BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Patriots are underachieving in the second half of the season.

So far, it's been a great debate. I do agree that Green Bay probably could have beaten Philly, but Minnesota and Detroit aren't even in the same league as New England. The Vikings and Lions games weren't at all supposed to be blowouts, and anyone could have won those games. So, they weren't underachiving, because they weren't supposed to kill them in the first place. Also, even with the Packers, that game was before the Packers got going. They were just off the preseason and hadn't gotten into their rhythm yet. The Patriots had been flying through the season clobbering teams when they had a close game with the Eagles. The Patriots should have killed the Eagles, when none of those other teams should have. The Patriots are not being hated because of their success, but they are hated because of being unsportsmanlike in the first half of the season. No one ever hates someone just for winning. There is usually something else there. With the Patriots, people hate them because they tried to run up the score on their teams, and publicly humiliate them. No offense, but I don't really understand what you mean about running up the score. I can't really understand your point. Maybe you can reiterate that in your next argument. Again, no offense. I know that playoffs can really determine how good a team is really doing, but regular season definitely shows that too. Also, for the Patriots, the regular season is like their playoffs. They are playing with no mercy, keeping all their starters in. You can't argue that they are losing just because they are resting players. They have had all of their starters in the whole season, and they are still starting to lose their dominance.
The Patriots are underachieving in the second half of the season.

I would also like to reiterate the fact that I am not by any means on the Patriots band wagon nor do i have any ties to that organization. I would like first to state that in order to state that the Patriots are underachieving would mean that they are expected to beat every team and that no other team is on the same playing field as the Pats. You gave me the example of the Philly game being an instance in which the Pats didn't show up but I beg to differ I feel that Philly although they are very inconsistent Philly played Green bay close week 1, they stomped Detroit week 3, they edged Minnesota week 8, and they had the close game with New England and the upset over Cowboys. So are you telling me that Cowboys are underachieving, Green bay is under achieving and Minnesota and all the teams that Philly has played close or beaten underachieving. The fact of the matter is that only a hand full of teams have accomplished what the Patriots have and if they continue to win no matter what the score is no one can take that from them. I feel that New England's dominance of the NFL has cause them to get that stigma similar to the hatred and envy of the New York Yankees or the Los Angels Lakers. Face it most of us like to pull for the under dog and until I see the Pats lose not in the regular reason but the playoffs i will not jump to conclusion and call them underachievers especially when no team yet has displayed the skill to beat them. You have made the point that Pats are running up the score, I beg to differ in the NFL the competition is so much their that the line between a good and bad team is marginal same can be said about the elite teams. I ring true to the statement any given Sunday and whether you believe it or not the Pats cannot be called underachievers until they lose a PLAYOFF Game and are eliminated.
The Patriots are underachieving in the second half of the season.

Good day to all, i would like to first start my conversation by stating that I am a Chiefs fan and really could care less whether or not the Patriots do good or not but I really think that you are jumping to conclusions when you state that the Patriots are under achieving. For numerous reasons the output of the Patriots team is on a downward trend. First reason is the fact that the Patriots beat the hell out of teams early in the season, none of which where very good excluding the Cowboys and Colts as legitimate contenders. After amassing ridiculously high expectations from people they have still continued to shine excluding the game against Eagles and the game with the Ravens. Remember after the Bye they murdered the Bills 56-10 and handled the Steelers the best defense (statistically) in the league 34-13. I think it is fairly premature to state that a team that has yet to lose can be classified as underachieving. Each week Coach Bill Belichick (very cocky and poorly dressed) has used the same pass all game, game plan to win ball games. Remember this team has no run game so you would think that teams at this level could adjust to that game plan but even the few (Colts, Ravens and Eagles) just fell a bit short. Lastly we all must remember the fact that winter is poking it's ugly little head. That is why I dismissed the game between Pats v Jets this week as close 20-10 because the weather was terrible. We all must remember that 60 percent of the US was covered in snow look at the poor stats that came from the Redskins v Giants game http://scores.espn.go.com... or the far more dismal stats from the Browns v Bills game http://scores.espn.go.com... It is safe to say that with the strange weather crossing the US during game time has the affect on a team that is throw friendly team. Lastly and I know as a Colt fan you can understand this sometimes injuries hamper a teams performance. Without Marvin Harrison, Dwight Freeney and many others the Colts have not look as impressive as they potentially could have. I mean common even my team held you guys to under 15 points. Now with your definition of underachieving I can say that about the Cowboys and the Colts seeing how both teams are barely edging out games that they should win. Remember the saying any given Sunday. That is the beauty and the curse that is the NFL. Cheers!
obama is not a socialist

