BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chocolate Chip Cookies are better than Pumpkin Chip

I will gladly accept 1). Not really, you can find alot of this stuff online (Way to go technology)and you can savor any type of cookie just as much as the one you are debating for 2). So are Chocolate chip 3). Okay try adding pumpkin to Sushi 4). These are all your oppinionsNow onto the Statistics According to a poll done by 'The Daily Reveille' 61.9% of the people whom voted liked Chocolate Chip better than any of the other cookies listed that means that only 38.1% liked any other cookie better.[1][1] http://m.lsureveille.com...
Kobe Bryant is not the Greatest of All Time

It has recently come to my attention that instigator partially correctly instigated the debate. I was up one night thinking whether it was auto correct or spelling error that caused Pro to phrase such a statement. But focusing on the word goat as an acronym, it would break down to " Greatest Of All Time" leaving us with "goat". But since Pro did not make an attempt to provide us with proper knowledge of so (All Caps and Periods), it made it quite confusing to the audience. In any case, Pro did not provide any content of a supporting idea of why and has forfeited his rebuttals, Deeming his argument invalid.
Kobe Bryant is not the Greatest of All Time

Extended. ###### / /########## ####(\/_//`)########### #### / '/############# #### 0 0 \########### ####/####\########### ### / #__/ \########### ## /, _/ \## \_########## ###`-./ ) |## ~^~^~^~^### ##### ( /#########\_}## ######|###### /### |## ###### ; ###|## \ ##/### #######\/ ,/ ### \ #|#### #######/ /~|~|~~ |\ |## ######/ /#| |###| | `\ \# #####/ /##| |###| |# \ \# ####/ (###| |### | |## \ ### /,_)## /__)###/__)## /,_/ '"""""'""""""'""""""'"""""'
Kobe Bryant is not the Greatest of All Time

I would have to argue against you good sir, Kobe Bryant is in fact human. Saying so, he is actually a human basket ball player(1). Never has there been a goat in the NBL nor has there ever been scientific studies to determine if Kobe Bryant is a goat. A goat defines as " any of numerous agile, hollow-horned ruminants of the genus Capra, of the family Bovidae, closely related to the sheep, found native in rocky and mountainous regions of the Old World, and widely distributed in domesticated varieties."(2). As Mr. Bryant can obvouisly be seen without such details, we can clearly see he is not a goat and is human. Human: "of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people."(3). Which he clearly has. Kobe Bryant is not a Goat. Sources: (1)http://kobebryant.com... (2)http://dictionary.reference.com... (3)http://dictionary.reference.com...
Some laws Should be removed.

I will not post my opening arguments, and refute pro's opening arguments as well. My opponent did not specifically state what level he believes laws should be removed at. Many laws are put in response of a recent event, or a problem that's need to be resolved for sometime. Every law put in place is for a reason. Since my opponent seems to be focused on the issue of Los Angeles's Frisbee Law, I will argue why it should be in effect: Contention 1: Frisbees can cause damageFrisbees can cause major damage if used in an irresponsible manner. They can go in any direction, which means that if thrown incorrectly, can cause damage. Also, unlike a football, or a basketball, the person who throws it, does not have as much control over which direction the frisbee will go. Contention 2: Beaches tend to be crowded, so a frisbee can unfortunately hit someoneBeaches are usually crowded, and especially in a city like Los Angeles that attracts many tourists, the beaches are filled with people. If a frisbee goes out of control, or in the wrong direction, it can hit one of those people, which would not be good. Contention 3: The frisbee law helps prevent potential accidents from happeningThe frisbee law also helps prevent potential accidents from occurring. If someone was to get hit with a frisbee, and suffered an injury, the city would receive a lot of complaints, saying that people are not protected while at the beach. This law helps prohibit those accidents from happening, while also helping keep people safe. Thank you.
gay marriage

