BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should video gaming be considered a real sport and taken more seriously

But in sports like rugby and boxing you'll leave the pitch/ring sweating and feeling physically exhausted. Video gamers are definitely really different to athletes. The thing that really stops video games from being a sport is the fact that any sport you can think of requires you to go out, do some exercise and physically push yourself. In video gaming it's the complete opposite. So you mentioned about the two types of agility which is a fair argument. However, sports require physical strength. When I'm doing an exam that is really hard, it forces me to think quickly and efficiently. It requires skill as well and can be very pressurising especially knowing your future could be on the line. And, especially in competitions, exams can become competitive. But exams aren't a sport. And that's down to the lack of physical activity. I hope I've made myself clear also that I'm not saying video gamers don't have skill. Of course it requires a lot of skill. And I have to agree with you on the fact that many sports require different equipment that are also electronic. However, if you go to the gym and use a treadmill it still requires physical activity and strength. Also in the definition of Athleticism, it says "The PHYSICAL qualities that are...". So of course agility isn't always a physical quality and can be a mental thing as well. But the definition of athleticism is referring to physical strength, fitness and agility. I did watch some of that video and they definitely do use a lot of skill and tactics as you mentioned before. I completely understand your point of view and am considering it in my arguments as well. But as I said before, I strongly believe something can't be called a "sport" unless there is physical activity to it.
Should video gaming be considered a real sport and taken more seriously

You have mentioned above that to determine whether an activity involves athleticism, we should check if it requires strength, fitness or agility. I hate to point out that agility does not only include physical agility, but also mental agility, which video gaming much requires. Apart from physical agility, intellectual agility is also not to be ignored. Being able to think, react and understand fast is basically video gaming 101. In order to win a game, the player should think of a strategy to accomplish their own objective, understand and react to the enemy's strategy. This is very similar to many sports, such as boxing or rugby (which both in your point of view, is definitely a kind of sport), from which the athletes need to respond to the competitors' strategy, to develop their own strategy in response to the opponents' weaknesses and strengths and defeat them. The difference between them is that one requires physical strength and agility, while the other one requires mental strength and agility. With that in mind, video gamers are no different from other athletes. Common athletes, such as sprinters, also have many characteristics in common with video gamers. Well known athletes, such as Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt are not only respected for their physical strengths, but also for their endurance and determination. In proper competitive gaming, such as Overwatch World Cup 2017, video gamers will have to compete in multiple rounds or hours, with the longest video game match being at 3:20:34 , which is unlike the other Olympics events, which only takes 2 to 3 rounds of playing to determine the winner. To make a fair comparison, playing video games is no sprinting nor swimming, it is actually more like running a marathon. Video gaming is a very mentally exhausting activity, which perfectly demonstrates the endurance and determination of video gamers, i.e. their sportsmanship. With this much in common, shouldn't we start to respect them just like how we respect professional athletes? In addition, the definition of Esports according to the Wikipedia, is "a form of competition that is facilitated by electronic systems, particularly video games". Other sports are all facilitated by different equipment, such as weight lifting, which is facilitated by the dumbbells. As mentioned in my first passage, video gaming's competitive nature and requirement of skills has already made it a proper sport. Finally, I sincerely invite you to watch a match of competitive video game, such as the recent CS:GO tournament PGL Krakow, which is very entertaining. I believe that after watching it, you may be impressed by their skills and coordination and even start to understand my point of view. With rapid technological development, we should always be open to new values and accept new ideas, especially when the many properties of video gaming already align with the characteristics of sports. Natus Vitcere VS Fantic:
Should video gaming be considered a real sport and taken more seriously

