BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
basketball is better than volleyball

THEY CHEATED it was all over ESPN They caught him and he quit as soon as they brought it up so im pretty sure he cheated. Volleyball is a pure game with no national problems. and I cant name u and basketball teams in the phillipines alaska etc. u kno why B-BALL ISNT THAT POPULAR I had made it seen numerous times in this debate that U have no clear reason why a lieing cheating game like b-ball is better than a pure fun game like v-ball THank YOu (Vote me)
Euthanasia ought to be banned as a form of population control for animals.

we often say to spay or neuter one's pets because to not do so would cause overpopulation, would continue the current overpopulation. following the same logic, we must euthanasize animals like dogs and cats, because there's an over population of them. there'd be too many, would spread disease, and cause destruction, and be in start poverty much more. animals are not like humans with an inherent dignity that means we can't kill them. killing people cannot be used as a means to an end. they are just animals and killing them is a means to our end.
Naploleon Bonaparte would defeat George Washington in a war.

Rebuttals"The british have fog but they are on the advantageous side. They are completely covered by fog but still they can see washington’s army. Washington cannot locate british army due to this heavy fog."I am afraid you are incorrect. Both sides had fog and equal conditions. "Number is not the reason of draw. If you read about this battle from Wikipedia you will see washington’s tactics."My opponent brings no proof of his own and wants me to look on Wikipedia. I look, and nowhere did it say that it was a draw because of tactics. This more reputable site, http://www.britishbattles.com... says that they not only outnumber the British and about 1,000 British die of heat stroke."So you see Washington lost 3 battles not because of his fault but because of situation and his tactics. With this please add the non cooperation of congress then you will find the true picture." And I have refuted all of them. If it was Napoleon, he would have easily won the battles. "Napoleon was an emperor, he may have a navy. Washington was not an emperor. He was an ordinary man. There is no question that he will have a navy. You can say congress do not have a navy." Exactly, so it gives Napoleon advantage in a war."General is a paid professional that leads the army. Emperor is the one who fund the army and pay the general his salary."My opponent makes the obsurd claim that Napoleon Bonaparte does not fight and only funds the army. Do you know any history? Napoleon was a emperor and a general. He is rated as one of the best generals and tactitions by historians. You don't see Washington being rated like that by historians. Napoleon personally took part in his wars and invasions.My opponent does not refute the statistics.Napoleon BonaparteAusterlitz - Victory and also was outnumberedJena - VictoryWaterloo - Defeat, but would have won if his officers cooperatedLogan - Victory and outnumberedPyramids - Victory and was outnumberedWag ram - VictoryGeorge WashingtonFort Washington - DefeatBrandying - Outnumbered the British, made poor decisions and lostSaratoga - VictoryGermantown - Outnumbered the British but lostMonmouth - DrawYorktown - Victory, but only because the French cameAnd that the battles George Washington won were puerly because of number, and that Napoleon won many battles while extremely outnumbered.Yorktown- The British were outnumbered 3 to 1. Washington also got French support.Battle of Eutaw Springs- British were outnumbered and the US lost way more men.Trenton- Outnumbered the British. There were 2,400 American troops with 18 guns. 1,400 Hessians with 6 light guns. ConclusionHistorian rate Napoleon as one of the best generals and tactitions in history. As for Washington, most historians agree he is a mediocre general. My opponent has also conceded that he has advantages like army, navy, and supplies. It is clear Napoleon would win if they fought a war. Sourceshttp://www.theamericanrevolution.org...http://www.wtj.com...; http://www.whitehouse.gov...;http://www.britishbattles.com...;
Naploleon Bonaparte would defeat George Washington in a war.

"battle of brandying: lost due to heavy fog." So? The British had heavy fog too. Besides, Napoleon won many battles with fog. "battle of germantown: lost due to natural calamity: heavy morning fog" Again, the British had fog too. Napoleon won many battles with fog. The british have fog but they are on the advantageous side. They are completely covered by fog but still they can see washington’s army. Washington cannot locate british army due to this heavy fog. battle of monmouth: draw by Washington's tactics" Not because of Washington's tactics, because of number. The British were not only outnumbered, but also some 1,000 soldiers died from heat stroke because of their uniforms. Washington's plan to split the thin British line actually failed. Number is not the reason of draw. If you read about this battle from Wikipedia you will see washington’s tactics. "battle of fort Washington: lost due to disobedience of Colonel Magaw" Okay, I'll give you that one. Thank you very much. So you see Washington lost 3 battles not because of his fault but because of situation and his tactics. With this please add the non cooperation of congress then you will find the true picture. Napoleon Bonaparte has the advantage of the Navy, which would be a big factor in him winning the war. Napoleon was an emperor, he may have a navy. Washington was not an emperor. He was an ordinary man. There is no question that he will have a navy. You can say congress do not have a navy. Beside please don’t call washington’s army. It is the army of continental congress. It is called continental army. Washington was just a general of that army. He is not paying the army. Congress is. So you see comparing Washington with napoleon means comparing an emperor with a mere general of an army. General is a paid professional that leads the army. Emperor is the one who fund the army and pay the general his salary. Napoleon also has a general like Washington. It is not a comparison at all.
Naploleon Bonaparte would defeat George Washington in a war.

