BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Did the Pitsburgh Steelers deserve to win the superbowl

Next, I will address CON's points. Superior Defensive Line I don't quite see how this is relevant to being more deserving, but I will address it anyway. The Steelers defensive line produced 11.5 sacks, a relatively small number for the best defense in the league. But we must take into account what their defensive line was used for: keeping offensive linemen occupied while linebackers eat up the QB. This philosophy has worked very well for The Steelers. In their base 3/4 defense, while the 3 down linemen held the O-linemen, the 2 OLB combined for 27.5 sacks. The entire defense had a total of 51. The Giants D-line was used for 1 thing and 1 thing only: getting to the QB. This may sound like a pretty common technique in football, but usually the D-line helps the other members of the defense in some way. Not the Giants, though. Out side of Tuck's 12 sacks and Kiwanaku's 8, the defense produced only 22 more. The defense outside of the d-line for the Steelers produced 39.5 sacks. A Deeper Roster I also do not see how this is relevant to deserving the Lombardi trophy, but I must refute it. Neither team is deeper than the other. Steelers have more depth at QB; Giants have more depth at RB. Steelers have more depth in the secondary; Giants have more depth at WR. The Loss of a Key Player Only Weeks Before the Playoffs I am going to assume CON means Brandon Jacobs as he is the only starter that comes to mind with a critical injury. This argument is null and void. Although Brandon Jacobs was injured before the playoffs, the Giants still clinched the No.1 seed and homefield throughout the playoffs. When Jacobs returned to the field in the divisional round of the playoffs, he was close to, if not 100%. His play had no affect on the game because the Giants were just flat-out out-played. Now, for my arguments. Strength of Schedule Steelers' opponents' winning percentage-.525 Giants' opponents' winning percentage-.502 . http://www.nfl.com... This shows that the Steelers played through a tough schedule, facing tougher opponents more often, and won the Super Bowl by beating a few teams that they might not have been supposed to. Performance in the Playoffs Simply put, the Giants failed to show up at the most important time of the year, losing to the NFC's 6th seed, the Philadelphia Eagles. The Steelers showed up in the biggest way possible, winning all their playoff games against the No.4 Chargers, the No.6 Ravens, and the NFC's 4th seed, the Arizona Cardinals in the Super Bowl.
Resolved: Federal Government Bailouts of Major Corporations Are Just

Well, guys, I guess since my opponent has forfeit the round, I can just go over her case, and, since she can't rebut, I should win...I think. I'll still try to give good arguments though. Anywho, her value is that of american prosperity. Now, as I've shown through my case, the surplus population is a group you simply don't want to be involved in, and when bailouts don't occur, the jobless join this group, and America becomes less prosperous because of it. But if you don't want to buy that, which are you honestly going to protect: human lives or the prosperity of a country? Next is her criterion of Justice, which is not a good weighing mechanism since she does not show us what brand of justice she is supporting. For example, it used to be just in the US to deal out paddling if a child misbehaved, but nowadays we call that child abuse. The principle of justice can change depending on who's dealing it out. My opponent provides us with an observation that bailout is a misnomer, but since what the government is doing is called a bailout, and doing this for none of the reasons my opponent presents, this observation falls. Her contention 1 discusses how bailing out a bankrupt company that has acted recklessly will only continue similar behavior in the future. Unfortunately, guys, my opponent is not a psychic, nor is she omnipotent or omnipresent. She can't prove to you that this statement is true, so already we must automatically assume it is false. However, if you won't buy into that, my opponent is making a blanket statement that she can't back up with any evidence whatsoever, so why should I refute it when she can't support it? Giving these bailouts protects human life, which as we all know must be protected at all costs, so it is just. On to her C2, that states that there were other options that would have been better allowed for the prosperity of America. Unforutnately, her singular "option" has no merit in today's round, because the resolution specifies whether or not bailouts are just, and gives no option of other alternatives. FInally, on her C3, she states that bailouts are an unconstitutional expansion of government. I would like to remind all of you tuning in to this debate that Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase. I know, duh, but nowhere in the constitution did it give him the right to do so. No, that's a wonderful thing called implied power, and our government has that power because we aren't a completely capitalistic economy! Voters: 1) Human Life outweighs my opponent's value and criterion. 2) Resolution does not give room for alternatives to bailouts 3) Government has implied power 4) Impossible to look to the future for outcome of bailouts For all these reasons, I ask you to vote Pro. Thanks!
HOI4 is better than EUIV

