BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Color Blue

In my argument, I will be arguing that the popularity of the color blue (for guys) is an effect of peer pressure. For clarity, I offer the following definition: peer pressure: social pressure by members of one's peer group to take a certain action, adopt certain values, or otherwise conform in order to be accepted. (from dictionary. com) My opponent says that "the color blue is popular because say the sky is blue and exists pleasantly in nature. " However, i disagree because many other colors also exist in nature but are not considered "popular" for males (an example of this would be the color pink for the wildflowers. ) Why is pink not a "popular" color for males? Mainly because pink is associated with girls and buys do not want to be thought of as "girly" so they reject this color. This is an example of peer pressure. People also struggle to be accepted by the society. If they believed that one thing was more acceptable than another, then they would hurry to conform. Research also shows that peer pressure has more impact on adolescent behavior than any other factor. (. http://www.aspeneducation.com...) While most people associate peer pressure with the pressure to do drugs, to get a girl/boyfriend, etc, peer pressure also influences the smaller areas in our life, such as our opinions. We, as people, want to be accepted by society. No one wants to be an outcast. Therefore, we do whatever is possible to be accepted--in this case, caving in to peer pressure. For the reasons stated above, blue is a popular color because of peer pressure and influences that are not our own opinions.
The Color Blue

The color blue (meaning all shades of blue) is a very popular color. On this debate we will argue why this color is so popular. In this debate I will be affirming that the color blue is a popular color for males because of factors that are not peer pressure and society's approval of this color for males. To make this a little clearer so the person who accepts this debate will understand. I will argue that the color blue is popular because say the sky is blue and exists pleasantly in nature. My opponent will argue that people are influenced by society and peers and their opinions are influenced on peer pressure etc. Resolved: The color blue (being all colors) is a popular color due mainly to other reasons besides peer and societal influence. I do not wish that my opponent argue that people can view colors differently through there eyes etc. The whole philosophy argument that my blue is your yellow etc.
Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant

For this argument the sources I will be using for Micheal Jordan and Kobe Bryant are listed below. Micheal Jordan- http://espn.go.com... Kobe Bryant- http://espn.go.com... Shooting statistics Kobe Bryant A. Highest Points per game list by season. (with Field Goal Percentage) 1. 35.4, 45% 3005-2006 2. 31.6, 46.3% 2006-2007 3. 30.0, 45.1% 2002-2003 Micheal Jordan 1. 37.1, 48.2% 1986-1987 2. 35.0, 53.5% 1987-1988 3. 33.6, 52.6 1989-1990 Just from this you can tell Micheal Jordan was a better shooter. In addition Micheal Jordan's career scoring average is 30.1 Points per game, while in Kobe's 3rd highest scoring year he averaged 30.0 points Per Game, not to forgot Jordan shot 49.7% while Kobe has currently shot 45.4% in his career. Rebounding statistics Kobe Bryant 6.9 2002-2003 6.9 1999-2000 6.3 2007-2008 Micheal Jordan 8.0 1998-1999 6.9 1989-1990 6.9 1994-1995 In total Micheal Jordan averaged 6.3 rebounds per game, while Kobe only averaged 5.2. Some say this is only because Micheal Jordan is taller, I think not because he also averaged less turnovers per game despite being the taller player. ( MJ= 2.7 KB- 3) Teammates Micheal Jordan Pro has already stated all of Micheal Jordan's good teammates, but Rodman also played alongside Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant Had amazing talent alongside through his career that led him to championships. Glen Rice http://espn.go.com... Dennis Rodman (1998-1999) http://espn.go.com... Shannon Brown http://espn.go.com... Matt Barnes http://espn.go.com... Lamar Odom http://espn.go.com... Derek Fisher http://espn.go.com... Andrew Bynum http://espn.go.com... Pau Gasol http://espn.go.com... Metta World Peace http://espn.go.com... Jordan Farmar http://espn.go.com... Dwight Howard http://espn.go.com... Steve Nash http://espn.go.com... Shaquille O'Neal (was 1 vote shy of a unanimous MVP vote.) http://espn.go.com... http://articles.philly.com... Awards Pro argues that Kobe is better because he won more awards, but Kobe skipped college and went straight to the NBA while Micheal Played for North Carolina for 2 years. In addition Micheal Jordan left the NBA for 2 years while in pursuit of a Baseball career to avenge his father's death. So in reality Jordan could have won more awards if he played in NBA while in college and played in the NBA while playing Baseball. I would also like to suggest that we have a 3 round debate and list a closing sentence in round 4.
Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant

