BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Derek Carr is the best young QB in the NFL

Dak Prescott is not the best young QB in the NFL. The Cowboys were headed to the playoffs before Dak Prescott even joined the team. Prescott just solidified his name in a pool of good QB's. Something else to consider. Ezekiel Elliot. This man doesn't get enough credit for how well the Cowboys AND Prescott did last season. Let me show you some numbers. http://www.nfl.com... So look at the Raiders rushing yards; 1922 Yards. That's pretty good, top 6 rushing attack. https://www.google.com...;* Now Ezekiel Elliot's stats. Ezekiel Elliot had just under 300 yards less than the 3 headed rushing attack that Oakland had at the time. If you didn't stack the box completely against Ezekiel Elliot he'd get 200+ YPG rushing easily. Even when you stacked the box with 8 guys, Ezekiel Elliot could get free. So take this into consideration. If there are 8 men in the box to stop a premier rushing attack, that only leaves 3 men to commit to the passing game before the play starts. So then you have possibly 2 other players trying to defend the pass when they were thinking run. That creates easy mismatches for Dak Prescott to throw to. Now Prescott did make those throws. Consider this as well. Both Ezekiel Elliot and Dak Prescott are awesome players. There is no taking away from that. However, they were both rookies at the time, which means no one had any game film on them. Derek Carr and Latavius Murray, however, had years of film any team can watch on them. It's hard to defend what you don't know. Expect a bit of a dropoff from both of the sensational young players. Also. The Oakland Raiders last year finished with a 12-4 record. 6 of those wins were comebacks. Some of them pretty small but going down to the last minutes. And some that were 14+ points. Now that wasn't all Derek Carr. But there is something to be said when Derek Carr goes into the 4th quarter, people are now expecting the Raiders to win almost any game, just because of Carr alone. Consider my last point here. Derek Carr came to a dumpster fire of an organization. Failure for 13 years, some of the worst drafts in history, along with trades and free agency. A ton of drama has filled the Raiders Organization. You have to give credit to the coach Jack Del Rio for helping change the culture but if you ask any fan, media analyst, or player on that team. Derek Carr has single handedly changed the entire culture of the Oakland Raiders from a lose first mentality to a "finally we're here" winning mentality. The Cowboys were in fine shape before Romo went down and the Cowboys were favored to make a deep run in the playoffs with Romo starting. Some were even talking Superbowl. Extra point: Dak Prescott and the Cowboys didn't almost make the Superbowl, they went into the playoffs and lost the first game in the playoffs. By those standards the Raiders also did almost make the Superbowl as they made the playoffs and lost the first game. Now I will never say that. So Dak Prescott and the Cowboys didn't almost make the Superbowl. They did, however, look much better than the Raiders in the playoff game.
Derek Carr is the best young QB in the NFL

Derek Carr is the best young QB in the NFL. The Oakland Raiders have been the laughing stock of the NFL for the last 13 years, they sat in a very tiny hole with none other than the Cleveland Browns. That has now come to a screeching halt thanks to the young QB sensation: Derek Carr, the best young Quarterback in the NFL. Ahead of Andrew Luck, Jameis Winston, Dak Prescott, Marcus Mariota (strong candidate), and Carson Wentz. Carr is sensational when it comes to being a clutch quarterback. He is a gunslinger that thinks he can get the ball into any window, much like Brett Favre, but the difference (so far at least) is Carr doesn't just think it, HE DOES IT. He improves every season with stats, decision making, and leadership qualities. And none of the current QB's really match up to his overall talent and gutsy decisions. And those two things alone is what makes him the best Young QB in the NFL.
To Be or Not to Be... Vegetarian? I say veggo is the way to go!

There is not much more to say here. Nature is nature and cannot be considered morally wrong. I feel that I have sufficiently dealt with the reasons posted on the pro-vegetarian website. As has already been pointed out, some of the reasons had nothing to do with the meat industry, and the rest only focused on meat obtained through the industry. There were no reasons given against eating organic meats or meat that was obtained by hunting. The laws of nature are enough for me to say that eating meat is the way to go (as opposed to veggo). P.S. I agree with Harlan that veggo does sound terrible, but I'm not sure that it sounds worse than tofurkey.
To Be or Not to Be... Vegetarian? I say veggo is the way to go!

