BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
sport is still fun

A question, why--, why would they play the sport in the first place if they did not like it or have fun playing it. Please remember that even Michael Jordan was not a pro all his life. Why do you think that he took it up in the first place, it was because he did enjoy the game. I agree that professional sport is like a business, but at the same time, it is alot of fun for the athletes that are doing it. You do not see Serena Williams quit, she enjoys what she does. In an article from an australian tennis magazine in 2007 she said that she would not play the game if she did not like it. It is people like this that are good role models for children and therefore children see how much pleasure the sport gives these athletes and then the cycle begins, they too start playing and enjoying sport. Sport has been around for many centuries, and even the first olympic games, if this was not fun for the athletes, then i am sure that we would not be celebrating the olympics the way that we do today. Keep in mind that these athletes do not get paid but they represent their country and are committed to the sport because they have fun. Michael Jordan that you bring up is a huge name in basket ball. There is other options that he could take, for example advertising, if it was purely for the money. So there for he has gone back to the sport because he loves it because he has fun playing it. There is 82% of people that do some type of sport. They dont get paid, they do it because they have fun, they have fun not only doing the sport they love but also the social side of it as well. Sport is fun all aspects of sport is fun
sport is still fun

The return of many retired athletes as of late may make people believe that it's all for the love of the game. However, the question in this matter is one of motivation. What was it that motivated these pro athletes to return to their field of play? Let's take for example one of the greats, Michael Jordan. It might seem to the common observer that Michael Jordan returned to basketball for love of the game. Most would not tell you however that he was in the middle of a divorce with his wife and his little stunt with the wizards made Him and the team he owned a lot of money. Professional sports is a business, just like McDonald's. They sell a product and that product is entertainment by the means of talented athletes. People at times fall in love with these athletes and the athlete's price tag goes up. Nothing pays off more than the nostalgia of watching Jordan sink a three just like he did in the good old days. What makes you believe that you have information that can confirm that all pro athletes who return to the game are doing it for the love of the game?
Stay in Iraq until the job is done.

My argument is simple and to the point. If we pull out of Iraq, it will become a safe haven for terrorists. These terrorists are constantly plotting attacks against the U.S. and our allies including Israel. So to say that we should just pull out and let the Iraqi government handle it's own problems is to say that we do not care about the safety of our country. We have lost thousands of lives in our war against terrorism. Every life that is lost should not be taken lightly. President Bush knows this and has stated this on numerous occasions. Truman was president towards the end of WWII and he was hated. Look at how the history books write about him now. I have many friends in the Marine Corps and other branches of the military. Three of my friends have fought in Iraq on two tours of duty. The general consensus is that we have to stay in Iraq until the job is done. They speak of how the Iraqi military is progressing in their training but that they cannot take over full control now. We're their now, we cannot leave until we know that they can fend for themselves. I wish you only knew the magnitude of the first free elections that were held in Iraq. You completely pushed that to the side.
Stay in Iraq until the job is done.

You're great with "filler" and it's information, mislead information might I add, that you probably received from sites like MoveOn.org after you googled "Liberal Agenda." First off, the majority of our oil imports come from Canada not the Middle East. CNN won't tell you that, but the U.S. economic report will. To your question of "whether or not I would put troops on the ground today" knowing that there were no W.M.D.'s, yes I would. No one should ever live under a dictatorship that will kill, mercilessly, it's own citizens. We are the model of freedom and we should ensure that no one in this world is denied basic freedoms. Seeing the Iraqi's flock to voting booths in 2004 under intense mortar fire from insurgents only further confirms my belief that we are there for the right reason. Your argument that the president led us into this war and that it's his fault is bogus. Look at Congress' voting record. Lot's of democrats voted to throw Saddam out of power. The president did what he thought he had to do and I can promise you that in 30 years you will not be as critical of him when you see a stable and independent democratic Iraq. I want to debate you, not your search engine.
Stay in Iraq until the job is done.

Considering the interests of the Iraqi people, the U.S. and Allied troops, and the honor and integrity of this great nation, we must stay in Iraq until the job is done. We may never know if Saddam Hussein actually had W.M.D.'s in Iraq. Reports do show that he had acquired W.M.D.'s and may have filtered them through other countries over the past 20 years. Regardless, Saddam and his government were responsible for the murders of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. There were ordered executions of political opponents and advocates of free speech. I firmly believe that if we pull out of Iraq right now we will lose the integrity and honor that American servicemen and women are fighting for this very hour. We cannot leave the Iraqi's with false hopes. We must defeat the enemy on their ground or we will have to fight that war on our turf, amongst our neighborhoods, and with our children watching it with their own eyes.
Resolved: Pre-marital sex ought not remain a sin from the Christian standpoint.

