BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lebron James has is/been a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant.

Good points by my opponents and I will adress each one of his main points 1. Killer instinct/Lebron performance in 2011 finals- He did have a bad series for Lebron which is an incredibly high standard but here are his stats in the 2011 finals 17.8ppg .478Fg% 7.2reb 6.8ast 1.7steal 0.5blk Those are not bad stats all are higher than what kobe normally avg except ppg. The question is best player not who scores the most in one series. Even thought Lebron scoring was down and he looked nervous in the 2011 finals point is his still perfomed overall just not scoring. 2. If your life was on the line and a player HAD to make a shot. Who would you rather have take the shot? That answer would not be Kobe Bryant. Because he misses a higher percentage of his shots than Lebron. For Kobe career he makes .454% vs Lebron .494% and .448% in the playoffs for Kobe vs .472% for Lebron, 3pt is .335% vs Lebrons .340% for the total careers. Regardless of the gut feeling you have and the way Lebron my have looked during one series the stats speaks volumes. Kobe Bryant misses to many of his shots. Also Lebron James has 4 MVPs vs Kobes Bryants 1. The MVP is giving to the best player in the league/most valuable. 2nd in 2013 the Lakers had the reining defensive player of the year/Best center in the league, the second best center in the league in Pau Gasol and multiple all-star, 2 time NBA MVP Steve Nash and barely made the playoffs. The Lakers were projected to be one of the best teams in the NBA. During the last weeks of the 2013 regular season the Lakers and the Jazz were tied for the final spot after Kobe Bryant got injured they secured the final spot, no thanks to Kobe Bryant. This points to the biggest problem Kobe has, he doesn't make players around him better. Lebron James has better career stats per game than Kobe Bryant in every relevant category except free throw percentage. Lebron leads him in Scoring, defensive rebounds, offensive rebounds, assist, 3pt percentage, field goal percentage, steals and blocks. Kobe and Lebron are close in scoring but the fact Lebron makes more shot but shoots less and that kobe is mainly a one dimensional player the easy choice is Lebron James as the better player,
Lebron James has is/been a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant.

I also believe that Lebron will become a better player than Kobe. But is he a better player than Kobe now? Sure you can argue his stats are similar if not better but there are certain intangibles that stats do not measure. Even now, there is a stat revolution in keeping track of EVERYTHING the player affects while on the court, not just shooting %, rebounds, steals etc. But even with this advanced tracking ability, there will STILL be intangibles that are immeasurable. Traits that affect the team and the team's chance of winning. For instance, killer instinct. For me, that is the ability to remain calm in intense pressure-laden situations and not let it affect their ability. Lebron has already shown that he can be weak eg. the finals against Dallas when he disappeared and his body language obviously showed his almost disinterest in the game. He argues that he made the "right" basketball move, passing off the last second shot to the open man. Sure, Chalmers or Bosh can shoot the three. But here's the question. If your life was on the line and a player HAD to make a shot. Who would you rather have take the shot? Kobe or Lebron? If a player had to make the "right" basketball move, sure, I'd go with Lebron. But based on history, if one of them had one shot with time ticking down, I'd assume that Lebron would be more likely to let the pressure get to him than Kobe would.
Lebron James has is/been a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant.

Lebron James is a better player than Kobe Bryant because, he is a better overall player than Kobe. The only stat were Kobe is better is ppg (points per game) but if you look at the stats Lebron's fg% (field goal percentage) is way higher than Kobe hinting that if Lebron wanted to score a lot he could if needed. Kobe Bryant's best season of field goal shooting is .469, Lebron only shot below one year and that was in his rookie campain. For his career he has averaged .495 http://www.basketball-reference.com... Lebron James http://www.basketball-reference.com... Kobe Bryant
Parents shouldn't send their 14-16 years children to study abroad

With the proper discipline and or program -- it can be done. It actually can give you many valuable experiences about cultures and with modern technology you can keep in contact with family. All that really needs to be done for it to be successful is a proactive family, and good preparation. If you've shown yourself to be responsible, and you have the money do to so, then there really isn't an issue. If your not doing well in the environment and you have a good parent they should just pull you out and you should be fine.
Parents shouldn't send their 14-16 years children to study abroad

