BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Peyton Manning is not as good as why people say.

This is my first debate and I am looking forward to it. Peyton Manning is said by many people to be one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history. My opponent is arguing that this is not the case. The statistics say otherwise. Manning is currently third in career passing yards and passing touchdowns. He has a very good career completion percentage of 64.9 percent and a passer rating of 94.9. Before this season, he was on pace to destroy all the records set by Brett Favre. His statistics, despite being excellent, do not compare to his impact on the field. Manning is a general on the field. He calls plays on the field and uses audibles better than any quarterback in the NFL. He uses this to keep defenses off guard. Audibles allow QBs to change the play at the line of scrimmage to one that fits what the defense is doing. Manning does this better than any QB that has played the game. My opponents argument is faulty. To say he is over-hyped because he doesn't play defense is absurd. Tom Brady, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers don't play defense either. However, what Manning has in common with those players is his ability to effect ever aspect of the game. All of them are the team leaders and set the attitude and tone of the team. They make the players around them great. That is a rare quality in any player. Defenses can take more risks with an offense that can score. The Packers, Patriots and Saints may have defenses that give up a lot of yardage, but it allows these defenses to play more aggressively to cause turnovers. I have proven that a combination of Manning's stats, leadership and influence over the game make him one of the best ever. My opponent has failed to make a case that he is not as good as people say nor did he provide any evidence as to what people say. As it currently stands my opponent's argument is negated. . http://www.nfl.com...
Peyton Manning is not as good as why people say.

Thank you for your response. First of all I would like note that my arguments went unanswered. And my opponents case only hopes to strengthen my argument. My opponent states that the Colts would have won half of their games if he was playing. That goes on to show how important he is to his team. Manning has had three very good receivers over his career: Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark. While I am not going to deny that these receivers would have had successful careers in other places, when you look at how the wide receivers performed this year that is not the case. Wayne only has 56 receptions, 768 yards and 2 touchdowns. Dallas Clark's stats are much worse. It is obvious that the Colts' offense needs Peyton Manning to be effective. You also fail to mention how he made receivers like Austin Collie, Pierre Garcon and Brandon Stokely. Manning's contributions to their careers cannot be disputed. You are right, the Colts' defense is God-awful. However, Manning has played with similar terrible defenses went to the playoffs. Last year they were 20th in the league in yards allowed per game. They also gave up the tenth most points in the NFL. However they still won ten games and were playoff contenders. And you cannot discount Manning's contributions to the defense. The current offense cannot hold on to the ball and commonly loses the time of possession battle. When Manning is in, that obviously is not the case. Also consider that when Manning is in the offense gains the ability to score on any play. Manning means more to his team than any other player does or theirs. The resolution is negated and I urge a Con vote.
Rap battle 2

Oh, you're not gone? I thought you had left. You took so long, I had a quick rest. I must admit, I'm very impressed. You used some wit, And passed the first test. Feel that shortness of breath? Pain in your chest? Brain feels compressed? If I were you, I'd also be stressed. Even the bible, Will provide no revival. You feel suicidal? That's just my arrival. Desperate for your survival, You try to write for a while, Crumpled paper in a pile, Realized you have no style. This is my game, Because I will go the mile. You'll know my name, When I have you on trial. Son of god? No. My next victim. I know you're a fraud, That's about to be kicked in
Rap battle 2

Well it's to late I accepted I'm telling you this cuz your about to get bested Your so full of sh!tty raps your congested You better be rested cuz your sanity is about to be tested By the end of this you'll be humiliated Making you wish that your weren't affiliated Or that this battle ever initiated You'll be crying and emotionally stimulated In a battle I never run away After you see the raps I display You'll be in dismay Making you realize your raps are just child's play I don't even have to warm up cuz you will be defeated Your terrible raps make me wish I never competed Buts it's to late your gonna be severely mistreated If you continue I'll make you wish you retreated
Rap battle 2

Finally someone trying to face my rhymes, With them I've won countless times. Take my challenge, and try to reply today. Many others in your position turn, and run away. You should've ran or hid, I'd say I've warned ya, But don't get excited kid, I'm just getting warmed up. I've never lost before, No one makes it past verse 1, But don't feel special, If you end up the first one I'll crush you with my second, Finish you with my third. I'm not what you expected, And for that, you have my word. I'm just getting started, You'll hear me within you, Try and push me again, If you wish to continue..
Rap battle 2