For Subpoint A. "These statements obviously define President Obama as a Socialist."??? When Obama gave speech was trying to unify the country. he was saying that we should help eachother. "There are some things we do better together" And just because someone doesn't agree with the Policies of "a true Capitalist", does not mean one is a socialist. " Finally he goes on to state that we have collective responsibilities to each other and that there are some things that we do better as a whole people." It also lines up with ideals of a good person. He was simply saying he wanted to help his fellow Americans, something that Bush failed to do. For Subpoint B. He is not talking about 'spreading the wealth' if that's what your thinking. Hes talking about the millions of Americans who get screwed by insurance companies denying coverage. And that is the major goal of almost all societies. Furthering the community as a whole. Not just socialist societies. For contention 2 "It will lead to eventual financial loss by the insurance companies because they will have to support people that they normally wouldn't have accepted because of the increased risk" yeah, these guys are raking it in. There making $ by the billions. CIGNA Corporation 4.8 Billion Revenues 800 million profit WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS INC 800 million revenue loss 50 million HUMANA INC 7.8 Billion profit. So they wont lose much, but that's besides the point. "So, the health care programs of Obama will take from the wealthy (insurance companies) and give to the poor (those who can't afford health insurance" Don't we already have that though? Take from the wealthy and give to the poor? Yes, we do. They're called taxes. again we pay for public transportation, police, schools and teachers, firemen, the military, we pay for nearly everything. only when health care is offered to the public is it "socialist." Government in America, has been spreading the wealth around since the beginning. And guess who had a higher tax rate than Obama? Regan! "Taxes were above 35% for the top marginal tax rate, they were at 50% in 1984 when president Regan got reelected, at one point it dropped to 28% in 1986 but for 6 years it was much higher than what we have now." "The 14.8% tax rate that we pay right now is the lowest its been in 60 years." It use to be 18.2% under Regan.( The young Turks) http://www.youtube.com... So who is more of the socialist? Regan? or Obama? if Obama is a socialist, then so is everyone who sends their child to a public, government run school. Where the Government "owns the means of production" and determines who gets what. Ignoring Teacher's unions. Obama is not a socialist. If he was, He would say he is. And I'm pretty sure that he is not saying he is not a socialist because he doesn't know that much about it. I'm sure he knows what it is based on the fact that he is brilliant. Watch this clip of obama speaking go to time 5:30 http://youtu.be... Thanks for debating.
obama is not a socialist

Anytime, thanks for debating. You misinterpreted what I meant by saying that if "Obama is a socialist than we are a socialist society." I'm not saying that he determines what views Americans have, just that many of the things we have in our society today should be considered socialist if he Obama is. I can help provide a definition for socialism. "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." -Dictionary.com "Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system" http://en.wikipedia.org... So first, would you give me a list of reasons why Obama would be considered socialist? And nothing, you can disregard that statement.
obama is not a socialist

Secondly I'd like to establish that Obama being a Socialist does not in fact make the United States a Socialist society. It simply determines that the personal views of President Obama are Socialist. Third, I assume the resolution is "Obama is not a Socialist. " I accept this resolution. Now I would like to offer a few definitions: Socialist: a supporter or advocate of socialism or any party promoting socialism ( socialist party ) -Collins English Dictionary Not: used to negate the sentence, phrase, or word that it modifies -Collins English Dictionary Finally, I would like clarification as to what this statement "People who say he is a socialist are hypocrites to the max. The Tea party is crazy. " has to do with the resolution. I look forward to a good debate.
Expert Tier Tournament: Compulsory Voting

