BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Track become more of a major name sport in America.

Rude and snappy? I was merely pointing out the invalidity of your argument. There is not an especially nice way to do that, but I was by no means attempting to be rude."The 1% who do find the sport interesting might acutely be right."How interesting a sport is to an individual is subjective. There is no "right" or "wrong" when talking about how interesting something is.The vast majority of the population does not find track interesting, and therefore it will not be a popular sport unless you can convince them to become interested in it, which is impossible, as interest is not a conscious action.Let's take a look at Oxford's definition of barbaric, shall we?1. Savagely cruel; exceedingly brutalI would agree that football is more brutal than track.2. Primitive, unsophisticatedTrack definitely meets this definition a lot better than football. Track is primitive; you said it yourself, it was only popular in ancient times. Track is unsophisticated; all it involves is running in circles. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Should Track become more of a major name sport in America.

Being rude and snappy is never the answer. The 1% who do find the sport interesting might acutely be right. How do you know that our society is turning stupid and are turning towards sports that are all about action. If people didn't have such boring lives they wouldn't have to turn to such barbaric sports such as football. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy football, I even used to play.
Should Track become more of a major name sport in America.

I never said that track wasn't a sport. In fact, I clearly stated that it is. Is your only argument that people of the past would like track? That is a very poor arguement, due to the fact that the people you are referring to, namely the ancient Greeks, are all dead. Like I previously stated, track is too boring for most viewers, and will never make enough money to be considered a major name sport. I would appreciate it if you would actually respond to my argument this time, instead of stating that I don't think that track is a sport and that ancient civilizations liked it.
Should Track become more of a major name sport in America.

Yes your right. If track was a popular sport I wouldn't have posted the debate. I have stated the reason track isn't popular like football or basketball. Track was the highest regarded sport ever played. Then the world sped up,so track became less important with every passing day. You can argue that that is one reason why track shouldn't be a sport, but then again, its also a reason why track should. Our time period has been brief compared to other time periods. Older tine periods loved the sport of running and I believe they still would.
Should Track become more of a major name sport in America.

Track will never be a major sport in America. The fact of the matter is, people simply don't enjoy watching it. The reason that football, baseball, soccer, and basketball are major sports is because they have large fanbases, and therefore bring in lots of money. A 2013 poll by Gallup showed that only about 1% of people polled had track and field as their favorite sport (1).People usually enjoy watching games a little bit more complicated than track. Track is like NASCAR, but without the crashes, and a lot slower.Of course track runners are athletes, but their sport is simply not as enjoyable to viewers as other sports, and it will never bring in enough money to be considered a major sport.(1) http://www.gallup.com...
Should Track become more of a major name sport in America.

Yes, of course it should. Like any other sport it has people who enjoy watching and participating in it. The reason i think that it isn't a major sport in America is that they don't have state teams. If State teams, for example: Tennessee Titans, did become a thing in track, then i think more people would come and watch it to support their state's team. Track runners are Athletes just like football or baseball players. Of course sports like football are more enjoyable to watch, but is that because of the loyalty or patriotism towards the team? I believe it is.
Abortion=murder!!!

Okay you just repeated everything I said. Also about the ants, they are a classified species just like humans are. So no killing an ant is not murder, but is killing a dog murder? It's KILLING but its not considered murder because it is in a completely different classification than humans. And your whole little "this makes me laugh". Necessary? not really. (a good debater never attacks his opponent) 1. Law of bio genesis. http://www.biology-online.org... (HUMANS REPRODDCE HUMANS) How would it be possible for human parents to produce offspring that is not human, But later becomes human?? It does not work like that. Living things reproduce after there own kind. ==What is the difference between a fetus (human) and a toddler? -there are four things.== 1. Size--Large people are not more human than small people. 2. Level of Development-- A four- year -old is not less human than a fourteen year old. 3. Environment--A child in an incubator in an intensive care unit is not more human than a child inside a womb. 4. Dependency--If viability is what made us human, then people on insulin are not human, and it would be okay to kill them. http://www.babycenter.com... Development of a Baby in the Womb. -Just 18 days after conception the baby's heart begins to beat. -At 8 weeks the vital organs are functioning , and the finger prints are formed. -At 9 weeks the unborn baby is able to feel pain(700,000 abortions each year are performed after this point in the pregnancy) -By the time the baby is 11 weeks old, he or she breaths (fluid), swallows, digests, sleeps, wakes, tastes, hears, and FEELS PAIN. -Babies born prematurely can survive outside of the womb as young as 20-25 weeks old. (which abortions are still done at this point.) And the late term abortions. when do you consider a fetus to become "human"? because if its a late term abortion they call it a baby, not a "fetus." And another point I'd like to make is the women's rights. Women have the same rights as men do now, but when people say that the woman should get to 'choose' whether the baby lives or dies, that is wrong. what about the baby's rights? regardless of it being male or female it has rights. It has the right to live just as you and I do. But there's no one out there asking, what about the child rights, why aren't we fighting for them?? But you know we want the woman to have there rights, So they say "its not a human". Call it what you want its murder.
Abortion=murder!!!

