BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tom Brady is a better Quarterback than Peyton Manning

Refutations-1. My opponent has thorougly misinterpreted this argument. I am not saying Brady is worse than Bradshaw, or that Bradshaw had a harder time winning his superbowls, I'm saying superbowl rings do not define a quarterback. The refutation from round 2 still stands.2. Last season, the Colts were awful on both defense and offense because Manning was gone, In fact, they were 28th in the league in points allowed. My opponent also fails to show that Brady didn't recieve help from a good offense, which was the second part of the refutation, that Brady had better Wide-recievers and Tighteneds than Manning. To compare them, simply look at the Patriots 2008 Season vs the Colts 2011 Season to determie who's recievers are better. 3. My opponent clearly had an opening argument stating that Brady was better than Manning based off of Postseason wins, why does the regular season not count? My opponent, because he drops my regular season argument, has conceded that Tom Brady's win percentage is meaningless when comparing the two quarterbacks. Also, the 2 extra seasons argument is invalid, no one can predict the future, an ESPN analyst's prediction is about as good as someone who has never watched football, because football is a volatile sport, one that changes at a dramatic pace due to injuries and complications.4. So Matt Cassel was already a star in 2005? My opponents source doesn't show that Matt Cassel was good to begin wiith, however Matt Cassel is clearly not good with Kansas City, so it's clear Con has the real-time advantage for this argument.[2]5. My opponent fails to look towards the statistics placed between each opinion. The Stats and Evidence given to backup these "opinions" is valid. Con is using the statistics rather than just pure opinion, there's no plagiarism at all. Also, i cite wikipedia twice, compared to my opponents one wikipedia source. Clearly Wikipedia is a legitimate source according to my opponent (regardless of outside opinion) because Pro uses that as his main source.6. Manning has won 4 NFL MVP awards, and currently holds records for most wins, touchdowns, passing yards, and completions. He's been able to break these records without a good offensive line, and without good wide recievers.[3] Brady on the other hand, has been blessed with an amazing Coach in Billl Belichik,(He's also an amazing cheater). [4] To add on, the Patriots defense has been outstanding over the past 10 years, 1 bad season doesn't define a defense either. [5]All of Pro's arguments have been refuted.[1] http://www.pro-football-reference.com...[2] http://espn.go.com...[3] http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com...[4] http://msn.foxsports.com...[5] http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...
Tom Brady is a better Quarterback than Peyton Manning

1. "Tom Brady has 3 rings, but according to my opponents logic, Terry Bradshaw who has 4 rings is better than both Brady and Manning, which we know is not true." You're right Terry Bradshaw is not as good as Brady or Manning, but Brady had to make tons of clutch plays to get to and win his three Super Bowls. That's where Brady and Bradshaw are different. Brady makes lots of great plays where Bradshaw has his receivers make great plays. That is simply why I had it labeled "Playoff Wins and Super Bowls/ Clutch Performances" [1] http://www.youtube.com... 2. Here's my BOP I forgot to list it! http://smartfootball.com... This is how below average the Patriots defense was last season. 3. "If according to my opponent, wins define a quarterback, it's quite clear who the better quarterback is." First of all I never said wins define a quarterback. I just do not think this applies because Manning has had two extra seasons over Brady. This will be relevant when Peyton does retire and Brady gets those two extra seasons in. So that list is irrelevant. 4. Matt Cassel by the way was already on the Patriots since 2005 until he got his big break learning from Tom Brady and knowing his receivers traits. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... The Colts picked up a guy out of retirement (Kerry Collins). 5. I may have few sources, but all of my opponent's sources are irrelevant. They all come from the Bleacher Report. It is an online newspaper for different writer's OPINIONS on topics. So I may use some of my own opinions, but my opponent is using opinions, but they're not even his own!
Tom Brady is a better Quarterback than Peyton Manning

