BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Queen is the greatest rock band of the 20th century

Well you do give some pretty compelling reasons why people don't like Queen. I'm new at this, so I might lose this debate. But I will give it my best shot! :) Your statement that Queen songs stay the same throughout the whole song is completely false. My friend, I would like you to go on Youtube and type in Bohemian Rhapsody and listen to all of song. You would be surprised how interesting it is. It consists of a intro, ballad, guitar solo, opera, hard rock, and outro. In my book that is a very rapid song but it is still great today. But I do agree with you slightly about that; Most Queen songs do rather stay the same for most or the entire song. I'm sorry but that is all I got. Now I guess it is up to the voters! :)
Queen is the greatest rock band of the 20th century

None taken. :) Although now I will state why Queen are not good. The fact that lots of people like them is not proof that they are good. Lots of people liked the Nazis in Germany during the 1930's. Does that make them good? My point is that what is good is not decided by how many people like it. Three things. 1. The Rolling Stones - Gimme Shelter http://www.youtube.com... This is possibly one of the best songs of all time. The Rolling Stones are quality where Queen are silly. Queen are not even a serious band. The 'best song' you claim is, 'Bohemian Rhapsody,' you claim? Above, is proof that that is nonsense. 2. Bob Dylan - I Don't Believe You http://www.youtube.com... Live Dylan in 1966 is just like nothing else. This song is from Vol. 4 and you can buy it. I suggest you do that. Now. 3. Velvet Underground - Heroin http://www.youtube.com... Actually changing the tempo and mood of a song is something that Queen are seemingly incapable of doing. It is the same all the way through. Take that.
Marijuana should be legalized in all 50 states of the United States

You say that I'm pathetic, when in reality you fail to even win, or tie, most of your debates. You clearly fail to understand a debate, which is why I think it's easy to determine the winner voters. This was more of a "Troll Debate", presented by my opponent, which breaks the rules that I stated in the first round. Also, he has failed to hold his conduct within the fourth round. For my favorite shows and movies, who cares. If you don't like it, that is fine; but that doesn't mean you should show a bad temper toward them. Obvious troll, who fails to even be classified as a troll. In fact, your attitude is more in the form of a jerk than troll. A troll is messing with someone, not being a jerk by calling someone "pathetic".
Marijuana should be legalized in all 50 states of the United States

You're pathetic. "I know how to handle trolls." Oh please. Is that like the same way you know how to handle a man's cock? But what else could I expect from someone who's favourite movie is Stardust. Oh, and I see you like Doctor Who as well. How typical. Why don't you go off in time and space with your fantasy lover and rid this world of your weakness. What a poor show.
Marijuana should be legalized in all 50 states of the United States

My opponent, in the last round, copy & pasted my own argument. He didn't even argue for his side of the debate about being Con. Because of him arguing my own argument, that is meant to represent that he "dropped" the debate. So, I think we know who is in the lead currently voters. Also, if my opponent is trying to "troll" me; he is failing. I know how to handle trolls very effectively.
Marijuana should be legalized in all 50 states of the United States

This debate is whether or not the idea of legalizing Marijuana should be initiated. I am on the side of "Pro" meaning that I am for the legalization, while my opponent will argue the opposite on the side of "Con".Rules:No forfeits, unless both sides forfeit the same amount of rounds; then it is fair game.No foul language of any kind, both sides must respect each other.No Trolls please!If you use a source, post its link in a "Source Category".Any rules broken is an automatic disqualification for the individual who broke the rules.Structure:Round 1: Acceptance and any questions for clarification (Please post in the comment section). Round 2: Opening Argument (Please Keep it Short) for both Pro and Con, except Con can Rebuttal this round if they choose.Round 3 & 4: Both sides RebuttalRound 5: Pro Rebuttals and states his or her Conclusion, while Con will just have to state his or her Conclusion only.Please follow the structure for this debate so it is fair. Failure to do this is a disqualification. The reasoning why certain people can Rebuttal at certain times is because of keeping it fair, because I discovered that the person accepting the challenge always recieves one more Rebuttal. So, I thought about evening it up so both sides has a fair shot at Rebuttaling against each other. This debate is actually the test for this idea.Definitions:Marijuana: The dried leaves and female flowers of the hemp plant, used in a cigarette form as a narcotic or hallucinogen.Should: Used to indicate what is probable.Legalized: Make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law. United States: Country, made up of 50 States, that is in the middle of North America.Good luck to whoever accepts!
The PS4 is a better console than the Xbox One (No Fanboys)

