BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
crossfit is better than bodybuilding health wise.

My adversary asserts he has being doing (x) for (x) amount of time. That does not give credibility to his argument. I could state I am a nuclear engineer so I am my own source. This is not viable. For what it's work i've been working out for nearly 10 years and can attest that it actually does harm, and basic science contradicts his claims. My adversary asserts there are no negative effects from high protein which is false. Your body can only digest so much protein hourly and daily. Most of the high protein foods, come from animals and other things that are high in saturated fat. Eating these types of foods with high sat (that goes hand in hand with protein and body building) can cause all the aforementioned diseases. Anything from diabetes to coronary heart disease. Note this study from the American Heart Assoc. ( http://www.heart.org... ) So despite what my adversary asserts common foods associated with body building can cause a great deal of harm, and this is especially true of protein. As I stated only so much protein can be digested hourly and daily, so taking more than enough in actually causes strain of the body leading to other negative health impacts. For 150 pounds its around 136 gram ( http://www.livestrong.com... ) All of this is associated with body building. ( http://www.bodybuilding.com... ) Take the typical diets. It usually includes chicken, steak, turkey, tuna, and all other types of meat that as I stated, can and will have negative impacts on a body. This is especially true with older people. a)Crossfit This is where cross fit divers. It teaches you to eat all the essential foods your body needs. Anywhere from the right amount of vitamins, to vegetables, to protein, to the right type of fat. It does not just focus on the workout and the results you see from your body, but the results you see from within. It is a comprehensive workout that revolves around building up your body and making it health. There are types of triangle workouts that help you builing up your cardio, endurance, and metabolism. The goal is to target almost every mucle group in your body by working out with full body workouts. It teaches you to break your limits and push your body for a greater degree of health. People that do mma often use cross fit because of the strain it puts on your body. If they simply weight lifted they would not be able to stand in the ring long enough to last. Programs like cross fit actually improve their cardiovascular activity, and make them healthy overall. That by itself should affirm the resolution. A sport that requires you to be in peak conditions train with a program that gives them to you. ( http://www.muscleandfitness.com... )
crossfit is better than bodybuilding health wise.

First a little about my background. I have worked in the health and fitness industry for 10 years now and have seen many fads come and go. After being in this industry for 10 years I'd like to think I know a bit about the subject. I can tell you right away that the vast majority of what PRO said in round 2 was complete nonsense. Firstly, PRO seems to have a lack of understanding about bodybuilding. Bodybuilding is not just about becoming a muscle bound meat head. These types of body building exercises are very important for people such as the elderly, people in rehab, in fact is great for the general population. You can increase muscular endurance, size and strength and can place the emphasis on which ever you want with the other two increasing also but at a slower rate. Crossfit is not ideal for the elderly, people in rehab and is widely prone to injure the general population but I'll say more about this later. Secondly, PRO must be slightly deluded if he thinks that crossfitters are not obsessed by protein. The majority of the ones I have met are obsessed with the, so called, paleo diet which has now morphed into an Atkins type diet (Extremely high protein). Crossfitters can learn a lot from professional body builders about nutrition for they are experts at what the body needs. To transform a body to a far greater size whilst maintaining 3/4% body fat means they know what they're doing. It is quite absurd to compare eating large amounts of protein to smoking. There is no scientific study that has convincingly linked high protein to cancer or kidney failure, it's just myth that gets spread around the Internet (like the website you used as a source). Results are not based on protein intake, results are subjective to what your goals are. An elderly man may want to prevent muscle wastage which happens in old age, a woman in rehab may want to help an old injury ect. Results are based on good nutrition, good training and generally being healthy. Let's now look at the other outrageous claims, "Lifting heavy weights or lifting weights frequently can lead to heart failure." This is simply not true. Some people say the same about marathon runners and other physical activity. The only people who suffer from heart failure are people with bad hearts. Why do they have bad hearts? Because of living an unhealthy lifestyle (food, alcohol, tobacco, drugs). As I said before, results are based on doing the right things in all areas of life. The majority of PRO arguments against body building exercises are based purely off stereotypes and Internet myths. many of these myths are encouraged in crossfit gyms, of which I have been to many. So let's look at crossfit in the next round to see how it compares in reality to the traditional exercises. That is what bodybuilding exercises are by the way, the traditional exercises that professional athletes add into their training routines. I will explain the effect of each method for you so you can decide for yourself.
crossfit is better than bodybuilding health wise.