Hahaha, killer? Trigger? More like a kid with a keyboard. Get outside, I figure You need to see more! And excellent observation, I happen to be your teacher, I'll reach across a whole nation, Then I'll beat'cha, it's just a feature And I know you steal lines, But f*ck it, I'll go for it. You have a few rhymes, And no flow to show for it. I've told you before, You can't just fake your part. I laugh and smile the more You break apart. This battle's so boring, I was barely awake to start, When I woke up in the morning, I'm sorry to break your heart. But this is the last verse from me. This battle you might regret. You're rap style's funny, And I see why you might sweat. 'Cause you're scared, Don't wanna lose your title, But no one ever cared, So it shouldn't feel vital. Seeya later kid, I'm off to find a real opponent I thought I already did, But you're a joke and we all know it.
Rap battle 2

What are you a teacher Your the one in school so quit trying to be a preacher Preacher or teacher you ain't either Compared to you I'm a legendary creature You say I'm a fraud but I'm not the on who broke the phony mc meter By now your eyes are watery Cuz you know you have a better chance at winning the lottery Your head is starting to see thing clearly My raps are shaping and molding you like pottery You say I'm the victim but I'm the killer The raps you say are worse than those of a beginner That's why I'll be the better rapper and the winner So you better quit while my finger is still on the trigger
Capitalist Society Better Than Socialist Society

Living in a capitalist society is much greater than living in a socialist society. People may argue that it is not fair living in a capitalist society because there are the people living at the bottom that have to venture for themselves. Take for instance a classroom. Tell me if this is just. The class has grades that vary from a 100 all the way down to a 30. The teacher realizes this discrepancy and decides to "even" out the grades, thus everyone gets the same grade. Students who put more time and effort into studying did not benefit, and those who decided not to study did benefit. Where is the fairness in that? When people see incentives, they will work harder; things will get done; people will innovate. If people see no need in having to work hard, they will become indolent and will rely on the government to do everything for them. A capitalist society is one in which there is growth. A socialist society is one in which there is stagnation.
Malware will come to an end

That was a moderately good article. However the biggest downfall of that start-up is that it only does not protect against completely new threats. That piece of software is based on the "Black hat" hacker reusing code from previous viruses/worms. If the hacker were to not be a 17 year old from Russia, I'm quite sure that they would use their own code, like I do. I can't be bothered to look for old code when I can write my own better, more efficient code and modify it, knowing that it won't break anything. The idea of the software is very cool, and for the average Joe it will work just fine. But against a real old school hacker, this program might not be as effective. I honestly think that the program will have a mere 80ish% success rate. Not much more, only due to the fact that there is always new innovations.
Malware will come to an end

I am assuming that this discussion is based around the Windows operating systems. Being a programmer, I have attempted to make Malware and I have succeeded. I have run Anti-virus scans on it using anything from Avast!, to Norton, to even Microsoft Security Essentials and none of them ever caught onto my malicious key logger. This may be from my ability to program in Assembly, however it in an of it's self is enough to say that the algorithms in most if not all antivirus programs are not advanced enough yet, and I doubt the ever will be advanced enough to wipe out Malware completely. Programmers are constantly finding and writing new languages, and with that comes new challenges for anti-virus makers. In fact, after a quick Google search I was able to find several ways to work around anti-viruses [1] [2]. I have to say that there will always be a security flaw, in what ever someone makes, you could make a program that has all the latest checks but there will still be a way around it. [1] http://securityxploded.com... [2] http://null-byte.wonderhowto.com...
Malware will come to an end

I do accept this challenge and I would like to welcome my opponent to this, my first debate. While this might be my first debate, I am far from inexperienced. I will be arguing against the end of Malware/ Spyware/ Viruses/ Worms. I wish to start this debate by defining a few terms. Starting with the following, 1. Malware - software that is intended to damage or disable computers and computer systems. 2. Spyware - software that enables a user to obtain covert information about anthers computer activities by transmitting data covertly from their hard drive. 3. Virus - a piece of code that is capable of copying itself and typically has a detrimental effect, such as corrupting the system or destroying data. 4. Worm - A computer worm is a standalone malware computer program that replicates itself in order to spread to other computers 5. Anti-virus - (of software) designed to detect and destroy computer viruses. 6. Programming - to write computer programs. If you can, please in your response, define what you mean by "more tight security."
Should Parents use MyCircles

You contradicted your original argument by saying in the first post that it ruined Disney for you. Now you are saying that you haven't liked it in years. Which one is it? I understand you need YouTube to post videos, but can't you just stream? I forgot to point this out last round, but you say that it "should be banned". What about all the kids out there who do use the internet for its misuse? MyCircle is a way to monitor your child's usage and correct any behavioral problems. I know I said this last round, but it encourages children to go outside. A lot of the child reviews for MyCircle state that they hate the app, but appreciate how it let them go outside and even meet new people in their neighborhood they didn't even know existed. Blah blah blah, your turn.
Should Parents use MyCircles