Marriage should not be biased at all because then its just bull plucky! there is no proof needed only because any gay or straight person would believe that no one can decide who they date or who they want to be with! People if you really understood what i am saying and that would be that god did not create us to hate some for liking the same sex yes it is not looked upon as the bible would state. .. but gay/lesbian people were not born to think different there not dumb there not any less then us heterosexual couples they love each other. They need each other! Thank you!
gay marriage

My opponent continues to keep me on my toes. I always think that I am being clear, but my second round always seems to be clarifying my first round's argument. Perhaps I do not understand my opponent, but I believe my opponent argues that love and marriage are biased against the homosexual couple. I don't understand how ideals (love) and social arrangements (marriage) can be biased against anyone. However, I believe my opponent is attempting to communicate her belief that homosexuals are being persecuted by not being allowed to be in love and marry. I don't agree. Here on "the internet" you can look up homosexual websites and find many many many many many videos applauding homosexual female copulation. There are even quite a few for male homosexual copulation. That non-withstanding, nothing is against the law for homosexuals to fall in love. However, the general population does not agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry (as seen by Californians overturning the California courts judgment on homosexual marriage). I do not believe that my opponent will agree with my previous point, or the point that socio-historically homosexuality has been seen in the negative light. Many countries that have a liberal viewpoint do not condone gay marriage, but again, I take it my opponent will disagree/ devalidate that proof as well. One could even point out how Aristolian theory plays into the question of homosexuality(http://www.fordham.edu...). Once again, this proof will be more than likely discounted. I look forward to reading my opponent's own proofs in the matter.
gay marriage

Gay marriage, to some this may be blasphemy, to others though this is a wonderful thing that can happen between two same sexes... I know that it can happen. First standing point being that love was never based on what they had in the pants, but whether the person made you happy and they were there for you through thick and thin. Some think that gay marriage is just a joke, why would it be when they say they feel that way for each other. Second standing point is when was it anyone else's right to say who they could enter a relationship with, My value in this argument is freedom of choice. Because honestly if you were gay and you wanted to marry someone, you can't because so many people are biased about it. NOT FAIR! Third standing point being yes some gay/lesbian do it for a fad but we cannot base our opinions on them because they are a disgrace to gay/lesbian people only having sexual relations to get a boyfriend for your girl/friend. Fourth standing point would be the gay parade, :) it makes me so happy i mean people who have been very proud of who they are walk down the town and tell people basically we are who we are you don't like go away... thank you!
The internet is better than the telescope.

