BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If the MLB should change the bats from wood to metal.

To begin, how can you say that the majority of the traditions of the great game of baseball weigh on the shoulders of whether or not they use a metal or wooden bat? Some of the greatest traditions came from not only what bat they use, but what gloves they used, uniforms they wore, etc. To say that the tradition of the game only lies on the bat is rather insubstantial. Tradition is irrelevant to the case of whether or not we should change the bat makes. As far as Guillen's comments are concerned, that too is rather unimportant when talking about the situation at hand. Again, speaking about how you said that players who have a less controlled swing need to use a metal bat, how is that a logical reason? Whether a bat is metal or wooden, the bat is weighed mathematically to be 33 ounces in weight. 33 ounces are 33 ounces regardless of whether the bat is wooden or not. The make does not define your swing, the weight does. Furthermore, uncontrolled swings are based on body mechanics, what bat you use has nothing to do with anything. As far as revenue and tradition is concerned for the game of baseball, wouldn't you want the hitter to have more of an advantage against the pitcher? 1998 was one of the best seasons for baseball all time, coming off of the strike of 1994. America lost interest of the game of baseball because there was a lack of home runs and offense in general. The fans did not like the small ball style of the game. Mark Mcgwire and Sammy Sosa single handedly saved the game of baseball with one of the most historic seasons with Mcgwire hitting 70 home runs respectably, Sosa hitting 66. Granted there was the steroid scandal with Mcgwire, the fans still love offense regardless. Metal bats would increase the offense of the game and essentially bring the excitement back to the fans of baseball and the game itself.
If the MLB should change the bats from wood to metal.

How can you weigh the great traditions of baseball against the probably pretty small savings that would come out of switching to metal bats. You said in your last paragraph that baseball has changed over time, but that's not really true. The world series was thrown in 1916, there were scandals in the 1950's, and then the whole issue with Pete Rose and Marge Schott in Cincinnatti in the 80s. Yes it's true that equipment has changed and that player attitudes have gotten nastier and more intense, there's no doubt of that. Guillen was just suspended in Miami for actually speaking in a good way about Castro in a city where a large part of the population is Cuban and left Cuba because of Castro. I'll also give you that players have done a lot to give themselves an unfair advantage, that's definitely true. But metal bats are really for players that don't need to control their swing as much because they're easier to handle than wood bats. Shouldn't an MLB player be able to use a bat that makes the swing a little bit harder, and is still traditional? Would would the impact be on companies like Louisville Slugger that's been part of baseball and American history for more than a hundred years?
If the MLB should change the bats from wood to metal.

To start, you can cork a wood bat just as easily as you could a metal bat. Regardless of the fact, cheating happens all over baseball regardless, there is no stopping it. In an economically monetary sense, metal bats are the best bet for saving the MLB thousands of dollars over a period of time. Wooden bats do not last nearly as long as a metal bat can. With that being said, more money is wasted replacing the constant demand for wooden bats in the league. If the MLB changes to metal bats, you would see a drastic change in the money spent used on supplying teams with bats. Metal bats on average can take more than 2000 hits before needing change. Even more realistically speaking, if you break a metal bat in correctly, it can last years longer than a wooden bat ever could. With that being said, money well spent can be money well saved in the long run. Especially for an economy as unstable as ours. As far as tradition is concerned, you are right. The tradition of baseball is one of true majesty. Unfortunately for a society like ours today, change is something necessary to strive and thrive in the world. Wouldn't you say that baseball as a sport has changed over time anyway? Aspects of the game that we have today did not exist back when baseball originally started. Equipment has changed, player attributes have gotten more intense and expected, etc.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are the worst religions in this universe/dimension/time.

Once again, child, you need to grow up and learn to spell, just to start don't want your crap such as "IT"S THERR!!! GO AND REED IT!!! MARXIST!!!!" Uhm, its READ and THERE, for your first grade spelling lesson that you seem to have forgotten Now for your silliness, which has been fed to you by your marxist democrat leaders (1) Because it is Christians like you who would bomb abortion clinics. ????????????? (2) Jordan allows some freedom within the people and so does Egypt. Pakistan at some time had a woman Prime Minister. Pakistan, Egypt, and Jordan all have what we call "separation of Church and State". ????????????????????? (3) When there was a small enough amount of Jews left, the Islamists started to take some barren, unused lands. Then when WW2 came, they started coming back. More and more came back to the former Israel to claim what they had left behind to die. Suddenly, since they were the victims of WW2, the UN sided with the former Israel in the conflict. They had left the land alone, but then they wanted to come back and take it. It is very childish. It is because of the Jews own stupidity that the Middle East is in so much conflict. ??????????????????? (4) "NAME ONE ISLAMIC COUNTRY WITH EVEN MINIMAL WOMENS RIGHTS_____________" Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt. ha ha ha ha - you obviously havent been there the rest of your points are just typical babble from another child I hope your happy winning your "victory" of ignorance over truth cheers Solarman
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are the worst religions in this universe/dimension/time.