3k word-count, so let's begin. Pro Case Refutations 1. A. First off, Super-bowls do not define a quarterback. It takes an entire team to be good, that includes having decent Wide receivers to help that quarterback. Tom Brady has 3 rings, but according to my opponents logic, Terry Bradshaw who has 4 rings is better than both Brady and Manning, which we know is not true. [1] Also, according to my opponents own source, Eli Manning is just as good as Tom Brady if not better? He has the EXACT SAME Winning percentage. [2] B. " Tom Brady has always had the lead in the Super Bowl when leaving the field for his defense to hold all five times! " This may be true but there's no source, and my opponent fails to give a stat showing the Patriots defense doesn't help make this possible. Therefore it is not a valid argument until proven. C. Overall win count Peyton Manning is currently 4th on the all time wins record (Including the post-season). Tom Brady is 5th. If according to my opponent, wins define the quarterback, it's quite clear who the better QB is. [3] 2. My opponents logic is once again faltering. So a rookie season defines a quarterback? Then what was my opponents first argument for? No impact here judges, my refutations of point 1 already take care of this. But to further add on, I'd like to point out that in 2008, Tom Brady missed the entire season. Matt Cassel, now with Kansas City (where is he isn't even doing well with a win percentage under .500. ) Went 11-5 with TOM BRADY'S PATRIOTS. What does that tell you about Tom Brady? He has it easy. Manning on the other hand missed the 2011 season. His team went 2-14. Hmm, which team needs their star quarterback more? In the end, It's quite clear who impacts their team and the league far more. [4] Manning has also not had a good offense, Brady on the other hand has the best Tightened in the league (Rob Gronkowski) and some good wide receivers. [5] 3. No source= no argument. This is a debate about who the better Quarterback is, Pro is simply giving his opinion on the issue, no statistic or valid evidence backing this claim. Also, Manning has been voted consistently as the smartest quarterback out there (over Tom Brady and many others). [6] . Maxed Character Lim. Sources: [1] . http://bleacherreport.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://bleacherreport.com... [5] . http://bleacherreport.com... [6] . http://bleacherreport.com...
Tom Brady is a better Quarterback than Peyton Manning

Okay, so my argument is based on three things: 1. Playoff wins and Super Bowls/ clutch performances 2 Succeeded from an early time in the league 3. Can blend with any player he's pieced with. 1. Playoff wins and Super Bowls/ Clutch Performances As we all know Tom Brady has three Super Bowls (2001, 2002, and 2004) and he also wins almost 3/4 of all playoff games in history. As he is 16-6 with a .727 winning percentage. He ranks 1st on this list. While Peyton Manning doesn't even crack the top ten! Peyton only 13th on that list below .500 in wins and loses. Peyton only has one Super Bowl (2006). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... Another thought is that Tom Brady has always had the lead in the Super Bowl when leaving the field for his defense to hold all five times! 2. Tom Brady has succeeded from an early time in the league. Once Brady was the starting quarterback he delivered by starting a dynasty in New England using Bledsoe's weapons to his advantage. Passing over 60% and a passer rating about 87 in the 2000 season. And he just went up from there. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... While Manning lead the league with the most interceptions and didn't even take his team to the playoffs that 1998 season (The 1st year he started). Manning was selected 1st as the 1st pick in the 1998 draft while Brady was selected in the 6th round in the 2000 draft. Now you tell me who they expected to produce first! 3. Brady can blend with any player he's pieced with. Let's be honest here Brady has barely known these Patriot wideouts when given the reigns. While all of the Colt wideouts have been placed around Manning. The only receiver in recent memory who could not work with Brady or the Patriots in general was Chad Johnson (or back then Chad Ochocinco). The only reason that didn't work out is because he couldn't learn the playbook. But this is probably the biggest reason I feel this way about Brady! He knows what to do and how to do it. So now I give you the floor Chicken and let you speak your rebuttal! P.S. I might have to get that KFC meal deal, it sounds really good!
Tom Brady is a better Quarterback than Peyton Manning

Just to clarify, BOP is still on Pro, Con will refute Pro's arguments and give case in the 2nd round. Without further adeau, I await Pro's case. PS: Try a KFC 2 piece with a side and a biscuit for just $3.99 USD. (Order from Koopin) For some reason i can't post any pictures without receiving an error message also...
chicken or egg came first- i argue the egg

I suppose whether or not a concession can be retracted will be decided by the voters. Regarding the spirit of the debate, I fail to see how PRO's opening comments suggest a parent chicken. In fact, I would suggest that PRO's whole discussion of DNA negates that line of discussion, as the genetic code (DNA) of the adult chicken is "written" at fertilization. My point about the chicken coming into existence before the egg remains unchallenged.
chicken or egg came first- i argue the egg

well, i'm not sure how retracting concessions would work, but i think i might retract it, or consider it. it is more than the spirit of the debate, but the clear intent, that we are asking about the chicken egg or the parent chicken, which came first? con in his opening statement is trying to equate "chicken" with the embryonic chicken, clearly missing the intent of the debate, as again that 'chicken' reference was clearly referring to the egg's parents. i suppose i could be faulted for not being technically correct, in that *some* chicken came first, the chicken that turned into the egg. but at least it was not the chicken that was being referred to in the opening proposition of the debate. we both could be faulted for our approach, but i would contend that my approach was at least less egregious.
chicken or egg came first- i argue the egg