Well, at first I thought that my opponent had some rare disease with symptons such as not being able to log on and post his debate, but I think now he has forgotten about it. Or just doesn't care. Maybe feels unable to win? Whatever his motives, the vote is now clearly Affiramative. Extend all points. On the miracle he replys to the last post, don't let him bring up any arguments. That would be EXTREMELY abusive. Thank you for your time. =)
Resolved: Pre-marital sex ought not remain a sin from the Christian standpoint.

Well, seeing as my opponent forfeited, all of his arguments and defenses are dropped. Thats usually seen as conceding. Extend my case and all the crucial points, my value, criterion and voters. drop his case, arguments, attacks, and keep in my his lack of value or criterion. Hopefully he'll pot the next round. Well just have to see. I'll summarize in the last round. Thank you
Resolved: Pre-marital sex ought not remain a sin from the Christian standpoint.

I hope this topic brings interesting new ideas to everyone. Please enjoy. I affirm, Resolved: Pre-marital sex ought not remain a sin from the Christian standpoint. To better clarify this debate I offer the following definitions. Pre-marital- Before marriage. Sex- Intercourse, penetration. Ought- Moral obligation or duty. Sin- an offense against religion. Standpoint- point of view The best value for today's round will be MORALITY because of the word "ought" in the resolution. The resolution is implying which is more moral, or which do we have a mral obligation to first. The best standard to uphold this value is FREE WILL. As stated in the bible, God gave us free will so that we may use it as we want. That does not mean there are no consequences, just that we have the right to those consequences. Contention 1- Pre-marital sex isn't as bad as we think SPA-Pre-marital sex matures you When I say that pre-marital matures you, thats exactly it. By having that intercourse, you learn, you care, you love, you hurt, you get emotionally attached. All these things spur maturity. So If you will be voting Negative today for any reasn, vote because it sex matures people. A mature person is less likely to commit a crime, having thought it out first. Thus not only is pre marital sex moral, reducing crime rates is extra moral. SPB- Free choice Plain and simple, God gave us free choice, and for him to condemn us for using that gift is hypocritical. Without free choce, humans are slave to a higher power, defeating the purpose of life. SPC- Sex makes people happy; More likely to be christian Not only does the feeling of sex make people happy which in turn promotes world happiness, it also promotes christianity by making it more appealing. SPD- No reason pre marital sex is a sin There isn't any sufficient reason in the bible that shows why pre marital sex is bad. So, with these reasons we can concur that sex is a good thing. A moral thing. A thing achieved through free will. Vote Affirmative
Resolved: That the US Government should increase social services for indigenous peoples in America.

Well, apparently my opponent just needs some help coming up with ideas. But since I am the con, which means I am against the resolution, I will only provide ideas for my side. First, several terms must be defined. Social services: an activity designed to promote social well-being. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Indigenous: Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment. (American Heritage Dictionary) For clarification, according to the definition of indigenous, the resolution applies to all Americans, not simply Native Americans. The United States has varied and extensive programs designed to promote social well-being among American citizens; including welfare, social security, medicare and medicade. These programs are available to every qualifying citizen, assuring that only those who need the assistance shall receive it. Despite these precautions, some manage to abuse the system and receive unnecessary aid. For example, millions of Americans now rely on social security alone for income. When it was implemented in 1945, it was intended to be a supplementary source of income for the retired. Now, however, Americans lose thousands of tax dollars every year due to this abuse. Similar instances occur with welfare. People are already too dependent on the government. The United States Federal Government certainly shouldn't abolish social services, but they should not increase them either. An increase in governmental assistance through an increase in social services would lead to a welfare state and economic devastation.
Resolved: That the US Government should increase social services for indigenous peoples in America.

