BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barack Obama

so you're no longer asking for positions of him, as you orgininally did. experience is important, but well defined posistions are better. not that his are well defined enough but, just pointing out that substance is better than experience. you should be focusing on that instead. he graduated in international relations, which is vital today, then worked at a business organization regarding that topic. he then became a community organizer for the disenfranchised. he then became editor of harvard law review and graduated at the top of his class... which is more than just any law school's editor and class but harvard. he then practiced civil rights law. he taught constutional law at university of chicago, one of the most prestiguous school in the country. he was a state legislator for many years. he then became a US senator for a few years. he seems pretty qualified to me. just because he's not be around as long doesn't mean he can't be president. voting for someone because they're old is not an argument. hte constituion allows president at 35, he's 46... if anyone were to be elected at his age, you couldn't get a better qualifed president. the only conclusion you could possibly come to is that you're going to vote based on number of years only... in which case mccain automatically wins. he's got quality years, not quantity.
Barack Obama

All of the positions you listed are no brainers. What political candidate would campaign against balanced budgets or alternative fuels? Every single issue you listed are stock, copy and paste stands from nearly every politician running, ever. Fix education, what a novel idea! A democrat supporting roe v wade and gay marriage? Unheard of. These positions are all well and good and if you are a democrat or agree with them, great. But, what makes Obama the best man for the job? What has he ever done that makes him a viable presidential candidate? No Obama supporter can point to one unique or significant thing on Obama's record. There was an Obama supporter on CNN about a week ago who was asked to name Obama's greatest accomplishment politically. He said editing the Harvard Law Review! There is one of those every year. Is every law school student deserving of leading the country? The fact is Obama has no experience, no merit, and a silver tongue. He has done nothing of political substance that would even throw his hat into the presidential ring if he wasn't such a great orator. Hillary slaps him around in the debates when the press isn't lobbing Obama softballs. So, why Barack? How is he deserving or qualified to be president?
Barack Obama

he supports a balanced budget. please go to my profile and see the recent debates about how irresponsible it has been of regan and the bushes to cut taxes when there's no recession and there's deficit spending. he supports targeted tax cuts to businesses who will support the economy. AND he supports repealing the tax loop holes, especially capital gains. this is because people like warren buffet pay seventeen percent of their income in taxes while his secretary who makes sixty k pay like thirty percent. the rich don't need capital gain etc tax cuts as an enticement to create passive investment income. focusing our tax assistance to targeted individuals would help much much more. he supports progressive taxes, which is a long post in itself for why this is the fairest most realistic situation. he goes overboard i'd agree, but he supports roe v wade, which has helped women with rape and life exceptions. republicans mindless say they want to repeal roe, but that would only mean the states could put a woman in jail for fifty years for trying to save her life when both were going to die. he's for keeping social security. now, it's good to privatise most of it. especially with the rich. but, with the poorer, they dont' save enough to retire on. hte fact that social security pays out more than they paid in would help them. the rich, that pay out of more isn't as good. but at least thi way we protect the poor, and obama's the one who it'd seem would be willing to compromise allowing more privatizations etc. he's for alterantive energy assistance. look up stiglitz as to how the government can be a method of ensuring the economy if facilitated when it lacks the resources in the private sector to do what it should be doing. the savings we'll see are tremendous. please look at my history of arguments for more on this issue. mccain says things like "bush shouldn't sign laws he has disagreements on, and then fill out a signing statement that says what he disagreed with" we realisitically need compromise. you have to sign laws you don't agree with completely sometimes, and clarifying the points you don't like gives you a show that it wasn't completely you. he wants to fix education. says no child left behind is an unfunded mandate. but, i fear, his ideas are just throwing money that the situation. he means well, and this is why soem vote. to me this isnt a reason but i thoughti'd mention it. hopefully he'd compromise the stupid things it appears he'd be doing. he supports states rights in defiing gay marriage. it's an issue reasonable people can disagree on, i think, and so states rights which is how the issues of mariages has always bene done is optimal method of approaching that issue. these are just the things i can think of off the top of my head. www.ontheissues.org for mroe if you haven't been htere.
Barack Obama

