BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Michael Jordan is a better overall player than LeBron James

In order to review each player and their achievements accurately, I'll be listing a series of statistics of each player. Jordan: Points per game: 30.1 Vertical leap: 48 inches Championships: 6 (shows teamwork) Finals MVP: 6 Season MVP: 5 Scoring Leader: 10 Field goal percentage (in playoffs): 48.7% 3 point percentage (in playoffs): 33.2% Free throw percentage (in playoffs): 82.8% Steals Leader: 3 LeBron: Points per game: 27.2% Vertical leap: 40 inches Championships: 2 Finals MVP: 2 Season MVP: 4 Scoring Leader: 1 Field goal percentage (in playoffs): 47.3% 3 point percentage (in playoffs): 31.8% Free throw percentage (in playoffs): 75.2% Steals Leader: 0 Tied results: Field goal percentage in reg. season Let me also point out that I am aware of the fact that LeBron does currently beat Jordan in stats such as rebounds and assists, however those are only two skills/achievements in which LeBron is better than Jordan, compared to the larger amount of statistics that prove that Jordan is a better overall player. http://www.landofbasketball.com...
Doctor Assisted Suicide

Doctor Assisted Death is not only morally wrong but it is wrong in the eyes of God. If you look in the Hippocratic Oath (The Oath that medical professionals must swear to) in paragraph 6, last line it says "Above all, I must not play at God." but if you are helping someone take there life, would that not be messing with God"s plan for that person? http://guides.library.jhu.edu...
Philosophical rap battle

My opponents account has been closed to the admitted sadness of the likes of me and I beleive the only right course of action is to not waste the tiny fraction of a penny uploading this page information's megabites and instead give your votes to me, that being the correct course of action even in this nihilistic universe. For you see, as the analytic Russell believed, there is some form of morality out there. If my respected opponent stood up, he would have lost as absolute anti-morality is not based in anything. Please give me the vote, and if I get over 20 points I will debate a near crazy and impossible viewpoint, and be sure to win.
Philosophical rap battle

Thanks for joining this debate and I'm surprised on the inclusion of someone so obscure. I spent most of my strategy thinking of put downs for Nietzsche yet eventually I come to go against someone who is mostly described as a moral nihilist. I on the other hand will be Bertrand Russell, Analytic 20th century philosopher. Hello Mr. Mackie and M'KayGon' stuffed your @ss in my teapot'cross the milky wayNow I've come to understand You're a nihilist (morally)You'ld have naught if not for me: Mr. Atheist (sorely)And You know what I've actually done some sh1tYou're just a broken f@cking record cranking nickelback(equal to sh1t)The only thing you've done that's visibleIs keep an idea indivisbleDo you think it's new that their are no high lawson when to kill and steal and dirty your fat paws100 years before, nietzsche considered it old schoolYou're tryin' to dress it up for the new f@ckin school (pedo)But makin a new school that is the new coolAnd that is what I'm gonna do.Well we're both under the 'pression that there is no godBut there has to be some kind of inherent oddthat one set of actions is better than nextshould a girl blow your face off or give you some sekts, n000000b (tough choice)Your relativism states that anything goesAny morality is bias found in bitcshin hoesWhile you fail with this I will acheivecause "I find myself incapable to beleive,That all wrong with.. cruelty is that I don't like it."If not I'll check my teaSo that noone don't spike it.I'm not to say it is a giant gapof morality, [space] the christian's fapAnd the consequences don't involve a heaven nor hellBut millions of people will be more wellAnd I aint called myself no utilitarian nutbut have some decent morals and get out of your mud hut.Now you better get on to defend'cause how hard I woop your ahss is pend-ingFor my theories are gen'rally proved you see(except for a teapot by S to the ETI)
Nothing Is a Fact.

you are mistaking a claim, for a fact.. its a fact that i just took a hard drug, im just lying about taking a hard drug.. am i drugged up or not at the point you read this be it not to far from the point i wrote it? if you had a point, it wouldnt be 20 points, seams you missed the pigeon with your uzi.. perhaps you should try using a rifle i guess if you have defined proved or disproved nothing, then its factual.. so let me hear it then what is nothing mate obviusly the earth never changed from flat to round, facts are not beliefs,.. fact is knowledge, and knowledge is unchanging
Nothing Is a Fact.

