BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists

God exists, based on the scientific evidence of the universe having a beginning. IF the universe had a beginning and the universe came from nothing as the big bang theory states, what created the universe had to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, and out of nature (supernatural) space less, timeless and immaterial because that qualifies as nothing. out of nature because nature is something and therefore cannot be nothing. personal because it choose to create. This is what God sounds like to me. A supernatural being that is personable. Also, there is no evidence for Darwinism being truthful. If you think there is please give some and your source of information. Also to deal with morality. everyone knows that right and wrong are, we may not always do the right thing. Let me give an example, is killing and eating babies for fun wrong? How do you know this is wrong? Because there is an objective standard written on your heart. Other wise, what Hitler did really wasn't wrong, it was just his opinion.
Who is better Tom Brady or Brett Favre

Pro's claims: 1. Brett Favre is more productive because Tom Brady has "never done things back to back. " 2. Brett Favre has a higher passer rating than Tom Brady. Rebuttal: 1. This is clearly not true. Pro offers no evidence to support his claim that Favre is more productive. I, on the other hand, have provided a number of statistics illustrating productivity. Tom Brady leads Favre in more touchdowns per game, a better completion percentage, and fewer interceptions thrown. As for doing "things back to back", Tom Brady led the New England Patriots to back to back NFL Super Bowl victories. Brett Favre has not done this. 2. Nothing could be further from the truth. Clearly my opponent has not consulted the actual statistics on passer rating. Allow me to remind him and the reader: Tom Brady has an overall passer rating of 92.9; Brett Favre has an overall passer rating of 85.7. (information gathered from www. nfl. com) ----------------------- CONCLUSION My opponent has offered no argument as to why Brett Favre is a better quarterback than Tom Brady. He has offered a few minor points, all of which I have proven inaccurate or irrelevent. As I have shown, Tom Brady is a more productive quarterback. This can be seen by his higher per game statistics. Brady is also a better leader, as is seen by his three super bowl victories compared to Favre's one. Perhaps the most important measure of a quarterback is his passer rating. As the facts show, Tom Brady far surpasses Brett Favre in this area. Therefore, Tom Brady is a better quarterback than Bret Favre.
Who is better Tom Brady or Brett Favre

My opponent states that the reason for Brett Favre having more records than Tom Brady is because Brett Favre has been playing much longer. That is not true. There are some quarterbacks that have played longer than Tom Brady but they still have a terrible record than Tom Brady. For example Professional debut 1999 for the Philadelphia Eagles Donovan Mcnabb has been playing much longer than Tom Brady but Tom Brady is better than him. Therefore I have proved my opponent wrong. Professional debut 2000 for the New England Patriots Tombrady started in 2000. My opponent's arguement has been proven wrong. As my opponent said about productive, Brett Favre is always productive. Tom Brady in his career, has never done things back to back. Brett Favre has a higher passers rating system than Tom Brady. Tom Brady just throws to Randy Moss. Brett Favre knows how to throw to the right person
Who is better Tom Brady or Brett Favre

Pro has cited a number of records held by Favre, or in which Favre is among the top three. This is the evidence he uses in his claim that Brett Favre is better than Tom Brady. The problem with this is that Brett Favre has been playingmuch longer than Tom Brady. Favre has played in 271 games, while Brady has played only 113. Given that Tom Brady is more overall productive, if he played the same number of games as Favre he would beat those records. Obviously someone who plays 271 games is going to have higher statistics than someone who has played 113. The important thing to look at is productivity, measured by output per game. Records alone do not make a greater player. Pro did not challenge my argument that Tom Brady is a more productive quarterback, so it flows through to the final round unchallenged. Pro did not challenge the importance of Passer rating on quarterback quality, so it extends to the final round as well. Pro claimed that holding more records makes a better leader. However, I find the number of championship victories to be a better indicator of leadership. Since Tom Brady is more productive and a better leader than Brett Favre, he is a better quarterback. Good luck in the final round.
Who is better Tom Brady or Brett Favre