I was very interested in this particular topic, because at the age of 15 I dreamed about studying abroad. I tried to persuade my parents to send me to England or USA to study there. But they said, that I am too young for it. Now I'm 18 and I reasearched a lot to understand their point of view. And according to my researches, I can say, that my parents were absolutely right. Therefore, parents shouldn't send their 14-16 children to study abroad for the following reasons: 1) According to the Engstrom & Mathiesen (2012) there are a lot of accidents, which happen with teenage students in another countries because of their carelessness. They are too young to think further or to think about some important things. For example, because of unknowing some laws or traditions of that country those students could be arrested or even killed. And to prove it, the authors present a history about students in Thailand. They had a bad joke, which was understood wrongly and, unfortunately, they were killed. 2) Secondly, it is harder for teenagers to go through the adoptation without any harm for themselves. According to the same article, there are a lot of examples, when students, which came to study abroad, ended their life with suicide. 3) And finaly, 14-16 years old teenagers have too much freedom in another country, because their parents are far away and can not control them. That's why they do a lot of stupid things such as drinking alchogol, getting drugs and smoking. Also the rate of unwanted pregnancy and abortion is very high between 14-16 years old teenagers, who were send to study abroad.
Prostitution should be legalized

This is my last speech as well and I will just go over some main points in this debate and give some voters for this round. 1. By legalizing prostitution, the younger generation could see prostitution as a career choice. As I have brought up earlier in this debate, I would not want my teenage child thinking of prostitution as a future job just because it is legal. My opponent has stated throughout this debate that a line legal and illegal prostitution. In reality a line will never be able to be drawn. Simply, because the trade of prostitution will almost always involve drugs, rape or some other form of law breaking. 2. The United States was founded on rules and laws that keep citizens safe and secure in life. Laws are carefully thought out and engineered as need arises to provide, basically, safety and financial security. I have been saying throughout this debate that the law is designed to protect us. My opponent wants to abolish the law simply because everyone is doing it. My only argument here is when people take the law out of the picture society generally starts to travel in a downward angle. 3. My opponent has stated throughout this debate that by making prostitution legal many other bad factories such as drugs, rapes and attacks would decrease. This is simply not true, the demander may not necessarily follow a law that is set in motion while with his prostitute. If the law is there or not, it will always be up to the demander to harm or attack the prostitute. This is why we need a law to ban prostitution, to protect the women in the trade and to protect younger generations that come. 4. As for morals, prostitution in my views will always be immoral. Prostitution as I have brought up in this debate lead to a life of immorality and crime. Prostitution spreads diseases such as many STD"s. Without the law the crimes against the women while being the prostitute would still a problem. That is what I find immoral about prostitution. I will ask you please vote based on whoever was the better debater. I would like to thank zealot362 for this great debate. Hopefully we can debate other topics in the future.
Prostitution should be legalized

I believe that this is now the conclusion speech, so I will make it short and sweet. I am just going to highlight my main points throughout the debate and will make a few concluding remarks. 1. Prostitution has always been around and always will. If we continue to try to keep it in the outskirts of our society and prosecute women who are forced into prostitution or do it of there own will, we are just as bad as the pimps who force them to do it in the first place. We need to be a nation where people of all trades can make money without fear from the federal government. 2. As long as we treat prostitutes like criminals, issues revolving around prostitution will remain. The only way we can make any inroads in the industry of sex trafficking and modern-day slavery is to take some ownership out of this market that exists whether we want it to or not. 3. By making prostitution legal and by regulating it, we will be able to eliminate several factors that make prostitution such a hazardous practice such as drug use, rape, pimping, and trafficking. By keeping it outlawed, we will have no control over the lives of these men and women. 4. Prostitution is only immoral if we think of it as such. Much of what we consider to be immoral of prostitution has come from our outdated reliance on religious philosophy and is becoming more minute as human progress and morality advances at it's own accord. And so if we stop immediately considering prostitution to be immoral, we will notice that much of the issues we have with prostitution comes from our outdated sense of morality. 5. All of the statistics my opponent has come up with is what we see in places that keep prostitution illegal. Evidence has actually shown that by legalizing and taking ownership of prostitution, much of the crime that has often been associated with it will lesson considerably and may even, in some cases, disappear entirely. I thank Masterdebatr91 for this wonderful debate. It has been very fun and enlightening for me and I hope me feelings are reciprocated. I just ask the audience to ponder this in their own gut and let their mind and heart decide which outcome would lead to a better future for America. Adieu.
Prostitution should be legalized

