BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lebron James is a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant

First of all if you want to count championships, that has to do with the team and their supporting cast not them personally. When Shaq left the Lakers, Kobe scored the most points but didn't reach the finals or win a championship. He needed Shaq to win his first 3, and he needed Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum to win his other two. Lebron single handedly lead them to the finals by himself. Lebron has won the last two MVP awards, Kobe has only won one in his entire career. Kobe is he in his 15th season that is 7 more than Lebron. All because Kobe won a few rings with arguably one of the most dominant big men of all time doesn't mean he is a better all around player. You said that Kobe is a better all around player but Kobe doesn't average as much assists or rebounds as Lebron. Kobe tried his heart out in this past all star game scored 37 points and Lebron messed around and got a triple double. Kobe's too small to cover Lebron 1 on 1, Kobe will get bodied.
Lebron James is a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant

1. Your subjective use of "better" is extremely ambivalent and vague. The "best players" in any sports are ALWAYS the one's who are capable of leading their teams to the most championships, not the one's posting high regular season numbers. Best NFL QB's: Montana (4 rings), Brady (3 rings), Elway (1 ring). Best NBA players: Bill Russel (9 rings), Kobe (5 rings), Michael Jordan (6 rings). Sure, you will hear Dan Marino or Karl Malone thrown into the conversation once in a while, but playoffs separate the great from the good 2. Kobe would absolutely destroy Lebron 1 on 1. Lebron is a distributor and transition threat. Kobe is multi-dimensional, and his entire game is based around taking people 1 on 1. Also, Kobe shut Lebron down every time he has guarded him. 3. Yes, Kobe has had a better supporting cast, but he was always the one to hit the big shots. Lebron has had 2-3 true game winners, and has had countless misses. 4. Lebron is a statistical freak, but nothing more. All around: Kobe
Kiss Vs Queen

Hello Jason77, I am a Queen fan and I will post the best Queen songs I know. In response to Pro's Round 1 song which was "I wanna rock & roll all night!!!" by Kiss, the first Queen Song I choose to counter in Round 1 is "Don't stop me now". And I the reason chose this song because I remember that in 2005, this song was voted as "The Greatest Driving Song Ever" by viewers of the BBC television program Top Gear. [2] Ok voters I hope you prefer this song… :D Sources: [1] http://www.youtube.com... (see video) [2] http://www.queenzone.com...
There is no Reason to be "Good"

:Although I agree that most people do want to live, for the sake of this debate we must include everybody; Why? Keep in mind most of those excluded are dead. :I'm not looking for the practical reason to be good in order to increase personal pleasure You said "a reason." :because that assumption just leads to the question--Why seek pleasure? No particular reason (note that "pleasure" is not a precise synonym for the goal I outlined). That's arbitrary, and there is nothing particularly wrong with that. Do you, or don't you? If so, you're hooked-- you have your reason, resulting from this primary choice in your life. If not-- what do you seek? You seek something, this is clear, for you have willingly acted to debate this with me. Note that whether the reason applies to you is merely a side issue, the fact remains that the reason applies to someone and therefore is a reason. :I realize that, in reality, we do feel one way or another, but there's no higher ethical or moral reason for it This is trivial. One's chosen primary goal IS the highest reason in the conception of ethics I've based my argument upon. Of course there is no reason that determines the highest reason, that would be a contradiction. Humans don't live forever, especially backwards, so you start somewhere or not at all. Clearly you've chosen to start, so outline the somewhere or be guilty of a contradiction. :we have altruistic tendencies because of evolution Altruism is a rather separate issue from MERE compassion. As the coiner of altruism, Comte, had it, altruism was holding others as one's highest standard-- the other-concerned action I've outlined is a mere means to a selfish end. :but I'm asking why we SHOULD indulge in that kind of behavior. "Should" is a word that has meaning within the context of a primary choice. You choose to live-- therefore, take the course of action that best aids it, which, other things equal, will help others too. If you choose something else, then perhaps you shouldn't, depends what it is, but for the rest of us, the fact remains that we should given the context of the primary choice we've made. :why should we want reciprocation? We neither should nor shouldn't. Either your goal calls for it or it does not (that is, ultimately, consistently speaking, either you do want it or you don't) . Many goals do. The goal is arbitrary. Reality dictates how it is best achieved once chosen however. Since such choices are made, a reason exists for actions you would call "good."
There is no Reason to be "Good"

