BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tony Stewart is a Better Driver then Dale JR.

Dale Jr has a team in the Nationwide series, which is the minor leagues to the Sprint Cup series. Dale Jr doesn't even race for the team so their is no added stress. His dad was one of the best driver's ever, but He passed away over ten years ago. There isn't much pressure on him now. If you watch racing or talk to fans all they want to do is see JR do well. He could move up from the 15th spot to the 14th spot and you'd hear the crowd roar like there was a lead change. JR is beyond popular. As long as he is behind the wheel the fans will give their undying support. There is no pressure or stress at all for Dale JR. When JR takes over the lead at any track you hear roars and cheers like you've never heard before. Tony Stewart runs his own team which won the title this season. That is considered stress. If his car wrecks or blows an engine that is money directly out of his pocket. He also was racing for the championship going into the last race whereas JR was no where to be found. That is called pressure. Tony Stewart needed to win the race to win the championship and guess what he went out and won the race. So where is his pressure/stress on Dale Earnhardt Jr? What are you talking about? Jr never won a championship. Dale JR finished second twice last season and third once. So at best he had "three" close calls. The only race he should've won was the race at Martinsville, but Kevin Harvick passed him with a couple of laps to go. A better driver would've blocked Kevin Harvick and not allowed him to make the pass. Dale Jr hasn't been a race contender in a few years. He isn't even in the top five of the best drivers currently. Kyle Busch has more wins then JR, Tony Stewart has more wins, Jeff Gordon has more wins, Jimmie Johnson has more wins, Carl Edwards has more wins. NINE total drivers have more career wins then Dale JR. Yes wins are not everything but they are a very good measuring stick. Tony Stewart is third on the active list of racing wins. He is currently at 44. Only Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson are ahead of him. Tony Stewart's win percentage is 9.48%, whereas the great Dale JR's is 4.14%. Stewart's win percentage is double what Dale JR's is. Tony Stewart doesn't have one championship, he doesn't have two championships, but THREE championships. How many does the BEST driver Dale JR have? He has ZERO, yes ZERO championships. http://www.nascar.com... http://www.jayski.com...
Tony Stewart is a Better Driver then Dale JR.

Tony Stewart is better NASCAR driver then Dale JR. Tony Stewart has TWO CHAMPIONSHIPS. DALE JR has 0 CHAMPIONSHIPS. Tony Stewart has 44 wins, Dale JR only has 18 Tony Stewart has 264 Top 10's while Dale JR only has 159. Tony Stewart is the defending sprint cup champion. First off, how does being crowd favorite make you the better driver. Yes JR has won crowd favorite for something like 10 years straight. He is no doubt the most popular driver out there. I've been to five races in the last three years all over the East Coast. JR has every other driver outnumbered easily by 5-1. The question I have for you is how does this make him a better driver? What does popularity have to do with driving? Next, you say JR doesn't have the equipment. JR's team had Mark Martin, Jimmie Johnson, and Jeff Gordon. Jimmie Johnson the five time champion who was dethroned this past year by Tony Stewart. Jeff Gordon who has 4 championships. That is 9 total championships for JR's two teammates. This past season was JR's best season in a long time. HE STILL DIDN'T WIN A SINGLE RACE!! He even changed crew chiefs with Jeff Gordon. Gordon, JR, and Johnson all made the chase this year where Martin didn't. So 75% of the team made the chase. How can JR not have the equipment if everyone of the drivers on his team made the chase but one? This past season JR raced 36 times, had 4 top 5's, 12 top 10's, 1 pole won, and $4,082,538 dollars earned. This past season Tony Stewart raced 36 times, had FIVE wins, 9 top 5's, 19 top 10's, and $6,000,580 dollars earned. Please tell me where JR was better then Tony? Tony Stewart for his career has THREE Championships! Dale JR has 0. Tony Stewart has 44 wins whereas Dale JR only has 19. Stewart has made over 70 million in his career whereas JR only made 65 million. Please tell me where JR is better? Dale JR hasn't won a race since 2008. Thats three straight WINLESS years. Tony Stewart this past season also had the stress of running his own team. He became the first driver-owner to win a race. He also placed his other owned car in the chase with the #39 Ryan Newman Car. www.nascar.com/drivers/dps/tstewart00/cup/ http://en.wikipedia.org.... http://www.tonystewart.com... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Stewart www.tonystewartracing.com/ www.dalejr.com/ www.nascar.com/drivers/dps/dearnhar01/cup/
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to acheive foreign policy objectives

