BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

The con claims that "Joe Montana is the best quarterback that I've seen in my ENTIRE life!" It's pretty clear that one of two things is happening: Either the con is lying, or the con has never seen Steve Young play. We'll begin our observation of why Steve Young is better with: Observation One: Steve Young Has the Better Passing Performance According to a Bleacher Report analysis, Young had a better passing performance throughout his ludicrous career. For his career, Montana was 3,409 of 5,391 (63.2 percent) for 40,551 yards (7.5 YPA), 273 touchdowns, and 139 interceptions. He had a rating of 92.3. Pretty impressive stats--until you compare them to Young's stats of 2,667 of 4,149 (64.3 percent) for 33,124 yards (8.0 YPA), 232 touchdowns and 107 interceptions. Young had a superior QB rating of 96.8. While both quarterback produced at a remarkable level during the regular season, Steve Young is the more impressive of the two quarterbacks. He performed at a higher level in virtually every aspect, albeit, not by a large degree in most instances. Observation Two: Steve Young Is the Most Productive Rushing QB in History Steve Young's legacy rides on one thing more than anything else--his legs. For his career, Young had 722 carries for 4,239 yards (5.8 YPC) and 43 touchdowns. Montana only had 457 carries for 1,667 yards (3.6 YPC) and 20 touchdowns. This comparison isn't even close. Observation Three: Con's Arguments Are Flawed First of all, con admits that Joe Montana was only the better quarterback IN THEIR OPINION. It's just common sense that opinions mean nothing when lined up against hard facts. Young was the better quarterback. Stats don't lie. In conclusion, Steve Young was the much better quarterback as he was the one with the better stats...and stats don't lie.
Abortion should be illegal

I firmly believe that in America we need to respect everyone's rights. Making abortion illegal would hinder the rights of women who are already dealing with the wage gap, sexual harassment and assault, and the ever persistent patriarchy. The reason women are getting abortions are numerous. Here are some: 1. Not ready for a child emotionally or phsyically 2. Cannot support a child financially 3. Having the child will kill them 4. The child is the product of rape or incest These women are not monsters as people would like to make you believe. They are real people with real reasons for making their decision. They have weighed the costs and benefits of having a child and decided that there are more costs than benefits. I'll ask you something, if there are more costs to a decision than benefits, is it worth it? No, of course not, I think that is something we can all agree on. While I myself would never have an abortion, that doesn't make it okay for me to decide what other women do. Being pro-choice is about letting everyone make their own decision about what to do with their body. To make abortion illegal is a hindrance upon women's rights and is an overstep of boundaries that cannot be allowed in our free country.
Americans having free health care!

This is an argument I agree on, but to learn more about it, I'll take con. 1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? 2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. 3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. 4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. 5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. 6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. 7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. 8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. 9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. 10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. 11. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Cite: Joe Messerli. "Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?" 11/27/07
Americans having free health care!

Many of your statements are questionable, so let me state the obvious: 1. Many Americans are rejected by their insurance companies. 2. Many Americans don't have the kind of money to pay for these bills they get! 3. Even if the bank did give the person a loan, they would still have to pay! So as I rest my case, all I have to say is that many Americans will DIE if they don't have the money they need!
FORTNITE is for losers and geeks who don't know how to socialize in real life

People who play Fortnite are social misfits and nerds who could not carry on a meaningful conversation in real life, Face to face and are just losers who would rather play a cartoony game with their other geek friends in moms basement then socialize in real life because they have no real friends. Fortnite is for socially awkward geeks who don't play sports, Have two left feet and only know how to use their thumbs and have no girlfriends. Prove me wrong
FORTNITE is for losers and geeks who don't know how to socialize in real life