There isn't much more to rebut here. However, I decided to throw a bit more information your way to show the fallacies of flex.com's reasoning. Here is a link describing the food chains and food webs: http://www.marietta.edu... You will note under the agriculture area the mention of the pollution to the waters that waste from crops can cause. This pretty much shows the hypocrisy of the whole water pollution angle mentioned on the site you provided. After all, if it is wrong to pollute the waters, then vegetation is just as responsible as the meat industry...perhaps even more so. Therefore, one cannot point out animal products and waste polluting waters and then turn a blind eye to the waste from crops in the water just because it suits the vegetarian lifestyle. On the health issue I have also perhaps not said enough. Although I did mention the unscientific stance taken by nutritionists, there is more to it. We are actually able to agree with nutrition and still arrive at the conclusion that vegetarianism is not healthy. Here is a link to a peer-reviewed article from the journal Atherosclerosis, Vol. 184(2) pp. 356-362 http://www.sciencedirect.com... It shows that vegetarian women were actually less healthy than omnivores. The vegetarians had a lack of vitamin B12 (something I mentioned as a potential problem in the previous round), and furthermore they had a build up of homocysteine (a toxin). I will once again state that to follow the laws of nature cannot possibly be wrong. Furthermore, the arguments presented in favour of vegetarianism tend to focus on the meat industry. Please address the problems of non-industrialized meats (e.g. venison) in the next round.
Abortion cannot be allowed to turn into murder

===Debate Intro === With the passing of NY State's 2019 abortion bill, It is necessary that pro-choice advocates disambiguate themselves from pro-abortion advocates. I would like to debate with an individual who endorses late-term abortion in general (or this NY bill in specific). I will then attempt to draw a clear philosophical line between abortion of a fetus and the murder of a child. The New York Times quotes the new NY law with the following: "The new law permits abortion after the 24th week of a pregnancy [if] there is 'an absence of fetal viability, Or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health. ' " According to US Legal's website, "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by various methods, Including medical surgery. " === Housekeeping === Round 1 expectations: beyond acceptance I request that you provide some bona fides in the form of a number of weeks. Please tell me your opinion/ conclusion/ feelings/ morality on the point when abortions should no longer be allowed (after how many weeks of gestation). If you are unwilling to provide this figure, Please post a comment explaining your declination instead of accepting the debate. Please also feel free to respond to the NY Times description and US Legal definition if you feel they are inadequate or inaccurate. Please, Do not accept this debate if you are pro-life. I do not want to debate the morality of abortion writ large. I want to debate the validity of applying "choice" arguments to late-term abortions. I prefer many short rounds in lieu of few long-winded rounds, Because it allows the opponents to engage more intimately.
Hot Model debate

This is a open hot model debate. .. to be in this debate you need to know the following rules:- *It has to be female models* *the one who posts the hottest images of models wins* *only copy paste images allowed. .. no links please* *there are going to be 3 rounds of debate . .. no argument will take place in the 1st round, we begin from the second round* *this is just an informal debate . .. because I think its kind of fun* *giving comments to every picture is optional* *in each round a new model has to chosen. .
PC's are better than Macs

