BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
iNVOLVEMENT IN SPORRTS

Involvements in sports help keep you on the healthy side and keep your body in shape. According to the University of Arkansas for medical sciences 86% of people who participate in sports will have a healthier lifestyle and increases their chance of being a healthier adult. Learning to play sports help you deal with adversity, errors and difficult decisions. According to play60.com children and adult needs to get out and get going for at least 60 minute a day. This is a true testimony from a one of boxing well known who life changes forever after his first year of playing sports. His name is Bernard Hopkins and this is what he said this during his interview with espn reporter "Playing sports as a kid, I never dreamed I was learning more than how to dribble, catch, and score. Winning was everything. What else could be more important to a dirty faced ten-year-old boy? But, if winning was everything, it certainly didn't happen every time, and my most difficult lesson began with learning how to lose. As I look back on those days, I find that there is a greater purpose for the many years I spent dribbling, catching, and scoring, for after many defeats, I now understand that playing organized sports has served to teach me the more valuable lessons of life; the lessons of respect, teamwork, discipline, and perseverance."
iNVOLVEMENT IN SPORRTS

"How often have you read a help wanted and where the employer wants a "team player"? Or a candidate that "works well with others"? Well I see it al the time. " So the job doesn't teach the person to be a team player, they already have to have "team spirit" and bring that to the table to qualify them for the job. Same with sports. Football doesn't teach team spirit; u need to have it and bring it into the team. Those that dont display it over a certain period get fired. "How much more valuable are you as an employee when you can put differences aside and get the job done? " The job doesn't teach u to put aside ur differences. Its just a choice you make based on your previous morality, upbringing, religion, or social conditioning. "Sport teaches you teamwork, help encourage a healthy life style and promote self esteem. " Claiming that it does doen't PROVE that it does. This is merely an assertion without proof. How does sports teach you a healthly lifestyle? Do football teams have a manual which says to "avoid smoking tobacco, don't do heroine, don't use greasy foods, exercise twice a day? " Pro never quotes any official writing connected to any particular sport to show us the health requirements set out under each sport, so he's merely blowing wind here. No, sports encourages no such thing. "Encouraging your self to learn and play sports help you become a better person. " A better person? What is a "better" person? Does more fit mean better? Would Adolf Hitler been a "better" person if he was more fit? If he excercised regularly and ate plenty of greenvegetables would that make him a better man after the holocaust? Pro is now confusing being healthy with being moral. A healthy man who tortures and kills millions of innocent people isn't any better than a sick patient dying of terminal cancer. Plenty of sports stars are horrible husbands and fathers. Tiger Woods couldn't even hold onto his wife, but cheated on her with other women. Playing baseball doesn't make people honest, or faithful, and therefore do not help them become better individuals. "With today's wealth of video games and increasing computer literacy, daily physical activity is often times forgotten. Trying new things never hurt. Getting involved in sports may just be a change in your life. " Pro just asserts without proof, and made no rebuttal to my points made in round one, while I replied to all of his.
Government Prosperity

My opponent has failed to address any of the ideas I presented in my first argument. Although she has provided some alternatives to capitalism, she has done little to nothing to explain why capitalism is not a good system to increase government prosperity. She has also failed to provide any insight on her sources - in this case the videos - and has essentially done no arguing, aside from searching for capitalism alternatives on youtube. If my opponent provides a strong argument next round, hopefully this will be somewhat of a worthwhile debate.
Government Prosperity

I think you need to think outside of the box. State Capitalism has many flaws but I dont think its very efficient. And I dont want to drive our species to extinction so here our some alternatives ^-^ 1. The Zeitgeist Movement/ Venus Project http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com... 2. Anarcho primitivism http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.environnement.ens.fr...
If America banned guns would the country become a communist country

In 1996, Australia passed regulation that is equivalent to banning guns. In 2016, Australia is and remains a vibrant democracy. The fact is banning of guns does not and can not translate into a new form of tyranny. The notion that the government is kept in check by our possession of guns is simply a pro gun lobby talking point and has no bearing in reality. In fact, the government technically has access to the most lethal weaponry and no amount of individual guns could ever be equated to a single nuclear weapon, so that notion is severely flawed. Another consideration is the fact that, it was not the ownership of guns that prevented the ideology of communism taking shape in America. It was due to other factors which had nothing to do with guns, a revolution starts because of an idea,a man without a gun but with an ideal is more dangerous than 1000 men with guns.....ideas are highly infectious but guns are not. When America revolted against British injustice, they did not have the guns or military might of the British,but they successfully defeated them. Hitler marched across Europe with one of the most technologically advanced armies of his time,what was his fate? America marches into Vietnam with an army so superior, you could never compare them, yet they suffered defeat? The soviet union, the super power with a military might only rivalled by America was defeated in Afghanistan, by men on horse back literally,so this notion you present trying to suggest that with guns we are empowered is simply odd and obviously wrong. Banning guns would serve to strengthen civil institutions and reduce the scourge of gun violence. Like Martin Luther said,I have a dream, when mass shootings at schools are a thing never to be seen again. So this notion that guns safeguard revolutions is shallow, various militia groups have guns, how come they have not started revolutions? Farc in Colombia? ISIS in the middle east? Among many others. So I contend that this premise is false and ignores the social harm done by irresponsible gun ownership and regulation.
If America banned guns would the country become a communist country