Even if I give you that Bill was qualified, which is debatable, its not an age issue. Who cares that Clinton was three years younger, thats irrelevant. You have to look at qualifications. Its more than legislator vs governor. Clinton had positive results running a state and Obama raises his hand. He hasn't instigated any significant legislation. The only thing he can say is that he gave a sweet speech against the war 7 years ago. Clinton had infinitely more political experience. How does Obama practicing civil rights law for a couple more years relate to presidential qualifications? Clinton was Attorney General. Obama was a law professor. Clinton raised up a state, Obama raises his hand. So, even if I give you that Clinton was qualified, that in no way means Obama is. Personally, I don't think Bill was qualified. The only reason he won in 92 is because Bush I messed up so badly. Most importantly, Clinton has nothing to do with Obama's qualifications. Notice you fail to mention anything Obama has done of substance. You just list the same law practice record that has no relevance to presidential qualification. Is this because Obama lacks substance and merit? It would appear so. You don't dispute the fact that Obama is only being considered because of his rhetoric. How am I the one getting played by the media? The media is SO FAR up Obama's rear its ridiculous. The debates are even becoming slanted his way, while all of the negatives get swept under the rug. Notice I'm the one backing my opinion with numerous solid arguments while you spoonfeed me the same old same old irrelevant biography. He lacks substance and merit. This is obvious because you can't name anything he has done post-Harvard. Its ok though, he sounds pretty, and apparently thats what counts.
favorite band

One Direction are 5 lads from the United Kingdom, comprising of Harry Styles, Liam Payne, Zayn Malik, Niall Horan and Louis Tomlinson. They were discovered on the 2010 series of The X Factor (UK), and formed a group through the advice of Simon Cowell, Louis Walsh and Nicole Scherzinger. Harry Styles Facts Liam Payne Facts Louis Tomlinson Facts Niall Horan Facts Zayn Malik Facts They released their first single, "What Makes You Beautiful" in the UK in August 2011, and it became one of the fastest selling songs of the year, breaking a Sony Music record for the most pre-sales ever, and went on to hit number one in the charts. In February 2012, the song received a Brit Award for "Best British Single", and was also released in the USA & Canada. Since this they"ve won a huge amount of other awards, including three at the MTV VMA"s in August 2012. "Up All Night" is the boys first album, and has received rave reviews from critics, reaching the top of the album charts in countries all across the world. One Direction took to the stage in December 2011 for their very first UK tour which sold out in minutes, before also touring the US along with Big Time Rush in February & March 2012. They then announced a new UK & Ireland tour for March 2013, as well as further dates for Europe, North America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Japan! To get to the facts about each band member go to the website listed below Source: http://www.onedirection.net...
Jeremy Lin is the best rookie ever in the NBA

As blunt as this is going to sound (deduct a conduct point if you must), my opponent obviously has failed to read through my rebuttals I made in the third round. If Jeremy Lin HAS broken as many records as the pro is saying, he has yet to even provide any proof as for what records have been broken. Since he failed to do that, there's no real way for the judges to evaluate the argument except as an unwarranted assertion. And since the rest of my arguments were not responded to, they can be cleanly extended through the round. This round will break down in a few ways: 1. My opponent just isn't responding to all the arguments I'm making. He's been undercovering the arguments I've been making the entire round, while I've clearly refuted the arguments he has made. So just on argumentation, this is the first place to vote con. 2. My opponent hasn't backed up any of his arguments with any scrap evidence. I'm the only person providing any sort of link to statistical or analytical evidence via the links in comments. So thus, his claims are, at best, subject to question. At worst, groundless assertions. So from an evidence stand point, this is the second place to vote con. 3. My opponent forfeited round four.
Jeremy Lin is the best rookie ever in the NBA

I apologize for not being able to post my argument, but even though that happened, my opponent only said to extend his arguments, but you can not extend your arguments until you refute the arguments that your opponent has said against your arguments, so you can extend my answers to his arguments, so they are not a voting issue in our debate. Because i said that he has broken the record of these people, proving that he is a better rookie, proves that I win this debate, also because it was unrefuted that Jeremy Lin was able to actually beat these peoples records, wins me this debate. Thank you.
Jeremy Lin is the best rookie ever in the NBA

Are you saying that the Lakers are a bad team? No. I myself am not saying that the Lakers specifically are a bad team. The source I quoted stated that the schedule that they had faced so far was not all-together challenging. This you have not attacked. And with the nine steals, you can't help the guy,That's true. What we CAN DO is say that giving up the ball is a flaw of Lin's and that this is what makes him lesser than the greats of basketball (i. e Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, LeBron James). it was his first time playing after being cut from multiple teams,Can we not reasonably conclude that a player of this magnificent talent that you claim Lin to be wouldn't get cut from a team in the first place? If so, then I can use this evidence against you as offense for me. Sure he made mistakes in his first game but wouldn't you be nervous? All this is is an appeal to popularity by my opponent, which is fallacious in the extreme. My opponent's point is this:A lot of people would be nervous in a big game,therefore, it's okay if Jeremy Lin is nervous in a big game. But if this kind of argument is true, then it would also justify the argument given below:Getting massively drunk and beating up your girlfriend is popular. Therefore, it's okay if you get massively drunk and beat up your girlfriend. Hence, his appeal is fallacious. but then obviously to set these records and beat their records than obviously he would have to beat their record making him a better rookie. .. .Excuse my momentary lapse in proffesionalism, but what does this even mean? I appologize if this sounds insulting, but I can't understand what this is saying for the life of me. I will try to adress this argument to the best of my ability, but I would like to ask my opponent to clarify on this statement as to what it means. Lin would have to beat their records in order to have some claim as to why Lin is better, but you haven't proved that. If you were to prove that, then you might have something to work with. But since you haven't, I don't know what else to tell you. So far, my opponent has only made claims that he has yet to back up with actual cited evidence and has yet to even fully refute my case.
Jeremy Lin is the best rookie ever in the NBA

