BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Italian pizza is better than American pizza.

This past summer, I went on a Mediterranean cruise. We spent most of our time in Italy, going to Pisa, Florence, Rome, Naples, Pompeii, and Venice. Naples, in case you didn't know, is the birthplace of pizza, so naturally, we had to stop there to try some. The pizza was phenomenal. Real mozzarella glued to authentic crust with chunky tomato sauce. Upon our return to America, we were disappointed and disgusted to find what horrors lay within a flat cardboard box. The cheese was obviously not real, and the crust was so thick that I should call it a loaf instead of crust. Is there anyone out there who actually thinks that American pizza is higher quality than authentic Italian pizza?
Ford Vs Chevy

"Is that 33 non-consecutive years?" No that is 33 consecutive years as America's best selling truck and for 28 consecutive years Ford F-series has been America's #1 best selling vehicle inducing cars, SUVs and vans. There for outselling its closest truck competitor by 97,000 units. "Implying what exactly?" I'm implying that Ford Motor Company has not cheated the buyers out of there money as your suggesting, otherwise they wouldn't have been America's best selling truck for 33 years but instead thought smart maximized there assets and a changed the ways of there factory so they could still afford to keep most of there employees instead of shutting down factorys. "Again, you cannot objectively compare this point without specifying the environmental conditions the vehicle is intended to perform in." I can compare this point because everyone is looking for the best gas mileage as well a towing compacity, and a high weight limit for the box. Besides what environment do you think i was talking about, construction workers, loggers, farmers, and the list could go on and on. You don't see lawyers, stock brokers, or rich company owner driving around in trucks in New York City do you.
Ford Vs Chevy

My position isnt so much that Fords are NOT better. Rather, my position is that "better" is a relative term. I dont necessarily believe Fords are better or worse, just that they are different. My argument is not that Chevys ARE better. My counter argument is simply that Fords are NOT better. "I think Fords are better because they have been the #1 truck in the US for 33 years." Is that 33 non-consecutive years? I mean, wasnt the Ford Motor Company established back in 1903? That was 107 years ago. 33/103 < 31% of the time its the better vehicle. Appeal to Tradition?... if that is even much of a tradition... "they are the only American company that's not relying on the government to support them. " Implying what exactly? A premise without an inferential statement is pretty meaningless to me. To me the fact at hand implies that they have sufficient wealth not to need a bailout.... which in turn implies that they have been over charging and undermining quality all these years. "They have stronger frames therefore higher crash test ratings (1), smooth quiet ride (2), Multiple cab and bed configurations (3), and an attractive cab (4)." (1) Necessitated by the higher probability of a crash? Or by the lesser chance of surviving one? (2) No real comment on this point. Most people listen to the radio or music, talk on the phone, or roll their window down anyway... people in our society fain away from "too quit" anyway. (3) Pro is lying on this point. I have never seen a Ford, or any other make for that matter, which had multiple cab/bed configurations. All vehicles I have ever seen have had a single configuration throughout its life, short of serious alterations. (3) Humor aside, all makes come in a variety of styles and models. No one make is synonymous with a single model and vice versa. (4) This point is an arbitrary one, a matter of opinion that cannot be gauged, quantified, or objectively compared. "They have the lowest Hp rated motors of the domestic trucks but also better gas mileage. Chevy has large turning radius, mediocre interior storage, and many other flaws." I dont even know what to say to this. I wont take a Volkswagen to the moon any more than I will take a Chevy scuba diving. You buy what you need for the situation, circumstances, environment, etc. Practicality in purpose, a purpose that is as unique the individual as any mods are to a vehicle. Again, you cannot objectively compare this point without specifying the environmental conditions the vehicle is intended to perform in.
Ford Vs Chevy

I think Fords are better because they have been the #1 truck in the US for 33 years. Also they are the only American company that's not relying on the government to support them. They have stronger frames therefore higher crash test ratings, smooth quiet ride, Multiple cab and bed configurations, and an attractive cab. They have the lowest Hp rated motors of the domestic trucks but also better gas mileage. Chevy has large turning radius, mediocre interior storage, and many other flaws.
ps3 is better than the xbox