Crossfit - http://www.crossfit.com...1) Health ImpactsIn comparison to body building, cross fit focuses on core muscles and training that help you improve your health over all. Body Building focuses on building muscle mass only, by lifting heavy weights in order to see results. If you are trying to tone down, it's cutting that intake and lifting multiple reps in order to tone up. The key thing for body building is protein. The amount a body builder intakes can be up to 3 x their body weight daily. Massive amounts of protein can be as bad as smoking in ways. High protein intake can link to cancer, strain on your kidneys and damage your internal organs ( http://www.fitday.com... ) . Overall the requiremnts to get hte results you want to see, are based around the intake and amount you intake. Massive amounts as most body buidling requires, can leave you with long term negative effects. While cross fit focuses on natural bod building, running, and doing things that don't require you to lift and excess amount of weight. It helps improve your heart, your metabolism, and your energy on a daily basis. ( http://www.menshealth.com... ) It can focus on cycles that help improve your cardio, and breathing techniques. a) Body Building has negative impacts on your heart while cross fit trains itLifting heavy weights or lifting weights frequently can lead to heart failure. ( http://military-fitness.military.com... ) Again this fits back into the goal. Most of body bundling focuses around getting big fast, while lifting weights is normally a good thing when you add that in with the amount they are in taking as far as protein, creatine, and other supplements and food it can actually strain the heart to the point that it can damage it. Cross fit is not about getting big fast but about working on and improving your health. It puts less strain on your heat because the goals are different. There are often cycles that revolve around self improvement, and eating right. Not in taking to get big, but in taking to actually improve your health.
Ultimate Team War - Pandora

SUMMARY mongeese seems to be under the impression that Sue Storms shields pop like bubbles. This is completely untrue. I think this underestimating is the biggest problem in all of my opponent plans and because of this assumption, most of his attacks and strategies would be completely different in an actual battle between these two teams. I concede that I didn't take the Pandora atmosphere into enough account when I picked my team and should probably lose because of it. I want a rematch.
Ultimate Team War - Pandora

CONCLUSION Ah, I dun goofed. I chose Pandora because I thought it would be a cool place to fight and I completely disregarded the toxic atmosphere. I have seen the movie and made terrible assumptions and mongeese, who hadn't seen the movie, wiki'ed it and selected characters to suit that. All I can say is gah. I still maintain that my team could hold their breaths until they got to a part of the facility where they could breath. The finale of the movie shows the main soldier fighting against the Na'vi holding his breath for a few minutes. It isn't INSTANT death. So, taking that into consideration, I think I very easily still win. Imagine the 5 as being dropped on the planet and having to scramble to the facility so they can breath. Once there, the problem goes away as Sue Storms shields would work like Marios helmet. They would have breathable air in them. Once there, the plan goes slightly differently, though still essentially the same. This time, rather than splitting up, the team stay together. Aang rips up the ground with Earth Bending, exposing and breaking them to release a torrent of water. Similarly to before, he uses a combination of air, earth and water bending to create a whirlwind of mud. If CROBAT is caught in this, he will be destroyed, since Earth is it's weakness. The main point of this tactic is to spread a thin muddy spray over everything. As before, this will be used to find the group. At this point, Aang goes into Avatar mode and launches a full assault on Harry Potter and the battle happens as previously described. So.. FINAL ANALYSIS TEAM TVL flee to an area with oxygen SUE STORM shields WHOLE TEAM AANG creates a mud cyclone and covers the whole area in a muddy mist AANG beats CROBAT AANG (AVATAR FORM) beats HARRY POTTER CARNAGE beats KIRBY GRAY FOX beats VENUSAUR SONIC delays MARIO SONIC + ASSISTANCE beat MARIO In otherwords.. VOTE CON! I'd like to thank mongeese for my first Ultimate Team War. I think I'm hooked! ^_-
Ultimate Team War - Pandora