If the government banned guns who would stop them if they wanted to change the constitution or even slaying no one could stop them because it would be the people with hands vs. the government with guns and tanks or what ever they want, so what would stop them from changing this country from a constitutional republic to a socialist country. We would not have the ability to have a revolution because they would destroy us the army we had when we had a revolution would destroy us.
rap battle

Y go swimmin when I own a motor boat,/ keep ya moms wet when I dive in power stroke,/ call mike phelps to toke the marijuana smoke,/ puff, puff, pass then let Mike pipe her throat,/ thats right folks, her lips, tongue and eyes soaked,/ 'cause Mike skeeted, then treated it like I would hope,/sorry loc, please believe I aint no joke,/ I went to hell 'cause God said the devil woke,/ he wanted me to throw him in the lava moat,/ and represent for all of my fathers folks
rap battle

Wow that was killer to a beginner, you got alot to learn if you want to be a winner Im the Michael Phelps of rap but your not even a swimmer So I hope this introduction wont cause you to die of spontanous combustion Your production of bad rap will cause your inevitable destruction You are just an obstruction about to suffer a permanent concussuon Saying that you've been to hell and back just shows that you are pure corruption Ill make this short so you can continue writing raps that will lead to your self destruction
rap battle

Why kick a rap to debate the fact/ that yo sh*t lacks talent and your wayz r wack/ where im at, young cats get slapped for that/ Old school, flip out like acro-bats/ respect ya elders or get laid flat/ 'cause all you tryin to do, ive done way back/ aint no thing new, that can scare me jack/ been all around the world, to hell and back/ the only choice that I give, is to ride on my 'saccs/ 'cause if I do let you live, its to follow my tracks/ so fall back lil soldier talkin general smack/ 'fo I reach to you sleeve and snatch stripes for that/ so anything you type, you better type it back!/ or I'll leave the voters sayin "you aint right for that!/ Lef Illegal
A New Radical Justice System

Since no specific argument has been presented, I will give the debate topic: Pro must prove that the justice system presented above is morally superior and more practical in keeping crime at bay than any other justice systems in existence. I will argue that the above-mentioned justice system is not morally superior. This is to ensure both sides know exactly what is being debating. By providing further support to his case in the next round, my opponent agrees to/acknowledges the parameters I have set. If not, my opponent will present his own topic. If I find my opponent's set of parameters to be fair, I will present my statements/rebuttals. If not, both sides agree to a settlement and the debate shall be deemed a tie.
would you rather have a (pro for) car or a (con for) motorcycle

Cars are neat, I like them a lot and I've been fortunate to have had a few nice ones, but motorcycles have a long list of advantages over their 4 wheel cousins. In my experience, if you like bikes, there's a good chance you appreciate cars, trucks, boats and airplanes, too, not all to the same degree but a particularly nice example of any motor driven vehicle can bring on a smile. Eventually, though, most of us have to choose among the categories if we're going to invest our resources on one or two vehicles (or more) and when the choice has to be made, motorcycles have a lot to offer. Here's my personal list. It might vary from one person to another, your list might have items I haven't thought of, but I think these give you some food for thought. 1. You can fit 3 or 4 bikes into the space occupied by one car. Make maximum use of a small garage, buy motorcycles. 2. Motorcycles use less gas. 30 miles per gallon is on the low end and smaller engines can get triple digit mileage. 3. Motorcycles outperform cars. Sure, some exotic cars can keep up with a Hayabusa, but not many and the cost is usually 10 or 20 times the cost of the bike, or more. 4. You can rebuild a motorcycle if you're mechanically inclined, you don't have to do very much body work. Not being particularly skilled in body and paint, I appreciate this one. 5. Motorcycles cost less. Even classics and collector bikes can often be purchased for the price of a very plain used car. 6. Motorcycle riders are safer, they don't text on their phones while riding. 7. Motorcycle riding can be really cozy. If you want to be a little closer to your passenger, brake a little quicker for the next stop. ;-) 8. Motorcycle riding gets you out in the fresh air. Smell real pine trees, not the scent of a pine shaped deodorizer hanging from the mirror. 9. Motorcycle riding develops your coordination and balance. Brake and clutch levers for your hands, brake and shift gears with your feet, learn to balance at slow speeds, many drivers could never do it. 10. Best of all, there has never been a recall for unintended motorcycle acceleration. That's a start, how many more reasons can you add?
Evolution is a Law of Nature

