BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kobe Bryant is the best active basketball player and second best in all of NBA.

My opponent considers a player has to 'win titles' to be the best. Clearly they don't understand that it is a 'team' sport. And without a team around someone, 1 vs. 5 the best will fall. Wilt, as I mentioned, but up 50.2 points as a SEASON (not just one game) scoring average. If Kobe can beat that I'll eat my hat. Chamberlin was incredible, and you want to talk about Kobe winning all those titles? That has nothing to do with him. He won the first 3 'cause of Shaq (you know the same guy D-Wade used to win a title and the person Lebron is going to try and use this year). It took Kobe and LA almost 10 years to build a team to get back to the finals, and guess what? They only started winning when they wheren't solely relient on Kobe. They had Gasaol and Bindum and a bunch of other guys that where really good. Lebron, with almost zero help from his team, almost beat the Magic. And the Magic where a lay-up and free throw away from beating the Lakers in the Finals. Kobe is no 'god on wood'. He's a decient player, an all-star but nothing more. He is not Micheal Jordan, or Wilt Chamberlien. He may not ever be the best player of his generasion. Also, if you look at all the stats you posted about Wilt and Kobe, wilt won almost every stat. And seriously, do u even need to play defense if u, individually are putting up 50 a night?????
Kobe Bryant is the best active basketball player and second best in all of NBA.

I agree with you when you say Wilt Chamberlain is a good player. But, I don't believe scoring more points in one game makes one player better than another. If it is that way, then Kobe is better than MJ because MJ has never scored more than 81 pts. You see it doesn't work like that. We have to see their achievements. Kobe 4ï¿½ NBA Champion NBA Finals MVP NBA Most Valuable Player 11ï¿½ NBA All-Star 2ï¿½ NBA Scoring Champion 7ï¿½ All-NBA First Team 2ï¿½ All-NBA Second Team 2ï¿½ All-NBA Third Team 7ï¿½ All-Defensive First Team 2ï¿½ All-Defensive Second Team NBA All-Rookie Second Team 3ï¿½ NBA All-Star Game MVP NBA Slam Dunk Champion Naismith Prep Player of the Year Wilt 2ï¿½ NBA champion (1967, 1972) 4ï¿½ NBA MVP (1960, 1966-1968) 13ï¿½ NBA All-Star (1960-1969, 1971-1973) 1ï¿½ NBA Finals MVP (1972) 7ï¿½ All-NBA First Team Selection (1960-1962, 1964, 1966-1968) 3ï¿½ All-NBA Second Team Selection (1963, 1965, 1972) 2ï¿½ NBA All-Defensive First Team Selection (1972-1973) 1960 NBA Rookie of the Year 1ï¿½ NBA All-Star Game MVP (1960) NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team NBA 35th Anniversary Team Wilt is more of an offensive minded player while Kobe is an overall player. Kobe is an 11 time all star, Wilt is a 13 time. Clearly Kobe is going to break that. Both of them are 7 time all NBA first team. Kobe is a 7 time all NBA defensive first team while Wilt is only 2 time. Kobe won the all star MVP 3 times, Wilt won it once. You can take a look at the stats for yourself and you will see that Kobe leads in most of the areas. Wilt only leads in a few areas because Kobe's career is not over. Those are players that you mentioned are good but not good enough. Nash is more of a passer than scorer so you can't compare him to Kobe. Nowitzki can be inconsistent at times with his shot and he is not versatile like Kobe. Only LeBron can match with Kobe, somewhat, but he still hasn't won a Finals and needs to work on his jump shot. Also, I believe that Shaq, cannot win a Finals without the talent like the one Kobe possess. Shaq won 3 titles with Kobe but one without him. But, Shaq had another player with him who was like Kobe, Dwayne Wade. Shaq needed someone else who could also do the scoring with him. Why do you think he didn't win one in Phoenix. There was no other high scoring player. Plus, no one can say that Kobe cannot win a title without Shaq because he just did. Kobe Bryant is the type of player that attracts attention to him. That is why he was able to set up his teammates perfectly in the Finals. Everyone was so focused on him that they forgot the others. That is why Fisher hit the huge 3 in game 4 and also why Ariza was able to score 13 points in the 3rd quarter of that same game. Kobe averaged nearly 6 assists in that series because no one was paying attention to his teammates. Kobe Bryant is the best player in the league and is definitely the second best all time. He's good, and good enough. http://www.basketball-reference.com...
Kobe Bryant is the best active basketball player and second best in all of NBA.

