BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
College Football should adopt a playoff system

Fairness My opponent misunderstood what I mean by the fairness argument. I am stating that putting in a playoff system would stop one loss from derailing your own system. I am not saying that great teams should not get their shot. In fact, a playoff system would allow for teams to truly prove themselves. I'll apply a NFL playoff example. A couple years ago, the New England Patriots did not lose a single regular season game, however, they lost the championship, proving they were not truly the best in the league. Also, the current system is unfair as it excludes certain conferences, as I've stated before. An example of this is BYU. They do fantastic every years, but seeing as they are in the Mountain West conference, they never get a shot. Implementing a playoff system eliminates that. Once again, I am not saying that the fans are supposed to be voting teams in. I'm stating that since coaches are half the decision making process, and they cannot 100% make the best decisions, that a playoff system would be in the leagues best interest. 2. Wanted my opponent has stated that competition is fine as it is. However, that is simply not true, as losing one or two games early on impacts your season so much that basically there is not much left to fight for, and competition goes down. I never said that not having a playoff system would diminish popularity, I am saying that implementing one will INCREASE popularity, and how can that not be a good thing? 3.Revenue My opponent basically proposed a counter plan of adding more regular season games, however, that does not solve the problems of popularity and fairness like a playoff system does, and having playoff games can lead to just as much, if not more, revenue than adding regular season games. So looking at the debate, the Pro side is clearly right because a playoff system is more just, it is wanted by an extraordinary margin, and overall revenue would increase, it is obvious that college football should implement a playoff system.
College Football should adopt a playoff system

1.Fairness My opponent states that adopting a playoff system would prove beneficial because it would make it easier for teams to get in. Is this an argument? I already stated that it is hard to get in only so that the best of the best teams get in. This means that only teams who really deserve it have a chance at winning the championship. This makes every college football game as good as a playoff game. Because you're not getting in if you miss more than a game or two. It mixes all of the rigidness used to pick the best teams with the suspensefulness of being in a do or die position. To respond that a playoff system would lead to more fairness, having experts decide who gets in is about as fair as it gets. The media who cover the games and obsess over stats more than any fan and coaches who are inside the industry. They're the people with real experience in college football. I'd say they're qualified. 2.System is wanted "Implementing a playoff system will lead to increased competition, more people watching, and ultimately more fairness and revenue." I already stated that competition is increased much more when teams are forced to play like they are already in the playoffs during the regular season. If you lose a gamae you're basically out. This is similar to implementing a playoff system but through the whole season. Every game is important. Also just because there is not a playoff system does not mean people will not watch. Humans can't naturally breathe underwater but that hasn't hindered the popularity of beaches as premiere travel destinations I responded to your fairness contention earlier. 3.Revenue Your argument was that because more games would be being played, more revenue would stream in. Why not simply apply this to the regular season? The regular season is already as exciting as it gets with commpetition growing as teams cannot afford to lose any games. The regular season is similar to a playoff system in that basically, once you lose you're out. I believe that adding more regular season games would actually bring in more revenue than introducing a playoff system.
College Football should adopt a playoff system

Thank you for accepting the challenge. I thought no one would for a second! 1. Fairness. I bring up the bias argument because the people voting for the teams to get into the BCS are coaches, who I stated already could not really be knowledgable in their decision as they are preparing their team for the week ahead. Also, the media votes as well. Now this can lead to a bias. The way the NFL's playoff system is set up, one or two losses doesn't completely destroy your season like the current NCAA system. Looking to another NCAA sport, basketball, we see that that a playoff system is in place, which puts a lot of teams in and allows for a fair competition. 2.System is wanted While I agree that College football is not a democracy, we have to look at popularity and the way it ties in with my third argument, revenue. First, if more people believe that their team has a chance at competing in a nationwide tournament, more people will want to watch. I am not advocating that people should be able to vote their team in, however, I do believe that is 85 percent of NCAA football fans want a playoff system implemented, then it should be. Implementing a playoff system will lead to increased competition, more people watching, and ultimately more fairness and revenue. 3. Revenue Also, I am not advocating that we need to add more REGULAR season games, only implementing a playoff system. Implementing a playoff system will result in more postseason games being played, spurring on more drive for fans to attend their favorite teams' games, and allowing all conferences to have a part in the overall revenue. So I firmly believe that college football should adopt a playoff system, for the reasons of fairness, popularity, and overall revenue. Thank you.
College Football should adopt a playoff system