I am glad my opponent gathered his statistics or evidence about this debate topic. Most Passes Attempted, Career 8,758 Brett Favre, Atlanta, 1991; Green Bay, 1992-2007 8,358 Dan Marino, Miami, 1983-1999 7,250 John Elway, Denver, 1983-1998 Looks like Tom Brady is not in the picture Most Passes Completed, Career 5,377 Brett Favre, Atlanta, 1991; Green Bay, 1992-2007 4,967 Dan Marino, Miami, 1983-1999 4,123 John Elway, Denver, 1983-1998 Once again Tom Brady is not in the picture Most Yards Gained, Career 61,655 Brett Favre, Atlanta, 1991; Green Bay, 1992-2007 61,361 Dan Marino, Miami, 1983-1999 51,475 John Elway, Denver, 1983-1998 Again he's not there Most Seasons, 3,000 or More Yards Passing 16 Brett Favre, Green Bay, 1992-2007 13 Dan Marino, Miami, 1984-1992, 1994-95, 1997-98 12 John Elway, Denver, 1985-1991, 1993-97 Look at this, he just is not better than Brett Favre. Should I go on. Most Games, 300 or More Yards Passing, Career 63 Dan Marino, Miami, 1983-1999 55 Brett Favre, Atlanta, 1991, Green Bay, 1992-2007 51 Dan Fouts, San Diego, 1973-1987 keeps going on Most Consecutive Seasons Leading League 4 Johnny Unitas, Baltimore, 1957-1960 3 Dan Marino, Miami, 1984-86 Steve Young, San Francisco, 1992-94 Brett Favre, Green Bay, 1995-97 2 By many players He's better than Tom Brady Most Touchdown Passes, Career 442 Brett Favre, Atlanta, 1991; Green Bay, 1992-2007 420 Dan Marino, Miami, 1983-1999 342 Fran Tarkenton, Minnesota, 1961-66, 1972-78; N.Y. Giants, 1967-1971 I told you Brett Favre has more records. Where do you see Tom Brady. For Example Tom Brady got injured in like the 1st or 2nd game. I think he's out for the season. Brett Favre is still healthy. (2008 season) Most Games, Four or More Touchdown Passes, Career 21 Dan Marino, Miami, 1983-1999 19 Brett Favre, Atlanta, 1991; Green Bay, 1992-2007 17 Johnny Unitas, Baltimore, 1956-1972; San Diego, 1973 Peyton Manning, Indianapolis, 1998-2007 Most Games, Four or More Touchdown Passes, Season 6 Dan Marino, Miami, 1984 Peyton Manning, Indianapolis, 2004 5 Dan Marino, Miami, 1986 Brett Favre, Green Bay, 1996 Donovan McNabb, Philadelphia, 2004 Tom Brady, New England, 2007 4 George Blanda, Houston, 1961 Vince Ferragamo, Los Angeles, 1980 Steve Young, San Francisco, 1994 Randall Cunningham, Minnesota, 1998 Daunte Culpepper, Minnesota, 2004 Tony Romo, Dallas, 2007 Here I will give it to Tom Brady. He showed up. Continue Most Consecutive Games, Touchdown Passes 47 Johnny Unitas, Baltimore, 1956-1960 36 Brett Favre, Green Bay, 2002-2004 30 Dan Marino, Miami, 1985-87 We have here that Brett Favre has way more records than Tom Brady. My opponent said that Tom Brady leads his team more than Brett Favre. But, if you look at my statistics , Tom Brady never showed up for that category. As a result Brett Favre is better than Tom Brady. I will wait for my opponent to counter my attack.
Who is better Tom Brady or Brett Favre