These religions represent the poison of our society. They can be interpreted into so many evil ways, they make no sense, everything can be taken out of context, they support the worst well-beings for everyone, and I personally believe Solarman1969 promotes these religious ideals. I would like to debate you, Solarman, on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism being the worst religions ever. Blaspheme away.
Germany could have won WWII if they had limited their expansion

I will argue that Germany could have won WWII if they had limited their advancement to the continent only, and had not attacked Britain. Here are supporting facts: 1. Germany easily overtook the whole European continent in 3 years, with a far superior military, and tactics. All of Europe and North Africa was under axis command by 1941. Italy had a sympathetic dictator, Spain had a sympathetic dictator. The rest of Europe was overwhelmed by the German forces. France, Poland, Austria, and all the Germanic countries but for Sweden and Switzerland, who were both neutral and not threats. Germany had a pact with Russia to split Poland. Europe was securely in Axis control by 1941. . http://www.learnnc.org... 2. Originally Hitler only sought to control the Continent, and leave the British Empire intact. Let the British rule the rest of the world, and Germans rule the continent. In 1940 Britain attempted to defend France, but left hastily in retreat, and left behind most of their heavy machinery leaving the Isles relatively defenseless. This probably emboldened Hitler to attack Britain, rather than leave it alone. 3. If Germany had held the European position, and had left Britain alone at this point, they would have retained all of European continent. By attacking Britain, they drew the Americans into Europe. 4. There is absolutely no doubt that the Americans were responsible for the victory in Europe, and that Britain could not have continued to defend itself against Hitler. Britain was struggling to survive, and had little military defense before America came to defend. 5. The United States had little interest in defending all of Europe, and would have left Europe under Nazi command had the Nazis not invaded the British Isles. In conclusion, it was German over-confidence and under-estimation of the Anglo-American alliance which caused them to change plans, thereby drawing America into the war. Stalin was basically a opportunist, and joined the Allies, but was not interested in liberating Europe.
In Britain, men are discriminated against more than women.

Resolution: In Britain, men are discriminated against more than women.Redoing this debate because the last guy didn't take it seriously.StructureCon will start with his opening in round 1, I will state my opening argument in round 2, and the rounds after that will be used for arguments and rebuttals until Con's round 4, where he'll simply say "End of debate".Rules1. No trolling2. No personal insults3. Con cannot write or imply an argument in the fourth round.4. [All Standard DDO Terms of Service apply]5. Breaking any of the rules will result in a 7-point forfeit.Thank you.
In Britain, men are discriminated against more than women.

Claim: "You cannot call them men, if they are suppressed by women."Yes, you can. A man is a male adult human.Claim: "Men are the stature of nature; Women are the nature of stature."May I have some proof of that, please?Claim; "When women govern men, the men are now children"No, they're not, because they're adults.Conclusion1. Con has refuted 0 of my arguments2. Con has made 0 sound argumentsThank you.
In Britain, men are discriminated against more than women.

Claim: Britain is short for BritannyMore like "Britannia", as in "Rule Britannia". Claim: I got it! Men are not discriminated more than women - it's that men are not respecting the nature of their country by living in testosterone!i) Show me your proof of men not being discriminated against.ii) Show me proof that men are "not respecting the nature of their country by living in testosterone".Claim: Okay, so in the land of Brittany BritanniaFTFYClaim: you have a biologically designed machine with the power of the sun losing to the power of the moon?I don't know what you're talking about or how this would be relevant. Claim: Until I see girls in Brittany Britanniai) FTFYii) Go on...Claim: on the news for destroying their ken dolls, I'm not convincedBoys like destroying things more, not necessarily Barbie dolls because they're women in particular.Claim: Until then, your story is as believable as... someone setting their ear wax on fire in the middle of nowhere away from everyone except two friends (that are also making it up). And because they too stupid to realize the difference between the two waxes, they think nobody will ever figure out that they gonna get waxed for their wacky wax story.Did it.Claim: One more thing, considering the alleged circumstances the male is in - can you even call them "men"?Yes, because they're male.Conclusion1. Con has refuted 0 of my arguments.2. Con has made 0 sound arguments.3. Con broke the first rule, about no trolling.Thank you.
In Britain, men are discriminated against more than women.

