BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 49ers/Seahawks rivalry is/will be one of the biggest in the history of the NFL

I believe that rivalries change over time, and the fire between two teams lessen when one becomes less relevant. For example, The 49ers and Cowboys used to be a heated rivalry, with them meeting 6 times in the playoffs in a relatively short amount of time. In fact, "this rivalry was not at its height until the early 1990s when for three years, from 1992-1994, the Cowboys and 49ers were unequivocally the best two teams in football. " (. http://www.realclearsports.com...) A few years ago, the 49ers were relatively irrelevant in the larger scheme of things, having missed the playoffs for several years in a row, and the Cowboys have disappointed their fans recently with bad choices in personnel. Because of their minimal competitiveness, the teams rivalry dampened. The rivalry of the early 90s between them, however, is still one that is remembered throughout time as one of the top rivalries. The fact that the 49ers have a much richer history should not have a large effect on the rivalry, because the teams are playing for a current superbowl, not one of the past. It is true that Seattle has not played in many championship games, however as of right now, the two teams are both recognized as top picks by several analysts to be an early superbowl favorite. Because they are both in the same division, the two teams recognize that every meeting that the two get, could be recognized nationally as an early view of what the NFC championship could look like (or a meeting of two great teams). Thank you to all the viewers, and to CON for the debate!
The 49ers/Seahawks rivalry is/will be one of the biggest in the history of the NFL

In my opinion, the 49ers/Seahawks rivalry is nowhere near that of the Redskins Cowboys, Packers Bears, and even the Broncos Patriots. History: The 49ers history is much richer than that of the Seahawks. The San Francisco 49ers were founded in 1946 by Tony Morabito. The Seahawks were founded in 1975. The 49ers have had some of the greatest players in NFL history like Joe Montana, Ronnie Lott, and Jerry Rice. No player in the Seahawks 37 year history can be compared to any of those three players. Super Bowls: San Francisco has been to 6 super bowls and won 5. Seattle has only been in 1 super bowl and has not won any championships. In rivalries, the two teams are about even in terms of history, super bowls, and star players. In this one, the two teams aren't even close when comparing. Sources: . http://www.pro-football-reference.com... . http://www.49ers.com... . http://www.49ers.com...
The 49ers/Seahawks rivalry is/will be one of the biggest in the history of the NFL

First off, I would like to clarify that the debate states it will be "one of the biggest", meaning that even if the rivalry is not THE biggest, it will be talked about amongst rivalries such as GB V. CHI. The definition of a rivalry is "Competition for the same objective or for superiority in the same field. " as stated by Dictionary. com. A top ranking rivalry should include rivalries on the many different sides of the football. This could include offense, defense, special teams, coaching, team history, the (non)chemistry, etc. I believe that this rivalry has most, if not all of these. Offense: the QB situation is one where both QBs have taken the spotlight over their seeming predecessors ("Matt Flynn", and Alex Smith). Both of those quarterbacks were seen to be the full time starters for their teams (Matt Flynn just got a 3 year contract, bigger than Alex Smiths. Alex Smith just reconstructed his contract, and led his team to an NFC Championship, and an 8-2-1 record in the 2012 season). Both QBs parallel in several ways as well concerning their humble beginnings, and their style of football (both are capable of avoiding the rush and running with the ball). The runningbacks for both teams are both considered to be among the best (49ers were ranked 4th and Seahawks ranked 3rd). They both favor hard-nosed running style offenses first. Defensively, both were ranked very highly. The 49ers were 2nd in points allowed, behind only the seahawks, and vice versa for yards allowed (49ers at 3rd, Seahawks at 4th). . http://www.nfl.com... and . http://www.nfl.com... Perhaps most important to the rivalry is the coaches. The history of these coaches does not only go to the beginning of the season, nor last season; the two coaches played against each other at rival college schools as well (USC and Stanford). Neither coach likes the other very much, however both are respected for their success in the positions. Just a few years ago, the NFC West was among the worst of the divisions, with rumors of a team under .500 going to the playoffs (Seahawks did it in 2010, Carrol's first season with the Seahawks). Since the hiring of both coaches, both teams have risen to exemplary levels of playing, (both went to the playoffs, and almost played each other in the NFC Championship). In addition, in the offseason, nearly every move was countered by the opposing team; (WRs Harvin/Boldin, the draft picks ) A rivalry should include teams who play each other often, and both teams should be competitive in the NFL. Because they are both in the NFC West, they are guaranteed 2 games a year, and at the moment, both are fighting for the top pick to win the superbowl.
The UN is a Force for Good

