BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Michael Jordan is More Impressive than Lebron James

How much is Michael Jordan Worth? Michael Jordan net worth: Michael Jordan is a former American basketball player and entreprenuer who has a net worth of $1 billion. Even though Michael has not played professionally in over a decade, he still earns an estimated $80-100 million per year from endorsements and various other business ventures. Michael earns $60 million every year from Nike/Jordan brand royalties alone. During his playing days, Jordan set sport records by being the first athlete to earn over $30 million per year in salary which happened from 1996 " 1998 while he was playing for the Chicago Bulls. He also starred in the 1996 movie Space Jam and is the majority owner of the Charlotte Hornets (formerly Bobcats)"NBA franchise. Jordan led the Chicago Bulls to 6 NBA championship titles. He is a five-time league MVP, he holds the record for highest career scoring average of all time and was inducted into the Hall of Fame on September 11th 2009. Throughout his impressive career and even through to the present, Michael Jordan has been a spokesman for many corporate brands including Nike, Gatorade, Wheaties, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Chevrolet, Ball Park Franks, Rayovac, Hanes, and MCI. Before Michael Jordan, the largest celebrity shoe endorsement contract in the world was James Worthy's $150,000 annual deal with New Balance. In 1984, Jordan shattered all endorsement records when Nike agreed to pay him $500,000 per year for five years. Jordan also received Nike stock options which brought his total compensation to $7 million over five years. http://www.celebritynetworth.com...
Michael Jordan is More Impressive than Lebron James

I believe Michael Jordan was better as a basketball player than Lebron James is. My opponent seems to agree with me, so that should make my argument much less difficult. Career highlights and awards 6" NBA champion (1991"1993, 1996"1998) 6" NBA Finals MVP (1991"1993, 1996"1998) 5" NBA Most Valuable Player (1988, 1991"1992, 1996, 1998) 14" NBA All-Star (1985"1993, 1996"1998, 2002"2003) 3" NBA All-Star Game MVP (1988, 1996, 1998) 10" All-NBA First Team (1987"1993, 1996"1998) All-NBA Second Team (1985) NBA Defensive Player of the Year (1988) 9" NBA All-Defensive First Team (1988"1993, 1996"1998) NBA Rookie of the Year (1985) 10" NBA scoring champion (1987"1993, 1996"1998) 3" NBA steals champion (1988, 1990, 1993) 2" NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion (1987"1988) All-Time NBA playoff leading scorer Chicago Bulls all-time leading scorer No. 23 retired by Chicago Bulls No. 23 retired by Miami Heat 3x AP Athlete of the Year (1991, 1992, 1993) 2x USA Basketball Male Athlete of the Year (1983"1984) NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team NCAA champion (1982) 2" Consensus first-team All-American (1983"1984) National college player of the year (1984) ACC Player of the Year (1984) No. 23 retired by North Carolina Career statistics Points32,292 (30.1 ppg) Rebounds6,672 (6.2 rpg) Assists5,633 (5.3 apg) Https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Why school kids should pick what they learn

Hello there, I am new to Debate.org as I see you are as well and Id be happy to accept this challenge. As the Pro I feel that I should Understand the resolution correctly. Are you purposing that school children, meaning Grade school students, should have the right to choose which academic subjects they participate in? Assuming this is the case my goal as the Con will be to prove that grade school students should not be given the option to learn whatever subjects they like multiple reasons. I look forward to your reasoning, please proceed.
Should Food be passed out equaly amoung the citisinz of the USA

When you say food should be passed out equally, what type of political system are you imagining. Who would be in charge and decide who gets what food? What do you mean by equal? We need some definitions here. A capitalist economy has been proven to be the most efficient way to distribute goods. In countries with government food distribution, like North Korea or China under Mao you see massive famines and starvation. Also in Iraq food rationing is a failure: http://www.irinnews.org... Trusting a repressive system such as government to feed you is also not in your best interest as access to food would be very limited.
Kill a beloved, to save many criminals

My opponent's argument refers to the person killing their beloved, would experience unfathomable pain and suffering. That may be true however. . . Recall that the reason for the 10k robbery was to help their family. Assume all the robber's family (10 million) would suffer as well. Therefore causing absolute pain to their families as well. Now, lets assume that not all the families did not have such a relation as you. Most families may not feel the same amount of suffering as you have. But certainly, many more people will feel pain due to the large amount dead. Lets look at the logic: -Was the robbery morally justified? No. However, he/she does not deserve a death sentence. -Innocent or the robber? The innocent is morally superior therefore the innocent should survive -Innocent or 10 million robbers? Wiping out the robbers is not morally superior. The beloved and the robber have same level of morality besides from the rob. -1 v. 10 million? Definitely saving the 10 million is the logical and moral thing to do -1 v. 10 million robbers? Well, the reason to steal the 10k was to help their family. Which means they had enough love for their family to risk themselves in jail. The reason is not entirely justified, however can be debatable. Thank you!
Kill a beloved, to save many criminals