Kobe Bryant, is good, i'll give him that but he is not better than a great like Wilt Chamberlain (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Besides scoring 100 points in a single game, and averaging 50+ points for an entire season, Chamberlain established a domiance and legacy like none other than maybe Micheal Jordan. My opponent has already conceded that MJ was indead better than, well look to SLAM magazines top 75 NBA players of all time, MJ's number one, and Chamberlain's number 2. Kobe Bryant is not better than Wilt ever, end of discussion. Let him score 100 in a single game and then we can talk about it. Also, Bryant isn't even the best player in the league, with player like Steve Nash, Dirk Novinske, and Lebron James getting MVP's in resent years to contend with Byrant as best player. Also, what about the man behind Kobe's first rings: Shaq? I think many people would think he's better, and Dwight Howard of Orlando is pretty good to. Basically, there is no way Kobe's the best in the league and the 2nd best ever. He's good, but not that good.
Kobe Bryant is the best active basketball player and second best in all of NBA.

Currently in the NBA, Kobe Bryant is the best player. No one can match up to him in skill and basketball IQ. The only player better than Kobe overall is Michael Jordan. But, in a few years, once Kobe wins more championships and doesn't get snubbed from winning the MVP (Kobe averages 35.4 pts but NASh wins MVP). Kobe can truly be called the best NBA player ever. Also, if any one wants any proof or stats, I will be more than ready to present the stats to them.
winning is what matters whatever be the cost!

There are two types of people in this world, the winners and the losers. If you strive to be anything in this world and want to have your name remembered for centuries to come, remember that it won"t happen unless you win. If you"re just doing the bare minimum in order to get by and hope that one day you"ll get lucky, you"ll never get lucky. You will never win. People don"t remember the losers. No matter how much greatness you have accomplished, unless you are currently winning and continue winning, no one will remember you. People forget the past very quickly. This is why it is one of the most important factors of life. Look at all the great coaches that have been fired because of a bad season. No one ever remembers their previous great seasons when they won almost every game- they only remember the last terrible one. You need to be obsessed with winning because it truly is the only thing that matters in this world. No one remembers the Winklevoss twins or John McCain, they remember Mark Zuckerberg and Barack Obama. Competition is everything in this world and unless you are better than the person sitting next to you, you are not a winner. Life is pretty simple; we are all savages all looking to become winners and will do whatever it takes. Some cheat, some put in the hard work, some get it, some don"t. But those who are remembered don"t just win once in their life but keep on winning. What matters in this world is to turn out a winner, so unless you"re on the right path you"ll need to reprioritize. Simply figure out what it takes to win and then do it. Never stop until you"ve done it. In the end, only the winners will be remembered. Life is simple: winners win, losers lose. now in answer of your questions i would like to say you that is respect going to earn you bread and butter or will give you a cozy life? CERTAINLY NOT! but winning would lead you to the steps of success and in the light of respect issues, money brings everything including respect(atleast in front of yourself)
winning is what matters whatever be the cost!