I would like to mention first that many people that do amateur astronomy as a hobby, and that there are many brands of amateur telescopes to choose from. So, it is not just for people that study science. Now, while the invention of the internet is probably one of the biggest accomplishments of our time, as it built a worldwide network of communication, the telescope is also a large accomplishment, but in a different way. When the telescope was invented, it expanded our knowledge of our own universe at the time. As each iteration of the telescope was improved upon, common information was changed in lieu of new discoveries, such as proving Copernicus' theory correct; it was the first version of an early warning system, whether it be used by an army, weather men or pirates; it was a useful tool for its time.
Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property vs. Real Property: Again, I strongly disagree with my opponents unfounded opinions on this subject. Brilliant ideas ARE a scarce resource. If they were in abundant supply, the Earth wouldn't have the problems we have today. Our problems have more to do with the lack of brilliant ideas and the overwhelming amount of bad ideas. While it's true you can use someone's idea without taking it from them, if they spent years nurturing that idea and their own money building it into a product it is immoral for you to use it without due compensation. If you don't want to pay for the use of their product (whether it be an invention or some form of entertainment) then don't use it. Clearly you have some need or desire for it, so why shouldn't you pay for it? "My opponent states copyright infringement is "gaining something for free that you really should be paying for." Well, that's your personal opinion, not an argument. You're free to compensate artists as much as you want. I just ask that you refrain from forcing me to." That isn't a personal opinion. It's the law. [1] No one is forcing you to pay for anything. If you want it, pay for it. If don't want to pay for it, you don't get it. Simple. "...IP laws discourage creativity and innovation..." "...He also produced the greatest literature in the English language without needing the incentive of an intellectual monopoly to do it..." While many might agree that Shakespeare's collection of plays and sonnets is the greatest body of works in History, that doesn't change the fact that you can't show any evidence that creativity or innovation has diminished since Copyright laws were introduced. They have BOOMED. The first Copyright law was introduced in the 1700s [2]. In the past 300 years Humans have produced more books, music, plays, movies, inventions and medicine then in the entire prior history of humanity. You can't even begin to compare the since with the before. IP laws are among the reasons that likely encouraged Thomas Edison and Henry Ford to become inventors. Reform vs. Abolish: How do I define improvement? Improve: "To raise to a more desirable or more excellent quality or condition; make better." A slight change is not an improvement. Claiming it was improved means nothing. SHOW how it is improved. Have you made it 10% smaller? 15% faster? 20% more power/fuel efficient? Changing the color means nothing. Also, Trademark laws come into it. You couldn't make an iPod 10% more power efficient and start selling them. My opponent keeps talking about time wasted in court, but apart from the James Watt example has been unable to show any example of any artist or inventor who has spent so much time in court that they were prevented from practising their art or inventing. The fact is that Copyrights have been completely overhauled since the 1800s when the James Watt case took place. Our system is much more efficient now. RESOURCES [1] http://www.wipo.int... (Chapter 1, Page 16 onwards specifically) [2] The making of modern intellectual property law: the British experience, Brad Sherman, Lionel Bently http://www.google.com...
Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property vs Physical Property: I have slightly changed the heading of this one, but I think that makes the distinction clearer. My opponent proposes that because IP is an idea it doesn't constitute property. I strongly disagree. While 'ideas' are like air, in that as long as humans exist there will be infinite ideas, herein lies the problem. Brilliant ideas are not infinite. In fact they are more scarce than the normal property my opponent speaks of (land, food, cars). Often a lot of thought, time and effort goes into such ideas. So I'd like to make that clear distinction: POINT ONE:- PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED OWNERSHIP OF THEIR BRILLIANT (or even just good) IDEAS My opponent goes on to speak of the difference between 'property theft' and 'information piracy'. I don't think there is a difference. If you're illegally downloading an album, a movie, a book, an application that some company, band or writer worked hard to produce then you are STEALING. You know you're stealing. The fact that you're unlikely to be punished or even caught is irrelevent. You are not "gaining something without taking anything from anyone", you are "gaining something for free that you really should be paying for. " POINT TWO:- PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED OWNERSHIP OVER THE FRUITS OF THEIR HARD WORK My opponents final (and chunkiest) point can be summorised as follows: IP laws should be abolished because then the brilliant people out there would have more time to come up with more brilliant ideas instead of wasting time in court. In his book example, my opponent mentions Shakespeare and how most of his plays were just rehashed ideas that already existed. I strongly disagree. Rehashed ideas are still new ideas. Take for example the book Eragon [1] written in our lifetime. I really enjoyed this book. Recently I discovered that the plot is almost identical to Star Wars [2]. I didn't notice this while I was reading this but retrospectively it is completely right. However there is no lawsuit pending. No-one is in court over it. Christopher Paolini is writing his fourth book as we speak. He then talks about innovation and legal disputes holding up society. While his example about James Watt is completely valid, I think this is where my opening statement about reforming the laws rather than abolishing them comes in. POINT 3:- IF YOUR IDEA IS IMPROVED UPON, IT BECOMES A NEW, BETTER IDEA AND YOU LOSE SOME RIGHTS TO IT, REFLECTING THE LEVEL OF IMPROVEMENT. SOURCES:- [1] . http://www.alagaesia.com... [2] . http://everything2.com...
Intellectual Property