Thank you for the early post. This is my first time on this site, so i dont know many rules, but ill be polite. First off, i HATE disney, and i never use the mycircle app because i dont care about disney anymore( i stopped caring around 8-10, and im 13.) Also, the thing is, YOUTUBE is my life. I have a channel( only 1 sub though) and because of the mycircle, i cant make videos longer than 1 hour, for obvious reasons. i cant think of anything else to argue lol.
Should Parents use MyCircles

How did it ruin your life? It stopped you from watching YouTube? That's one of the worst reasons I've ever heard, no offense. I understand that music can be important and a nice way to relax, so that can be a bummer, but you shouldn"t be upset about it. According to the official site, MyCircle lets you watch Disney videos, blogs, GIFs, it gives you emojis, characters, and more(1). The app lets parents know when their child is using the internet safely and when they are not. For example, if a child were to look up porn hub, instead of getting a virus, they only have dissatisfaction of no "release" It encourages children to look beyond their phone screens and actually do something more productive, like playing a game outside. MyCircle comes with an ad blocker that for the most part does what it is supposed to do(2). Besides, it only affects things connected to the internet. You can watch movies already downloaded to an iPad, or listen to music already downloaded on your Ipod, or read a book on a Kindle. Okay, that is my first round. Please don't flake out, the last debate I was in I had that happen to me. Sources: https://meetcircle.com... http://www.bewebsmart.com...
End Discrimination Against Women in Advertising

You claim that it can cause harm to children, yet you show not proof. I will neglect this "evidence" until you can prove it. I am arguing that even though it is conidered wrong, it is still discrimotory. I am arguing that it shouldn't be wrong. How is a child seeing a woman's breasts as opposed to a man's going to cause problems? I see it as solving the problem that men see boobs as toys because of their mystery. Hiding them only separate the men and women if they were allowed to show boobs, they wouldn't be so erotic because they would be more commonplace.
End Discrimination Against Women in Advertising

As you said it is illegal, and is not allowed in advertisement because it is "considered wrong and probably illegal in most parts of the United States." If something is considered wrong (especially on a moral standpoint), it is suppose to be illegal. Since it is considered to be "legislatively immoral", and is also considered, in general, wrong by most of the general public, it is not discrimination, but rather wrong within the extent of law. Since the laws made without bias, no one is being discriminated against. The laws preventing women from appearing with exposed breast were put into place to protect others and to stop public indecency, disorderly conduct, and wide spread explicit content, therefore it is not discriminatory, but rather to uphold what they are suppose to stop. Keep in mind that one's freedom of speech can be suppressed if it endangers, in the same way women can't show that as it could cause harm to others, namely children. In society it is also considered a social taboo by the general population. Children should not be exposed to sexual content until adolescence. Exposing them to it earlier can stunt emotion and mental development along with other aspects of life I rest this round by stating that you are merely asking questions, not actually defending your resolution. http://www.federaljudgesassoc.org... https://www.customessaymeister.com...
End Discrimination Against Women in Advertising

To argue that men without shirts on are more explict in nature than women without their shirts on is false. http://pinterest.com... shows many advertisement using the allure of bare chested men. Women being bare chested is, by law, more sexual than women, but I am arguing that women are as attracted to bare chested men as men are attracted to bare chested women. Why should women have to cover up their chest when men don't? Or don't men have to cover up their chest when women do?The debate isn't about whether or not it is legal. Until 1920, women didn't have the right to vote, but until then, most people thought women were incapable of voting effectively. Nowadays, looking back at the situation, we made the right decision. What I am saying is that you may find my argument absurd, but back in the 1800's people saw womens' right to vote absurd. I am arguing that people are denying the equality of bare chested men to bare chested women.
End Discrimination Against Women in Advertising

I suppose I'll try this one. You didn't seem to be clear as to what this debate is about, so I suppose I'll start by saying that you have presented no proof to show any discrimination against women in any advertisement. It is technically Public indecency which is illegal because it is necessary to maintain public order. It was decided in the US Supreme Court case, Barnes v. Glen Theater, that "States have the authority and right to regulate and/or ban nudity, as it is in the interests of both the government and society to preserve morality by statute. Nudity is not protected under the first amendment, nor expressive content.", and thus legally it is not allowed, except for the exception feeding (Source: http://www.gpo.gov...) Even in the case that it is not done, or received in a sexual manner it is still considered offensive behavior. Men not being persecuted for not wearing a shirt in public is generally credited to men working as farmers and needing to cool themselves. Also, in general, male breasts are not typically assassinated with sexual/explicit content. I'll rest my case by stating that even thought equality is suppose to be kept as close as possible, it is necessary to maintain order, and tranquility first . Thanks for giving opportunity to have my first debate. Hopefully I won't/did do too bad.
John McCain is gay