1] war certainly is a point. now lets see what point it is.........napolean won all of his battle with tactics. he lost the battle of waterloo due to poor tactics. since napolean was an emperor and he was the dictator of his army,the credit of winning and losing of battles can be given to him.but the same is not the situation of washington. washington was not the sole commander of his army. he was a good soldier.he lost his battles due to many reason.let me show you:battle of fort washington: lost due to disobedience of Colonel Magawbattle of brandywine: lost due to heavy fog.battle of germantown: lost due to natural calamity: heavy morning fogbattle of monmouth: draw by washington's tacticsbattle of saratoga: won by tactics and help of france.all the informations about battles are available in wikipedia. you can go and type the name of the battle and you will find.so you see, first 3 battles are lost due to either non cooperation by his men or natural calamity like heavy fog. and to add insult to injury the congress refuse to fund war. inspite of these hardships the battle of monmouth was draw due to his own tactics and the battle of saratoga, he got french help.so you cannot say that washington lost the battles because of his poor tactics, there are other reasons of losing the battles.2] nevy was an important factor for any administrator but irrelevant here since both napolean and washington fought on battle field and not on the high sea.3] i thank you for accepting napolean's advantage as emperor.4] "washington won because of french support": that's ok but why french came in the war? it is because of a treaty of alliance between french monarch and second continental congress. so finally the tactics of congress help washington won the battle.that does not reduce washington's image because without the help of the rulers of a country the army of that country cannot win.you cannot simply compare napolean and washington. if any comparison is possible,then washington is greater than napolean.
Naploleon Bonaparte would defeat George Washington in a war.

Rebuttals 1. Actually, battle is a point. It is true that Napoleon has made mistakes, but he was able to learn from them. He also won much more battles than Washington. The only battles Washington won were purely because of number, while Napoleon won many battles while outnumbered. Again, look at the statistics. Napoleon Bonaparte Austerlitz - Victory and also was outnumbered Jena - Victory Waterloo - Defeat, but would have won if his officers cooperated Logan - Victory and outnumbered Pyramids - Victory and was outnumbered Wag ram - Victory George Washington Fort Washington - Defeat Brandying - Outnumbered the British, made poor decisions and lost Saratoga - Victory Germantown - Outnumbered the British but lost Monmouth - Draw Yorktown - Victory, but only because the French came 2. Navy is an inportant factor. It is true they both had a navy, however Napoleon's was much larger and powerful, and would overpower Washington's tiny Navy. 3. Thank you for conceding the troops. 4. It is true that Washington made did indeed make some good tactical decisions, but look at the majority of the battles. At Brandying, he outnumbered the British, yet failed to learn from his mistakes and lost. Same with Germantown. Most historians would agree that Bonaparte was a better tactition than Washington. "nepolian was an emperor. he was the sole commander of his everything.whereas washington was just the commander of continental army. he was just the servant of congress." Ok. That just gives Napoleon more advantages. "among all these obstacles george washington fought the war, won the war and brought america back its freedom. nepolean did not have to face any obstacle. he just was a player in an open field where only he won." The only reason Washington won was because of French support. Without the support, the British would have won. Also, what do you mean that "Napoleon did not have to face obstacles"? Napoleon faced many obsticles. He won many battles while facing many enemies. Sources Sources are the same sources from last round.
Naploleon Bonaparte would defeat George Washington in a war.