Hi , thanks for accepting :) Just thought the voters should know playing devils advocate. ;)"Kill a beloved, to save many criminals"My breif arugment.1. We ought to act in such a way to minimize the greatest amount of suffering.2. Love is perhaps the quintessence of the human experience ,that which provides unparralleed bliss and unfathomable euphoria yet when taken away is ironically what may also create unfathomable pain and incomprehensible suffering. This is to me what makes live worth living. It is love. This not need to be true to you however I KNOW IT TO BE TRUE TO ME subjectively. Therfore love to me is the most paramount of all things within life.3. To have this taken away , subjectively i may say this would likely be the absolute worst experience that i could possibly undergo. Thus creating unfathomable pain and sufffering.4. To me it is self evident that this would cause me so much incredible pain and suffering that it would drastically out wheigh any potential happiness which could possibly be attained by many criminals. Conclusion. .. .. This is a fairly straightfoward debate. The subjective value i place on love is so unfathomably great that the suffering I would undergo by killing and therfore losing a beloved of mine would be far greater than any happiness achived by many criminals. Therfore the action which would minimize the greatest amount of suffering would be to kill many crimianls and allow me to love my beloved. Therfore the resolution is negated.
Kill a beloved, to save many criminals

Good luck Moral point of view: The number of deaths shows there are no morales present within the decision This reason is quite obvious as far as morale is concerned. Putting 100 million people to death just to save a close person you know is selfish towards the others. Making such decision to slaughter 100 million people solely based on the idea that that you know the person well enough that you show emotions towards them. Killing one person just to save 100 million is clearly has greater morale. The things those "criminals" have done, do not deserve to be put to death Robbery for 10k is not nor should be a capital offense. Stealing 10k is about the money to hi-jack a fairly used car to go to work. (This analogy works because the they stole the money for their family, not for their own use). Now, these people needed the money to financially survive, so they have some justification for their cause. On top of that, they have the same level of morality as your friend/family member. The only difference is 10 million will be manslaughtered. This part of my argument was extremely short and I will expand my argument in the following rounds. I will also perform rebuttals to my opponent.
Kill a beloved, to save many criminals

Standard rules. (No trolling, cussing, and be nice. Format is intended to be arguments on round 2, however the opponent may extend his/her arguments as he/she pleases) Definition: This debate concerns humans. Assume both parties have same level of morality. Scenario: A psychotic maniac named "Commondebator" has given you an option of which you cannot escape: Kill a beloved family member, or kill an entire country of criminals. (All of the criminals are in jail for as long as you decide) This debate will regard heavily on morals, logic. There are no federal standpoints. (The psychotic maniac commondebator, has removed all authorities). Try to envision your beloved family member, v. s a nation of 100million criminals. (You do not know one of the 100mil criminals) And what the family member's specific action of caring of in the past is irrelevant, however assume that they care about you, (enough that they will save your life, and help you out in your time of need. This is not about them doing your chores) vice versa. Try minimizing emotions, and the criminals crimes are no more serious than stealing a bank of $10k, and their reasons were to help their family. Aside from that, both parties have same level of morality. (Does not have to be a family member, just a friend or a hobo that you care) Good luck
Gay marriage should be legalized.

1) My opponent has provided no argument that marriage is a fundamental human right. Conside the followin: if a nation did not provide government-sanctioned marriage contracts, would it be violating basic human rights? Would this provide a moral and legal justification for war (as an intervention in human rights violations)? This example shows that access to marriage is not a human right, it is an arbitrary legal contract granted to citizens because it fulfills particular state interests.2) My opponent claims claims that we "all look at marriage in different ways." So what? If I want to marry my dog (because I see marriage as a legal contract between humans and their pets), should I be allowed to? The government is not in the business of redefining marriage in whatever way individual citizens desire, as that would be the equivalent of anarchy.3) My opponent claims that same-sex partnerships are being unjustly denied the right to marry. As I have already pointed out, this argument presupposes that there is such a right to begin with. Only if there is a right to marry in the first place does this argument work. Because there is no such right to begin with, the notions of Equal Protection and Due Process in the Fourteenth Amendment do not apply.4) Just because gay couples have the capacity to care for children does not mean they should care for children. Moreoever, my opponent fails to realize that the issue at stake in this debate is a capacity to procreate. Gay couples are unable, by their nature, to create children.5) Again, my opponent attacks another straw man (last round my opponent attacked religion and the bible when I made no reference to religion or the bible): I clearly stated that same-sex partnerships are allowed. My point is that same-sex marriage should not be legalized, but that gay couples are allowed by law to exist. There is an important difference. Humans have the right to enter a long-term relationship with anyone they choose. They do not have the right to marriage.6) I extend my arguments from the previous rounds, as none of them have been adequately refuted. Heterosexual marriage provides a framework for procreation, it has "special social value" and should therefore be recognized as such by the state. If the state were to recognize same-sex marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage, it would in effect deny the special social value of marriage. If the special social value of marriage is denied, then the government has no legally tenable justification for offering its citizens marriage contracts in the first place. If state-sanctioned marriage can be legally justified as a legal contract, it follows that same-sex marriage cannot be legally justified. My opponent has yet to respond to this argument.
Gay marriage should be legalized.