Cory Barog, the CEO of the developer, just signed a deal with Microsoft to produce the new God of War for XBOX. So perhaps you should actually do some research. I did not mention those certain games, perhaps you should have read it closer. Guitar Hero 2, Portal 1, Forza Motorsport 2. Every game I listed is only available for the XBOX. XBOX sales figures are still higher than PS3. It is irrelevant what you think you "see". Both corporations are public companies and must publish their sales figures. It is available for anyone who wants to view it. The same goes with your friends. You could a group of Neo-Nazis. Their personal opinions do not make them right, and neither do your friends. I could add more examples of the XBOX's superiority, but since you did not bother to refute any of the previous ones and did not try to use information other than personal opinion, I hardly think I need to. Thank you for this debate. I'm sorry that you had to resort to personal attacks rather than intellect to defend your point of view. But, it was still a lot of fun.
ps3 is better than the xbox

First off, God of War is PS3/PSP only, so you must be high. Second, it cost $50 dollars a year. Third there is a $100 price gap. And the games you mentioned like Mass Effect, Guitar Hero, Grand Theft Auto, portal 2, Tom Clancy, Forza are for both consoles. The only reason people use the xbox is because when the two consoles first came out, xbox was $200-$300 cheaper. Now I see more people buying a PS3 than a xbox. On a Final Note, I know people with both consoles and all of them, I repeat, 100% of them prefer the PS3. It seems like you don't know what your talking about unless you google it. So next time choose something you know.
ps3 is better than the xbox

Better game variety my a**. All you have is Halo and Alan Wake. We have littlebigplanet, killzone, uncharted, infamous, and god of war. it is cheaper but if you get online, it will cost much more. And the ps3 has better graphics. HAVE YOU SEEN GOD OF WAR. You can't beat God of War graphics. On a final note, Halo is overrated and red ring of death.
ps3 is better than the xbox

Ah, my opponent has chosen a very nuanced issue to debate. However, he unfortunately chose an argument he cannot win. While the PS3 is certainly hyped up, I hope to prove to everyone that the XBOX 360 is the superior console. At a considerably lower price, the XBOX 360 still has better graphics, a greater game variety, greater online capabilities, and even overall console performance. I'm taking this debate in the hope that we have a wonderful discussion. Good luck to my opponent.
Women are being treated unfairly in this society.

Rebuttals As I read my opponent's argument, I shook my head often, rolled my eyes, and sighed. I started this debate to specifically be about the United States, but my opponent insists that I must "account for every women in every society." Here is what I said: "I would like to debate the issue of sexism regarding females. I believe that women are being treated unfairly in this society and that reform is a moral obligation." Now, I apologize for not specifying that I was talking about the United States, but how does "this society" mean "every society"? I sincerely apologize that I did not specify that, but I would like to make my opponent and the viewers aware that this debate is ONLY about the United States. I should have started the debate different and, again, I apologize, but I will remind my opponent one final time that this debate is solely about the United States of America. He says that, "[a]fter the debate has been accepted, the challenger has the freedom to interpretation, as long as his or her interpretation is valid." When comparing my opponent's interpretation to the original intention of the debate, he has clearly misinterpreted it. He also says, "it is a violation of conduct to change anything or make any modifications." It is not a violation of conduct to do so if one debater has made a misinterpretation and the other debater clarifies what he meant. I now intend to refute my opponent's points and to defend my argument. My opponent provides plenty of examples showing how women are being treated fairly. However, they do not prove that women are ALWAYS treated fairly. I have made plenty of points in my argument, such as the quote from CBS saying, "women still earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. For African-American and Hispanic women it's even lower: 64 and 54 cents, respectively." My opponent cannot deny that sexism is still a part of the American society. I will not deny that women are, in some ways, being treated absolutely fairly, but they do not earn as much as men do, they do not have some of the same opportunities as men do, they do not have the same chance of success as men do, et cetera. Women have great potential and these examples of sexism restrict women from embracing and taking control of that potential. I hope my opponent can see that. My opponent makes examples of women he knows. However, they are only three of billions. These arguments are not appropriate. I am glad to see that these women are being treated fairly, but many women are not as fortunate as they are, sadly. In conclusion, my opponent has misinterpreted me and must acknowledge that. Again, I sincerely apologize for not specifying that I meant the United States. All I ask is for my opponent to see that. I do not ask for a concession or an apology. I simply ask for acknowledgment. I am sorry, but I believe I have made enough apologies now. I believe it is time for my opponent to make a statement. Until he acknowledges my points, his points, I believe, are invalid in this debate.
Women are being treated unfairly in this society.

I accept and acknowledge the rules. But first, allow me to analyze the resolution.Pro's resolution is a syllogism:1. Women are being treated unfairly in this society.2. Reform is a moral obligation.*Pro did not specify which society "this society" is, so it is implied that this claim includes every society.*Pro's first claim also implies and must account for all women in every society.*BOP is on Pro for these two claims.
Women are being treated unfairly in this society.

