BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
best franchise

the best NFL Franchise is the cowboys. the Dallas cowboys are tie for the most super bowl wins. has most consecutive playoff births . cowboys has a wing record over all there rivals. they play in the hardest confine all time and is the best of all time in the conference. what is NFL Franchise better than the Dallas cowboys ????? stealers,49ers,or the giants. those teams come close but they not there. only the best teams are called America's team they are the Dallas cowboys and the new York Yankees which is the best baseball Franchise. the name says every thing the cowboys is America team and the best!!!!!!!!! Dallas cowboys had some of the best player to ever step on a football field. they are Troy Akimen, Emmit Smith, Ed "too tall" Jones, Mel refrono,and many more. when the Dallas cowboys became apart of the NFL they had there worst record but years later they became a power house. They earn the right to be called America's team. facts to prove America's team. The first NFL team to win three Super Bowls in four years. The first and only NFL team to play in eight Super Bowls. They have a 5–3 record in the Super Bowl, with all three losses by a margin of four points or less. The first and only NFL team to lose a Super Bowl and still have a player selected as the Super Bowl MVP. (Linebacker Chuck Howley, who intercepted two passes and forced a fumble in Super Bowl V, became the first defensive player to win the award.) The first team in NFC East history to sweep all of its division opponents (home and away), going 8–0 in 1998 against the Cardinals, Giants, Eagles, and Redskins. The first NFL team to feature both the NFL leading rusher (E. Smith) and leading receiver (M. Irvin) in the same season (1991). The first and only NFL team to post 20 consecutive winning seasons (1966–1985). The first NFL team to have 24 winning regular seasons. The first NFL team to earn 27 post-season appearances. The first NFL team to send at least 13 players to the Pro Bowl (2007 season). The first and only NFL team to play 54 postseason games. The first an only NFL team to win 32 postseason games fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org...
Legalizing something effectively promotes it

First I'll go over the arguments he made, then go over the ones he didn't respond to. Con: Pro has to prove legalization promotes, with a corollary link I answered this argument in round 2 and he drops the response. Please extend my "D" key argument, which shows how the link does not have to be direct. This was not responded to, so count it as true. Therefore, I do uphold the burden to show that legalization promotes the object. Con: Goods can be promoted despite illegality I answered all four of his examples of this, and he drops my responses to three of them. He only responded to the interracial marriage example, saying that the purpose is only to show that there isn't a link between its legalization and its promotion. However I showed how this example does not prove his point because tracking an illegal activity like that is difficult, so he cant draw any conclusions from this. Secondly, he still hasn't given a source for this statistic. Con: The point of his debate is to show publicity, not increases in use When he first argued about the legalization of interracial marriage, he argued that its rate of occurrence didn't increase. So he has been arguing about occurrence increases; don't let him change his advocacy in the very last round. Con: Legalizing abortion didn't promote it With abortion legal you can see it publicized in ads, unlike before (1). He agrees that advertisements promote the action, so I prove that legalization has promoted it. Con: Correlation =/= causation, need link I gave the link showing how legalization leads to publicity. Business men find the newly legal product as a business opportunity, market it, and advertise/promote it. Its surprisingly simple. Now lets go over what wasn't responded to. Obviously, my "D" key argument is, well, key. Its lack of response to means that I don't have to prove that legalization directly leads to promotion. If I prove that legalization leads to advertisement which leads to promotion, I win the round. He gave examples of promotion still happening in the California, High Times Magazine, and Prostitution examples. After responding to all of these, he drops all of them. Perhaps most important are my arguments made in the Conclusion section of my last round. In it, I gave two reasons showing why I win automatically. Neither of them were responded to. So at the point where my arguments about why I win were dropped, I don't see any incentive to vote con. I'll repeat those conceded arguments to remind us of why I urge a pro vote. 1. I argue that advertisements cause promotion, and he directly agreed to this in the second round. 2. Advertisements are only possible because of legalization. Therefore, legalization is a direct catalyst to promotion. Please count these conceded arguments as true. For all of these reasons, I urge a con vote. Thanks to my opponent for the good debate, and finishing. 1. http://tinypic.com...
Legalizing something effectively promotes it