Thank you for the debate. Let's begin. I will list my reasons for opposing the UN. 1. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the wrong person gets in power, human rights abuses will be rampant. You can see this with the Roman Empire which often crucifies criminals or fed them to lions. I believe that individual nations have the right to be independent if they are not hurting anyone. I cannot think of one leader that is worthy to rule the whole world. 2. With a global UN led society, taxes would be very high as more money would be needed to cover the cost of running the government.
The UN is a Force for Good

PrefaceSitara expressed interest in having a debate, and I suggested this topic to her. She asked me to challenge her, so I am looking forward to an interesting discussion.This debate has a 48 hour response period, with an 8,000 character maximum per round.Full TopicThat, On Balance, the United Nations is a Force for Good in the World.ContextUN Main Site - http://www.un.org...About the UN - http://en.wikipedia.org...Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No semantics--general/common understandings of the terms are acceptable7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Constructive Cases are PresentedR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case, both CrystallizeThanks......to Sitara for the debate! Good luck :)
The UN is a Force for Good

Thanks once more to Sitara! I would like to note that Con did not address any of my points about the UN's poverty reduction efforts, the UN's development assistance programs, the UN's disease control and prevention efforts, the UN's impact on human security, and the UN's impact on collective security. Extend these points as clean offense for Pro. You can vote for me based off of these points alone, as they are totally unaddressed, and have impacts that weigh in the millions of lives save/improved. Do not allow Con to address these points in the last round, as I would have no chance to defend these points, which would be unfair to me. Regarding Con's points, let's review my arguments there. Con agrees that the UN doesn't have much power (which undermines the weight of her argument and her maxim), but qualifies this by noting that the UN could have power if allowed to act unchecked. But, as I pointed out last round, the very structure of the UN makes it unlikely that the UN will ever be too powerful. Firstly, it is beholden to the whims of its members. If states don't contribute money, if states refuse to cooperate, if states can't agree, there isn't much the UN can actually do. Moreover, the veto power in the Security Council is an important check against any one bloc--for instance, the U. S. can ram through resolutions unfavorable to Russia, because Russia will veto. In these two ways, check and balances are already built in to the UN, so it is highly unlikely it will ever (at least in our lifetimes) have the kind of power Con is worrying about. Finally, we're debating whether the UN is a force for good in the status quo. It's not topical to speculate about the future of the UN, because the resolution is just asking about what is going on right now. On her second point, she says that the UN should not enforce its will on countries that are not hurting people. Well, the UN rarely does that, IMO, and Con hasn't provided a single example to show that the UN actually does it. So, this assertion lacks a warrant. Moreover, if Countries agree to join the UN, they give de facto and de jure consent to abide by the UN's decisions. If I become a U. S. citizen, I agree to follow the laws of the U. S. , even if I disagree with some of those laws or if those laws are turned on me (e. g. prosecuting me in court). So, countries that join the UN really cannot complain because they have, in an indirect way, already agreed to follow the UN's decrees. Con also notes that she does want dictator's controlled--that is one thing the UN does, which is a point in the UN's favor. There is also no evidence to suggest that the UN will curtail or is curtailing civil liberties--however, there is a TON of evidence showing that the UN is actually increase and promoting civil liberties (as I noted in my first argument). Con drops her arguments re: taxes. Thank you to anyone who reads/votes, and to Sitara for a great, cordial discussion.
The UN is a Force for Good

Thank you for responding. I will try to address each of your points. Point 1: You said the UN does not have much power. I agree, but if we do not keep them in check, they will. Point 2: You said that if they choose to join they cannot complain about the rules. I disagree. The UN should not force its will on countries that are not hurting people. Of course I support controlling dictators, but that is the exception to the rule. My concern is that in a global UN led society the government would have too much control over civil liberties. This has been a good debate. Good luck.
The UN is a Force for Good

Thanks again to Sitara! I'll now review her points."If the wrong person gets in power, human rights abuses will be rampant."The problem with this is that the UN, despite all its successes, doesn't have much power. Being Secretary-General of the UN is not a powerful role. Ban Ki-Moon, the current Secretary-General isn't even among the top 72 most powerful people in the world. [http://www.forbes.com...] Why is that? The UN is not a powerful organization in itself, because it relies on its members totally. If members don't agree or cooperate, the UN cannot function independently from them. The Security Council is a great example of this--states have and use veto power so that the interests of no single bloc reign supreme. So, the two conclusions we can draw are (1) the UN isn't powerful enough meaning that the maxim of Baron Acton's (that power corrupts) isn't really applicable, and (2) the UN has checks built into it so that no single group or person dominates the organization--power is heavily diffused."I believe that individual nations have the right to be independent if they are not hurting anyone."Sure, but they chose to be a member of the UN. If they choose membership, they can't complain when they're asked to follow the rules.Moreover, one of the UN's main missions is top stop countries from hurting either their own people or those of other countries. The UN is the primary international organization that does this. If the UN weren't there, there would be no organization left to fill this void."With a global UN led society, taxes would be very high as more money would be needed to cover the cost of running the government."But, the issues of higher taxes to finance governments' contributions to the UN are offset by the enormous benefits I outlined earlier. In other words, the UN is worth it.
Anthropogenic Global Warming