IntroductionI would like to debate the issue of sexism regarding females. I believe that women are being treated unfairly in this society and that reform is a moral obligation. My opponent will argue the opposite. Certain rules must be followed in order to ensure that this debate is rational, fair, logical, factual, and mature. Rules1. There will be no forfeiture. If one occurs, the voters will award the conduct points to the opposite debater. 2. All sources will be cited. All formats - MLA, APA, Chicago, etc. - are acceptable.3. Proper spelling and grammar will be used. 4. Trolling will result in the voters awarding the opposite debater a full 7-point victory. RoundsOne: My opponent will accept the debate and acknowledge the rules. Two: Each debater will present main arguments. There will be no rebuttals in this round. Three: Each debater will offer rebuttals and any final arguments. Four: Each debater will conclude the debate with any final rebuttals and a summary. Debate Settings: Rounds: 4Time to Argue: 72 hoursArgument Maximum: 10,000 charactersVoting Period: 2 weeksVoting Style: Open
Trade in the goods ivory and rhinoceros horns should be legalized.

Greetings to all keen debaters and observers, and a big thank you to Ninja for instigating a topic which should yield an entertaining debate. This will be my first debate and although I'm not well versed about the particulars of the tusk and horn trades I feel that I have some valuable views about the treatment of animals that should prove interesting. ************************ More factual background: While the price of rhinoceros and elephant products remains high, so does the potential cost of legalisation of trade in such goods. Before the wholesale ban on the ivory trade in 1989, numbers of elephants in Africa dwindled from 1.2 million to 450,000 in just one decade. [1] That's all from me for the moment - I wouldn't want to give away my advantage when I don't have to. Good Luck! ************************ [1] http://advocacy.britannica.com...
Trade in the goods ivory and rhinoceros horns should be legalized.

I politely ask that the Con refrain from posting any arguments in their Round 1, but I also doubt that they will. After all, their incentive is not to do so; if the Con announces their arguments in Round 1, I'll be free to answer them in Round 2 and that will give me an early advantage. If you're Con, and you don't want to start off handicapped (this is your decision), don't start this debate with any arguments. Anything you say can and will be used in this court of debate. However, I fully welcome the Con posting any definitions or ideas that they also find important to think about before we start debating. == Endangered Animals== Poaching continues to be an international problem, and it only increases as the economy flings itself scandalously in its direction. Currently, "powdered rhino horn goes for $60,000 per kilo"(1) while black gold prices at the same time range from $39,641.23 to $39,937.66 (2). The ivory trade is in much the same condition, and the result of this is that the poaching market continues to grow with the intense incentive of making money in this lucrative market. == The Pro's Solution== The Pro suggests that nations legalize trade in these two goods. The implications of this decision will be discussed by both the Pro and the Con and the voters should determine which side has proven a net-beneficial world and vote accordingly. == End of Round 2== Con, good luck. Sources: (1) . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (2) . http://goldprice.org...
Impromptu Debate

Greetings! Here's my argument in support of tobacco rights: Tobacco plants have rights, just like other plants, but sadly they are all too often ignored. How would you like it if you were taken in the prime of your life, left out in the burning sun until you were almost completely dehydrated and then wrapped up in paper and set light to? Those dirty, selfish smokers don't care – of course – but surely someone else should step in to protect these poor plants from the serial and widespread abuse they suffer on a wholesale basis? Where is Royal Society for the Protection of Plants in their hour of need? Oh, just a moment…PM from theLWerd…that's not what she meant apparently… Okay, I'll try again. They don't stop the obese from going into fast food restaurants and gorging themselves even though it might kill them so why ban smoking in pubs for the same reason? It's pure prejudice and if the non-smoking bar staff object, they should find another job. After all, a Jew or a Muslim wouldn't apply for a job in a bacon factory, would they? It's the same principle. Thank you.
Impromptu Debate

Same to you, Brian. Thanks for debating. All right, as I have previously stated, I am going to argue that if Napoleon had decided not to sell the Louisiana Territory and thus fought the United States in a conflict while disengaging from conflict with England, he would have won. Let us briefly analyze the War of 1812. At this time, the US Army had a regular force of perhaps 36,000. It had an untrained, illprepared and poorly equipped militia of about 450,000. Napoleon, in contrast, had a vast professional Grande Armee of 750,000 at the peak of France's Glory. France's Naval Fleet could have easily crushed the American scattering of ships, as England's did. Napoleon was a brilliant military commander. He defeated professional armies in European nations for ten years. In contrast, the American armies weren't any renowned strategists. Napoleon's army had resources far beyond that of the Americans (such as modern heavy cannon, mortars and howitzers). I'll briefly consider also that England never had a force of over 40,000 regulars available in the american Theatre, yet they sacked Washington and prevailed. Hence, even if Napoleon was forced to fight a war across the sea, like England, he would have prevailed with a victory.
Impromptu Debate