my opponent has made some good point. let me answer:1] battle is not a point that distinguish nepolian from washington because both lost some war and won some war.both made mistake once.2] navy is not a differentiating factor. both nepolian and washington had nevy. only size of the nevy was different.3] troops are inexperienced. yes. i agree.4] tactics:a] on long island war: washington carefully retreat without damaging his own army and outfoxed british.b] in the war of new jersy washington "made what may have been the most brilliant move of the entire war. At midnight, December 25, Washington and his troops silently re-crossed the icy Delaware River and surprised a regiment of Hessian mercenaries camped near Trenton." then he attacked new jersy and captured british stronghold. so you see, washington also had tactics. this is also not the point.now here i am showing how great washington was:1] nepolian was an emperor. he was the sole commander of his everything.whereas washington was just the commander of continental army. he was just the servant of congress.congress was reluctant to fund the war because it wants to settle the matter peacefully. so "Washington would spend the entire war trying to get money, supplies, and troops from the Congress, which at times proved a larger obstacle than the British Army."in war of new jersy "His troops were tired and dispirited, and his supplies were running low. Worse still, the term of enlistment for most of his soldiers was about to expire." among all these obstacles george washington fought the war, won the war and brought america back its freedom. nepolean did not have to face any obstacle. he just was a player in an open field where only he won.so george washington was greater than nepolean.http://www.sparknotes.com...
Naploleon Bonaparte would defeat George Washington in a war.

This is my second debate on this topic.1. Tactics Most historians agree that Napoleon was an expert at tactics. This is undeniable. For example, at the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon used his many tactics to win the battle. When he faked a retreat and his enemy chased him, he cleverly used his cavalry to charge. He then surrounded his enemy and won. 2. Battles. Lets look at some of the most important battles Napoleon Bonaparte and George Washington fought. Napoleon Bonaparte Austerlitz - Victory and also was outnumbered Jena - Victory Waterloo - Defeat, but would have won if his officers cooperated Logan - Victory and outnumbered Pyramids - Victory and was outnumbered Wag ram - Victory George Washington Fort Washington - Defeat Brandying - Outnumbered the British, made poor decisions and lost Saratoga - Victory Germantown - Outnumbered the British but lost Monmouth - Draw Yorktown - Victory, but only because the French came As you see, Napoleon is a much better general than George Washington. 3. Troops Napoleon's men were highly trained, compared to George Washington's inexperienced men. 4. Navy Napoleon had a large navy. All Washington had were a few frigates and many privateers. As you see, Napoleon Bonaparte would clearly win if he and Washington fought a war. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. . http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.onepowerfulword.com...http://www.historyofwar.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://sc94.ameslab.gov...http://www.whitehouse.gov...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.pbs.org...
Vaccines are a waste of time, money, and cause health problems.

Rebuttals/Closing Arguments: Pro has contradicted himself in referring to a poll (which he has failed to link) in which the majority of people questioned have said that they are 'for' vaccines - on the basis that they 'protect everyone'. Pro then rather oddly states that the 707 people *for* vaccinations are of 'low intelligence' - which is an empty and bareless assertion as he hasn't provided any source(s) in support of it. That Pro can go from using statistics that show most people are in agreement with the vaccination process and then say that these people are all simply stupid, demonstrates what little understanding of the topic he has and how poor his ability to construct consistent arguments is. Pro asks if I think more diseases can be cured, to which the obvious answer is yes, as this is what's continually been happening within the last 100 or so years; more diseases have become identified, and more diseases have been treated and cured through vaccinations. Many of the vaccinations I listed are given to infants - and are very important. The rest, were primarily travel vaccinations and the flu jab. People who are going to travel to third-world or tropical countries are highly advised to get vaccinated. Infants and the elderly constitute the primary demographic for flu vaccinations - though they are beneficial to anyone. The reality is that as an infant, Pro would've been vaccinated against early-childhood diseases and other highly contagious ilnnesses that can be fatal if not life-impacting, and, these vaccinations naturally have been of benefit to him as they are to every other person who gets them. All babies within their first year are vaccinated against Diptheria, Tetanus, Polio, Haemophilus Influenzae type b, and Hepatitis b, in what is what is known as the 6-in-1 vaccine. So, my opponent has failed to fulfill his BoP and has completely dismissed most of my case, to the extent that not one source I used was addressed.
Vaccines are a waste of time, money, and cause health problems.

