BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tom Brady is the best quarterback of all-time

1st. You stated Tom Brady started in the NFL in 2001:: false he started in 2000 2nd: You said that if Tom Brady played those three years he would have the same amount of yards as Peyton:: Peyton has 64,964 yards in his career, Brady has 49,149. That a difference of 15,815. meaning Tom Brady would had to thrown for 7,907.5 yards a season for 2 years straight, and even if it was over 3 years he would need 5,271 a season for 3 years straight, He never thrown for that many yards in a season. You mention Brady record over Peyton. You are right but those are the team records you are mentioning, , Colts/Broncos vs Patriots while they were playing. Fotball is a team game. Eli Manning has a 3-1 record against Tom Brady but very few would consider him better than Brady or the greatest qb ever. And in the 1 win Tom Brady did get against Eli, Eli out performed him by throwing 4 TDs to Bradys 2. http://sportslistoftheday.com... In closing: Brady is not the greatest quarterback ever. I have proven that he does not have the most wins, career passing yards, most yards in a season or Touchdowns, most superbowls, nothing. He is a great quarterback but the greatest no. Peyton Manning has better individual stats in every category than Brady. (More passing yards, TD, and MVP's 5 to 2. Joe Montana Has more Superbowls and never lost a Superbowl, which is a team award anyway. Terry Bradshaw has many superbowls but is never consider the greatest. Good debate topic by my opponent
Tom Brady is the best quarterback of all-time

He has more touchdowns, yards, wins, completion than Tom Brady. Tom Brady started in the NFL in 2001 while Peyton started in 1998. If Brady had those three years he would have the same amount of yards as Peyton. Let's also not forgot that Peyton played in a windless none weather effected dome for most of his career. Brady also has performed better than Peyton in a dome. . http://www.reddit.com...Brady has a 10-4 record against Peyton manning including Playoffs. In those games Brady shows he better than Manning with stats, with 30.0 points scored per game compared the Colts/Bronco 24.6. 67.0% completion for Brady, compared to 61.8 for Manning. Brady has a 26-12 Touchdown Interception comparison in these games while Manning has a 29-20 Touchdown Interception comparison. The only place Manning beats Brady is in 243.1 and 283.6 passing yards per game. . http://www.usatoday.com...Brady also can make big plays in big time games other than Peyton Manning who chokes. Don't use the one superbowl as defense because he choked in the one against New Orleans and even this year at the patriots comeback this year.
Tom Brady is the best quarterback of all-time

Regardless of your personal opinions on his MVPs and why the fact is he has 4 and is on his way to 5 after breaking to all time td mark in a season, he has 2 of the top 3 best td passes seasons in NFL history but is his overrated? Where is you proof that he is over rated? He has more touchdowns, yards, wins, completion than Tom Brady. Tom Brady has more superbowls but the Superbowl is a team award given to the best team not player. Your points: quote: "Yeah, but Matt Cassel is a starting QB today." My response: Matt was benched and is a back up QB, he lost his job on two different team. He was benched and traded in Kansas City and benched in Minnesota. Your points: Tom Brady thrown for 735 yards and 6 touchdowns. This avg to 245 yards per game, 2 touchdowns per game, lets look at game by game. 2001 he was 16-27 145 passing yards 1td , one of the lowest passing yards to win a superbowl in history also in 2001 the Patroits had the fewest passing yards in the NFL. http://www.nfl.com... http://espn.go.com... Your point: If Manning was the more important player they would've of cut him in 2001 and gone to two straight playoffs with Andrew Luck. They cut him because he was injured and was sure how/if he would play again. Also they only had the option to get Andrew Luck because the Colts had the worst record in the League because Manning was out for the year.
Tom Brady is the best quarterback of all-time