I will be arguing that the chicken came before the egg. Since PRO has not offered one, I will now present a definition for “egg:” “An oval or round object laid by a female bird, reptile, fish, or invertebrate, usually containing a developing embryo [1]. ” The Chicken Comes First With that out of the way, I would like to say that I accept everything PRO has argued to this point. However, PRO fails to take into account the details of chicken development. In the development of a chicken embryo, we start with an oocyte, the cell that will be fertilized and eventually become the next generation of chicken. After ovulation, the oocyte is fertilized in the oviduct, after which numerous things happen, including the addition of a membrane which will become the egg white, and finally, just before the egg is laid, the shell is added [2]. PRO has done an excellent job describing how there is a line drawn where an animal is a new species from a genetic point of view. Regardless of where in history this this took place, the genetic changes were present in the fertilized conceptus before the egg formed around it. Before the membranes and shell I described formed, the embryo could not be considered an egg because it is not an “oval or round object” capable of being laid by a female. Therefore, the chicken came before the egg. Sources: [1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] . http://www.enchantedlearning.com...
chicken or egg came first- i argue the egg

answer: the egg. the lithmus test for whether the chicken or egg came first, should be a defined list of DNA being met. science is inexact in listing what constitutes a species. if the animal meets criteria like two wings a beak two chicken legs etc, then it is a chicken. the problem is that this is an inexact science. it is sufficient for everyday use, sure. but a line has to be drawn. how do we draw it? the only way is to make a criteria in DNA and stick to it. we run into a problem similar to someone trying to sell something. a man wants to sell his 57 chevy for ten thousand. would be take a penny less? sure. two pennies? you see where i'm going with this. the man must set a limit. 9500 and not a penny less? so someone were to offer him a penny less and he doesn't take it, is it really a firm limit? in practice, the man might take it, but we all know a point must be drawn. in practice, scientists might take less than a nucleotide or piece of DNA, but a point must be drawn. what constitutes a chicken then will have a firm limit. in the line of chicken like animals before a chicken, there will be close calls no doubt. but it will be one animal that will evetually fill the criteria, meet the DNA match's minimum. and that animal will be first an egg, which hatches into the chicken that meets the match. practically, the parents of the chicken might be called chickens in everyday use, but a line indeed must be drawn, so they technically are not chickens.
Religion must end on the planet to create global unity without losing God and his virtues

If your not following any particular religion, then you have basically made your own religion. Doing this opens large gaps in what you can know. Please tell me your answers to these questions that one might know from their religion. How did the universe come into being? Why do we have to worship God? How do we know God exists? Is there any moral code, or de we just do what we think is right? What happens after death? These types of questions are why I would not want to give up my religion. I look forward to your reply!
Religion must end on the planet to create global unity without losing God and his virtues

I have understand your argument perfectly and your definition of God from the dictionary has proven my point based on the word "personal". You my friend are locked into conventional lines of thinking by constantly linking God to religion. The true essence of ones God is a personal relationship that can be based on any line of thinking. You are looking at it from inside the box which is what most people do. The linkage between God and religion is very common because it dominates the world. This does not mean it is the only way to have a relationship with God. My God combines the best of many religions, spiritualism, personal beliefs about how to treat people in your day to day and other concepts. I roll it into a concise package that allows me to pray daily and to have a firm belief in a power greater than myself. The so called all-mighty referred to in the definition. My only point was that the current religious options on the planet are not reducing conflict and are not guiding large amounts of the population in a moral direction. In fact I would argue that the opposite is occurring and this is a reflection on religion's limitations. People are not connecting to scripture and in most cases are twisting it to enable darker forces. Since this is the case I believe in a new way of approaching ones relationship with God. A blended system that maintains the good and discourages dark thinking. A holistic approach...The heart and the mind combined to create a compassionate and logical approach that solves problems and cares about others. How one gets there is there choice but belief in a power greater than oneself allows for a humble conversation to take place. This conversation is the relationship and it is answered if you are willing to see God's work.
Religion must end on the planet to create global unity without losing God and his virtues