Good luck. 1. Fairness This alleged bias you speak up is simply making sure that only the best teams get to play. The system must be rigid to give teams more incentive to play better. To say that the system is unfair because it makes it hard to win is not really an argument. And what is inherently biased about the system? That people who know what they are talking about and who know more about college football than anyone. 2. New system is wanted. College football is not a democracy. While popularity may be nice, it is not what decisions should be based off of. If college football were democratic then a fan could simply vote their favorite team in. Fans are hardly to be relied on with such a major issue at hand. 3. Revenue If playing more games brings in more revenue then why don't we simply add 20 or 30 games? How many games are we to add?
College Football should adopt a playoff system

To clarify, as Prp, I am advocating replacing the BCS Bowl system with a traditional playoff system. 1.Fairness Having a playoff system would eliminate the bias that is currently in place due to computer and human voting systems, therefore making sure every team is on equal ground, and allowing for the objective of winning and losing games. If a team loses one game, it is unlikely that they will be entered into the BCS title game, and if they lose two, they might not even get into a BCS game of any kind, taking out the intensity of the teams' remaining games. Implementing a playoff system would allow teams who lose one earlier in the season to have a chance at greatness later on. One-third of the standing is decided by coaches, who may not even have time to watch all the games while preparing their teams for the week. We cannot allow for a system that is so inherently biased to continue governing one of the nations most popular sports. 2. New system is wanted. According to a 2007 Gallup poll, 85% of college football fans surveryed want a change in the system, with 65 percent advocating for a playoff system. This shows that people are tired of the tired BCS system, which is flawed and filled with bias. A huge argument when debating any issue is if the proposal is popular. Clearly, a playoff system being implemented in college football is very popular. 3.Revenue Implementing a playoff system would allow all conferences to receive revenue from playoff games. Under the current system, only BCS conferences are allowed to compete in BCS games, so conferences like the Mountain West are excluded, which has powerful teams such as TCU and BYU. Also, implementing a playoff system would allow more games to be played, overall increasing revenue. For those three reasons, College Football should implement a Playoff system.
There should be an international auxiliary language.

I will argue in favor of the premise that there should be an international auxiliary language for the purposes of trade, diplomacy, politics, and other types of international exchanges. I will argue that English also should not be this language. My opponent will argue against this premise. In this round, my opponent will accept the debate. In the next round, we will both provide our opening arguments. In the third round, we will make rebuttals. And we will provide conclusions and final rebuttals in the last round. The rules should be self-explanatory. If we provide information from other sources, we must cite them. Proper spelling and grammar should be used. And both debaters should respect one another.
There should be an international auxiliary language.

I am glad we have found common ground. I am glad we concur that there should be a lingua franca of some sort. But I still have reasons to object to English being this language. Let me refute your points. To date, English is the most popular and widely spoken languages in the world.The word "popular" is not a snyonym for "best." If one movie were highly popular in the Western Hemisphere, what would mean it is also popular in the Eastern Hemisphere? Or does the spread of a language from one nation or culture ensure the inclusiveness of other nations and cultures in the world community? It is also one of the oldest languages still spoken in the modern world.According to http://www.britannica.com..., German has a history starting in the 1st century B.C. And http://www.ruf.rice.edu... confirms that Latin, which many languages today are based upon, goes back all the way to 753 B.C. What does age have to do with which language is best? If age were relevant, then why not adopt a new language?849,000,000 people speak English. Chinese is spoken by 1,052,000,000 people (http://www.nationsonline.org...). That is clearly more than English. If the criteria for an international auxiliary language include age and range, then English has already been defeated by Latin (and its daughter languages) and the Chinese languages, particularly Mandarin. I am strongly convinced that a) we need an auxiliary language, but also that b) it should not be English, for 1) it is not the easiest language to learn, 2) it is not the oldest language to date, 3) it is not the most spoken language, and 4) it is not fit to become an international auxiliary language due to its history. If we are going to unite the world with one language, then why not choose a new, fresh language different from the ones already existing? It would intrigue the world and possess them to learn it, which will in time, but effectively, unite the world like we all dream of. As this is the third round, KingEnder101, please refute the argument I made in the previous round and disregard what I have written here, which we will address in our concluding paragraphs. Thank you.
There should be an international auxiliary language.

Like you have said, I agree with all your points about it and I believe there should be auxiliary languages. However, I'm arguing it should be English. Here are my reasons. 1: Simplicity To date, English is the most popular and widely spoken languages in the world. According to http://www.proto-english.org..., English originates from Germany in the 5th century A.D. Since the Saxons took over England, English has spread throughout the world by conquest through the countries that use English. It is also one of the oldest languages still spoken in the modern world. 2: Range English is already a widely spoken language. According to http://www.nationsonline.org..., 849,000,000 people speak English. English is also a widely taught language. Hundreds of countries across the world teach English to thier children. So, there is no reason English shouldn't be the auxiliary language, as it is already taught and known worldwide.
Objectivity promotes demonization.

