BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Soccer is a more demanding exercise than football

Pro, I offer only my humblest thanks for pointing out my huge mistake,however, I do ask that you refrain from trying to confuse voters in your last round. While you do not feel the need to answer any of my questions or put up- links, I will try to do both while I wait for you to put out a non-semantic argument 1. You asked why I claimed that a football player runs 6 3/4 miles in a game. I did not. I said, "l would like to ask Pro if he would rather run 26 1/5 miles or 6 3/4 miles wearing a 16 lb weight and having people attempt to tackle him." This was an example to express that while soccer runs more, the running in football is done with far more difficulty. I would also like to point out that the only form of football which regularly includes two full teams is high level in America. Only until recently, even Arena football players usually played both sides of the field. 2. This is were Pro was very deceitful to voters, he, while trying to semantically disprove the definitions i merely based my argument off of, he put out only one of two Oxford dictionary definitions*, the second being essentially equivalent to the one I received from Google definitions. If Pro had properly set meaning constraints this would not be a problem, and, as I specifically used a source and linked to it in round one for, it should be differed to. 3. Pro said that I incorrectly stated that contact was illegal in soccer. is is true, however, I meant this only as an exaggeration of the very strict contact rules in soccer, just a Pro said, "due to the fact that there are rests almost every 5 seconds of the game." In fact, Pro's infraction was greater than mine as explicitly said he was stating a fact. 4."Con tried to refute my argument by saying that 'restrictions do not define skill level'. Yes it does. If you take that sentence and think about it...logically, it does. Con's statement can be easily refuted by a simple logos." I cannot even decipher this cryptography. Pro says logos can refute my statement, but does not provide a logos argument. Instead, he tells readers to reread the sentence, as this will cause the logic he mentions to appear. One cannot simply say a statement is incorrect and then tell people to figure it out themselves, that is illogical. Furthermore, even if he were correct in the idea that restrictions define skill level, are constant attackers a restriction to the runner? Are blockers a restriction to tacklers? Are the 16 lb pads a restriction to everyone? Football certainly requires as much skill as soccer. Your move, Pro *http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com...
Soccer is a more demanding exercise than football

Con, I have a few questions to ask you as well...have you ever played both sports competitively? I have and after playing each game, I was totally exhausted after the game of soccer more than football. Also, I have been injured more times in soccer than I have in football. You stated that contact in soccer is illegal. However, that is not true whatsoever. In an 11 minute game of soccer vs an 11 minute game of football, soccer would have almost as much contact as football. You also stated that there is only 11 minutes of intense and continuous playing in football...that is 5.5 minutes for offense and 5.5 minutes for the defense. That is almost nothing. I too cannot find where you got the idea that a football player runs 6 3/4 mile each game. Never have I felt that I have ran 6 3/4 miles or even close to it after a football game. Con stated that football is "far more difficult for the time it is played, it is a more demanding form of exercise" in his previous statement he stated "the question which is a more demanding exercise , not which is a more strenuous game to complete. He has gotten the definitions all mixed up. According to oxford, demanding means "requiring much skill or effort" while strenuous means "requiring or using great exertion". Soccer is therefore demanding because it skill and especially effort while football is more strenuous because it requires bursts of energy due to the fact that there are rests almost every 5 seconds of the game. Con tried to refute my argument by saying that "restrictions do not define skill level". Yes it does. If you take that sentence and think about it...logically, it does. Con's statement can be easily refuted by a simple logos. During my turn, I would simply like to point out that Con has just made a huge mistake because he has gotten the terminology mixed up and basically hurt himself badly
Soccer is a more demanding exercise than football

While I wonder why my opponent feels the need to explicitly state that he has "refuted my arguments", I will attempt to explain to him what they actually were, as I did not see any them undermined in even the slightest way. Pro, I sincerely wonder how the claim can be made that Google definitions in unreliable just before providing a source which gives the same definition Secondly, in my six years of football experience, I find it hard to beleive that a player runs merely 250 yards in the course of a game. i went to your source and could not find the information. Could you provide a link? Is this describing an average player or starter? In my experience (not to taken as factual, as I have no source but my own), even a lineman will run about ten yards game. Though I beleive football has equal mental difficulty to soccer, I will not mention proof to counter my opponent in this regard, as the debate is on exercise, clearly implying physical work. Regarding the other part of Pro's second definition, I remain in my previously stated belief that soccer, while it involves more running, still is not "more demanding." You claim that soccer players, on average, run 40 times as far as football players. Remember, however, that football only includes 11 minutes of actual playing*, versus 90 in soccer, equating to 4x the workout. But Wait! A football player may go 1/4 of the speed of a soccer player, but they do this wearing 16* lbs of equipment, and they do this while being relentlessly harassed by other players. in soccer, contact illegal. l would like to ask Pro if he would rather run 26 1/5 miles or 6 3/4 miles wearing a 16 lb weight and having people attempt to tackle him. I predict Pro will object that be 11 minute point proves him right, so i will negate this argument now. The question which is a more demanding exercise, not which is a more strenuous game to complete. Therefore, because football is far more difficult for the time it is played, it is a more demanding form of exercise. The only other point my opponent made was that: "Soccer does require more skill and it can be proven. In a game, the players are not allowed to use their hands which is one of the most useful parts of the body. They must do everything without their hands and penalized unless they do otherwise." restrictions do not define skill level,the opposite point could be made that soccer players have the advantage of facing opponents who cannot use their hands, while football players have to play fully capable opponents. In the ever eloquent words of pro, I have refuted all of Pro's arguments and stated why I believe football is a much more demanding sport with statistics. I look forward to Pro's next argument *http://online.wsj.com... *http://www.livestrong.com...
Is it the responsibility of powerful countries to keep weak ones "in check"