Re: Legalization promotes by means of allowing advertisements This is in no way the same as my initial argument. The question is not “Does legalization lead to promotion” or “Can legislation allow for more promotion,” rather it is “Does legalization promote,” asking for a corollary link between the two. Examples have been given of goods and services that are promoted in spite of their illegality, as well as legal activities which are not promoted – Prostitution, Marijuana use and Interracial Marriage respectively. My opponent has argued that it is hard to measure and track interracial marriage statistics, however the purpose here is simply to show that there is no causal link between publicity and legalization. Since the goal of increasing sales is silly in this context, taking the social climate into mind it is just as silly to envision any sort of publicity for interracial relationships during or after those times. The point of this debate is not to show increases; only that publicity was made with the purpose of increasing public awareness, which has not been shown. Since the validity of the prior legalization is not being accepted by my opponent, hopefully a second more prominent one will – Roe V. Wade (1). The ruling was that anti-abortion legislation is unconstitutional. In no way did this ruling publicize abortions for the purpose of increasing sales or public awareness; it was simply saying that it is a matter of personal fundamental right of choice, and no law could be passed to countermand them. No matter how you spin it, Correlation does not equal Causation. You can surely show that there is a relationship between advertisement and legalization, but you have not shown a link that connects legalization to the publicity, let alone showing that the act of legalization gives publicity and has the goal of increasing sales or public awareness. Just because two things happen in proximity does not mean that they are related, nor does it mean one caused the other. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Legalizing something effectively promotes it

1. Illegality vs Advertising Con: California has illegal marijuana, they still advertise it California has legalized medical marijuana (1), so they can have ads. As such, your argument is actually supporting my side because you show how legal medical marijuana has lead to advertisements, which promotes use. Con: High Times magazine popularizes marijuana This is non-responsive to my argument, which is about advertisement of the good being sold, not mentioned in tabloids. Con: Escort services bypass law and still promote Even if prostitution can be promoted illegally, it doesnt mean legalizing doesn't do the same. As such, this is also non-repsonsive because it doesn't answer how legalizing can promote awareness. Secondly, even if it is promoted iillegally, legalization would give prostitution much greater access to the public than just these sites, namely with TV commercials. Under a legalization system, not only would prostitution be on the sites you give, it would also appear in newspaper ads and the ads section on Yahoo. Thats promoting the action by raising awareness. 2. Legality and promotion Con: Legalization allows the activity, it does not promote it Legalization does allow the activity, but it also causes it to be promoted through the links to marketing and advertisement I have given. Con: Legalizing -> Promotion must be a direct link Not necessarilly. For example, pressing "D" on my computer does not "directly" lead to the letter showing up on the screen. Technically, pressing D leads to a series of electric signals in the mainframe, which lead to the letter showing up. But it would be foolish to say that pressing the "D" key does not cause it to show up on the screen. In the same respect, if legalization leads to something that leads to promotion, the link is still strong enough to attribute it to promotion. Con: Legalization must be necessary for increased promotion I have proved that it is. My opponent has never denied that companies can't advertise illegal activities on the TV or newspaper. This is a huge point in the round. At that point I prove that legality is necessary for this type of promotion. 3. Conclusion Con: Interracial marriage rates maintained after legalization Invalidate this because 1. There is no source showing us this, and 2. This would be hard to measure anyway considering that interracial marriages were illegal, and thus would be harder to track. At the end, my opponent concedes that advertisements and marketing are easier after legalization. I should win the debate right here for two reasons. 1. He has not denied that advertisements promote the action, so promotion increases after legalizing. He concedes to this. 2. Legalization leads to advertisements being inevitable, therefore I prove a correlation between legality and promotion. I urge a pro vote. 1. http://abcnews.go.com...
Legalizing something effectively promotes it

It is plausible that legalization opens the door to promotion, the position being argued for is that legalization is what “promotes”. While my opponent made a great attempt, his examples indicate no causal connection between the two. Just because a good or service is illegal does not mean that it cannot be advertised, marketed or promoted. Examples include prostitution and marijuana, which are promoted in many forms through today’s media. In California, Marijuana is illegal, but there are advertisements for the cannabis card membership in newspapers and magazines. We have magazines like High Times which popularize marijuana growth, culture and gives cultivation tips on how to grow without police interruption. Prostitution is likewise illegal in California, but being an “escort” is not. Telephone sex lines are another prime example of allowing people to skirt the issue. There are a number of websites that connect consenting adults together for sex that lead to the exchange of money, and even boasting hints and tips for the johns. See http://sex.perkel.com.... At some point she will ask you if you want to "get comfortable." This means "are you ready to have sex?" Your job now is to lead her to the bedroom and get naked. To protect herself legally, she will wait until the client is naked before she undresses. I suppose the legal idea here is that you've paid for a massage, but when she sees your irresistible naked body, she can no longer control herself and has to **** you. As seen by these examples, illegality does not deter promotion. More importantly, my opponent has failed to show that legalization is a catalyst to “promotion”. Rather, he stated that “advertisements are what promotes the object”; meaning there is a middle man between the law and the alleged promotion. To show a causal link between the two, one would need to show that legalization is a necessary component to the increased publicity, sales or public awareness of the illegal goods/services. If promotion does not require legalization, the argument breaks down. Legalization “allows” an activity; it does not necessarily promote it. Here is another example of a court case which has legalized without promotion: 1967 – Loving v. Virginia – The Supreme Court legalized interracial marriages. There are no statistics showing a causal link between the legalization of interracial marriage and the increase thereof. While my opponent is correct that advertisements and marketing are easier post legalization, his position fails the definition of “promote” because he has not shown a causal link that the law, in itself, is the catalyst that increases sales and/or public awareness to a particular issue.
Legalizing something effectively promotes it