I accept my opponents definition of Intellectual Property, that is confining the debate to Copyrights and Patents. I will argue that at the very least some if not most people should be able to sue for infringement of copyright and patent laws. IP laws may need to be revised but they certainly don't need be abolished. I have full intentions of finishing every round and promise not to leave debates to the last minute as I have in a few of my more recent debates. Good luck to my opponent.
John McCain's Wicked Huge Let Down

" -You are turning this into a he said/she said. The truth is that your understanding of the interview is nothing other than an assumption. If people want to understand the real context of "withdrawal" then they can watch the interview themselves." This, I'm afraid, is not a rebuttal. First off, everything in presidential campaigns revolves around what someone said. Second, I gave a major news source quoting the interview in one of the rounds, watching videos takes forever. Third, you offer no substantial alternative to my interpretation. " -The, yes FAILED!, cheney-rumsfeld plan did not involved timetable or withdrawals. Romney stated the timetable would be needed to create progress in Iraq, something the Cheney-Rumsefeld plan was unable to produce... " Whether the plan failed depends on what you happen to want out of it. I got what I wanted out of it, namely, Saddam's death. But in any case, that does not follow, you are simply seizing on a coincidence. Timetables have nothing to do with combat, they have to do with saving resources. They are wholly incapable of producing new "progress" in Iraq. Just getting the hell out of there to save money. That is the meaning of "timetable." " -At the time of the interview, a Clinton-Obama withdrawal meant leaving immediately and quickly." Source? "Lastly, the word hypocracy does apply! He condemned Obama for owning a million dollar house when he himself owns 8 million dollar houses! Ridiculous!" Hypocracy is not a word, it cannot apply to anything. If you mean hypocrisy... he did not "Condemn" obama, he argued that obama does not understand the housing crisis. That is not a condemnation. :D. "This as accuses Barack Obama of being the cause of high gas prices!!! With no explanation!!!" You just proved you didn't pay attention to the ad. It gave the explanation, specifically, "the man who says no to drilling in america" (shorthand for Obama's position against drilling just off the coast of California.) This reduces supply, therefore increasing oil prices.
John McCain's Wicked Huge Let Down

"It is a mistake that many have made because McCain twisted Romney's words. Romney never says that he will withdraw troops after his inauguration." You are twisting those words. A timetable in the context of Iraq means a timetable for withdrawal. Whether the withdrawal is immediately after inaugauration is not the issue, even the Democratic candidates are against immediate withdrawal (I, I should note, am not). When you respond "Of course" to "Should there be a timetable?" you are assenting to the timetable. "Certainly Romney wanted to get the job done before we came home. He even expressed that in the interview. Romney's statement referring to "timetables and milestones" referred expressly to a change in strategy from the failing Rumsfeld-Cheney plan we were currently using." The so-called "Failure" of the "Rumsfield-Cheney plan" has to do with a strategy involving smaller troop concentration. It has nothing to do with timetables and milestones. "omney expressed his concern of the current plan and said that a series of timetable and milestones should be used to rearrange the current strategy in Iraq and prepare Iraq to take over the reins so are troops could eventually return home. Romney never mentioned how long this time tables would last, and only stated that eventually we would need to use them and we needed to keep the secret so the radical jihadist did not know when we were going to leave. McCain twisted Romney's words to make it sound as if he was in favor of a Clinton or Obama withdrawal." Clinton and Obama's withdrawal plans consist of timetables being set to slowly get troops out over time. You are saying, essentially, that Romney's plan is to slowly get troops out over time with secret timetables. Clinton's and Obama's if I recall do not reference secrets, so secrets are an accessory, not fundamental to the truth of a comparison. " A. That does not remove McCain from the ridiculous level of hypocrisy that is carried by the ad" Hypocrisy consists of advocating something and not living up to it. Mccain's statements in those ads informed people of a fact and argued they meant another fact, neither fact in and of itself a recommendation. The word "hypocrisy" does not apply. "B. McCain certainly has admitted that he does not understand the domestic economy well, but he has also said that he understands it very well." And Obama claims he said one thing about Iraq, but he actually said another: http://johnbarrysblog.blogspot.com... What's your point? No presidential candidate presidently running has any understanding of the law of non-contradiction. Two candidates who are equal on a given ground cannot be compared usefully on that ground when trying to choose between them. "I would like to remind my opponent that we are not talking about the individual candidate's policies but the way they conduct themselves and their campaign" Policies ARE the way a candidate conducts themselves and their campaign. They are the only way that matters. Nothing matters about a presidential candidate, except what they will do if they win office. The rest is completely irrelevant.
John McCain's Wicked Huge Let Down