Team Member 4: Crobat [1] More specifically, Brock's Crobat, a twice-evolved Poison/Flying Pokémon. Anime canon. It is ridiculously quick, but doesn't have as much physical strength, though it is still formidable. Team Member 5: Harry Potter [2] Harry is an Auror, a powerful wizard. He's also the Boy who Lived, and the Chosen One, and all that. He uses magic. He brings with him his treasured wand and his Invisibility Cloak. And... start! At the first second, Mario puts on his Space Helmet [3] and Harry casts a Bubble-Head Charm [4]. Harry immediately follows with a Shield Charm [5] around the area. Everybody who can takes their first breath of Pandora's atmosphere. Sonic, Carnage, Gray Fox, the Invisible Woman, and Aang all collapse from the toxicity [6]. Harry and Paper Mario have their own bubbles of pure air to breathe from, and remain unharmed. Kirby doesn't breathe, he just inhales things. He remains unaffected. Venusaur and Crobat, being Poison-type Pokémon, are immune to being poisoned, and can breathe without problems. Team CON is quickly reduced to unconsciousness as Team PRO remains completely intact. Team PRO wins. Now, my opponent may argue that some of his team members have methods of surviving. While waiting for Team CON to either fall unconscious or approach Team PRO, Harry will cast a Disillusion Charm [7] on Crobat, and cast it an individual Shield Charm. Finally, a Protean Charm [8] will be cast on Crobat and a rock within the area, transformed to look like Crobat. With the charm, if Crobat is ever killed, the rock will change shape to signify this, allowing Harry to track Crobat's status and respond accordingly. Crobat will then charge at Team CON's base, firing SonicBooms [9] at any survivors of the atmosphere. Carnage in particular will be ripped to shreds by SonicBoom, having an inherent weakness to sound waves. The remainder of Team PRO's actions will depend entirely on the observable actions of Team CON, so I must wait for my opponent's reponse. My team may even change current plans if blitzed. Well, that's all for now. Good luck, tvellalott. 1. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... 2. http://harrypotter.wikia.com... 3. http://www.mariowiki.com... 4. http://harrypotter.wikia.com... 5. http://harrypotter.wikia.com... 6. http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com... 7. http://harrypotter.wikia.com... 8. http://harrypotter.wikia.com... 9. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(move)
Ultimate Team War - Pandora

My team will consist of: 1. Sonic the Hedgehog (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 2. Carnage (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 3. Gray Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 4. The Invisible Women (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 5. Aang (http://en.wikipedia.org...) They will start together, 1000 metres away from my opponents team.
The Game Asteroids is better than Space Invaders

Thank you for this entertaining debate. May the best debator win. Your resolution procures a definity. You make exceptions for your case but to my case, I allow the "Likability" factor to be introduced. You may or may not percieve it as such but... My opponent arrives at an opinionated crossroad. He asks me to prove that Space Invaders is better than Asteroids when, in reality, he has brought up nothing but one gamers perspective. In a survey done by http://www.2atoms.com... The top ten classic arcade games were: "The 2atoms All Time Arcade Top 10 10: Gauntlet 9: Galaga 8: R-Type 7: Space Invaders 6: Tetris 5: 1943 4: King of Dragons 3: Out Run 2: Tehkan World Cup 1: Darius" Asteroids is not included in this list, as well as several others including "Space Invaders." If this is a question about graphics, Space Invaders has far better graphics as shown in these two comparitive screenshots: Space Invaders: http://www.cokeandcode.com... Asteroids: http://msdn.microsoft.com... I'm not suire but, don't most gamers like BETTER graphics? I myself am a gamer and, although it was before my time, grew up with both games and found myself DRAWN to Space Invaders in contrast to Asteroids. (Frogger as well, just to provide evidence against my upbringings and the questions thereof.) "Space Invaders is much to easy and does not figuratively surround the player as much. Prove me wrong." I don't have to prove that statement wrong as it doesn't prove the resolution false. BUT, Space Invaders does have increasingly complex rules, scoring systems, life counters, weapon choices, and enemy variety in comparison to Asteroids. For the reasons presented before you, you must vote Con. Thanks, -EG
The Game Asteroids is better than Space Invaders