I can't really think of anything. If anyone can post some ideas, that would be helpful! I can't really think of anything. If anyone can post some ideas, that would be helpful!I can't really think of anything. If anyone can post some ideas, that would be helpful!I can't really think of anything. If anyone can post some ideas, that would be helpful!I can't really think of anything. If anyone can post some ideas, that would be helpful!I can't really think of anything. If anyone can post some ideas, that would be helpful!I can't really think of anything. If anyone can post some ideas, that would be helpful!I can't really think of anything. If anyone can post some ideas, that would be helpful!I can't really think of anything. If anyone can post some ideas, that would be helpful!I can't really think of anything. If anyone can post some ideas, that would be helpful!I can't really think of anything. If anyone can post some ideas, that would be helpful!
Unstable Creation of the Universe is as reasonable a theory as Theistic Creation

Thank you so much Bannanawamajama for posing an excellent topic. I'm sure it will be very entertaining and hopefully educational. Like you, I find there to be no need for statistics in this particular argument, since the enormity of the topic I think would render such specifics distracting rather than educational. (However, I will reserve the right to post statistics as necessary!) Acceptance: Per your suggestion, I will indeed defend theistic creation, and especially the _idea_ of theistic creation. As you have astutely pointed out: "this is not a debate against the possibility of a God." Therefore, I will NOT try to defend that such a creation actually occurred, but that the idea of theistic creation is "more valid and understandable" from the "standpoint of intuitive understanding" than "the universe starting purely by the phenomenon of physics." I also agree that our models must be able to "allow humanity a conceptual understanding of how the universe began." Therefore, I accept that the criterion of this round is whichever side's model/position that successfully (1) "allow[s] humanity a conceptual understanding of how the universe began" and (2) is found to be "more valid and understandable" from the "standpoint of intuitive understanding." I propose that as a penalty if a model fails (1) we ought to regard that model as wholly invalid, since it does not accomplish its intended purpose. If both models succeed in (1), we ought to then use (2) as our measure of success in the debate. I will contend with the notion that the winning model ought to be a "theory." Since theistic models are not usually based off of scientific analysis, I would have an unfair burden in having to prove that my model is "a valid and understandable theory," especially since we will probably not use statistics. Might I recommend that instead of "theory" we use the word "model," which has a less scientific association? Thanks again for your post! I'm looking forward to this debate.
Unstable Creation of the Universe is as reasonable a theory as Theistic Creation

Hello all, I'm making a debate on the potential validity of the universe starting purely by phenomenon of physics rather than due to intervention by the diety of your choosing. This is not a debate against the possibility of a God, only that a non-theistic approach is no less reasonable from a standpoint of intuitive understanding. Since it's difficult to offer quantitative data supporting or refuting any kind of God-induced creation due to that being a non-repeatable event, I won't necessarily be using any specific numbers in my argument, although my opponent is free to do so if it helps his or her case. I will be supporting the idea of an unstable void, where the idea of what we would consider "Nothing" is infact just a balance of opposing forces giving the appearance of nothingness, which spontaneously breaks down and recombines into the matter and energy which gave form to our known Universe. I will elaborate more in the next round. My opponent will argue that a Theistic approach offers a more valid and understandable theory which would allow humanity a conceptual understanding of how the universe began. First round is acceptance, as well as asking for clarifications if necessary. I look forward to discussing this with whoever chooses to engage me.
All Agnostics are also Atheists

I will begin my half of the round with clarification. If my opponent has further questions of clarification, I recommend they be asked in the comments section, as to not clutter the round. ==Clarifications==I never asserted the definitions I listed in Round 2 were new; I was only accepting my opponents'. In order to make this explicit, I even stated "I accept the following definitions" "for the purpose of avoiding a purely semantic debate. "Nowhere did I assert "all theists are agnostics"; rather, I asserted the categorical existence of theists that were agnostic. The difference between negative and positive atheism is that a negative atheist simply lacks a belief in god while positive atheism asserts no god exists. The positive atheist is called positive because it maintains an assertion, while the negative atheist does not hold an assertion. The negative atheist neither believes there is a god nor that there isn't. A toddler would be a negative atheist, as would an agnostic atheist, while Stephen Hawking would be a positive atheist. For further clarification of positive and negative atheism, see the fourth source of my second round. ==Refutation==My opponent argues that agnostic atheism cannot exist because a belief must be held to be true, while the agnostic believes that the belief cannot be known to be true. However, belief does not require knowledge of truth. Many people believe dark matter exists, but hold at least the weak agnostic idea that it is presently unknowable. The philosophical definition of knowledge [1] requires that the knower believes the knowledge, that the knowledge is true, and that the knower's belief is justified. An agnostic theist still believes that a god exists, but doesn't believe he or she knows god exists. This could either be because the agnostic theist believes that he or she can never justify his or her belief or that he or she can never know the belief to be true. Truth is a requirement of knowledge, but knowledge extends beyond the criterion of "true belief" [1]. ==Conclusion==A person who believes the existence of god to be unknowable, but believes that god exists, is an agnostic atheist, and a negating counterexample to the resolution. ==Source==[1] . http://plato.stanford.edu...
All Agnostics are also Atheists