The pro side will be arguing that evolution is empirically correct, and therefore a natural law. Con will be arguing against the premise. Round 1: Acceptance of debate, definition of terms. Round 2: Introductory arguments Round 3: First rebuttals Round 4: 2nd Rebuttals Definition of terms: Natural Selection: The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. Prokaryote: single-celled organism that lacks a membrane-bound nucleus (karyon), mitochondria, or any other membrane-bound organelles. Eukaryote: organism whose cells contain a nucleus and other organelles enclosed within membranes Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Good luck to my opponent.
Evolution is a Law of Nature

It is known within the scientific community that Darwin's Theory is just that: a theory. Darwin's Theory is a possible explanation as to WHY creatures today are the way they are. Darwin did not say, "all creatures are different. " That would have been law. My opponent has neglected every opportunity to prove without a doubt that macroevolution is law. Instead he repeatedly confuses the words 'fact' and 'law'. In Conclusion, both the definitions of macroevolution and 'Law of Nature' forbid macroevolution from being law. Sources: None
Evolution is a Law of Nature

I just wanted to point out that I used wikipedia for definitions, not anything else. Darwin's macroevolution is a LAW and not a theory, as my opponent strongly believes. "A Law is a phenomenon that is observed and recorded to happen consistently under certain circumstances." First of all, observing a species evolving into another isn't necessary for scientists to conclude that macroevolution is a law. To bring back some evidence from previous rounds: - Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is only possible because of evolution. Bacteria that are originally resistant to an antibiotic will live, while the other ones die. They then reproduce more bacteria colonies; ones that are fully resistant to the antibiotic. This, using my opponent's definition, is "a phenomenon that is observed and recorded to happen consistently under certain circumstances"- a LAW. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... - Humans share approximately 96% of our genes with chimps, 90% with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, etc. This proves not that we branched off from any of these species, but that we all branched off from a common ancestor. http://genome.cshlp.org... http://www.sciencemag.org... http://journals.plos.org... - The layers of fossils show that fossils deeper in the earth are of simpler life forms, while fossils near the surface are modern and complex life forms. This proves that earlier creatures evolved into the species alive today. www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/fossilrecord.html Secondly, my opponent didn't understand my point about heliocentricity. Heliocentricity is a THEORY, but by the definition of my opponent, a law. He claims that any "phenomenon that is observed and recorded to happen consistently under certain circumstances" is a law. Since NASA can capture high quality images/ tapes that prove that we revolve around the sun, then heliocentricity HAS BEEN OBSERVED. If it has been observed, then it should be a LAW. Yet it's still the "Theory of Heliocentricity" and not the "Law of Heliocentricity". So that means that even if something is observed, it can still just be a theory; science relies on pieces of evidence like the ones that prove macroevolution, not observations. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://astro.unl.edu... http://t.space.com... Darwin's theory is Natural Selection. It explains why and how evolution happened. But macroevolution itself only states that species changed over the course of many millennia. The human chromosome #2 was made from the fusion of TWO CHIMP CHROMOSOMES, which should indicate that we once had a common ancestor. My partner consents that my evidence is sound. http://www.pnas.org... http://www.indiana.edu... "we are not debating whether macroevolution is a FACT" Laws are things that are always true and will always happen. Facts are things that are always true and will always happen. Otherwise, the "fact" isn't a fact anymore. So yes, we are partly debating whether macroevolution is a FACT, because if it is real and will always happen, then it is a law. In conclusion, macroevolution is a law, while Natural Selection is a theory. Good luck to my opponent.
Evolution is a Law of Nature