Firstly, I would like to define "better", "better" is defined as being PROVEN superior IN IT'S CURRENT STATE, by reviewers and owners of the games. Firstly, eu4 is superior in it's current state because it currently has 13 expansion packs and 16 content packs; see the steam page: https://store.steampowered.com... As compared to hoi4 which has only 4 expansion packs and 4 content packs; see the steam page: https://store.steampowered.com... Secondly, I believe it is very subjective to describe hoi4 as being "easier to learn" than eu4, and to say that there is a lack of selection when controlling armies, and claiming that there are "results" that prove this statement. I would like to see OBJECTIVE evidence to support your claims.
HOI4 is better than EUIV

Hearts of Iron 4 is obviously the better game. in comparison to the clunky Europa Universalis interface, HOI4 has a cleaner, more easy to learn user display. Furthermore, wars and the abilities to control armies in HOI4 are more sophisticated, being complicated, yet simple. Compare this to EU4 which barely has any selection when controlling armies and the results prove that HOI4 is superior to it.
The View Of Christian Marriage Is More Beautiful Than The Islamic View Of Marriage

I believe a major fallacy in your argument is that Islam follows both the Old Testament, New Testament and the Koran. Likewise, much of the beautiful sentiment found in the Bible is also encompassed by Islamic doctrine. Adam and Eve and the story of the rib is also considered as a Islamic belief. Also, whilst I understand your concern for bigamy, you are forming an opinion of an alien cultural tradition based on your own respective alien cultural ideology. You state that it is "bad", "not special", "unloving", "cruel", "hurtful", "everything that love is not". All these are fallacies of generalisation. Who are you to know it is stressful? Indeed, if you found you were in a marriage with three other wives, you might find it stressful, but, again, you are basing your opinions on your own inherent ideologies. Worst still, you are basing them on your own religious ideologies by saying that it is 'unholy'. Wives in polygamous marriages may agree with you if they find their marriage hurtful or cruel, yet many in healthy polygamous marriages would disagree and may also be offended by such generalisations of both their marriage and their religion. I can make the assumption that you are Christian. I could outlined the Biblical references in the comment section which clearly undermines your argument that divorce is a bad thing which Islam is guilty of, whilst Christianity allows the same thing. However, I will consider your concept of divorce. Again, you are treating this subjectively. Islam stresses the importance of marriage as much as Christianity and like Christianity, many of the doctrines in Islam are not followed. In some sects, even abolished, as is the case with temporary marriage. You ask how a marriage could be so easily be discarded. In what case? Whatever that case might be, divorce is considered as the final option. Not the get out of jail free card. Your final statement is also a generalisation. 'Hooking up' being prominent among them. You assume that love is exclusive to Christian marriages, 'to be cherished and fought for', implying that Muslim's cannot attain this through their own respective beliefs on matrimony. In conclusion, your entire argument is subjective to a female Christian point of view with no attempt to understand a foreign culture on its own terms and as such, your argument is riddled with generalisations of a rose-tinted point of view.
Ignorance is Bliss

Oh O I think Con has disappeard. But just in case they return I'd better give an argument. There are things that once you understand, the result will be sadness or at least take a slice out of your bliss. For example everyone including you is going to die. Also some where in the world there is a person who has been kidnapped is having unspeakable things being done to them. So were you happier or less happy once you become aware of these things ? Ergo Ignorance is Bliss.
Life breeding hate

"Life is breed from sex, therefore it is a survival instinct. Sex occurs, therefore someone living had sex. Sexual relationship is an instinct in which on commits to one another (rape not included). We choose mates based on who would make better babies. This makes a level of commitment. When someone has something will covet it. Therefore, commitment makes jealousy Jealousy is a type of anger, therefore for it to occur, anger must" This argument makes little sense and is mainly a rewording of the last argument. You have failed to demonstrate how this means that life is the cause and is equivilent to hate. Pro has not made any coherent argument or response to my counter argument. I urge the voters to vote con. Thank you.
Life breeding hate

Thank you. Life is breed from sex, therefore it is a survival instinct. Sex occurs, therefore someone living had sex. Sexual relationship is an instinct in which on commits to one another (rape not included). We choose mates based on who would make better babies. This makes a level of commitment. When someone has something will covet it. Therefore, commitment makes jealousy Jealousy is a type of anger, therefore for it to occur, anger must
Life breeding hate