As the good old fashioned saying goes, no one and I mean no one, remembers second place. Nobody cares how much effort you may have put in and no one cares how close you possibly came; if you don&risqu";t actually win and attain victory, it means nothing. When you win, you matter and when you don’t win, you don’t matter- it is that simple. The problem stems from the way our generation was raised, raised to believe the nonsense that we shouldn’t be selfish and that it is ok if we don’t perform well because we tried our best. Society as a whole has stopped awarding the winners in life and started looking at them as the bad guys, simply because they have done better than we have, and because they might have a bit of an ego as a result of their success. Instead of worrying about them we should be focusing on ourselves and how we are going to excel in life. The saddest thing in the world is a wasted talent and there is way too much wasted talent out there. We should be propelling people to actually do something with their lives and not to stop until they have ultimately become winners in their respective industries. Society tries to create a path for people to follow that will lead them to being only average. It is up to you to break through those pedestrian thoughts and go against the status quo. You can call them whatever names you’d like, but in the end a winner is a winner. Winning should be your one and only goal. People might hate you for that, but that’s their problem- not yours. Whoever doesn’t think winning is a big deal clearly has always been on the losing team. Nobody cares about your journey, your sleepless nights or the time you ate ramen noodles and peanut butter for dinner.at the end of the day winners win loosers loose!
winning is what matters whatever be the cost!

We all want to win. Whether it"s our professional lives or personal, we all like to win. What makes us win should be our ability and attitude. However, some people think differently. For them, winning is what matters the most. They don"t care about what winning may cost them in future. - With the competition we all experience today, winning is what matters. - When people have no choice, they have to win- regardless of the cost. - Winning makes you strong. It gives you a sense of confidence. - Winning makes you competitive. Eventually, that helps you overcome the cost.
Chocolate is a Force For Good in This World

Chocolate Tricks People Into Thinking Their Happy All around us we’re treated as if chocolate is some god before us that we must give worship to. Chocolate is all around us constantly trying to grab is and seductively pull us into that rich, smoooooooth chocolate. We’re taught that chocolate makes us happy and so we eat it. However, what top researches around the world have come to realize is that chocolate is at the center of a whopping 60.004% of suicides in the United States. [1] Chocolate is dangerous. Chocolate is sexy. Chocolate is seductive. Chocolate is James Bond. The point is that we’re drawn in into not even realizing that chocolate is what is destroying us. Every time we give is to that chocolaty seduction (not to be confused with some sexual fetishes) we are actually clogging our arteries with fat and filling our bodies wit sugar. This common “feel good do bad” affect is what has made some of the smartest minds in the world realize that chocolate has affects almost as strong as cocain and heroin. We’re just taught to love chocolate and that’s why it’s so dangerous. It’s so evil because we don’t even realize that while we thinking we’re being taken into happiness we’re really be dragged into hell. This is why chocolate is at the center of the suicide rate in America. Depression is a tough thing and why wouldn’t quirky teenager Susie Lee Jones think that maybe loveable chocolate would be the answer to her problems? She then has a little, and she realizes all her problems have gone away instantly. She becomes addicted. Soon she is secretly going out in the night buying more and more and falling under that vindictive spell locked up in her room until she looked in her mirror and realizes she has changed… No literally. She’s f*ckin’ fat now. Like she gained 60 pounds and she looks in the mirror and is like “holy sh*t ima f*ckin’ fat.” These kind of affects are what classify chocolate as such a strong drug. Very few have escaped its grasp and very both still live to tell the story of their survival. Chocolate is a force of evil in this world because it gives us the illusion of a happiness we always wanted, always desired, only to betray us leaving us exposed to a society full of judgment and full of hatred. Batman Hates Chocolate 1] Batman hates chocolate. 2] Batman hates the Joker. 3] The joker is evil. 4] Therefore chocolate is evil. After the death of Batman’s parents, he become awfully depressed and consumed with guilt. He turned to chocolate to get him through his pain, only to realize that that temporary happiness wasn’t worth the plethora of pain that the affects of chocolate gave him. I mean look Batman. Now Batman dedicates his life to defeating chocolate, one day at a time. I mean I guess Joker is kinda important too, but chocolate is one b*tch. Only something truly terrible could make Batman so pi$sed off that he actually deck a man in the face mid lick like an a$$hole. [1] http://madeupsourcedontreadthis.org... [2] http://yousmelllikeafoot.org...
Michael Moore lied in his movie "Bowling for Columbine"