Below I will briefly analyze the relevent statistics: Brett Favre In 271 games played he: Completed 5,682 of 9,209 passes. (61.7%) Threw for 64,707 yards (238.77 per game) 463 touchdowns (1.71 per game) 305 interceptions (1.13 per game) 1 championship 85.7 passer rating. Tom Brady In 113 games played he: Completed 2,301 of 3,653 passes (63%) Threw for 26,446 yards (234.04 per game) 197 touchdowns (1.74 per game) 86 interceptions (0.76 per game) 3 championships 92.9 passer rating (All statistics are current as of 12/15/2008 and are gathered from www. nfl. com) ------------ Glancing over the statistics, one is immediately struck by the number of championships won by Tom Brady compared to the one super bowl victory of Brett Favre. Favre is a glutton of statistics, sure, but this is a result of his many more years in the league. The important thing to look at is productivity. Brett Favre threw more interceptions per game. Conversely, Tom Brady threw more touchdowns per game and with fewer yards per game. Additionally, his completion percentage is greater than that of Brett Favre. Perhaps most importantly is the passer rating. Passer rating measures completion percentage, passing yardage, touchdowns, and interceptions. The passer rating, then, can be taken as the overall efficiency of a quarterback. Overall, Tom Brady's passer rating (92.9) is much greater than Brett Favre's paltry score (85.7). The highest single season passer rating for Tom Brady (117.2) is far superior to Brett Favre's (99.5). Another interesting point to note in passer rating is Tom Brady's awe inspiring performance against Miami on October 21, 2007. In this game, he achieved the highest possible passer rating (158.3) that is possible. Only thirty-four quarterbacks have ever done this. Brett Favre, of course, in not among those. CONCLUSION Tom Brady was an overall more productive quarterback than Brett Favre; Tom Brady was a better passer, as seen by his far superior passer rating; and Tom Brady was a better leader, as seen by a higher number of championships. Therefore, Tom Brady is a better quarterback than Brett Favre.
The U.S. regime should be held accountable for sponsoring terrorists in Syria

The other day I listened to a debate (http://www.democracynow.org...) about the conflict in Syria and the legitimacy of the Free Syrian Army. It got me to thinking about all the ingenious arguments Pro might come up with for round 3. I thought a lot about how I would respond to these arguments and I was prepared for a serious discrediting of the FSA. So, despite looking forward to responding to some powerful arguments by Pro, I must admit that any concerns I had about the debate were put to rest after reading his third round. Continuing his utter disdain for citing legitimate sources, he literal references the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to support an argument. "The free Syrian army are terrorists, and Asad has said that the majority of them are foreign fighters." It's great that you're such a big fan of this dictator, but I think the voters might consider him an illegitimate source. The rest of his arguments are simply unsupported ipse dixits, calling me a "shill", more disdain for citing sources and, for whatever reason, copying all my sources into his round.
The U.S. regime should be held accountable for sponsoring terrorists in Syria

The free Syrian army are terrorists, and Asad has said that the majority of them are foreign fighters. Many of whom are the same rent-a-thugs from Libya that the west used to overthrow Gadafi with. The free Syrian army are comiting the same kinds of atrocities that they were in Libya. There are also numerous reports from the corrupted western corporate media that these "so called rebel fighters" were broken out of prison and were labeled as terrorists even by western regimes. I love how you shills like to use all these corrupted sources. This list here, is 100% corrupt. All of them from corrupted regimes, and corrupted corporations. The more of these bogus sites you post, the more deceptive you look. I would not take the majority of the information of these sources seriously. There's a reason why they have multi billion dollar budgets, and it's because they're posting disinformation. [1] http://www.aljazeera.com...... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...... [3] http://en.trend.az...... [4] http://www.washingtonpost.com...... [5] http://www.nytimes.com...... [6] http://www.google.com...... [7] http://ca.reuters.com...... [8] http://www.dailystar.com.lb...... [9] http://www.turkishweekly.net...... [10] http://www.aljazeera.com...... [11] http://www.aljazeera.com...... [12] http://www.abc.net.au...... [13] http://www.foxnews.com...... [14] http://lightbox.time.com...... [15] http://www.theguardian.com...... [16] http://www.indianexpress.com...... [17] http://articles.latimes.com......
The U.S. regime should be held accountable for sponsoring terrorists in Syria