Since pro has not formally clarified the resolution I shall do so; "the process of being alive is what causes hate". Whilst it is true that only living things can experience hate (to our knowledge anyway), this does not alone reasonably lead to the conclusion that it is the process of being alive which causes it. I shall first rebut pro's arguments and then outline a counter argument. (I shall be interpreting all "-" as meaning causes) 1. Life - sexual relationship Yes life is (hopefully) a prerequisite for this, however to describe it as the sole cause would be woefully limited. Also it can be shown to be false. Under your arguments only someone who has sexual relationships could feel anger. I am a virgin, and have felt anger many times. [Source - myself, I just asked and I told me] 2. Sexual relationship - commitment Again false. There are many relationships which do not lead to commitment, whilst both elements of the relationship are perfectly capable of feeling hate. 3. Commitment - anxiety Elaboration required. I see no reason why commitment should need to lead to anxiety. 4. Anxiety - Jealousy Occasionally. Not contingently however. 5. Jealousy - Hate Even rarer than above. Again not contigently. Thus the conclusion that to live is to hate is false and unsupported. Counter-argument Given that I believe that this is unnecessary considering the above, I shall be brief. Plants are alive, yet it cannot be shown that they can feel hate. Therefore the assertion that the process of living is equivilent and the cause of hate is false. I await your response.
Resolved: On ballance, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has done more good than harm.

Contention 1: The economy Many people critize Brownback's tax cut, but we have to realize that the Trickle-down economics that Brownback put forth had actually worked. We can actually see that the Kansas unemployment has been lower than the US's unemployment rate by 1.8% and slightly lower than the Midwest's unemployment rate. This has helped Kansans as we have seen that since his tax plan was instituted we have seen a 6% jobs increase. To improve this we have seen the elimination of taxation on smaller businesses has also helped. This has created 8,600 small businesses adding $486 million in new income into the Kansas Economy. [1] When compared to our MO neighbors our non-ag jobs have grown by 2.4% compared to Missouri's 1.9%. Under Brownback, Kansas has seen a raise in Per-Capita Personal Disposable Income by 10.8% from 2011 to 2013. Let's continue with the camparision to our neighbors. In Kansas City, under Brownback, Kansas in KC has seen a wage growth vs. those on the Missouri side rise from 40 cents to $3. [2] Not to mention that unemployment in Kansas has been under 5% for 7 months which is the first since 2008 showing economic stability under Brownback. Contention 2: Education For the greatest contraversy under his governorship is education funding. Despite a Constitutional battle on state funding people tend to over look several facts about Kansas Education. Since Brownback took over we have seen a massive increase in funding for schools. This totals to almost $400 million increase from 2010 to 2015. Even though Brownback was attacked for this his argument is widely ignored. He attempted to pay teacher's and schools based on merit. This was protested and blocked by the Teacher's Union fearing that their teacher's would be ousted. [3] Now I'm not getting into a Right-to-Work debate here, but the Union continously has harmed the Kansas schools. Teachers at USD 501, a greatly "under funded" school district, has reported that much of the reasons for this is also unnecessary spending. The USD 501 Board had approved multiple spending sprees on guest speakers who give out simplisic messages. [4] Kansas teachers have increased by over 600! Not to mention that the Kansan teachers make $7,066 more than Missouri teachers. . http://www.youtube.com...Sources1. (. http://www.forbes.com...) 2. ( . http://news.investors.com...) 3. (. http://www.kansascity.com...) 4. ( . http://brownback.com...)
Resolved: On ballance, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has done more good than harm.

This debate is impossible to accept. If you accept without permission then you forfeit all 7 points to me. If you wish to accept then please leave a comment.RulesFirst Round is terms and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con.Second Round is for Opening arguments, NO rebuttals.Third Round is for Rebuttals.Forth Round is for Rebuttals and conclusionYou may put sources in the comments section if need be.No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used.No trolling.BOP is shared.Minimum ELO is 2000.No ProfanityOn ballance- With all things concidered.more- ingreaterquantity,amount,measure,degree,ornumber (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Sam Brownback- Current govenor of Kansas
Televised content should be made globally available and relevant creator restrictions relaxed.

The opening phrase of your debate was "In a world where..." I love this phrase, and clearly you love it too. I love saying that in a world where there are Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, communists, capitalists, conservatives, liberals and many other varieties of cultures and political ideologies there is bound to be good reason to restrict what is shown from one country to the next.The Danish cartoon[1] is example of how, when certain media content isn't hidden from members of a certain nation, it wreaks havoc. If we were to televise the burning of Qur'ans, certain people would cheer, good entertainment, certain people would cringe, and others would bomb the place that burnt them, begin burning bibles, Torahs and Hindu scriptures and wreak havoc in the world.To Europeans, pornography is an inherent accepted part of adult culture, many people openly claim to watch it, and feel no guilt at all. Pornography is relative however. Europeans are globally recognised as the most liberal of the continents on sexually explicit matters (I challenge you to supply any evidence against this). So, when they are used to associating hardcore, severe pornography with adult content, seeing a woman in a tight bikini on a movie for kids is fine. In fact I doubt the children even pay attention to it. However, in a culture where women have to be scared to show more than hands and eyes, and in certain regions not even eyes, seeing a woman in a bikini, let alone more severe content in some movies, on a publicly broadcasted television channel would cause riots in the town, they might even burn down their local broadcasting company headquarters just out of anger (believe me, this is the Arab culture, if you think it goes against Allah, burn it, I'm not being racist, it's actual observation of how they deal with such scenarios). So, if we filter out certain things from other nations, it will avoid disruption and chaos.Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Televised content should be made globally available and relevant creator restrictions relaxed.

