BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Joe Montana is way better than Tom Brady.

So lets take a look at a few factors in this debateThe resolution is that " Joe Montana is way better than Tom Brady "Logic shows us that the resolution is that Joe Montana is not as good as Tom Brady but better than him, and not just simply better but far better. So if I can show that Tom Brady is better than Joe Montana, or even just as good of a QB as Joe Montana the resolution is negated. My adversary must just not show that Joe is better, but far better than Brady. Let us compare a few stats to start with. Lets compare stat the stats for their first 12 seasons. BradyPass Yards : 39,979TD- INT : 300-115Completions : 3,397Comp Pct : 63.8W-L : 124 - 35[1]MontanaPass Yards : 34,998TD-INT : 242 - 123Completions : 2,914Comp Pct : 63.6W-L : 100-39[1]Okay so right off the start we can see a few differences. Remember this is the same number of seasons which happens to be their first 12 in this comparison. Notice that Brady has 20 more games than Montana and has 5 few losses. Brady already has a significantly better win loss ratio. He has a .2 higher completion. This is HUGE and i do mean HUGE. When you are comparing completion you must look at the type of era you are playing in. When Montana was playing the NFL was not such a pocket driven league. Brady is playing in a pocket driven, pass oriented NFL. It is much harder to pass in this than old school NFL. Tight ends and safeties are bread for stopping passes now days. Back when Montana was playing, the game focused much more on running. Also notice the total number of completions and the completion to interception ratio. Brady did better in all of these. Note that Brady has passed Montana in total playoff wins as well. [2]Addressing Superbowl wins.Remember this is a career comparison and Brady is not done yet. But just look at who Montana had on his team. His back up QB by himself was a hall of famer in hiding. Mixed in with Rice you have a recipe for one of the best teams in NFL history. Brady has almost tied him in Superbowl appearances and wins, with just a good and even mediocre team at times. OverallWhen you are addressing an argument like this, it is very difficult to see whom is actually better. Brady just in pure stats alone destroys Montana. Surpassing him almost entirely in completion, completion percentage, and pass to interception ratios. As I have shown the win loss is also in Bradys favor. [3][4]In ClosingI do think Brady is by far better than Montana, nor do I think I can claim he is even better than Montana at this point. What I do think I can claim is that he is on par with Montana as a quarterback and on his way to uprooting the legacy Montana left behind. When we are comparing careers when Brady retires, he will have surpassed Montana and even at this present point in time is on even ground with him. Therefore the most logical conclusion is to assume. Montana is not "way better" than tom Brady, bust just as good as Brady. [1] http://espn.go.com...[2] http://www.newsday.com...[3] http://www.nfl.com...[4] http://www.pro-football-reference.com...
Joe Montana is way better than Tom Brady.

Let's see. Joe Montana is better. 1. He has won 4 super bowls! Brady only won 3. 2. He has 3 MVPS! Brady has only 2! 3. He has went to 4 super bowls. Won all of them. Brady has went to 5 or 6. Won 3. 4. Even though Tom Brady has a better win percentage, Joe has a better legacy score in Madden 25. 4 reasons why he is better.
Roe v. Wade is a very messed-up decision

I humbly accept and look forward to a rigorous debate.Resolution "Roe v. Wade is a very messed-up decision"Roe v. Wade decision"The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. "[1]."Messed-up" - I'm not particularly certain of what is to be denoted by "messed-up", however, in context, I believe pro is equating "messed-up" with immoral. However, messed-up also describes a qualitative state of confusion, or it could denote damage.I should like pro to clarify what is meant by "messed-up"Legal v Moral Distinction(A)The resolution concerns the nature of the decision. Most literally taken, the nature of the debate seems to concern the adjudication of the case, and thereby, if the decision was procedurally, and, or substantively valid.(B)However, often concerning abortion, debates tend to veer into the moral discourse.Contingent upon what was intended by the resolution, pro would either (A), need to demonstrate some procedural, or substantive error within the adjudication. Or (B), that abortion, in the context of the decision, viz, termination within the first trimester, is indeed immoral. I shall ask pro to kindly clarify the terms, and intent, and I humbly await pro's argumentation.Reference[1]-https://www.oyez.org...
Roe v. Wade is a very messed-up decision