Is Kobe Bryant better than Michael Jordan? Yes, Kobe Bryant is better than Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan was elected 11 times to the All-NBA, and yes that's impressive. Meanwhile, who is still active on the Lakers roster, has been elected 14 times to the All-NBA in his career. Michael Jordan was elected to 14 NBA All Stars Games, but Kobe has been elected to 15 All Star Games. Yes, Michael Jordan is considered the best in NBA history, but Kobe Bryant has not had an All Star team on his team. It was Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and Steve Kerr. Kobe has only had Shaq, and he left only after 3 NBA championships won. That means Kobe has won 2 championships on his own. However, Michael Jordan has always had help around him on the basketball court. These are the reasons Kobe is better than Jordan.
Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant

Since my opponent didn't debate I have the ability to fix errors in my argument. in point 2, I meant to say Dennis Rodman averaged 11.2 Rebounds per game, not 1.2. I would hope voters can tell who proved who was better than who, in short 1. Michael Jordan is 6 for 6 in the NBA finals. Kobe is 5 for 7 in the NBA finals. 2. Michael shot 49.7% while Kobe shot 45.4% per game. 3. Michael had 6.2 Rebounds per game, while Kobe has averaged 5.3 per game. 4. Michael had 5.3 assists per game, while Kobe currently has 4.8 per game 5. Micheal had 0.8 Blocks per game while Kobe has averaged 0.5 per game. 6. Michael had 2.3 Steals per game, while Kobe has averaged 1.5 per game. 7. Michael had 2.7 turnovers per game, while Kobe has averaged 3.0 per game. 8. Michael Jordan had 866 games in a row in which he scored double-digit. 9. Michael was the only player to record a triple-double during a all-star game.
Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant

Michael Jordan did the honorable thing and avenged his father's death by laying the sport his father loved. I never said he would have done better I said he would have won more awards. "So in reality Jordan could have won more awards if he played in NBA" Jordan didn't need to be dominant as a Wizard, he had nothing left to prove to the world he won 6 titles in NBA finals appearances, however he did much better than decent, even in his final year he averaged 20.0 Points per game, 44.5% shooting, 82.1% from the free Throw line, 6.1 rebounds per game, and only 2.1 turnovers which was the lowest in his career. I wonder how you call this decent at the age of 40 in a league dominated by shooting guards who all wanted to be like Mike. ( Allen Iverson, Kobe Bryant, Tracy Mcgrady, Allan Houston, Reggie Miller, Vince Carter, Larry Hughes, ETC.) http://espn.go.com... Refutation 1. Glen Rice averaged 18.3 points per game in his career, to put that into perspective Pippen averaged 16.1 a game. Glen Rice- http://espn.go.com... Scottie Pippen- http://espn.go.com... 2. Dennis Rodman did play for the Lakers for 1 season and was a big influence to Kobe Bryant and averaged 1.2 Rebounds per game as a Laker below you will find 2 highlight videos. 3. wow, you didn't even refute Derek Fisher. 4. Paul Gasol has averages 18.4 points and 9.2 Rebounds per game, and even now he had a bad year only because of injuries, and Earl Clark taking some of his playing time. ( 13.7 points per game, 8.6 rebounds per game) 5. Lamar Odom is one of Kobe's closest friends and has always been available mentally for Kobe http://lakersblog.latimes.com... 6. I would like a reply to my round suggestion, 7. Spelling and Grammar errors are easy to find, I'll use a quote from you for an example. "Good points and you brought great facts. But, you mentioned Michael Jordan could've done better if he didn't go to college or go to the MLB?" you should have said- Good points and you brought great facts, but you mentioned Michael Jordan could've done better if he didn't go to college and/or the MLB?
Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant

Good points and you brought great facts. But, you mentioned Michael Jordan could've done better if he didn't go to college or go to the MLB? Well, the way I see it that was his decision, and Kobe has suffered for being in the league for 17 years. More years to have young talent come up. MJ even came back to the Washington Wizards and he was "decent", but wasn't dominant in Washington. You also mentioned that Kobe had talent around him on the court, and you even had a list. First, Glen Rice was only good in college (Michigan). Second, Dennis Rodman wasn't on the Lakers. Yes, I agree with Derek Fisher, but Pau Gasol has slumped, Lamar Odom was always involved with he Kardashians. So, basically Kobe has been by himself mentally on the court. Just him and Phil Jackson. And, by the way you misspelled Michael every time.
The Christian God Does not Exist (3)

Although you may have used text from the bible to support your statement that" it is not logicaly possible for God to exist" , i would like to tell you that God need not be logical, people tend say that God does not exist because we do not have the intellect to understand his ways and thoughts. Just because God does not give everthing we ask for that doesn't mean God does exist. We christians belive in someone whom we have not seen, yet we belive i him, praise him, and thank him for everything he has given us because we have FAITH and it is written in the bible blessed are those who belive in me without seeing me. Just because we are HARDHEARTED , UNFORGIVING AND REFUSE to accept our SINS , the easiest way to escape all these titles it is easy to say GOD does not exist , just because we cannot comprehened his works, WE CAN'T SAY THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. As a matter of fact just before signing to the website i made a prayer request, and after writing this i even confidence that GOD(JESUS CHRIST) will answer my prayer.
Marco Rubio should be the next president of the United States.

