BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Will Duke win March Madness

I believe that Duke will not win March Madness for 50 of the following reasons: 1 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 2 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 3 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 4 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 5 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 6 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 7 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 8 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 9 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 10 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 11 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 12 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 13 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 14 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 15 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 16 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 17 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 18 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 19 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 20 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 21 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 22 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 23 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 24 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 25 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 26 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 27 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 28 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 29 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 30 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 31 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 32 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 33 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 34 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 35 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 36 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 37 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 38 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 39 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 40 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 41 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 42 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 43 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 44 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 45 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 46 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 47 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 48 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 49 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com... 50 - They already lost to Mercer http://www.newsday.com...
Manchester United is better than Chelsea.

Over the last 6 matches with chelsea, man u have won 0 drawn 2 and lost 4 if thats a record to go by, that would completely suggest that man u are worse than chelsea, which is completely true, you have won a few trophies here and there, but when you look at the form, when you look at the players, when you look at the manager, when you look at the league table, when you look at european standing, when you look at the scouting procedures and who they sign, the evidence is overwhelming, Chelsea are better than Manchester United.
Manchester United is better than Chelsea.

This debate says nothing about when united were good, and with david moyes it shows how overrated man u players actually were, chelsea have won the champions league more recently than man u in 2011, you are going back all the way to 2008, football has moved on far more since then rather than 2011, chelsea still have about the same number of players who played then, man u on the other hand have a complete almost a complete new era of players sice ferdinand is about to retire, vidic is leaving, giggs is 40, scholes has already retired, carrick is 33, evra is awful and that was about your whole team, oh and also who just paid "37.5 MILLION FOR A SUB!!!!!!!!! THATS RIGHT YOU HEARD IT "37.5M FOR OUR SUB!!! that just shows what a desperate team united are at the moment and will be for evermore, just like liverpool in the 90's!!
Manchester United is better than Chelsea.

Is this a joke mate? where are man u coming in the table, they arent even in the top 6!!!!!! whereas chelsea aer 1st, you lost 2-0 to olympiakos, youre out of the title race, not in the fa cup, barely the 1/4 finals in the league cup, you say that youre richer, but chelsea has a the most expensive player in the premier league, then you say you have better players, but what happened lastnight against olympiakos, youre best player was a 40 year old who should be retired, and your best young player is appaling in phil jones, you were lucky rvp was there or you would have been totally beaten, and you have a manager who formerly managed everton without winning a trophy, whereas chelsea has the 'chosen one' in mourinho who knocked barcelona off their perch, where you are coming from is obscene and this shows that chelsea are clearly miles beter!!!
Resolved: The USFG should ban smoking in restaurants and bars nationwide

Background: Though secondhand smoke is known to be harmful, 16 states still allow smoking in restaurants, and 20 states still allow it in bars. http://www.marketwatch.com... As Pro, my burden is to prove that a federal ban on smoking in restaurants and bars would be a good idea. Round structure: 1. Acceptance 2. Arguments 3. Rebuttals 4. Defense All arguments, including kritiks, are allowed. This debate is part of the January Beginners' Tournament.
More people with guns will help stop the criminals from abusing them.