First off, I would like to welcome you to debate zealot362! I will not judge you on debating format or expect you to be completely serious either. Thanks for the heads up! To start off my arguments on why I believe that prostitution should be illegal, I would like to quote of my favorite writers, Victor Hugo. "We say that slavery has vanished from European civilization, but this is not true. Slavery still exists, but now it applies only to women and its name is prostitution." Not only is Prostitution morally wrong, it is responsible for many deaths in almost all countries alike. Contention 1: Prostitution is not a victimless Crime Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape -- acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution. You can see a great example of this in the famous musical Les Miserables. Another problem is the trafficking of women. I believe that we will never succeed in combating trafficking in women if we do not simultaneously work to abolish prostitution and the sexual exploitation of women and children. Particularly in light of the fact that many women in prostitution in countries that have legalized prostitution are originally victims of trafficking in women. Watch a true story about the trafficking of women called the Whistle Blower. Contention 2: Even if a prostitute is being tested every week for HIV, she will test negative for at least the first 4-6 weeks and possibly the first 12 weeks after being infected.... This means that while the test is becoming positive and the results are becoming known, that prostitute may expose up to 630 clients to HIV. This is under the best of circumstances with testing every week and a four-week window period. It also assumes that the prostitute will quit working as soon as he or she finds out the test is HIV positive, which is highly unlikely. This is not the best approach for actually reducing harm. Instead, in order to slow the global spread of HIV/AIDS we should focus our efforts on abolishing prostitution. i look forward to my opponents response.
Prostitution should be legalized

This is the first debate that I posted. I am new to this side but looking forward to debating this topic. As shown above, I am arguing in favor of legalizing prostitution. Just for you information, I am not used to this debating format and so I will almost inevetibely make some sort of mistake. I do know how to make a point however and so don't expect the debate to be a pushover. Finally, have fun. This is a serious topic but some light-heartedness goes a long way. Good Luck.
Religion is true freedom, not atheism

I am arguing that, theism, from my perspective as a theist, gives freedom, not atheism. To do this, i look at what the bible says and the real world Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from the surface of the ground, except that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob," declares the Lord.-amos, 9:8 now, we also find quotes that suggest loyalty Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.-romans, 13:7 While the bible encourages loyalty, if a government is corrupt, or sinful, they should not be tolerated now the real world. lets compare theocracy's, and atheistic dictatorships. the atheism we see today, is a result of the ussr. It (atheism)*was created with the sole purpose of controlling the people. the governments destroyed roman catholic and eastern orthodox churchs. the people there never revolted. nor in china,where the bible is illegal, or north korea. however, the soviet governments control lessened, when the pope pushed religion back into the country. Now lets compare that to the muslim theocracy of Iran. Twice Iran has rebelled. i would also like to argue that, religion brings true free thinking, not atheism. for one simple fact; an atheists opinions come from an extremely biased media, questionable sources on say,the internet. i am catholic, while my church has dogma, i am able to interpret what the dogma means.why its there. And, my opinions come from my god, and pope Francis. the atheism in Europe and america, has been influenced by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawkings,etc All of whom, have written books. i would argue, there attacks on theism have a lot to do with this, publicity. While, as we know, the pope makes a measly 20000, and lives in a small apartment with no cable.and while former popes lived in a palace, it was built several hundred years ago,and the popes still made, 20000 * i do not argue atheists are communists, it has just been used by communist society's
Satan is the Good Guy, God is the Bad Guy

First of all my opponent has already broken the rules but since it is kind of ironic that he states it is bad to follow rules I will allow this to happen. The first statement saying that God only wants your life only to be lived bound by rules is quite far from the truth. That's only a day to day thing following the rules. "God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4) that is the ultimate goal that God wishes for us. The Bible tells us "Christ died for sins once for all." (1 Peter 3:18) why would he do that if he didn't truly love us? "You lie and you sin, you sin and you go to hell." Not quite accurate there bud. Repentance basically saying your sorry and meaning it may get you a good defense at judgement. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com... However following Satan will get you hell. Following Satan will get you into hell "And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation. And he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:9-11) ..."He (Satan) just wants you to be happy." Satan knows his days are numbered and he is striving to take as many with him as he can. He is not dumb you know, he was the Lords right hand man for quite some time, until jealousy lead him astray and turned him into a menace. He knows that if he can put doubt into the minds of man about if he exists or not or if he is unjust people will rebel against God. Matthew 13:19 http://www.reclaimingthemind.org... Where we stand now... Satan, the deceiver, the serpent, the accuser, Lucifer, we know him by many names none of them mean anything good, I have yet to see proof that Satan is the good guy. I have stated why Satan is the bad guy and God is the good guy. I look forward to my opponents response.
Satan is the Good Guy, God is the Bad Guy

