BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Otto Graham v. Johnny Unitas

First of all, I would like to say that while I can appreciate, and have immense respect for Otto Graham, Johnny Unitas was a superior quarterback, and did much more for professional football. Let me elaborate. .. To this day, Johnny Unitas holds the record for consecutive games with a touchdown pass, at 47. That means for nearly 4 consecutive seasons, he threw for at LEAST one touchdown in every game. This record is often compared to Joe DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak Eat your heart out Tom Brady. Also, Johnny O was the league MVP in 57', 59', 64', and 67'. He led his team to a super bowl victory in 1970. By the way, a little known fact is that He also played on a semi pro team during his off time with the colts. He played on all three side of ball, as he played quarterback, safety, AND punter for merely $6 a game. This guy was tough as nails, and is still regarded as one of the best to ever play the game. He was the first Quarterback, ever, to throw for over 40,000 yards, as well as the first to throw for 30 touchdowns in a season. Moreover, I believe that players are the best at judging their own, and on the 50 year anniversary of the NFL, he was voted the leagues all time greatest player. Please bear in mind that he was not voted the best quarterback, but the best overall player. After all, this debate is not limited to the quarterback position. He was also rated football's all time number one quarterback by Sporting news in 2004, and was ranked number 32 in ESPN's "Fifty Greatest ATHLETES of the 20th Century" in 1999. Unitas went to a then record 10 pro bowls, only to be eclipsed by Brett Favre in 2009. He had 118 regular season wins, and was only eclipse by Fran Tarkenton, until the modern 16 game schedule prevailed. Since then, only Marino, Elway, Favre, and Manning have surpassed that mark. He finished his 17 NFL seasons with 2,830 completions in 5,186 passes for 40,239 yards and 290 touchdowns, with 253 interceptions. He also rushed for 1,777 yards and 13 touchdowns. He was inducted into the hall of fame in 1979. Although Graham was a phenomenal quarterback in his league, and for his time, Johnny Unitas was a better football player and did more for the sport. For the sake of fairness, I will not make rebuttals until the next round, but I hope the readers are aware that Unitas is more widely regarded as the better quarterback, and I happen to agree. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals, and would like to thank him for his time, as well as the audience for theirs. With that, I will pass. .. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.pro-football-reference.com... . http://www.nfl.com...
Otto Graham v. Johnny Unitas

This is just like fight club, the rules are that there are no rules. There is no such rule as overdue evidence. If I or you get our first arguments defeated, there is always time to post newly found arguments to support your claim that your quarterback is better than the other. However, in the last round, it is just purely a conclusion. Not rebuttal (last word time). In previous arguments I was frustrated for people that I faced always had the last argument or the last word. I never had the chance to even challenge my opponents with new data. So to keep it fair the last round will just be you and me reiterating what we have said in previous rounds. Opening Argument: In just ten seasons played, Otto Graham reached feats unparalleled by any NFL or AFL quarterback ever to play the game of football. Graham's NFL record of 57-13-1 (.810) is the highest winning percentage of all NFL quarterbacks to play the game. "Automatic" Otto Graham never had failed to live up to his name, because in all ten football seasons in the AAFC and the NFL, he took his team to ten championships. That is a perfect ten for ten. No other quarterback has done this or probably will do this. Otto Graham was the epitome of perfection not only on the field, but on the hardwood as well. Yes, Otto Graham also had a basketball career. He played for the then Rochester Royals (Sacramento Kings) and won a championship there in one season. Otto Graham has won more championships than any quarterback in the history of the game. And he accomplished this feat in just ten seasons. This is remarkable. People considered the NFL to be more superior to the AFL at the time of Otto Graham. Probably the more remembered game of his career is the game where the Browns defeated to storied Packers 27-0 putting the AFL on the map after the merger.
Football is the best sport known to men.