You did mention Brady has 3 super bowl rings to Peyton Manning's 1. Peyton Manning deserved one of the five his MVP award in the 2004 season. He is just popular and very overrated while Brady is underrated. mainly based on rushing, defense, coachingRUSHING? RUSHING? Get your facts straight if the team was based on rushing why would Brady have thrown for a total of 735 yards and 6 touchdowns in the one he won. In those Super bowls win the running backs ran for 330 yards. If the patriots defense was that important they would have not all of their super bowl by 3 points. Coaching... IN BELICHECK WE TRUST!2008 Patroits record 11-5Yeah, but Matt Cassel is a starting QB today.Thus Manning is the more important player, he accounts for more wins for his team than Brady.If Manning was the more important player they would've of cut him in 2001 and gone to two straight playoffs with Andrew Luck
Tom Brady is the best quarterback of all-time

Tom Brady doesn't have the most championships, not the most wins, his record just go broken by Peyton Manning for most touchdowns in a season. There is nothing to say he is the best quarterback ever. I would say that Peyton Manning is better. Lets look at this argument based on stats is pretty much a wash, Brady had 3 rings, Manning has 1, Manning has 5 MVP Brady has 2, Most TD in a season Manning 55 -2013, Brady 50- 2007 The only thing Brady can boast over Manning is Superbowl wins and those teams was mainly based on rushing, defense and coaching. Brady wasn't asked to do much in the early years. Now lets look at the each of the years in which Manning and Brady missed seasons for their respective teams, 2008 Patroits vs 2011 Colts. This will see their importance to each team 2008 Patroits record 11-5 2011 Colts record 2-14 So even when Brady wasnt playing the Patroits still was a very good team. The Colts finished with the worst record in the league after making the playoffs for a record 9 straight times http://en.wikipedia.org... Thus Manning is the more important player, he accounts for more wins for his team than Brady.
Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way'

Hello. == Definitions == Homosexuality: In this debate, we will be specifically be focusing on orientation. Same-sex behavior is different as it is often distinguishable from orientation. Thus, homosexuality will be defined as "an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of . . . the same sex or gender." -- http://en.wikipedia.org... 'Born that way': The theory argues homosexuality is inborn. Homosexuals are born that way, and their orientation is immutable. Genetics, epigenetics, or antibodies in the womb cause homosexuality and cannot change through therapy or different environments. --> I will be arguing homosexuality is caused by multiple things. Genes have *some* effect, but the effect is moderate to weak (less than 50%). Environmental factors are the main reason homosexual tendencies develop. I am NOT arguing it is an (intentional) choice. No one chooses these factors: they just happen. I will also argue change is possible, and therefore mutable. == Structure == R1: Pro accepts and presents case R2: Con presents case, Pro rebuts R3: Rebuttals/defense for both R4: Rebuttals/defense for Con, Pro writes "no round as agreed". I have made this impossible to accept. Accepting without permission = forfeit. No trolling, semantics, stuff like that. gl
Duke is better than North Carolina at basketball.

Duke is NOT better than North Carolina. First, North Carolina has won 5 NCAA Championships (1957, 1982, 1993, 2005 and 2009) whereas Duke has only won 4 (1991, 1992, 2001, 2010) so your first argument is proven to be false. Second, North Carolina has won 17 ACC Championships, and Duke has won 19. This difference isn't enough to establish Duke being better than them, especially since Duke has been in the Conference for longer than UNC. Third, group the rest of his arguments. All of these arguments are ARBITRARY. There is no way to tell if they are puke, or to tell if they are more respectful, or if they don't have dirty rhymes. There is absolutely no way to establish this. Forth, Coach K wants to eliminate "Rushing the Court" after a big win. This is against all of NCAA traditions, and so we see that he isn't as wonderful as the affirmative would like you to believe. Fifth, The all-time series is 131-104, with North Carolina being in the lead. Sixth, and finally, Coach K has a losing record against UNC. With that, I have refuted all of the affirmative arguments, presented a few of my own, and ask for a CON vote.
An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