Being that My opponent has made this a constructive round, I can assume I can make a few more points and make arguments about his critic of my side.I'll start with the rest of my case: Time Machine Not nearly enough people back up their hard drives (because it should be everyone), but Apple's Time Machine makes it so elegant and simple that all you really need to do is hook up a drive and turn Time Machine on. And it's not just a back-up, but you can go back in time to find a document you deleted. When something goes wrong... Microsoft makes the software. Dell, or Sony, or HP, or seemingly a million other manufacturers, make the Windows PC. Then you have third-party drivers and whatever else for all the peripherals. When you have a problem, everyone points a finger at everyone else. With the Mac, the issue is Apple's, and they'll get it figured out. Apple makes it simple, Microsoft makes it complicated. While learning any new system can be a challenge, it's very clear that Apple focuses a lot of attention on simplicity. Perhaps the best example is the Apple remote: just one big button in the middle, and yet it does pretty much everything you need it do. Microsoft is for geeks, Apple is for people who just want to get things done What's pretty much true is that the back-end, server-infrastructure kinds of things is well-handled by Microsoft, because it's in the "land of the geeks," who love to dig into the machinery and tinker with all the settings and understand all the acronyms. Those kind of people like Windows on the user end as well because they understand all the crazy intricacies and complications of the computer system. Apple isn't nearly as big in the IT world, and that's okay, because it's front end user interface for "the rest of us" doesn't require us to be computer geeks to get things done. Let's face it, Apple understands style While there are a zillion different styles of PC out there, pretty much everyone agrees that the style, elegance, and just plain "hipness" of the Mac has yet to be beat. They just look cool, and they're well-made as well. That's why you almost always see a Mac in the movies... they just look a lot better. You can run Windows on a Mac anyway, so why not get the best of both worlds? I have high confidence in my side of the argument, I cont believe pro has shown substantial evidence to refute my claims. Apple is the clear winner in my book, and I don't even own one. Thank you
PC's are better than Macs

I shall now counter my opponents."Macs are cheaper in the long run"Con claims that the orginal 15" Macbook Pro has a $700 value in 2015, but provides no evidence. In my experience, I have come across MacBooks that ranged from $100 to $2000 dollars. http://www.ebay.ca...;Con also fails to mention a key point. PC's are upgrade friendly compared to Macs. If you feel your 2gb Ram is insufficent, you can always buy the parts, and replace it. With a mac, upgradability is very limited.Just because a device is valued at a higher price, does not mean it is actually usable. Apple even states that the orignal MacBook Pro is obselete. https://support.apple.com..."In general, when Apple makes assumptions with its software, it gets it right, Microsoft often gets it wrong"Con mentions some hassles he has with Microsoft Office for "Mac". Because it isn't their main target audience, Microsoft simply doesn't have to spend time in fixing issues for Mac. This maybe market strategy to get people to buy PC's over Macs. I can tell you with Office 2013, this problem is non-existent. Con states, "Microsoft often gets it wrong". But only provided one example, which was the Mac version of Word and Entourage.Apple too has exprienced software failures. iMovie 08 was critisised by many for removing features from the previous version.http://en.wikipedia.org...If you look at reviews of the new iWork suite, most users gave it 2.5 stars out of 5. https://itunes.apple.com..."Viruses"This infact is the Mac's main selling point. There are two main reasons why Mac's do not get viruses.Closed Source Operating SystemBecause Apple places many restrictions on how others can manipulate its code, many virus creators have a hard time making viruses in the first place. This might seem as a postive, but you comprimise many aspects such as creating effective software. Less people use itCon himself admitted "While this is changing as Apple gains ground on Microsoft". Well, if everyone starts using mac, virus makers, will start targetting mac users. This will render the mac's main selling point useless. Because it is not used to dealing with virus issues, Apple will certainly be slow into providing updates and patches to fix malware.The main reason why users get viruses is because they are not careful about their surfing. If users are careful about what content they view, and avoid clicking popups on pages, you wouldn't even need an anti-virus.
PC's are better than Macs

