BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
To Prohibit Moderate Consumption of Alcohol Would Negatively Impact Health

Definitions Prohibit - to forbid by authority or law [1] Moderate consumption of alcohol - no more than 9 drinks per week for women and 12-14 for men [2] Negative - lacking positive qualities, unfavorable [3] Impact - to have a direct effect on [4] Health - freedom from physical disease or pain [5] Sources [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.moderatedrinking.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] http://www.merriam-webster.com... If there are any other definitions that my opponent would like to include, or if he would like to define any of these words differently, that can be done in this round before the arguments begin. Thank you in advance for accepting this challenge, and good luck!
Kurt Angle is a better wrestler (not wwe) than Brock Lesnar.

My opponent fails to recognize that Kurt Angle only has his various medals and awards in wrestling because that is the career which he wished to pursue. Brock Lesnar, on the other hand, used his skill in other platforms. Therefore, the portfolio of both men as it pertains to wrestling should not be held against or for them. Pro wishes for me to provide evidence of my claims. I shall. Evidence of Brock Lesnar's skill being used in the UFC: . http://www.ufc.com... As you can see, takedowns and ground striking were essential to the Champion's rise to power. And this is a video of Brock Lesnar's UFC Title victory: As you can also see, the match was won by grounding his opponent, immobilizing him and therefore being able to strike. This is amateur wrestling skill. Ladies and Gentleman, Brock Lesnar is most obviously the greater of the two.
Kurt Angle is a better wrestler (not wwe) than Brock Lesnar.

My opponent concedes that Kurt Angle has a superior amateur wrestling portfolio, which enhances my contention because the resolution considers the skills of wrestling a based performance of the two, not Ultimate Fighting. Considering my opponents arguments that Brock accomplished a UFC titles only demonstrates the mastery of UFC which encompasses striking and takedown, whilst my demonstration of Kurt Angle's olympic wrestling medal demonstrates a mastery exclusive to wrestling oriented skills. My opponenet fails to provide any exclusive evidence pertaining to wrestling demonstrating a SUPERIOR skill of Brock Lesnar to that of Kurt Angle. Moreover, it is only conjecture that Brock had won his UFC title as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of wrestling criteria. Addendum: (2) Kurt Angle possess two NCAA championships, Sophomore year and Senior year at Clarions University. (1) Kurt Angle possess one World Wrestling Championship gold medal; 1995 (2) Kurt Angle possess one Olympic Gold medal; 1996 Atlanta Sources: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) https://secureapps.libraries.psu.edu...
Kurt Angle is a better wrestler (not wwe) than Brock Lesnar.

While the amateur wrestling-based accomplishments of Kurt Angle do outweigh those of Brock Lesnar, one must look at the full careers of both men to truly get an accurate representation of which is truly the best concerning amateur wrestling. Brock Lesnar went on in his career to become UFC champion, a title which he came to win and defend mostly for his skills with grappling and takedowns, one of the main objectives in amateur wrestling. After only four fights, Brock Lesnar faced the UFC champion and defeated him by ground striking, which requires expertise in contorting your opponent in a way in which strikes become available. Again, this is due to Lesnar's mastery of amateur wrestling. Due to his accomplishments in the UFC using mostly elements from his amateur wrestling career, Brock Lesnar is a better wrestler than Kurt Angle.
should people be allowed to carrie a gun if it is legal

There's a lot that I can say in favor of the affirmative position; however, for now I'll stick with a very short argument. Since the instigator of this debate has not yet presented a legitimate case for his side, and because this is a debate with 5 rounds for which I have to present my case, for now I'll refute what little claims the Con has actually presented in his first round. I'd also like to thank Con for the debate, and wish him good luck. Here we go... To begin, Con says that the State should t allow people to carry guns even if it is legal. However, the State restricting citizens from doing something legal would be a huge infringement upon rights, and require taking legal action despite citizens not having broken any laws. That said, I doubt I have to head into a whole defense of the 2nd amendment at the moment, though retain the right to bring it up in future rounds. Moving on, Con's reasoning for saying that guns should be prohibited are because (1) people are crazy, and (2) people will shoot people regardless. First, a majority of the citizens in this country are sane, and they should not be punished for the mental illness of the select few. Additionally, gun laws could be enacted in which it is required that only people with sufficient mental health (along with other requirements) can legally attain guns. Second, Con has not provided any proof or incentive that average citizens would go around shooting people. Because of this, we cannot accept his claim to be true. Now I'm not going to waste my time crafting a R1 argument discussing democracy and the constitution, statistics, why gun rights are necessary, etc. as many of my opponents don't even bother coming back to post in future rounds. So, at this point, since I have negated all of Con's claims (and made some of my own), I am ahead. It is now up to him to present any legitimate arguments which I am prepared to deconstruct in future rounds. Back to ye, Con.
Its bad to be gay