Same sex marriage is a very controversial topic these days. It's ok for some people to be against it. And dude, the fact that he is an economic extremist is good. Obama hadn't cared about the economy enough in the last few years! If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a liberal socialist who has no regard for the economy and is trying to take away my hard earned cash. And about what moderate means? Moderate means that he is willing to compromise with the democrats. He worked on a series of bills with Michael Bennett of Colorado, who is a democrat. Rubio is willing to compromise, so he's electable. By the way, who will the Dems run that can also be electable?
The Earth revolves around the Sun

The barycentre for our solar system can be practically considered to be the Sun as it lies so close or inside however sometimes this isn't the case. In fact, the barycentre varies according to the movement and positions of the masses of the planetary bodies and other satellites. At the moment I believe the barycentre is just outside of the Sun. Schools don't teach this (although some enthusiastic teachers might mention it) because it would complicate the idea for students who are learning simpler concepts. Once these concepts are confidently understood then more advanced physics are learnt in higher education.The barycentre in any system is the common centre of gravity, it is the point at which both bodies orbit around, and is determined by the ratio of the bodies' masses. If you made a thought experiment, and thought of it as the balancing point or fulcrum between two bodies on a see-saw. If both bodies are the same mass then the point is in the middle, but if body A is more massive then the point will be closer to body A. Watch this whole video for a greater understanding of my argument : Continuing on from this point. The reason that so many people think that they are orbiting the Sun is because the barycenter is so close to the sun and is sometimes in the sun. If you want to be accurate you would say that the Earth orbits the barycenter because if you watched the video the sun also orbits the barycenter although the movment is hard to see since the sun is so close to the barycenter. It is inaccurate to say that the Earth orbits the sun since at some points it does not orbit the sun. If, during important scientific studies, regarding what the Earth actually orbits, stating that the Earth orbits the Sun is scientifically incorrect. At secondary school and primary school it is safe to assume that the Earth orbits the Sun since the barycenter is so close to it, however, if you are doing your degree in the subject then it is scientifcally incorrect to believe that the Earth orbits the Sun. Yes the Earth goes round the Sun but it is not orbiting the sun it is orbiting the barycenter. In doing so it goes round the sun but since it orbits the barycenter it is not accurate. These facts prove that the Earth does in fact technically orbit the barycenter not the sun. I will now make some rebuttals. My opponent states that the Earth has to revolve around the Sun as well however that does not mean that it is orbiting the sun as I have said previously it is orbiting the barycenter and is revolving around the sun in the process. It is not orbiting the Sun. I keep my view that the Earth does not orbit the Sun. It orbits the barycenter.Sourceshttp://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...
The Earth revolves around the Sun

Thanks Con for the debate.After reading Con's remarks, I maintain that the earth revolves around the sun. I agree that earth goes around the barycenter, and I agree that the barycenter moves depending on gravitational pull from mass in the solar system other than the sun. By going around this barycenter, the earth revolves around the sun.How many times has the earth revolved around the barycenter and NOT around the sun?Is it possible for a revolution to be made around the barycenter without making a revolution around the sun?I believe that the resolution is actually a matter of the path of earth's revolution, not its gravitational influence. So, as the earth revolves around the barycenter, it has to revolve around the sun.Con also contradicts their self:"The Earth...actually orbit[s] this barycenter - not the sun."Then Con immediately says:"However...massive objects (like planets) orbit a star."My questions for Con :Is the earth one of those massive objects that orbits a star?If yes, then is the star that the earth orbits our sun?I undrstand that the barycenter is the influence of the orbit of the earth and the sun, but the path of earth's orbit has to revolve around the sun as well.The graphic below depicts the barycenter (the red plus sign) between the sun (the big circle) and the earth (the small circle).https://upload.wikimedia.org...The above link shows the animation. Two bodies with an extreme difference in mass orbiting a common barycenter internal to one body.While the points of Con's cited article from NASA are valid and relevant, hinting that the earth does not "exactly" revolve around the sun is disingenuous. Even though the moon revolves around the barycenter between the earth and the moon, the moon revolves around the sun as well. The solar system's barycenter, 99.87% of which belongs to the sun, is manipulating the orbits, but the paths themselves revolve around the sun. Below are diagrams of the inner solar system on July 2015 from NASA.http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov... The diagram shows the view from above the ecliptic plane (the plane containing the Earth's orbit around the sun).The earth's revolution around the sun is the cyan orbit in the diagram.Asteroids are yellow dots and comets are symbolized by sunward-pointing wedges.I maintain that the earth revolves around the sun.
The Earth revolves around the Sun