Ow! Those pound signs hurt and they are sharp! Get them away from me! Why do they look dimensionally illiterate? They seem to be bent out of shape - I would to if I was always being stepped on - wait... Okay, so in the land of Britanny, you have a biologically designed machine with the power of the sun losing to the power of the moon? Until I see girls in Britanny on the news for destroying their ken dolls, I'm not convinced. I want to see headless ken dolls right now! Give me the evidence that shows that Britanny town is really the town of headless ken dolls. Until then, your story is as believable as... someone setting their ear wax on fire in the middle of nowhere away from everyone except two friends (that are also making it up). And because they too stupid to realize the difference between the two waxes, they think nobody will ever figure out that they gonna get waxed for their wacky wax story. One more thing, considering the alleged circumstances the male is in - can you even call them "men"?
In Britain, men are discriminated against more than women.

My Arguments#1: The right to financial abortionMen do not have the right to a financial abortion in cases where they are unable to/don't want to provide for their child [1], whereas if a woman is unable to/doesn't want to provide for a child, she can have an abortion [2].#2: The Cancer funding gapProstate cancer gets under half the amount of funding that breast cancer gets [3], as pointed out by Prostate Cancer UK. Although it is one of the more treatable types of cancer, particularly if diagnosed early, one man dies every hour from it, says Prostate Cancer UK.#3: The Domestic violence shelter gap Despite the fact that 40% of domestic violence victims are men [4], and that when you factor in suicides, more men die as a result of it [5], there is approximately only one domestic violence shelter for men for every 180 there is for women [6].#4: Women are favoured by the criminal justice systemWomen are favoured by the criminal justice system, as is evident from one case published in KentOnline on the first of this month, where a 44 year-old woman escaped free from a jail after sexually assaulting a 14 year-old [7]. Switch the genders around and this never would've happened.#5: The homelessness gapIt is obvious that men are discriminated against more than women when you consider the fact that ~90% [8] of homeless people are male, whilst only 10% are female.I'll leave it there for now.Thank you.Sources[1] Appel, Jacob M. “Women’s Rights, Men’s Bodies,” New York Times, December 2, 2005[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[4] www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence[5] Davis, Richard. Published by the "Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace issues". 2009. http://www.emeraldinsight.com...[6] http://j4mb.wordpress.com...[7] http://www.kentonline.co.uk...[8] http://www.crisis.org.uk...
In Britain, men are discriminated against more than women.

Britain is short for Britanny... Britanny is a female's name... Known for its ancestors speaking celtic languages, which is mother nature's tongue... again female... the country looks like an erect penis, thus showing that is is more than likely a land of the females... I got it! Men are not discriminated more than women - it's that men are not respecting the nature of their country by living in testosterone! You know what they say in Britain: "Testotosterone is a test! The estrogen can only be bestrogen, when you take the B from our country and merge it with estrogen!"
It is Better to Read a Book Than to Read on a Kindle

It is much better to read a book over a Kindle because staring at a screen for too long can strain your eyes. If you read a book, there is a far less chance of that happening. With all of the technology out today, books would be gone, but they are better to read themselves than on a screen. Kindles are also more expensive than books, and they can run out of battery. "You can lend a paper book a bit more easily than a device that costs upwards of Rs 10,000 (for the Paperwhite, which starts at Rs 10,999). The base Kindle model starts from Rs 5,999, but that doesn't have a touchscreen and glows not in the dark) and yes, it somehow seems more convenient to pick a book out of a rack than scroll through lists of them on a device. In reading terms, the difference between the Kindle and paper particularly comes to the fore when you are reading a book with illustrations or photographs in it - the Kindle cannot handle colour at all." "dnaindia.com" It is much better to read a book over a Kindle because staring at a screen for too long can strain your eyes. If you read a book, there is a far less chance of that happening.- You can look away from the screen right and come back to it. And sometimes it hurts my eyes looking at a book--- It sometimes hurts your eyes reading a book, but did you ever think about other people? Plus, have your parents never told you that playing video games are bad for you? You are still looking at a screen when reading a Kindle. Kindles can also run out of battery, but can books? Nope, they can't because they are the classic way of reading. With all of the technology out today, books would be gone, but they are better to read themselves than on a screen.- what if the book has a page tarred out or it has a smudge and you can't read that book. that doesn't happen with kindles.--- If you break your Kindle then you will need to take out the hard drive and put it into a new Kindle or buy a new Kindle. That is much more expensive than just buying a new book. Plus, if you buy a new Kindle after it is broken, you then lose all of the books. If your bookshelf falls, then you won't lose every book that you own. Kindles are also more expensive than books.- why do you think kindles are more important than books. most likely because they are better. ------ Kindles are pricey after you get every "attachment" that you want. Kindles are like a digital bookshelf, but what happens when you are out of internet access and you want a new book? What if your Kindle has a bug in it and after five years crashes and loses all of your data? People rely on the internet so much, that they don't realize that it is possible for it to fail. If the internet fails, then people will get mad because they assume that the internet is perfect. Books are pretty much like Kindles that can't glitch, fail, or shatter by falling on the ground. Citations: dnaindia.com
It is Better to Read a Book Than to Read on a Kindle