V=0. I objectify that fact; it is subjective. (2). You are the result of me swallowing both, the red pill and blue pill when offered by Morpheus. The whole universe is made up of 1's and 0's, both outside and inside of space-time. But never just 0, that would just be incredibly silly. How would you even know? We wouldn't be here. "Fact" is, there is no wise quote that could not be made wiser without adding, ' and vice versa.' Something could not exist if not for nothing, and vice-versa. As in, the universe could not exist if not for our subjective perception of it. Nothing is not a fact, and vice versa, infinitely in of itself. We actualize the materialization, manifesting nothing and repeat, backwards. Time is an illusion, but necessary so that everything does not happen all at once, therefore; both. Fact is fiction. Fiction must be considered fact so the world as you and I both know it differently may move forward. Fact must be challenged, making it fiction. Forward could not be objectively known if not for knowing that backwards is a direction, and so on. "Fact" of the matter is, the world used to be flat, therefore it became round, and then once again called a conspiracy on down the line and argued, and still arguable, because we move backwards through a time that does not exist, and up for a debate, all at the same time. It takes time for our minds to process the reality that our eyes see, thus making everything we are seeing now, a projection of the mind, backwards in time, forward into the future. Round and round we go. Close your eyes and forget the color black, because black would be something, not nothing. By calling 'fact', objective, you've proposed a double negative = double something. Nothing is not fact. We could not exist if not for nothing and so we do. Here and there you are, squared. It's all relative, and relativity is a theory, not a fact. "Fact" is double speak, it's still just only, 'faith.' You believe in nothing? You're a nihilist. That's something! Besides, what I meant was; 'Nothing' IS a fact. Vice-Versa, on the contrary and other hand. May the force be with you, otherwise nothing would be because everything is a paradox. By you saying it's nothing, means you still believe in a thing. Making nothing, something. References: (3) https://en.wikipedia.org... . (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://www.azquotes.com... "Everything you are meant to be and could ever hope to become is everything you are not." -Me
Are Books Better Than Movies? (Pro/For = Yes) (Con/Against = No)

You're right but it's hard to imagine music when you're reading. Movies and TV can take a lot of time away from you but they are still entertaining to watch, nonetheless. Movies can be better than books because they are easier to understand. When reading a book, you might not have any idea what you're reading and then, you'll have a hard time understanding the story. When watching a movie, it's easier to understand what's happening because everything is visual and people tend to remember visual things more than non-visual things, due to the fact that visual things are easier for the brain to process.
Are Books Better Than Movies? (Pro/For = Yes) (Con/Against = No)

Hello, Music- Again this comes back to imagination, when I read a book I imagine what the music might sound like. The sound, can sound however I'd like when reading. Eating & Drinking- I find it very easy to eat and read. It all depends on you, the more you practice the better you get. Movies/TV- Can take a lot from you. ( http://www.becomingminimalist.com... ) Thank you.
Are Books Better Than Movies? (Pro/For = Yes) (Con/Against = No)

One simple reason why movies are better than books is because it's easier to eat and watch a movie simultaneously than it is to eat and read a book simultaneously. Think about it. When you read a book, you'll usually have one hand on the book and so, it will be harder to eat while reading the book but when you watch a movie, you don't have to worry about that because movies don't require you to hold your hands on something, except for your food. Also, another simple reason why movies are better than books is because of music. Everyone loves music but with books, you can't really utilize music and read at the same time. Every movie has at least one scene that uses a catchy song and mixes it with the movie to create a scene. Basically, movies utilize music. For example, romance movies will most likely utilize smooth, soft music because romance is all about love and love is soft. Horror movies will most likely utilize eerie music to make the movies seem more scary. Music is a huge part of movies. Here are some good scenes from movies that utilize music: The point is, music can not be found in books but music can always be found in movies and sometimes, a scene in a movie that uses a catchy song can be exciting to watch as it gives you some catchy music to listen to while watching the movie.
Are Books Better Than Movies? (Pro/For = Yes) (Con/Against = No)

While watching a movie you don't imagine what the character looks like or sounds like but with a book you are the characters! You live in their eyes. It will open your mind and do so much more than just broaden your vocabulary. Imagine ( this will be hard for those who think movies are better than books) that there were no books on Earth. Where would we have learned to follow our dreams, stand up for what's right, be who we are, say what we feel or even just read? Website- Viewing the website you provided, these are a lot of the things you can do with books. (Ex. Laughter, Memory, Gives families something to bond over,Intelligence, and learning about different people and places. FACT: Since the first television was invented people have been getting increasingly obese, lazy and scientists have even proven that our brain has reduced 10% in size in the past 100 years- so basically since we started letting machines work for us. Intelligence- Yes There are many intelligent things to watch on your T.V. (Ex. Like Documentaries, Discovery, and National Geographic ) But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about movies. (Ex. Action,Drama,Comedy, and Magical) Education/Information- Kids need to be able to have an imagination and be creative. Directors- They don't need to cut out part of a book based movie. I think as a reader, that it would be fine to have the movie exactly like the book. Most readers might like to see the book as a movie, so they could see what they're perspective looks like compared to another. I think directors cut out parts of movies because the movie cannot be more than a certain length, that's why there are 2s and 3s. Who wants to go a movie theater and watch a 4 hours movie? That is wasting a great length of the day. Thank you
Are Books Better Than Movies? (Pro/For = Yes) (Con/Against = No)