Thank you for your round. Let's begin.Last round my opponent showed that a specific type of PC was a little bit better than a specific type of Mac however Overall Macs are better than PC's all around, here are just a few reasons why: Macs are cheaper in the long run Sure, you can buy a Windows PC for fewer up-front dollars. But the true cost of ownership should be calculated over a years-long span. And with that calculation, Macs win easily. For instance, today, we would give $700 in trade for an original 15" MacBook Pro, made about three years ago. Now, we stopped offering PC trade-ins after a brief experiment resulted only in angst on the part of customers who discovered their three-year old PC was worth nothing, but in attempting to do a trade with another company that still offers PC trades and plugging in a similarly-configured PC as that 15" MacBook, the automated response was: "No Trade-In Value." We think that not only is a good indication that Macs hold their value very well, but that PC's are made far less well, meaning that a PC is pretty much disposable after only about 2-3 years. Macs are much easier to buy We tried shopping for a PC just to compare, and after about 15 minutes our eyes glazed over. When you have so many choices, not only of manufacturers, but bells and whistles and speeds and sizes, it's almost impossible to know whether you're getting the right, or best, deal. With the Mac, it's much easier to narrow down your search quickly, PLUS, be assured you're getting a well-made and well-respected product, included being loaded with a whole bunch of great software you'd have to buy extra on a PC. In general, when Apple makes assumptions with its software, it gets it right, Microsoft often gets it wrong Surely this is subjective, but when you run Microsoft's software, even on a Mac, it loves to run interference, making assumptions as to what you're doing and trying to stay a step ahead. Most often, however, it just gets annoying. For instance, by default, if you type a "1)" in Entourage or Word, suddenly the next paragraph automatically starts with a "2)." Most people spend more time undoing the presumptions than benefitting by them... Microsoft is just horrible at getting in the way. Viruses While this is changing as Apple gains ground on Microsoft, Mac users are still living in comparative bliss with far fewer viruses, spyware and malware than Windows users.
PC's are better than Macs

I thank my oppenent for this debate,I would like to compare 2 examples of a Mac and a P.CThe New 2015 Apple Macbook Air 13 inch 1.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 processor Turbo Boost up to 2.7GHz Intel HD Graphics 6000 4GB memory 128GB PCIe-based flash storage 12 hour battery llife 1440x900 screen resolution Price: $1,119.00 (U.S) Dell XPS 13 inch 2015 5th Generation Intel® Dual Core™ i5-5200U Processor ( 2.20 GHz) 8GB Dual Channel DDR3L-RS 1600Mhz (On Board Intel (R) HD Graphics 5500 128 GB PCIe-based flash storage 12 hour battery life 1920x1080 screen resolution Price: 1,119.00 (U.S)ProcessorBoth devices run a dual core Intel i5 processor. The difference however, is the actual processor itself. On Apple's website, it says their product runs a 1.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 processor. The XPS 13 however, has a higher clockspeed.Verdict: Because the XPS 13 has a higher clockspeed, the XPS 13 beats the Macbook Air in this aspect.RAM(Memory)Apple again dissapoints. It only provides 4gb of ram for the 13 inch MacBook Air, whereas, the XPS 13 has double the RAM with 8gb. A downside with both machines is that the RAM is soldered(meaning it can't be removed and replaced). But 8gb is already very adequate for most users anyways.Verdict: XPS 13 gives 8gb of ram, whereas the MacBook Air 13 inch gives only 4gb. XPS wins again.GraphicsApple used the Intel HD 6000 graphics. While the XPS 13 uses the Intel HD 5300 graphics. Technically speaking, Apple does use the better graphics, but there is a very small perfomance difference between the 2.Verdict: Because it has a slightly more powerful graphics chip, the MacBook Air 13 inch wins.StorageBoth devices use a 128gb SSD.Verdict: DrawBattery LifeBoth devices can run for 12 hours.Verdict: DrawScreen ResolutionThe MacBook Air 13 inch uses a mediocre 1440x900 resolution. The reason why they refuse to increase it, is because it would impact the battery life. The XPS 13 uses a Full HD 1980x1080 resolution. This is impressive, because it still maintains the 12 hour battery life.Verdict: XPS 13's screen is far superior.Operating SystemThis one is certainly depends on the preference of the user, but In my opinion, Windows OS is far superior.Windows OS-More Programs-shared source(meaning others can manipulate the code to create software)-Ease of TroubleshootingOS X-far less programs-closed source(very restricted)-If you break it, you have to go to Apple to fix it. Conclusion As you can see, the XPS 13 has far greater specs that the MacBook Air 13 inch. So why buy a Mac, when you can get a device with better specs at the same price? Sources: http://store.apple.com... http://www.dell.com...
The US govt should increase its funding of elementary and/or secondary education