"true, very true. I think we both are arguing on the same topic and yet both are supporting it. " But I'm Pro, so... =P "...implies that the consequences should be equal, i.e., the person should become blind, no matter how you do it." "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind", implies that [a system of] direct retribution is unjust. However, proportionate retribution is not. "the principle "an eye for an eye" refers to those who have committed a crime. so if someone committed a murder, their life should be taken as well to serve as equal and fair just punishment. well, so long as not EVERYONE commits a murder, then not everyone will "lose an eye" so to speak. meaning the whole world will not go blind." This is true; however, the statement implies that the "an eye for an eye" practice would be continued. You are right about the literal definition, but in my opening round I defined it as "a figure of speech". Thank you for starting this debate.
An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

"the fairest way to use tit for tat is to do it proportionally, rather than directly. " true, very true. I think we both are arguing on the same topic and yet both are supporting it. tit for tat should be done proportionally, as long as it its consequences are equal. "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. " implies that the consequences should be equal, i. e. , the person should become blind, no matter how you do it. _____________________________ now let me explain the figure of speech in its LITERAL FORM: the principle "an eye for an eye" refers to those who have committed a crime. so if someone committed a murder, their life should be taken as well to serve as equal and fair just punishment. well, so long as not EVERYONE commits a murder, then not everyone will "lose an eye" so to speak. meaning the whole world will not go blind. _____________________________ this is my last argument on this topic. whether i win this topic or not, that would be an entirely different issue.
An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

"However, in most of the cases the they are equal." Yes, proportionately equal. I am not taking "an eye for an eye" literally. Figures of speech do mean something, however. "An eye for an eye" means direct punishment; this has been established. My opponent believes I am taking "an eye for an eye" too literally, but I'm not. If I was, I would be talking about actual eyes, as that is the literal definition. What my opponent describes as "an eye for an eye" is no different than what I am saying - and this argument about equal punishment has nothing to do with it. Regardless of any of this, my opponent has agreed with my stance: Such direct retribution as raping a rapist, for example, would lead to insanity. This should be a default win for me, because my opponent conceded to my position. "{this directly speaks in my favour - it supports the idea of "an eye for an eye" (even in the literal sense)" This is the only example of "an eye for an eye", and the death penalty has only been used sparingly in the U.S. (42 times in 2007). But, if you want to go the way my opponent is suggesting, then it's her killing a killer vs. raping a rapist, kidnapping a kidnapper, torturing a torturer, assaulting an assaulter and stealing from a robber.
An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

my opponent fails to understand this: "an eye for an eye" is not supposed to be taken in the literal sense. I had used the statement "the way these systems are executed, their consequences are almost equal." This is because the consequences are not equal everytime. However, in most of the cases the they are equal. The victim does learn his lesson. The exceptions are only due to the different mindsets of the people. _________________________________ '"An eye for an eye", or direct retribution, "makes the world blind", or is "insanity"/an unjust society. My opponent has agreed with this.' I have not agreed with this if it is used in the real world. I still keep my word and agree with this statement only till it is taken in the literal sense. "An eye for an eye" cannot be used in the literal sense. The main aim is that the offender goes through the same pain that the victim has gone through and does not repeat it again. This cannot be ensured without implying "an eye for an eye". (I am not taking it in the literal sense). __________________________________ we do not have such punishments as raping the rapist or kidnapping the kidnapper, but we do have punishments such as killing the killer. this directly speaks in my favour - it supports the idea of "an eye for an eye" (even in the literal sense) ___________________________________
An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