Did you ever hear of Hosni Mubarak. According to my research he is a bad leader or Egypt. The US helped Egypt by giving them 2 billion. They spent 1.3 billion on military (smart). And .7 billion went into his pockets and the pockets of other government people. Also if you were to help them they might take advantage of you and stop working hard if you are helping them. They might lazy out and not do a good job.
People Should Only Date People Their Own Age.

I would like to start off by saying that my opponent forgot to give a rebuttal towards my to other comments. But I will give a rebuttal to his 1 comment. People who look down on people who are off different age are entitled to there OPINION. When a person says that people shouldn't date people that are older then them, they are giving an OPINION. The people who are dating a person older than them don't have to listen to that opinion. Granted, they can look at the person's opinion but they don't have to consider it. And you said that they can feel weird about people asking them if that's your dad or your mom, but it can be obvious that they are together by there body movements, how they talk to each other, and how they express there feelings for each other. And as for the child thing, they can always adopt a child.
People Should Only Date People Their Own Age.

"Society doesn't look down towards people who are of different ages. i was taught that as long as 2 people are in love, nothing else matters." Society does look down on couples with large age differences. Especially if the woman is older than the man. The older of the two will reach old age faster and get gray hair and wrinkles and the younger may not find that attractive anymore. Also people will ask, "is that your dad?" or "is that yur mom" and make them feel weird. And the younger of the couple may want to have kids but the older one may not be able to.
People Should Only Date People Their Own Age.

okay, i dont believe that age matters in a relationship. 1.) if your in a realationship, it shouldn't matter the age difference between to people. what matters is how much a person likes the other. 2.)Society doesn't look down towards people who are of different ages. i was taught that as long as 2 people are in love, nothing esle matters. 3.) many people are in succesful relationships and they have a huge gap difference.
Should we learn a Second Language

Well to state my primary argument, although I can see the benefits of learning a secondary language, I don't think you quite understand the time and effort that goes into learning one... unfortunately, not everyone is good at it! However, under your system kids up until the end of high school, which is a significant age, will be spending their time learning a language. This is wrong on two fronts. Firstly, is it really fair to force kids whose strengths lie in other areas to do a language? I believe this is simply a vicious circle, if the child begins to fail at the language because it isn't their forte they will begin to devote more time to it so as to pass exams. This child however may have a love of Mathematics and have no plans of travelling abroad, it is fair that they have to divert THEIR time away from their true passion to seek a goal that the nation thinks is "necessary" or "fun" as you put it!? I certainly think not. Secondly, kids at the end of high school will be looking at universities and colleges that they could attend. Many of these establishments are very competitive and are looking for only the best students to study at them, even a slight slip in grades could affect a students chances at one of these places, and where you go beyond school has a large knock on effect on ones life. Therefore I feel it is not fair to make students learn a language up until the end of high school, as the negative connotations that come with it are too great for it to be justified.
Burden of Proof