So, it looks like, with the definition, we've been given some criteria as to what a sport is. It does match up to quite a lot of the criteria such as being competitive and I definitely agree that it requires skill. However, we're still left with the athletic aspect to it. You can take pretty much any sport and see where athleticism comes in. E.g. in rugby there's a lot of running about. But let's take a look into the actual definition of Athleticism: "The physical qualities that are characteristics of athletes, such as strength, fitness and agility." So to tick the final box of a sport having athleticism in it, it must require strength, fitness or agility. And in video gaming there isn't a single one of these (unless we're talking about the Wii). And (I hate to point out the obvious) sportsmen have the right to be called an Athlete. And a person who plays video games, no matter what standard they play it at, most certainly shouldn't be called athletes. Especially when athletes are generally the type of people who will run marathons, be extremely strong etc. So while I completely agree that video gaming does require skill and is very competitive, it still doesn't have the athleticism or physical aspect. And to me (and I'm sure to many other people) that is the icing of the cake to having the right of being a sport. I believe video games definitely have the right to be called an E-Sport but not an actual Sport.
Should video gaming be considered a real sport and taken more seriously

First, let's define sports. According to Dictionary.com, the meaning of sports is "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc." While playing video games might not require as much physical prowess, it is very competitive. Example 1: In CS:GO, competitive players will compete in tournaments for as much as up to 1 Million USD such as in the most recent PGL major Krakow. You might say that video games require "little or no skills", or are "button mashing". I cannot agree less, but what you said are general misconceptions of video gaming. For your first point, let's define skill. Skill, according to dictionary.com, is "the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well". Skill is a major factor in these games of competitive nature, such as the world renown League of Legends, or the previously mentioned CS:GO. Both games requires a high level of skill to perform well in either competitive matches or casual matches. League of Legends will require the players to understand the usage of certain abilities of characters to gain an edge over the opposing. There are also items which can be bought and will give an advantage for you, but since you have only 6 slots, you have to optimize your items. These are just the bare minimum you will need to know to play the game, but there are much more to the eye than the tip of the iceberg. In CS:GO, there are many spots that can be used to smoke off areas and be advantageous to your site-taking or hostage extraction. The ability to aim well is also a major factor to eliminate the enemy so that you win. Being able to predict what the enemy will buy or know what to buy on the start of the round is also a major factor to gaining an edge over the enemy. To summarize this, I have listed why video gaming fits the definition of sports and should be a sport.
Gay Marriage should be legal in all states

From my understanding you want to leave this debate to simply benefits of gay marriage and disregard all emotional factors of the debate. I do agree this debate will be an interesting one, especially compared to the debate I thought I was going to get. First off, I would like to ask you a question, are their any real benefits of not legalizing gay marriage? Legalizing it would not hurt the economy or hurt anyone in any way I can foresee. In fact, if anything I believe that gay marriage may have a chance of improving the economy, even if it is a slight improvement. There is also nothing in the constitution that denounces gay marriage. Gay Marriage would also help boost the moral (and levels of happiness) in the country, which we all know is usually a good thing. That is all for now from me.
Gay Marriage should be legal in all states

Thanks for the topic, Pro. I accept. My opponent has full BOP on this proposition, especially since my position may be supported by simply maintaining the status quo. As we begin, I would like to clarify that my position is not against homosexuality or the legal union of homosexuals. I fully advocate civil unions as an ideal alternative to marriage for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. My opponent will have to present an exclusive benefit of marriage that cannot exist within a civil union. I additionally add that if my opponent excludes religion from this debate (as I am glad to) then we should also exclude the mere sentiment of marriage as something which is special or "sacred". I believe this is consistent with our mutual goal of keeping this debate within the scope of the empirical benefits (or lack thereof) of gay marriage, and that we can agree to disregard emotional arguments.
Gay Marriage should be legal in all states

I believe that Gay Marriage should be legal in all states for many reasons, the first of which is because the constitution says that all people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. This isn't my main argument for saying Gay Marriage should be legal, but it is for the way I worded the question. A few rules before we begin: 1. No Religious texts can be quoted 2. Religion cannot be used to justify an argument (adding on to rule 1) 3. I am tired of the "because marriage is between a man and a woman" argument, so don't use that one I believe that's all for now
Gay Marriage should be legal in all states