The purpose of me bringing up the gun ban in Japan was not to compare Japan to the United States but rather to show that the most effective way to stop criminals from abusing firearms would be to eliminate firearms as a whole. My opponent dismissed the fact that there is no causal relationship between right to carry laws and crime associated with firearms as concluded by the National Research Council in 2004 and instead chose to point to moot surveys that do not strengthen his argument but weakens his argument. For example, "A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." 3.5% of 4.977 households equates to approximately 174 households which means that 4,803 of the households in the survey did not have any members that had used a gun for any of the above reasons. Second, "Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]"[2] Although guns were used, the question remains were guns necessary to defend themselves. How many of the households could have achieved the same result with a bat or a knife? As there is no causal relationship between right to carry laws and crimes associated with firearms, the other surveys my opponent has posted are moot. My opponent posted the following; "And lastly your own source factcheck.org lists these numbers here, "in 2010 there were 11,078 gun related murders the lowest since 1985, while gun ownership was at its highest 88.8%. This source also notes a drop in gun robberies and aggravated assault while manufacturing also went up."[3]" However, my opponent failed to mention the following; "Barber said gun violence has "dropped precipitously" from the early 1990s " a trend criminologists chalked up to "changes in the crack cocaine market." Her observation is supported by crime data and surveys." [1] My opponent states that if the teachers in Connecticut were armed they may have prevented the shooting from happening. However, in another school shooting, specifically the shootings in Columbine, there were in fact armed guards on campus. Unfortunately, they were unable to prevent the shootings from happening although they tried. [2] This debate is not about gun ownership nor the 2nd Amendment. It is my opponents" position that more people with guns will help stop criminal from abusing them. Nothing my opponent has stated has proved his position. I thank my opponent for this debate. SOURCES [1] http://factcheck.org... [2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
More people with guns will help stop the criminals from abusing them.

It is my opponents" position that arming people with guns will prevent criminals from using them. I will disprove my oppenenst position. The United States has by far the highest rate of gun ownership in the world. The United States holds less than 5% of the world"s population yet is home to 35-50% of all guns in the world. [1] Although the United States holds the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, the United States does not have the highest firearm murder rate which would seem to corroborate my opponents" position. However, there is no causal relationship between right to carry laws and crime associated with firearms as concluded by the National Research Council in 2004. " Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates. " [2] It would seem that the best way to prevent criminals from abusing firearms is to virtually eliminate guns from circulation as has been done in Japan. " In 2008, the U. S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally. [3] As there is no causal relationship between right to carry laws and crimes associated with firearms my opponents' position that more people with guns will help stop criminals from abusing them is false. I now pass this debate to my opponent for rebuttal. SOURCES [1] . http://www.guardian.co.uk... [2] . http://factcheck.org... [3] . http://www.theatlantic.com... #
More people with guns will help stop the criminals from abusing them.

If more people have guns and know how to use them it will make America a safer place. Criminals are always going to have guns we can not stop them from getting them we need to keep them from using them. I would like to start with putting a gun and training experience in every teacher in America's possession. Think of the recent shooting the only person who could have stopped the shooter in that school was a teacher with a gun locked in her desk(to keep from misuse). If every store owner and bank owner not to mention house hold had at least one gun handy, but also out of the way of misuse, criminals would be much more reluctant to commit crimes, this would probably drastically cut thievery down because some punk kid will think twice about ripping of some television or something like that knowing he can be easily apprehended. It would also cut down mass murders to because before they became mass the gunman such as the one in the movie theater in Colorado could be shot down before to much damage is done. Yes of coarse guns are not to be permitted in schools(students) or for people under 18 without adult supervision. You might argue that this gun use will cause more murders in skirmishes and arguments well we can take care of that with a strict law that gives a minimum of 20 years for gun use outside self defense or recreation. We will never be able to stop gang related murder violence but people caught in the cross fire will be able to protect themselves. I believe the government should look into supporting this in since they are so in love with handouts they should give out free gun training and safety classes to the head of every household. I am not encouraging vigilantly justice I'm encouraging protecting yourself and your families the way it's been done in America for about the last 250 years. Good luck to my opponent and I am eager to hear your response.
senor citizens are liability or an asset....

What my opponent proposes is that we put elderly and retired senior citizens to work as advisors without paying them, which I contend is morally wrong and unfair, and is not something that any government would do or any populace would ever allow happen. Even then, I remind my opponent that he has not proven that experience will do any good or even that the elderly have experience that is still relevant. And as my opponent has implied that he agrees that elderly are falling apart so are not able to share their experience effectively. Why, then, would an assistant be any better? No reasonable government should expend so much time, energy and money on putting decaying people to work while giving them no incentive and having no evidence that they will do any good. My opponent has failed to prove senior citizens are an asset to their country.
senor citizens are liability or an asset....

