BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anderson "The Spider" Silva is the best pound for pound fighter in the world.

In the past 10 fights: BJ Penn: Is the current lightweight champion. Has fought across 4 total weight classes to compile a record of 6 wins and 4 losses and has held the UFC welterweight belt. Georges St-Pierre: Is the current Welterweight champion. Has 9 wins and 1 loss in his previous 1o fights. Lyoto Machida: Is the current Light Heavyweight champion. Has 16 wins and zero losses in his career, 10 and 0 in his previous 10 fights. Fedor Emelianenko: Holds the WAMMA World Heavyweight Championship. Has 31 wins and 1 loss in his career, with 10 wins and zero losses in his previous 10 fights. I argue that his ten fight streak, although impressive, is not the benchmark he surpassed that makes him the best pound for pound fighter in the world. Too much evidence exists that points to other men as being in on the same level as Silva, nullifying the argument that he is the clear choice as the best pound for pound fighter in the world. In regards to the level of competition for the middleweight division, mmanews.com and the USA today both only include one middleweight, Anderson Silva, in their top 10 pound for pound rankings. I beleive that this is a resounding statement made objectively about the comparison of competition amongst divisions. Simply too much evidence is presented that reinforces the fact that one clear cut pound for pound fighter does not exist.
Anderson "The Spider" Silva is the best pound for pound fighter in the world.

Anderson Silva's 10 win streak, the best in the UFC, establishes him as the best fighter in the fighting promotion, which is currently the best fight promotion in the world. By our defined terms, his dominance makes him the best pound for pound fighter in the world. Furthermore, my opponent's argument that the middleweight division does not possess the level of talent necessary to compete with the lightweight and light heavyweight classes is fallacious. In the current middleweight division of the UFC, two previous Pride champions, not including Anderson Silva, are within the top 5 contenders. According to Sherdog, the foremost ranking for fighters in the world, Nate Marquardt, Dan Henderson, Demian Maia, and Vitor Belfort round out the top 5 as the top 5 middleweights in the world, all of whom are in the UFC. The level of competition at middleweight is just as high as in the other divisions, and Silva's success should not be discounted.
Anderson "The Spider" Silva is the best pound for pound fighter in the world.

The biggest variable that continues to derail the continuity or comparison is the term "best pound for pound fighter". I still beleive that the comparison contains too much information to declare Silva the best pound for pound fighter in the world when fighters such as BJ Penn, Fedor Emelianenko, Georges St. Pierre, and Lyoto Machida have comparable resumes. When taking into consideration, Silva does not hold the most wins or the least losses by one of these elite fighters, nor has he had the breadth of competition like BJ Penn has. My opponent also cites experts as indicating how Anderson Silva is the best pound for pound fighter in the world; however, on other outlets Silva is not recognized as the best pound for pound fighter. According to the mmanews.com, sherdog.com, profighting-fans.com, and fighting-mma.com, Fedor Emelianenko is rated the #1 top pound for pound fighter in the world. This reinforces my argument that no clear top pound for pound fighter exists, and as a result, my opponent's claim is false. Another concern I have with my opponent's argument is the suggestion that the level of competition that Silva is competing against at middleweight is comparable to the competition of other fighters. Across the board, the middleweight weight class in mma competition is very weak, and does not contain the same caliber of explosive, dangerous athletes like the lightweight and light heavyweight divisions do. As I have said previously, I do not feel there is enough evidence to determine that any one of these other fighters are superior; however, I do feel that enough evidence exists that indicates Silva is the clear best pound for pound fighter in the world.
Anderson "The Spider" Silva is the best pound for pound fighter in the world.

One key factor my opponent has neglected to address is that Silva has 10 wins and zero losses in his past 10 fights, winning every UFC event he has participated in. Only one of these bouts has gone to decision, and 80% of his fights have ended by the middle of the second round. His dominance over his weight class satisfies questions of depth within the division, and his broad experience across the middleweight, light heavyweight, and heavyweight divisions leave no questions as to how broad his impacts are. My opponent also calls into question the quantity of wins or the quantity of losses. This would be appropriate if we were arguing who was the best fighter of all time, but the parameters limit this argument to the best current pound for pound fighter is. Over the last 10 fights, Silva has lost zero of them and ended all but one of them via knockout or submission. This dominance across two weight classes cements his position as the best current pound for pound fighter in the world. As of the current moment, Anderson Silva is the most dominate fighter in the world in his weight class. Assuming that the talent levels for each weight class are somewhat equitable since they are composed of the greatest fighters in the world at each level, then Silva has to be recognized as the best pound for pound fighter in the world. As no one has found the dominance of competition like Anderson Silva has, this makes him the clear, unquestionable best pound for pound fighter in the world.
Anderson "The Spider" Silva is the best pound for pound fighter in the world.