Hello, I want to start out by saying, that all you told me only your personal feelings and really have no knowledge about the topic. Jackie Calmes posted in the Wall Street Journal on January 31st, 2008 about McCain saying "The senator opposes abortion and gay rights". Why would he be against gay rights if he was in fact gay himself? For some reason that's not making sense in my head. He married Cindy Lou Hensley on May 17th, 1980 in Phoenix, Arizona. He is happily married and that is just more proof why he isn't gay. I see that you have brought up no proof about how he is gay or anything towards that note. I will end this argument here and I am anxious to see what you have for me.
The Current Border Fence should be consructed

First points: Voters, DO NOT VOTE BASED OFF OF PREFERENCE. Definitions: We will be debating the current border fence being contemplated by the government. Not a 40 foot high great wall of china. The current border fence is metal layer, wood poles, metal layer, or it is a ton of aligned metal poles. I will provide pictures: . http://www.google.com... . http://www.google.com... Other information on the fence we will debate: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
God does not exist

I will try to I guess address gods existence in 750 characters. 1. Existence There are 2 main layers of existence physical but there is also spiritual. Spiritual things cannot be seen. In order words there is a spiritual layer and a physical layer. 1 Soul Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 2. Holy ghost (can experience god inside of you if this is obtained) acts 2:38 Then peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost Explanation: So yes God who isn't physical in nature can exist in us
Books are better than movies

Greetings to my fair audience as well as my opponent. Contrary to the beliefs submitted in the comment section, I would hope that this isn't just another spam debate. I'm slightly let down by the fact that my favorite character is no longer in control of the black knights, hence, this would be another let down. But in any case, let us begin. My opponent states: "because movie is acted out by living person live, it is way more entertaiining than dull paper books. It has cool action, sound effect, and also cool special effects." . . . but quite frankly, this is a highly flawed argument. The first two points will rebutt his argument and the third will be a point of my own. 1) First, it was never clarified as to what constitutes as being "better." Sure, my opponent could say that it is better in the sense that movies are more "entertaining", but then I could come back and say that books are better in the sense of being educational (reading comprehension and creativity to be precise), hence, my "better" would cancel out his better, thus suggesting that movies and books are equal, therefore negating the resolution. 2) But to go further in the ideas present in the above point, I would have to say that books in fact have far more potential to be entertaining than films as books force an individual to make good use of his/her imagination, therefore putting the ideas presented in said book within the individuals vision. Therefore, matters such as "bad acting", bad CGI, and such are never bound to be a problem for the reader at hand. Whereas in films, an individual cannot use his/her imagination and is forced to rely on what is presented in the film. 3) Films simply can't afford to present as many ideas, plot points, and sufficient character developments as books can. This is simply because films typically have no choice but to be conservative when it comes to the time limit (as lets face it, hardly anyone is going to want to watch a 10 hour movie. In all honesty, have often have you seen a film only to walk out and complain about it not having lived up to the standards of the book. This has happened quite often (Eragon, Narnia, The Bad Seed, as well as many comic book films are excellent examples of this). Thus, I believe I've done my job in maintaining my side of the resolution. Based on the arguments I've submitted, it can most certainly be agreed that films are not superior to books. That is all for round 1.
Books are better than movies

My opponent says "Movies are more developed in like sound effects and also the special effects and would entertain the audience more than books that only has boring words on paper." Apparently, my opponent has not read a word of my R1. If he had, he'd know that I specifically went into covering how books still have more entertainment potential in spite of the fact that movies have CGI and sound effects. A book forces one to use his/her imagination, which is unlimited and never below one's expectations, whereas the same cannot be said for a film as the special effects are consistently a hit or miss for most films of today when it comes to the audience. In fact, this is the very reason Christopher Nolan insisted that there be a very limited amount of special effects in his recent Batman films. "Also, movies are much easier for the reader or the audience to understand the plots or the meaning" Not true. Since books completely rely on words, they can specify and give readers more of an understanding, whereas in films, not only will there often be many distractions (overuse of CGI, some hot actor/actress, etc), but they are often forced to limit themselves as explaining something would take far too much time (and time isn't of the essence for a film, which I explained in the previous round). And that's pretty much all my opponent brought up in his last round. At no point does he address any of my contentions. Since all of these contentions demonstrate that the resolution is false, I ask that they be carried over to this round and that you note that my opponent has impeded this debate by not responding to them. END OF ROUND 2!