Thanks to Bob_Gneu for starting this debate. Legalization of various things is a hot topic on this site, but I hope to put some perspective on things. While what is being legalized was not specified, I assume that we will not talk about the legalization of serious crimes such as murder. I will use definition 2 of promote that my opponent offered; "Give publicity to so as to increase sales or public awareness." Therefore, I have to prove that legalizing something increases publicity, sales, or awareness to affirm. 1. Legalizing leads to publicity Companies sell products and services to the public for money. They are limited by 2 things: What the people will buy, and what they can legally market. So, as long as an action is illegal, companies cannot legally market it and display it to the general populace. However, if they sell a legal product, there a few ways to increase its marketing. The main way, is through advertisements. Advertisements are run all the time during out favorite shows, meaning that we constantly are seeing the newest thing. Now lets look at prostitution, since my opponent brought it up. Prostitution is something many people enjoy and pay for. But it is unmarketable by companies since it is illegal. But by legalizing something such as prostitution, it will be marketed. There will be several people or corporations looking to collect women and offer them for sale. "However, thats the status quo, right? Women are already collected and offered for sale, just illegally". Thats absolutely true. But there is one thing the black market will never have access to, and thats advertisements. Just as we dont see crack being offered on your average CNN commercial, we dont see prostitutes being offered either. However, under a legalization system, it will be perfectly OK to advertise it. You will see women being publicized all the time on your nightly news station. Similar things would happen with marijuana. Somebody will find the newly legalized good as a huge business opportunity, market it, sell it on a massive scale, and then advertise the crap out of it. Imagine a world where meth is advertised in commercials, albeit in a subtle way (like Viagra), or where you see ads for AK-47's in the newspaper. Advertisements are what promotes the object. Remember, we agree to define promote as "Give publicity to so as to increase sales or public awareness." Advertisements give publicity and increase awareness, as we see thr product advertised more often. But this is only possible if the product is legal. If it is not, it cannot be legally marketed, and therefore not advertised in public media. If it is legal however, then it is promoted through anybody seeking to make a business opportunity out of it. Whether promoting the once-illegal product is a good or bad thing is another discussion. However, I hope that I have shown my opponent how legalization of something does lead to its promototion.
Legalizing something effectively promotes it

In class this evening I was asked why legalizing prostitution and or marijuana would be a good idea, explained my position and from across the room a group of people threw their opinions in the air, saying that they believe that legalizing them is promoting them, and I don't see the tie. A parallel argument can be applied to the alcohol industry, where we had prohibition and times before and after to compare. Before prohibition you could buy your alcohol at a corner store or from a friend who would make moonshine. During prohibition the problem was simply finding a corner store that would sell you the alcohol they had, and hopefully the moonshine wouldn't make you blind. After prohibition you could buy your alcohol at a corner store, taxed and regulated, or from a friend who would make moonshine. Criminalizing the distribution and manufacturing of alcohol didn't stop people from getting it, it drove those people into the back rooms and basements to get it without being seen. It drove the crime syndicate nuts and there were a number of people who saw bad things occur afterwards. But in no way does the legalization of alcohol mean the government, or the authors of the changed legislation, promoted the consumption or manufacture of alcohol. For the purposes of these discussions, Promote means one of the following: 1.Further the progress of; support or actively encourage. 2.Give publicity to so as to increase sales or public awareness. 3.Advance or raise to a higher position or rank
Anarcho-capitalism is the right form of government