Thank you Con for the argument. Moral. First, I find your overstatements and virtual name calling unnecessary. Second, i would like to point out that God is goodness (ie the source of it.) Third, i find that your definition of morality it somewhat lacking in applicability to reality. Is nature immoral when it causes pain to a child? Nobody in their right mind would say yes. Morality, simply, only exists because God exists. Take away God, and the only morality it self-survival. Also, reason, communication and self-awareness simply cannot exist without a soul so, cast out God, and you also cast out an intellectual soul, you toss out person-hood (as you define it). Any human is a person. That is what i would argue, therefore, we ask what is human nature, and then you cannot deny that the baby has human nature in the womb, for if it did not in the womb, then it would not be able to have it outside of the womb. Societal My societal claims on guilt of abortion being the cause for insanity is not just a guess, it is FACT. Look it up. Literary I completely ignored your original argument, because you made it in the round i stated was specifically for acceptance. And i will continue to ignore your Round 1 arguments, because they were clearly against my rules. So also was your round 2, because rebuttals were supposed to go in round 3. Given that you have ignored my rules, i shall simply say this. If you read the decision there are numerous grammatical errors, as i stated in round 2. If you read it, you cannot miss it. These errors cause a great deal of confusion, even today, as to what the court really had in mind for their decision (Not between Roe and Wade, but to what extent they were abolishing abortion laws.). Constitutionally Person-hood being above stated more simply and correctly than Con's elaborate arguments, nothing needs be said. Precedence So throw out precedence, and you throw out any assurance of a predictable and understandable law and order. Legally Again, you ignored my rules, so if you want me to read your legal argument, restate them. otherwise I will just assume that I have won.
School Uniforms

I would like to first apologize for not responding. I did not forget, I just didn't have access to a computer, and I am extremely sorry. It is true that there are many other ways to show individuality other than clothes worn, but it is still taking away one off the ways a student can show individuality, and if you take away one, then you make it easier to say "yes" to taking away another, and another. I know that at my school, the only people who show pride in the sports teams are those on the teams and the cheerleaders. Nobody wants to show pride for a school they dislike, has bad sports teams, and is run poorly. Even if school uniforms are bought by parents, you can't say it is helping with the cost. If you can't afford/don't want to buy a lot of clothes for your son/daughter, you don't have to get everyone to wear the same clothes, you can buy a couple t-shirts and a couple pairs of pants, and have them wear those instead. With some uniforms (not all) there is also the cost of dry cleaning, which can cost a lot of money after a while. This may sound biased a little, and I apologize if it does, but when I looked at the pictures you offered me, as well as some I found myself, my first thought was "There is no way in h*** I would wear that." It may look smart, but I have never been one to wear clothes for the image they portray. If you want to dress smartly, you can do so, but it isn't fair to force others to do the same. You stated that people have treated you with more respect when wearing the school uniform, but like you stated earlier, clothes are not the only way to express yourself, and I have been treated with much more respect than other kids my age tend to receive because I give respect to adults. When you say "Hey, whassup man?" you get less respect from an adult than when you say "How are you today Mr. Smith?" Actions can have a far bigger impact on people than your clothes. Again, I apologize for not replying to your earlier argument with more punctuality. I hope you may understand my point of view a little better now. Thank you.
School Uniforms

Many thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate. To address my opponent's first point regarding modest attire in schools. The school uniform is not an attempt to suppress individuality; there are plenty of other ways for a pupil to do that without clothes (by which I mean by deeds and words, not coming to school naked!) Regarding the issue of personal possessions in school, I can only point to my own experience of schools in England, where uniforms are compulsory. Items such as iPods, cell phones, MP3 players, etc. are not permitted on school grounds. This not only reduces the amount of bullying, but also theft. The issue of pride in a school is the same as pride in your hometown. It may be that a lad grows up in some rat-infested crack house on a desolate, windswept housing estate (project) in a neglected and rundown post-industrial city, but he will still support his local football (soccer) team with a passion. For better or worse, your school is part of your identity and you should be proud to defend it, especially in sports competitions against neighbouring schools. The cost of school uniforms, at least in England, is borne by the parents; only families on very low-incomes get vouchers from the education authority to pay for them, so uniforms do not make a large impact on schools' finances. Incidentally, school uniforms look very smart as the pictures below illustrate: http://www.etoncollege.com... http://images.inmagine.com... http://www.oakwoodschool.co.uk... I hope these comments have gone some way to allaying some of the reservations my opponent has about school uniforms. Thank you.
School Uniforms