Rebuttals It is much better to read a book over a Kindle because staring at a screen for too long can strain your eyes. If you read a book, there is a far less chance of that happening.- You can look away from the screen right and come back to it. And sometimes it hurts my eyes looking at a book With all of the technology out today, books would be gone, but they are better to read themselves than on a screen.- what if the book has a page tarred out or it has a smudge and you can't read that book. that doesn't happen with kindles. Kindles are also more expensive than books.- why do you think kindles are more important than books. most likely because they are better.
Bryan Mullins: Giving birth to a baby doesn't make you a mother

"To begin, I would like to point out the fact that in the last two videos, half of the cases, he was the father.Also, my opponent"s first point, "Giving birth doesn't make you a mother, because it doesn't make the man the father." automatically falls, because of the fact that she is still the mother of these human beings!" Those videos are just examples. You don't get it. Just because a baby comes right out of your vagina, doesn't automatically make you a mother, it makes you seem like a pervert. That is your only argument?That was the weakest argument. Women are not feminism. So, they are not mothers. Your argument has been debunked.I'm not focused on the fathers, I'm not scrutinising men, I'm scrutinising women. Fathers are legit, but the women are illegitimate no matter if she's black, white, gay, lesbian, etc.
Religious/Ethical Circumcision is Male Genital Mutilation

Thank you for your opinion.I'm going to provide some of the Waltham benefits of curcumcision and show why it's not mutilation.1) As far as health benefits go, here's a quote:"There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean." [1]Basically the male foreskin just causes unnecessary issues that a man doesn't have to deal with when it's gone. There aren't any health risks of circumcision, unless you're older than newborn. Getting circumcised even as an older baby can be more complicated and risky, which is why it's done when the baby is new born. So the benefits of being circumcised as a newborn far outweigh the costs. [1]2) Even if my opponent proves we shouldn't circumcise babies, he cannot uphold that it's mutilation of the male gentalia.The definition of mutilate is "to cut up or radically alter so as to make imperfect." [2]That's not what circumcision is. Circumcision is just for keeping people healthy by removing an unnecessary part of the penis. Not to mention, I've never heard a guy complain about being circumcised. Most guys are just glad it happened when they were babies so they can't remember what it felt like. Thanks for reading.Sources:[1] http://www.m.webmd.com...[2] http://i.word.com...
Religious/Ethical Circumcision is Male Genital Mutilation

I'm going to try to address everything you in here.1) Sorry I honestly overlooked the female cancer thing. I did look it up though. Females most commonly get cervical cancer from a disease called HPV. As stated earlier an uncircumcised penis can trap diseases more easily. Since the cancer is gotten from the disease, it can be released during sex and given to the female. [1]2) I'm really sorry about David, but that's not relevant at all. David Reimer was born in 1965. [2] Medicinal practices have had 50 years to improve. Anything in 1965 was more dangerous than anything done in 2015 except maybe McDonald's. Actually, there are rarely any complications during circumcision now. [3] Normally there's no exessive bleeding, no need for stitches, and it completely heals in about a week. Even people in the scientific community agree the it's worth the risks and put it at the same level as vaccination. [4] just a normal procedure to avoid diseases before they happen. My opponent has not provided any up to date evidence about the complications of circumcision. Also, wen quoting always use quotation marks. This entire section was almost entirely made up of someone else's word's from the link posted. And I was unable to find scientific sources or even personal testimony that say that circumcision involves more than the flap. I need my opponent to provide that evidence in the next round as well. 3) A clitorus doesn't have any severe costs. My opponent needs to make make circumcision and female circumcision equal in order to prove there's a double standard. As far as I can tell, they're not equal, so the standard shouldn't be equal either. Like it would be ridiculous to expect a 10 year old to run a mile in under 4 minutes. Kind of extreme, but it's the same principle. The two things are different so the standards are also different. Dropped points: Breast analogy: my opponent merely made the statement that circumcision and breast removal are basically the same, but doesn't actually substantiate the claim. There is a nation o hundreds of millions of men repopulating just fine without their flap. I need to see some sort of statistic or something. Having three or four guys who can ejaculate is just three or four guys who can't ejaculate. Misdiagnosis: my opponent has yet to prove this as a current problem with evidence. The only evidence given here is 50 years old. All of the benefits of circumcision: just reminding everyone here that circumcision has several benefits, and these are agreed upon at this point in the debate. Necessity: so far the flap is not necessary in the debate, and since we can reasonably assume that doctors are better now than they were 50 years ago, we can assume that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the costs. Sources: [1] http://www.m.webmd.com... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [3] http://m.kidshealth.org... [4] http://mobile.nytimes.com...=