BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Best NFL Current NFL Quarterback (Disregarding Injuries, etc.)

>Before moving on, I would like readers to notice that my opponent hardly recognizes the existence of my first argument and therefore, he drops it and forfeits all of the points made. >My opponent refers to Manning's great 2005 season in his opening remarks. Though this was a very good season, I think my opponent meant the 2004 season. Though he mentions this, he does not, however, mention Tom Brady's great season last year. Brady's 2007 year was even more historic than Manning's. In addition to going 16-0, Brady had 50 touchdown passes, one more than Manning's mark of 49. He also had more yards, 4,806 to 4,557. His completion percentage was also higher than Manning's, 68.9 to 67.6. >One thing that my opponent does not mention is that Peyton Manning has had much better receivers to throw the ball to (career). He had a set of the most excellent players in the league at the time. At receiver he had Marvin Harrison (Pro Bowler), Reggie Wayne (now a Pro Bowler), Brandon Stokley (over 1,000 yards), a tandem of Marcus Pollar and Dallas Clark at Tight End, and a Pro Bowl running back in Edgerin James. Tom Brady had nothing near this until 2007, during which hiis numbers outshone Manning's vastly. >I do not understand what my opponent means by "accuracy cannot be determined by accuracy. " This contradicts itself. Accuracy can be determined by a touchdown to interception ratio. Brady's is better, 2.29 to 1.99. >My opponent says that Peyton Manning's arm strength is extremely high. While this is true, so is Brady's. >When my opponent says that Manning was sacked less than Brady (career) he does not take into account that Manning has had better offensive lines his entire career. >My opponent heralds Manning as having "intelligence unparalled in football" because he calls plays so often. Calling plays does not actually prove any intelligence. Touchdowns to interceptions ratios do justice here for not only this but all of the categories. Manning's is 1.99 while Brady's is higher at 2.29. >My opponent closes by commenting on Manning's higher quarterback rating, but Manning, in fact, had better receivers and offensive lines throughout his career so this would obviously be true.
Best NFL Current NFL Quarterback (Disregarding Injuries, etc.)

>My choice as the best current NFL quarterback is Tom Brady. He is currently injured, but he has broken many records and continues to shine as the quarterback of the New England Patriots. Here are some records and achievements of his: * Highest single-game quarterback rating: 158.3 (at Miami, October 21, 2007) * Highest single-season quarterback rating: 117.2 (2007) * Highest total passing touchdowns in a game: 6 (at Miami, October 21, 2007) * Highest total passing touchdowns in a regular season: 50 (2007) NFL Record * Highest total passing yards in a game: 410 (vs. KC, 2002) * Highest total passing yards in a season: 4,806 (2007) * Lowest interception total, season (minimum 2 starts): 8 (2007) * Largest touchdown to interception difference: +42 (2007) NFL Record * 87–24 (regular season), 101–27 (career) as a starter * 19.05 passing attempts per touchdown (career) * 43.35 passing attempts per interception (career) * 7–0 (career) in overtime games * 27–5 (career) vs NFC teams * 84–1 (regular season) when the Patriots have a lead at any time in the fourth quarter * 28 game-winning drives after a Patriots' fourth-quarter tie or deficit * NFL record for most consecutive wins in post season: 10 (broke record of Green Bay's Bart Starr). * Most consecutive post season wins (college and professional combined): 12 * 3 Super Bowl victories * 2 Super Bowl MVP awards * Most completions in a Super Bowl (32 in Super Bowl XXXVIII) * Most career Super Bowl completions (100 in four games) * Highest completion percentage in a single game, minimum 20 attempts (26 of 28, 92.9%, against Jacksonville in 2007 AFC Divisional round) It is amazing that he completed 26 of his 28 passes, let alone Brady had to play against the tremendously talented defense of the Jacksonville Jaguars. He had two huge completions in this game of 33 and 53 yards. He also had 3 touchdown passes. Having the most touchdown passes in a season speaks for itself, especially at such a high number as 50. Tom Brady's leadership and ability to win games is phenomenal, including an amazing record in both the regular season and the postseason. Brady was won 3 of 4 Super Bowls he's played in.
stuff

No, we should not have better school lunches[1]. This is because...A) Kids just throw away half of the food anyway.B) Kids need to work in order to eat. Therefore, they don't deserve lunch's.C) There is not enough money with this bad economy to waste on lunch's.D) Kids abuse the food. (ex. food fights)E) There are many problems with lunch's due to the fact that many people are so fat.Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Playstation 3 is a better console than the Xbox 360.