Fortinite is for losers and this debate comes down to adults debating with children. Kvng_8 will argue for Fortinite because he plays it and he wants to defend it. Ladies and Gentleman of the jury if we look at the facts, Fortnite is just destroying young peoples minds and every adult will agree, But then most adults don't play a cartoony video game, They have bigger things to worry about like a mortgage and bills and putting food on the table. While kids do nothing but go to school and waste their time on stupid video games like Fortnite. Fortnite is like Fentanyl which is a growing epidemic with young people. The young people see it as a fun party drug but adults see it for what it is, A killing opioid. And that is the problem with this debate. As an adult I'm debating a child who thinks video games like Fortnite are a fun time waster, But me as an adult see it as a stupid activity with Fortnite being the lead candidate for lost and wasteful youth. There were other games before it just as bad but for now Fortnite is the leading video game for addiction, Stupidity and waste of time in the young generation of people. And this is why I wanted to leave this debate locked for serious adult discussion because discussing it with a child who has no clue about how the real world works and debating how their Fortnite addiction is leading them to a path of loserdom and antisocial behavior will never be recognized not by the child but by the adult who is smarter, Wiser and knows more from previous experiences than a Fortnite playing nerd. This is the same debate as trying to convince a child that reading is better for them than watching Paw Patrol. So like I said before anyone who plays Fortnite is just a loser and when you apply for your first time for a career I won't hire you because you are antisocial and have no people skills. So keep playing your stupid video game, But in the real world and grand scheme of things you will be recognized as a computer geek in real life so good luck flipping burgers at Checkers or Wendy's because your Fortnite addiction eventually will lead you down that path as the antisocial nerd who can't function in society with adults Mic drop
FORTNITE is for losers and geeks who don't know how to socialize in real life

Fortnite is taking children"s attention away from healthier activities, Such as playing sports, Interacting with friends on a face-to-face basis and turning them into social misfits and geeks. Playing Fortnite is causing changes in the prefrontal cortex, Especially affecting young developing brains. And these are scientific facts. Part of the addictive component of playing Fortnite involves a continuous release of dopamine, Every time someone gets a kill on Fortnite, There is another release of dopamine, Thereby increasing very addictive behaviors and natural endo-chemicals produced by our own biochemistry. This can be as addictive as taking drugs. Therefore this proves that Fortnite is for losers just like drugs are. It is similar to cocaine addiction, Or a gambler"s addiction to a slot machine. When we are continually flooded with dopamine, Normal amounts no longer satisfy us. So then we need more and more dopamine to even feel normal. This is part of the reason that it is so hard to pry people away from their electronics. They are literally addicted to them. Adolescents and children need to learn how to be with other human beings, How to interact face-to-face, How to read and respond to verbal and social cues, And how to communicate effectively. There is no substitute for face to face personal interaction by playing Fortnite. If children are continuously attached to machines, Then they lack normal human development and the capacity to integrate the full range of human interaction. We see reduced vocabularies, A lessening capacity for healthy social interaction, Communication, And reduced social skills and capacity to form and sustain healthy relationships and become complete Fortnite morons. With video games like Fortnite that includes violence, Violence becomes normalized and acceptable, People become desensitized to violence, And lose the capacity to understand what it really means. As evidenced by gang violence and rampant use of guns by mass shooters, We are witnessing a change in the value of human life. To the extent that violent games like Fortnite contribute to this, As well as movies and other media, We need to closely examine what we are feeding the minds of our young people. Whatever they are feeding their minds is likely to come out in their lives Sports provide your children with a healthy outlet for competitive energy, Teamwork, And learning how to get along with other people. Sports also is a way for your kids to release aggression in a healthy manner. Anyone who doesn't play sports is just a limp wristed geek and a wimp who has no talent and would rather sag on the couch and play Fortnite in moms basement. Allowing kids to play Fortnite and check out from life and reality, Will deprive them of developing the skills that they need to survive in this world and make them become weak crybaby sissies who can't handle the real world and the stresses in the work force. Case closed Mic drop
FORTNITE is for losers and geeks who don't know how to socialize in real life