You claim that pure capitalism goes through periods of insane growth and insane crash, however this is not a trait of capitalism alone. Often times in history government has messed up an economy with excessive regulation or by moderate regulation that was misguided, leading to disastrous results. Also, you claim that the 2008 recession would have been a depression had it not been for the federal reserve bailouts, however, the Federal Reserve is not bound by government in many ways, and it IS a private company. Furthermore, you say that if the companies wanted to preserve the land already, why haven't they done so already, yet you fail to realize that there never was a time they owned the land themselves and messed up without government regulation, which means it could be that the government regulation is causing the problem. Even if they were too greedy and short-term minded to protect the land, the defense firms could stop them so long as they obtain payment by the people to do so through tort and contract law, or at least the majority of them need to, for if not all of them did it would be war, or an agreement by private courts to prevent war, though that would be rare. In addition to this, I'm guessing the people could own the land alongside the companies and ensure it is protected as a financial agreement, though I'm not an expert on Finance and that is not the issue here. Also, you bring up the idea that we will have multiple currencies, thus making trade difficult. However, there already is a private company issuing a SINGLE currency. And that company is the federal reserve.
Anarcho-capitalism is the right form of government

First off, I want to respond to your argument that the poor will not be able to pay for services. My response to this is that there could be a model of defense agency governance similar to the theory of panarchy, where multiple communities in an area pay for multiple governments. I am saying this to assert that this a is a community effort. The whole community can pay according to each individual's income, meaning not everyone pays the same. There are multiple laws enforced in an area, according to who decides to follow who. Also, it is not just monetary payment that can contribute to these services, as the poor can do the defense agency work themselves or provide necessary services for the defense agencies. Furthermore, the poor communities (or ghettoes, if you will) can form defense agencies of an entirely new market, and an entirely new community. Lastly, defense agencies will not have to protect the poor as much because they have less property, and so the poor will have to pay for less service, driving down cost. Now, I want to respond to your statement about the great depression. While I see that there is solid reasoning behind your argument that if we have a laissez-faire market, there will be another great depression, I disagree. Now that the great depression has happened, and we know why it happened, we know not to make the same mistakes, and modern economists are moving away from the rational economic man model, which is something I disagree with in some respects, such as this one. I now want to reply to your argument about the environment. You say that the need to protect the land does not have an effect in a fiscal sense. This is not relevant, because although it cannot be measured fiscally, the future availability of resources does indeed have an impact on future finances.
Anarcho-capitalism is the right form of government

First and foremost, you're ideas of anarcho-capitalism while valid, are improbable and, if implemented in the entire nation, would cause social and political unrest on a global scale. Also, due to your statement mentioning "big Government" and America, I'll assume when you refer to government the past argument, that you are referring to the United States. With that said, you seem to not have a complete understanding of how the government as a whole functions as you say that a 51% majority can rule the nation and then make some statement about individuals. While a marjory that slim can in theory "rule the land," it doesn't often happen in such a close margin, but alas that isn't the topic of the debate. You're first idea that individuals and groups must pay for defense is completely unsound and proves the lack of oversight in the idea of anarcho-capitalism (I'll call it AC from here on out). Not everyone can afford a privet police for military force to protect the, are they to be left as the fodder to the evil whom our personal army keeps us safe from? What about firemen? Are they only to put out the fires and help those who pay the a mafia like protection fee? Your idea that people are charitable is true is some instances, but in essence, taxes do exactly that. They pay for a national military, local police, and the benefits of those who are less fortunate. I also wish to retort your statement that government regulation is the reason pollution exists. I find that improbable as the government regulation wouldn't have been set into place had there been no pollution. While it's true that a privet entity may preserve the land and capital that is its own out of sake of maintaining its own production, there is not direct insinuative for it to protect the rest of the environment directly in a fiscal sense. I agree on your point about an alliance between government and business, that is a point that I stand with you on. The free market may work, but for it to work at its most efficient, you must deal with the cruelty of unchecked greed, a massive gap in equality, and the horrors behind a laissez faire style system to create a "capitalist utopia." Such a society wasn't created in the United States during the industry revolution, but in fact caused the counter, the Great Depression, nor has it happened in developing parts of the globe where capitalism is aloud to run wild. Parts of capitalism are okay, but the the nation needs some socialization to be functional, lest you feel that people should be void of roads and power.
Rap Battle with a twist

I just realized that I was somewhere I shouldn't have been I put in 12 bars. You needed sixteen. Stop saying that you are in no way the king You broke me to pieces, wrapped my arm in a sling I couldn't even keep up even when I was reading You are good I am bad you have everything I would never have I am, again running out of rhymes I will try to compose some more of mine I am not a rap god, didn't compose that song Not even in the Shady records, your might powerful as Kong Another 12 bars and I will lose Did I mention I blew a fuse? Your fear is nothing compared to mine I lost every battle time to time Everyone looking knows I suck To win all I have is my little luck