He has shown a brilliant use of categories in this debate. “atheist- one who does not believe a deity exists or deities existagnostic- one who holds the existence of a deity or deities is unknowable”These definitions aren’t new to these debate, so I don’t want my opponent to get the impression that they are. “This agnostic theist believes both that the existence of god is unknowable and that god exists. ”Yet every belief is held to be true. So then how does he know that it is true that god exist if he believes that it is true the existence of god is unknowable? He/she can’t. This distinction of agnostic theist doesn’t exist, in the same way that the analytical a posteriori doesn’t exist. “Because knowledge is a justified true belief, the agnostic theist holds that he can not confirm the truth of his belief, and thus is agnostic, while still believing god exists. ”All theists are agnostics in this sense, since no theist can confirm the truth of their belief. “My opponent's Round 1 argument - that we cannot believe in something when we can not know if it exists - is flawed in that it asserts that the aspect held unknowable is the definition. ”Can my opponent please clarify this statement? “The definition of agnosticism provided by my opponent, however, only concerns the belief of the truth value of claims. ”This is all that my opponent is concerned about, anyways. I would need him to clarify what he means…“Claims have definition. A theist may believe a defined claim but hold that his or her belief can not be justified or known to be true. ”A theist may believe and thus hold a defined claim true, but this claim cannot be known to be true. Thus he/she say it is true? But this is absurd. Therefore, the concept of agnostic theist doesn’t exist. “My opponent references the two types of atheism, but does not define them. They are the strong (positive) atheist and the weak (negative) atheist. ”Actually, my opponent is adamant in distinguishing between atheists. Still, the debate isn’t about the different types of atheists, just the thing the thing that makes them atheist: their unbelief. “While the positive atheist believes "there are no gods," the negative atheist simply does not believe that there are gods. ”By my opponent’s definition, if a positive atheist believes that there are no gods, then the positive atheist still doesn’t believe in any god. And therefore my opponent’s distinction between positive and negative atheism is irrelevant by his own distinction…“While the negative atheist may be agnostic…”…and they aren’t…“…to assert that all agnostics are negative atheists affirms the consequent and ignores the case of the agnostic theist. ”Then again, the ‘agnostic theist’ is a dead category. What has my opponent concluded? That all theists are agnostics, and all agnostics are atheists. I thank my opponent for his brilliant use of introducing categories, even though they were irrelevant, and his brilliant (but irrelevant) categorical visual. Thank you.
All Agnostics are also Atheists

For the purpose of avoiding a purely semantic debate, I accept the following definitions: atheist- one who does not believe a deity exists or deities exist agnostic- one who holds the existence of a deity or deities is unknowable These new definitions mean that the characteristics of atheism and agnosticism are no longer explicitly disjoint, but have an overlap. Over the course of this round, I will assert that this overlap does not fully encompass agnosticism. The counterexample I will give is of the agnostic theist. This agnostic theist [1] believes both that the existence of god is unknowable and that god exists. Because knowledge is a justified true belief [2], the agnostic theist holds that he can not confirm the truth of his belief, and thus is agnostic, while still believing god exists. I hold a modified position of this, and I know many other theists that do as well. My opponent's Round 1 argument - that we cannot believe in something when we can not know if it exists - is flawed in that it asserts that the aspect held unknowable is the definition. The definition of agnosticism provided by my opponent [3], however, only concerns the belief of the truth value of claims. Claims have definition. A theist may believe a defined claim but hold that his or her belief can not be justified or known to be true. My opponent references the two types of atheism, but does not define them. They are the strong (positive) atheist and the weak (negative) atheist [4]. While the positive atheist believes "there are no gods," the negative atheist simply does not believe that there are gods. While the negative atheist may be agnostic, to assert that all agnostics are negative atheists affirms the consequent [5] and ignores the case of the agnostic theist. The following is a visual, updated to the new definitions: . http://i55.tinypic.com... In conclusion, knowledge is not a prerequisite of belief, but knowledge requires belief. Therefore, someone that does not belief their belief to be knowable may still hold that belief, providing a counterexample to the resolution. The resolution asserts that all agnostics are also atheists, but this is not the case, as proven by the example of the agnostic theist. The resolution is negated. Thank you. ==Sources== [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . http://fallacyfiles.org...