You do realize that Wikipedia is not a very reliable source? http://isites.harvard.edu... Now to get back on topic, Just because someone is more vulnerable to STDs doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad. It is still love, and people can search for love any which way they want. Just because they are more likely to get STDs from sexual actions, which they don't even need to have sex in the first place, and condoms can limit the spread of STDs. https://www.cdc.gov... Now, like I have said it is a choice,no matter how bad it is, it is their choice. Glad to debate this topic with you by the way!
Its bad to be gay

Sources? You can't just make a claim about homosexuals being at a higher risk of STDs without any real sources to back up your claim, all groups, including straight and homosexual males can both have an equal chance to receive STDs, it is not a homosexual exclusive disease, Im well aware that only straights can have vaginal sex. I also know it is natural. It isn't seriously bad either, its perfectly fine, it is their life choice.
Its bad to be gay

I will accept, I'm not supporting of any anti or pro homosexual remarks. What does it matter? Does it affect you in anyway? It is the choice of a human, not by someone else. If someone wants to be homosexual then what does it matter? Love is love, it's not up to others to decide. It's not bad either. Homosexual men or women are still human beings. They deserve as much respect as any normal person. Anal and oral sex, not to mention any other kind of sex is dangerous and can cause genital warts, HIV, any other type of sexual disease, it isn't just homosexuals who experience STD's you know?
Its bad to be gay

My argument is that its bad to be gay. Its WRONG to be gay because its a perversion of the God created natural order, but that debate is for another day. I'm here today to debate why its BAD. The first reason its bad is because its statistically proven that homosexual men live around 20 years shorter than straight men. Besides that, both anal and oral sex can cause serious viruses including genital warts, gonorrhea and HIV to name a few. As well as the fact that homosexuals are 2-6 times more likely to attempt suicide, with 50% saying they've attempted it twice. Some say they're depressed from discrimination, but with all these acceptance movements that hard to believe. I would just like to make it clear now that I am not anti-homosexuals, just anti-homosexuality. I don't want to force them to become straight, I just want them to know the side-effects of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all.
Russians are OK.

Russians are not okay, Pro has thus far proven them to be less than okay and any further argumentation from him would make them more than okay. If Pro chooses to define 'OK' as something other than okay, I will challenge them on the definition but furthermore be willing to try and prove that definition to also fall untrue for the resolution. Pro has the burden of proof, not me. We are yet to see a single contention as to Russians being okay.
Bacon is the best food ever.

My opponent begins by discussing the process in which bacon is made, giving no reason as to why that should indicate that bacon is the "best food ever". My opponent indicates the different kinds of bacon, so that everyone will find a food that they like. However, regardless of the type of bacon, if a person doesn't like bacon, they won't like the choices. If a person doesn't like to eat eggs, for example, regardless of whether the eggs are scrambled or hard-boiled, they still will not like eggs. Essentially, my opponent is saying that with "bacon", there is "something for everyone". However, with bacon, there is absolutely nothing for those who are concerned with health. My opponent mentioned bacon grease in the first round. Bacon grease has 38 calories per teaspoon, and composed almost entirely of fat without any other nutrients[1]. There are a large number of health consequences as a result of excessive fat, including obesity[2]. Therefore, as bacon has very little nutritional value, and has nothing for those that want to be healthy, bacon is not the "best food ever". [1] http://nutritiondata.self.com... [2] http://www.who.int...
Bacon is the best food ever.

Bacon is made by pigs. Pigs are very cool animals. They may roll in mud but that is just to cool of. It is like us going to the pool. The pig is killed and made into meat which includes bacon. There is also different kinds of bacon so everyone will find something they like. There is even veggie bacon for vegetarians to eat. For people who don't like to eat food made from pigs they can have turkey bacon. As you can see there is something for everyone in this 5 letter delicious word (the word is bacon).
Bacon is the best food ever.