"2nd round: Optional: Critiques and ideas" The major problem that I have with the case is the lack of offense. "Sanctions usually don't work" isn't an excuse not to have them. Using that same example I gave above, suppose you see a child drowning. Even if you only had a 10% chance to save his life, you would still jump in the water to save him. You either need to make the argument that: A. The harms of sanctions outweigh the benefits; or B. Sanctions are actually a hindrance in achieving foreign policy objectives There needs to be some negative impact that outweighs the positive impacts. Another issue I noticed was that you talk about Just War principles with a criterion of utilitarianism. A war is just, according to your criterion, so long as it increases overall happiness. Side constraints such as "don't hurt innocents in war" are meaningless under utilitarianism. Also, the math that you do in your first contention is incredibly inaccurate. I pointed part of that out in the previous round. Another issue is that you dismiss all sanctions that are not multilateral/security-related without any good justification. We sanctioned South Africa until they ended apartheid, which was completely unrelated to their own security. Was that unjust?
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to acheive foreign policy objectives

I don't want to be overly formal in this debate especiallly because it is not designed to be formal. Just to clarify: Value: Yeah, I get your argument, but my point is that you, who failed to save the child, cannot be hailed as a hero because you have not affected the outcome even though you tried. I should make that more explicit. take for example, you impose a plan to help children in Africa. The plan has been guaranteed to fail, yet it goes on. You would be moral had you helped children in Africa, but you failed. IF the plan had succeeded you would be just, but it didn't succeed. VC: Not to make excuses but I just forgot to fix this part. The fixed case would be V: Justice VC: Just Efficiency. Sorry, and you don't have to respond to the altered case. The rest of your arguments are well crafted and I understand the fallacies in my arguments. Thank you. Good Luck
Longer Lunches

For one, I don't understand where you made the connection "Longer lunches = Smarter students". Secondly, a lot of your argument is generic. Yes kids need food, and kids protesting longer lunches in no way adds to your argument. Now, for my argument, I'll go on the offensive. In your argument, you stated "Kids have recess, and then lunch, they need more food to make up that energy". How so? There is a very specific meal cycle in a day. The average meal takes six to eight hours to pass through your entire digestive tract, nearly an hour more than the average school day, which is seven hours. It is during the digestive process that nutrients are released into the blood via the stomach and the cilia in the intestines. While I know this is a conglomeration of facts, please allow me to explain. The average lunch for a student 4 - 9 years of age in 500 to 600 calories. What I find absurd is that you believe a student can somehow burn these calories in half an hour, which is the typical recess, and at the longest, an hour. The amount of physical activity required for this to occur far exceeds the time and the physical capability of anyone of this age. This calorie intake (lunch) supplies energy until the end of the day. Dinner, well, this supplies calories in your sleep, which believe it or not, you burn a significant amount of calories in your sleep. If your problem is children running out of energy during the day, well this is a problem with their calorie intake in the morning (breakfast) not their lunch. Next argument I plan to attack educational issues, I didn't want to exhaust all my options in one go...
The USFG should substantially increase it's public health assistance to sub-saharan africa.

Resolved: The Unites States Federal Government should substanitally increase it's public health assistance to sub-saharan africa by purchasing food from local farmers in sub-saharan africa and giving it as aid to sub-saharan africans. currently the USFG spends millions of dollars sending food aid from the U.S. to africa in the form of food aid. however, one half of every dollar spent on food aid is spent on packaging, shipping, and administrative costs. By eliminating the need to package and ship the food, the U.S. will actually INCREASE it's food aid by 50%, while not increasing the amount of money spent.
Black holes are not infinite.

I don't understand where my opponent is getting her definition of the space time anomaly known as the 'black hole'. The Smithsonian Scientific Journal defines it as an object in space with a gravitational field of significant size so that, to a certain distance, not even the high velocity and low mass characteristics of light can escape it. Because light does not escape the event horizon of a black hole, human perception regards no existence from that area thus we call them 'black holes'. In accordance with the above mentioned scientific journal, other high accuracy publications confirm that definition, such as the North American Astronomical Research Facility. Thus my definition stands as the more accurate of the two negating her argument. I will further by presenting an argument of my own. If said black holes were points of infinite mass, as speculated by some theorizers, then by the equation, Force of gravity = (gravitation constant X mass 1 (black hole) X mass 2 (any other object)) / (distance between the two objects)^2 or F=(GMm)/(r^2) then we find that the resulting force is also infinite. We then look at the other object's force acceleration through this equation. force found earlier = acceleration of other object X mass of other object or F = am thus the acceleration of the affected object is infinite Also notice that the neither the distance from the black hole, nor the mass of the other object matters because the resulting forces and accelerations are still infinite. Thus if a black hole had infinite mass, it would pull in an infinite amount of objects, from an infinite distance, at an infinite velocity, in an infinitely small amount of time. Since this is not happening now we must concur that the objects scientifically labeled as black holes by reputable scientists are not infinite but instead of a definite mass of epically large proportions.
Black holes are not infinite.