Thank you, I appreciate you accepting my challenge, and offer the following counters: Yes, it is true there will be less immodesty in schools with uniforms, but is that the school's responsibility? Do you want how people dress to be taught to them by a school? People should be allowed to have their own individuality. If you really want to show school spirit, schools have one or two colors designated as that school's colors. You can wear those. It isn't fair to make others wear them if they don't want to. I agree with you on the point of kids all being dressed the same, therefore removing the bullying based on clothes-but richer kids will still bully the poorer kids because they don't have the latest video game, Ipod, car, whatever. That sort of thing isn't based off clothes alone. And who says they want to show pride in their school? Again, it isn't the school's right to mandate that. I know that whenever my school wants us to show pride, nobody really does, because they don't want to show pride in a school that seems very poorly run. I would also like to bring up money. You probably know that as it is, schools get a fair portion of taxes. If schools suddenly start wearing uniforms, the funding necessary for schools will increase. Schools will need the money to buy uniforms for the hundreds of thousands of kids attending schools everywhere in the U.S.A. Nobody wants a tax increase. I look forward to reading your next comments. Thank you.
School Uniforms

A school uniform ensures that all pupils are dressed alike, thus removing possibility that kids from poorer families will be victimised or bullied because their parents can't afford to dress them in the latest designer clothes. Furthermore, uniforms are modestly styled so boys will not be distracted by girls' exposed cleavage (this happens, I won't mention any names but PoeJoe will confirm that this is the case) and girls won't be distracted by whatever girls are distracted by in boys. In addition, wearing a uniform identifies a pupil with his / her school and engenders a sense of pride in being associated with his / her particular seat of learning that will last long after they have left and entered to world of work. I look forward to reading my opponent's comments. Thank you.
Barbie has a negative impact on a girls body image

The image of Barbie initially had nothing to do with persuading girls to set goals based upon a silly doll. It is not the Barbie doll that has a negative impact on a girl's body image. It is the account of which Barbie is popular today and exposed in the media that it takes any account on the body image of girls. The resolution: "Barbie has a negative impact on a girls body image" is false, because it is not Barbie itself, it is the amount of exposure to the media that portrays Barbie (and many other controversial dolls) that makes an impact on a girl's body image.
Affirmative Action hurts Minorities

' If a child is told during swimming lessons that all he will need to know how to do is doggy paddle (lowered bar) and then is told to go into the ocean (college academics/reality) he will certainly fail. Agreed? 'Of course not, thats just blatantly wrong. If we go along with the poorly applied metaphor in the first place, just because a kid is told that they only have to doggie paddle it doesnt mean they will all progress to that level and then simply stop advancing. A great number of them will keep going and advance their skills which some couldnt have had the chance to do had they not been given extra lee-way to work with in the first place. Many blacks do just fine on their own and have advanced pretty far in society without the need for affirmative action. Affirmative action only helps those who certainly have the potential to advance further but cannot due to barely missing certain criteria in order to gain the chance to advance further."More importantly every year students are denied not because of their incredible GPA, service hours, awards, and SAT scores but because they were not the race the college was looking for."No thats just flat out false, universities are no longer allowed to make race the number one factor of admitting students into their college and admit black students while not admitting white students who did better anyways. There was a Supreme Court case about it and everything back in 1978: http://www.pbs.org...Furthermore, Affirmative Action goes way, way beyond college admissions and includes more then just black people. Affirmative action includes companies making sure they hire minorities onto their staff, both lower and higher up positions, and affirmative action also calls for people with disabilities protection from discrimination, such as those who are crippled (Americans with disabilities act). Affirmative action helps a wide variety of people have the chance to advance in society more then they otherwise would have, meaning that it certainly helps people more then it harms them.
Affirmative Action hurts Minorities

You seem to have misunderstood my sentence. Don't worry this metaphor should help. If a child is told during swimming lessons that all he will need to know how to do is doggy paddle (lowered bar) and then is told to go into the ocean (college academics/reality) he will certainly fail. Agreed? Now, if one looks at Thomas Sowell's (Stanford professor and author) studies, on MIT and other universities blacks are the top drop outs. For example, the the SAT scores of average accepted blacks and whites differ by 200 points (lower bar and not to mention gpa) at University of Colorado, and not surprisingly blacks graduation rate is at 39% and whites is at 72%. If you look at MIT the same happens where some blacks who could have been successful at good state universities fail at MIT because they were fooled by the system that they could survive in the "ocean" (back to the metaphor). More importantly every year students are denied not because of their incredible GPA, service hours, awards, and SAT scores but because they were not the race the college was looking for.
Affirmative Action hurts Minorities

" Affirmative action itself is soft bigotry which lowers the bar for certain races and thus sets up students to fail." Its literally a contradiction to claim that lowering the bar for certain races sets up students to fail. If you were lowering the bar then youre making it easier for students to pass, not harder. Affirmative Action doesnt hurt minorities since it quite literally gives them assistance under circumstances that most other people in the same situation cannot receive.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the U.S.

