BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Michael Jordan is the best basketball player to walk the face of the earth.

Thank you very much for posting this intriguing topic. I,myself, is a basketball fan. Ok, first, have you thought of Jeremy Lin? In just a week, Jeremy Lin was a WORLD-WIDE sensation. The fans made up "Lin-sanity" and "Legend In New york". Also, he became an all-star in like a couple weeks. I agree with you that MJ had a lot of awards, but look now. MJ owns the WORST team in the NBA. Woah, I thought he was "the most influential player on sport of basketball". Also, I have some true statings from MJ himself at games. Check them out: "We're beating a lot of poor teams. So what? We won a lot of games last year, too. Will Horace and Bill still be playing at this level in the playoffs...Can Pip keep it up?" "I hate being out there with those garbage men. They don't get you the ball." "You're an idiot. You've screwed up every play we ever ran. You're too stupid to even remember the plays. We ought to get rid of you." - Michael to Horace Grant "If you [pass the ball to Bill Cartwright], you'll never get the ball from me." "We're not winning because of talent. We're just beating bad teams." "Headache tonight, Scottie?" - Michael asks Scottie, while showing him his 2-for-16 line "It's probably a twelve-day. He needs two days to wake up." - Michael on a ten-day contract teammate "He can't do anything with the ball. Don't give it to him." - Michael yelling at Paxson who passed the ball to Purdue "You ever hear of a guy, six-eleven maybe and two hundred sixty pounds, a guy big and fat like that and he can't get but two rebounds, if that many, running all over the damn court and he gets two rebounds? Big guy like that and he gets one rebound. Can't even stick his **** into people and get more than that...Big, fat, fat guy. One rebound in three games. Power forward. Maybe they should call it powerless forward." - Michael ripping Stacey King a new one "He was scared in there and panicking. He just lost it when Stockton scored." - Michael on B.J. Armstrong's mental fragility" "They don't need a ticket to watch you sitting on the bench. They can go to your house for that." - Michael to Charles Davis who was sorting through his tickets for his family and friends "Give me the ******* ball." - Michael to Doug Collins who drew up a play for Dave Corzine "If I were a general manager, we'd be a better team." ( Wizards? Bobcats? )
Feminism

Hello Ilan. I look forward to a productive exchange of ideas. I do apologize, but my response for this round won't be as elaborate since I wasn't able to respond sooner and I now have less than 15 minutes to answer lol The argument I present is that being egalitarian does not exclude you from being feminist. In fact, I argue that being feminist is a necessary condition for being egalitarian. "feminism is merely about getting equality for women whereas egalitarianism is equality for absolutely everybody." If egalitarianism means equality for absolutely everybody, as you stated, then it must include equality for women and therefore, feminism. You made valid points about the feminist movement and I think they are indeed to focused on giving women a better place in society, but I think they deviate slightly from the true meaning of feminism which seeks equality of the sexes.
Feminism

Hi everyone I'm Ilan and I am not a feminist. Immediately alarm bells may be ringing in your mind that maybe this guy is a "sexist" or "a rape apologist" or anything of the such so just to clarify I am none of these things. I firmly believe that in the idea that everyone should be equal no if ands and or buts. And now you might be thinking why is this guy not a feminist then? Well, the answer to that question is that feminism does not have a monopoly on equality; if you believe in equality you are not automatically a feminist as many feminists like to state. I am in fact an egalitarian. The difference between the two is that feminism is merely about getting equality for women whereas egalitarianism is equality for absolutely everybody. The dictionary definition of egalitarian is "believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities." and that for feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.". Now that we have established some ground I can really start to get into why I am not a feminist. First of all, I am a man. And I am not trying to say that men cannot be feminists, be whatever the hell that you want, but as a man, I feel that I should campaign for my sex and as we have already established feminism is not about gaining equality for all but helping just Women to achieve equality. Even feminists that say that men and other groups are included in feminist issues still do not really campaign for our problems. One major issue that men face is prostate cancer. Prostate cancer kills just as many people as breast cancer does but receives merely half the funding towards research and cures. I have never in my life met a feminist that has agreed with the statement "Prostate cancer is a feminist issue" because quite frankly it is not. Many feminists also like to say that MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) are the ones that should be campaigning for male problems but if it really is for everyone then why does feminism not cover everybody's problems. Here I have merely scratched the surface of male problems that feminism does not address such as the fact that 4 times more men commit suicide than women or that 70% of homeless people are estimated to be men or the significantly less jail time for female rapists than men. I could go on but I want to hear what everyone else has to say about this! I thank you for hearing out what I had to say if you made it this far and hope you all have a wonderful day. Ilan
Rap Battle(2011)