Although I agree that most people do want to live, for the sake of this debate we must include everybody; I'm not looking for the practical reason to be good in order to increase personal pleasure, because that assumption just leads to the question--Why seek pleasure? Why try to receive comfort in life? My point is, there is no reason for anything, and real fact is the only thing we can have faith in (like math and science). So why be good? What's the reason for getting reciprocation? Why should be pursue personal happiness? I realize that, in reality, we do feel one way or another, but there's no higher ethical or moral reason for it; we have altruistic tendencies because of evolution, but I'm asking why we SHOULD indulge in that kind of behavior. You would answer, 'Because it's reciprocated,' but I'm asking, why should we want reciprocation? There is no should, only what IS.
There is no Reason to be "Good"

Normally, I would never touch your definition of good. It's frankly a icky and incomplete one-- and to be honest i didn't notice it when I took the debate, I kinda skimmed over that part. Nevertheless, there is a perfectly good reason to engage in such behavior-- it encourages reciprocation. Other things equal, one who seeks their own benefit should benefit others in order to encourage such reciprocation-- and most people do desire to live (those that don't are not in this discussion as death is what happens when one does not pursue life, except in rare and extreme cases of hospitalization). Other things may not be always equal, but a reason existing to do a thing does not necessarily mean a reason that is applicable in every instance. If I can just as easily with my foot push the book you just dropped on the ground towards you, as I can push it into a mud puddle, or jump over it, I'd do well to notice that you'll like the first option best of those and will probably thus be most inclined to benefit me in the future and least inclined to harm me, especially if I know nothing else about you. I really need to read R1s more carefully. *chuckles*.
There is no Reason to be "Good"

I am arguing that there is no ultimate reason behind morality like there is behind things of science. Thus, I am also assuming that there are no moral truths, or no a priori morality, so no guideline or ideal to which we might compare ourselves. So take note, I don't mean that there IS a reason to be BAD, I just titled the debate to imply a hopeless lack of morality in our world, or reason for morality, rather. "Good"--describing action or deliberation that is compassionate or done towards the well being of another (please don't try to find loopholes in this definition and make it into a semantics argument where you can trick me into losing. Only point out a semantical issue if you deem it completely necessary to your understanding of what I'm trying to convey with this definition. Burden of Proof: The BoP lies on the one who says there IS a reason to be good, or that there IS a higher, objective morality. Sidenote: I'm not doing this because I'm some nihilist who hates everyone; I've just yet to be satisfied with a strong rebuttal to this statement, and I'm hoping someone can refute this statement so that I can actually have hope in morality
There is no Reason to be "Good"

" Is that what you mean?" Yes. :For some reason this troubles me, because it seems ethics, once faced with a certain statement, asks no further questions. Well, sometimes there aren't any questions to ask. There are plenty of other areas to go after if one likes questions :). :To tie this point with the overall statement, I guess if one feels, or their 'arbitrary goal' is that the benefit of other living things (humans) precedes their own, then THAT is the reason for acting altruistically, or the "highest reason" for acting altruistically. Yes. This is true and would provide another such reason. A reason that incidentally wants me to stay the hell away from this person because I have no idea which others they'll pick and I can hardly threaten someone selfless. :) :So, with this being said, I guess you can't argue over morality until each side agrees on a few common, or shared, assumptions Again, yes. As a practical matter this tends to be trivial, you can usually find something ;). :I am aware this hardly resembles a debate anymore; I apologize if you feel I have wasted your time. If I found the notion of people figuring out why I hold a given stance beneficial to my goals, it would hardly be consistent of me to consider it a waste of time when they did-- And it would hardly be consistent of me to debate if I didn't.
There is no Reason to be "Good"

I think I understand what you're saying: So once a goal is agreed upon or settled upon by someone (i.e. I want to live and/or seek pleasure, etc.), then reasons for acting in a certain way can be valid and are (to a certain extent) objective, as long as you don't demand a reason for that original goal, because, as you said, the goal is arbitrary and doesn't require a "should," it's just reality: either you do or you don't. Is that what you mean? I guess my internal "cognitive dissonance" concerns the fact that there is no reason to the statement "I seek pleasure" or "I choose to live": they're merely arbitrary statements about reality that don't require a reason, because you either feel this way or you don't....For some reason this troubles me, because it seems ethics, once faced with a certain statement, asks no further questions. Like you said, "One's chosen primary goal IS the highest reason in the conception of ethics..." "Altruism is a rather separate issue from MERE compassion. As the coiner of altruism, Comte, had it, altruism was holding others as one's highest standard-- the other-concerned action I've outlined is a mere means to a selfish end." My mistake; altruism usually implies unconditional compassion or the sacrifice of one's well being for the benefit of another, which is unlike the self-interested morality that you proposed. I am incorrect in labeling that altruism. To tie this point with the overall statement, I guess if one feels, or their 'arbitrary goal' is that the benefit of other living things (humans) precedes their own, then THAT is the reason for acting altruistically, or the "highest reason" for acting altruistically. So, with this being said, I guess you can't argue over morality until each side agrees on a few common, or shared, assumptions, from which point they can then reason with each other, with this ultimate, arbitrary goal in mind. I am aware this hardly resembles a debate anymore; I apologize if you feel I have wasted your time. I am now satisfied (and at the same time slightly disappointed in a way) with reasons for being "good." Thanks. Any final statements?
Federal Department of Education should be shut down