Everything that has mass has gravity. The more massive something is, the more gravity it has. The sun and other planets all each have their own “gravity well” which interact and pull on one another. Because there are several different gravity wells interacting with each other, it means that everything in an orbital system (like our solar system) orbit the center of mass of the system. This center of mass is called the barycenter. The Earth, the sun and everything else in our solar system actually orbit this barycenter – not the sun. WHERE IS THE BARYCENTER? In a single star system like ours, most of the time (but not always), the barycenter is located somewhere within the star itself. However, most barycenters continuously change as massive objects (like planets) orbit a star. If an unusual alignment happens where a large percentage of mass is on one side of the star, the barycenter can exist outside of the star’s radius. In cases of two star systems, the barycenter will be located between the two stars. If the stars aren’t of the same mass, it will be closer to the heavier, or more massive one. The Earth doesn’t even orbit where the barycenter currently is. It orbits where it was roughly eight minutes ago. If the sun suddenly vanished, we would continue to our orbit it for another 8 minutes before shooting off on some random tangent because gravity isn’t instantaneous – it propagates at roughly the speed of light. Every single object in the solar system, from the gargantuan sun to the tiniest speck, exerts a gravitational pull on everything else. The solar system is basically a massive game of tug of war, and all of the yanking balances out at a specific point: the center of mass, or baycenter. Everything in the solar system orbits around that point. Sometimes, it's almost smack dab at the Sun's center. Right now, the barycenter is just outside the Sun's surface. But it's constantly changing depending upon where the planets are in their orbital paths.Because the Sun holds 99.87% of all the mass in the solar system, it's always going to win the tug of war. Even if all the planets were perfectly lined up on one side of the Sun, the center of mass would be just 800,000 kilometres off the surface of the Sun. That sounds like a lot, but remember, our solar system is big! Such a barycenter would be roughly 70 times closer to the Sun than the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury. Sourceshttp://spaceplace.nasa.gov...
Political campaign funding should be limited to public funding

Yes, but moving to public funding would bar private funding, which IS in violation of the 1st amendment. You acknowledged my argument then stated the opposite of it again when you stated: "If we were to remove large PRIVATE donations....". Again, it's a violation of the 1st amendment. Now legally corporations and unions BOTH can donate through organizations called SuperPACs. As organizations, which we treat like people, they can donate to candidates they support. I see nothing wrong with that.
Political campaign funding should be limited to public funding

While the First Amendment does allow people to spend their money in the manner that they choose, allowing corporations to make major political donations opens the doors to legal, political bribery. When a politician's campaign is financed by corporate donations, politicians are likely to be influenced more by corporate agendas than of the agenda of the people that the representatives are supposed to be fighting for when elected. Many people believe that the dominance of politics by the affluent and corporations has helped lead to the income inequality that plagues the U.S. today. If we were to remove large private donations, citizens could find other ways to express their political views such as volunteering to aid the campaign. The argument about third parties, I personally believe is part of the reason that politics today has become somewhat stagnant. If we always did things "the way history has rolled the dice" several horrible things from the past would still be considered the norm today. Several supreme court rulings have been overturned because the political or social environment changes over the years. I do not believe that moving to publicly funded campaigns would stifle anyone's First amendment rights. In most elections it is either the far right or the far left that are the only options. While many people might be on the poles of political views there are, I believe the majority, that fall somewhere in between. Opening the floor to more than two parties would allow more views to be expressed and would give people more options.
Political campaign funding should be limited to public funding

I disagree. You are forgetting one crucial fact. Buckley v. Valeo (1976) The Supreme Court ruled that "The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order 'to assure (the) unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people." So to prohibit private funding and move to public funding of elections, it would be a violation of the First amendment rights to free expression, because campaign contributions are a type of expression. I understand your argument regarding third parties but, (not meaning to seem harsh), that's just the way history has rolled the dice. We can't change the domination of the two party system. But I reiterate, if we were to move to public funding, it would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
Political campaign funding should be limited to public funding

Political campaigns funded by corporate and often anonymous private donations has created an environment where people with the largest funding are the only ones who are able to have their voices heard during an election. In many cases, these donations are made with strings attached so that if elected, the public official will rally for policies that benefit companies or certain private citizens rather than those in the politicians jurisdictions. If we were able to move to a publicly funded campaign system the focus could be set on issues at hand and also open the floor for other people to run for office with varying opinions. If candidates were all given the same amount of campaign financing it would put everyone on an even playing field. Often times, democrat and republican candidates are the only ones who are able to procure enough financing to be able to run for office. There are several other political parties whose stances are overlooked just because of a lack of corporate or private donations.