My case stands in that no compelling evidence has been presented to show an intrinsic benefit to nationally legalizing gay marriage. I have shown that to not legalize gay marriage is not discriminatory and actually has several societal benefits. Not only is all of this true independently, but my opponent has also recognized the validity of my claims by agreeing that the liberty provided by reformed civil unions is sufficiently just. I urge all voters to vote Con. Thanks for the debate Pro!
Gay Marriage should be legal in all states

Con brings up a good point about civil unions and deserves conduct and some other points (If I put the voting system as the default), and that he has informed me about what civil unions are. I would agree that civil unions should have equal rights as marriage. I still think that religious gays deserve the right to marry, (and unreligious gays, but he kind of already made this point with civil unions... So...) as marriage is (most likely) their religions official bond between 2 humans (for sure if they are Christian, but I am sure there are probably religions where this is not true) and, as stated, it would benefit the economy. I kind of am at a loss of anything else to say, I guess I have already used the thought to debate about evolution (I am debating on the side of evolution in two separate debates at once) so, I will end my final statement and say, let the best debater win!
Gay Marriage should be legal in all states

I am not suggesting the formation of any entirely new system or of anything that I would define as marriage in the classic sense. Civil unions already exist and the only changes needed are those which grant individuals bound by civil unions the same federal and legal benefits as those who are married. The purpose of this is not to simply semantically change marriage to civil union, but to depart from the unnecessary convention of marriage as a society. Those religious groups that still see it as an essential institution may of course maintain it, but this is an important step in becoming a more progressive society, especially because this clear separation of church and state is likely more constitutional than the way we go about this now. I still rest on my opponent's concession of sufficiency in my plan, and further state that this revised concept of civil unions is more ideal and constitutional than other alternatives.
Gay Marriage should be legal in all states

My opponent has made the concession that civil rights are a sufficient solution to the proposition. Although it is purely speculative to claim that there would be civil unrest among the Christian community in the event that gay marriage is legalized, it is equally speculative to claim that the homosexual community would respond in a more negative way if we promoted this just and revised system of civil unions. This claim is furthered by my opponent's acknowledgment that a situation similar to that which I propose sufficiently satisfies my opponent's value of equality. I will additionally point out that while marriage can generate some revenue, much of this money currently goes to the church. If we promote civil unions as a federally established binding of two individuals but still acknowledge it is a celebratory event in the lives of those involved, then we can shift the profit from the church to the state and thereby create a better and more affluent America. Ultimately, when we remove religion and mere sentiment from marriage, it becomes an institution that is easily replaced (and likely bettered) by that of civil unions. This coupled with the comparative lack of controversy and resistance posed by my alternative makes it the more ideal.
Gay Marriage should be legal in all states

I believe I have not been informed on "civil unions" (probably because I live in a state where gay marriage is legal) I must comment that this is the most interesting discussion on this topic I have ever have (mainly because I get a lot of people saying the same thing repeatedly), but anyway, back on topic. While I do agree the main populous in America is Christians (a fact that I still feel bitter sweet about), and that Christianity does denote homosexuality, I know that not all Christians condemn homosexuality, in fact some Christians support gay marriage. I feel like gay marriage would cause there to be more money spent (cause weddings cost money) which does not have any negative effects that I can think of. As for civil unions vs gay marriage, from what I understand, civil union means a marriage equivalent for those who cannot marry by law where they live. If that's as far as I can advance the situation of equal rights to, I'll take what I can get, but I do see some issues with it. For 1 I do not know whether this proposal will satisfy the gay rights movement, and that is why I said gay marriage would be better for the moral of the country, because we all know how rights movements can go when the face opposition, and the last thing anyone wants right now is civil unrest.
Gay Marriage should be legal in all states