ENTER THE BADGER careful bruce lee ain't got sh1t on me now since it rhymes might as well tell ya: i'mma G! so much so ...i bring harmony... who wouldn't wanna have sex with me? lol rhyming Es i do it with ease :P especially after a couple of Es please? it's easy peasy lemon squeezy just grease the palm if the piggy sees me drugs are a drug! lost in the madness. shouldn't have taken the tenth bomb.. but this buzz is bad a5s! badness? ....................madness! rob, cheat and steal! and yeah there's a difference.. THE WORD! ya herd!? I'MMA G!! gonna fuuck with me over a redundanceeee? more Es... swallow 'em, you'll like it bit of a pu55y? where's ur drink? i'll spike it! i roll with gold chains, lion manes and drug addicted slaves.. Nahhh!....... call me verbal aka kaiser there's no wiser ;) i'm coming up on a bang!!! :S
Niantic should provide user location for Pokemon Go to the police

While I can agree that Pokemon GO is a dangerous game (if you're not paying attention), I'm not going to agree that Niantic should go through multiple hoops just for safety. Again, the game can be dangerous, but that's just a matter of not paying attention. It's been advised to look where you're going and to be alert of you surroundings. If the player is in need of help, they have a phone and can dial 911 if needed. You kind of need a phone to play Pokemon GO. However, I'm not going to be talking the time to talk about that because that should be used against people who think Pokemon GO should be banned because of dumb reasons. What I want to talk about is the emergencies and getting help from the police. First off, if you're in need of help, 911. Again, you need a phone to play the game; parents, friends, and (yes) 911 are all a phone call away. I'm pretty sure almost every child is taught how to use a phone or how to dial 911. The second point is the police. In theory, that's not a bad idea. However, in execution, it doesn't work. You see, I don't know how this would be set up, and since you don't elaborate on how this would work, I can only assume you're talking about GPS locating. In that case, this isn't a good idea because it would take a lot of the police resources; specifically, the resources of the police. The reason for this is because the police isn't going to be up 24/7, and I say this in a sense that they're not going to hold your hand while you play. Not to mention, the possibility of it not being needed. Also, there is the possibility of GPS getting your location incorrect, the resources to track (basically) everyone, the possibility of one's phone dying turning off the GPS, not having service, and many more possibilities. Overall, this entire situation would be considered meaningless because of the use of 911 and the fact you have a phone. I am a Game Overthinker/Pilgrim of Knowledge, and the ball's in your court.
Niantic should provide user location for Pokemon Go to the police

Pokemon GO is well known to get gamers to walk around the neighbourhood to play the game. The Virtual Reality game actually uses the Global Positioning System to keep track of the player in the real world merging it with the virtual world filled with Pokemon. But the focus they put on their phones could lead to dangerous situations that could cause accidents int he middle of the road or construction sites. It is very dangerous to the players and the passer-by. In case of emergencies, if the player happens to had an accident somewhere dark or there are no passer-by, this could worsen the situation. What if the player passed out, blood loss and nobody is aware since the area is empty and are quite far away from the busy path. So. this case really had me supporting the motion that Niantic, the company that created the game, to provide user location to the police so that anything could be carry out as soon something suspicious happen the player.
Atheism is Illogical

To conclude my argument, since my opponent has forfeited both his chances to respond, I will repeat some basic points. First, my opponent's argument on complexity is a result of flawed human bias. Scientifically speaking, human complexity has nothing to do with probability. Second, my opponent quotes miracles which are actually not miracles, merely improbable events with several other explanations. This renders my opponent's initial and only arguments useless. As for my case that Atheism is NOT illogical, I can only point at the mountain of scientific evidence that is used to explain all of the things that were once attributed to acts of God over the years. The more we learn, the less we attribute to God. Thus, we can only assume that as the trend continues, God will be reduced to a thing that has no purpose. As such, God essentially does not exist.
Atheism is Illogical