Hi, also looking forwards to a civil discussion. Diving right in. Given the definitions we are using I truly am struggling to see how objectivity could lead one to demonize people whatsoever, it seems to me that there is some confusion on your part between people believing themselves to be "Objectively" correct and the notion of Objective reality or truths. Looking for Objective truths requires one to give up bias' and even shelve currently held beliefs for the sake of honest investigation, objectivity doesn't exist on a spectrum of some having more or less objective views than others, it is a category error to think of a viewpoint as having an attribute called "Objectivity". In the spirit of honestly engaging as an interlocutor rather than reading a context into your words I would simply like to ask the following questions to clarify where exactly we disagree and what exactly you mean. 1.Do you believe there are objective truths that prescribe or necessarily entail that one group should demonize another? 2.Are you claiming that most individuals have a poor understanding of the concept of Objectivity and that the use of the word in our current modern lexicon leads to a propensity for Demonization? 3.Do you believe Objective reality is even a starting point? If not do you have any beliefs that function as absolutes for us to potentially converse within? I will put forward that I do believe in objective truths and if we disagree here I am not sure how any conversation can be had. I am willing to try but we need to be at least engaging within a similar enough worldview that we agree logical argument can disabuse us of mistaken opinions on either side of the conversation. Or 1.Other? (if none of these questions apply to what you are getting at, may I have a succinct set of arguments or a premise that succinctly captures your meaning) I don't think you are a crackpot but I would hope You and I can come to agreement that broad consensus by definition would exclude individuals who dissent or did not become qualified via the appropriate authority and instantaneously create another us and them category. Perhaps you put this measure forwards as the best available substitute not intending it as a perfect solution but a practical one? I would state that consensus is a very poor substitute for rational discourse when dealing with truth claims. If possible I would like to discuss this issue parallel to the questions as we have a limited amount of exchanges and tangling every one of our points into themselves immediately is liable to make a confusing read, also our views on what might be a better standard for arriving at conclusions may be contingent on whether we concede to one another on other points or what consensus we may reach independent of this view.
Why God is Justified in His Actions and Why Humans Remain Ignorant

The reason humans do not understand God is because they refuse to place themselves in His position. It is obvious that humans are born babies and remain as such. Your brain does not evolve. Your brain does not change. The only thing that happens is that humans grow in size. Place yourself as the Supreme Creator or whatever name you may choose. It is only you, and a canvas of void. You may create, do, and establish whatever you please. You may lie to yourself for your own sake, but no matter what you choose to create or whatever rules or guidelines you choose to invoke, there will be many, atleast one human, that will have an issue with it or have a question of it. God has the highest burden of All. Always working. Always developing. Always viewing. Why? Because humans are incapable of being truly content or satisfied with anything. Humans claim or pretend rather, that money is everyone's desire, yet even as a quadrillionaire, a human will find something wrong with something. As yourself being a God, and with everything that is in existence, what more could you Give, keyword Give, to all humans that would completely satisfy them to the point where they would no longer ask for anything? You cannot say because in order to do so, you would have to know all humans and all human desire.
Smoking isn't Good for You

Smoking is not good for because smoking can lead to death or lung cancer. Smoking kills your lungs. Smoking is one of the worst things kids or adults can do to their bodies. Yet every single day about 3,900 kids between the ages 12 and 17 start smoking. Most middle school students don't smoke — only about 1 in 16 does. And most high school students don't smoke either — about 1 in 5 does (that means 4 out of 5 don't). Smoking and tobacco use can cause cancer and heart disease. smoking and tobacco use can cause cancer and heart disease. Cigarettes and smokeless tobacco kill hundreds of thousands of Americans every year.
MILK IS NASTY!!!!!!

My opponent has stated that milk is nasty in his original round as well as in the resolution. Thus, it is still his job to counter my case which referred to milk "tasting nasty." As for milking being nasty due to its origins, this argument suffers from the same flaws. To some, make me seem nasty due to the fact that it can come out of cow's utters, but to others, it most certainly doesn't. Thus, the flaw in my opponent's case is still the matter of "subjectivity." Furthermore, his argument goes about assuming that milk can only come from cows, but this is false too. Many of you may realize that milk is produced by other living creatures, but it can also be artificially produced. Furthermore, even in cow milk, milk producers put it through the process of pasteurization (a process which eliminates all harmful bacteria) before selling it to the market. I now stand ready for my opponent's final rebuttal.
MILK IS NASTY!!!!!!

SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION. .. . MY INITIAL CAUSE FOR STARING THIS DEBATE WAS BECAUSE OF ALL THE STUFF THAT'S IN IT AND SEING WHAT OTHERS HAD TO SAY AGAINST IT. .. .. fOR OTHERS CONCERN LET ME SAY THAT THERE IS MORE IN MILK THAN JUST MILK! !! ! Dairy cows are constantly inpregnated to keep the milk flowing and they are constantly hooked up to machines that cause blisters and scabs. .. . Those scabs are then on the udders which are connected to the machines that milk the cow. .. . Now the scabs don't just disappear. .. .. .they end up in the milk that people drink. .. .. . That is what makes milk nasty, rather that is what I was refering to in this particular debate. .. .. .. .. .
MILK IS NASTY!!!!!!

Greetings. I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. With that out of the way, let us proceed: In today's case, I (as the CON) will strongly negate my opponent's resolution that concerns Milk as being nasty. To counter this position, I advocate that Milk MAY be nasty. I define this position as being a position that takes the subjectivity of "taste" into account. Thus, I advocate that milk can taste "good" and "bad", but is not objectively nasty (as is my opponent's implication). It is the job of my opponent to conclusively prove that milk is objectively nasty. He has yet to provide an argument for this and I doubt he would be able to provide a valid one during the round. I now await my opponent's first rebuttal.
Polygamy!!!

I intend to defend the view that Polygamy, being the right to marry multiple, consenting, age-appropriate partners of whatever gender should be acceptable. Unfortunately in modern society polygamy is generally an exclusive right of males and is practiced primarily in third-world or Islamic nations. This anecdotal information regarding polygamy should be understood as being inconsequential towards the true ethical acceptance or non-acceptance of it. PROPER polygamy, as I intend to promote, is as follows: -The Right to marry any number of consenting, age-appropriate persons of any gender. Furthermore, since this is an ethical concern regarding legal status, social-acceptability plays little role; that is, social-xenophobia towards polygamy is NOT a factor. thus, since as said this is a primarily ETHICAL question (which has legal implications), and my 'original-position' (viability of polygamy) is stated as being ethically neutral, the burden of proof against polygamy lies with CON. So let CON's contentions be raised!!!
Polygamy!!!

Is Polygamous marriage to CONFUSING in a judicial or legal sense as to be considered as a regular form of marriage? It seems intuitive to say that if polygamy is ethically-viable then the fact that some additional bit of scrutiny and paperwork is required to make it work is of a lesser concern and should not discount polygamy as a real form of marriage; after all divorce can be an utterly confusing process but it is legal since it is an ethical nece ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All we're arguing is semantics, it seems. I dod not intend to argue against plural marriage or legal recognition of unions, but simply to make clear that the 'standard' marital contract fails. I worded that poorly, it seems
Polygamy!!!

I apologize CON if you were mislead into this debate -my fail! Anyways, although this is the Final Round I guess it would be sensible to change the subject to the Legality of Polygamy. Thus: If we both agree that Polygamy -as properly understood- is an ethically viable practice, that is, no wrong is done by it on normal grounds; then in a contemporary democratic society, polygamy's ethicalness should entail some form of legality. CON seems to object to the legal-acceptability of Polygamy on the following grounds: (1) Polygamous marriage is potentially confusing in the judicial or legal sense, therefore it should not be recognized as actual marriage, in addition; (2) The CURRENT legal situation of marriage does not allow for plural-marriage anyhow: "Legally binding marriage contracts are, by definition, a contract between two persons. Therefore, legal recognition of polygamous marriage is impossible" [CON]. Thus; (3) A possible mediation for Polygamy would be to recognize them only as plural-civil-unions, that is, having several of the legal benefits of marriage but not quite actually being marriage itself - an approximation of marriage: "The only option would be for the parties to enter into a legal contract closely resembling marriage in its terms and conditions, and offering similar protections" [CON] -Firstly it seems fair for me to say that premises (2) & (3) are all consequences of premise (1), that is, they both rest on the acceptance of (1). Thus the question I am faced with is this: Is Polygamous marriage to CONFUSING in a judicial or legal sense as to be considered as a regular form of marriage? It seems intuitive to say that if polygamy is ethically-viable then the fact that some additional bit of scrutiny and paperwork is required to make it work is of a lesser concern and should not discount polygamy as a real form of marriage; after all divorce can be an utterly confusing process but it is legal since it is an ethical nece