According to google dictionary (. https://www.google.co.nz...) a reiligion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. " How then can you believe in God but not be religious? You mention spiritualism as "a current format that many people believe in that does not follow any specific religious ideology". That is simply not correct, because it is a religion. Take these search result titles as examples of reliable sources that agree with me: "spiritualism (religion) -- Encyclopedia Britannica " "BBC - Religion: Modern Spiritualism". Also you used the words "relationship with God". In most religions people don't have a personal relationship with their God/gods. Therefore I assume you have some sort of Christian background. You may not believe in the Bible, but that doesn't completely separate you from Christianity. You need to have some way of knowing what kind of god you have. Many of the Hindu gods for instance have made morally wrong which would not promote "love and unity among all of humanity". Open this link to see what I mean: . http://upload.wikimedia.org... Lastly, why not just chose a religion that has not "become distorted and corrupt as it has been manipulated to achieve non-Godly ends" for everyone to believe in? People need to have some background to God, or what they won't know what he stands for.
Religion must end on the planet to create global unity without losing God and his virtues

Your point about a belief in God requiring a religious path is deeply flawed. Many aspects of religion are positive and in line with Godly attitudes but it is not a requirement to follow a specific religion to incorporate God into ones life. Spiritualism is a current format that many people believe in that does not follow any specific religious ideology. God is identified through nature, good deeds, respect to the planet and other concepts that show a keen awareness of a higher power. Religion is one path to God that many identify with because of the historical relevance it has on our planet. In many cases religion has become distorted and corrupt as it has been manipulated to achieve non-Godly ends. This was my core point. The manipulation of religious texts has caused great conflict on the planet as seen by the holy three religions based out of Jerusalem. Believers in God can steer away from religion and still have a powerful relationship with God. This relationship with God can be on any term they desire. Respect for humanity and a desire to make a positive difference are some of those ideals. It is not for anyone to judge ones relationship with God. My point was to achieve Godliness without identifying with religion or to take the best of religion and to combine it with a spiritual approach that gives one a clear path throughout life. Many religious preachers would call this heresy but in judging they are showing there true fear. Religious institutional motivations in today's world are confusing, manipulative, false and competitive. These in my opinion are not Godly concepts that give people the guidance down the path they search for. A new way must be developed and this is my evolutionary point. Taking the good from religion and openly recognizing where religion is now are key components to developing this new system. God is great but I do not need a religion to guide me down a moral and just road and I pray daily to God.
Religion must end on the planet to create global unity without losing God and his virtues

First of all, I would like to state that by definition you cannot believe in a god without religion. I therefore assume that what you mean to say is that you believe that everyone should believe in a god without knowing anything about the god. What would be the point of that? You might as well be Atheist. The only reason for believing in a god but not a god of any particular religion would be that you didn't believe in evolution. From your BoP however, I assume that you do believe in evolution. Also "God's virtues" depend on which god you are speaking of. So you see, there must be some religious background to any God or having one will not provide any moral obligations.
Religion must end on the planet to create global unity without losing God and his virtues

Religion splits humanity and divides the population into multiple factions. God promotes love and unity among all of humanity. This is why religion does not work on our planet as it goes against a universally accepted godly principle of love and unity. If humanity could agree on a simple concept of God without needing it to be connected to religion there would be less conflict on the planet. Most of the worlds conflicts can be linked to religious viewpoints. This fact has been a prominent theme for our entire existence. The three major religions of the world (Christianity, Islam & Judaism) each have numerous subdivisions within them. This developed over history because people could not agree on a simple God concept. I ascertain that most God believers would agree with the concept of love and unity. Religious corruption has split humanity into numerous global groups that fight to influence and convert rather than to promote love and unity among all. Religion has become a divisive force rather than a unifying one. God's wonder is evident everywhere in nature. This would be a universal concept to unite humanity and to keep Gods faith strong among all. Instead we kill each other over our religious differences. Any person who goes through life with love and respect is Godly but the current world highlights examples of the opposite. The Middle East is the prime example of religious conflict. It is our evolutionary requirement to rid ourselves of religious divisiveness and to unite over simple Godly concepts of love, unity, nature and cohesiveness. We must evolve away from fear, violence, doubt, lies, and corruption. Religion in its current form is not supporting this evolutionary requirement. We have tried religion in its current forms for two thousand years and our conflicts grow more intense and more confusing. Underlying all of these conflicts is religious ideology. Losing the religious identity and maintaining godly concepts is the freedom and harmony needed.
Hulk is awesome

I accept. PRO has the full burden of proof to demonstrate that the hulk is awesome. Note that he cannot merely argue this subjectively; the resolution requires that he prove, objectively, that the hulk is awesome. If he concedes that awesomeness is subjective, in which case people will disagree on whether or not things are awesome, this resolution boils down to his mere opinion, and thus you default to CON. To win, he must provide and defend a framework for objective awesomeness and then explain