Pro appears to be attempting to portray the Free Syrian Army as terrorists, though he doesn't name them explicitly. The FSA was formed in 2011[1] by defectors from the Syrian Armed Forces[2] to protect pro-democracy demonstrators from the Syrian regime[3] and its demonic militia known as shabiha[4], and to remove the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad[3] from power. The FSA is a secular, non-sectarian, group composed of Kurds[5], Turkmen[6], Palestinians[7], and Druze[8]. It claims to have Alawites members as well[9]. Pro is attempting to conflate the FSA with religious groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and Jabhat al-Nusra - an Al Qaeda associate which has been deemed a terrorist organization by the United Nations[10], the United States[11], Australia[12], and the United Kingdom[13]. The one citation Pro deigned to proffer proves nothing - at least nothing relevant to the resolution. According to TIME (the original source of Pro's citation): Because of the danger in reporting inside Syria, it was not possible to confirm the identity or political affiliation of the victim. Nor are we certain about the motivation of his killers. One eyewitness who lives in the area and was contacted by TIME a week after the beheadings said that the executioners were from ISIS, an Al-Qaeda franchise operating in Syria and Iraq.[14] What Pro's citation does prove, however, is the religious barbarism that Syria has descended into thanks to a lack of will by outside forces to provide much needed (and asked for[15][16]) assistance in replacing the Assad dictatorship with a secular, democratic state. The lack of the US's will (and that of the so called "Friends of Syria") to intervene is creating a situation where there soon may not be anything left in Syria which could be called "civilized". It's true that the US has given (an incredibly limited amount of) support to the Free Syrian Army.[17] But unless Pro can prove the FSA is a terrorist organization, using the definition of "terrorist" provided in round 1, or show that the US has supported some other terrorist organization in Syria, he has simply and flatly lost this debate. [1] http://www.aljazeera.com... [2] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] http://en.trend.az... [4] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [5] http://www.nytimes.com... [6] http://www.google.com... [7] http://ca.reuters.com... [8] http://www.dailystar.com.lb... [9] http://www.turkishweekly.net... [10] http://www.aljazeera.com... [11] http://www.aljazeera.com... [12] http://www.abc.net.au... [13] http://www.foxnews.com... [14] http://lightbox.time.com... [15] http://www.theguardian.com... [16] http://www.indianexpress.com... [17] http://articles.latimes.com...
The U.S. regime should be held accountable for sponsoring terrorists in Syria

The Syrian rebels are using terror to achieve political ends, in other words regime change. To replace Asad with a pro-American puppet. The U.S. regime has been providing financial, and military support, so has the U.S. puppet regime of Saudi Arabia, and pro-American regime Turkey. The U.S. regime is training terrorists in Turkey and deploying them into Syria. The group of terrorists/rebels that are operating in Syria are the same bunch used in Libya by the U.S. regime against Gadafi. The terrorists/rebels wouldn't last a day without the support of the U.S. regime. I hate using sources, and I advocate everyone to think for themselves, and not let some corporate article tell you what to think. But here is a link talking about the Syrian rebels terror. Obama and the CIA both have talked about supporting the terrorists/rebels. http://benswann.com...
The U.S. regime should be held accountable for sponsoring terrorists in Syria

The resolution uses loaded language to assert that the U.S. government is sponsoring terrorists in Syria. This is rather like saying a man should be help accountable for beating his wife. Well of course he should be held accountable. The real question is: Did he beat his wife?So Pro needs to argue that the U.S. government is sponsoring terrorists in Syria. This is absolutely essential since to do otherwise would be to simply state an uncontroversial legal fact, i.e., entities should be held accountable for committing crimes.DefinitionsTerrorist: A person who causes terror, especially to achieve political ends.Sponsor: To provide financial or military support.
The U.S. regime should be held accountable for sponsoring terrorists in Syria