I want to begin by thanking my opponent. I accept most of the terms he has laid out in his argument; however, I feel that the comprehensive definition of "best pound for pound" is as follows: "The fighter who illustrates the most dominate control, be it horizontally or vertically within the divisions and levels of talent available in the world." Based on this definition, Anderson Silva is not the definitive best pound for pound fighter in the world. Even further, I question the definition as to how dominance and control are quantified: is dominance only in record, or is it in wins, losses, or stoppage time? As too many arguments exist that level the playing field amongst various fighters, multiple fighters stand out equally as finalist candidates for the best pound for pound fighter. As a result, no one candidate can be crowned. My opponent first begins by suggesting that Sylva's dominate fighting record validates his claim that Sylva is the best fighter in the world. However, amongst arguably the 20 most elite fighters in the world, He possesses relatively average win and loss numbers. If being defined by the quantity of wins, Travis Fulton possesses 191 sanctioned wins, with 61 coming from knockout and 124 coming from submission. More notable fighters include Wanderlei Silva, who has 32 wins with 23 knockouts, or Fedor Emelianenko who has 31 wins with 1 loss. Both individuals fight at very high levels of competition, but are unable to be put into direct comparison because they are not in the same weight class as Silva; however by wins in comparison to competition level, Fedor Emielianeko is easily identifiable as the more dominate fighter when compared to Anderson Silva. The same can be said for Georges St-Pierre whose professional record of 21 wins and 2 losses (that were at the elite hands of the welterweight champion of the time); there are several other men that can lay claim to the title of the best pound for pound fighter in the world, not just Silva. Furthermore, my opponent highlights that Silva's success across weight classes makes him the best pound for pound fighter. However, BJ Penn has fought across 5 weight classes in his career, owning the belts in lightweight and welterweight and seeing success in light, welter, middle, and light heavyweight. According to my opponent's criteria of dominance across weight classes, BJ Penn would be an equal contender for the title of best pound for pound fighter in MMA. Additionally, Silva has not proved himself to be a savant or guru of a particular fighting either. While Silva is very proficient in jiu jitsu and muay thai kickboxing, he is not recognized as the foremost expert in them. I do not deny that Silva is one of the best fighters in the world; however I do conclude that based on the evidence I have presented, there are too many other viable candidates who could be easily be considered the best pound for pound fighter in the world, thereby rendering my opponent's argument fallacious.
The seven day creation in Genesis 1 is literal!

Since my opponent did not arguement my points I made then it leads one to think that the 'Seven days of creation is in fact literal. I will not build anymore on my case in this round, I will just clarify on some of my pervious points. Gen 1:1 - was the creation of time, space, and matter. This is agreed by science as the starting point and material to all we know. Gen 1:2- After the initial creation something caused the earth to be desolate, 'formless and void.' The cause for this can be many reasons but the facts we have are that it was desolate. Gen 1:3-31- God started to replenish and repair the earth. I know this is not the usual position by a creationist but it seems pretty logical to me considering things we know from science. I thank my opponent again. I hope next she fires back. If not then I will be happy to talk more on this myself. In the next round regardless if my opponent replies, I will give a verse by verse interpretation of Genesis 1.
The seven day creation in Genesis 1 is literal!

All I have to do is disprove one aspect of Genesis in order to invalidate the idea that its narrative describes literal truth. Genesis describes the primary creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity. Apparently my opponent is a YEC (Young Earth Creationist). YECs believe that the Universe, Earth, and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God sometime around 6,000 years ago. They believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis for their beliefs [1]. YEC was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century. Most scientists began to see it as a non-scientific position and little more than religiously motivated pseudoscience. In addition to those heathen scientists, most theologians themselves also reject a literal interpretation of Genesis on the basis that it is completely incompatible with science [3]. I wish my opponent the best of luck in establishing his burden of proof. [1] Womack, Mari. Symbols and Meaning: A Concise Introduction. AltaMira Press (2005). [2] http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu... [3] http://books.google.ca...
Classical music is better than modern

In my opinion, classical music is more better than modern. Why do I think so? Advantages of classical music, First, classical music can help you to overthrow stress. Second, classical music helps to concentrate, and think more properly Third,During studying and listening for classical music as the background, we are better learning and doing work. http://www.ehow.com... Bad impact of modern music. First, in counter toward classical music , modern music cause aggresive behavior , which may lead to violence. Second, a lot of modern music contains of words about death, killing, drugs, alcohol, which may lead to doing this things by lesteners. http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Subbed Anime vs. Dubbed