As my opponent has the burden of proof as Instigator, she must prove that bacon is indeed the best food ever, my job is to disprove her statements and show that bacon is not the best food ever. My opponent claims that bacon is the "best food ever", and talks about its juiciness and greasiness, disregarding the fact that there are other juicy and greasy foods, including pizza and french fries[1]. She then talks about its amazingness and it being Heaven on earth, giving no evidence to support her reasoning. I assume that my opponent will be giving more detailed arguments in the next round, so I await her response. [1] . http://www.livestrong.com...
Bill Belichick Proved Spy-Gate Wasn't A Big Deal

Under the topic mentioned in round 3 I find myself in agreement with Pro, there's no reasonable individual that could claim that "Spygate" was the deciding factor in the Patriots's Super-bowl victories. The simple fact that it was being done by most, if not all, NFL teams past and present is highly indicative of an established trend. It would seem that Belichick served as an "example", a very public whipping if you will, to curb future occurrences of such behaviour. Upon accepting this debate I was under the belief that the contention was that Spygate in general, was blown out of proportion and should not have even been a story; since the success of the Patriots was achieved without its use. I leave the decision up to the voters.
Bill Belichick Proved Spy-Gate Wasn't A Big Deal

Whilst I agree with most of what my opponent has said, it is moot to the argument. The argument is about whether spy-gate had a major influence on the Patriot's success and most importantly their Superbowl wins. Their record before spy-gate was 87-39 and post spy-gate, as said previously, is 61-17. The defense "advantage" from spy-gate: The reason being is because a lot of teams like to adjust at the line after determining the play they believe the defense is going to run. By doing so, the Quarterback yells out code words that the offense only know.....except, of course, when a team had spy-gated. However, to make things less complicated, many teams will run the play as designed regardless of how the defense is looking, mainly to live to see another play, in contrast to having even the slightest of miscommunication that could be way for detrimental to the team. A few teams are slightly less broad than that; what they will do is have two plays called in the huddle. If the Quarterback doesn't like the play, he will shout, "kill, kill, kill", and this will tell his teammates that the first play is dead and they're now running the second play that was called. Only the extremely intelligent Quarterbacks and disciplined and rarely smartly gifted systematic players are able to run a complicated offense, in which a team audibles due to the QB's judgement on the play. And only one in the history of the Patriots spy-gating season had a QB that could call plays from the line of scrimmage and that being Peyton Manning. Nonetheless, a defensive miscue, i.e improperly diagnosing a signal or simply forgetting what it meant, could result in more damage than not knowing the play at all; thus, trying to get an advantage of the defensive side of the ball via spy-gating is extremely risky. Also, a former coach, Bill Cowher, admitted of cheating; he said this, "There's people in the stands that are sitting there looking at the signal, writing the signal down, and then matching up the 1st and 10 - here was the signal. You go back on 2nd and 10 - here was the signal. You do that for a whole game. You'd go back and match up the defenses with the signal, and you can come up with what the signal was. You don't need a videotape to do what they were talking about doing. And people were doing that - we were doing that. Everybody does that, you're trying to gain a competitive edge. There's nothing wrong with that." Ultimately, cheating will never be taken out of any game. Teams will always try to get an advantage. Unfortunately for Belichick, he was used as the guinea pig to stop this type of cheating, but that doesn't mean that any way their Super Bowl wins should be tainted, especially considering every team was virtually doing the same thing they were, or their success was based upon cheating.
Bill Belichick Proved Spy-Gate Wasn't A Big Deal

It is very difficult to claim any event as being "the most blown out of proportion story ever." especially concerning one of league wide corruption. It had been discovered that Bellichick had been recording teams since 2000 and as mentioned by Pro, the Patriots were not the only teams guilty of this offense (no pun intended). It could be argued, that the overwhelming success of the Patriots in the 2007 season could be attributed to the lack of information on the signals used by the Patriots. During a period where virtually every team was recording and deciphering opposing team"s signals, to conclude which team had the greatest advantage would be difficult if not impossible. Thus, it is very difficult to argue that the achievements of one team, post corruption, would nullify the corruption offenses committed by all other teams. The gravity of this controversy is much larger than one single team.
Bill Belichick Proved Spy-Gate Wasn't A Big Deal

Thank you for accepting my argument. Before the first week of the NFL season kicked off in 2007, former assistant coach of the Patriots, and at that time New York Jets head coach, Eric Mangini told the league about Belichick using spy-gate so he wouldn't get an advantage. Beforehand in 2006, Rodger Goodell sent on a memo stating that he wanted teams to stop using spygate because he knew it was going on. Therefore, Belichick wasn't the only one who was doing it. He was the only one that was caught. Even Jimmy Johnson, a two time Super Bowl winner, admitted to doing it on WEEI. The interviewer asked him if he stole signals; he replied, "Oh in a heartbeat, yeah. Yes I did." They then asked him if he did it by video and he replied, "Oh yeah, I did it with video and so did a lot of other teams in the league. Just to make sure that you could study it and take your time, because you"re going to play the other team the second time around. But a lot of coaches did it, this was commonplace." He followed that up by saying, "JJ: That"s what I"m saying. I was saying one of Marty Schottenheimer"s scouts, Mark Hatley, who has passed away now, Mark told me that"s how they did it, and Howard Mudd their offensive line coach with Kansas City, who now coaches for Tony Dungy, he was the best in the entire league at stealing signals." Since Spy-Gate, the Patriots are 61-17 including playoffs, the best record in the NFL. Let it be also known that the Patriots posted the best single season record ever in 2007 at 16-0, Tom Brady was injured the falling year and Matt Cassel, a 7th rounder out of USC, started every quarter that season except one, and that Tom Brady in 2009 was coming of a career threatening ACL injury that year - which was worst year in the post-spy gate era at 10-7 (including playoffs).
Black Lives Matter (Idea&fight is justified but naming strategy is not)