"I am surprised that you do not see the way these systems are executed, their consequences are almost equal." I do see the way the system is executed; it is a PROPORTIONATE tit-for-tat system. As you have just stated, the consequences are ALMOST equal - but not exactly. This makes our judicial system NOT "insanity", because we do not have such punishments as raping the rapist or kidnapping the kidnapper. Since two wrongs do not make a right, we do it proportionally, so we do not constitute another wrong. However, the phrase "an eye for an eye" implies EXACT[ly equal] consequences, not proportionate/almost equal ones. As you said last round, this would be insanity, or "making the whole world go blind". "i agree that in the case of "an eye for an eye", the punishment is direct retribution. however, you are again taking this in the literal sense." No, I am relating it to real life, which is why it is a figure of speech. I am describing "an eye for an eye" as using direct retribution (which you have just agreed to) such as raping a rapist, and I am describing "makes the whole world blind" as making an unjust society, or "insanity", as you have put it. "An eye for an eye", or direct retribution, "makes the world blind", or is "insanity"/an unjust society. My opponent has agreed with this.
An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

"In a tit-for-tat justice system, the criminal would receive a punishment equal to the committed crime. If this system were to be executed correctly (as in, by definition), many punishments would be "cruel and unusual", to say the least. Here are some examples: - killers get killed - rapists get raped - thieves get stolen from - kidnappers get kidnapped - torturers get tortured - assaulters get assaulted" I am surprised that you do not see the way these systems are executed, their consequences are almost equal. -killers often get death penalty for killing. so, this is a direct retribution. -i agree that rapists do not get raped, but they are punished. the consequences are almost equal. -theives are not obviously stolen from, but what they have stolen is taken back from them, they are imprisoned and are also at times fined. -the victim of the kidnapping is kept under hostile conditions. even the kidnapper is kept under hostile conditions in the prison, are forced to return the ransom that they have demanded and may also be fined. - the same thing goes with torturers and assaulters. they are made to go through the same pain even though the method of assaulting and torturing might differ. _______________________________ "in the case of "an eye for an eye", the punishment supported is direct retribution." i agree that in the case of "an eye for an eye", the punishment is direct retribution. however, you are again taking this in the literal sense. Taking this statement in the literal sense is not possible in the real world. I am surprised that you fail to understand this. _________________________________ Your turn Ray.
An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

"Tit for tat, as far as justice is concerned, means proportionality. Criminals must face the hurt that their victims felt, but that doesn't mean that the same thing should be done back to them." This is true; the fairest way to use tit for tat is to do it proportionally, rather than directly (i.e., instead of flat out raping the rapist, give him/her a good amount of jail time). However, if criminals must indeed face the very same pain that they inflicted upon their victims, then it must be done directly; otherwise, the criminal will either not feel the same amount of pain, or will feel a different kind of pain. This is the kind of tit for tat the resolution is describing; for example, if someone took your eye, the exact retribution would be to take their eye. "The only thing is that the punishment should be an amount supposedly equal to the magnitude of the crime you committed coz the aim of all this is that the criminal or the offender should learn a lesson out of the punishment." True again; the punishment should be equal to the crime. However, to be an exact punishment, it must constitute another wrong, and will thus "make the whole world blind". "raping a rapist or torturing a torturer would be insanity." Exactly, and that's what "an eye for an eye" means - raping a rapist. "However, punishing an offender is not a "wrong". Thus, this would lead to a just society." True, but in the case of "an eye for an eye", the punishment supported is direct retribution. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia page for "Eye for an eye": "The phrase "an eye for an eye", (Hebrew: עין תחת עין‎) is a quotation from Exodus 21:23–27 in which a person who has taken the eye of another in a fight is instructed to give his own eye in compensation." Thus, "an eye for an eye" means direct punishment/retribution, and it will "make the whole world go blind", or beget an unjust system. To conclude I will re-quote a statement of yours that supports my position: "raping a rapist or torturing a torturer would be insanity."
An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

Tit for tat, as far as justice is concerned, means proportionality. Criminals must face the hurt that their victims felt, but that doesn't mean that the same thing should be done back to them. The only thing is that the punishment should be an amount supposedly equal to the magnitude of the crime you committed coz the aim of all this is that the criminal or the offender should learn a lesson out of the punishment. that is what a just society means. raping a rapist or torturing a torturer would be insanity. "Two wrongs do not make a right; they just make two wrongs." However, punishing an offender is not a "wrong". Thus, this would lead to a just society.
An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