I was simply posting those statistics to start the debate everything I said was on the Internet. And a fetus is a person. After 18 days its heart starts beating. Most women don't even know their pregnant then. And you say their not a human because their not fully developed, well is a toddler a human? its not fully developed. what about an 18 year old? can you kill them? no. but their body isn't fully developed. and also I guess its okay to kill anyone under 40 because that's when your brain gets fully developed. Is that what your saying? because it's not a "person" you can kill it, because its not completely developed, because it's not aware of itself? You said that the baby is just a fetus, not human, if the heart starts beating after just 18 days it is alive. Not a living fetus, A living human being. Also, if when the baby is born it cant talk or think for itself and you kill it, its murder. but if its inside the mothers womb its not considered as killing? http://www.priestsforlife.org... These are pictures of aborted babies. WHO WERE KILLED. By 11 weeks old he or she breathes, swallows, digests, sleeps, dreams, wakes, tastes, hears, and feels PAIN. Babies born prematurely can survive outside of the womb as young as 20-25 weeks. (Many abortions are done after this point.) Humans reproduce humans. It would not be possible for human parents to produce offspring that is not human, but later becomes human. Basically when you say that abortion is okay your choosing what and what is not murder based on feelings and circumstances of how the pregnancy occurs.
Abortion=murder!!!

Although my opponent has officially taken the CON side of the resolution, she has posted an argument that supports the PRO side, which is obviously my side. I am going to assume that my opponent has made a mistake and accidentally chose the wrong side. Because her argument clearly supports the Pro position, I will present an argument to counteract it, thus I shall actually present the CON while she presents the PRO case. First, let us look at some definitions. abortion-the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. http://dictionary.reference.com... murder-the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law http://dictionary.reference.com... human being-a SELF-AWARE, self-conscious, or rational being My argument is that abortion is NOT murder, because a fetus is not a person. A person is an organism that is self-aware, meaning it has a developed brain of sorts, and can be aware of it's environment and of itself. Because a fetus does not fulfill these requirements, it is NOT a person. Because it's not a person, it's not murder, which is defined as "the unlawful killing of one human by another". All of the facts you presented about abortion do not explain why abortion is murder, they only serve as statictual information about abortion. You did not even provide a source, so your facts are discredited. Conclusively, abortion is not murder because a fetus is not a person. A person is self-aware and self-conscious, and a fetus does not fulfill this requirement, therefore it is not a person. Murder is killing of a person, so abortion is henceforth not murder, because the fetus is not a person.
Abortion=murder!!!

Okay so here's a topic, abortion is murder, please feel free to debate. (after all that's why were here) Abortion is murder. over 1.37 million abortions take place every year. (over 3,700 a day)93% of abortions in America are for social or economic reasons. 46 billion abortions have been preformed since 197318 days after conception the baby's heart starts beating. 1% of women who get abortions were involved in rape.
Macroevolution occurs

*sigh* I understand the desire to answer such things. But, I'm currently not impressed. You seem to gather more and more information from my side and still constantly fail to support your side at all. I personally know your side's "arguments" as well, and there aren't replies to them. Creationism typically just attacks some small non-ideas and misunderstandings, which would work pretty well, but the science laces together facts and understanding to explain reality as we find it. The latter side doesn't have any comprehensive explanations of anything much less replies to specific claims of the science. If the evidence doesn't contradict evolution, what chance do random questions long since answered have?
Macroevolution occurs

obviously i cant have a standered argument with you so i am resorting to common randomness random statements ok one why does every major relgion besides evolution have a flood story that is the few i have heard direct acounts from are the greeks christians muslims jews and many indian relgions. yahh there are a butt load of planets and starts but still thats hard to believe that starting with dirt you end up with humans ok another thing normally things go from organization to chaos per second law of thermoydnamics so how do you start with dirt end up with planes the internet and humans (probably the most complex thing ever) How do you explain frozen mamoths and dinasors "Evolution is not a magical process. It's a gradual process. If you could gradually require the addition of an arm from a fairly pointless arm stub to a fully functional arm you could evolve one. However, our general body plan is the same as all vertebrates fish had two front fins and two hind fins so now all species originally evolved from fish have this same general plan and gradual modifications (a major change is nearly impossible to occur and be helpful to an organism). Slow gradual change, tweaks which give slight edges to organism in their struggle within their species." ok you say that our genral body was the same but we evolved from rocks thats not genrally the same more questions why do we have 2 sexes (besides putting joy in the term bikini) because if our organism was smart enough to evolve a human(which our scientist still dont completly understand) why wouldnt they make it asexual reproduction so we did not require a x and y but just an x so any 2 people could carry on with out any specifics? why dont we evolve faster because we are smarter why arnt we all 20 ft tall super buff men with 200 iq because we would know to evolve more hight to be able to reach higher (like a giraffe) be smarter to pick locks and find food(monkeys) and be strong to be a good hunter and why havnt we developed photosenthises to keep from needing to hunt?
Wizard's Quidditch Should be Banned