First off I would like to say that except for distance pissing, all sports can be played by both males and females, so that's a dumb argument. Second, you provided no definition of what "the best sport" means. I can think of several criteria. The most natural, the most physical, the one that requires the most skill, the one that requires the most athletic ability, the most universal, etc. But in none of these cases, football meets the requirement. Football is an Americanized sport that is only played by Canada and America. It is not actually the most physical, it is not the most natural sport, it does not require the most skill or athletic ability, and it is definitely not universal. Now on the off chance you're talking about real football, as in European football or soccer, while it may be more universal than American football it is still not very universal (example: Running is very universal), it does not fit the other requirements. It does not require the most skill, athletic ability, and it is not the most natural. I find it really hard to debate this because your only argument was that it can be played by both males and females, and I have already debunked that. For future reference, offer more clarification on what "the best" means. Thank you for your consideration.
Composition Contest

What a theme. That took some thought. Well, here it is; my final song. http://www.youtube.com... The song is, again, instrumental. It features the most brass instruments of the three pieces. To symbolize the theme, I turned the song into a conversation essentially, where the first voice would "say something", and the second would "reply" with something not satisfying the first. The second mostly "replies" with a single, simple note. With that, the first voice gets more complicated, even adding more instruments, but is still met with a simple "reply" from the second. We even hear frustration towards the end. Imagine having a conversation with Captain Obvious. It might be like this. You would say something to him, or question him, and he would answer with the obvious. You might try to reword the question, or ask something else, but he would still answer with a very simple and vague answer that is obvious. Others might join you, or at least have the same problem, but still, Captain Obvious would simply answer with what is obvious. I've had lots of fun with this competition, and I don't really care who wins. I'm just glad that I was able to participate in this and get experience with composing music. I'd like to thank my opponent for allowing me to participate and giving me some interesting themes. Oh, and I wouldn't mind doing it again some time in the future. With that, I say, once more, thank you!
Composition Contest

Okay, here it is, a piece about the dairy industry. http://youtu.be... For this, I decided to focus on the harsh conditions and abuse that occurs on dairy farms. It is another piece based on that of classical, however, features an electric bass guitar. Also, the piece features part of Old McDonald Had A Farm, only part of it. Anyways, please enjoy. Your next topic, or theme I guess I should say is...history.
Composition Contest

I did one of these lately, but my opponent bailed out (http://www.debate.org...). I'm a bit saddened by putting in a lot of effort only to have my opponent forfeit. Therefore, as a precondition for accepting this debate, my opponent agrees that any forfeit of a round in this debate means a concession of all 7 points. The same rule applies to me too, obviously. But of course, this is all about fun and stuff so good luck! The rules are reproduced here: Same as at http://www.debate.org... except as described below. Each round, each of us gives a theme for the other one to write a piece of music off (this theme must be something sufficiently general to allow lots of interpretations - it's just a simple way of making sure the music is original, and makes it more fun!) The music should be included as a Youtube video in the round. Up to 2000 characters may also be used to describe the music. Remember that this means con will need to start the debate not by posting music, but by posting a theme. If you have questions about the format, ask before accepting. Each track should be approximately 3 minutes and can be in any style. Remember that you only get 72 hours to compose an original song each round! Voters should assign points based on whose music they thought was better.
A Chernobyl-type nuclear power accident cannot happen in the United States

Yes I agree with you to a degree, that we are debating that a nuclear reactor can have a Chernobyl-like accident, and that what I'm saying is that there will, or will not be one. http://www.time.com... There is always the possibility of a Chernobyl-type accident. No matter how good technology is, there is always room for error, sabotage perhaps.
A Chernobyl-type nuclear power accident cannot happen in the United States

It is widely believed that a Chernobyl-type accident can occur with any nuclear reactor. That's what the Union of concerned Scientist guy was claiming, and he got on television as being some sort of authority on the subject. Its part of the superstitious bad science that abounds. Only by reading the reference I provided along with my arguments does one conclude that it is not possible without a Chernobyl type reactor. If the facts were correctly understood, we would have a lot more nuclear power plants, but superstition prevails. That's what makes it a serious debate topic. Having made the reference to reactor types, there was no need for me to repeat the argument. Many words in English have multiple meanings. For example, the word "set" has over a hundred meanings. the multiple meanings allows a debater who wishes to do so to select word meanings from a dictionary to deliberately misinterpret the resolution and attempt to win based upon his faulty interpretation. The common sense interpretation of the resolution should always prevail over the strained interpretation. In this case it was clear by reading the opening statement I was arguing that water-moderated reactors without graphite cannot have a Chernobyl-style accident. I expected that an opponent would propose some weird scenario, I don't know what, whereby a very serious accident could occur and be deemed "Chernobyl-like." I don't know of any such hypothetical scenarios, but the purpose of a debate is to see if any opponent can come up with one.
A Chernobyl-type nuclear power accident cannot happen in the United States