Are you saying that that the Lakers are a bad team? And that shutting Kobe Bryant down to 1/10 in the first half is not a big accomplishment? And with the nine steals, you can't help the guy, it was his first time playing after being cut from multiple teams, its obvious that he was nervous. Sure he made mistakes in his first game but wouldn't you be nervous? And, he has corrected his mistakes and been the best rookie ever. Also, the three people that you state in your case may have set records in their rookie year, but then obviously to set these records and beat their records than obviously he would have to beat their record making him a better rookie because he beat their records so obviously he is better. Which makes him the best rookie that has ever been in the NBA. Thank you.
Jeremy Lin is the best rookie ever in the NBA

It's not all just about having rookie of the year. While it is a major factor, all three of these players accomplished feats in their rookie year as well which makes them just as good, if not better, than Jeremy Lin. Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and LeBron James all set records in their rookie year, so they compare in just the same way.Also, I offer a good reason as to why a rookie has had the success that he has, which was the lack of actual challenge in his schedule. Analysts stated that the schedule that Lin and his team have had so far was not the most challenging of them all, and have yet to hit a really good team. When they do, Lin's capabilities might be dumbed down a little. You failed to refute this in your last speech. Also, I offered a fatal flaw to Jeremy Lin that makes him lesser than the three people I offered as alternative candidates, which was his ball control. Since he's currently tied in the NBA for most give aways in a single game, at nine, that's potentially disastrous. I also gave reasons as to why this off-sets his talents because when you don't have the ball, you can't score and even if he's good at defense, it doesn't make things any better if he steals the ball and gives it right back. This also goes unrefuted in your last speech.So far, you've done absolutely nothing to prove your case, and haven't even refuted my case.
Jeremy Lin is the best rookie ever in the NBA

I'll be negating the resolution based off the fact that, while Jeremy Lin is certainly a good basketball player, there were people who had much better rookie years. But first, I'd like to clear up a little bit on this vague resolutional wording. Ever in the resolution implies that we must also consider past NBA legends when considering how Jeremy Lin compares. I'd first like to propose three other candidates for best rookie years ever, then possibly show some insight into why Jeremy Lin has had the success that he has, and one potentially fatal flaw that he possesses that makes him lesser than the three I will mention.1. Larry Bird. Anyone who knows about basketball knows about Larry Bird. One of the greatest basketball players in NBA history. His stats are comparable, if not better, to Jeremy Lin's stats. [1] Rookie of the year in his rookie year. [1]2. Michael Jordan. Again, another legend in basketball history. If you've even heard about basketball, you've heard of Michael Jordan. His stats are comparable, if better, than Lin's. [2] He was also rookie of the year in his rookie year and made the All-NBA Second Team in his rookie year. [2]3. LeBron James. LeBron is an outstanding player on the court with stats that are definetely better than Lin's. [3] He was also rookie of the year in his rookie year, was rookie of the month seven months out of twelve in his rookie year, and made the NBA All-Rookie 1st team in his rookie year [3]. Now to explain some of Lin's successes. Lin's success, obviously, has partially to do with talent, but also his so-far easy schedule against rather unthreatening teams[4] that allows him to show off a little. He has yet to face a really challenging team. One major problem that Lin has is ball control. Lin has tied for the most given away balls in the NBA at nine in one game[4]. Ball control is a major problem because if you don't have the ball, your productivity as a player is cut dramatically. Playing defense counts for something, but a) you need points to win, and you can't score if you keep coughing the ball up, and b) even if defense matters more, it doesn't make things any better if he steals it then coughs it back up again. Thus, while Jeremy Lin is an undenyably good player, he is not the best rookie EVER in the NBA. I await my opponents response.
Do you support trumps travel ban.

I accept the challenge. Since Pro's opening was short, I'll leave my argument to the next round. For now, I'll offer a more formal way to argue this: "Trump's Travel Ban Ought to Be Reinstated", with my opponent as Pro and me as Con. Pro is free to disregard this by saying so in the next round, but I think it provides some needed structure to the debate. I look forward to this debate :)
All math-being-everywhere please regard 0 to be a #.