In a world where communication is globalized and instant, and news platforms are rapidly migrating online, it is in the best interests of TV networks to invest in new internet streaming technology and make their content available to everyone, instantly. The only thing preventing this from reality is stubborn content creators that restrict broadcast to international reasons. Content providers should reconsider their illogical restrictions, and enable TV networks to stream internationally, increasing competition for quality content, and exposing people to a much greater range of entertainment and informative content.
Putin is justified in the Ukraine Crisis

1. I would like to remind you that we are not talking about the United States, we are talking about Russia, so your question "What makes USA right? " is invalid. 2-3. Yet again, not about the US, but as I disagree with your second statement, I will make a rebuttal; The United States has help several countries and a lot of them have gone without profit. A few of these countries include: The Philippines, South Korea, Japan, Britain, France, Canada, Haiti, Poland, with countless others, including the Ukraine, recently the US has pledged 68 Million dollars to help Ukraine re-establish their government, and has gotten nothing in return but Thanks. Perhaps you have the US confused with Russia who only decided to help the rebels, so it can profit on Crimea and possibly other parts of eastern Ukraine. 4. You can not tell me what Putin knows, because you yourself are not Putin, that is hearsay, and not a valid argument. 5. Weather he is fulfilling a biblical prophecy or not he is breaking international law along with at least 1 treaty. Now if it is ok with you, I would like to switch back to the topic at hand.
Putin is justified in the Ukraine Crisis

I say Putin should stand against the NWO=Beast=USA'debt system that is doomed for failure. 1. What makes USA right?2. The USA has ruined(After raping all valuble natural resources, leaving the people worst off! ) every nation they ever attempted to help.3. USA will only help for profit. 4. Putin knows the west is evil and wrong.5. Putin is fulfilling bibical prophecy concrening Essau. The twin of Jacob who was given Israel. So Gog and Magog can be fulfilled. Putin to fulfill Bible prophecy with Ukraine actions - Washington DC . .. . https://www.google.com...;https://www.google.com...;
Islam

As you have said, not all Muslims are extremists. However, the media is very, very cruel to certain people, and it has essentially allowed for the categorization of ALL Muslims into the extremist category. I myself know several Muslims who are nothing like the terrorists in the Middle East, and yet, there are people who, amazingly, believe the media's portrayal of the Muslim faith. Then again, people believe anything these days... I myself am also a Messianic Jew, which is basically a Jewish person who believes in Jesus, strangely enough. To be fair, we also believe that he is the "Son of G-d", as well as the "Messiah", who will basically bring heaven to Earth. I'm curious... What is your opinion of the Jewish faith? It would be interesting to know...
Islam

As a musim I would like to know why people are so against Islam ? I would also like to share what Islam is for me, and that is largely different from what the media portrays. Islam is a religion of love. God is Love. There is only One God, he has no sons, no daughters, no children at all. He was not begotten by anyone nor does He beget. What's so strange and evil about believing in One God ??? God sent down all the prophets. We accept Jesus, as a prophet, and admire him. We accept Moses, Abraham, Adam and Muhammed, the final prophet. We accept that God sent each prophet with a religion, we accept that Judaism and Christianity were preached, but we believe that once the respective prophets died the people changed the books to their own liking. That is why we now follow Islam, the final religion sent by the final prophet. We preach peace, justice, equality. The very call to prayer was given first by an African man named Bilal. The women of Islam are honoured. In the days before Islam,women had no rights, they were abused. Islam brought with it the respect and equality of women. The non muslims would kill their daughters as they only wanted sons. Islam forbade this injustice. Islam welcomes people of all colour, all kind. After all , God created all of us. Now I will tell you what Islam is NOT. Islam is NOT extremism. Islam is NOT ISIS. Islam is NOT so called religgious groups who go out killing non-muslims, raping and pilaging. These groups do NOT represent Islam, yet they say the things they are doing is in the name of Islam. However, we true Muslims know that these people are definitely not Muslims. We do not accept them as Muslims. Islam is NOT violence, it is not killing innocent people. These groups will soon face the One Lord and answer for all the wrongs they have caused. To those of you wishing to know more about Islam, i recommend reading and English version (or whatever your language is) of the Qur'an. In it you will find truth, peace, love. In it you will find the true meaning of life.