"Just read faster and you'll know what's going on." What if you are blind and only focus on sound? What if you aren't quick at reading? Anime and other television shows are all about entertainment. They aren't a test to see how fast you can read.You believe that anime sounds terrible dubbed and that their mouths move out of time. has 50 amazing animes that have perfect mouth movement to the words that the character is saying. It even shows the amount of votes each one of the animes recieved in oer to make the top 50 list. In japanese their mouths also move out of time, as no movie or show (unless acted in real life) has good mouth moving time. It sounds weird, but it is true. and more links show that dubbed anime is also one of the most preerable animes or television shows to watch. "Just deal with learning Japanese." Don't you think it would be a bit hard learning Japanese with all of the correct sounds and pitch of voice compared to English? If it was in English then all you need to learn is the tune and words. Learning it in Japanese you would have to learn the tune, sounds, pitches, timing and correct format of the Japanese language. even has a battle of our points right here. Both are okay, but they truly suit your personallity. Dubbed is preferable for me, I hate reading and will try and avoid it where ever possible. However, with you, you listen to the voice more and love Japanese. So, both are good, but it is okay to watch dubbed and/or subbed. http://www.crunchyroll.com... has shown that your last point is wrong- 'by the way, dubbed comes out much later than subbed. You need to wait longer for dubbed to come out.' Over the years technology has changed and has always aided our community to bece better. It is the year 2015 and they began translating Japanese to make dubbed anime in 1960 according to http://en.wikipedia.org....Overall, dubbed anime is certainly better than subbed because when watching TV, you aren't reading a book, TV is for pure enjoyment and pleasure. Dubben anime is more fluent and easier to understand, aiding at the fact that you don't have to pause every so often to re-read what was going on. Dubbed anime is more preferable for those who are English, why do you think they made it into English in the first place?
Subbed Anime vs. Dubbed

"I can prove this wrong as that in anime, it is more about the character and emotions rather than how fast you can read." If you listen to the actual Japanese, then you will actual get more of the character's characteristics and emotions. I love it when people say that you can't listen to something in subbed anime. Listen to the Japanese. "Anime that is dubbed is much easier to memorise and know what is going on." If anime is dubbed, it alters all the voices and you don't need to actual memorize what is going on. Just watch the show and enjoy the subtitles. Dubbed voice actors don't even sound anything close to the actual anime. The subbed anime voice actors were chosen for those specific roles and it should stay that way. "You don't have to pause or re-wind to re-read something and it is certainly more fluent." Just read faster and you'll know what's going on. If you watch dubbed, it just shows how small your attention span is and shows that your basically a really lazy person. When you talked about more fluent, shouldn't the Japanese be a little more fluent in anime because it's anime. Real anime lovers watch subbed because the dubbed anime just ruins all the voices of all the roles. Nothing in anime sounds good in English. But Americans decided to alter the voice acting and change it all into English. It doesn't sound good at all. "Plus, the theme song is much easier to learn in English. It is harder to learn it if you don't speak that language (Japanese.)" Well, just learn the song and it will take longer. Just deal with learning Japanese. You could probably do the same thing to anime songs as a lot of people did to Gangnam Style. Just get all the right notes and sing it. It's okay if you don't speak the language, just listen to the beauty of Japanese. Just widen your horizons and watch anime subbed. Japanese does sound really pretty. By the way, dubbed comes out much later than subbed. You need to wait longer for dubbed to come out.
Subbed Anime vs. Dubbed

http://www.fanpop.com... says: I can never understand why people like subbed anime so much. I like the dub way better, you can hear what they say, what voice, what tone. In the subs you have to read and I can't understand what word on what tone... And mostly sometimes I have to pause to read if the sentice is long but they say it all so fast. I agree to this statement as you have to pause sometimes in the heat of the film to read what the character has said in terms of subbed. Some believe that subbed anime makes your readinskills faster, I can prove this wrong as that in anime, it is more about the character and emotions rather than how fast you can read.Some comments from http://myanimelist.net... suggest that you can learn to read faster. 'Practice by watching Monogatari and trying to read every sub without having to pause'. Anime that is dubbed is much easier to memorise and know what is going on. You don't have to pause or re-wind to re-read something and it is certainly more fluent. Plus, the theme song is much easier to learn in English. It is harder to learn it if you don't speak that language (Japanese.)
Subbed Anime vs. Dubbed