I affirm, "Burden of Proof". I'm going to assume that my opponent is talking exclusively about the uses of "burden of proof" on this site, since that's what he talks about in his case. "So, no side in debates on this site bear a burden of proving their case any more than 51%. Anything otherwise is unfounded. " ---I don't get what this means. Clarification please? "Each person takes an equally weighted side of an issue, PRO and CON. " ---I really don't think this is true. 'The Latin maxim "necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" explains the rule that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains. ' Albert Sweigart extrapolates, "If I told everyone that I saw a UFO land in my backyard, the burden of proof would be on me to produce evidence that this actually happened because I'm the one making the sensational claim. I don't have to prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because I'm not the one making that claim. The burden of proof rests with the unicornians. " Burden of Proof is why we have things such as "innocent until proven guilty". It's not like I can just accuse someone of murder and the sides are "equal". The arguments presented are equally weighed, sure, but the sides definitely aren't equal. "Why should the instigator bear an excess and undue burden? Simply because they started the discussion? " ---Correct. "If I make a claim, it is your job to refute it equally as much as it is my job to prove it. If I say the constitution is bad you have just as much of an obligation as I do to prove yourself correct. " ---Not really no. If you made the claim that the constitution is bad, I don't necessarily have to prove that the constitution is good, just that the constitution isn't bad, and I win. If the topic/resolution was 'you should run across the beach', the instigator's job is to give reasons to run across the beach. The contender, by refuting only the instigator's points, has already sufficiently negated the resolution, as there is no longer any reason to run across the beach. There is no "equity"; the contender needs not provide reasons to not run across the beach, just that there is no reason to run across the beach.
Burden of Proof

I have read countless debates in which people claim their opponent bears the burden of proving their case. I don't think there should be one here. Each person takes an equally weighted side of an issue, PRO and CON. Why should the instigator bear an excess and undue burden? Simply because they started the discussion? If I make a claim, it is your job to refute it equally as much as it is my job to prove it. If I say the constitution is bad you have just as much of an obligation as I do to prove yourself correct. So, no side in debates on this site bear a burden of proving their case any more than 51%. Anything otherwise is unfounded.
Barbie is a Feminist Icon

Yeah but guys understand fashion too. Fashion is important for two reasons. 1. Can give a person individuality. Not all fashions are exactly the same. They are different and therefore, appeal to different people. 2. Fashion is a form of art. Believe it or not, fashion is often used as a means of expressing an idea or thoughts. Granted, you may not get it but the artist does and so do some other people. Therefore, fashion is important for those who want to create and inspire. And you ask, why not Minnie Mouse? Well, I do love Minnie Mouse but she hasn't really done much. The thing about Barbie is has been many things, sometimes a fairy and sometimes a race car driver. Minnie has somewhat stayed the same. That isn't a bad thing but she hasn't really grown as a character. Barbie has changed throughout the times.
Barbie is a Feminist Icon

While I admit P!nk is awesome, Barbie is still a good start in introducing girls to the concept of girl power. Since you haven't grown up with Barbie or see her evolve, let me break it down for you. Barbie started out as just another pretty face but over the years she has grown to be more. Not only has she inspired fashion but she also continues to break down barriers like race. There are Barbies that are influenced by almost every part of the world. Not only that but Barbie always remains a nice person. Yes, people complain about her being perfect and while that may be true, Barbie has never been mean, teaching girls that it's sometimes better to be nice to the people who are mean too you. Barbie teaches kindness towards people and animals as well. And again, she teaches girls they can be anything. Your turn :)
Barbie is a Feminist Icon

Well, let's be honest, Barbie just doesn't cut it. She just shows that girls should just be cliche girls. Buy this, yap that, all that. She doesn't teach kids that much. Yes, I never grew up with her, but I know enough from the ads that she isn't all that good. In my opinion, a better feminist icon is P!nk. Yes, I went there. But I mean, really. Do we really need Miley Cyrus and Barbie as feminist icons? Get Chell, Faith, or P!nk as feminist icons!
Barbie is a Feminist Icon

I will argue that Barbie is a feminist icon. I doubt there is a toy that has been more conversational than Barbie. She has gone through many changes but one thing remains; Barbie teaches us little girls that you can be anything. This is a good thing to teach kids. Barbie hasn't just been a fashion model but she has also been the president, a race car driver, a doctor and more. It's good to teach girls you can be whatever you want, despite your gender. I look forward to debating this subject.
Barbie is a Feminist Icon

To me, fashion is just whatever I can find in the dryer. At the very best jeans and a hoodie. And, well, I really came into this argument empty handed. So it's time for plan B. Her flaws. As I said before, she doesn't have much of a personality. Granted, a lot of toy personalities didn't have much, but they could've tried to give her a tomboyish look and personality, and I wouldn't be trying to argue about her. And also, let's not forget about her dim-witted, cliche boyfriend. Kevin. I think that's his name.
jfdsbfj bh no lahs

acscuhully htgjntrhrtjhnyryjhtyjtyjh ur hgfjnfghnfghgfhgf esdgfdhgpoint esfdfsdvis dfgrthrthtyrjrt einvalid bvrtegtgt e because retgrgghtyhjyjertergergerthyrhjyjythjyhrhtrhtrhtrhrthfghrgkerkg pro fgbno is btrghrt better
Atheism Vs. Satanism. Is there a difference? Pro, yes. Con, no.