If you wish to post a serious debate then post a serios resolution. If you are trying to argue that there are no RBMK reactors located in United States, therefore we cannot have a Chernobyl-type accident then of course the votes go to you. The resolution does not state whether the accident happen in the past, present or the future. This Resolution is Flawed in the case that if my opponent wills that it be interpreted his way, then there is no reason to debate.
A Chernobyl-type nuclear power accident cannot happen in the United States

I wish Con well in his future career as a lawyer. 1. The verb "can" is in the present tense. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Therefore the "cannot" is in the present tense as well. Therefore the resolution is posed in the present tense, and since the their are no Chernobyl-type reactors in the United States, the resolution is correctly affirmed. 2. Straining to find a meaning of the resolution contrary to obvious intended meaning is a waste of my time and of the time of everyone on the site who would like to see a real debate. Therefore it is poor conduct. 3. Since the Union of concerned Scientists guy was obviously serious, Con effectively blocked the possibility of a serious debate. That is poor conduct.
A Chernobyl-type nuclear power accident cannot happen in the United States

2)Cannot: The negative form of can1. 3)Happen: 1. a. To come to pass. b. To come into being. 2. To take place or occur by chance. I will use the value of Chance, and that anything is possible. I support my value with Error, that nothing can be perfect. Now about my opponents case. His main points basically are 1)Technological improvement (2) Human supervision. And he supports this with a lots of evidence about how bad Chernobyl is and why we are preventing this with the betterment of technology. So I will argue in the context of the resolution "A Chernobyl-type nuclear power accident cannot happen in the United States. " I agree with my opponent that a Chernobyl-like accident is not "likely" to happen, But what my opponent fails to prove is whether a accident that is as devastating can NEVER happen in the United States.
quran is from God

"Islam is peace ? his 2 links will be enough to shut your mouth. . http://quran.com...... " I haven't the faintest idea what pro thinks he's saying. Whatever it is, it seems that he is against killing kofars (non-believers), which is good. He should spread that to all Muslims, & fight Islamic extremism. But this really has nothing to do with the debate. "you think every bomb explosed is by muslims ? " Obviously not. "do you know what is mean divide and conquer ? " I presume pro meant "do you know what the term, "divide & conquer", means? The answer is yes. It is a terminology used in computer science, but I presume pro means it in the strategic sense. The term is pretty self explanatory, divide that which you wish to conquer, then conquer. Not sure what this has to do with the debate. I watched the 1st 5 seconds of the video, until It said " The creators of this series do not claim this to be the truth. .. "The video isn't even meant to be evidence for any claim, it just sows the seeds of conspiracy theories. & again, this has nothing to do with the debate. I have refuted all that pro has said. Pro failed to prove that "quran is from God".
quran is from God

islam is peace ? his 2 links will be enough to shut your mouth. http://www.youtube.com... http://quran.com... you think every bomb explosed is by muslims ? do you know what is mean divide and conquer ? CIA and mossad are involved but you can never see that because your media is owned by rothschild family watch this to undertsand the taliban . US gov and europe fight the caliphate that will be start so soon. http://www.youtube.com...
quran is from God