Don't worry! I won't be too serious. 1. You can use your imagination when watching movies. For example, you can imagine yourself in the movie, experiencing all the events that happen in the movie. I do it all the time. 2. Watching TV http://connectwithyourteens.net... This list mentions some of the benefits of watching TV. Memory, intelligence, and education/information, in my opinion, are the three most important benefits of watching TV that this list mentions. Memory- Like the list says, people need to remember what happened on their favorite TV shows in order to better understand the TV shows that they are watching. This helps to boost memory because in addition to enjoying the movie/TV show you are watching, you need to remember what happened in the movie/TV show. Memory is a good thing because it allows people to look back on the past and remember important events. Intelligence- Many TV shows and movies do require a great deal of thinking, like the list says. Not only that but movies and TV shows can allow people to think in more intellectual and creative ways. Intellectual thinking movies such as Gravity, Breathless, and The Omen allow people to think of things in a more advanced and sophisticated way. Creative thinking movies such as Fight Club and The ABCs of Death allow people to use words, objects, and events in a more expressive way such as drawing a picture on a certain thing. Education/Information- Many movies contain lots of information mixed with humor. Mr Peabody and Sherman and Finding Nemo are great examples of these types of movies. 3. The directors have to cut out some parts of movies based on books because if not, the movie will be exactly like the book and then, no one (at least no one who read the book) will want to watch the movie because it will be too predictable. Also, it's exciting when books and games get adapted into movies because then, the books and the games come to life in a more visual way. Also, a movie that is based on a book/game/TV show is not a copy. It is an adaptation. 4. I disagree with you. I think movies are more detailed than books because you really have to pay attention to all the details such as camera angles, costumes, special effects, dialogue, and more in order to really understand the movie. 5. Characters in books can not be ruined by terrible acting but they can be ruined by terrible narration and terrible word choice. 6. Actually, movies can also last for a long time and there are many movies that can help expand your vocabulary, specifically movies that take place in Ancient Europe.
Are Books Better Than Movies? (Pro/For = Yes) (Con/Against = No)

Before we start, this is just for fun. No need to be too serious. I think Books are better than Movies because; 1. When reading Books you can use your imagination but when watching a Movie you can't. 2. Reading is better for your brain than watching T.V. 3. Books are the originals, Movies come after and most of the time they directors have to cut some parts out. This makes it a copy. 4. Books are more detailed than Movies. 5. Characters In Books Cannot Be Ruined By Bad Acting. 6. Books Last Longer And Improve Your Vocabulary Drum-roll Please......And Now For Pro
abortion

The premise of your entire argument has bubbled down to the morality of terminating an embryo. You claim it is taking a life. I have already mentioned that every single sperm and period is as much of a wasted life than an early embryo; neither of them contain a nervous system or brain -- neither of them feel pain or have emotions and consciousness. What, then, is the issue of aborting an early embryo? A sperm cell fusing with an egg does not magically create life, it is only the potential for life to begin, and as I mentioned in a previous round, many miscarriages happen during early pregnancy anyway -- it's a very natural occurrence. [1] I concede that repetitive abortions over and over would feel wrong on a moral level, but I direct you back to my original argument: if any woman had the ability to sleep around without protection and solve it with an abortion every time, she does not have the right to care for a child at all. She may give it to the father, but why should he have the burden if he does not want the child either? Adoption is the last resort (I've already explained the downfalls of this), but I still feel that a forced pregnancy will do no good for anyone -- sure, the child will experience life, but life only appears to be good to us because we ARE alive; an embryo, a sperm or an egg has no desire to be born. They are lifeless cells. They have no regrets. Thank you for this thorough debate. [1] - http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
abortion

"Why aren't the males being scorned for having sex with the woman? Double standards are not acceptable." because men dont have to worry about getting pregnant and im not saying its not the males fault either in fact its equal but if a girl gets an abortion than its not holding anybody responsible. and you say that it cant be consider killing since it hasn't developed its organs, so what you are still preventing it from having a life, so you are taking its life and in that matter it is murder. And the only reason i say its ok with rape is because it is not the woman's fault, but when its consensual sex it is the woman's fault. "every single sperm and every single period is a tragic and wasted life, by your logic." you are missing my main point if a guy jacks off in his room there is no possible way he is gonna get a girl pregnant. but if he had sex he knows the risks but doesn't care and if he gets a girl pregnant(and since you don't think that adoption is good) they BOTH should be held responsible. "I'm glad your mum grew stronger from her childhood abuse and that she didn't want to be aborted, but you miss the point that an aborted embryo would never develop feelings or regrets. It would never become a mum. It would never experience life, and that is neither bad or good for the embryo -- the embryo doesn't have a brain." It doesn't matter whether it has feelings or not its still wrong to take its life. "And back to the original point again. Yes, the woman knew the consequences, but at the end of the day, sex is fun. Men and women enjoy it. Why aren't the men being criticised for sleeping around? Also, you yourself are making the assumption that the women did not try to avoid pregnancy via contraception -- mistakes happen, even when taking precautions." If they know the consequence and don't care they should be held responsible period. And im not saying that they are not trying to prevent it. but i want to get back to my main point, and that is if they have sex knowing the possible consequences(whether they try to prevent it or not) they should be held responsible PERIOD. im not sexist i just don't think its right
abortion