PrefaceThis is for Mikal's tier tournament. Thanks to Romanii for the debate! Full TopicOn balance, in a democracy, compulsory voting is justified. Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Constructive CasesR3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals, Final FocusThanks. :)
Expert Tier Tournament: Compulsory Voting

Thanks to Bsh1 (Pro) for his opening argument!I will be utilizing this round to present my case, as well.I have no objections to any of Pro's definitions or observations.C1) Right to InactionWith any human right in a democracy comes the right to abstain from exercising that right. It is simply a matter of common sense that we have no obligation to do something just because someone has allowed us to do it. Having the right to free speech does not mean that we are obligated to speak out and publicly express our opinions whenever the opportunity presents itself. Having the right to own guns does not mean that we are obligated to own guns. In the same way, having the right to represent ourselves in our democratic government via voting does not mean that we are obligated to do so!The basic role of a government is to protect our individual rights, but to turn "right" into "obligation" goes beyond that, violating our freedom to deprive ourselves of a right if we wish to do so (i.e. violating our right to inaction). Even if Pro were to prove that making voting compulsory is "beneficial", that still wouldn't prove that compulsory voting is "justified", as the resolution states, because it would still be a violation of our right to inaction. The government cannot justifiably force us to exercise a right if we do not wish to.Thus, compulsory voting is inherently unjustifiable.C2) "Bad" VotingHere, I will attempt to show that, if anything, compulsory voting would only hurt a democracy. To do this we must look at the idea of motivation; If we allow people to vote voluntarily, then they will vote because they *want* to vote and actually care about having their opinions represented in politics; these people are more likely to be politically aware enough to make intelligent voting decisions. By making voting compulsory, however, we force voting upon even those who do not care about politics or the state of the nation; those people are more likely to be politically unaware, unable to make informed voting decisions and easily caving in to the empty political rhetoric of less qualified candidates. In that sense, compulsory voting is actually detrimental to democracy. It is much more logical to allow voting to be voluntary; the more motivated, more informed votes of the politically aware are bound to be more representative of what is in the best interest of the people.CONCLUSIONS1. Compulsory voting is inherently unjustifiable, as it violates our right to inaction (i.e. the right to refrain from exercising a right).2. Compulsory voting would be detrimental to democracy because it would force unmotivated/uninformed individuals to cast votes.And with that I hand the debate back over to Pro.Apologies for my brevity this round...
history&authenticity

There are basically two different things that happen after death. Nothing happens, endless sleep, or your conciousness travels somewhere, a heaven or something. The logical explanation is that nothing happens, since there is not evidence that your spirit leaves your body and travels somewhere else, it is magical, and magic is not scientific. It is also locical because we have been dead and unconcious for billions of years so it makes sense that that happens again when we are dead again.
Macro Evolution is supported by evidence.

I have sent this challenge to FritzStemmberger. Rules:This is not a debate on abiogenesisThis is not a debate on the existance of a creatorThis is not a debate on the age of the EarthThis is not a debate on educating children on evolutionBurden of Proof is sharedNo semantics, all definitions must have a source (e.g. dictionaries) Voting should not be biased. Votes such as "I agree with pro" and "I agree with con" are invalid, don't skim through the debate and then give all votes to me. I mean, I enjoy votes, but vote bombing is not how it works.Arguments:1. Transitional FossilsIf evolution is true, then transitional fossils should be observed. Transitional fossils are observed.[1] In fact, there were many primate fossils that were observed, too. [2] However, there are a few known gaps[2], probably because they have not been discovered yet. This is a valid piece of evidence for evolution.2. Vestigial structures and atavismsOxford English Dictionary (OED) defines vestigial organs as organs or structures remaining or surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form. [3]Evolution, if true, will leave behind atavisms and vestigial structures. They have been found. There were creatures with atavisms or vestigial structures, such as whales with hindlimbs, newborns born with tails and the wings of the ostriches(which cannot fly), [4][5]thus confirming evolution.3. Genome SizeCreationists claim that evolution cannot make organisms better and better because the genome cannot create more genes and can only work with what is already there. However, that is false, because the size of the Amoeba dubia genome (not an intellegent creature) is 670,000,000,000 base pairs , while humans have 2,900,000,000. [6] Humans have a smaller genome, but are more evolved and intellegent than the Amoeba. This means that evolution can still create better organisms just by working with what is already there. Another piece of evidence for evolution.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...[3]http://www.livescience.com...[4]http://www.talkorigins.org...[5]http://www.talkorigins.org...[6]www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUGJ3Jh7fc
Macro Evolution is supported by evidence.

