BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kobe Bryant will not win a next NBA title before his career ends

Thank you for accepting my challenge and I bid you good luck. Even though, I agree with you on some key points, the fact is simply that Kobe Bryant is destined not to win a next title based on the situation that he is in now. Key reasons for this analysis is 1. Age/Injuries Although Kobe is still one of the best players in the NBA, stats show that as Age increases so will the production of players. For example, 6-time NBA champion Micheal Jordan averaged around a solid 30 points per game in his 20's and early 30's. However, his stats started to see a plummet as he began to reach the end of his career, averaging only a mere 20 points per game when he was 39. Other examples, also consits of Kevin Garnett, whom's production went rapidly down last season. Scientifically, Age also leads to more injuries as athlete's muscles start to age and weaken. Injuries are the most crucial part of all sports and can make or break a team. As my opponent mentioned the plaguing injuries of the Lakers are probably going to subside by mid-season. However, he has no way in predicting this, as history shows various parts of the Lakers have had a handful of injuries. Including Steve Nash, whom has had back problems for over a year and a half and it doesn't look to get better as he is in his late 30's in the end of his career and also Pau Gasol with ongoing Knee problems the list just goes on and on. 2. Competition/ Draft picks As the NBA becomes more competitive as ever, it is more evident of the struggles the Lakers are bound to have. For example, with teams such as the Thunder and Memphis, older and slower teams such as the Lakers are going to have a tough time guarding fast paced offenses. Thus, the transition defense will be harshly hit. Also with the lack of draft picks pieces such as Steve Nash, will be harder to replace when he retires as the Lakers will be unable to tap into their luxury tax to acquire a top of the line point guard. 3. Coaching/Gameplay/Situation With Mike D'Antoni (HAS NEVER WON AN NBA TITLE) as coach their are bound to be problems. Although, D'Antoni's teams have exceptional offenses, they also have horrible defenses. The merits of D'Antoni's system is a fast-paced offense that finds open reads and scores a tremendous amount of points while the defense is more play as you go. Thus, this puts the Lakers in a position where they have to outscore teams, but with teams such as the Thunder which have a ruthless defense and a high-powered offense it will be hard for the Lakers squad to outscore a younger more faster team like the Thunder. Consequently, the sluggish free-throw shooting of Dwight Howard (44%, league average 75%), the absense of skillful defense, and the injuries around Kobe Bryant, leave him in a situation obscured from a winning a next NBA title.
Kobe Bryant will not win a next NBA title before his career ends

There is no way my opponent can possibly know the outcome of the events that has yet to happen. Although Kobe is getting of age, he is still one of the best players on NBA right now. My opponent's arguments only take account this very year, and let it be know that, this season haven't even reached mid season yet, and that there is plenty time for those injured players to heal. By end season, is very likely that all of those players will be completely healed, and be part of the team in the playoffs, which is the most important time to have your team healthy, in order to have the greatest chance to win an NBA championship. Even if the Lakers cannot win or get close to win the NBA championship this year, Kobe could still very well win in the fallowing years, with or without the Lakers. Unless Kobe have a serious injury, he still have plenty of years in him. Any team on the NBA would love to have him. He is not just an OK, or average player, he is at the very top, and have consistently been for years. You don't see many players like that having any trouble to get into any team. Let be know, that many also believed that Kobe would never win another championship without Shaquille O'Neal on the squad. Not only did he prove those wrong, he won more than one championship without O'Neal. ___
Feminazis are ruining feminist's name

Today I seek negation of the resolution that "Feminazis are ruining feminist's name" For clarity in this debate I would like to offer some definitions. Egalitarian - of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Feminism - the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Feminazi - a radical feminist. Radical - extreme. Here are my contentions. Contention 1. The no true Scotsman fallacy The affirmative displays the no true Scotsman fallacy. When someone who associates with your group doesn't fall inside your specific set guidelines, you claim that they are not part of your group. By making claims such as, "Oh, they aren't a real feminist" you fall under the fallacy. Here is another example: Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Person A: "Ah yes, but notrueScotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Argument Breakdown: 1. "Ever heard someone say, "I'm not a feminist, men aren't pigs and women shouldn't rule over everything" Well that's false." So because they have a different opionion than you, their opinion is already discredited? Also what are you saying is false? That she's not a feminist? That men aren't pigs and that women shouldn't rule over everything? So you believe that men ARE pigs and women SHOULD rule over everything? 2. "But the girls in youtube videos who are very obese and "proud" are just plain stupid." Are you claiming that any feminist in a youtube video who is very obese and proud cannot be a REAL feminist? Or just a plain stupid feminist? They value the same values as you so what makes them any less of an advocate for women's rights? 3."For example, those women who get mad at girls being over sexualized in video games.I CAN see their point in their argument, but here's the thing...Sex, drugs, criminal activities, these are all things that grab peoples attention." So you believe that their argument is somewhat valid, but notasvalid as arealfeminists argument? Contention 2: Values. If both feminism and egalitarianism both have the same values, which is equal rights, why is one gender oriented while the other is gender neutral? Also, my oppenent states that "if you aren't a feminist, you think women should be treated as slaves. Meaning men can rape women whenever they please, women cannot go to school or vote, and are basically servants to the other gender." in turn generalizing anyone who doesn't stick the feminist label on their chest. Ironically enough my oppenent proposes that the general population don't generalize "feminazis" with regular feminists while in turn generalizing all who are NOT feminists. In conclusion, I make my final few statements. Who are you to decide who is and isn't a real feminist. Difference of tactics and ways of achieving there goals doesn't make them any less of a feminist if they share your values. According to my definition a feminazi is a radical feminist. They may be extreme, but that doesn't mean they are automatically disquallified.
Medical Marijuana is, on balance, an effective medicine