It's official: Con wins. Voting IssuesI urge a complete Con vote on spelling and grammar for Pro's sub-par spelling and grammar; conduct, because Pro is "rebuk[ing]" me, he rudely labelled me a "the math-being-everywhere," superstitiously proclaiming, "My God casts you out! " and he started an incompetent debate; arguments, because Pro has yet to establish a resolution or fulfill his BOP; sources, because I had sources.
All math-being-everywhere please regard 0 to be a #.

Analysis: Pro has yet to establish a resolution; thus, he has yet to fulfill his sole burden of proof in this debate. Since new arguments are not permitted last round, as debating decorum and rules require, I have successfully won this debate. I wish my opponent the best. "Regarding these as premises, my conclusion furthermore is the following: 'Mmmm---what the hey? Shew fly. '"Irrelevant conclusion fallacy. "Asking me to restate my 'resolution', is asking of me way too much and is unethical. "The first step in a debate between two individuals or groups is establishing a resolution. The affirmation or negation of the resolution is the goal of debate, and without such a goal, a debate will be incoherent and lack rhetorical purpose. "I have no responsibility to 'use up' the amount of letters distributed throughout my rebuke" Rebuke means: Express sharp disapproval or criticism of (someone) because of their behavior or actions. I believe Pro mistakenly used the word 'rebuke' as a malapropism for 'rebuttal'. If he did not, it is still incoherent, as I have acted with debating decorum and written my rounds with the strictest veracity. "He claims what mathematics 'is not' with no premises. " I did not make such a claim, and I ask the judges to view my previous round for such a remark. I claimed that 'mathematics functions completely independentally of sexual orientation' in response to Pro's asinine round 1 question formulation. "will you accept 'the mathematician' to be a zero? " This is a nonsense formulation and is irrelevant, as you have yet to establish a resolution or achieve your full burden of proof. Voting IssuesI urge a complete Con vote on spelling and grammar for Pro's sub-par spelling and grammar; conduct, because Pro is "rebuk[ing]" me and he started an incompetent debate; arguments, because Pro has yet to establish a resolution or fulfill his BOP; sources, because I had sources.
All math-being-everywhere please regard 0 to be a #.

Pro's opponent, Con, has stated: "Furthermore, mathematics functions completely independentally of sexual orientation." The opponent, 'Pro's opponent', stated furthermore: "Now my opponent is describing the cell cycle, which is biology, not number theory or mathematics." Regarding these as premises, my conclusion furthermore is the following: 'Mmmm---what the hey? Shew fly." Asking me to restate my 'resolution', is asking of me way too much and is unethical. I have no responsibility to 'use up' the amount of letters distributed throughout my rebuke; that is, to incorporate into my debate the answer to my opponent's fallacious conclusion. He beg's the question in Round 2 and 3. As to begging the question in round 2: He claims what mathematics 'is not' with no premises. Do not be duped. Let us call this premise 'the mathematician'. Since Con knows what math is not, it must follow he knows what it is. I, here and now, formally ask Con: will you accept 'the mathematician' to be a zero?
All math-being-everywhere please regard 0 to be a #.

We have yet to establish a resolution and my opponent has yet to say anything coherent. He maintains his burden of proof, yet has not said anything of rhetorical weight yet. "All math-being-everywhere please regard 0 to be a #. "This is a supplication to an imaginary "math-being" for a request that could be fulfilled through human means, all it requires is a swtiching of two symbols. "In particular, for a mathematician who is for gay marriage and all that jazz my question is: why does said mathematician regard zero as insufficient in-itself to be dubbed a number? "0 is both a number and the numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. [1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(number)] "Zero is clearly an element of the set of Real Numbers, it's the "additive identity" -- the number that, when added to any other number x, doesn't change the value of x. (Similarly, 1 is the multiplicative identity -- the number that, when multiplied by any other number x, doesn't change the value of x. ) Thus, zero is a number, just as any other element of the set of Real Numbers is a number. "[2. . http://www.straightdope.com...;Furthermore, mathematics functions completely independentally of sexual orientation. "The bronze of a statue or the silver of a cup, or the classes which contain these? "Nonsensical question. "Please Hold. "Pick a resolution please. "DMX: "I just love when a nigga bring his whole crew it's just a bigga piece of cake for me to chew a hole through. "What does DMX's Bring Your Whole Crew have to do with this "debate?
iNVOLVEMENT IN SPORRTS

How often have you read a help wanted and where the employer wants a "team player"? Or a candidate that "works well with others"? Well I see it al the time. How much more valuable are you as an employee when you can put differences aside and get the job done? Sport teaches you teamwork, help encourage a healthy life style and promote self esteem. Encouraging your self to learn and play sports help you become a better person. With today's wealth of video games and increasing computer literacy, daily physical activity is often times forgotten. Trying new things never hurt. Getting involved in sports may just be a change in your life.