Do you think childhood vaccinations should become mandatory? >Yes, it protects everyone >No, it's a family decision I>'m undecided Thank you, we have already counted your vote. Yes, it protects everyone 79.08% (707 votes) No, it's a family decision 18.12% (162 votes) I'm undecided 2.8% (25 votes) Total Votes: 894 In this poll, 80% of people, 4x the people have proven that they have low intelligence. All thos people have no idea what's in the vaccines nor read the leaflets. They want 96% of people to be vaccinated where I live!!! They are forcing me to get a vaccination or they're gonna fire me!!! That's against freedom and I totally disagree with it... You think even more diseases can be cured?! Come on! You listed like 10 that we *must get* which is absurd!!!
theists are atheists to atheism

atheist G2;e=8;_2;=8;=8;st/Submit noun a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. "he is a committed atheist" Full Definition of THEISM. : belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world. Therefore, the phrase "theists are atheists to atheism" makes no sense.
Affirmative Action is Good

This policy is a way to make sure that diversity is achieved and maintained in workplaces and schools, thus helping create tolerant communities as it exposes individuals to various ideas and cultures that are different from their own. iversity is desirable and will not always occur if left to chance. The ability to interact with other nationalities and races should be part of the education process, which can alleviate problems experienced by many students who live very segregated lives. Normally, opinions of other groups of people are based on stereotypes, but interaction would allow students to learn that members opposite races are people too, more or less just like themselves. Since most people desire diversity, it is important to make sure colleges and universities will represent a wide range of backgrounds, but without Affirmative Action, this diversity is much less likely to occur. It will even be possible that schools become segregated like the ones in the past. Elite schools might once again become increasingly dominated by students from majority groups. Take note that diversity is so important, and we cannot leave it to chance.Students who started at a disadvantage need a boost, and this policy has made it happen. Generally speaking, these involved mostly minority students. Usually coming from lower-income families, they would have lesser opportunities to attend private schools, unlike white students. However, we should take note that sincere and hard-working minority students are every bit as capable as white students, but because of the disadvantages they experience, they were not having the same paper qualifications. Now Affirmative Action makes sure to even the playing field a bit for these students.
Affirmative Action is Good

If we look at the broader picture, we see that education is but a cog in the whole economy. Nobel winning economists such as Friedrich Hayek have noted the importance of freedom and competition in the economy. It leads to greater choice, higher quality products and greater opportunities. The reverse therefore is true when, through human intervention, we start narrowing down this freedom and competition. We saw this in the financial crisis. Banks, businesses and even industries that were propped up by political affirmative action in the form of tariffs, tax relief and other legal incentives, could no longer sustain themselves. Sometimes you have to cut the weeds to allow the vegetation through. Darwin talked about survival of the fittest. It fared humans and all other species of the planet well for the past few billion years. Should we now break this universal law? You may share statistics which show the increase of blacks and latinos in universities after the introduction of affirmative action and their decrease after affirmative action was banned. But what does this really show? If you remove the teeth from lions there will be an increase in antelopes, likewise if you return them their teeth they will soon be put to good use. Back to the real economy: should recruiters hire people based on their gender, skin colour or race? If you applied for a job and were refused because you are female, would that be fair? What if they said they have too many females working in the company and so they want to use "corporate affirmative action" to establish a gender balance, therefore, you will not be considered. Looking at this more deeply, this will not only be harmful for you, but for the company and its customers too. Why? Because, what if you were the best person for the job? You could have helped them produce products that were: better, cheaper, and more innovative. Customers could have had more choice, better products and for lower prices. When we apply this to universities we see that in a free and open economy, if a university had 100 places, all of those places would be filled by the best applicants. If we now intervene in this process, what we get is some of the deserving applicants are refused and some of the non-deserving are admitted. Does this benefit the deserving students who are refused a place? The students who work hard to get good grades. The students who stay in rather than go out and practise one more time for their next examination. Or does this benefit the non-deserving students? Who may also have worked hard, but on paper did not perform well enough to be in the university. Who may sit in auditoriums filled with some of the most academically gifted people in the country. Who know they are only in the same room as these people because of their gender, race or colour. Does this benefit our future economy by promoting the lowest performers to the top and the top performers to the bottom? If this has never been witnessed in nature over the course of billions of years, one can only wonder how it will fare for us over the next 100 years.
Affirmative Action is Good

Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better. Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. It would help lead a truly color-blind society. It is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed. It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability. Once enacted, affirmative actions are tough to remove, even after the underlying discrimination has been eliminated. Yes Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. Affirmative action is designed to end discrimination and unfair treatment of employees/students based on color, but it in effect does the opposite. Whites who work harder and/or are more qualified can be passed over strictly because they are white. Contrary to many stereotypes, many minorities fall into the middle or upper class, and many whites live in poverty. Unfortunately, the way things are set up now, a poverty-stricken white student who uses discipline and hard work to become the best he can be can be passed over by a rich minority student who doesn't put in much effort at all.