You will most likely find this somewhat disappointing, but if a Doctor's give you a prescription for marijuana, then you should go to the drugstore and get the pharmacological active pure THC ingredient. The negative aspects of actually smoking the crude dried plant (seeds, flowers, stems, etc.) are harmful to the body and outweigh the benefit of smoking the crude plant. I have no problem with the government or any state passing legislation that allows drug companies to manufacture the pure THC ingredient under FDA guidelines and regulation. As far as allowing people to grow marijuana and sell it as medical marijuana, no way! "MARIJUANA SMOKING AS MEDICINE: A CRUEL HOAX" "Damaging effects in man caused by prolonged exposure to marijuana smoking have been reported in two recent International Symposia; they include emphysema-like symptoms, cancer of the lung, mouth and tongue, prolonged impairment of memory and of psychomotor performance resulting in train or car accidents, a six-fold increase in the incidence of schizophrenia, leukemia in children born from marijuana smoking mothers and damage to the growing fetus. However, if smoked marijuana had unique therapeutic properties, these forgoing undesired effects could be overlooked. Prominent cancer specialists such as Dr. R. J. Gralla of Sloane-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center, Dr. D. S. Ettinger of Johns Hopkins Medical School, Dr. George Hyman of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and Dr. John Laszlo, Vice President for Research of the American Cancer Society have concluded that the crude drug marijuana taken by inhalation has only limited effectiveness in the treatment of vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy and documented negative effects on pulmonary, cardiovascular and immunity systems. The American Cancer Society stated in 1989 that the results of clinical investigations were insufficient to warrant the decontrol of marijuana smoking for medical use. the American Medical Association and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expressed a similar opinion." http://druglibrary.org... "The medical marijuana hoax" "I also believe that a panel of Doctors should decide what limited medical reasons would be allowed where the pharmacological active pure THC ingredient would be allowed. Right now there are too many reasons that a doctor could use to prescribe the drug. For example, the legislative wording in Massachusetts and vague, subjective, and vulnerable to serious abuse, e.g., used for physical and emotional aliments from menstrual cramps to server shyness." http://www.jenniferbraceras.com... I think the sole reason for allowing its use would be patients undergoing chemo that can"t handle the chemo. And, there are many more drugs to fix that. I have a close friend that has gone through chemo 3 times now, without smoking one joint to help him through. So, yes I have no problem with the government or any state passing legislation that allows drug companies to manufacture the pure THC ingredient under FDA guidelines and regulation. As far as allowing people to grow marijuana and sell it as medical marijuana, no way!
Impromptu

Opponent will accept and leave me 3 choices in round 1. Opponent will choose 1 of the 3 topics I listed below and argue for or against in round 2. There is no rebuttal. Judges vote for who presented a better case. OPPONENT's CHOICES: A) The ACLU has encouraged moral decay in American society. B) The electoral college does not adequately represent the will of constituents. C) Females should wear skirts or dresses instead of pants.
The Battle of Zama Didn't Happen as Documented