Ok so i will be arguing that the PS4 is the better console so first i will be talking about the hardware. Hardware OK starting with the CPU both consoles use a semi custom AMD APU, however the Xbox One's CPU clocks at 1.75 GHz, while the PS4's only clock in at 1.6 Ghz making the xbox ones slightly better. Now onto the GPU the PS4's GPU is slightly larger and has 6 more comute units than the Xbox One. However the Xbox One is slightly faster.On paper the Ps4 is 50% more powerful and the fact that 10% of the Xbox Ones GPU power will be put into kinect, it means that the PS4 has a huge advantage on the Xbox One in terms of the GPU, and to finish this part of the debate, the PS4 has 8GBof DDR5 RAM, while the XBOX ONE has the far inferior DDR3 RAM.This gives the PS$ a massive bandwidth advantage over the XBOX ONE, with the PS4"s CPU and GPU will have 176GB/sec of bandwidth to system RAM, while the Xbox One will have just 68.3GB/sec.This makes the PS4 the far more powerful console. Games OK lets start with the multiplats, its widely known that the majority of multiplats such as Metal Gear Solid 5, Assassins Creed, Call Of Duty, Battlefield, NBA 2k series etc.All Multiplats are either the same or better on the PS4 and that will not change due to the superior hardware on the PS4. Next thing i will discuss is the exclusives. The PS4 has 85 Exclusives both out now and coming soon, and these are only the ones we know of right now, as well as 2 timed exclusives, games like Infamous, Killzone, Knack, Driveclub, The Order 1886, Bloodbourne, Street Fighter V, Persona 5, MLB 15 The Show, Uncharted 4, The Last Of Us, Everybody's Gone To The Rapture, Deep Down, Rogue Gallery, Planetside 2, Little Big Planet 3, Hotline Miami, Dayz, H1Z1, Gran Tourismo 7, God Of War 4 and Octodad, while the Xbox One only has 39 exclusives, and most of them are in a similar genre of game, such as titanfall, the halo games and the upcoming gears of war. As well as mediocre games, like Sunset Overdrive, Rise Son Of Rome and Killer Instinct. Therefore in my opinion, i feel the PS4 has the advantage in both quality and quantity. As well as all that the playsation 4 has the Playsation now system wqhich allows users to stream ps3 games, as well as ps 1 and 2 games in the future increasing the games libary by potentially tens of thousands of games, making it by far the better console out of the two. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The PS4 is a better console than the Xbox One (No Fanboys)

Quick Rules 1. No Moaning or B***hing 2. We all know PC is factually the best platform for gaming, but this debate has nothing to do with PC, so no references to PC should be made in this debate. 3.Round one will be acceptance, round 2 will be your main arguement and round 3 will be any rebutals.
The Constitutional Basis of Roe v. Wade

Thank you for your continued interest in this debate, Maikuru. ::Pro's Argument:: "One is granted notice of legal action, the opportunity to present one's case, and the assurance of a fair trial." "First, as these laws wholly restrict abortions (except when the mother's health is compromised), they deprive each woman of their potential day in court; by removing the possibility of the act, anti-abortion laws restrict the opportunity for individuals to present their cases." How do the anti-abortion laws deprive each woman of their potential day in court and restrict the opportunity for individuals to present their cases? You will have to describe to me exactly how that would happen. "The law in question must be legally sound and based on recognized rules. Anti-abortion laws of the time were not based on established legal policy." "Their premise of preserving human life, which stands as an interest of the state, fails in light of the fact that a fetus is not legally considered living." How were they not based on established legal policy? Also, where does it exactly say, in federal law, that a fetus is indeed not legally considered living? You must also describe to me exactly how the anti-abortion laws were not based on established legal policy and provide me with a federal law saying that a fetus is not legally considered living. "One is ensured the due process of law when a law challenges or restricts one's rights." "Anti-abortion laws restrict individual liberties, due process of law must be enacted." I have asked you again and again: How did anti-abortion laws violate due process? You have failed to explain to me. You MUST provide me with proof and exactly HOW anti-abortion laws violated the first two of the three fundamental assurances. ::Conclusion:: I have still not seen definitive proof of how due process was violated. Unless you provide me with that information, Roe v. Wade's ruling was not constitutionally sound.
The Constitutional Basis of Roe v. Wade