This is a waste of time. I clearly was just making an analogie with the mouse thing. The mouse thing is just saying that you can't change someones mind when they clearly are afraid of it. This whole argument really comes down to if global warming is real or not and as i said in the first round IT IS NOT REAL!!!!! So my opponent wants to take action on something that is not there and it goes back to my first argument if we go in full force and nothing is there we would waste a whole bunch of money that America does not have and if we do that that could lead us into an economic crash and as i said before an economic crash and an economic crash will lead to a nuclear world war. That would lead to extinction. I have shown why we shouldn't take action because global warming is not real i mean how do we not know this is just a meterology rotation that the world is going through for example the ice age. All I am saying is this is a meteroligical cycle.
Anthropogenic Global Warming

If my opponent is actually stating that they do not know what GDP is, then they are in no position possibly to say what taking action against global warming would do to our economy. So they can not have anyway of justifying why our economy would react so badly to us taking action against global warming. Or how the world would react to our faultering in the economy. GDP is the total market value of all the goods and services produced within the borders of a nation during a specified period. GDP constantly needs to be raising, so losing even a percent is a big deal, but losing 20% would destroy a lot of what our nation means. By stating that global warming is just as dangerous as us being a attacked by a mouse, clearly shows a lacking in my opponents research. It is more like a human being afraid of a lion, and then a skeptic going 'Awe, he ate gonna hurt ya!' The problem with global warming isn't the warming that will get us, it is the destablization from a sudden climate change. Our world is set-up now exactly to the climates and seasons we have. If the arctic becomes much warmer and Idaho becomes much colder; this would deeply effect the economies and politics in both regions. A large amount of our farming comes from Idaho. So if the climate shifts, and you can no longer farm there; we can not produce enough resources for our nation. And if the arctic warms, the permaforst will begin to defrost and buildings, trade-centers, homes, factories, all will be destroyed. Which would ruin the economy in over half of Canada, all of Greenland, most of Russia and a large portion of Alaska. I'm not doubting that we could not adapt to the earth going into climate change, just as in Africa humans have adapted to be surrounded by lions, but what we couldn't adapt to; is a sudden population of lions in New York, unless of we do something quickly about it (Like tranquilize them all and deport them to Africa) but if we say it isn't a problem, the human species wouldn't be destroyed in New York, it would be drastically and negatively altered.
Anthropogenic Global Warming

My opponent is clearly a clean air advocate, so all I have to say on that is, if someone is afraid of a mouse and they see one the first thing they will do is hop on something to get away from it. Even though that mouse can do no damage to anyone what so ever that person is still afraid of it no matter what. All I am saying is that if someone is afraid of something you ain't going to be able to say "that mouse is harmless it can't hurt you." because they will still be afraid of that mouse and so I just can't tell my opponent that global warming isn't real because she is afraid of it and will always be afraid of it. I just have one favor to ask her if she wouldn't mind could you please in your next argument tell me what GDP is so I am able to answer on that thanks. My answer to her saying that we should go and do something about it know so if it comes up that it is real we all already doing something about it (may not be opponents exact words). I believe if Global Warming is real that it is doing the temperature changing so slow that our bodies will adapt to it and the Earth will adapt to it so nothing will be harmed. To strengthen my argument I would like to restate every thing I did in my first argument so I will just copy and paste it. I believe we should not do anything at all right now because we don't even know if Global Warming is real or not so 1.We don't have the money since we America is in a recession and since we don't even know this is real because if we go into this full force spending billion of dollars (which will come from taxes most likely)and come to find out that Global Warming is not even real that will lead to economic crash in the U.S. 2.If the u.s. goes into an economic crash that will lead nuclear world war. The reason of that is because the u.s. is a superpower and if we have an economic crash other countries will jump all over us since we are a world power 3.If we get into a nuclear world war that will lead to extinction of the human race and I think we all can agree that if he human race becomes extinct that is pretty bad.
Anthropogenic Global Warming