The Battle of Zama was supposedly the last battle of the Second Punic War. In the beginning of the battle, the elephants of Carthage supposedly charged at the Romans, were scared away by the loud noises of the Romans, attacked the Carthaginian left flank, and routed them. This is already flawed logic as the people who rode on the elephants were equipped with chisels to kill the elephants if they were to try to kill any of their own soldiers. After this, the Roman right flank cavalry was said to have chased the Carthaginian left flank cavalry. The Romans then committed all of their forces to fighting the Carthaginian first two lines, and the Romans were all tired while Hannibal had an untouched third line of veterans. According to the story, Hannibal let the Romans take hours combining their army into a single line. This is another example of flawed logic, why would the man who mastered the Trebia, Lake Trasimine, and Cannae not do anything while the Romans are reforming their entire army? After this the Romans supposedly did the hammer and anvil on the Carthaginians. Now, since I have gotten the events in the battle out of the way, I would like to talk about the numbers. According to the Romans, Hannibal started with 100 war elephants, lost half while crossing the alps, lost more when fighting in Italy, went to Africa to defend Carthage, and arrived there with the same number of elephants he started off with. Not only was Polybius being dishonest, he was being really lazy. I look forward to seeing your argument.
The Battle of Zama Didn't Happen as Documented

You stated in a previous argument that if I do not trust Polybius's info on the battle of Zama, I have no reason to believe in Hannibal's accomplishments such as the battle of Cannae. When I said it would not benefit Polybius to lie about that, I did not miss your point, I explained that that argument was not valid. Caesar's information about Vercingetorix is not a good example of having reason to trust people like Polybius' documents. Caesar lied about a lot of stuff i.e. when he claimed that the people in Britain were secretly giving the Gauls supplies. You can not claim that this is a misinterpretation of your point as I am trying to prove Polybius lied a bit about the battle of Zama, which is exactly what Caesar did with the Gauls. I am not arguing against the claim that Polybius made Hannibal famous, I am arguing against the claim that his documents on the battle of Zama were accurate. "We agree the details are sketchy. History belongs to the victorious and the story of the defeated is seldom properly told." This statement doesn't work in your favor as you are agreeing that the battle of Zama didn't happen as documented. You have just agreed that I am correct about the battle of Zama. In this statement: "Well, Polybius would seem to agree. He only claims "some" elephants hit the left flank and credits Masinissa"s Numidians with driving off the left flank." you agreed that Polybius lied about the number of elephants by agreeing that the elephants were not numerous enough to mess up the Carthaginian left flank. "Well, Polybius would seem to agree." This is not me taking one point out of context as if the Romans targeted the elephant riders, there would be a lot more elephants than "some" messing up the Carthaginian left flank. Because of this, you either have to agree that Polybius lied about the number of elephants helping the Romans beat Hannibal's army or the number of elephants Carthage took to the battle, both resulting in the battle of Zama not happening as documented. You make a good point about the reason for Hannibal having so many elephants at Zama, but you still need to keep in mind that Polybius contradicts himself (as I just mentioned). About your last point, Hannibal didn't have to stand there, he could have tried to retreat, or even better, not fight in the battle of Zama in the first place. Hannibal had a very good idea of when to fight and when not to when he was campaigning in Italy, do you believe that that skill just went away as soon as he went back to Africa? The point that Hannibal had to engage to prevent Carthage isn't either good (in case you plan on using it). Fighting in the battle of Zama doomed Carthage, but if he didn't fight it then although Scipio would ravage parts of Carthage, he would have at least had a good chance to prevent his defeat. Again, this is unlikely to have been a stupid decision as he was capable of making such decisions in Italy. I enjoyed debating this topic with you. Good luck with your final argument as well as arguments of yours in future debates.
The Battle of Zama Didn't Happen as Documented

Your first point is that if I consider Polybius to be biased and untrustworthy, it means that I have no reason to believe that the accomplishments of Hannibal were true. I would not consider this to be true though, because the Romans would have literally no reason to lie about how Hannibal managed to defeat the far superior Roman armies due to poor Roman commanders. That part of the war is more likely to cause people to think more poorly of the Romans, it is very likely that Polybius wanted to defend Scipio Africanus in specific. Also, I definitely went a bit overboard on the word "supposedly," I did not try to imply that the battle of Zama wasn't the last battle of the Second Punic War, I was simply trying to express that there is a lot about what is documented of the battle that can be considered very sketchy. About the targeting of the riders, I find your point to be valid, however, there still are lots of issues about the supposed 80 elephants in the battle. I also apologize for saying that there were 100 elephants before crossing the alps, I honestly don't know why I typed that. I meant to type 50 elephants. The problem that I have with the idea that there were lots of untrained elephants in the Carthaginian formation is that it is really odd to suggest that Hannibal would have taken so many highly untrained elephants. If there were any elephants that Carthage would have brought, they would not be numerous, definitely not numerous enough to screw up the entire Carthaginian left flank and allow the Romans to get behind Hannibal's forces. Also, keep in mind that the Romans even agreed Hannibal's forces were not nearly as strong as the force he originally took to Italy. The idea that Hannibal was able to fight with twice as many elephants as he was able to fight with when he had a fresh army fully ready for fighting is illogical. And lastly, I am going to talk about the third point. When I used the word "untouched," I meant that his third line was fresh by the time it engaged with the Romans and that it had not really engaged in any serious fighting. You didn't seem to mention the reason behind Hannibal seeing a very evident opportunity for hours and not at all acting upon it. Hannibal surely had enough time to engage with the opposing army.
The theory of Evolution is incorrect

