BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chris Paul is the best point guard in the NBA

Thank you Magic123 for your arguments. I will post mine.Westbrook averages his stats despite playing along-side the best player in the NBAWhile Chris Paul is the undisputed leader of his team, Russell Westbrook has to play alongside one of the best players in the NBA, which lowers his stats.StatsWestbrook averages more Points and Rebounds, 2 of the main categories stat-wise. He also averages more made free throws, more offensive rebounds, and less fouls despite playing fewer minutes than Chris Paul [1] [2].PostseasonRussell Westbrook is clearly better in the postseason. Westbrook averages more rebounds, more blocks, more points, a higher free-throw percentage, fewer ejections, more offensive rebounds, less fouls, and has more career triple doubles, fewer disqualifications, and fewer techinal fouled the past 2 years combined [3][4]My opponent did not source any of his information, which means he plagerized.Thank you. Sources[1]http://espn.go.com...[2] http://espn.go.com...[3]http://espn.go.com...;[4]http://espn.go.com...;
Chris Paul is the best point guard in the NBA

I will first display both players stats from last year Category Chris Paul Russell Westbrook Points 19.1 21.8 Assists 10.7 6.9 Rebounds 4.3 5.7 Steals 2.5 1.9 Blocks .1 .2 FG% 46.7% 43.7% 3FG% 36.8% 31.8% FT% 85.5% 82.6% Turnovers 2.3 3.8 Chris Paul is the best PG in the NBA for many reasons. First of all he is a great leader and keeps his team together. This is essential for a PG to do. Chris Paul can pass as well as anyone in the league. He creates shots for everyone around him. Paul averaged 10.7 assists last year leading the league. That is almost 2 higher than runner ups John Wall's 8.8. When playing against a good defense 1 on 1 offense eventually stops working. I think we all saw this in the finals last year with the Heat. That is why you cant put a price on shot creators like Paul. The con stated that he believes Russell Westbrook is the best point guard in the NBA. Russell Westbrook is incredibly talented and could be even better, but he is not yet on the level of Chris Paul. Westbrook will get better in many ways but one part of his game that won't dramatically change is his passing. I don't think he naturally has the feel of a shot creator. Last year Westbrook averaged 3.8 less assists than Paul. He also has a lower assists rate than Paul. Westbrook also averaged 1.5 more turnovers than Paul. In terms of scoring the ball Westbrook averaged only 1.8 more points than Paul while taking 3.2 more shots than Paul. Paul shot a higher FG% 3FG% FT% than Westbrook. He also had a higher true shooting percentage. When Paul wants he can score but he does not have to. He does whatever his team needs him to do score or pass. Both are great defenders who are among the leagues best. Paul also lead the league in steals with 2.5. Westbrook averaged a solid 1.9. Paul is better than Westbrook in terms of statistics, leading the league in 2 categories, as well as being a better leader which is beyond statistics.
RESOLVED: Intelligence should determine grades more so than Effort in School

The basic objective of homework is what school is designed for in the first place: to increase your knowledge and IMPROVE your intelligence. Homework, classwork, and projects improve your sense of responsibility, and provide a real time report of your progress in class. Homework can reveal weak areas in individuals, and even in the class in general. Homework, classwork, and projects improve cooperation between students and in some cases builds teamwork, they can reveal weak areas in individuals or in the class as a whole, and can alert teachers to who learns how and may teach them to teach more intelligent students more efficiently. My opponent has forfeited round 3, but I just wanted to reiterate my point. Regardless of whether or not you actually like to DO homework- which I never really did in school- you should understand that it is a better method of teaching than limiting grades to test scores or giving more importance to test scores rather than to habitual progress, completion of work, and demonstration of understanding and progressive learning. I rest my case.
RESOLVED: Intelligence should determine grades more so than Effort in School

I would not like to fritter away at long, redundant arguements. You say that school's purpose is to prepare one for the real world, all events thereafter school. Increasing one's ability to reason efficiently and increasing one's worldly and basic knowledge would help much more in the "real world". Social skills would be increased further in a intelligence centered school curriculum because more time would be liberated for social interaction, time previously used for mindless repetitive work that requires effort, much like a mule carrying a bucket of water. I do stand by the fact that school should be defined as any facility that educates people from 14 and up. People below the age of 14 are usually unprepared for mental engagement. You are right in saying that a Doctor would need to practice his profession, but maybe my point wasn't fully clear. I believe that people should learn in order to pass a test. No assigned homework, classwork, or projects, just lectures and a broad list of material that will be covered on the test. Students would then, based on their own needs, study and learn, and ask questions to the teacher. You say that military, among other fields of work, require more effort and determination. I do agree, and this school philosophy which favors logic and intelligence still adheres to all. Effort would be needed if intelligence was lacked by a student. This student would learn to cope with his deficiency, and find athletic or effort-related means to achieve success in a school environment. In the end, Intelligence is still favored over effort in a school environment, with effort taking the backseat to intelligence that intelligence and logic is occupying in today's world.
RESOLVED: Intelligence should determine grades more so than Effort in School