By definition, a black hole is a region where matter collapses to infinite density. Whatever Black-Hole like thing that Pro proposes is not infinite, will not be a black hole. It would be something else. If no such "black holes" of INFINITE destiny exist, they would still exist in the Understanding (For those who don't know this argument, take a figure like The Easter Bunny. He exists in the sense that we have a name and understanding of him, but in reality there is no such thing). Likewise, infinite black holes (re: definition) exist - we have an Understanding of them and know what they are, and we know that they're infinite (even if that's not possible). So again, any "black hole" that is not infinite would not be a black hole; it would be something else. Affirmed: Black holes are infinite.
UFC: Jon Jones will defeat Anthony Johnson

Yes by being more younger, it will make you more explosive and have more energy. Thats why younger fighters dominate the UFC. Look at Dan Henderson, he is 44 and is on a losing streak. Even though he is considered to have the best chin, punches, experience in mma. Dan still lost to younger fighters. Sometimes youth beats experience.Anthony has a 15 % percent better ko percentage, but Jones has never been knocked out. Meaning that Jones has a better chin and will lead the victory.Jones will win because he is better in every part of his resume execpt he lacks ko power. Anthony only has a punchers chance.
UFC: Jon Jones will defeat Anthony Johnson

Being four years older does not mean you are slower, first of all. 31 years old is not that old. By the way you say the 2 inch height advantage means he will not be able to target his chin, it's only 2 inches, it's not like he's 6 inches taller. And being shorter means you can get to his stomach easier, which I think is more painful than the chin. You say it is "a possibility", and you're right, which increases his chances of winning. And when glover fought jones, there were no knockdowns, and only 2 takedowns. That is a more realistic fight because it happened in December, unlike rampage and machida, which happened 4 years ago. Many things change over four years.
UFC: Jon Jones will defeat Anthony Johnson

Jon Jones 2 inch height is an advantage because it would be harder for Anthony to target his chin, and being four years older is an disadvantage because you will be slower. Yes you will have more experience but you will lack the energy and speed and thus makes Rumble slower.You are right about Anthony possibly knocking out Jones because of his 15% higher ko rate. But that is only a possibility because Jon has never been knocked out in his career and has faced many oppenents that hid as hard as rumble. Example, Rampage,Machida, and Glover.
UFC: Jon Jones will defeat Anthony Johnson

People always say that being younger and taller is an advantage, but I disagree with that. Andrew Johnson is 4 years older than Jones, which means he is more experienced. He will have a better UFC knowledge. Also, being smaller is an advantage in my opinion. It is easier to dodge punches and kicks, and you are lower and can go under his hands for punches. Andrew Johnson's biggest advantage is his hands. He has a 15% better knock out rating of good defenders than Jon Jones. His hands are deadly, and are way more likely to knock out an opponent.
UFC: Jon Jones will defeat Anthony Johnson

Pro: Jon Jones winsCon: Anthony Johnson wins In my opinion Jon 'Bones' Jones will win in a fight against Anthony "Rumble" Johnson because Jon has defeated former world champions and overall fought better competition. (Rashad Evans, Lyoto Machida, Rampage Jackson.) He also has a better submission game. (6-3). And is a 9 time UFC world champion. Which Rumble still hasn't accomplished. Another factor that will make Jon Jones the winner is his 2 inch reach advantage and longer reach. Not to mention that he is a NCAA wrestling champion.In Conclusion: Jon Jones will win because his record is more superior to Anthony's and will win via 4th round submission.
Deadpool(Pro) vs Deathstroke(Con) *The actual Debate*

Did you guys know that I (Deadpool) was inspired by Deathstroke?:)Since the previous Deadpool vs Deathstroke debate was forfeited before the debate even got started I have decided to start it over, with someone who wont forfeit. (btw I understand why the other guy had to forfeit, I am just trying to make this interesting) So, now...well...can... Oh forget it, just forget it, just keep reeading.Round 1: Acceptance ONLY! (If you do anything other than acceptance in this round...I will find you.)Round 2: ArgumentsRound 3: Rebuttals and closing statementsThis second debate in my comic series features me (the Merc with a mouth) and The One Eyed Soldier!The rules are as follows:-One-on-One fight. -No outside help whatsoever. (Humans, animals, etc.)-Me and Deathstroke both dont have a healing factor. And (for the sake of this debate) without my healing factor, my cancer is not a issue in this debate.Whoever accepts this debate will be picking Deathstroke sides.We both will have 48 hours to defend our character.The point of the debate is to prove who would win in a one on one fight.Have any questions that I didn't address? Let me know in the comments. :) In the meantime I will munch on some chimichangas.
should we keep getting more in to technology or not.

