BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanaia should be legal in all states

There are two kinds of euthanasia, Active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is when a person does something to help you die. Passive euthanasia is when a person doesn"t do something to help you die; they stop helping to keep you alive. I think both kinds should be legal in all states. Some people have to die in pain. Why do they have to feel the pain in such a long time, if they could die peacefully? A lot of teenagers commit suicide. I DON"T think they should get help to die, just because they have a bad time I their life. Teenagers are young and a lot can happen to them in the future. It"s different with old people, who is sick and just want to give up their life, and just want to die. So let euthanasia be legal in all states!
baseball

Thanks for accepting. Mantle is better than Dimaggio. Dimaggio has advantages in rbis, batting average, slugging average and defense. Mantle had advantages in home runs, on base percentage, and runs scored. The rbis and runs cancel each other out. Defense at center field is over rated. It is important but not that important. Batting average is over rated and obp is more important then slg. That should all even out. Dimaggio did lose 3 prime seasons due to war and was injured afterwards, but Mantle had far more injuries. Both players did amazing in postseason, but Mantle was better, setting World Series records of 18 home runs, 40 rbis, and 42 runs scored. Although this looks dead even, the last edge for Mantle was that he did play in the 1960's when the pitchers dominated. Dimaggio played in the 1930's when hitters dominated. Against Willie Mays, Mays did had more home runs, rbis, runs and better defense. Defense is over rated and May's other stats are higher due to more games and plate appearances. Also, Mays obp is even lower then Mantle's, more then 30 points. Mays only won one world championship and performed terribly in the postseason. Baseball is all about winning and that is what Mantle did: win, win and win. Mays didn't win enough.
baseball

Since the measuring stick for "best" was undefined, it will be open for debate in this debate and up to the voters to determine how to weigh each argument and stat. I will allow my opponent to start but I will take the liberty of outlining a few players that I will likely bring up (this is not an inclusive list and I may bring others next round). Willie Mays [2] Joe DiMaggio [3] I will now let my opponent make their case for Mickey Mantle [1]. [1] http://www.baseball-reference.com... [2] http://www.baseball-reference.com... [3] http://www.baseball-reference.com...
baseball

Being that this is the last round, I will not add any additional arguments but only cite what has already been stated. First, I would like to point out a complete lack of sources. My opponent talks about the league averages for OBP however, I cannot locate anything older than 2000 (which is on ESPN). Baseball Almanac does not have this data (though it has it for slugging and BA). However, it was already presented back in R3 and backed by sources and never disputed by my opponent, that Cobb had a higher slugging in respect to his era (His era was 54 points lower, while he was only 41 points, lower, giving him a 13 point advantage). My opponent also pointed out that Cobbs had a higher OBP than Mantle anyway, so without providing some kind of evidence that Cobb's dead ball era (which was notorious as the best pitching era in all of baseball) somehow had the highest OPB (despite having the lowest BA, as shown in R3, and the lowest slugging, as shown in R3, it must have been at least 34 points higher to get the numbers that my opponent suggests). Second, Runs Created. I will preface this by saying that while it does not violate any rules established in this debate, it does go against the commonly held rules of no new arguments. The "Runs Created" numbers that my opponent pulls in the last round are from a theoretical equation developed by Bill James [1]. This is not the number of run that they physically created in their careers. What is important to note, is that the equation by Bill James ALREADY FACTORS IN THE TOTAL PLATE APPEARANCES [2]. Therefore, when my opponent divides by PA, he is doubling up on numbers and making them meaningless. I will finish by saying that my opponent, in their last round, never addresses how the different eras which skew in Mantles favor and that is why a few of his numbers are better, not his skill. I thank my opponent for this debate and pass this to the voters. [1] http://www.baseball-reference.com... [2] http://www.tangotiger.net...
baseball