IN MY DEFENSE: 1) My reference to the bible was for the many voters I just KNEW were thinking it. 2) I still stand with what I said about it being semantics. My opponent obviously has a completely different view as to what "human rights" are. And without my opponent's opinion, which I directly asked for, I cannot defend my point. You cannot fight for something if you are unaware of the point. Furthermore, when we were speaking of human rights, I simply said (in order to avoid this whole confusion in the first place) that, "it should BECOME a right for the people to marry no matter what the relationship is. " This is my argument. 3) As my opponent has stated the obvious, this is a debate about whether gay marriage should be legalized. My opponent claims that the compelling reason for the government to give its citizens the legal benefits associated with marriage "is for the purpose of procreation. " I have already given my thoughts on this and my opponent has chosen to ignore them. We all look at marriage in different ways. This does not mean people should not get equal benefits just because of a difference in opinion. 4) My opponent argues that there is a right and wrong side to an opinion. I disagree. My point to my statement on opinions was to point out the different meanings in marriage. Seeing as how we all look at in different ways, the government should keep that in mind. Why shouldn't a same sax partnership have equal rights to the benefits of marriage? ARGUMENTS: 1) Gays should have equal rights to marriage. Why shouldn't homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals? Why shouldn't they both receive legal benefits of marriage, such as; tax, estate building, family, medical, and employment benefits? As I have said throughout this entire debate, we all have rights! Not permitting same-sex marriage is against our own constitution (The Fourteenth Amendment [specifically the Equal protection clause]). Personally I think going against our constitution is, as my opponent would say, "groundless. " 2) Gay couples not only properly care for children, but take in large numbers of children who are without any parents at all, thus HELPING the community. 3) Marriage can also be looked at as a way to bond a family; it can enforce security throughout the home. Restricting the rights of same sex marriage would take that security from children raised by homosexuals throughout the U. S. 4) A person does not voluntarily decide their sexual … orientation or their preference, just as a person does not decide their gender, or ethnicity. It is unjust to decide what you can and cannot do based on these things. After all, what kind of "melting pot" would America be if we did not mix ethnicities and culture? I hope my opponent has not taken offense to anything I have said.
Gay marriage should be legalized.

1) My argument against same-sex marriage makes no reference to religious or the bible.2) My opponent offers no compelling reason to believe marriage is a fundamental human right.3) This is a debate about whether gay marriage should be legalized. This means that whatever people might think marriage is, those are opinions and not relevant to this debate. What matters is whether the government has a compelling reason to give its citizens the legal benefits associated with marriage. The compelling reason, I argue, is for the purpose of procreation. 4) My opponent claims I did not respond to his argument that "we are all people andwe all deserve the right to an opinion on what marriage is." Sure, anyone can have an opinion. That doesn't make the opinion true or correct.
Gay marriage should be legalized.

My opponent agrees that marriage is not a fundamental human right, but argues that it should be a right. Why? My opponent offers no compelling reason to recognize marriage, and particularly same-sex marriage, as a fundamental human right that should be extended to everyone. It is arguable that marriage is a social construct and demanding that it be extended to include homosexual unions is completely arbitrary and groundless.My opponent argues that the "happiness of fellow people" is a reason to legalize same-sex marriage. According to this logic, there will also be many people who will not be happy if same-sex marriage is legalized (as it offends their deeply held beliefs and values). Many people believe that homosexuality is immoral, and if the state were to condone immoral actions, they would be extremely offended and disturbed. That is precisely why same-sex marriage is a highly contested belief, and claiming that it make some people happy completely neglects the fact that it will make just as large a group of people unhappy.None of the arguments my opponent has offered thus far provide a compelling reason to legalize gay marriage. To affirm the resolution, my opponent has the burden to prove two things: 1) that the state has an interest in recognizing marriage as a human right; and 2) that this right should be defined to include same-sex unions. As of yet, my opponent has proven neither.Although my opponent's arguments have been negated, I will continue to argue against same-sex marriage by defending philosopher Jim Spiegel's argument [1]:1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.The force of this argument is relatively clear: because heterosexual marriage provides a framework for procreation and child-rearing, it has "special social value" and should therefore be recognized as such by the state. If there state were to recognize same-sex marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage, it would in effect deny the special social value for which marriage is justified as a legal contract in the first place. Hence, the conclusion: same-sex marriage should not be legalized.The resolution is negated.[1] http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...;
Gay marriage should be legalized.