More excellent points. Yes, laws get affected by beliefs. But the beliefs that influence laws are GENERALLY common ones. For instance, most people, whether religious or not, would say killing another human being is bad. Is this specific to any one religion? No. Do people dislike killing because their faith tells them it is bad, or because they personally feel it isn't right? I think religions are special beliefs that group people together. However, in cases like these, many people say that they don't agree with gay marriage because their faith tells them it is bad. Therefore, we can't really create laws SOLELY based on the faith of a group of people. You bring up good points in your second statement. But the question I want to ask is this; does the awkwardness of society accepting gay marriage as a possible harm outweigh the benefit of allowing gay people to marry as they choose? I will admit that gay marriage can be awkward to some, but is awkwardness enough to say that gay people should not be able to marry as they choose? I don't believe so. I have met and been friends with gay people, but not as closely as you seemed to be with your friend. Often I find it hard to notice the difference in some people. To me, all I see are people. I can try to understand how awkward that situation would be for you, but heterosexual people often have the same awkward feelings when asked out by someone. It feels terrible to say no to anyone. But, regardless of whether or not gay marriage is legalized, gay people will continue to have crushes and ask people out just as heterosexual people do. It's really just a difference of who they are asking. So, to finish up, I think gay marriage should be legal in the U.S. because the benefits outweigh the harm. For the benefits, we have gay people being able to get married, lead families, and enjoy their lives with their true love without restriction. On the harm side, we see some people feeling awkward upon seeing gay couples in public. But, I think, if we teach our kids about how gay people aren't so different, this awkwardness could fade away in a few generations, and we would be left with pure, true love, unrestricted for everyone, no matter who they are. Thank you so much for debating with me. It's been a good debate.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the U.S.

Yes you make a valid point that the state and church should be separated but is it really? Aren't all actions and laws made based on beliefs we have? It is not really only for the general good if you think about it. All of these laws we have have a belief system or something to state about one thing or the other. Such as people cannot drink until they are 21. Yet teens under 21 drink alcohol. People have a belief that it is not right and moral for people to drink alcohol since it impairs their judgement. Hence that probation on alcohol had occurred a long time ago. And NO that law was not made because of health concerns since that was found out awhile later after the law was passed from what I have understood. So from that argument I see that you said that it is "supposed" to not influence laws but clearly laws are getting affected by beliefs. How else do we try and pass laws, it is all just an idea that people believe in that could help others. Now moving on to my point about awkwardness. I frankly have to say that society will have people that will say gay marriage is a sin and some will say people deserve this right. I will have to say that society is corrupt and has terrible views in my mind, but WHO IS MAKING THE LAWS! It is the SOCIETY and that is what I am getting at. Legalizing gay marriage is not an issue at all but who is going to pass the law? It is society and they don't want to readily accept same sex marriage. Finally, I have to give it you for your argument since I completely agree with it. But, have you ever encountered or personally known someone who is gay? I do! My good friend in high school was a mallet percussionist and was gay. I played the drum set along with him for 4 years. Honestly the greatest times we had. He was a great friend and pal but he was gay and I still accepted him but then he happened to ask me out and said he liked me and told me he was gay. It was a shock but I was able to handle it since he was a good friend. I felt terrible and awkward to say no and like it isn't a feeling many would want to experience. Since I am an open person and welcome everyone however they are I didn't care, but if you take a person in society and put them in that situation they would run home and start showering in holy water to cleanse themselves. Like my dad did when he was in college. It is all beliefs that is what has made this world and place what it is. Just beliefs, why do you think we have so many issues in this world? All because of beliefs. Enjoying this debate very much Thank You!
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the U.S.

You bring up some good points. I am Christian and I believe that you are correct in thinking that the Bible has sections of it that say gay marriage should not be; I think there is a line in the book of Leviticus that says something like, "If a man shall lie down with a man as with a woman, he shall be stoned." However, when talking about creating laws, we must remember the separation of church and state. Although many religions say gay marriage should not be permitted, these ideas are not supposed to influence laws. Laws have to be decided based on the potential harm and benefit that can result from the laws, not based on religion. Your next argument talks about how people consider homosexual couples to be awkward. I will admit a lot of people take notice of homosexual couples more often than heterosexual ones, because, as you said, many of us were brought up on the idea that marriage and partnership is between only a man and a woman. We must remember that people once (and still do) take notice of couples of different races than couples of two people of the same race. However, I don't think that peoples' awkwardness in a situation is harm enough to outweigh the benefits of homosexual couples to get married. Your last point says that people have a fear of homosexuals because they believe they will fall for them. To me, a heterosexual male, this fear is as rational as a male such as me being afraid of girls because they might fall for him. Just because homosexuals fall for the same sex does not mean they will fall for everyone of the same sex that they meet. Thank you.