To maintain the same style, I will break my sections by player, rather then category. 1) Ty Cobb My opponent is forgetting one of his own arguments from earlier. My opponent tried to use the different baseball eras beforehand to try and give Mantle an edge over Dimaggio. This exact same logic applies toward why Cobb is far better than Mantle. Let us re-look at batting average [1] and bring in slugging [2]. Ty Cobb played his first 15 years (from 1905 until 1919) in the dead ball era [3]. In these 15 years, the average batting average was .252. This is pretty close to what Mantle saw, over his career, the average was .254 but the key difference is in slugging. The league average through the dead ball era was only .329, while in Mantle's career it was .383, a full 54 points higher, while Mantle only has a 41 point advantage over Cobb's dead ball era numbers (.557 over .516). Given how the game was slanted in his favor, this means he actually performed worse. And given that Cobb batted .372 in the dead ball era, vs Mantle's dismal .298 it is very clear who the better player was. The (RBI's + Runs)/PA is not a meaningful stat. Since HRs count as 1 RBI and 1 Run, yet only yield 1 point, not 2, the equation for runs created should be (RBIs + Runs - HRs)/PA, which Cobb is significantly higher than Mantle (31.1% to 26.7%, which is over 15% better). Other keys stats to note? Mantle had 1710 strike outs in his career, or 17.3 SO per 100 plate appearances (one of the highest ratios of any hall of famer), while Cobb had only 681 strike outs in his career (which was significantly longer) for only 5.2 SO per 100 PAs, less than 1/3 of Mantle. My opponent seems focused on the number of championships, however this is not an accurate measure of an individual's ability. Championships are won by teams and a team effort, not by an individual. Clear example, in the 1960 World Series, Mantle batted .400, slugged .800 (both were his best WS performances) and lost the WS that year. However, in 1962, Mantle batted .120 and slugged .160 (both were his worst WS performances) and they won the WS that year. Clearly, winning the WS =/= a better player. 2) Willie Mays Willie's Runs created ratio is statistically the same, 26.4% to 26.7%, his strike out ratio was also only 12.2 per 100 PA, a good deal lower (though not as low at Cobb). Really, Willie is just here in case we swing back to defense, since he has 12 back to back golden gloves, to Mantle's 1 and only (which they both won that year, since 3 OF GGs are awarded per league). As we go into the last round, I look forward to the conclusion. Thank you. [1] . http://www.baseball-almanac.com... [2] . http://www.baseball-almanac.com... [3] . http://www.baseball-reference.com...
baseball

I will now defend Mr. Mantle against Mr. Cobb, Mr. Dimaggio and Mr. Mays. Like my opponent, I shall break my argument into several sections. 1) Joe Dimaggio Because my opponent is no longer arguing for Dimaggio, I will try to be brief. Yes, it is quite obvious now that Dimaggio's advantage in batting average was totally because of the league. However, it was stilll helped, so Dimaggio's advantage shouldn't be as large. I did not mean that defense was useless, I was trying to argue that defense is only a small part of baseball and its advantage should not be as large as many offensive stats. Mantle's obp is higher than Dimaggio's by 23 points, more than enough to cover for Dimaggio's slg and batting average. Mantle has superior postseason stats and so I believe The Mick is better than Jolting Joe. 2)Ty Cobb Yes, Cobb has the highest batting average of all time. The gut has astronomical batting averages. But beside the first half of Cobb's career, it really is quite even. Cobb may have great batting averages, but Mantle drew more walks, 1733 to 1249, that their obp is some what close. (.421 for Mantle, .433 for Cobb). Mantle, though beat Cobb in slg by 45 points. This results in a 33 point advantage in ops, combining obp and slugging. Mantle's (rbi+runs)/plate appearances is a hair higher than Cobb's. Cobb, by the way Cobb did not win seven championships. 3) Willie Mays Mays obp is 37 points lower than Mantle's. That is huge. Mays did have better numbers but Mantle won more championships and has a higher runs+rbis/plate appearances.
In the U.S., people have a constitutional obligation to change the laws they refuse to follow

This is the exact resolution: In the United States, people have a constitutional obligation to follow the law, and to change the laws they refuse to follow. The Constitution empowers the federal, state and local governments to make laws; this same constitution also dictates the rights we have as citizens. Therefore, as members of our nation, and to remain consistent and in agreement with the supreme law of the land, people have a moral and legal obligation to follow the law. When an offensive and/or oppresive law is passed or encountered, and people refuse to follow this law, citizens have an obligtion to change the law to preserve the integrity of the U. S. Constitution. (You might say this is really an argument against nihilism--which permits people do whatever they choose and rejects the supremacy of the rule of law. )To clarify, with this resolution I'm not arguing that people should follow oppressive/blatantly offensive laws. My position is that oppressive/blatantly offensive laws should not be followed. But people do have a responsibility to change these laws to keep permitted social action consistent with the law of the land. Methods that can be used to alter bad laws can include not following through with the law (a form of civil disobedience, favored by Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi) and other forms of non-violent social activism, to place pressure on lawmakers. I'm also not arguing that civil wars and conflicts (wheve many civilian laws are broken) aren't justified, because I think they can be if the intent is to eliminate a list of oppressive laws and remove an oppressive/corrupt regime from power. However, the primary aim of these actions should be to eliminate offensive laws (and regimes) and replace them with social rules (and competent governments) that are more in harmony with social justice and fairness and inclusive life-improving policies. Ultimately, a primary aim of social activism and civil disobedience must be to get laws changed to preserve the integrity and supremacy of the rule of law. My opponent will oppose this resolution.
Gaming Consoles