I shall prove to you that Quidditch, with a capital Q, should not be banned. The sport Quidditch is a very popular game played on brooms, many times described by young wizards as the "Greatest sport in the world!" There are seven players, three chasers, two beaters, a keeper and a seeker. I plan to prove the benefits of the sport, compare the sport with muggle sports and show that the sport is not so dangerous compared to the larger wizarding world. I look forward to an entertaining wizards duel.
Wizard's Quidditch Should be Banned

Muggles, wizards, and half-bloods alike, hearken to what I have to say! There has been many dispute among you fellows whether or not the sport known as Wizard's Quidditch, with a capital "Q", is safe or not. Our council has officially decided that it should be banned. However, we do not know of your opinion. If anyone would like to step up, please come up and accept as round one! There will be 6,000 characters each round and 72 hours for each of us to argue. Do not take too long and run out of time though, our council will be very angry and consider putting you into jail!Finally, this is all I have to say to the rest of you folks: vote for whoever made their case better, and upheld their case more strongly. Keep in mind that burden of proof is shared and I need to show Quidditch needs to be banned, while my opponent must show that Quidditch should be kept as a official sport required to play in wizarding school!Thank you, thank you all.
Wizard's Quidditch Should be Banned

DEATH BY QUIDDITCH: Then at least people would have broken bones. Those other dangerous sports are mostly reserved for adults. As seen in the football death thing in my opponent's source, only ONE CHILDREN is recorded to have died. [1] Boxing is similar; while people can die, boxing is reserved for adults only. NASCAR as well. All the extreme-to-the-maximum-sports, Skydiving, Bungee-Jumping, Rock-Climbing-a-real-mountain, these are all reserved for either the best of the best teengers, or the adults.Plus, the movies/books are unrealistic. Harry/Anyone else seriously shouldn't have survived falls from their broomsticks. People can't even survive 7-story falls [4], no way they can survive a 100-feet fall.DANGEROUS WORLD: As if you couldn't accidentally hit someone with a wand and break the rule that "Players may take their wands onto the pitch, but they must not be used on or against any players, any player's broomstick, the referee, any of the four balls, or the spectators. (The right to carry wands at all times was granted during the height of wizard and witch persecution by Muggles, according to Quidditch Through the Ages)." [2] Plus, you only learn DatDA during your fifth year. Harry and the other studnets are in danger for 4/7 of their years, yeah, that's totally not dangerous. [3]MAGICAL HEALING PROPERTIES: But the fall/injury would still hurt. Nobody likes getting hurt. Nobody would play Quidditch with such risks (with the possible exception of Gryffendor), but especially, nobody would play against Slytherien (again, with the exception of Gryffendor), since Slytheriens break so many rules so many times.Again, I remind my opponent he has failed to rebut the fact that the rules are easily broken throughout many games, many of times. Once more, the stupid Snitch is really really dumb. Even the muggles are smart enough to know that--in their "quidditch" they even made it only 30 points, [5] showing us how dumb and over-priced our Snitch is. And finally, my point that the goal wasn't even to win in most of the games is NOT rebutted as well. Three unrebutted points; my opponent has better catch up.[1] http://www.bbc.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.chinasmack.com...[5] http://www.usquidditch.org...
Should the U.s government expand its exploration and/or development of space

P1. It is obvious that you made no conscious effort to verify the $100 billion that has already been set aside by the United States federal government fir future explorations. Those figures are a direct quote from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and could not see any reason to post ambiguous figures. P2. Although there are no reported cases documented linking space exploration activities to results in death but nothing is absolute. Establishing jus a mere possibility is reasonable of such activity happening is reasonable and open to debate. P3. With such expansion this could lead to a chance of space bacteria findings its way back to earth and effecting the human race. Also human bacteria can also contaminate the planet/moon surfaces, P4. The effects of such missions recently divulged the psychological damaged once the astronauts return home. The length of time spent away deems emotional issues as well. . . . Therefore, space exploration beyond the earth's mesosphere should be banned. Source: www.wiki.answers.com WWW.AIAA.COM
Should the U.s government expand its exploration and/or development of space