I am confused by your dilemma that whether you are not able to understand what i am saying or you are not willing understand it.. I have said that we can make them advisors to the main stream work force... I am not saying that to keep them in the main work force.. Bur you can giive them a rle of assistant,consultant or even advisor.So that their experience and credibility can be taken in the country's development as they have serve to that country.Through all this we can utilise their time as well.There are many things where experience plays an all important role which could not be achieved by the young minds whether it is a business or a teaching institute.. Bottom line is this that experience with young mind can make wonders.. I also want to make one thing crystal clear that as you know that there are two types of work forces namely,mainstream work force and assistants to them.. Now I think that you have understood what i wanted to say!!!!!!!!!!
senor citizens are liability or an asset....

My opponent's argument is largely incoherent, but comes down to "we should put them in the workforce so they can share their experience". I contend, as I did in the other debate, that as the very definition of "senior citizen" is one who is elderly and retired, no senior citizen can be in the workforce and still be a senior citizen. Then they would simply be elderly. Con provides no evidence that putting senior citizens in companies in institutes as advisors (which would be impossible, since they would then be part of the workforce, and thus no longer retired, and thus no longer senior citizens) has "done wonders". I contend that, experience alone has no proven use, especially in a modern age, that senior citizens cannot bring that experience to the workplace, and that their experience is outdated in a rapidly changing world. My opponent has not sufficiently met his burden of proof.
senor citizens are liability or an asset....

I ma telling you that taking into account the longevity which is in present day around 70.. But we have made our retirement policy much before when the longevity was used to be 60.. I want you to not forget one thing that experince plus young mind can do wonders...(I admit that mind becomes weak) To make these senior citizens an advisor to any company and institute and done wonders and this has been proved.. Vouchsafe them some respect and position and see the result..
Banning Junk Food

Sadly, Parisien's account is no longer active, so we'll just have to accept that and move on. There is one common counter argument that I would like to mention, and rebut, which is the argument of free will. Constantly brought up is the idea that parents have a right to give their children the food they want, at the cost they want, at the times they want. But on the grounds of a school, with so many other rules in place - for example, that school children may not run across the courtyard - this seems indefensible. Bans and rules are a daily part of life. This would merely be a ban instituted for the health of a generation of children. Many thanks, and please do take the time to vote.
Banning Junk Food

I'm happy to accept, but I would like to slightly dispute your definitions: I wouldn't call gum unhealthy. I would narrow down school to state provided education for 3-19 year olds. A university is a place of education, but it's for adults, whom the state can't control. You could also argue that a home is a place of education for home-school educated kids, but you can't ban junk food in people's homes. As for the state school part, at least in Britain private schools and special needs schools have huge leeway about what they teach and how they teach it. (I'm assuming here that we're talking of a statewide or a nationwide ban, not a ban put in place by the schools individually, though I'd be happy to debate that as well. )
Speed Rap Battle

He thought that round he spit was really tight But in all honesty it wasn"t that bright He tried to bump his chest and show his might But it"s still evident that he cant really write It"s also evident that hes probably white So my advice to him is just be quiet This battle has been pitch black call it night Every bar that I spit brings out the light I mean is it irony that his name is Adam The first that that rhymes with is literally madam So Madam adam I"m about to sacrifice you When this battle is over you will see the truth This battle was over before it began And now that it"s over I"m bout to have another fan It was all in my master plan I was going to murder Adam because I"m a hit man He died for my cause I can respect him for that I"m going to add his name to the people Ive beat in the form of a tat He"s just one more fool that tried but fell flat This guys a bug and ima kill him splat That you adam for dying so that I could win Your like a metaphorical Christ except you have to add the sin See i'm sitting here with a big ole grin knowing that i finished adam with a quick shot to the chin
Speed Rap Battle