Atheists believe, from my understanding, That there is no God. This however obviously is very illogical because despite countless miracles, the human body is far too complex to be made by chance. One such miracle is a fountain at Lourdes, France with healing water thousands of people have been healed by this water. Atheist doctors have stated their bafflement by these healing of people who probably would have died. This is just one of the many miracles I could use in this debate. I hope an atheist will try to prove me wrong.
Gay's shouldnt be discriminated against and should have there fundemental rights to marrige

First of all I did not forfit the last round, i was thinking about a respond overnight and I came back and it said I did, but I didnt In the name of the "family," same-sex "marriage" serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone"s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
Gay's shouldnt be discriminated against and should have there fundemental rights to marrige

Homophobic ideals are wrong. All are equal. Our motto support this "Out of many One" and again I must point out how far we have come as a country and how over time our views have become closer to equality. First the Black civil rights, then women's rights. We accepted them as they are also human equals. Now there is Gay Rights and we are so close to equality. We must allow homosexuals to be equal as they are. Additionally the bible does not oppose homosexuality it supports it. Here is evidence from a credible source: http://www.religioustolerance.org... My opponent also failed to respond to my arguments. Also what Is his Topicality? Homophobic ideals and laws along with other discriminatory ones are not topical. All of this covered I would like to conclude why you should vote for Pro and Support Gays getting there rights to marry and that homophobics dicriminating against them should not be tolerated. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality and Con has failed to debate me
Gay's shouldnt be discriminated against and should have there fundemental rights to marrige

I would like to point out that gays have the rights to be married. In the governments eyes marriage is when a spouse and spouse have a marriage certificate. They are received from the county. Clerks are supposed to approve all couples since they are equal and can and do get in trouble for denying them if they are a homophobic. My evidence is from CNN a credible source. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com... United States of America starting from the Articles of Confederation is build off equality and freedom. Homophobic ideals, along with racist, sexist and discriminatory ideas slow the country down and eventually shown as wrong. This has happened throughout the course of history everybody who is in love with another has the right (In the eyes of the federal state and county) to apply for marriage, regardless of there race gender or sexuality without equality there is no democracy and to make the world a better place we must do our best to have equality.
Gay's shouldnt be discriminated against and should have there fundemental rights to marrige

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex marriage opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior.
Gay's shouldnt be discriminated against and should have there fundemental rights to marrige

The world is evolving as our human rights are all being allowed.The next generation will look back at homophobic ideals the same way we look back at the people who thought women didn't deserve the same rights as white men, as they look upon the people who thought non whites should be slaves. The same goes for segregation, it used to be the social norm that blacks should not be in school with whites. Evolution happens and boom. Then "separate but equal" the world is changing, for the better. The domino theory is a part of it. All unequal laws are slowly becoming more equal. The world isn't and will never be perfect, I am stating that we must do what we can to make the world a better place. Additionally it is gays fundamental right as a HUMAN BEING to choice who THEY love in. Many people are changing they minds about this as there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and it can and will only change the world for the better. This is the way the world is becoming. Thank you for your time.
MU is better than KU (football)

In the last 14 years it's been 7-7. KU also have a better historical record - 22 titles, next to MU's 6. MU have got lucky in the last few meetings. Furthermore, I feel that KU is actually a better college, having spoken to people who've attended both. It sounds to me like MU might enjoy a slightly better reputation, but it's all talk - the standards of education at KU are better.
MU is better than KU (football)

While we both agree that KU is better than MU in basketball - I will be arguing that KU is also better than MU in football. I would like to suggest that when we say 'better' we are referring to MU and KU's respective abilities to compete in football, rather than any off-the-field considerations. I will allow you to start by making your arguments, which I will then respond to in round 2.
MU is better than KU (football)

I will summarise my key points. KU has a better historical record in football than MU. In the last 14 meetings, KU and MU have won 7 games each. I feel KU has been unfortunate not to win more of these recent meetings. KU is a better sporting college than MU, and its basketball team's success shows how successful it has been in other areas - and this has really helped the football side of things.
MU is better than KU (football)

I don't agree, YOUR A LIAR! MU IS THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!!! LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LLIIIIAAARRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MU is better than KU (football)