Greetings to my opponent and all readers. Good luck, have fun. We're going to attempt a new debate format called 'Impromptu', so please consider that we only have ten minutes to post when judging for errors or discrepancies in spelling. We each have two arguments; the first will introduce the topic and greet the opponent. The second will create an -in-depth argument on the topic. We would have five or ten minutes to argue in round two. The exhilarating part would be that we don't debate the same topic. We requested of two others to create three topics (three for him and three for me). Then we each picked one and argue upon our own without rebutting the opponent. The most outstanding, solitary, five/ten minute argument wins. Marauder gave me these three topics, "1) Lay Ministers (aka local pasturs) should be requried to commit to the same amount of training and education as ordained pastures or have them removed from ministry if they dont. 2) If they were the only two canidates, Bobby Jindal would beat Tim Pawlenty in the GOP presidentail primaries for 2012. 3) Had Napoleon waged war against the US (leaving Britain alone) he would have won. this gives you a variaty of catagories to choose from, politics, religon, alternative history." And I have decided to choose number 3, "Had Napoleon waged war against the US (leaving Britain alone) he would have won." I will argue that he could have indubitably emerged victorious. Good luck, Brian, and may L not choose the most difficult topics that she can spontaneously think of.
Lars Ulrich vs. Napster

I could technically leave the rest of this page blank without any risk of forfeit. I specifically stated in the opening argument that I want "the Affirmative to create and present its constructive arguments, where I will therein follow with my NC and attack the AC" Already note this key voter issue: my opponent's ignorance of the rules. Nevertheless, I will post a couple of brief contention taglines in order to spur my opponent, but first I must highlight the burdens in the round. Affirmative burden: To support Lars Ulrich in the lawsuit, and show why he should have won, all while rebuking the negative constructive arguments should there be any Negative burden: To show that Lars Ulrich should not emerge victorious above Hank Berry, Shawn Fanning and the Napster community Negative Contentions: 1) Napster is the current future of music 2) Napster helps local, underground, and aspiring musicians 3) Napster does not hurt big music-makers like "Metallica" 4) Napster is a tame route to follow Again, I will not expand on these until after Vi finally posts her Affirmative arguments. I guessed that the issue she had was not knowing what I intended to argue, so there it is. I will (again) await the Affirmative Constructive, and will follow by attacking it and presenting more in-depth analysis on the four contentions listed above.
The 11th Doctor is Better Than The 10th Doctor.

David Tennant retains some of that mysteriousness, yes, but you were very familiar with him, the character. His humanness allowed him to be a bit too identifiable in my opinion. When he says "I can't", yes it adds a bit of mystery, but you've been following his character, and you could probably make some accurate assumptions for his motives, because he functions like a human. The Doctor isn't just a very human alien. He's just an alien who's taken a very special liking toward Earth. The technobabble and screwdriver have been such staples, now it really comes down to a suspension of disbelief sort of thing. The thing with Eleven is that he delivers his dialogue so fast and sharply, so much so that you sorta felt that something "went wrong" during regeneration. Moving on, I'm not saying that every Doctor has to be like First, but that no Doctor but Tennant had ever taken such a human approach on the guy. It was always that the Doctor's intelligence and knowledge of the human race prevented him from acting like one of them. He had a respect for them, yes, but most of the time you can sense that he looks upon them with a sort of novelty. Yes, Tennant did grow a lot in his first season. However character development wasn't really the purpose of series 5. He didn't have any real love interest, no real big loss or collapse, it was just sort of to set him up. Also, you can't put all of the character development solely on Tennant. He gained the companion that has already been established with the 9th Doctor, so not ALL of the character development was in his series 2. Yes, Matt Smith does have a naive, young sort of feel on to him. But you agree that it's a refreshing change of pace. I think it mixes things up a bit. He's fun and goofy but that doesn't stop him from being serious when he needs to be. BEAST BELOW and TIME OF ANGELS are perfect examples of that. At one point he even takes a jab at how he's getting old and isn't as sharp as he used to be. The duality of it is what I'm saying belongs to Matt Smith.