The federal Department of Education should never have been created and should be shut down. In the Bill of Rights, tenth amendment, it states that any power not granted by the US constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the state or the people. Reading over the US Constitution, no where in the document does it give the power of regulating and enforcement and creation of rules for education to the federal government or being a prohibited power to the states. Because of this, the power of regulating education should go either to the states or to the people of the Untied States. There should not be a federal branch forcing rules and regulations to the people. This calls for the shut down of the Federal Department of Education and its power to be given to the state or to the people of America.
fixed rules don't exist for theoretical absolute minimum for things to believed for salvation

There are minimum rules in pretty much every religion, sect, and branch of Christianity. Some require you to be born again, some require you to believe in God, some of them require that you be human and have a soul. But, there are minimum rules in pretty much every faith. Though, moreover they tend to want you to not just do the least you possibly can. Are there fixed minimum rules for salvation? Yes, every religion has some of those. -- You're misusing the word theory. A theory is a model which explains a number of facts. When theologians talk, there are no facts which need to be explained. Sure, if you define it as a sun-worshiper does then the God clearly exists. If a personal God existed he could be proved by descending from the sky and proving himself rather aptly. The only way God would be unprovable is if God didn't exist. You think a book which says you should beat your slaves only most of the way to death and gives very specific instructions on how and when to rape a captured sex slave is inspired? Are the genocides carried out inspired? Are the silly arcane laws inspired? Nobody keeps a bun in the oven for seven months before taking care of it if they didn't want it in the first place. I've heard of people being shunned by their family and friends for having a late term abortion when the fetus was going to die in the 8th month and had no chance of being viable. Just sort of odd as far as beliefs go. I mean, if you actually believe the above topic what does that say about your beliefs? Do you honestly think there's a fair and loving God floating around picking salvation out of a hat? You'd be amazed at how reasonable everything is when you don't accept things on faith and have good reasons to believe the things you believe.
fixed rules don't exist for theoretical absolute minimum for things to believed for salvation

i will concede that my initial post could have been clearer as to whether i was asking for fixed rules in the sense that whether any exist... which is what you were arguing. but, i still contend that it was clear enough that i was arguing as per what we should believe as chrisitans, or theologians talking about theory of what should be believed. not what is believed. i have been a liberal christian since my inception here. not much has changed except how i look at late term abortions. i think you can "prove" god depending on how you define it, but ultimately i don't think you can. i tend to think the bible is not the word for word word of God, but i still think it's inspired and i believe in Jesus. i think he was misunderstood. i was against a lot of late term abortions at first, only because i hadn't realize almost all of them are for health reasons. it'd be tough somewhat to legislate when it's not right to have that, when it's just casue the mom is merely discomforted, and since it isn't as prevalent as i thought and so it's not too big of a deal in the bigger picture.. that's why i conceded the argument in one of those debates. if abortions were prevanlent though late term for shady reasons, it'd be inhuman and immoral etc to think it's someone who can be protected two seconds after birth but not two seconds before. we can and should draw a point, even if it's arbitary, during pregnancy... if it were or became prevalent for stupid reasons.
fixed rules don't exist for theoretical absolute minimum for things to believed for salvation

I wasn't just talking about fundamentalist Christianity, I was talking about most all religion in general. There are tons of fixed beliefs about what gets you the infinite carrot and spares you from the infinite stick. Pretty much every religious group and subgroup within Christianity has some set beliefs. There's certainly no universal rules across all religions. And a vast number have contradictory requirements so odds are good regardless what you believe the majority of religions are damning you to hell. I've noticed this general pattern in your debates for a while now. Are you losing your faith? It very much looks like from a number of your comments that truth is making surprising inroads. First you learn that the Bible is crap and have a bunch of debates about that, now apparently the fact that as for fixed rules there are thousands of different sets of them for salvation. Although, you did have an odd string of debates about locking up pregnant women to prevent late term abortions so maybe I wrong. Still, yeah fixed rules, tons of them. Everybody has different rules. It doesn't make them any less fixed. Also, nothing is effectively "for salvation" as that's a crock to make sure you forward the "chain letter" to your friends and family.
fixed rules don't exist for theoretical absolute minimum for things to believed for salvation