Thank you for that comment, you have given me a run for my money which will be explained later. "Gamers such as (myself) like the simpler graphics because they A. Distract less from the game play. B. Don't have much of an effect on the gamer's eyes as more complex graphics do." The reason this entire debate is a challenge for me is because this debate is one a biased stance. This is your opinion. "Now your only expressing one gamer's opinion, much like myself. I find myself drawn to asteroids, and I have access to games with amazingly textured and beautifully built graphics." Again, purely bias. "Exactly. Space Invaders is much more complex, and for gamers that want to quickly play a game for five minutes, Asteroids is a much better choice due to its simplicity. Space Invaders, in the end, has the player worrying about shooting this enemy instead of that, getting that UFO, and destroying the first row immediately, which puts to much stress on the player." Isn't a revolutionary idea like better graphics and more ways to play a game considered progress? A more challenging game is much like a more challenging debate. If one wins repeatedly and it is of no challenge to him/her at any time, it may get boring. Games were meant to keep changing and getting better to meet the ever-increasing demands set about by gamers who enjoy a tougher challenge and a more revolutionised game. "The survey you have mentioned was probably completed by hardcore or avid gamers who don't play games for a quick de-stressing or for a little fun before some stressful situation, such as a job interview." That may be but it was the only source given. If you had gone out of your way to find a couple of statistics that say otherwise, you might have the higher ground. That being said, you didn't find any that prove Asteroids have higher ground than Space Invaders. "The game Asteroids, however, does fill the player's mind during the play-through, all not to the extent that they lose total track of time, making Asteroids a much better game for gamers who play as a hobby, and since there are more hobbyist gamers than hardcore gamers(similar to the fact that there are more people who do puzzles as a hobby than those who visit the puzzle competitions), Asteroids would be considered a better game overall but much more people, it might even be considered better by some hardcore gamers, too!" You have no proof for this statement aside from saying "Hey, this is MY opinion." For the above reasons and refutations, you vote Con. Thanks again for this debate, -EG.
The Game Asteroids is better than Space Invaders

Wow... Your good... "I'm not suire but, don't most gamers like BETTER graphics?" You would think, but at least some gamers(myself included) would rather go for the simpler graphics. Gamers such as I like the simpler graphics because they A. Distract less from the game play. B. Don't have much of an effect on the gamer's eyes as more complex graphics do. "[Draxxt] found myself DRAWN to Space Invaders in contrast to Asteroids" Now your only expressing one gamer's opinion, much like myself. I find myself drawn to asteroids, and I have access to games with amazingly textured and beautifully built graphics. "BUT, Space Invaders does have increasingly complex rules, scoring systems, life counters, weapon choices, and enemy variety in comparison to Asteroids." Exactly. Space Invaders is much more complex, and for gamers that want to quickly play a game for five minutes, Asteroids is a much better choice due to its simplicity. Space Invaders, in the end, has the player worrying about shooting this enemy instead of that, getting that UFO, and destroying the first row immediately, which puts to much stress on the player. The survey you have mentioned was probably completed by hardcore or avid gamers who don't play games for a quick de-stressing or for a little fun before some stressful situation, such as a job interview. The game Asteroids, however, does fill the player's mind during the play-through, all not to the extent that they lose total track of time, making Asteroids a much better game for gamers who play as a hobby, and since there are more hobbyist gamers than hardcore gamers(similar to the fact that there are more people who do puzzles as a hobby than those who visit the puzzle competitions), Asteroids would be considered a better game overall but much more people, it might even be considered better by some hardcore gamers, too!
Woman Are Objects