I often hear how much better the Xbox is better than Playstation, and for a while believed it. Until I bought the PS3. Since than, in my mind the Xbox doesn't have a leg to stand on in a battle with the PS3. The Pros (That Xbox can't offer): 1) Bluray- We all now that Bluray players are often over $100 dollars, but if you have a true HD TV, you will know that Bluray is worth it. Stunning Picture quality and functionality make it the top dog of the portable media world. So it only makes sense that a gaming console with Bluray is not only a good value for bundle purposes, but can offer superior picture and sound. 2) Online Play- Who likes saving money? If you answered "I don't," then you must have some serious cash to burn and I'm not sure why you are wasting your time reading this debate when you could be driving your Porsche. So we all like saving money, especially when it comes to things that shouldn't cost anything at all. The perfect example is online play. Xbox Live is a fantastic online experience for your Xbox, if you want to be handing over cash for something that costs the provider nothing. To be fair the price is at a perfect level...for Microsoft. It is not so unreasonable that people will refuse to pay it, but is is still about as much as you are paying for Netflix per month. Playstation Network on the other hand has many if not all of the same features for FREE. You can't beat free no matter how hard you try. 3) Exclusives- Each console has their exclusive games that often sell really well, take classic Mario Kart for example. But between the Xbox and the Playstation, the Edge would have to go to our friends at Sony. Sure Halo swept the first person shooter world for a while, but with MW3 and Battlefield 3 in the market now, Halo has lost its luster. But in the case of the Playstation, long time series like Ratchet and Clank (PS exclusive by the way)have no match on the Xbox. Even newer series like Uncharted and Little Big Planet have as of yet to see anything come even close in production quality and sheer imagination (mostly with LBP.) In conclusion, the Xbox is a quality console, but when the topics of feature and price come to the table, it becomes less and less of a contest.
The Playstation 3 is a better console than the Xbox 360.

first my opponent claims that the xbox is 4GB, Mine came with a hard drive that has 60 GB and i payed 10 extra. This is what i meant and i wasnt clear. This debate is about better console. My opponent is mentioning other things like hardware for the console. Now yes i know the definition of a console and i have to say my opponent is not speaking about the gaming efforts of this system. I thank my opponent before i start my counters and opening statement. "Counter ("You failed to. .. ")- I did not bring up sales of games because the source you gave included only top games, in which I might add; that the ratio is only 13:9 in favor of the Xbox, not a very big spread when all the rest went to Nintendo. " The source i gave was clear on the top games. This is Ps3 vs Xbox but it also matters which one does better in sales which you wont denie Xbox wins. Blue ray is a great addition i agree but these consoles were detemined to be game consoles. If you think this isnt true then look at Ps2 which was mainly for gaming and nothing else really. Same for original xbox. Yes you do pay for xbox but you get exclusives on some games and a better community. A better community can be defined as-more players, more people online. You can argue it isnt but it is the biggest community. You can argue ps3 lets you surf web. Xbox does now to but this is irrlevant. Like i said its a gaming system mainly not a computer. People do buy it to play games if they didnt theyd stick with their computer. My xbox has a 60 gb hard drive. In the last three years i still have Gb's left so i dont need extra room. You could argue the ps3 games dont break easy. Xbox has a feature where you install games so if they do get scratched you can play anyway. Xbox wins in things like Bigger community, kids friendly due to parent locks, sales and more Reasons i beleive Xbox is better: -you pay for a better expeicene and some times get things earlier -It was infact voted ebst online community and sorry i dont have a source -beats ps3 in sales and game version ratio of 13:9 -Great tech support,proven as glitches have lasted longer on ps3 then xbox. Feel free to read forums -Kinect makes a big diffrence and has the top selling game as of jan 25 -You can surf web -You can create an avatar -Its really user friendl yin a creative sense -high tech security system and hasnt crashed in a while as ps3 had a crash about 3 months ago -Dashboard very polished since update -Addons,Demos,game content upload quick and updates -Xbox live parties were there before ps3 and xbox had it first. :)
The Playstation 3 is a better console than the Xbox 360.