It seems as though you hate Fortnite and so you say all of these things jokingly since Fortnite is overrated (it is to me). Some of the things you said describes people who don't even play Fortnite. You cannot paint everyone with one brush with these preconceived notions just because they play some video game. If you say this about Fortnite, Then you must apply the same logic for all other video games because they are all fictional. How is your argument magically exclusive to only Fortnite? A relative of mine has a girlfriend, Same age as me, An outgoing extrovert, Far from a geek, People always seen him as the cool guy, Smokes weed, Has friends, Plays basketball and he also plays Fortnite. He doesn't even look like the type to play Fortnite. So there goes that. What about social media? People who are on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram too much could become addicted to it. They may not do a good job of having face to face conversation since everything nowadays is just technology. If you stand by what you say about Fortnite, Then social media has a part in this as well. What's wrong with being a nerd? What's wrong with not playing sports? Not everyone is the same, Not every guy has to like sports or get into sports. I'm not even into sports. Does that mean something is wrong with me and other men who aren't really into sports? No. I see that you said "nerdy kid who can't play sports" interesting that you have this misguided stereotype about people. I actually can play sports if I wanted to. I used to play basketball, But it really isn't my thing. I'd rather watch a basketball game from time to time. Even though I'm not into sports, I'll watch it every now and then because of my favorite team. I don't play Fortnite. I attempted to, And I don't like it at all. It's way too difficult. You have to push too many buttons just to do one thing. I play GTA 5 and I love it. Does that make me a loser who can't socialize and is a geek and all this other bullshxt that you said? Please listen to yourself. Playing a video game doesn't automatically make you all of those things. It would've been more respectable and made more sense had you said something like "People are becoming addicted to Fortnite and it's not good. " I'm into anime. Do you know how many people judge others for watching anime? A lot. Do you know how many people made fun of me for watching anime? A lot. Guess what. I don't give a fxck because it's what I like. So you shouldn't condemn other people just because they are playing their favorite video game.
An AnCap system is superior to system x.

OPENINGMy opponent has chosen a system of Minarchy where the Government exists solely to fund and manage an armed force. Since a Libertarian society (which both our choices are) is by definition one of strong property-rights, I hope my opponent can agree the only purpose this armed force would serve would be to deter foreign invasion and protect national security, since that is the line of argument I am going to take.In brief, it is a debate between a private armed firms and a state-funded and controlled army.Many thanks and the best of luck to my opponent, OreEle.ARGUMENTSFree Market for the winThe problem with a State Armed Force is the same as all problems we find with state-controlled assets; because the taxes are taken without choice, regardless of whether someone is happy with the services provided, there is no correlation between output and customer satisfaction.As with any monopoly, there is no fear of consequence. The Government wouldn’t have to pay out any damage caused by either foreign or local forces, insurance companies would. The only natural extension of privatisation is a private defence force, payed for by insurance companies.Why would they pay?It is clearly in the best interest of insurance companies to deter foreign invasion/attack as much as possible. The potential life and property insurance payout for such an attack could cost billions of dollars. To pre-emptively prevent such attacks, the private defence firm market is born.Private defence; more efficient, more accountableIn a Free Market, it is a given that strategic and technological advances are implemented as quickly as possible as various defence firms compete to satisfy the market, just as with any kind of business. Over time, only the best firms survive as inefficient ones go out of business.Furthermore, any defence firms caught taking advantage of the war-time situation will quickly be held accountable for their actions. Unlike a state defence force, a private firm can be taken to court and made to pay out damages.CONCLUSIONI am starting my arguments fairly vaguely. This is completely intentional, as this debate is likely to produce lengthy rebuttals. For this reason, I have only very briefly outlined some of the core advantages of my proposed system.I will expand upon my points depending on how my opponent responds to them.
An AnCap system is superior to system x.

As most everyone here knows, I'm on the far end from Anarchy, so doing a debate on my idea preference would have so many vast differences that even with 8,000 characters and 5 rounds, we would both find ourselves greatly limited. As such, I will tone the debate down into something a little more fine toothed. The form of government I choose is a form of Minarchy. It is defined as operating exactly the same as Anarcho-capitalism in every way except one. There is a government that has only two functioning services, to have a military, and to collect money through taxes and other means (can include selling mercanary services) to fund that military. Such a government can use those funds to establish a constant military, or use them to purchase contracted services (thus allowing for competetion between different defence firms). I will go into the reasons why this is better than a traditional Anarcho-capitalistic society. I would also like to point out that according to my opponent's source, Ancap (anarcho-capitalism) advocates as an individual society, not a world order. This means that our two systems need to be able to interact with other societies which could potentially be a wide veriety of nations, from free market allies, to military dictatorship enemies. Some rational, some irrational. Since no value system has been given as to "superior," we will have to enterpret it as in general, of which each individual voter must use their own weighted values to make that judgement.
Evolution should be taught in public schools

