot more like Zeppelin than they do the Sex Pistols. "morrison and hendrix have nothing to do with him or his death." Agreed that they have nothing to do with his death. However they have everything to do with his reputation. The Courtney Love thing goes along with this as well. Being linked with these other famous figures has elevated his status beyond that that he actually earned. I hear about how Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison, and Cobain all died at the age of 27 all the time. Why I read a story about a year ago about how Jack White was in a pretty serious car accident, and he was 27 at the time. Of course Cobain's name was pulled up with all the others. Morrison was the american poet. Hendrix revolutionized the most important instrument to rock and roll. Cobain just gave people something to listen to and rot in despair. Some brilliant artist.
Kurt Cobain is overated as a musician because of his early death.

Kurt Cobain, is a rock god. you obviously don't listen to them, since he is an amazing gutarist. his death was just as famous as he was before he died. pearl jam didn't get the attention that nirvana did because they aren't half as good as nirvana ever did. without nirvana, grunge probaly wouldn't exist without nirvana. if it did nothing would ever be as famous nirvana. kurt cobain was also famous because of his relationship with courtney love. she is part of the reason that kurt got so much attention. but getting that sort of attention only made his band and his talent that much better and more important to the world of music. morrison and hendrix have nothing to do with him or his death.
Kurt Cobain is overated as a musician because of his early death.

Kurt Cobain's stature as a musical icon has been heightened by his early death. Many other bands drew the kind of attention and were as important as Nirvana. His skills as a guitarists were mediocre and he was arguably the second most talented member of his own band. Nirvana's following during the early nineties has been matched by many other bands and was surpassed by Pearl Jam who never got the kind of respect that Nirvana did because all of the members of the band are still living. In short, Nirvana is judged based on what they would have done. Cobain has been glorified because he died for his craft. There are plenty of bands that accomplished what Nirvana did and more, however Cobain is a rock god because he died at the same age as the likes of Morrison, Hendrix, and Joplin.
Superman vs. Batman

This will be a very easy debate for me, being the largest Superman fan in the world. The fight would go something like this: They would start out where ever the battle arena is (it doesn't really matter where) and, knowing Batman, he would already know exactly what he is going to do before the fight even starts. But what Batman is not prepared for is what Superman is prepared for. Batman, being as smart as he is, would not go for the first punch. He would simply wait for Superman to get close enough to the Kryptonite ring and probably punch him. But Superman would be too smart for that. Kryptonite (in case you didn't know) will weaken Superman, but not kill him. Superman would speed to Batman punch him in the face, sending him to the ground (or a wall, depending on where they're at). Superman would then fly upward into the sky, use his microscopic vision to see Batman and put his heat vision on full blast, melting Batman's batsuit and skin, ultimately killing him. Batman wouldn't even be able to get a punch in. That was too easy.
Superman vs. Batman

This debate will argue if Superman could beat Batman or if Batman could beat Superman. It will be a fight to the death, and neither opponent holds back. The rules are: 1.) Both players will be prepared as followed: a.) Superman: Nothing except his regular suit b.) Batman: Everything that is on his batsuit (which can be found at everythingcapedcrusader.weebly.com/batsuit) and one Kryptonite ring (to make things a little fair) 2.) There must be a detailed description of how the hero would win (i.e. don't say, "because he's Batman"). 3.) No outside help (i.e. Batman can't bring Catwoman into the fight). 4.) No boundaries. Other than that, there will be no other rules. I am going for Superman. May the best debater win.
Hypothetically speaking, anybody, including a 5th grader, could start a hegemony

Hegemony: An indirect form of government that controls using the threat of a threat, rather than actually using force or the threat of force. eg: If a fifth grader were to gain access to the internet, and claimed to be king of the world, with a huge army, and if everybody obeyed him, his government would be a hegemony. Now, please see my earlier argument. Now, some really dumb people WOULD follow him, believing that he is really king of the world. They might join his "army", believing that it has many members. However, once they join him, he really WILL have an army, and he could use THEM to take over the world, and he will now be a true king of the world.
Hypothetically speaking, anybody, including a 5th grader, could start a hegemony

First round: Definitions and acceptance Second round: Arguments Third round: counter-arguments Hegemony: An indirect form of government that controls using the threat of a threat, rather than actually using force or the threat of force. eg: If a fifth grader were to gain access to the internet, and claimed to be king of the world, with a huge army, and if everybody obeyed him, his government would be a hegemony.
Hypothetically speaking, anybody, including a 5th grader, could start a hegemony

While he could claim this, many would want some form of proof, such as photos. While it is possible that a fifth grader can make enough fake proof to get one or two hundred people, it is extremely unlikely that the fifth grader can convince enough people for anyone to actually consider it a hegemony. I could see it becoming a joke, and everyone pretends to be scared at him, but this could never turn into a serious hegemony.
Is Stop and Frisk Effective

Here is the debate structure: R1 Acceptance & definitions R2 Arguments R3 Rebuttals R4 Defense I will be arguing that stop and frisk is an effective policy. My opponent will argue that stop and frisk is not effective. Round One- Agree upon definitions if any, and accept debate rules Round Two- Present arguments without rebuking what the opposing debater argued. So if I presented my argument first, you cannot rebuke the points that I made in your. Round Three- NOW you can finally rebuke opposing arguments made by your opponents in Round Two. Round Four- Defend your round 2 arguments WITHOUT introducing any new arguments. Stop and Frisk: Stop and frisk is when police temporarily detain somebody and pat down their outer clothing when there are specific articulate facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a person is armed and dangerous. Source https://definitions.uslegal.com......
The Roman Catholic Church v. Baptist

For some reason, my opponent seems to have something against Roman Catholics [1]. He has stated "What confuses me is people thinking somehow Roman Catholic is christian at all." [2], implying that he does not believe Roman Catholics are Christian. The actual resolution is "Roman Catholics adhere to the teachings of Christ." My opponent has disparaged Roman Catholicism with quotes such as "You pray to saints and confess to popes.". These claims are groundless as I will show. Do not use semantics. The Burden of Proof is on my opponent. My opponent should begin arguing in Round 1, and not argue in Round 5. If he has any issues with this debate topic or setup, I will be glad to change it. Note agreements made in the comments section as binding regulations regarding the debate. I will use the Biblia Sacra Vulgata.Sources:1. http://www.debate.org...2. http://www.debate.org...