For starters God wants you to live your life bound by rules. Whereas Stan wants you too live your life however you would like. Dumb ignorant people won't be able too see this, you have to sit back and really look at the facts. You lie and you sin, you sin and you go to hell. Satan on the hand, you lie who cares, sure to stupid people this makes him look bad, but is he really, is it bad he just wants you to be happy.
Satan is the Good Guy, God is the Bad Guy

In a long comment argument in a debate http://www.debate.org... I felt inclined to make a debate. The rules are as follows, Using 16kadams Rules: Rules: 1. First round is for acceptance only 2. Second round is for cases only 3. BOP is shared 4. No kritiks/semantics 5. Voting is on arguments only 6. Breaking rules = loss 7. Sources don't need to be in debate, but if you do that put them in an external link. 8. No NAP or annoying libertarian philosophy (counts as a K). Stats master race 9. You accept definitions 10. Don't troll me. Punishable by losing the debate and an capital punishment through Jaguars. Round Structure: R1: Acceptance. If Con needs clarification, ask for it here. Otherwise, no arguments. R2-4: Arguments/Rebuttals R5: Closing Remarks. You can address previous arguments, but don't offer new ones.
Superman's abilities are WAY too overrated!

Superman has too much of EVERTHING! He's WAY too strong, WAY too fast, and overall WAY too POWERFUL! It just isn't fair, there arent many superhero's or villans that can beat the guy, especially in the marvel universe. Superman could singlehandedly take down the Avengers, The Fantastic 4, The X-Men, the Teen Titans, I mean hell! As far as the comicbook world goes Superman could beat GOD! As a matter of fact, as far as the comicbook world goes Superman is a god. Only God, or a God-like being can turn back time, but superman did that with ease. He steaped all over God's turf when he did that. The only non-Kryptonian like Sup was Capt Marvel and even he got his a$$ kicked by the "Man of steel!" Don't get me wrong, Sup is cool and all but he's so damn unstopable! In fact I can olnly think of a few basic comicbook ppl who could beat him for sure. Those indivisuals are as followed. 1. The Phenix 2. Hancock [jk] 3. Thanos 4. Doomsday 5. Dr.Strange Thats pretty much all I can think of. The only thing not overated about Superman was his death. It just had to happen. A mortal being as powerful as Sup just HAD TO DIE! It wouldn't have been fair. I mean COME ON! We got guys like the Titans, the F4, and the X-Men bussin their asses over stuff Superman couldv'e done with a flick of the wrist! It just wouldn't have been fair if Sup lived to old age against all those who didn't like Daredevil, Aquaman, Maxima, Omen, Superboy, and Captian America. These guys died so youg and so damn weak when compared to Sup, so it would have been just wrong for him to have lived a full life when they didn't. All I'm saying is that Sup is too much of everything. He's just too overated. This guy could destroy the entire universe if he wanted to, and he could destroy over half the Marvel and DC Universes combined with no problem untill one of the guys on my list showed up. [but even then he wouldn't go down easy. Unless the person he was fighting was the Phenix.] Superman is too big, too bad, and too unbaetable. Me, I'm a real comicbook fan, and as a real fan I need at least a few elements of realism in what I'm reading. Any real fan feels the same way and knows that a hero thats too farfetched doesn't make for too good a charecter. Superman was damn near unbeateble, a mortal being of near absolute power. His only true flaw was his weakness to kryponium. Besides that he was invulurable. Well I'm done, I eagerly await con's reply.
Superman's abilities are WAY too overrated!

My opponent has the title as "Superman's abilities are WAY too overrated!" Definition of overrated according to Dictionary.com - "To rate or appraise too highly; overestimate: I think you overrate their political influence." My opponent has stated: "Superman has too much of EVERTHING! He's WAY too strong, WAY too fast, and overall WAY too POWERFUL! It just isn't fair, there arent many superhero's or villans that can beat the guy, especially in the marvel universe." "Superman could singlehandedly take down the Avengers, The Fantastic 4, The X-Men, the Teen Titans, I mean hell! As far as the comicbook world goes Superman could beat GOD! As a matter of fact, as far as the comicbook world goes Superman is a god. Only God, or a God-like being can turn back time, but superman did that with ease. He steaped all over God's turf when he did that." "Don't get me wrong, Sup is cool and all but he's so damn unstopable!" My opponent obviously doesnt know the defonition of Overrated and meant "Superman's abilitys are way to overpowered" (as Logical-Mast er suggested.) To redeem himself my opponent must now explain why "sup" is "overrated". A note to sonofzapp - that means you must explain why his powers are bad. Be carful with your titles! And always be sure about the defonition of a word!