I am relatively new to this site and debating so I hope I could give a decent enough argument. For starters, the Xbox 360 comes in many different prices depending on the gigabytes. One with a 4GB would go up to $199.99. Anyhow, one with 250GB goes up to $299.99. The regular PS3 with 160GB will go up to $249. Those into gaming would also not need much GB room. They would just download some music or movies that they could watch. They won't have to download as much because you could just buy the CD and not have to download it using a lot of GB. In this case, the Xbox 360 is the cheaper deal. Secondly, Xbox 360 is a very almost unhackable system. The PS3 had some problems because someone had hacked into it and shut it down for a good couple of days. Thirdly, the Xbox may be called expensive because you have to pay $59.99 for Gold, otherwise online gaming. Anyhow, the Xbox company puts exclusive offers sometimes to help with this. They once put it so for 3 months you could pay $9.99. Plus, it is worth it. The graphics are better on the Xbox than the PS3. It is less laggy, runs faster, and looks better. The Xbox also has Netflix built into it. The PS3 might have it too, but you have to put the CD inside it, while the Xbox you can get it online. Also, the Xbox could go up to 1080p on it. I will be waiting for your response.
Gaming Consoles

On your part on which you said that "you pay for online gaming, ps3 users get it free", it's true, but worth the money. For starters, you get a user online file, online match ups, and the downloadable Netflix app. To the online experience, it lacks cross-game chatting and trying to invite friends can be just a real pain. You can't get as much features as the Xbox. If you get Play Station Plus, it's just a service for additional gaming content; it doesn't enhance the Play Station Network on any of its online features. It focuses more on free content rather than giving PS3 users a more enjoyable experience. You can also online meet WAY less people because you have to PAY for the headsets for the PS3, while on the Xbox you get it with the console. The next thing is space. You don't want some big console. You want something lighter, and thinner in width, height, and length. The Xbоx 360 weights 7.7 pounds (3.5 kg) and is 12.15 in. width x 3.27 in. height x 10.15 in. depth. For the PS3, it's 12.8 in. width x 3.9 in. height x 10.8 in. depth with a weight of 11 pounds (around 5kg). This is a huge disadvantage with some people with little space, and is annoying when trying to fix wires around it or try to move it around. The Xbox 360 is easier with this because you can place it sideways or upwards. It uses less space and can be placed in either direction. Lastly is the controller. The analog sticks on the PS3 are curved making it harder to grip it. The Xbox 360 however has a downwards curve to it making the thumb hold it in a nicer position. There are also grips built onto the analog stick where you can hold it easier. If you want your thumbs higher from the controller, you can also buy extenders to adjust how long you want your analog stick to be. Thank you for accepting my challenge, and let the best competitor win. Sites to back up my info. http://news.teamxbox.com... http://reviews.cnet.com...
Gaming Consoles

first I would like to point out that with a CD you can save music that way too. so the same is true for the PS3 and Xbox 360. you might have a lot more gigabytes, but we have a abundance of memory space too. you say that the X-box 360 is a almost unhackable system, well that is not really true. x-box 360 can be hacked too, but more people have an ps3 these days. you pay for online gaming, ps3 users get it free, therefore making it more better. ps3 users can also watch blue-ray. we have net flicks too, and no you don't have to have the CD in it, or at least I don't. so while we got everything you do, we also have blue-ray which you don't. see the link below. . http://www.audioholics.com...
Gay marriage

"If rights cannot be restricted by the definition of the words then anyone could change anything they wanted in the constitution fitting to whatever agenda they support. " Sorry. Any agenda would still have to adhere to the Constitution. I'm saying the definition of the word, in a dictionary, should be changed to promote equality as mandated by the Constitution. "Yes, we are all equal for reasons explained above. " No, we are not. Some consenting, law-abiding adults do not have the ability to marry other consenting, law-abiding adults. That is not equality, and therefore, it violates the Constitution. "Loving vs. Virginia ruled that one man and one woman regardless of race have the basic civil right to marry. Yes, it is straight forward. " To be more specific, it ruled that the right to marriage is a basic civil right. A pair of consenting, law-abiding homosexuals should have this same right, because of the Fourteenth Amendment. "It is not irrelevant I was making the point that the constitution does not protect gay marriage based on the definition of the word. I then made a side point that their is just a wording difference between the word marriage and the word civil union and that we all have the same rights in the end. " The Constitution doesn't explicitly protect any marriage. However, when marriage becomes a civil right, the Constitution protects it, because it protects all civil rights for all law-abiding, consenting (in the case of marriage) citizens. "Loving vs. Virginia ruled that marriage must be between one man and one woman. " Now you're twisting what happened. Loving v. Virginia ruled that marriage is a basic civil right. "Gays can't legally get married. Period. " It shouldn't be that way. That's what we're debating. "So, are those marriages protected by the constitution as long as the man sterilizes himself? " I don't know. That's a ridiculous question. There would have to be laws regarding the sterilization and all that, but if someone wanted to legalize incestuous marriage, that might be a logical step. You seem to be subtly hinting that incestuous marriage is automatically immoral. That is irrelevant, but just for the record, I don't necessarily disagree with it. "Agreed. " Then you seem to agree with my side. If marriage is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to all (law-abiding, consenting) citizens, then marriage should apply to all (law-abiding, consenting) citizens. Thanks for this debate.
Gay marriage