Thank you, C-Mach, for your prompt and concise response. I will try to make my rebuttal equally succinct. ::Con's Argument:: My opponent has claimed that the restrictions of personal liberties imposed by anti-abortion laws are justified in that such rights can be withheld through due process of law. The reasoning behind this statement would be sound if it did not suffer from an incomplete definition of "due process of law." Due process of law refers to three fundamental assurances. First, one is granted notice of legal action, the opportunity to present one's case, and the assurance of a fair trial [1][2]. Second, the law in question must be legally sound and based on recognized rules [2]. Lastly, one is ensured the due process of law when a law challenges or restricts one's rights [3]. Anti-abortion laws violate each of these assurances. First, as these laws wholly restrict abortions (except when the mother's health is compromised), they deprive each woman of their potential day in court; by removing the possibility of the act, anti-abortion laws restrict the opportunity for individuals to present their cases. Second, anti-abortion laws of the time were not based on established legal policy. Their premise of preserving human life, which stands as an interest of the state, fails in light of the fact that a fetus is not legally considered living [4]. Lastly, as anti-abortion laws restrict individual liberties, due process of law must be enacted. Failing to do so makes these laws unfair and legally restrictive. ::Conclusion:: Individual liberties may be restricted with the due process of law. However, because anti-abortion laws inhibit the due process of law, they may not restrict these liberties without violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Thus, Roe v. Wade's ruling was constitutionally sound. This has been an interesting debate and I eagerly await the final round. ::References:: 1.http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2.http://www.criminalgovernment.com... 3.http://www.lectlaw.com... 4.http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Constitutional Basis of Roe v. Wade

Thanks for your continued interest in this debate, Maikuru (I thought you had no argument). You state that the Due Process Cause "promises an individual's enjoyment of rights." That is true, *unless a state deprives a person of life, liberty, or property, WITH due process of law.* I do not see how the abortion laws violated due process of law, as privacy is a liberty, which, as I recall, liberties can be deprived of a person WITH due process of law. Also, you stated various other amendments in the Constitution that support Roe v. Wade. These amendments could have been used (and were proposed to be) to rule in favor of Roe in Roe v. Wade. The fact of the matter is that they were not, and that the Supreme Court ruled on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Due Process Clause alone, leaving the ruling with no constitutional leg to stand on. Your rebuttal, Maikuru?
The Constitutional Basis of Roe v. Wade

Listen, I am pro choice. I am not against abortion, I'm just for state's rights. However, I have done some research, and I have determined that the ruling of Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade has NO constitutional basis. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe's favor because of the Fourteenth Amendment's Section I (specifically the Due Process Clause), which is shown below: "Section I: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;* nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The clause in asterisks (*) is the Due Process Clause. I do not see exactly how abortion law violates due process. Please convince me otherwise.
Tom Brady is the best quarterback of all time

1. Tom Brady isn't the best quarterback of all time. Although he has won 4 super bowls half of those has been controversial. With the first controversial being with the whole spying other team's practices and stealing plays. The most recent one with the deflate gate. 2. Guys like of Joe Montana should be the greatest quarterback of all time. In the past their were no pass interference so the corner backs would hit receivers right when the ball was snapped. Now the NFL has added rules that have helped the offense. Now I pass it off to my opponent
The global economy no longer needs or benefits from Central Banks

Although I would personally rather this debate be a "no scoring" debate, I will leave it up to my opponent to make that determination. Finally, I will note that rounds are only 2,000 characters long, so arguments will be decidedly short, brief, and more than likely unsourced to adhere to such a spartan character limit. OpeningMy argument is very, very simple - the Fed and other central banks exist to deal with market failures - that's exactly what the Fed has been doing since 2008 - correcting for a market failure in the mortgage industry by buying up massive amounts of mortgage-backed-securities (MBSs) to prevent a market collapse. My opponent's argument would seem to imply that such market failures no longer exist "given the vast improvements in global communications over the past 25 years. " The collapse in housing and the potentially astronomical losses associated with deriviatives contracts linked to housing has proven that market failures still exist despite massive improvements in communications, meaning that the Fed still has a role to play. Human nature is what it is, and "animal spirits" will surface.
The global economy no longer needs or benefits from Central Banks

Central banks around the world have taken unprecedented actions since the Financial Crisis in 2008. Ostensibly, these actions were necessary to prevent economic calamity and to preserve overall wellbeing. In the six years since the Financial Crisis, central banks around the world have continued to pursue, by historical standards, extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy in order to restore national economies to more robust growth, consistent inflation and full employment. Pro puts forward that the actions of these central banks have had an overall negative effect on the global economy and that, given the vast improvements in global communications over the past 25 years, the primary function of the central banks as global clearing houses and lenders of last resort are no longer necessary or beneficial to the global economy.
i'm no fool!

Please don't swear on my debates. This debate is a safe space for me to recover from the horrors i've seen in the goon realm. It would be much more polite to say heck instead. As for your statement, It is blatantly incorrect. As a goon, I have to be at least 42069 years old to qualify for the position. It is clear that you accepted the debate without any real knowledge of The Goon's Code. you have rudely disrupted this debate and i feel bold enough to declare you yourself a f o o l. good day
i'm no fool!