Every single human being ever conceived is possessed of a consciousness. This philosophical idea of a consciousness allows us to think, live, and carry out everything we do every day. A consciousness is no different in a male body than a female body. What you are proponing is, frankly, quite absurd because the only difference between men and women is their genitals and hormones. Why should this make a difference regarding the value of their consciousness? Why do you say that the thoughts and minds of women are somehow inferior or different than those of a man?
The phrase "History is written by the winners" is nonsense

As nonsense is defined in R1 "genetic information consisting of one or more codons that do not code for any amino acid and usually cause termination of the molecular chain in protein synthesis (http://www.merriam-webster.com......)" So far, you are not proving to use that the statement "History is written by the winners" causes termination of the molecular chain in protein synthesis. You must *prove* how and why its nonsense.
The phrase "History is written by the winners" is nonsense

Thank you, Lee. Basically, one of the biggest uses of this phrase pertains to the Civil War, a war that both sides of the debate (neo-Union and neo-Confederate apologists) get wrong. It is often said that after saying that pro-US textbooks hide the atrocities of the Union, which is completely untrue. Many textbooks often talk, and sometimes, glorify, the imperialism that is talked about. Some of the books sometimes have racist imagery. Nothing is covered. The racist views of the writers are sometimes put, outright. Nothing is covered up whatsoever."History is written by the victors" implies that the writers are covering up bad history which is nonsense. Many US textbooks are filled with openly racist language.
The phrase "History is written by the winners" is nonsense

What the phrase implies is that a coverup is done and the bad histories of the winning country is covered up. That's nonsense. In most racist countries, like Denmark, Sweden, Israel, USA, UK, many of the textbooks are illuminated in racist imagery, with views of bigotry and a claim that the conquered people were conquered and they should get over it. It openly glorifies imperialism with racist language."History is written by the winners" would say something like the Danish conquest of Greenland was for beneficial reasons (Danish textbooks never state this; in fact they outright openly glorify their imperialism).
Utilitarianism is flawed

I accept and thank phantom for the opportunity to once again debate this issue. I also completely agree with the definitions provided. But would just like to clarify my position, I will argue that utilitarianism is ideally the best possible approach to maximizing happiness in society However in regards to it being "flawed" while I do believe the philosophy of utilitarianism itself is flawless in regards to being the best method of maximizing happiness. I cannot say that any system is absolutely flawless when it comes to actual implementation, between human limitations and unpredictable acts of God. I don't believe any societal system can guarantee perfect results in an imperfect world, but I certainly believe that utilitarianism will have the best results in comparison to other approaches as far as overall happiness and the betterment of society is concerned.
Utilitarianism is flawed

I'd like to challenge Viperx00 to a debate regarding utilitarianism. If there are any questions or complaints about the set-up, resolution or definitions, please post them in the comments section prior to accepting.Resolution: Utilitarianism is flawed DefinitionsUtilitarianism states that "actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness"[1] And likewise, actions that have a negative affect on overall happiness are wrong actions. Thus any action that increases net-happiness is a morally good act and any action that decreases net-happiness is a morally bad act. Happiness: a mix of pleasure, contentedness, joy and absence of painDefinition of happiness should not be taken strictly throughout this debate. Burden of ProofThe BoP is on both of us. Con has to demonstrate why utilitarianism is valid while I have to affirm the resolution. Structure 1st round is acceptance only.4th round there should be no new arguments introduced.No semanticsNo arguing the definitions except in the comments section prior to accepting the debate. Voters are not to vote on sources as this is a philosophy debate and those points are so abused anyway. If claims are made that do require sources but no sources are given, then simply treat those claims as weak claims.[1] http://inside.msj.edu...