I'm going with the dictionary.com definition tech·nol·o·gy   [tek-nol-uh-jee] noun 1. the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation anduse of technical means and their interrelation with life,society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjectsas industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and purescience. 2. the terminology of an art, science, etc.; technicalnomenclature. 3. a technological process, invention, method, or the like. 4. the sum of the ways in which social groups providethemselves with the material objects of their civilization.
Teachers should not need a license to teach

All 50 states including the District or Colombia and Porto Rico required teachers to have a license. But why do they require it? According to the Board of Education they require teachers to have licences so parents know that their kid is being thought by someone who knows what they are talking about. Every school wants their students to actually have a excellent learning experience and have a bright future. Teachers have to get background checks while they are in the process of getting their license. They get this so the Board of Education knows that students and other teachers know that this person is safe to be around. Background checks are used to make sure that a convicted felon is not working in a place where they can harm people. Parents should know that their children will be safe at school and is around a positive role model. Now I notice multiple times that you mentioned my grammar and spelling and I know that your just a freshman in high school like me so how do you know what grammatically correct and what's spelled corrected. You know as much about literacy as I do. What gives you the right to say someone doesn't speak grammatically correct or doesn't know how to spell. You and I both have different views on what's grammatically and how something is spelled it all depends on where you were raised and live. For example the UK has different views on language arts and literacy than the USA. Every where in the world grammar and spelling is different. What we think is grammatically incorrect could be grammatically correct somewhere else. I was raised in the south and was raised differently than you. What the south think is grammatically correct is different from what the Midwest thinks is grammatically correct. For example the word ain't I was taught that ain't was a word and is proper grammar that how most kids in the south were taught. Now someone from the Midwest might think differently. So you shouldn't point out someone's grammaratical correctness because you don't know how they were taught especially when they were taught in different parts of the country or different parts of the world. Your also just a highschooler you don't have a degree in language arts and other literacy things so you shouldn't be saying anything about my or anybody grammar or spelling. It was a pleasure debating with you
Teachers should not need a license to teach

It is actually quite simple to teach a subject that you went to school for and majored in and know a lot about. A license doesn't mean anything in that sense. There are so many teachers with licenses that don't teach well at all. Just because a teacher has a license doesn't mean that they are better at teaching a subject than a person who doesn't have a teaching license and probably knows more about the subject than the teacher with the license. Actually, the way a student performs after being taught is a perfect reflection of a teachers teaching ability. According to your side on this, a teacher with a license should be capable of teaching any student how to correctly use spelling and grammar skills, right?
Teachers should not need a license to teach

So what if they are knowledge that doesn't mean they know how to present the material to a class. Teachers with licenses know how to present the material so students can learn it. Someone may be knowledgeable in a specific subject like physics but they didn't go to school and learn how to present the material like a teacher with a license in today's world. My grammar and spelling doesn't reflect my teachers teaching. Everything I say or write is my choice I write it the way I want to I may have mistakes here and there but doesn't everybody make mistakes. No written paper is perfect because they only have to meet the teachers criteria. Everybody has at least one spelling mistake, one grammar mistake or a simply punctuation mistake. Nothing in this entire world is 100% perfect not even mankind.
Teachers should not need a license to teach

I am against this topic because all parents in the world can agree that their kids should be teach by someone who knows what they are doing. If someone is allowed to teach without a license they will be allowed to talk about whatever they want in the classroom and the students won't learn a single thing. The students minds will be filled wiht bogus facts that could practically ruined their future. A kids future is everything they are basically the future presidents, teachers, doctors, governors. That is why teachers should need a license to teach at any school.
The time has come for a world government

When hearing about a world government (WG), many shiver thinking about 1984 or some other dystopia about a State dictating our lives. Until they discover that the only way to avoid such a super-State is precisely to divide it up and have government at each significant level of society. That includes the missing highest level. The same legal requirements apply there as to the national, regional and municipal levels. World government implies world democracy. This is possible when we make full use of social media and develop these media further to meet the objective of world democracy. When you debate this issue of WG sufficiently you realise it is the only way ahead. Since going back or stagnating is no option in the face of society's challenges today, WG is the way to go. I guess my opponent did not need further debate to be convinced and therefore has forfeited the second round to concede.