My opponent claims that we don't know if global warming is real, so therefore we should not do anything. What this argument fails to recognize is the risk associated with not action soon, because if we do not take action soon we will have irreversible side effects later. My point is that: we know enough about global warming that we should do something about it. Take this as an example: We do not know if we are going to be in a car accident, but we do know that it is enough of a reasonable risk to buy car insurance. Then my opponent goes onto argue that global warming will cause an economic collapse, which will thusly lead into a nuclear war. While my findings from the Stern Report state that 'Taking action against global warming could result in a 1% GDP loss, as opposed to not taking action on global warming which will lead to a 20% GDP loss.' A 1 % GDP loss will definitely do harm to our economy, but would never start a war! However a 20% GDP loss would result in a world wide economic collapse, followed by economic chaos. And then could ultimately result in several political and world wide wars. What my opponent really needs to prove is that, beyond a doubt global warming is not real.
Anthropogenic Global Warming

I believe we should not do anything at all right now because we don't even know if Global Warming is real or not so 1.We don't have the money since we America is in a recession and since we don't even know this is real because if we go into this full force spending billion of dollars (which will come from taxes most likely)and come to find out that Global Warming is not even real that will lead to economic crash in the U.S. 2.If the u.s. goes into an economic crash that will lead nuclear world war. The reason of that is because the u.s. is a superpower and if we have an economic crash other countries will jump all over us since we are a world power 3.If we get into a nuclear world war that will lead to extinction of the human race and i think we all can agree that if he human race becomes extinct that is pretty bad.
Anthropogenic Global Warming

Anthropogenic Global Warming is enough of a threat to take action against it. I am not certain if it is real; neither side it. But, what I do know is that if we do not take action against it as soon as possible, and it turns out to be real; we will face irreversible side-effects. I will now explain my basic and SIMPLIFIED arguments. I will expand on them as the debate advances. Green House Gases control the global temperatures. This is what keeps us stable; unlike how it is on the moon. We are adding to two green house gases: carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. More so carbon dioxide. Making the Carbon levels increase and raising the earths global temperature. This is called Anthropogenic Global Warming. We can't know for absolute certain that it is really happening--but I and many other people are convinced that we have enough of a certainty to take action against it. And if we don't and it turns at to be real then we will have an incredible amount of consequences, that include: Environmental, political, and economic collapse. As well as public health being significantly decreased.
Homosexuality is wrong.

I love my cat. Give me the freedom to marry him!!! We aren't forcing ourselves to fall in love with someone you don't even love. If someone would rather have sex with someone of his/her own gender there is something wrong. Yes, the children will love the two parents of same gender the same (usually) but this is because the "parents" were the ones to bring them up and they provided for them. And, also, I'm not implying that two parents of the same gender will love the kids less, rather what I'm trying to say is that a child(ren) in a healthy and more-beneficial family will have two parents: 1 woman plus 1 man. It is the only natural way for reproduction thus they will be the more natural/healthy version of a marriage starting a family. Studies show that children with two same-sex parents are less successful and more depressed. http://dailysignal.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... My opponent, Con, asks this: "What if we said you couldn't get married to a man and you could only marry someone of your own gender." The problemo with this fastical question is that it's unrealistic and irrelevant to any point Con may be trying to make. If anything, it will further prove my case that marriage is only for man and woman and that homosexuality is wrong. See, humanity was intended for reproduction. Reproduction was intended for marriage (and vice versa). And, since the very beginning of mankind, marriage was intended for a man and a woman, the two only genders in the history of life and creatures. There is no way to counter that. Therefore homosexuality is wrong. Love is love, but because you love something doesn't mean you just marry it/he/she. When you feel like you love something/one and it's different than everyone else, is it ok? Yes, but when you have sexual urges and want to marry it, no, it's wrong.
Homosexuality is wrong.

we should be allowed to marry who we love. Why force yourself to fall in love with someone you don't even love. It's terrible. It doesn't change who you are as a person. You can have two parents of the same gender and they will still love you all the same. What if we said you couldn't get married to a man and you could only marry someone of your own gender. It would be awkward because you don't feel the same way
Homosexuality is wrong.

It violates natural law. The marriage denies a child a father or mother. It turns a moral right into a civil right. It defeats the state's purpose of benefitting marriage. It imposes it's acceptance onto all of society. And it offends God. A Creator is required, for the universe to even be possible, mainly due to the 'cause and effect' problem but also due to the phsycology of existence and of life itself. Therefore, we infer that God created us. There are historical documents that prove this, in fact. TheBible talks about how marriage is intended for man and woman, and that humankind witll multiply and fill the earth because of it and because of one of it's purposes:reproduction. Because God created us, weshould respect anything he says, especiallyallrulesHe presents for mankind.He tells us plainly in His Word that marriageis intended only for man and woman and that it is a sin otherwise. Thus, homosexuality is wrong. Comment if you want to debate.