Anime subbed is much better than dubbed because it is much more original than the dubbed version. Americans have had a problem with the lip reading and how it does not match their actual lip reading. With dubbed, that makes the dialogue not match their actual lip saying rhythms. Anime is meant to just be in Japanese where the subbed does not affect it at all except putting any subtitles. Dubbed actors don't even actually sound like their actual people selves. Subbed helps make people's reading speed faster. Everything in dubbed anime does not sound right. For example, in Fairy Tail, Erza's voice is much deeper in the dubbed anime.
Subbed Anime vs. Dubbed

dubbed:-Provide (a film) with a soundtrack in a different language from the original. -Make a copy of (a sound or video recording). subbed:-A submarine. -A subscription. -A substitute, especially in a sporting team. -A subeditor. -An advance or loan against expected income. -Replace or be replaced; substitute. -Lend or advance a sum to (someone) against expected income. -Subedit.
Socialism

“copying and pasting what you found online” – if you meant the dictionary definitions, well, yes, I copied them online – I haven’t actually written my own dictionary, so it would have been difficult to draw from it. As I pointed out, China is a Communist-Capitalist fusion, certainly not a Socialist state. That is what the ‘Chinese Dream’ proposes – individualism, Capitalistic notions, etc. If you want to check out the great history of Chinese freedoms, check out the genocides in Tibet, as the Dalia Lama put it, “Tibetans were not only shot, but also were beaten to death, crucified, burned alive, drowned, mutilated, starved, strangled, hanged, boiled alive, buried alive, drawn and quartered, and beheaded.” Or check out the time when it was legitimately Communist – back when Mao Zedong led the nation through the ‘Great Leap Forward’, his attempt to modernize Communism, in which over a period of three years some 30-40 Million Chinese starved to death. The villages starved, some 50% of the village population just died of hunger. Famine absolutely ravaged China, meanwhile, the Japanese, who went Capitalistic instead of Communist, experienced decade after decade of growth and a place in the top echelon of the international community. Sources http://www.heritage.org... http://www.independent.co.uk...
Socialism

Free healthcare and free schooling are ideas with socialistic roots perhaps, but that is not what Socialism is. Socialism definition: “a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” A Socialist government controls everything in the economy and the idea is that the wealth made from this production is then spread around a community. Communism is a little different: “a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.” Communism can be a brutal, evil way to run a government; for example, Communist Russia under Stalin, who slaughtered 56-62 million people. Socialism was where Communism came from. Under Lenin it was more Socialist, but as any historian will tell you, any nation that went pure Socialist fell apart or went to a brutal totalitarian system. Capitalism fused with some Socialist polices seems to be the modern way to go, however, pure Socialist states hardly exist anymore.
Socialism

Socialism would not only benefit the nation by providing free health care and free schooling but the rite word for communism is commune this means for the community and communism is not only the best source to eliminate social class but it is an economic system not a form of government! Many people have not yet realized how communism is more so than a structure for a nations economy, this means it can be used in all forms of government such as democracy, dictatorship, republics, etc.
Socialism

I guess this is a speed debate, so I will be pressed for time and therefore will be forced to be terse in my response. Socialism as model is deeply flawed by its idealistic nature. It depends on several suppositions that are false. Firstly, it seems convinced that mankind will share resources and power. It will not, and never has, epically in a large, nationalistic context. Redistribution will inevitably be corrupted, as we saw with the perverted son of socialism, that is, Communist Russia, during the starvation of the Ukraine, in which farmers toiled only to have their crops sent away to Russia. Socialism discourages innovation and exceptionalism – it takes incentive away from those who would otherwise be working harder to get richer. Entrepreneurship and competitiveness is damaged in this way. Businesses that might be weeded out through Capitalistic choice are allowed to flounder onwards, even if the product is subpar. A brief glance at history will show that it never lasts. Socialism gives birth to Communism when Socialism inevitably fails. The individual is nothing – it’s all about the state. The state determines, character, thoughts, businesses, etc. There are only four Marxist-Lenist states left; China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam. China has flourished not because of Socialist polices, but because of widespread reforms, under Xi Jinping, for example, his introduction of the “Chinese Dream”. These attempts to ‘modernize’ socialism are in reality attempts to inject Socialism with Capitalism so that Socialism doesn’t breed chaos and violence, although, in China, it still does on occasion. So I ask Pro to look at the long history of Nations who went full Socialist and tell me which ones continue to find success in pure Socialism.
Medical weed

First there are other drugs you can use to ease pain that is just as effective as weed. Also it is highly addictive and could make Americans a bunch a junkie dumb arses. This would result in terrorists reallizing we are retards and bombing the US, which would screw up everything in the world if terrorists took over. America is the best nation ever and with a change in power to the terrorists the world would be plumeted into destruction.