FourTrouble, I would like to begin with an apology. This is my first debate and I struggle to adjust to the routine. Hopefully, I will learn quickly. Although, I must ask for your patients with me, for I am am new to this. I also ask you do not hesitate to inform me of any error I may make. Upon assumption that you will do this for me, I thank you before hand. I also realize that this is to be written in terms of "to my opponent," for the sake of the reader. I find this difficult because I feel as though these should be directed at you. I think the reader will be able to interpret what is being said even with we addressing things to you. I will try to keep it in mind as I write. 1) I greatly agree with your point on weather or not one should ACT on any belief. I see now that my reference to Hitler backfired as I thought it would. I must give you credit for your amazing ability to turn that around. However, I see a distinctive difference between the reference you made as to the unjust killings of Jewish people. I believe that you should be able to act on your beliefs as long as it does not take the rights from others. In the case of the Nazi's, their practice directly took the rights of the Jewish people. This is a great example of limitations gone to far. I find it a great challenge to find balance between the right to your own rights, and to others. With the case of gay marriage, I do not see the harm in allowing them to LEGALLY bond. By doing this they are not taking others rights, the rights for heterosexuals to marry. They are only taking their own rights, the right for homosexuals to marry. 2) I agree that marriage is a legal contract. I also agree that it IS not a human right. However, I am arguing that it should BECOME a right for the people to marry no matter what the relationship is. Again, I do not see how this effects the rights of others. 3) I understand your concern for my comparison. I feel perhaps you took it the wrong way. I was trying to compare the bystanders, not the actual offenders. Meaning, I meant only that the situations reminded me of how the people unaffected by the matter reacted in other, more sever, cases. And although the comparisons of slavery and the Holocaust are to a far more extreme than the case of legalized same-sex marriage, they have something in common, the unwillingness for someone to fight for fairness when they are the ones gaining from the inequality. I apologize for any misunderstandings. 4) You argue "that there are no good reasons that same-sex marriage should be legalized." Is the happiness of fellow people not a real reason for an action. That alone should be enough to make us at least consider the possibility. With that said, I eagerly await my opponent to reply.
Gay marriage should be legalized.

I will argue that there are no good reasons that same-sex marriage should be legalized. My opponent did not state this round is solely for acceptance, so I will briefly reply to a few points my opponent made in the first round. I will offer and defend my argument against same-sex marriage in the second round.1) My opponent argues that there is a difference between what is "moral" and what is "legal." I agree, and since this debate is about what should be "legalized," it is a debate about legal issues, not morality2) My opponent argues that "it does not matter if someone finds another citizen's beliefs against their own." Agreed. People are allowed to hold different beleifs. This does not mean people are allowed to act on any belief they hold. If someone believed that killing the jews (as Nazi's surely believed) is good, it does not follow that they should be allowed, by law, to practice that belief. There is a difference between privately believing things and publicly acting on those beliefs.3) My opponent argues that it is "illogical to take the rights from our fellow people to marry," regardless of what kind of "relationship" it is. I agree that everyone has the right to enter a committed relationship with another person of their choosing (same-sex relationships are okay), but I do not agree that everyone has the right to "marriage." Marriage is a legal contract afforded to people by the state. It is not a human right.4) My opponent compares the imperative (from my opponent's perspective, of course) to legalize same-sex marriage to "times of crises" such as the "Holocaust or slavery." This comparison is patently false, as it it completely reduces the violence to humanity that was slavery and the Holocaust to the relatively harmless issue that is same-sex marriage. Slavery is immoral and impermissible to a degree that denying people access to marriage could never even come close to. The systematic slaughter of jews is hardly comparable to denying homosexuals the right to marry people of the same-sex. That my opponent even considers this comparison apt is, as far as I'm concerned, extremely problematic.And with that, I turn it over to my opponent. I look forward to his or her arguments in support of same-sex marriage.