"the Supreme Court struck down Virginia's laws prohibiting interracial marriage, declaring them unconstitutional" The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage, "interracial" is the key word here. "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man" Yes, legal marriage is a basic civil right, everybody has the same right to be married as long as it is with one man and one woman. "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State" Again this is talking about racial discrimination and has nothing to do with sexual orientation. "The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right of man" Legal marriage is a basic civil right. "the idea of marriage as a basic civil right to apply to heterosexual interracial marriages but not to homosexual marriages." No, because there has been no constitutional amendment stating homosexual marriages will be protected by the law. The fourteenth amendment only speaks of interracial marriages nothing about homosexual marriages. "the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, marriage is a basic civil right not to be denied to any couple due to sexual orientation." No, now your rewording the amendment, again this amendment speaks nothing of the sort. Now, here is a set of questions I would like to ask you. Would you support illegal marriages for example, a man who would like to marry his horse? Or a pedophile who would like to marry a 9 year old? How about a father who wants to marry his daughter is that acceptable in your view? If all marriages are a basic civil right than you would have to agree with all of the above.
Gay marriage

Just to clarify, I'm going to use the phrasing "the right to homosexual marriage." I think this is quite straightforward. My opponent believes that the right to homosexual marriage is not granted by the Constitution. I will argue that it is, under the Fourteenth Amendment, citing the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia. Loving v. Virginia was a case regarding Virginia's right to prosecute Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial married couple. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Virginia's laws prohibiting interracial marriage, declaring them unconstitutional as violating the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [1] This idea can be pretty easily extended to homosexual marriage. Let's look at part of the Supreme Court's written decision in Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." And now, the language of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment: "Section 1. 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." This is pretty clear to me. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right of man, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution does not say anything that would cause Loving v. Virginia and the idea of marriage as a basic civil right to apply to heterosexual interracial marriages but not to homosexual marriages. Therefore, under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, marriage is a basic civil right not to be denied to any couple due to sexual orientation. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
9-11 was an inside job.

I believe that the terrorist attacks of 9-11-01 were NOT an inside job. BOP is on my opponent, who will argue that the government/illuminati/Jews/Freemasons/ Rebublicans/Homer Simpson or whoever they want is resposnsible and that it was an inside job. Sources must be reliable, as I will check each and every one.Good luck, and let the debate begin!
9-11 was an inside job.

As I stated in the comments, I am cancelling all debates due to time constraints. I will issue a challenge to my opponent in roughly a week, and I will debate him on this same subject. My opponent chose one of the most inherently ignorant and witless arguments to defend, that there were no planes involved on 9-11. I feel insulted at the absurdity of this claim, and I look forward to completing this debate at a later time.
Spongebob is a stronger anime character than Thanos with 5 infinity gems + Goku ultra instinct

Well - I guess ill respond, however the debate was intended to be Spongebob vs Thanos with 5 infinity gems and goku, not gay iddubz, but ill argue it anyway. The first issue is that your contestant is inherently gay, and as shown in spongebob season 3 the damage he deals against gays is quintuppled. As the show has shown, spongebob can lift the krusty crab - meaning he can do 4x crusty crab damage to green man PER HIT. On top of this, spongebob is completely immune to all physical damage. Your gay trash has literally nothing against spongebob
Spongebob is a stronger anime character than Thanos with 5 infinity gems + Goku ultra instinct

SpongeBob will never be as strong as my favorite anime, Green Man. GREEN MAN BIO Born: At the beginning of time Alter-ego: Ian GREEN MAN STATS Intelligence: 0.2/4 Stealth: 1.9/19 Strength: 100/1.119264 Invincibility: 2/3 out of 7/8 GREEN MAN STRENGTHS Jumping off of stoves Dancing (it is truly top notch my man) Green Man, who is loved for his existential catchphrase "I'm Gay" is one of the triumphs of anime. He has been going strong since 2012, when he made the first saga in the |64;}22;}40;}31;}10;}31; anime series, a Slenderman Gangnam Style video. This has gone down in cult culture. He has also made an appearance with the lesser known anime series, pAPa fRAnKU, or pink guy. Say whatever you want, get Green Manned, bro. I could still do