"the equations of thermodynamics clearly show that an influx of raw heat energy (as from the sun) into any open system (say the earth) will increase the entropy (or decay) of that system more rapidly than if it were an isolated system."The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases.[1] The universe as a whole is an isolated system. [2] However, it does not say that it ALWAYS increases. This is a misapplication. This argument does not apply to biology. One grows up and becomes more complex, but that does not make sense if the thermodynamics argument is true! This also assumes that better organisms = less entropy, which is not the case. Lactose tolerance - everyone was ORIGINALLY lactose tolerant.Baseless assertion without a source to back it up.The beneficial mutations also have negative effects.Beneficial is only on balance. It only becomes harmful if there are more negative than positive effects. Note tht the doctors used the word COULD. As con never used a source to prove that everyone was once lactose tolerant, and that does not have negative effects, then there is an example of beneficial mutations."No one has EVER seen anything evolve"the fossil record shows NO evolutionary transitions taking place, and the basic laws of science show it to be impossible. Yet evolutionists insist that this is "science" and should be taught as proved fact to schoolchildren."The fossil records show transitional fossils[3], they are missapplicating the laws of science[2], and then they say that they are correct.Marx, Lenin and Stalin and Hitler were ardent evolutionists.This has nothingto do with the validity of it.More Arguments:Beneficial mutations:"Deep in the radioactive bowels of the smashed Chernobyl reactor, a strange new lifeform is blooming"Mutated mushooms that can survive the radiation inside Chernobyl. Beneficial mutation.[4]Mirco vs. Macro:Microevolution is evolution below speciation level, and has been observed by Endler (1980). [5] Microevolution adds up to macroevolution.[6] Microevolution is true, then macroevolution also will be true. If FritzStammberger thinks this is false, then he would also have to agree that you can walk through your kitchen but not through the whole house. However, sometimes macro evolution occurs without microevolution occuring, an example is gray tree frogs. [6]Sources:[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://rationalwiki.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://www.cosmosmagazine.com...[5]http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...[6]http://rationalwiki.org...
Macro Evolution is supported by evidence.

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.The second law of thermodynamics states that "the entropy of an isolated system does not decrease". This is often (wrongly taken to mean that "disorder always increases" and is frequently misinterpreted. Another way of putting it is "An isolated system's ability to do work decreases over time". [1] Plus, entropy ≠ disorder. [1] This is also not a correct place to apply it. [1] This argument, and all arguments based on that, fails.Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Lactose tolerance, antibiotic resistant bacteria,[2] mutation that created a super boy (it is true, it was on the msnbc news site)[3] There are many beneficial mutations. From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.It actually should be:From the statements taken out of context and carefully stitched toghether from evolutionists themselves, you have been ticked to thinking that that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits."Their [Creationists'] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin." -Theodosius Dobzansky[1]http://rationalwiki.org...[2]http://rationalwiki.org...[3]http://www.nbcnews.com...
Macro Evolution is supported by evidence.

I'm still waiting for some good evidence of macro-evolution to be presented.My opponent has conceded all three pieces of evidence I posted. He also used irrelevent arguments and/or quote mining. I had a case that was poorly refuted by con, but con never had a case, which does not fit the rules:Rules:This is not a debate on abiogenesisThis is not a debate on the existance of a creatorThis is not a debate on the age of the EarthThis is not a debate on educating children on evolutionBurden of Proof is sharedNo semantics, all definitions must have a source (e.g. dictionaries) Voting should not be biased. Votes such as "I agree with pro" and "I agree with con" are invalid, don't skim through the debate and then give all votes to me. I mean, I enjoy votes, but vote bombing is not how it works.BOP is shared, con never met his BOP, I technically should win this debate until con givs me a case, too.