Definitions: Intelligence - One's intellect and ability to reason efficiently Determine - Impact; alter Grades - The score presented by an official that represents how much of the designated material one understands and retains Effort - the amount of work put forth towards a goal School - Any place of education for 14 year olds and above Arguement: School was designed to increase the mental capacity of its student body. Grades should reflect this, by assessing how much information one understands and has retained. As it stands, homework, classwork and projects account for more of one's grade than tests do. Tests accurately assess how much one has learned from class, while classwork, homework, and projects only assess how determined one is to succeed, which does not align as close as tests do to the purpose of school. Conclusion: Intelligence should determine grades more so than effort in school, which as it stands, is untrue. School is based on Intelligence, yet effort is impacting grades more so than intelligence.
Gun Control

I think your emotional breakdown is more than suffficent to prove my point. Emotional nonsence. Pro quotes-"but I am fully aware of the U.S. population and have no idea what this proves."This PROVES your immature view on all matters. That your prone to over-react on everything, therefore should "not" be taken seriously as you live completely in a fictitous World created by your own mind, and "not" reality!It IS the reason YOU do "not" get to vote!to believe that you live in a world where 0 Murders are attainable is madness and instability of mental facilties!That we HAVE only 0.01% of the total population of the United States murdered (15,549) is a God send, yet you view it as something catastophic, yet say "nothing of the 926,200 abortions were performed in 2014, Killed legally by your government? They have since quit counting and just kill them since you don't obviously care about them?Whose the real blind one here?Pro states "ONE IS ENOUGH!"926,200 abortions? But not enough for you? I'd say your prejudice comes out loud and clear! Killing BABIES is okay, but not students? Why? are they of MORE worth than those Babies? Not to me they are not!You see I am AWARE of the World and it's evils. I know where we are headed, and the end result of those who do NOT know God. It isn't going to end well, one need only read the last chapter of the Bible to know that?School shootings of merely 0.01% of the total Schools in the United States? Is a God send, not a catastrophe!People DIE every where by reason of Evil people. You don't want God in Society so you have to accept the consequences living next to the people you WANT living next to you. People who Live life only for themselves, who will lie, cheat, steal, at YOUR expense every day of the week. I hope your happy?God is out ... murders, liars, cheaters, and perversion is IN. congratulations.We must use reason and common sense, (none of which you have been showing since your opening statement). Governing is responsibility and reason, not emotional outbursts such as is occurring now. 0.01% isn't a problem on any level and Laws MUST NOT be initiated on such nonexistent numbers. Statistically. speaking:http://asirt.org...Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day.I don't see you crying to outlaw cars? They to are not made for Killing people but ... you see how quickly your excuses fall apart when viewed with reason instead of wet your pants emotion?https://www.cancer.gov...Cancer-595,690 people will die from the disease.Mar 22, 2017over 1.8 Million new diagnosed each yearhttps://www.healthyplace.com...Nearly 5.3 million incidents of domestic violence occur annually among US women aged 18 years and older, with 3.2 million occurring among menYeah, we got problems .... but GUNS, is not the problem. Snap out of it people!
Gun Control