I'm Adam G the hardest on the streetsYou get one in your eye if you f--k around with meYou're so weak I managed to f--k your mamaHell you're so stupid you're not wanted by your brothersI got a style as hard as the booming systemMichael Glazer got scared as sh%tI put fear in the hearts of hatersI get the girls -- I'm the biggest playerYou say I was on the "Weekly Stupid"But how come it was you in prison who recieved the d**kafter the dropping the soapnow you look like a weak-a*s dopeI got awards in achievementYou're a low life bum on the streets that desperate for some head.
Speed Rap Battle

I'm taking on adam 2 this will be fun This guy was on the weekly stupid so much he was practically shunned Most times I say I will end it with a gun I may but I dont even need a gun to kill this bum Accepting this is going to be something he will regret This is going to be a bigger disappointment than when royal dumped thett3 He thinks he can take me but that"s just a joke I"m going to roll him up like a blunt, and then hit that smoke He will never be on my level no matter how hard he tries Even with a ladder my skill is still way to high I am going to murder this guy silently he won"t make a sound Going nickleback on his azz and burning him to the ground By the end of this battle he is going to want to quit All these raps that I spit are just to quick I am blessed with the gift of thinking on my feet Call me the spurs and this guy is the Miami heat These bars come to me like a biblical vision Give birth to this fool, and give him a circumcision. Wasn"t even that hard of a decision. It is easy to murder you when you have no rhythm I told you, I murdered him silently it was my mission Its not hard math it"s simple addition When you add tradition with ambition you always get a mortician. His bars lack substance they have no nutrition The fact that I"m real is not superstition I"m going to go inquisition on his azz and offer him an extradition Just realize hes not in the best condition Hes in a battle with a masterful tactician. Im tactician meets magician And this is just another addition Of when a washed out druggie goes into remission
Sola Scriptora and there is no papal infallibility

First I want to point out how illogical the doctrine of "the bible alone" is. First of all if the bible is the only source of truth, then why doesn't the BIBLE say that? Second of all, if the bible is the only source of truth, then why isn't there a list in the bible of all the books that are suposed to be in the bible? After all if the bible is the only source of truth, then how do we know what books are supposed to be in the bible if it doesn't tell us that? We know because the Catholic Church tells us that. But the if Catholic Church does not have papal infallibility, than we have no way of knowing if the bible is really inspired scripture or not. Third, if the Church does not have any infallibility, than neither does the bible. The CHURCH gave us the bible. The bible didn't just drop from the sky. The Catholic Church gave us the bible. So either they both are infallible or neither of them are.
Sola Scriptora and there is no papal infallibility

This debate has turned out to be kind of disappointing. Papal infallibility Completely dropped. On this alone, I win. "You did not give a source for papal infallibility being invoked only 7 times. So tell me what your source is." If you had read the debate, you would have known. In the first round, http://en.wikipedia.org... "it says that it was inspired by God, but it does not say that it is infallible…" So is my opponent saying God would tell man something which was not correct? The pope never made an infallible declaration that the bible was infallible. This is outside the scope of the debate. "Jesus would not allow the Magisterium of the Catholic Church to contradict herself because He wants us to know the truth…He gave us the Church (meaning the Catholic Church, not the congregation of all Christians, the congregation of all Christians do NOT make up one church, give a bible passage that says they do), to teach us the truth. Obviously if the Church contradicted herself then she wouldn't be teaching truth." My opponent has provided no proof for any of these statements they are simply unsubstantiated. My opponent provided no sources, nothing. "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." (http://bible.cc...) Look at the word "church" it's not capitalized, thus, it does not refer to the Catholic Church. Next, why don't the congregation of all Christians make up one church? All Christians believe in a few vital things. The exact same God, Jesus Christ, etc. "What the Pope teaches is infallible because it is really Jesus speaking through him." Unsubstantiated claim with no proof. This is exactly what we are (rather were) debating.