Well I apologize. My sources come from the fil "Manufacturing Dissent", where you see a live interview with the bankers and get the facts on Heston. You can see more examples where Moore has stretched the truth, and many counts where Moore has constantly denied interviews with the crew, and kicked them of sites where he is making public appearances. Also, your sources are not all that impressive since they are from Moores site, which of course means that if he's lying on the screen he would very well lie on his website. And the other one only says the bank gave away guns, which I admitted they did. The issue on hand is how they do it. If you can find sources outside of his information that would help you greatly So on the bank. They did give guns aay but not like how it shows in the movie. That was made to look like it could happen within days. The check was submitted a month before, not on that day and approvedwithin minutes. Also, only 1 gun was on the bank site, the one Moore got, and only per special request to have it be there on that day, even though there is a ten day waiting period (http://www.opinionjournal.com...) So what you see is a set up. If Moore had come on the spotlike a regular person, you would have seen him fill out the paper work, and be told that after a thourough background check had been performed, he would get the gun after 10 days. Rather, he did this process before, in order to cut the film to look like you could get it the same day. On Heston: He had an annual NRA meeting, which had been planned before Columbine. Moore makes it out to look as though Hestons rally was done specifically to address Colmbine, when it had nothing to do with it. (http://www.hardylaw.net...) Also, his speech is take out of context, including on part that he did not say in Denver, but in New York.(http://www.hardylaw.net...). So he had a NRA annual meeting, not a rally in responce to Columbine. So these two claims stand. He lied by altering the truth. The Gun Bank was skewed, and Hestons rally was skewed.
Michael Moore lied in his movie "Bowling for Columbine"

You know, when I started this debate I was really looking forward to some sources from my opponent. Oh well, I guess his claims don't need sources. #1: The Bank giving guns to people who open accounts http://www.michaelmoore.com... << This is the ad for the "More Bang for your Buck" promotion that appeared in the spring of 2001. To quote from an article from the Chicago Sun Times article which touched upon this very subject about this very bank: "North Country Financial Corp. is exchanging firearms for deposits, giving away rifles and shotguns in lieu of the interest that normally accompanies accounts." Here is an article from Time Magazine: (http://www.time.com...)So it is a fact that the bank was "giving away" guns when someone opens an account, so the scene wasn't staged. Michael Moore, in the movie, is seen filling out the required forms for the back round check. Moore wrote about this in a letter posted on his website: the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922). #2: Heston Comes to Denver Well this is interesting, I actually have never heard anyone say he didn't bring his gun rally to Denver after the shootings. In fact the entire transcript of his visit to Denver can be found right here: http://www.michaelmoore.com... The sad fact is, Heston came to Denver just 10 days after the shootings at Columbine to address the members of the NRA. Yes other meetings were scheduled to go on, but the headliner of the event was the NRA president Mr. Heston. I am glad to address the other complaints about the movie. Two claims down, how many more?
Michael Moore lied in his movie "Bowling for Columbine"

Now, I'll say this right now, I like what Mikey's trying to support in his movies. Banning guns, national health care, its all good by me. But yes, he hasn't been totally scupulous when it comes to actually making the movie. The biggest example of him lying in Columbine is the bank part. I'm sure you remember. He goes to a bank, gets an account, and they hand it to him, where he leaves waving the gun victoriously. Here's the truth behind it Yes, people who signed up for the bank got the gun. But they had to go through a month long background check, and the supposed vault with all the guns was not at that particular bank, but one in another city. What Michael did was not just walk in and get it. Instead, he and his people made prearrangments and where very particular in asking that a gun be there for Moore to take away that one day. So the end result is a clip making it look like bankers just handed out guns whilly nilly every time someone signed up that day. All this information came straight from an interview with the bankers after the movie was released. Another is with the Charlton Heston part. Heston came to Denver, but not for a gun rally, or any huge public appearance. If I recall correctly it was about voting or something. But not a rally. Anyway, the clip of the gun rally 'in Denver' was from something completly different. Those are the two I'm aware of. I'm sure there's more, and I research them for round 2.
Michael Moore lied in his movie "Bowling for Columbine"