you said Muhammed pbuh used iron to kill ! check this :Is Islam religion of peace?During the 23 years of the prophet Mohammed life, Muslims killed 819 persons in 56 events. Including 400 Jewish who revoked their peace agreement during an attack on the city and betrayed the Muslims, and this punishment was in agreement with their books and by decided by an arbitrator of their choice. The number of actual war was only 19. None of these wars were to spread the religion! But to meet a threat!On the other hand, Christians killed about 70,000 in Jerusalem in one week in the crusade!!-----------------------you said:How does that = iron came from stars?if you read it all you will understand, http://quran.com...(and sent down with them the Scripture), quran is from Allah to messenger Muhammed pbuh, from sky to earth.same thing for iron. it is from sky to earth .----------------------are you sayig moutains isn't part of earth ? if you're in bus,bus move ,so you , you're moving from place to another. moutains move but you can't see that . movement can move to many sides, you use word "grow" , i don't think so.quran is for all humans, it is your problem if you want quran to say scientific words insh,metter... -----------------------when you say LoL ,you just laugh on yourself stupidtranslation is not true ,the right word is "lower"http://translate.google.tn...check this http://quran.com... and the trto find the arbic word i used in google translater.-----------------------prediction happen --------------------can you explain how parents wrote on that kid? words change every 2 or 3 days and there is no scratch on skin because the words are written by veins . you will burn in hell because your madia washed your brain. rothscild family own your media.------------------why only one searcher ? stupid question, why he convert ? you ignore the scentific proof ,you talk like politicien. ------------------12) there is 1 same copy of quran in all world, Allah said that he will guard it from modification because old books were modified(torah and bible)----------------14) you post fake photos
quran is from God

http://www.sciencedaily.com... iron came from stars God said in Quran:"we sent it down" http://quran.com... --------------------------- http://quran.com... quran said that montains move .when this discovred? --------------------------- bible found in turkey and video http://english.alarabiya.net... video of that bible http://www.youtube.com... --------------------------- quran wasn't written on paper,it was memorized i have article about words repition in quran http://anti-brainwash.overblog.com... --------------------------- The lowest point on dry land on earth i will show you from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org... =========> quran said ;"romain lose against persiens in the lowest land, then after years they will win" if we see history,we will find that romains lose in the same place that it is the lowest pont in land on earth http://quran.com... + "they will win": it is prediction http://en.wikipedia.org... it happen ! ---------------------------- http://quran.com... Does man think that We will not assemble his bones?Yes. [We are] Able [even] to proportion his fingertips. ---------------------------------- miracle with russian muslim kid hidden by our media: http://anti-brainwash.overblog.com... ------------------------------------- frensh searcher become muslim after his descover.quran said smthg that bible didn't said: http://anti-brainwash.overblog.com... ----------------------------- http://quran.com... http://www.youtube.com... quran gave secret of 2 seas not mixed . quran is from 1400 years ago http://quran.com... explication under photo http://www.facebook.com... ------------------------------ other miracles http://www.facebook.com... ------------------------------ http://www.facebook.com... --------------------------------- at year 600,if someone is in coma , will he survive? no, because he can't eat.(there is no way to keep him alive). in quran ,Allah talk about some people that he made them sleeping many years then he wake them up. what is interesting ? this, when they are slept, angels move their bodies to the left and to the right. http://quran.com... "we turn them to left and to right" for complete http://quran.com... at present day: when someone is in coma,what nurse do to him ? read << The nursing staff will move the patient every 2"3 hours from side to side and depending on the state of consciousness sometimes to a chair.>> search word "nursing" in this site http://en.wikipedia.org... and you will find it. how quran knew smthg that it is impossible to know it at year 600 ? quran is from Allah . --------------------------------------- i can't hep you if you ignore my proofs. last thing,i made this challenge,can take it ? read my artcile Smile after death !! http://anti-brainwash.overblog.com... I made challenge that no one won . are able to find photo of any human that have smile after death? after life, there is 1 true way . my point is clear , happiness after death came only with islam . islam is the true religion.
Evolution is a religion

The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Darwin's complete quote can be found here Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof. If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color.
Evolution is a religion

Hi I'm Thiest and I believe that evolution and science is an oymoron because science by definition is a study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. and since evolution does none of those things I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. By evolution I am talking about: Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the "big bang" Chemical evolution: all elements "evolved" from hydrogen Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another with the exception of micro evolution which happens.