The Federal Government should not spend more on education. The Federal Government should stay out of it completely. It is unconstitutional for The Federal Government to be involved. I will present the tenth amendment as my evidence, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In the Constitution the power originally granted to the states. Is is outlined what powers are given to The Federal Government in Article 9. There is no mention of public schooling or funding schooling. So it must be reserved by the states respectively.
Should Student be allowed to be on phone during school

In our school, we used to confiscate any cell phones that were "seen" or "heard" and hold them for parent pick-up. We soon realized that a student might need that phone for an emergency or to contact a parent. The punishment (and potential consequences) didn't seem to fit the crime. We decided this was not a battle to fight, and we "decriminalized" cell phones. Now, if a phone causes a disruption, we treat it as we would any other disruption. After all, to our students (and to us as well), the cell phone has become a virtual appendage"an essential communication tool, and not necessarily more disruptive than a student tapping a pencil. Since we rethought our policy, havoc has not reigned. Our school structure has not collapsed, and the instructional process has not suffered. We now have more time to focus on what matters: teaching and learning.
The name of this site should be changed from debate.org to thegate.roar

1. I am 12. 12 decades old. I'm senile. 2. Browsers are made for our convenience. God bless them. 3.Illogical? U think America was built on logic? 4.Do? Why would you want to dew a gait? lol I love dew and yew dew de dew de dew..... 5. U aren't adult. gtf out of here w/ dis shieet boi.
The name of this site should be changed from debate.org to thegate.roar

I feel I am debating against a 12 year old, but never-the-less, I will prove why this website should remain Debate.org. My first point is that the amount of debating sites are limited. It will be a very grueling task to search and scroll through the search browser we are using. It isn't as easy as typing "CHICKEN" and it comes up. No Debate.org is reliable. Also why would you want to change a name that is simple to remember. Thegate.roar is irrelevant and illogical. My concluding reason is that "thegate" is something that anyone can do. It is not creative in any way. If you say it is, well it is childish. Even the ending "roar". not .com, .net, .ca, etc. It is not adult and people will slowly be turned away. I await your rebuttle
Sex Could Not Possibly Have "Evolved:"

My opponent wrote: ""Actually, the chicken egg did not evolve -- it was designed simultaneously with the chicken." I didn't say anything about chickeneggs, I simply said eggs." No chicken has ever come from an egg laid by a member of any species other than the chicken. Therefore you lost the debate. "No they weren't. Which species other than chicken are you claiming ever laid a chicken egg? You need to identify the name of the species. SPOILER: You can't do so because you are simply lying." " I never said another species aside from chickens laid chicken eggs, I said that species that are ancestral to chickens also laid their own eggs." You just committed the logical fallacy of equivocation: Is the species you're positing as "ancestral" the chicken species, or some other species? If chicken, then I won the debate. If some other species, then you need to identify the exact name of that species. SPOILER: You can't because you are just lying. ""See attached video in my OP." Not a citation." Definitely a citation. "Not true -- some plants reproduce sexually." The only proper rebuttal you had, and it was still wrong; I did say that plants could reproduce sexually as well, please re-read my rebuttal - "The vast majority of all animals reproduce sexually, everything else (including some animals and plants, which can use both forms of reproduction) reproduces asexually." My mistake -- I misunderstood your point there. Actually, we are in agreement on this section. Please forgive my error. ""Exactly who or what did the asexually reproducing creature organism supposedly "select" in order to supposedly give rise to at least two sexually-reproducing creatures, one male and one female, in your view?" I'll link you this peer reviewed article from the National Center of Biotechnology Information, originally published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." No, tell me here. You can't because you are just lying. "Going to actually prove your assertions sometime soon?" I have proven all of mine -- you have proven none of yours. Also, without God, there could be no proof of anything. ""That is ludicrous -- sexual reproduction CANNOT take place without sexual organs." I provided you an exact example of a type of organism that can." No you didn't. You utterly failed to provide evidence of a mechanism by which an asexually reproducing creature could possibly give rise to at least two sexually reproducing creatures with matching and different sexual organs because there never has been such an event. I have proven conclusively that sex could not possibly have evolved. You lost this debate, and you lost it HARD: Thanks for your time! =)