It is however fact that the last 14 meetings have seen a 7-7 split. I have watched all of these games - and particularly in recent years, I have felt that KU has been hard-done by, because of circumstances surrounding the games, unfair refereeing decisions and so on. Furthermore, the quality of the college to educate is not especially relevant, although I do generally feel that KU's teaching standards outweigh the more reputable MU's teaching standards - and sportingly - KU is clearly a better college.
The Idea of God is Tyrannical

Thank you for your response. I will immediately pursue rebuttals. "As stated, we are defining "god" as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being." Agreed. "An omniscient being cannot choose what is wrong because they always know what is right, and the right decision is always the wise decision. Therefore, an omniscient being cannot be unjust." The killer might know what is right or wrong, but the blade of his knife still guts the victim. A thief knows that stealing is wrong, but he still steals. The right decision is not always the wise decision. If one knows that if one does not kill a million, that three million will die, and their is little time to act then one knows that they cannot afford to postpone a decision. If they make the wise decision, they will kill the three million, but if they make the right decision they will try the slim chance of saving both parties. Even if you discount all of this, what is "right" or "wrong" is subjective. "They cannot harvest so they steal. They cannot give life so they kill it. They force because they cannot persuade. They instill fear because they cannot instill love." I am guessing this is for more purposes of enjoying reading the debate, but even so I will remind you that many dictators have won democratically through elections and have been in fact loved by their people. This is why God is a dictator, he enjoys a relationship of fear and love, sado -masochistic and parasitic. "and if doing right is wise then an all-powerful and all wise being must always create correct outcomes through correct methods." Then this God must be a blunderer. Millions upon billions die because of various reasons, all of which a God could prevent. One may argue that "God works in mysterious ways" If so, how could we call a God omniscient, omnipotent, etc. if he works in ways strange, alien, cold, and bizarre to what humans hold dear. "because those terms have no meaning beyond humanity." Neither do terms as wise, and just, and kind. "No one can apply a complete definition to something they do not fully understand." Then the existence of both God and religion are pointless, as they are constructs designed to fill a need for Big Brother and understanding. Big Brother is always present, defines reality (omnipotent), and has knowledge of you. How does this not fit the description of a dictator like Big Brother that all people think is evil? "for creatures of limited wisdom and knowledge to accurately define what they can never fully understand." This means that both of our arguments are futile, as we have both attempted to codify God.
The Idea of God is Tyrannical

As the title says I believe the idea of God (omniscient, omnipotent, always present being) to be a tyrannical idea. Now let us begin. 1. Gods Omnipotence_ Because God is an omnipotent being, he can do whatever he wishes. He could set your house on fire, murder your wife etc. But, thank about natural disasters that kill innocent lives. If God is omnipotent, then he must be the one directing and controlling the forces that control weather, causing needless death and destruction. Consider other tyrants that have risen to power like Adolf Hitler. God was the driving force behind Hitler's ascension for power, because he made all the variables in Hitler's life that would allow him to rise in power. Because of this, we can see that not only is God a tyrant and a dictator, that he himself supports the ascension of other tyrants and dictators. One may argue that an event like a dictator rising to power could prevent other even more disastrous causes in the future. To this I might ask why such a God would not use a better way to prevent said destruction and death. 2. Omniscience- God can sense every thought and feeling you have, and because of this he will judge you in the afterlife. Because God can sense all of these feelings he can monitor you, always watching, the ultimate epitome of Big Brother. If he is always watching and making judgements based on whether or not you blindly follow him we can see that he is in fact a cruel, malevolent dictator and tyrant who is only satisfied when he gains complete control in the thoughts and feelings of his followers. 3. Always present_-Because God is always present he is constantly watching you, if a human being did something like this in real life it would be considered stalking. Gods eyes are always upon you, feeling and sensing. 4. The threat of hell- Admittedly, this is not part of a select more philosophical religions (ex. some branches of Buddhism) But in most of the worlds religions there is always the looming threat of hell. This threat is used as leverage by God to manipulate those who follow him into complete and utter blindness, so that he can hoard followers like a strange and deranged cult leader. A God who uses hell as a threat to those who do not or cannot believe in him uses it in the same way as the threat of force used by dictators. 5. The epicurean argument- This goes in a poem, that I will present for you to read at leisure "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " -Epicurus Once again thank you for accepting and I look forward to your response. . http://www.goodreads.com...