I don't think black lives matter, I think ALL lives matter, sure in some states there may be police officers that racially stereotype the people around them and then that leads them to make assumptions, but everyone is acting like the only people ever shot are black people and their not, white people are shot all the time by police instead and its wrong to be addressing the issue as such a one sided point of view because people should think of the issue as police are drawing their guns and discharging them when there is no purpose and that is leading to increased casualties but white people die as well and we should be tackling this issue together as human beings rather than separated by something as simple and childish as the colour of our skin.
Black Lives Matter (Idea&fight is justified but naming strategy is not)

The reason I disagree with the naming of BLM but not the idea behind is that to assume that most of America is racist I think is irrational, which is what the name BLM supports. Imagine if I accused you of doing something wrong which you did not do! I think that explains the anger on the RIGHT as some liberals if not all now nowadays claim anyone who disagrees with BLM is racist. I want anyone to logically convince me that the claim the name makes is not over conflated by same race killings and does not take into account cops that or of minorities as this would muddy the statistical proof of Institutional racism. I think the number of people who die from police incompetence is misrepresented by only mentioning the percentage of specific races when in reality the people that died in 2017 including all races is (0.000305%) of the total US Population. I believe attaching the racist card to this issue takes away from what the problem might be and not solve it. Words that seem to resonate with me when I hear the naming stategy for the movement are: Broad generalization fallacy Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) " basing a broad conclusion on a small sample. http://www.nizkor.org... What is Groupthink? Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of "mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment" (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making. http://www.psysr.org... RULES: Rational - Agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. No trolling 5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions 7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss. 8. No "K's" on the topic.
The American Military budget is excessive

First i would like to start by stating i have already posted this debate a few times, however my opponent has always forfeited, or simply stopped posting their arguments. This has frustrated me quite a bit, and as a result, you must have completed three debates to accept my challenge. Please do not accept this debate unless you have the intention of finishing it. Hello, I am a Sailor in the USN, and a proud patriot of the United States. One of the most common debates about the American government is our very large defense budget, of hundreds of billions of dollars, which is larger than the next several countries combined. While often criticized for being excessive i hope to prove that it is necessary to safeguard our interest. First Round- acceptance (no arguments here) Second Round- Opening statements, and arguments Third Round -Rebuttals Fourth Round- Additional arguments Fifth Round- Rebuttals to the fourth round and closing statements. I would appreciate if you stick with this format. Please no Ad hominem attacks. Thank you, and i look forward to the debate.
women are inferior to men

"you say a woman can grow a baby in their womb, but they still need a man to do this. seriously, why don't you get it?!?" It's true that a woman needs a man to become pregnant, but just because the women need men to impregnate them, does not make them lesser beings simply because they are reliant on the male race for impregnation. It does not make them lesser beings because men are just as reliant on women in regards to reproducing. The reliance is equal here. You need both members of gender to reproduce, and therefore neither can be considered less necessary than the other. Some might even argue that since women must participate in the process of reproduction for 9 months, and the male only has to participate for 10-30 minutes, that women are superior in this aspect. But once again, I return to my idea of objectivity. Clearly the average man and the average woman have different attributes. But you cannot objectively determine which attributes take precedence over others, so you cannot objectively say that a man is better than a woman.
women are inferior to men

The statement my opponent asserts is completely subjective, and thus makes it impossible to prove. Certainly, men are superior to women in some ways, generally. Such as strength. But, women generally have a higher average IQ than men (in countries where women receive equal treatment)[1]. Also, women can give birth to human life. They have the ability to grow a baby in their womb for 9 months. My point is that there are things men can do better and things women can do better. But the usefulness of these things are subjective, and thus it cannot be proven, for instance, that men being stronger is more important than women being able to give birth or be smarter. This is a pretty simple argument that I make. Men and women are not equal across the board, in all aspects. But it is impossible to objectively say that the different things that men are better at are more important. Therefore one cannot objectively say that either is better than the other. And I also view it this way. They're both useless without each other. Women are not inferior in the aspect of how much humanity needs them to survive. Source [1] http://abcnews.go.com...