The xbox community is clearly enjoyable. Not an opinion if you looked at my source you would have seen it broke the record for most people on Xbox live at once. Obviously people enjoy the community more than they dislike it. Its not opinion cause statistics show that more people buy and play on the Xbox community. Virtual goods cost time. Developers use their equipment time and money. So its fair people should pay. Great support is not an opinion. Go to Forum, ask anyone. Microsoft is always up to date and responds quickly to the community. Ive seen it. PS3 leaves glitches and patches open for a longer time then xbox. You say youve never had a problem with suppor, dosent mean someone hasnt. The xbox dashboard is clearly more organized. Not just an opinion. Its easier to find many things. My opponent is saying my things are opinianated. They are actually proven and facts stated. You cant have this debate without involving opinions. I bring opinions supported by the communiy of xbox and several things. Simply naming this debate "The playstation 3 is a better console than the Xbox 360" is an opinion so their will be opnion based arguments but i have backed mine up. Kinect is popular you may not like kinect adventures but its one of the top sellers and its above call of duty. you stated "Xbox Basic Starting Hard Drive= 4GB PS3 Basic Starting Hard Drive= 160GB Nuff said." This is invalid. I bought my Xbox and it came with a 60gb hard drive please look up facts. You failed to argue that xbox games sell more and sell better than ps3 games. Not an opinion i gae my source at the top. You didnt argue that blue ray movies tend to cost more. Like i said i cant tell the diffrence between Hd and Blu ray. Yes they take our money but in return we get better access. "Counter ("PS3 has a terrible security system.")- Consider this: one of the largest online consumer communities on the planet, hacked. Everyone take a collective gasp...now. It's actually not that uncommon. " You stated that ^ It is one of the largest but it has allowed more hacks into the system than Xbox (a larger online community)Yes hacks happen but Xbox patches them earlier than ps3, this is an example of great community support because the community does complain and does patch it first for Xbox.
Dose God Exist

I will begin by giving my opening statment. Dose the God of the bible exist? This is a very interesting question that has been asked of many years. I have broken down my argument into three major arguments Number One Lack of Evidence and Improbability Number Two The Problem of Evil and Number Three Stupid Design. So let me start off with Number One Lack of Evidence and Improbability, There no evidence that a God exist and what is belief without evidence? People say well its faith but this is not a point in there favor. Someone born in Afghanistan would say that they had faith in Ala. Not only is there no evidence for God it is highly improbable and unlikely that such a being exist. If you think about it a being so complex that he can create the universe and he can read all of our thoughts and hear all of our prayers at once has to be much more complex than us therefor making his existence very improbable. Complex beings only come from evolution, complex things do not simply always exist. A being so complex as a God is extreamly improbable. Now I will move on to my second argument the problem of evil. 21,000 children around the world die each day this is equivalent to 1 child dying every four seconds. 7.6 million children world wide die before there fifth birthday.500 000 women die each year because of child birth. These are only a few of the examples of all the evil and suffering that is going around the world. If you believe in God then you have to believe that this is the will of your "loving" God. Now I will move on to my third Argument Stupid design. Most spots in the universe would kill life instantly, most planet orbits are unstable, there are millions of failed galaxy's, all of the other planets in our solar system are dead, the star formation is inefficient, This is only the universe now let my move on to earth. Earth Quakes kill 25 000 people each year, Tornados and tusnamis and volcanos kill 3.5 million people each year. I am sorry for not making this argument very long but I want to save some of my arguments for later rounds . http://www.globalissues.org... . http://www.youtube.com...
Dose God Exist

I have heard the arguments that my opponet has presented to me before. I said there is no evidence that God exists I did not say that there were not arguments for his existence. The cosmomogical argument is a weak argument. It relys on the idea that we do not yet understand how the univerese came into existence therefor it must be God. To say that I don't understand it therefor magic did it is a very unscientific way of trieing to explain things. Science is always coming up with new theorys and testing those theorys and finding evidence for those theorys but the Christan religion relys on a 3000 year old book that never changes. Creationists rely on the same arguments over and over agian. First of all when it comes to something coming from nothing, the creationists are not correnct when they say that the big bang theory is saying that the universe created it self. The nothing that physists are refuring to is just empty space. According to Lawrence Krauss if you take everything out of space all the particals and radiation and planets and stars ect, that space ways something. Empty space ways something. Krauss also stated that when you have matter and anti matter and you put them together the cancel each other out and give rise to nothing, so if you have empty space the proccess can go into reverse and give rise to matter and anti matter. Now moving on to your second argument. Dose a garden become any less wonderful when you don't think that faries are at the bottom? why dose a rain bow have to be any less wonderful when you understand how it works. Yes humans can apriciate buttey in the world. Evolution is not about survival of the fettist evolution is dricen by genetic variation and random mutation and natural selection. And Natuaral Selection is driven by Reproductive Success, and variation, and variaiton in the trait, and corrolation. Evolution is any change in the herritable traits withing a population accross generations. Now moving on to the moral argument we do not need religion to be good. Right and wrong do not exist, morality is something that changes over time. Even in your bible it says that slavery is ok and misbahaved children should be stoned to death and womeon should have no rights. All these things just seem barbaric in our sociotey this just shows you how right and wrong changes over time. http://www.youtube.com... http://spot.colorado.edu...
Abortion