Important note: all instances of the word fool have been typed by a non-goon, To avoid an infractioni am a government certified goon. This forces me to comply to the The goon's code. under ghoul regulation LGMA-13, The use of a double o is forbidden to my race outside of the word goon. This causes fool to become foul, Which is a different word. This makes foolship impossible for me. In order to argue the con side, It is required that you are well educated in The goon's code and can properly debate my interpretation of LGMA-13There are many photos of my on my profile's photo album to help you with evaluating my fool degree
The Generic: There is no God

"Thus, my opponent must bring forward arguments and evidence in attempt to show that it is more likely that there is no God, while I will bring forward arguments and evidence in order to show that there is a God."I will do what I wish, thank you for the offer of though. "God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe." No it isn't. Saying that a being with unlimited power created the Universe, it the same as saying that the Big Bang (thing with unlimited power) created the Universe. Therefore you must agree in both for one to be true...http://www.cnet.com...:Stephen Hawking makes it abundantly clear that there can be no God since time did not exist for a God...Let me explain:If the post-Universe was a plain, and you wanted to create a Universe, you need to dig a hole and make a pile. The pile is the matter that makes us up, the hole; the vacuum of space. Makes sense right? And time must start after the initial pile. Since we started off with a flat plain, there was no time! God couldn't exist! "God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties."What about people that truly believe that something that is bad, is good? Like rapists. They don't rape unless they think it is good (at least based on your argument). But we have normal people that think rape is bad. Two different people. Two different ideologies. Who has God and who doesn't? My case rests. Either God is bad at his job, or he doesn't exist..."It is possible that a maximally great being exists. In order to refute this premise, one would have to show that the idea of God is incoherent, such that the concept of God is as absurd as the concept of a square circle."I will do just that:If God created the Universe (which he didn't), don't you think he would have better control over the the world's problems? Wouldn't there be more miracles? How does the Bible anwser that? And who read my opponent's argument and actually understood what he was implying?"...Until my opponent is able to do this, he has failed to carry his share of the burden of proof."Will you? Your source: http://now.tufts.edu......, it shows math that the Universe had a starting point, it doesn't say that God was there. Thus, your arguments for round one has no source. You have just violated your own rules... LOL
U.S. army is the most powerful army in the world

Before I state my rebuttal, I'm going to define two words. I apologize for bringing semantics into play so late in this debate, but I think it will help. I know the third link is broken, but this is DDO's fault, not mine. If you want to check out the source, it can be found by searching for 'People's Republic of China and weapons of mass destruction' on http://en.wikipedia.org.... Most - greatest in quantity, extent, or degree (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Greatest - markedly superior in character or quality (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) "First of all, in nuclear war nobody would win, because life on Earth would be destroyed and nobody would survive." "Therefore I don't think that the government would have serious legal problems if they need to use nuclear weapons." "Finally, if the nuclear warfare started, protests wouldn't make any difference, because quite a few hours to launch a nuclear strike." Your statements seem to contradict each other, and I'm not really sure what you are trying to get at. We can both agree that China and the USA probably have enough nuclear potential to kill all life on Earth. (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Republic_of_China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction) This would result in a stalemate, and according to the definition of most, this means that the United States Armed Forces is not the most powerful army in the world, because it is not superior to every other army in the world. "The United States often violates various international norms and laws, if they need it." I understand that there are some cases where the US bends some rules, but it is pretty obvious that China does it as often, if not more. But, even if China followed the rules and the US didn't, the PRC stated that they would retaliate if a nuclear war was started.(http://www.nytimes.com...); (http://www.asiaone.com...) Without nuclear weapons, there is no way that the United States could successfully invade China, simply due to their massive population and communist government. China could very easily enlist every single civilian to fight, and American technology only goes so far. China would overwhelm the Americans, and the US would be forced to surrender. As you can see, no matter the scenario, the United States Armed Forces is currently not the most powerful army in the world. I've had a great time debating with you, and I'm always open to a rematch of any kind.
U.S. army is the most powerful army in the world

First of all, in nuclear war nobody would win, because life on Earth would be destroyed and nobody would survive. The United States has a total nuclear weapons destructive force of 1,800 megatons, which is an ability to destroy humanity 18 times. Russia has a nuclear weapons destructive force of 2,900 megatons, which is an ability to destroy humanity 29 times. (http://www.wagingpeace.org...) So I don't think that it is really big differences how many times we would be killed. However, I don't think that this war will start. Therefore I just compared the military capabilities of China and the United states. The United States often violates various international norms and laws, if they need it. Therefore I don't think that the government would have serious legal problems if they need to use nuclear weapons. For example, the legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal." (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Finally, if the nuclear warfare started, protests wouldn't make any difference, because quite a few hours to launch a nuclear strike.