Rebuttal: I will now go through your arguments one by one: Thank you, but I am fully aware of the U.S. population and have no idea what this proves. I have shown you statistics compared to another nation (Japan) where our annual gun crime and homicides are significantly higher PER 100,000 PEOPLE. So citing our population is silly. Next, you point to the number of schools compared to the number of school shootings in the U.S. I'm sorry, but this is absurd. You could list the number of schools in Australia or the UK for that matter, and see that there are 0 school shootings. You brush school shootings off like they are nothing. ONE IS ENOUGH! We are the only developed country with this epidemic. Then you go on to say that there isn't a gun problem in the U.S. through citing that only 15,549 people out of 325.7 MILLION were killed by guns in 2017. Is that not enough? I mean look at other developed countries like the U.K., Australia, and Japan and compare their statistics (as I did in my opening argument). You also say that "your MORE likely to get HIT by a BUS! Than shot in a school!" This is an utterly illogical statement as Buses are not made with the intention for the driver to then go and kill people, but rather to transport from point A to point B. This is untrue for guns, which are purely designed for the purpose of killing and maiming. As for the latter half of your argument, it isn't even on the subject. You go on tangential rants about how religion has been taken away from certain aspects of life like that has any bearing on whether we live in a free nation or not. For example, you say, "Remember WHEN"you satt down and wait for buses, and there would be a sign with Jesus on it?"GONE!,"Ten Coomandments, in God we trust all over the place, Statues saluting our rich History, freedom to fly conferate flags." Now this is pure religious nonsense with no bearing on the gun control argument whatsoever. Now at the end of your argument, you say things like "As to your uhhm ARGUMENT? Trash." So essentially you have not provided any valid statistics other than inanely obvious things like our population! Your arguments have been 98 percent emotion thus far with practically no statistics to back you up. Thanks anyways. P.S. I agree with your statement about college campuses and the college snowflakes. While we do have freedom of speech, there are definitely people trying to abridge it, and we must fight together against that.
Gun Control

I welcome you and certainly wish you well. The cry for Gun Control is a Fools Errand, as the founding Fathers LEARNED precisely what disarming its citizens means for any Civilized institutional Government. Indeed the Move to the NEW WORLD was prompted by a Government that squashed its citizens, leaving them HELPLESS to defend themselves from a rogue Government. What have we learned today? Obviously nothing! Government has been proven to be crooked, corrupt and self seeking at it's HIGHEST LEVELS. Now you wish to DISABLE the citizens of this country from the ability to DEFEND itself against a Corrupt Government which has ALREADY DEMONSTRATED its proclivities of removing YOUR FREEDOMS , slowly at first now in GIANT LEAPS.remember Free Speech? GONE!, Remember The pursuit of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? GONE! Remember OWNING a Business? GONE unless you RUN IT THEIR WAY! A Government perpetually giving THEMSELVES raises and EXEMPTING THEMSELVES from the Laws they PASS!That your "not" paying attention like 55+ MILLION others is distressing, but certainly in keeping with The Bibles description of the LAST DAYS spoken of in Revelation ... the WORSE PARTS. But that's not the topic. Suffice it to say that you have not, cannot and will not find a single Reliable source to support your hysteria, BUT ... this should be entertaining?
Gun Control

1. Opening 2. Argument 3. Rebuttals This is my first time debating on this website so bear with me. My fundamental views are as follow: I believe that we should repeal the second amendment (which I realize won't do much other than curtail the NRA's power), we should then ban the sale of all guns (including all semi-automatic guns, although probably not shotguns)- just as Japan has. This would make it so that a person must pass through rigorous vetting and testing in order to obtain a gun license. Then, and only then, should someone have a gun. So essentially, we should adopt Japans gun control methods where they have the least amount of gun violence/homicides per capita of any country other than Signapore (where they also have intensely stringent gun laws). Now I realize that the things I have stated above are relatively implausible for the United States, but I am merely stating the logical steps that would achieve the goal of less gun violence in the U.S. To end off: We are essentially the only other country with this epidemic of mass shootings (unless you want to cite Norway or Albania) neither of which are nowhere as advanced of a country as we are. I mean surely you cannot say that this is a people issue and not a gun issue because there are obviously people with mental illnesses in Japan or Australia--but we are not seeing mass shootings there. Thank you to whoever wants to respond.
Dean Martin VS Frank Sinatra

Frank had the charisma, no doubt,Sinatra all the way. Dean Martin was actually always drunk on set and in studio. Dean has a good voice, but he sounds just like Bing Crosby. Frank has a voice of his own.Frank was great entertainer, and Dean knew that and respected that too! Two of them where like brothers, and respected each others personalities and talents. Frank is after all the Voice, and sometimes people forget that he was a great entertainer as well! Nothing like Dean, but great non the less!Frank Sinatra without a doubt. He has some classics as does Dean Martin, but just hearing My Way still leaves me feeling emotionally charged. That song just sums up the greatness of Sinatra really.I think they are both absoluetely amazing, and i wish people could still appriciate their music. I have been listening to both for many years, and they will both always have a place in my heart.
Affirmative Action (when used in the college application process) is a bad policy.