So I've been hearing from all the credible sources that the U.S. regime is backing terrorists in Syria. I think we are all against terrorism here, and the U.S. regime has been backing terrorism, so what kind of punishment should be inflicted upon the U.S. regime for their role in providing support to terrorists? Well, they did the same thing in Libya and got away with it. The western corporate media talks a lot about the war on terror, so here we have a regime who is obviously supporting terror. So if we're going to fight terror, then lets bring the supporters of terror to justice.
"acceptance only" for first rounds is a waste of time

the notable amount of time thing. pro starts a debate. con accepts. pro acknowledges. con debates. these steps take a notable amount of time. if we didn't have the accepts phase, the debating would begin right away. time is wasted then because of the accepts phase. 1. con says rules cannot be established if debating begins right away. actually, rules can be established in that first post just as well. i suppose there is the possibility that further clarification can be gathered with con's first response about the rules. perhaps in this limited istuation acceptance debates have a point. 2. con says people aren't stupid enough to accept after noticing arguemnts in first round. actually, this happens a lot. in fact, the highest debater on this website just finished a debate with me where he did the exact same thing. so basically if we have a specific reason for acceptance only then it's fine. if we don't then it's a waste of time. i guess con could be said to win cause my statement was pretty general. but besides what he points out, it's a waste of time.
"acceptance only" for first rounds is a waste of time

"most debates happen over a notable amount of time. that means, when the initiator comes back to debate, he has to mere make note that someone accepted his debate. then they have to wait again for the opponent to respond."My opponent is going to have to be more articulate... I am not able to glean a coherent message from this statement no matter how I look at it...My opponent's main case is that all the problems faced by acceptance debates are also faced by non-acceptance debates, since Con will always have more opportunities for rebuttals. She backs that up with the following outlines:without accept:r1 argument by pro, argument and rebuttal by conr2 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by conr3 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by conwith acceptr1 argument by pro, accept by conr2 acknowledgment of pro, argument and rebuttal by conr3 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by conNeedless to say, there are some major problems with these...1) It don't allow Pro to set any rules for the debate, since he's presenting arguments straight off the bat. Without rules, a debate is susceptible to getting completely derailed by semantics and/or trolling. I was arguing that acceptance rounds should be allowed *under the assumption* that round 1 is for rules, since that is the norm on DDO...2) It assumes that Con would still be stupid enough to post "I accept" even after observing that Pro has already posted his arguments in round 1... Again, I was arguing that first round should be for Con's acceptance ONLY IF Pro posted rules in round 1, which is usually the case.My opponent then provides another possible debate outline...alternative with accept scenarior1 topic by pro, accept by conr2 argument by pro, argument and rebuttal by conr3 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by conyou see con is going to get more rebuttal time no matter the approach. you'd have to include restrictions on how format of how responses are made for it to be equal.Yes... that is the point of presenting rules in round 1... so that you can specify things like the second round being only for opening arguments, thus solving the problem of Con having more opportunities for rebuttals than Pro. CONCLUSIONSMy opponent has fundamentally misunderstood my argument by ignoring the fact that, generally, in round 1, Pro simply presents the topic and rules, rather than jumping straight into arguments. Due to that misunderstanding, she has not refuted my unequal rounds case at all, which relied on the assumption that round 1 is for Pro's presentation of arguments. Also, she seems to have dropped her contention regarding time (unless that incoherent starting statement was meant to address it...)I have fulfilled my BOP by showing that there is good reason to follow the Round 1 Topic/Acceptance format, whereas my opponent has not, relying on irregular cases and a misunderstanding of general debate format to make her argument.
"acceptance only" for first rounds is a waste of time

most debates happen over a notable amount of time. that means, when the initiator comes back to debate, he has to mere make note that someone accepted his debate. then they have to wait again for the opponent to respond. acceptance debates have the same problems as regular debates. might has well do regular debates. ------ without accept: r1 argument by pro, argument and rebuttal by con r2 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by con r3 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by con with accept r1 argument by pro, accept by con r2 acknowledgment of pro, argument and rebuttal by con r3 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by con in this accept scenario, con still gets more rebuttal time alternative with accept scenario r1 topic by pro, accept by con r2 argument by pro, argument and rebuttal by con r3 argument and rebuttal by pro, argument and rebuttal by con you see con is going to get more rebuttal time no matter the approach. you'd have to include restrictions on how format of how responses are made for it to be equal. acceptance without anything more then is no different than regular debates.