Is there a difference between atheism and satanism? Yes. Many people live off of the belief that to be an atheist means that you worship the devil. However, this would be incorrect. We all know the story of how Satan was one of God's most beloved angels and was thrown to the underground for his sins. In that statement alone is the proof that Satan was created by God. If you are an atheist it means you don't believe there is a God, and if Satan was created by him then there would be no Satan either. Which brings out the Satanist position for those who do acknowledge the fact that there is a God, but they choose to follow Lucifer (Satan).
Should you trust Amazon.com or ebay.com

You have admitted that Amazon is glitchy. This could lead to data being revealed to hackers. Is THAT really trust worthy? Also, eBay is a lot cheaper than Amazon. You can actually get most stuff cheaper on eBay than Amazon. Amazon also sells almost purely books, e-books and book related things. These are 3 out of a number of good reason that I would be inclined to buy from eBay rather than Amazon.
Freedom of speech - should the law be stricter

R2A1:I understand that it would be bad to completely take away the law, which is not what I suggested. How do we determine if one person is really insulting another person, or is just having a bit of good-humored fun? I joke around with my friends and poke fun at them all the time, and they do the same to me. It's all in good fun, and we realize this. Banning insults would also be like banning this playful form of social interraction between friends.Also, again, since the right is inherently universal, it would have to appply to EVERYONE, not just a select group of people. If you're limiting one person's rights, you would then reciprocally have to limit everyone else's rights. Thus, the resulting trade-off would not be beneficial in the slightest. R2A2: I disagree, and instead claim that it is the opposite of what you say for the exact reasons you state. When you're insulting a group of people, your insults are generally varied and generalizing, and thus not too specifically offensive. It's not that applicable to a person, and thus generally doesn't get talked about much. But when you insult a person on a personal level, that's something that gets talked about. When you insult a person, singled out, it's like throwing the gauntlet down and picking a fight. Of course, there are always exceptions to this, such as racial stereotypes and singled out people who don't ever get offended, but the vast majority would fall under the outlines that I set forth. Thusly, confidence isn't going to be playing any role here. When a person is singled out, there's always talk about it; there's no need to restrict rights to get MORE talking when people are already talking. So you're still going to prefer to universal rights trade-off that makes restricting the right a bad idea.R2A3: Again, the border is something to be called into question as really vague and not definitive in the slightest. I could get offended if you said something as simple as "Nana nana boo boo", or it would take forever for me to get insulted and mad, or not at all. There's no definitive way we can catagorize something as objectively "insulting" and "not insulting", thus making the restrictions you propose highly arbitrary.But, moreover, there isn't a way to really stop it unless we impliment a form of spying into the everyday lives of EVERY SINGLE PERSON on our planet, which would only further restrict certain rights, like the right to privacy on private property. I could simply just wait until no one was around before letting out a string of insults to some unsuspecting average Joe, and the only thing that would prevent me from doing that is if there was someone, basically, spying on me at all times of the day. While I understand your intentions for advocating this idea are good, the end results would only be horribly bad and abusive to people world-wide.So, in re-cap of how things have gone this debate:1. By trying to restrict the rights of a few, they restrict the rights of EVERYONE.2. There's no actual definitive line between what is an insult and what isn't an insult.3. There's no way to actually enforce this.
Freedom of speech - should the law be stricter

Yes there are three of us but we are also high school students. A1 We understand that it is not fair to change the law just because a very small group of people is misusing it, but we don't want the law of freedom of speech to disappear. We want to have some rules attached to this right just to make people stop from insulting. All the other people who aren't crossing the line won't be affected because of these changes. They were already following the law so some extra rules won't affect them. The only thing we want to discuss and achieve is that there will be a line. A line that makes it clear when you are expression yourself with freedom of speech and when you are discrimination others which is against the law. We hope that people stop discriminating other people because of their gender, religion or beliefs when there is a clearer law concerning this point. A2 We understand that is difficult to identify when exactly you are insulting. It always depends on the people who are insulted and even the people who are insulting, some people will take it lighter than others. Mostly when you are insulting a group of people it will become hot news but when you are insulting someone personal there is a big chance that that person won't publish that. A person can feel very insulted and find it hard to come out for their beliefs and opinion. We know that when the law is a bit changed and their are rules attached to them that this can still happen but there would be a small difference. People get more confidence and therefore find it easier to express themselves and this will cause insulting people to be more aware of the consequences. At is become ing time that people think a bit harder about what exactly they are saying, there is always another way to express yourself and than you don't have the need to insult others. A3 At is difficult but it isn't impossible. With kids it's more difficult to control but it's probably able to see when people are making jokes or using insulting because of anger and when people are rally discrimination eachother and crossing the border.