There will be no actual character limit, if one side of the case would like to post a link to a Google Document they may do so. Of course, the case is that most people will not read such long debates, so I will try to keep within the 8,000 characters that debate. org allows. The first round is for acceptance and acceptance only. No definitions will be presented, nor outlines of arguments. If the Con side of this argument does post any definitions or outlines, they will immediately have forfeited this debate. Con will be arguing that Affirmative Action (when used in the college application process) is a good policy. Either side may present new arguments up until round 5. Round five will be strictly for rebuttals and closing analysis.
Smoking Ban

My worthy opponent has set the ROR (Role Of Round) in a wrong way, as he has slashes in it: '1. Acceptance/ Argue 2. Argue/ Rebut 3. Rebut/ Defend 4. Defend/ Waive. ' So I don't know what my role in this round is. However, I assume that yhis round is rebuttal for me, as my opponent is pro and has BOP. Rebuttal: 1." Secondhand impact" This points as a whole, is out of topic. Worthy opponent, the topic of our debate is not about banning smoking in public places. It's about banning it from anywhere. Why do you want to ban smoking for somebody who wants to smoke in his house, far from his family, if he has one? Or, lets say somebody wants to smoke in the desert, why are you stopping him? Let him do whatever he wants. 2. "Since the 1964 Surgeon General"s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke." That's not because of smoking. That's because of the carelessness of the people who smoke in public places or in middle of their families. You could as well ban driving because many people are killed because of cars. It's all about the person behind the driving wheel, and in this case, it's about the carelessness of the smoker. 3. "Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually" I would like to point two things in this point. 1. The same thing. Out of topic. We are not talking about banning smoking for pregnant women. We are talking about banning it for everybody. What is the ratio for pregnant women in all the population. To the most most extreme, you could ban smoking for women on the basis that they could become pregnant, but I am sure that men cannot become pregnant. You could make a new debate with the topic 'Ban smoking for pregnant women.' 2. You didn't put 'smoking while pregnancy' as a point. You put it in the '1. Secondhand impact' point. 4. You talk about secondhand impact, then talk about smoking's impact on pregancy, then you come back to secondhand smoking. Why don't you make points? You made just one argument, Secondhand impact, and then put everything bad you got about smoking in it. 5. "Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually. And that is infants, not all children!!! " A human being is not called infant in it's mother's womb. 6." Yes, they have their liberty" "liberty of choice" Sorry. I don't know why you say 'liberty' instead of 'freedom' everytime. Thanks. VOTE CON. Sources ( I don't have many sources as I did only rebuttal) : https://www.heartland.org... http://www.spiked-online.com...
Smoking Ban

My argument in this debate will be quite long, but it is totally worth it.1. Secondhand impactI will use this source for my argument: . http://www.cdc.gov...It is a good source, and it has many citations in the end to prove it. Smoking does second hand impact. "Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke. " This number is big. Many people, only adults died because of smoking. Who cares about their liberty? Much more people die, you won't die if you don't smoke! !! "Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually. "And that is infants, not all children! !! "Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20–30%. "And this"Secondhand smoke causes more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths among U. S. nonsmokers each year. "For the sake of crying out loud, that is too much people, just because of smoking. Smoking is bad for other people, not only theirselves. Yes, they have their liberty, so we don't need to care about the smoker's health, but if other people are dying, smoking should be stopped. The "liberty of choice" does no match with second-hand impact. . http://www.cdc.gov...Therefore,
The politics of multiculturalism pose an existential threat to western civilization

My opponent dropped out, so I will make this quick. He states that multiculturalcountries are doing fine after 40 years of civil rights. This doesn't take into account that these countries became prosperous before multi culturalism, and like it or not white countries are more inclined to support economic freedom which is why these countries are successful to start with. The slow erosion of free market policies by allowing in cultures will take a while to take effect. As the demographics continually become less white we will see less people who are pro free market, and as we fall down on the economic freedom index, further from healthy countries like Norway, and closer to unhealthy countries like North Korea the worse off these countries will be worse off.Anyway all my arguments and rebuttals stand, so vote me. thanks.
The politics of multiculturalism pose an existential threat to western civilization

I wish to defend multiculturalism against those critics who view it as undermining western society. Definitions: The politics of multiculturalism - an active attempt by a governing body to encourage and promote multiple cultural traditions in a single territory existential threat to western civilization - any force that has a reasonable chance of dismantling core western institutions such as democracy, the education and healthcare system, the humanities, etc.