i think i agree generally with most of what you say, regarding fundamentalist christianity. the key point where there's plenty of fixed beliefs though, hasn't really responeded to my point that there's no fixed beliefs... the reason is because the context of my intro post says "there's no fixed beliefs unless you don't care about new christians and etc" which means you have to genuinitly belief that to debate, and which means you have to provide the "logic" to back up that belief. you simply pointed out that there's ixed beliefs out there generally and ponited out that it exists, which isn't repsonding rightfully to my intro post. i agree with much of your general other sentiment though.
fixed rules don't exist for theoretical absolute minimum for things to believed for salvation

Yeah, the Bible is fallible and there aren't any fixed rules. You know why there is no minimum for salvation? It's all a screwjob. The Bible was written by men. God doesn't exist. There's no pot of gold at the end of rainbows. Your dog never went to any farm for old dogs, and there ain't no Santa Claus. The very concept of believing things for eternal life is absurd. Sure, some guy could have lived his entire life as a very devout Mormon and always kind-hearted and always good and always helpful... but he didn't believe in the trinity so he gets punished forever in a lake of fire! Eternal suffering or eternal bliss are stupid ideas. An infinite reward or infinite punishment for wrapping your head around a couple stupid ideas during a finite life? It's a screwjob! Open your eyes! You know those chain letters which claim you'll have good luck if you forward this to a dozen friends and bad luck if you don't! Religion is exactly like that, except rather than luck you get a good or bad afterlife. It's a stick and carrot, and chain letters never do anybody any good. Fixed rules for salvation are bountiful! Fundamentalists say they must accept the Trinity, Jesus as Savior, etc. The rules for Muslims are they need to follow the five pillars of Islam and lead a good life having faith in Allah. The rules depend on which version of the chain letter you get introduced to first, probably the one same your parents bought into (what are the odds!?). There are plenty of fixed rules the thing is, they don't really give you salvation. If you forward that one letter, that sick cancer kid isn't going to get better. If you forward the Bill Gates one, Microsoft isn't going to write you a big check. If you save souls for Christ, you're getting the same rotting corpse as everybody else. Bring people into the Muslim faith, you're getting the same rotting corpse as everybody else. Are there fixed rules? Sure plenty of them. Do they give you magic powers, eternal life, and infinite pleasure? No, they make you a gullible moron whose bad at science.
fixed rules don't exist for theoretical absolute minimum for things to believed for salvation

no fixed rules for theoretical absolute minimum for things to believed for salvation fundamentalist christians have a probelm. what's the absolute minimum that a new christian or nonlearned christian would have to believe to be saved? not speaking in terms of a christian who's tryihg to do the absolute minimum just to skae by or are proactively refusing a belief... but simply hristians who don't know better. i'd ask the fundamentalist "is it enough for them to say they believe that jesus existed?" and they'd say no as demons do that. i'd ask if it's enough that they believe he's God, and many would say not enough as demons rpobably do that. so, they say they start listing things that should be believed. but then, i point out that that list is dogmatic like a creed or church or something, something fundamenralists don't like to be, or at least is severlly limiting who can be saved giving that a list is by definition is exclusive of those who don't match every belief yet. so, they point out a blief like "savior". but, then i point out that many believe in savior but odn't really know what that means. if you explain atonement or eevn the idea, they have no idea what you're talking about... both new and unleared christians (there are many believe me, and are probably the rule rather than the exception) are clueless. some fundies will insist that the spefici notion of atonement savior must be believed (and say to hell with the good majority or great minority of christians who are wishy washy in their understanding), some will say any form of savior as long as a notion genereally is believed. but then i'll point out that the bible says "confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and that he rose from the dead and you'll be saved" and they'll acknowledge that "lord" is kind of vague for a new and unlearned christians, and so maybe they don't have to believe savior. so, then others will have to concede that it's simply not possible to have a dogmatic rule and perhaps that person doesn't have to believe "savior" yet... cause many new and unleare christiians don't really know what they're being saved from or anything else or know to say they have a "savior" but do say "lord" etc. at least... really the rule is that you must be good intentioned, and generally believe something about Jesus. unless you dn't care about new and unlearned christians. only God can really know. there's no way to be fundamentalist about the requirements that must be believed, speficially, for those situations. i'd concede though that if they reject a teaching, perhaps they could be damned, for the sake of argument only thought. (personally most of this is just fluff to me... i'm just trying to get dogmatics out of their rigid shell)