Premise 1 : Actually, The U.S government is only Providing $17.5 billion in discretionary funding for NASA and Extending the life of the Space Station to 2024, not $100 billion as you mentioned. Furthermore, we're already investing millions of dollars on things that simply offer no economic benefits. by investing in space exploration, we'd be able to support the much needed programs you've mentioned and much more.As stated before, space exploration has brought solutions to some of the global challenges we've faced in the past decade such as hazardous"nearR08;Earth"asteroids and solar storms. The benefits simply outweigh the risk. http://www.whitehouse.gov... Premise 2: There are a few flaws in your premise For instance, Since the dawn of the Space Age some five decades ago, no human has been killed or even hurt by an artificial object falling from the sky. Also ,Many space objects experience a carefully controlled demise,Most objects are steered into remote parts of the ocean. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... http://news.nationalgeographic.com... Premise 3: Space exploration carries environmental benefits as well. Some of these benefits include predicting extreme weather, cutting emissions such as green gas with the help of GPS, and among a few other things.Space debris is a plausible issue that the U.S is facing but with trial and error they are correcting such problem. Nasa has come up with a new and innvative idea to deal with space debris called SpaceView, which is a a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program that enrolls the talents of amateur astronomers to help protect American space assets from orbital trash. http://www.yesmagazine.org... http://www.space.com... C:The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration of space beyond the Earths mesosphere.
Should the U.s government expand its exploration and/or development of space

P1. On the contrary, to increase the space exploration beyond the earth's mesosphere is extremely expensive and not beneficial to the earth's environment. Since establishing the creation of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) in 1963, the United States federal government is currently funding NASA to the tune of $100 billion over a period for the next five years. Surely, those monies could go towards funding much needed programs elsewhere. Additionally, space technology is extremely costly to conduct research, design, build, test and launch. Source: www.aiaa.com P2. Space technology can be used as a weapon, due to the speed of which objects fall from space onto the earth, an ordinary missile fired from a space station for example; will cause more damage than both the nuclear bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki collectively. P3. Another disadvantage is the Space Pollution/Junk created which causes problems with unneeded parts, such as empty fuel compartments are (dropped) and left behind in space and sometimes these parts manage to fall off onto space crafts and satellites. Some satellites that are no longer in use are left in space. Eventually, the collection of this junk orbiting the planet will eventually cause problems to future spacecraft's, due to the risk of crashing into them while the spacecraft is ascending out of the atmosphere. P4. Furthermore, Space Pollution/Junk 2 as well could create problems for launching spacecraft's in the future, orbiting junk in space and the possibility of a collision with active satellites is grave, however, could damage or disable them, ultimately creating more space junk. Source: www.wiki.answers.com>...>Technology>Space Travel and Exploration . . . Indeed, there are many logically reason why there should not be an increase in space exploration beyond the mesosphere because of the potential risks it posses.
Should the U.s government expand its exploration and/or development of space

Premise 1: We, the taxpayers, would be responsible off course, as well as the U.s government. As taxpayers, we already spent $18 billion/year on non-science space activities which have little to no economic value whatsoever. Meanwhile, we have severely limited our investment on space exploration which plays a vitol role in our economy. The more we delay space exploration, the more we are losing. http://spacefuture.com... Premise 2: The benefits that the United States would gain would simply outweigh the disadvantages, it is an investment that has a great reward. According to G. Scott Hubbard, professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Stanford University and former director of the NASA Ames Research Center, "for every dollar we spend on the space program, the U.S. economy receives about $8 of economic benefit." Although the U.S would be investing billions of dollars, they would be gaining more in return. http://freakonomics.com... Premise 3: Space exploration has greatly contributed to the United States' economy and has made life easier on us with all of the technological advances it has made. Since we minimized our investment on space exploration, we have reached a terrible economic crisis. the space program brings $6.5 billion in revenue and has created 16,613 jobs directly related to the shuttle. Tax payers only have to pay $93 each year to keep the space shuttle going. Although it might seem like a steep price to pay, we have come to acquire so many technological advances in the last decade just from space exploration alone. Also, most Americans don't see this as "unfair" on the contrary, A recent survey found that 55% of Americans believe that the shuttle program was money well spent, while 58% feel that it is essential that the United States remain leaders in the space travel and exploration. http://www.investopedia.com... Premise 4: I don't understand how space exploration and the U.S loaning money to other countries go hand in hand. Space exploration has led to a competitive nature among countries which in return has only led to more innovative ideas but it has also united us as well. C:The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration of space beyond the Earths mesosphere.