"its just simply what happens when you have sex if she doesn't want a child she shouldn't have sex PERIOD" -- I disagree completely. Sex is just sex. Why aren't the males being scorned for having sex with the woman? Double standards are not acceptable. You then claim that killing the child is not fairer than letting it be born into a family that doesn't love it, which I have already explained in round 1 AND 2. Killing the embryo cannot even be considering murder because the brain or nervous system hasn't be developed in the early stages, and you have already agreed that abortion after rape is acceptable, so you must not have any strong feelings on killing embryos at all. I would find it more tragic for a child to be born and then abused than never born at all -- every single sperm and every single period is a tragic and wasted life, by your logic. And yes, I reiterate once again that adoption is not a viable option. I am presuming that the mother will not treat the child nice because she is desperate for an abortion -- why would anyone who wants an abortion also want to care for the child? If she did indeed want to care for the child, she would not desperately want the abortion in the first place. I am indeed taking a worst case scenario approach, but it's only realistic to do so. I'm glad your mum grew stronger from her childhood abuse and that she didn't want to be aborted, but you miss the point that an aborted embryo would never develop feelings or regrets. It would never become a mum. It would never experience life, and that is neither bad or good for the embryo -- the embryo doesn't have a brain. And back to the original point again. Yes, the woman knew the consequences, but at the end of the day, sex is fun. Men and women enjoy it. Why aren't the men being criticised for sleeping around? Also, you yourself are making the assumption that the women did not try to avoid pregnancy via contraception -- mistakes happen, even when taking precautions.
abortion

"I understand that you want promiscuous women to be 'punished' with a child if they happen to become pregnant, but it is simply not fair for the child" It isn't necessarily a punishment, it is the its just simply what happens when you have sex if she doesn't want a child she shouldn't have sex PERIOD. And then you say that it is not fair for the child to be put in a home where a mother doesn't want it, this is funny so by that logic you are saying that it is fair that we kill it? I have already told you that if she doesn't want the thing she can just give it up for adoption but apparently don't think that is a viable option. "[[Although this would be great news to thousands of adoptive parents, I can't see it being a straight forward procedure. For instance, the mother is likely to continue drinking, smoking and engaging in other harmful activities while the child develops because she will not care for the health of a child that she will never raise.]]" who said that the mother did any of those things you are just making assumptions. and even if she doesn't care about it, at least it lives my mom was born into a home where she wasn't wanted she was abused and yeah sure it had a negative effect on her but she said that it also helped her become a stronger person and she definitely would not want to be aborted. even if the child had a rough childhood so what that's only a small portion of his/her life. But you are also missing one of my main points she knew the consequences of sex but she didn't care she should be held responsible for her actions.
abortion

I understand that you want promiscuous women to be 'punished' with a child if they happen to become pregnant, but it is simply not fair for the child. You are promoting the child as a consequence for the woman rather than a son or daughter that the woman would love unconditionally -- you want to force it upon the mother, and that is unfair on THE CHILD, because the mother will be unlikely to offer any sincere affection. You're answer to this is adoption, which I have already rejected as a viable option: [[Although this would be great news to thousands of adoptive parents, I can't see it being a straight forward procedure. For instance, the mother is likely to continue drinking, smoking and engaging in other harmful activities while the child develops because she will not care for the health of a child that she will never raise. ]] The child would potentially be unsafe developing in the womb of a spiteful mother. The activities that I mentioned above (from round 1) could lead to irreversible issues in the child's health. And finally, you said: "Even if the embryo hasn't formed and it cant think so what you are still preventing it from having a life. " I have already stated that the life of the child would be a horrible experience in the care of a mother that never wanted them, but I refuse to accept your point as anything more than a bad attempt at a counter argument, because you mentioned in round one that abortions are fine in the event of rape. If this were the case, why should any child "have its life taken away"? The embryo is innocent regardless of how it was achieved. If you can understand that abortions are spiritually moral after rape, you should easily understand that abortions are also spiritually moral after accidental pregnancy. Spiritualism has no place in this debate as you have already approved abortion in certain scenarios.