Many question whether evolution is appropriate to teach in public schools. I believe it not to be. Evolution may be a well-tested theory, but thats all it is. When the theory of evolution is taught in schools, it causes kids to question what they believe in, and know is true(their religion). If evolution is okay to be taught, shouldn't religion be appropriate to be taught as well? As well, many kids sit out(or don't sing) when singing a Christmas song at Christmas because they don't believe in what is sung in that particular song, so shouldn't kids who believe in other religions get a chance to choose if they'd like to learn about evolution? Evolution is a theory and a belief by many, but not all. Why should kids get a belief forced upon them to learn as if it is truth?
Evolution should be taught in public schools

Thank you for your reply. I respect your opinions and your debate, but I have a few disagreements. "Many more do not. In fact, the people who have problems with evolution are few, but very outspoken and politically powerful." And you know this how? I know many people who do have problems with evolution being taught that are not well known or powerful. I would like to know who is it that is so powerful and outspoken that speaks about evolution. "Evolution is a theory, and that's really enough" If schools taught every theory in the scientific world that was well-tested, wouldn't things be a bit confusing for children? "Name Name anyone with a doctorate or teaching position who argues against evolution, and I, being an undergraduate student, can probably point out objective reasons why he is unfit to teach." So by saying this, you mean that someone with a higher level education than you(as is someone with a doctorate) is unfit to teach because they do not support evolution? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a silly prejudice remark about someone. "We learn about Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. in history class, where we examine global culture. We learn about evolution in Biology class because mounds of scientific evidence point towards evolution as one of the most key concepts in life on earth." But while we learn about other religions in history class, we are not taught to believe in them as we are with the theory of evolution. Nobody can say evolution is a fact, as it isn't comfermed that it is positively true, while the fact that people PRACTICE religion is true, and therefore, a fact that should be taught. Teaching that there are other religions is not identical to teaching as if it is truth, the theory of evolution. "Furthermore, evolution is a concept that arose without bias, whereas those contesting it are extremely biased." "…the scientists just speak out for fear that the religious nuts will injure themselves." Is this to say that I, and anyone else that strongly believes in God and is against the theory of evolution is a ‘religious nut'? If so, I'm proud to be one, but I don't see how placing labels like these are relevant to the topic at hand, and I do not see how they are appropriate. As for those questioning things, to clear things up: Theory- 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Evolution is merely a proposed explanation. Sure, religion may not be based on scientific facts, but why does everything in this world have to be proven with science? Science is something made up by man-kind, and life is not made by man-kind, so why do we attempt to explain it with our systems when we are only ones to wonder at the amazing living things in the world we live, taking no part in creation? How can you define something that is beyond your own definitions?
High school diploma is as equal representation of education as GED!

*Welcome, whoever believes they can attest to the topic that education can be equally represented through both GED, and the default high school diploma. First round is intros, begin with explaining your opinion on what exactly the topic means in general. Second round is personal beliefs on the topic yourself, and how you feel about the topic. Third round is rebuttal in actuality to the other debater's opinion on the topic. *Disclaimer, this is a short debate. Long debates tend to be more difficult to allocate time to finish. *Spelling will count against you, and will be pointed out and used against your argument. To begin defining High school is to of a dynamic topic to explain with accuracy. So I will explain the general idea of education in high school.
High school diploma is as equal representation of education as GED!

I'm not sure we're really having a debate on the question at hand. Dropping high school is not usually advisable, although some students cannot avoid it if personal or family circumstances make it necessary - such as having to work to help support a poor household. This is indeed tragic, and getting a GED can be recommended for those who must leave school, or for adults who have already left school in the past. It does enable admissions at open colleges, and may be considered even by selective shools. For employment advancement, it's less effective, yet better than no credentials. Remember there are people with college credits working fast food. If you are seeking the GED, I think that your class must have graduated at the time you take the tests if you haven't turned 18 - you may want to check on that.Meanwhile, for debate position I'm sticking to a view of the GED as meaningful, but not fully equivalent to a diploma, for reasons I've stated above.