As a fourteen-year-old female, I believe we not only have the right to decide whether WE think it's acceptable to bring OUR child into the world, but that this should not be questioned. Over the past century, we have just received the right to vote, the opportunity to wear what we want, and the chance to work - however, this is not equality. Men are being paid more, Men are classed more superior and the term "like a girl" is used negatively. Abortion is a big thing, its the decision that it's not the right time to have a child. Whether this is from rape, an unhealthy relationship, unsuitable living styles or just the fact that a woman doesn't want to keep her baby; we should not be called murderers and hated upon. A child is an expensive, life-changing mild stone, something that not everyone wants. Therefore, when people challenge such a heartbreaking decision, it infuriates me. For example, being a school girl- I would find it impossible to stay in education and raise a child, I also feel like I am not mature enough and this would cause a lot of issues between me and my parents. The world we live in is already a scary and unstable place, with no guarantees. Anything can happen, whether its a natural disaster (tsunami) or by man (being evicted), I wouldn't want to bring a child into the world, until I felt confident, and that I had stability. Furthermore, it would already be upsetting to have to make such a mature decision, perhaps without the guidance of my mother - to then be hated upon and disliked, or even not being able to have the decision, is not freedom. It's dictatorship.
Race is purely a social construct

Thanks to my opponent, though he was supposed to post his own argument first, as per the rules. Anyway, definitions. Race: each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics. Oxford English Dictionary Social construct: a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice. Dictionary.com The argument for race as an objective reality is straightforward and self-evident hence the greater weight of the BoP is on Pro to show that it is purely a social construct, which is why he ought to have opened with his argument. Nevertheless... We can agree with the OED definition that there are in fact major divisions of humankind, each with distinct physical characteristics. And we term these 'races'. The fact of their existence is undeniable. Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, Brown people - they clearly exist. Indisputably so. There are obvious biological differences between each race - so obvious I need not list them. Now I am not disputing that major differences exist within each of these major types, I am merely asserting that major types do exist and are amenable to classification. Although race is a contentious issue, lets not presuppose that defining races leads to racism. Lets not muddy the waters in that regard. Is race a purely social construct? Of course not! Don't be ludicrous. Lest all these races were purposely genetically engineered, it can never be argued that race is a purely social construct. Is it an evolutionary, environmental construct? That is, constructed through the necessity of the evolutionary process and governed according to the environmental context in which it occurred? Yes, of course it is. But it's no social construct. It's no consensus driven implicit agreement that humanity made with itself in order to delude itself into just perceiving biological differences that don't really exist. Biological differences simply do exist. And there are broad umbrella categories that humanity is divisible into. These are races. I look forward to seeing my opponents argument. I realise that there will necessarily be a shifting of the goalposts with regards the definitions of race and that perhaps different words will be used instead of race but which will carry the exact same meaning, and I look forward to trying to grasp that slippery fish. So lets be having you... Respectfully, Dann
Race is purely a social construct

It has been said that race is purely a social construct with science seemingly supporting the notion. This view has gained traction, but I believe that the notion that race is purely a social construct is itself purely a social construct and that race definitely and objectively exists. As Pro, you will be arguing that it is at its most fundamental level a purely social construct. BoP Somewhat shared, but the greater weight of burden is placed on Pro. Pro must prove the proposition to be the case in reality. 1st round is acceptance and Pros arguments. All rebuttals thereafter.
Reading books is better than watching TV

Given the same information presented, in the same level of detail, the time invested is not dependent on the medium used but rather the reading speed of the individual being presented the information. Furthermore, there are some concepts better suited to one medium or another. For example, is it better to describe an explosion in words, or even still photographs, or is it better to simply show a video clip of the explosion? The video, in this case, conveys the information better. On the other hand, it is better to explain in writing the depth of emotion felt by one character for another, or to try to somehow convey that by their actions? Much easier, in my experience, to convey such things in print than in actions. In conclusion, I don't argue that TV is better than books, but rather that the situation is not so simple, and thus can't be simplified in such a manner. Books are generally better, but this doesn't hold true in all situations, for all subject matter.