Thank you debate.unique for starting this debate. We will be using the resolution as a figure of speech, saying that the resolution is against a tit-for-tat system. ================================================================================= "Two wrongs don't make a right" In a tit-for-tat justice system, the criminal would receive a punishment equal to the committed crime. If this system were to be executed correctly (as in, by definition), many punishments would be "cruel and unusual", to say the least. Here are some examples: - killers get killed - rapists get raped - thieves get stolen from - kidnappers get kidnapped - torturers get tortured - assaulters get assaulted Not only are some of these punishments cruel or unusual (or both), but they do not justify the actions of the offender. The torturer gets tortured, and all is well again? That is not justice. What is really happening is TWO people end up getting tortured (the victim and the criminal), instead of just one (the victim). Two wrongs do not make a right; they just make two wrongs.
An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. In the first round, we will present our ideas on the topic and then in the following 4 rounds we will debate and contradict each other's notions. So if all goes as planned, we will each get a normal 4 rounds to debate. Since I am speaking against the topic and you are in favour, I think you should be starting.
Supporting Isreal

The close relationship between the U. S. And Israel has been one of the most salient features in U. S. Foreign policy for nearly three and a half decades. The well over $3 billion in military and economic aid sent annually to Israel by Washington is rarely questioned in Congress, Even by liberals who normally challenge U. S. Aid to governments that engage in widespread violations of human rights–or by conservatives who usually oppose foreign aid in general. Virtually all Western countries share the United States’ strong support for Israel’s legitimate right to exist in peace and security, Yet these same nations have refused to provide arms and aid while the occupation of lands seized in the 1967 war continues. None come close to offering the level of diplomatic support provided by Washington. Keep the relationship
essentially the same thing: tiller's illegal late term abortions, and someone killing two year olds

Though late-term abortions are certainly an inhumane solution to the problem many women face in unwanted children, I would disagree that it is comparable to killing a child who has taken its first breath. Up to a certain point, I believe that a fetus is simply a ball of un-cognizant cells. You cited an abortion performed at 26 weeks, which is only just into the third trimester--The fetus being discussed would certainly be viable as a fetus, but I don't see that its human status would be insured as of yet. Of course, if the woman did indeed get the procedure for the purpose of going to a concert, that's quite despicable. However, seeing as your evidence remains uncited, I can't be sure whether your facts are indeed facts. The murder of a two year old child is horrific, for the following reasons: I. At the age of two, a child has moved past the instinct-based life of an infant. S/he makes menial decisions and is truly discovering how to be a human being. 2. The child has become more-or-less understanding of his/her surroundings and the people in his/her life. The phenomenal difference that occurs in two years is absolutely immeasurable, and can't be diminished to the eviction of a lump of vaguely-human cells.
essentially the same thing: tiller's illegal late term abortions, and someone killing two year olds

essentially the same thing: tiller's illegal late term abortions, and someone killing two year oldstiller is a man who did late term abortions, of viable babies, for trivial reasons. one example is he killed a baby at 26 weeks because the mom wanted to go to a rock concert. he did not comply with rules that determine how to determine viability, etc.the next hypothetical says that a man is killing two year olds illegally.how is it different to be doing illegal abortions, than someone killing two year olds? it's essentially the same thing.for that reason, if we see that politics and law aren't working to stop the two year old killer, we should engage in defense of others and shoot the man killing the children. in teh same manner, at least when he's doing those illegal abortions mentioned, we should engage in defesnse of others of the babies being aborted, at least right before the abortion occurs.how are these situations different?if you use the soverignty of the mom... how is it not her fault that she didnt abort earlier when morally grayer (even the law recognizes no absolute right), and how not her fault that she is at least partially responsible for the child's existance etc?please say how these situations are different.