I have never been so sure about a rebuttal, but my opponent is just dead wrong. His "evidence" makes absolutely no sense. For instance, my opponent attempts to use the theory of heliocentricity, saying that I would call it a law. That is regrettably incorrect. The theory of heliocentricity is a theory because it explains WHY we are in orbit around our sun, not just that we DO revolve around our sun. "Macroevolution is an explanation of how organisms are what they are today, not why. Natural selection is considerably 'why' they are what they are today." WRONG. Darwin's Theory is not an encyclopedia of all known species. That would be a form of law. Darwin's theory explains [possibly] why those species are the way they are. THERE IS NO DEBATE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY REGARDING THIS ISSUE. "macroevolution has not been consistently observed, recreated, and recorded upon consistent circumstances, and cannot therefore be considered a law." Incorrect quotation. "The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation." Precisely. This is why we cannot know for certain whether or not evolution will play out as we think it will, or even at all. "The human chromosome #2 has been proven to be created from the fusion of two shorter chromosomes." Correct, but completely irrelevant. "In conclusion, the evidence pointing towards macroevolution is in such accuracy and quantity that we must accept it as a fact." That's all well and fine for my opponent, but we are not debating whether or not macroevolution is FACT, we are debating whether or not macroevolution is LAW. My opponent seems to have trouble discerning the difference. For the sake of my opponent, I will make this short and clear. Newton's laws (i.e. gravity) say that a phenomenon HAPPENS (objects are attracted to one another). They make no effort to explain why. Darwin's Theory does not say, "all species are different than they were." That would be law. Instead, Darwin says, "all species are different from what they were because of a gradual change and natural selection." (a little oversimplified, but you know what I mean). That is theory. Darwin says WHY something happens. I would love to debate my opponent on whether or not macroevolution is fact, but that is not the debate he chose. If my opponent would like to debate fact rather than Law, he is welcome to forfeit this debate and start over. (At this point, I would like to point out that my opponent used Wikipedia as a source TWICE, without explanation or justification.) My conclusion remains the same. There has been no credible evidence to refute it. Sources: http://www.nas.edu... http://www.purdue.edu... http://anthropology.umn.edu... Quick note: I do not agree with the core messages of the above sources. I believe that evolution is a total hoax. I just use these sources to show my opponent that even the highest among the evolutionist scholars believe that evolution is a theory, not a law.
Evolution is a Law of Nature

My opponent"s resolution is the following: Evolution [assumed to be "macro" evolution] is [a statement of certainty, a present tense linking verb] a Law of Nature [an accepted, extensively studied phenomenon that has been proven to happen]. Evolution is not a scientific law, plain and simple. Both the definition of macroevolution and the definition of a Law in Nature forbid such a resolution from being true. This is demonstrated by the following premises and the conclusions they lead to. P1. A Law is a phenomenon that is observed and recorded to happen consistently under certain circumstances. P2. There are no human recordings beyond ~10,000 years ago. C1. Macroevolution has not been consistently observed and recorded under consistent circumstances, and cannot therefore be considered a Law. P3. A Law states that something HAPPENS, while a theory explains WHY something happens. P4. Macroevolution is a [possible] explanation for WHY creatures are what they are today. C2. Macroevolution is a theory since it explains WHY something happens, and thus cannot be considered a Law. P1-4 are accepted facts is the scientific world, and these premises with simple logic provide us with C1 and C2. The conclusions hold true. Further problems with my opponent"s resolution: My opponent deliberately used the linking verb is in his resolution. This is a present tense, definitive, undoubted word used to describe pure fact. My opponent did not say that evolution will be scientific fact. My opponent did not say that evolution should be a scientific law. This is a false sense of knowledge. Until we as a race have witnessed a FULL PHENOMENON occur, we cannot be 100% sure that said phenomenon will happen as we think it will, or that it will happen at all. For instance, it is common accepted knowledge that the earth is made up of various kinds of atoms, as described in the atomic theory. However, we have not actually been able to completely observe an atom in vivid detail, so there is still a fractional, yet existent amount of doubt in said theory. In the same way, EVEN IF scientific evidence pointed to evolution being the reason for modern creatures being the way they are (it doesn"t), we can"t know for sure until we document a species changing into something completely new, i.e. a bird changing into a reptile. Conclusion: Simple scientific knowledge and vocabulary skills make it abundantly clear: Macroevolution is not a scientific law. Sources: http://www.differencebetween.net... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.britannica.com...
InfraRedEd is the greatest debater who ever lived.

I will argue that InfraRedEd is merely the greatest online debater the world will ever know but that greater oral debaters surely have lived. "Ed's unique, flamboyant, unconventional and bizarre style of debating has been lighting up DDO [debate.org] recently" InfraRedEd and other great debaters don't debate orally very much (anymore) anyway. I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. - Dave Barry InfraRedEd is pissing people off. This is a sign of a great debater. "He was born stupid, and did greatly increase his birthright..." About whom did Samuel Butler say that? Please cite your sources. We great debaters cringe at people who just point to a library and say "it's all there." Do the words "peer reviewed journal" mean anything here? I didn't think so. Usually an abstract gives enough info to show that the study is worthless but even a great debater cannot refute nothing. One needs something to start with. Discuss relevant topics. Quit using semantic disruptions. Be serious about debating. Think about online debating reform. What is needed? Serious debaters avoid online debating, and for good reason. Serious online debaters avoid debate.org, and for good reason. Let's chip in and http://www.sedo.com... blow this pop stand and make something that does work.