I have heard that Moore lies in his movies. Farheniheit 9-11, Roger and Me, and Bowling for Columbine always seem to get the most flack. So this debate is dealing with the claims made in his movie "Bowling for Columbine", a film in which Michael Moore dives into the gun violence in America. So, did he lie? My opponet can tell me, then I will defend Michael Moore.
GOP will win in November

In Wingnut's opening statement, he argued that the GOP will win the election based on the premise that with the surge working, the Republican nominee will overcome the massive unpopularity of President Bush and win the general election. In my view, this argument is too myopic and doesn't stand against all the other overwhelming advantages the Democrats have on their side. Many of these advantages I have listed in previous rounds and sited sources that support them. I would like to also point out that in Wingnut's last post, he criticizes me for citing Frank Rich to support my argument but fails to acknowledge that I also invoke George Will ( a conservative columnist) who also supports my argument. I was careful to include both a liberal and a conservative who share similar views on the state of the Republicans in order to keep it balanced. Both believe that the Democrats have a clear advantage going into November. Here is a list of five advantages the Demcorats have over the Republicans. 1. Democrats are raising more money than the Republicans (This week's Newsweek - 1/28/08 - has a cover story concerning the decline of the Republican party. It states, "Fundraising - the most tangible measure of enthusiasm- is weak. In the first three quargters of 2007 Democratic presidential candidates out-raised their Republican counterparts by 77 million. 2. There is more enthusiasm for change which favors the Democrats. 3. Voter turnout. - "Voter turnout on the Republican side in the early primaries has been weak compared with the Democrats. " - Newsweek 1/28/07 4. Independents are leaning more towards the Democrats. 5. More first time voters are registering as Democrats than Republicans. I do not believe that any single advantage or all of the advantages guarantees a victory for the Democrats or for the Republicans. However, it is clear that the Democrats have momentum on their side and this does not bode will for the Republicans. When Wingnut's initial argument about the "surge working" failed to stand to scrutiny, he added a new argument based on a hypothetical - that the economy will recover over the summer and this will help the Republicans because they supposedly hold an edge over the Democrats on the economy. I immediately discredited this claim by citing a gallup poll showing that the country is leaning more towards a populist agenda which favors the Democrats. In the end, It seems that Wingnut's arguments are based on simple wishful thinking. He has not provided any conclusive, substantial evidence that indicates how the Republicans hold an advantage over the Democrats. Thank you.
GOP will win in November

Sorry. This is my first debate and I posted my rebuttal in the wrong section. Greetings wingnut, I look forward to engaging you in a spirited debate concerning this topic. Before I present my counter argument, I have to point out a flaw in your opening statement. You begin your debate with an assertion that that is based on an absolute: << The GOP will win in November.>> This assertion leaves no room for error. It implies that you can predict the future. Because politics is unpredictable and since no one has the ability to predict the future, this statement cannot be absolutely true. If you began your opening statement with, " the GOP will probably win in November," then your argument would hold more weight. Unless you admit the possibility of the Republicans losing in November, then there can be no counter argument. I will state this: The Democrats have some advantages over the Republicans and this may lead to a Democratic Victory in November. These advantages are based on the following: 1. Since the primaries began, voters have been coming out more for Democrats than Republicans by 2-1. 2. The Democrats appear to be more unified and pleased with their choice of candidates whereas the Republicans are not as pleased based on most polls taken by Zogby, USA TODAY and Ipsos. 3. Polls also show that most Americans want "change" from Bush's policies and this cannot favor the Republicans since they seem to want to continue those policies. Therefore, I believe the Democrats have an advantage going into November and will most likely result in a Democratic victory. 1 Hour Ago