The problem with fossil is it has been recalled for inaccuracy time and time again. How do we know that your sources don't get recalled like 99% of the fossil record already have. Many times have someone thought to discover the missing link between man and ape often called "Lucky which was later recalled as simply a 3 foot monkey that died recently. Also, rather a fossil resembles another is purely subjective to interpretation and is not science.
The theory of Evolution is incorrect

The argument is not that humans evolved from monkeys, rather that humans came from ape-like creatures. There is a huge amount of evidence in regards to human evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org...There is proof that mammals have evolved into whales. Animals which loosely resemble the tiger, which was near the sea, over time adapted more and more to life in the water. Again, there is fossil evidence which supports this claim. http://bit.ly... My opponent claims we have not observed macro-evolution, but supports micro-evolution. That always seems kinda odd to me. If small changes can occur, why, then, can large (macro) changes over time occur to create a new species? It seems as to the concession that microevolution is correct follows that macroevolution is likely correct also. Further, the fact that there is 1) fossil evidence, 2) the existence of microevolution, and 3) significant change within genomes all point to the fact changes occur. http://bit.ly...
The theory of Evolution is incorrect

The theory of evolution as no evidence to support the claim of transitional species. For example a monkey slowly evolved into a human being or that mammals slowly evolved into whales. Nobody has every seen any animal produce anything but it's own kind. This debate does not argue against adaptation or the ability for animals to adapt to their environment, and to claim that I don't agree with adaption or that we don't see it in nature will be straw-manning my position. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists because they make the claim that species can produce something other than their kind through the process of millions of years.
The theory of Evolution is incorrect

Summary1) Genetic argument dropped2) Microevolution argument dropped3) Macroevolution argument from (2) dropped4) Admits fossils show evidence of evolution, but claim it is due to misinterpretation, but fails to explain why they are misinterpreted. If multiple animals have the same features, it easily (especially with the evidence from 1) proves that species to originate from common ancestors. Further, even if it meant a common designer, what if he was causing the evolution to happen? He attempts to escape the point, never really refutes it. --> My opponent concedes (by dropping) most of my points, and a shaky at best response to (4). With 10 minute debating periods and 1k characters, this was very hard to convey opinions. With these terms, I have proven evolution is correct. As he accepts microevolution, part of the theory at least is correct, and therefore, I win by default.
The theory of Evolution is incorrect

Still you never explained how the fossil record could prove evolution. There are similarities in species which don't have the same gene in the chromosome. So even if we did find a fossil which everyone agreed looked similar to an animal's anatomy to this day it still does not mean a common ansestor because it could look similar but still not be related. It still does not prove that fossil had offspring. I remind my opponent is not up to me to provide evidence since you are making the claim. I can't prove a negative. Rather you call windows 7 windows 8 is on interpretation it's subjective. you can't scientifically prove a CD you are holding is windows 7 or windows 8.
The theory of Evolution is incorrect

Pro says the fossil record only shows evidence for evolution when interpreted that way... So we should deny evolution because... My opponent says so. And he doesn't even use evidence for his assertions. Again, he drops most of my points from R1 and R2, meaning he concedes them as true. Pro's argument doesn't even make sense, honestly. I don't believe in Windows 7, BECAUSE I interpret it as Windows 8. Just because I intepret it incorrectly does not mean my interpretation is correct. The scientific intepretation is supported by the fossil placement, the homology itself, genetics, how biology works, and even evidence from microbiology. The fact is, which interpretation is more likely correct? The answer is pretty obvious. Evolution is well proven, much more than any creationist viewpoint. http://www.bio.miami.edu...;
The theory of Evolution is incorrect

My point is not that God did it. My point is the fossil record is just a matter of interpretation. Even if I granted that some animals look similar to the fossil record then what. Some animals have similar forelimb structures and are have different genes in the chromosome so why can't there be fossils that look subjectively similar but are not related. Also, just because you find a fossil in the ground does not mean that fossil was related or that that fossil had any offspring. Subjectivity is not science. If you want to subjectively say that fossils found are similar looking to animals we find today that's fine but it's not science. I interpret the fossil record differently and you interpret it one way. It's a genetic fallacy to say that Kent Hovind is not a valid source because he is in jail. .http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be...