My opponent has made the point that legalizing gay marriage could (in a small way) benefit the economy. Again, I ask my opponent for specific details on how this would come about and why it is exclusive to gay marriage and not civil unions. This leads me to my next point, because even if gay marriage simply maintained the status quo but provided a new liberty it could be potentially beneficial. However, I would suggest that the legalization of gay marriage would have the opposite effect on the population from what my opponent suggests. [Please note: the following argument is not religiously based, but is based upon simple statistical analysis of the American population.] The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Whether or not the Christian faith is true is irrelevant to this topic. However, the fact that Christianity condemns homosexuality and that most Americans are Christians shows that the level of perceived morality and happiness in America would not necessarily increase. Instead, our focus should regard a reform of civil unions that guarantees those involved the same rights as married couples. I extend my arguments from the first round and close this one with the following points of rebuttal: that my opponent must show the potential for economic benefit exclusive to gay marriage and not civil unions (because without it that contention is invalid) and that my opponent's values of perceived morality and happiness in America would actually by harmed by the national legalization of gay marriage in a way that it is not by maintaining civil unions (thus defeating the contention by showing how it is self-contradictory).
Advertising should be BANNED from TV and Radio

First off, I would like to say thank you for accepting my third debate. As many Americans are aware of, cable costs a lot. Now, when an company wants to make a commercial and air it on television, they would pay the channel station to air their commercial. Since channel stations get a tremendous amount of money from this, they would raise the price of cable in place of the loss of funds from the advertising agencies. Also, many successful directors and producers have started in advertising. Same goes for musician when making jingles. Many people need the commercials that run during the TV show that they are watching to say, get a drink, or go to the bathroom. Commercials are very important for companies especially during Black Friday and Christmas time. Many companies get the word of there products out to little children through the TV. One way that a company could do this is from sending a pamphlet out with the morning newspaper. However this will cost the company thousands of dollars. I know this from experience, my dad used to work as like a news boy and I would help him deliver papers. We had to deliver roughly 200 newspapers in one night. When a company was advertising themselves thought the papers they would pay about 10 cents for every paper that their company was in. Now in the warehouse that my dad worked at there were about 100 people deliver papers every night with average 200 papers to deliver a night. If that company had advertising's in every paper for 10 cents a paper, that would come or to be $2,000. Now remember this was just one night let alone not on a Sunday, where a company would have to pay 15 cents for every paper. I good solution to not having to "put up with" these commercials could be too just get say, Netflix or like Hulu. Where there are no commercials. Once again I thank you for joining my debate and I hope these reasons make you consider my stand on this topic.
Advertising should be BANNED from TV and Radio

I stand against advertising from being banned from TV and radio. One of my main arguments includes jobs. The amount of jobs that will be lost from no advertising is astonishing. If there weren't any advertising for radio and TV then roughly 27,000 people will be unemployed from the advertising. As the Bureau of Labor Statistics states. Many of these jobs include directors and co-directors, set designers, actors, stunt doubles, musicians that write the jingles, and many more. To hear the rest of my argument please join my debate.
Advertising should be BANNED from TV and Radio

Thank you for your robust response. Counter-argument 1: Cable? I couldn"t really follow your first point. When you say "advertising agencies" do you mean the firms that are paid to handle advertising for many clients, or do you mean the firm that is advertising its own product? Also, I"m not sure what you meant by "loss of funds". Either way, you conclude by saying that channel stations would raise the price of cable, which cannot be a desirable outcome for the consumer, and so advertising should be banned. Counter-argument 2: Advertising as a starting point for talented artists You are right to say that talented people have started in advertising, but that is a weak reason to support its existence. Talented people come from all walks of life. Some are known to have grown up in slums and ghettos, but that does not mean that we should preserve slums and ghettos. If an artist really is talented, they should not need advertising as a platform to begin with. Counter argument 3: People need commercials for breaks during TV shows I wasn"t very impressed by this argument. Are you suggesting that we should preserve a parasitic multi-billion dollar industry simply because people need to go to the bathroom? This is hardly the most important question here, but an alternative: why not play a musical interlude, or place short sketches in between TV shows instead? Counter argument 4: Just get Netflix or Hulu Well, I think that you"ve just established that advertisements are unnecessary. If they can work on platforms like Netflix and Hulu, then it is indicative that TV can be watched without advertisements. I have responded to all your arguments, though I"m not sure that you have responded to all of mine. Since my arguments still stand, I conclude that advertising should be banned. a86;