Even before this election season hit off, I was hoping a for a McCain nomination. I have been a McCain fan ever since i looked into him. I had high hopes for him when he announced his candidacy for president again. I thought that this was his time! I was quickly dissappointed though, and let me tell you why. John McCain quickly began to run a very dirty campaign that was fueled on bias, twisted words, and straight lies not straight talk. Mitt took the first swing with his anti-mccain ads, but McCain took it to a WHOLE new level. As Romney turned on the heat and McCain's lead seemed threatened, McCain sky-dived of the high road and sold his soul for the nomination. He began telling blunt lies and attacking Romney's character, not just his politics. In Florida, for example, the primary was coming up quickly and Romney was neck and neck with McCain. In some polls even ahead. Losing florida wouldve been a big blunder for McCain and so he crossed the line. McCain told a blunt lie that became so obvious, the public and even the Media even began crying out for a retraction and an apology. McCain began accusing Romney of wanting to pull out of Iraq. His phib was based on an interview with Romney. As America watched the interview over and over it became obvious that McCain had gone to far. Did anyone stop the Maverick??? No. McCain won Florida by robbing romney of his voted based on a lie. The lie trickled on to California as well and had the same effect. A romney, though he was leading in CA, lost the primary by a landslide. The lies have not ended there however. The attack ads on Sen. Obama are relentless!!! They never end and it makes my head hurt!!! Many if not most of the McCain's attack ads are ridiculous to the point of laughter. These ads could be bought only by the most gullible of Americans. As for the very few that actually attack Obama's politics, even these are grossly misleading and taken so far out of context that McCain IS arguably lying. Now this is not the ranting of a bias Obama supporter. In fact, the only reason I am an Obama supporter is because I could NEVER support McCain after this. His politics are dirty and personal. He plays politics like he is a 72 yr old child throwing a tantrum or pointing and laughing. I need somebody who will act like an adult and talk about the issues, not poke fun at Obama's personal traits. How can I vote for John McCain when he runs an ad claiming obama does not understand the housing problem because he owns a million dollar house when John McCain himself owns 8 mansions, 7 of which are worth over a million dollars!? I had High hopes for McCain... but he let me down hard by sinking to a gross and childish level. For a man who bashed Romney's campaign tactics so hard, McCain sure knows how to play the game... Anyway, my opponent would argue something to the effect of McCains, tactics are no dirtier than Obama's or that McCain has, in fact, taken the high road. My opponent will attempt to change my opinion of McCain's dirty tactics.
American football is a better sport than soccer

This is a debate over whether American football or soccer is the better sport. I will be debating that American football is the better sport, while Cond will be arguing that soccer is the better sport. BOP is shared, so Pro needs to prove American football is better or soccer is worse and Con needs to prove that soccer is better or American fotball is worse. All aspects of the two sports are open to argument, such as the game itself, players, game culture, fans, etc. Rounds will be:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening statementsRound 3: Argument/RebuttalRound 4: Final responses/closing argumentGoing outside the round structure (ie. rebutting the opponent in round 2) is prohibited.Definitions:American football: The code of football played in the United States by leagues such as the NFL and NCAA.Soccer: The code of football governed by FIFABetter: Greater in quality or excellence