BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sports and games as employment

Sports and games cannot be one's profession. This is a terrible deviation from the physical and physiological point of view. In a materialistic society everything is converted into a money making business. Sports and games are no exception to this. Because it is made a profession, many meet develop sports related ailments sometimes even life threatening ones which is quite paradoxical. Sports and games should improve physical fitness. Instead it causes not only physical ailments but also mental illness because of cut throat competition and rivalry. Sports should promote sportsmanship. But what do we see in sports arena? Rivalry and animosity. The handshakes at the end of a match is very formal and not out of sportsmanship. Let us become sane enough to consider spots and games as playing avenues and not as money spinners and show business. Past history need not be the correct stand. Let us understand the meaning playing. In civilized societies healthy competition is expected even in sports. Sports persons taking drugs to excel and to win is a sad fallout of the present trend.Sports people unable to earn their livelihood by the usual means take to sports and games as a way of earning. This s abetted by the business minded. Let us improve economy by contributing to overall welfare of the society and not by making sports and games as a show biz and business. Playing games is purely based on personal aggrandizement as no societal interest is involved.
Sports and games as employment

My opponents first point is that "In a materialistic society everything is converted into a money making business." I don't see a problem here. Making money then spending money grows the economy and thus benefits everyone. Next he brings up sports related ailments as a reason for prohibiting sports as employment. My opponent makes this argument despite the fact that no one is forced to compete in sports professionally. It's all purely consensual. To tell someone what legal thing they can and cannot do with their life is not only highly authoritarian but also morally atrocious. My opponent also states that sports breed rivalry and animosity. Sports aren't to blame here. Human nature is to compete. To be human is to want to compete with others. As for animosity, since it's clear that not everyone has strong feelings of personal dislike towards others, that's more of a problem with individuals and their temperaments than with the sports business as a whole. It's important to look at these sorts of issues with in an individualistic lens rather than a collectivist lens. As for your next point, I believe that it's perfectly sane to recognize the economic implications of the sports industry. As for it being a playing avenue, the people involved have made a choice to work extremely hard in order to play their sport of choice professionally and deserve to be payed a fair amount. Which in proportion to the amount of money they're bringing in, is quite a lot.
Sports and games as employment

Sports and games cannot be one's profession. This is a terrible deviation from the physical and physiological point of view. In a materialistic society everything is converted into a money making business. Sports and games are no exception to this. Because it is made a profession, many meet develop sports related ailments sometimes even life threatening ones which is quite paradoxical. Sports and games should improve physical fitness. Instead it causes not only physical ailments but also mental illness because of cut throat competition and rivalry. Sports should promote sportsmanship. But what do we see in sports arena? Rivalry and animosity. The handshakes at the end of a match is very formal and not out of sportsmanship. Let us become sane enough to consider spots and games as playing avenues and not as money spinners and show business. Past history need not be the correct stand.
Sports and games as employment

My opponent states that sports and games are intended for recreation and improving one's physical fitness. At the recreational level this is true. When you go to the competitive level you begin to attract an audience who are willing to spend money to view these games and sports thus stimulating the economy. Thus I offer the following contentions to negate the resolution. Contention one. Professional sports stimulate the economy. Dating back to the ancient Sumerian Civilization, sports have provided a way for the people of a nation to find entertainment whilst also spending their money which then returns to the government and to other members of society. Any Freshman of business or economics could tell you that when people spend money, the economy grows. Fast forward thousands of years and we arrive at the modern day and we can see that the situation hasn't changed. Today, the sports business is one of the largest in the world. Creating revenue and generating economic growth everywhere from the United States to China. For my opponent to argue that we shouldn't have professional athletes is to argue against a massive economic benefit. As for sports players getting paid which my opponent describes as "atrocious" is an absolute necessity for said economic growth. In order for these players to get paid huge money, the people who engage in a voluntary transaction with the people who sponsor the events have to be giving the overall organization a huge amount of money. Some of which they pay in taxes, some of which they use to buy better equipment (thus stimulating the economy and attracting more people.) and they also give a large portion of it to their players who then spend the money and generate even more economic growth. Contention two. Paying players large sums of money is the only way to ensure the survival of the sports business. In most sports around the world from American football and baseball to European football, the players at the professional level are required to spend most of their time training to beat other teams. Without paying these people a large salary (the large salary is necessary because of the money being generated by the industry because if they didn't pay them large proportionate sums the players would likely go on strike.) they would be unable to support themselves and their families so they would likely forego the sport in favor of traditional employment which would cause the collapse of the industry and cause a major hit in the global economy. As for Cricket players getting two salaries, this seems perfectly equitable considering they are working two jobs.
Sports and games as employment

Sports and games are intended for recreation and for improving one's physical fitness. But what is the status today? Sadly they have become a show business and money spinners. For example cricket is a game. But it has become an employment to players. Tennis too is a show business which fetches huge money for the players. In India most cricket players are already employed in some organization or the other. By playing cricket also they earn huge money. That means that these people are getting 2 salaries. By paying salaries we have made cricket an avocation for the players.Is it rational to make sports and games meant for recreation and improving physical fitness as employments? Cricket players demanding hike in their salaries is all the more atrocious
Reality Binds Itself Through Telesis

From CTMU: Thus, languages are ultimately self-processing; they must either contain their processors in their expressions, or be expressed in terms of a more basic language fulfilling this requirement. Accordingly, the expressions of SCSPL are dynamic informational configurations of information-processors, implying that SCSPL everywhere consists of information and acceptive-transductive syntax in a state of logical intersection. Together, information and syntax comprise infocognition, self-transducing information in the form of SCSPL syntactic operators that cross-absorptively "communicate" by acquiring each other"s informational states as cognitive-syntactic content. It is to the common basis of these two components that information may be reduced in the SCSPL context. Where the term telesis denotes this common component of information and syntax, SCSPL grammar refines infocognition by binding or constraining telesis as infocognition. To the extent that any grammar functions by the recursive application of syntactic rules, SCSPL grammar is recursive ("self-calling"). However, SCSPL grammar is not merely deterministically or nondeterministically recursive, but telic-recursive. While an ordinary grammar recursively processes information or binds informational potential to an invariant syntax that distributes over its products, [5; grammar binds telesis, infocognitive potential ranging over possible relationships of syntax and state, by cross-refining syntax and its informational content through telic recursion. Telic recursion is the process responsible for configuring the syntax-content relationships on which standard informational recursion is based; its existence is an ontological requirement of reality. The telic-recursive cross-refinement of syntax and content is implicit in the "seed" of [5;-grammar, the MU form, which embodies the potential for perfect complementarity of syntax and state, law and matter.http://www.megafoundation.org... The necessary existence of the self-generating, self-reflecting syntactical machine, the SCSPL, is required to bind Telesis as infocognition and so configure the information and syntax of reality over its possible relationships (as information and cognition mean nothing without each other). That is to say, SCSPL grammar is a generative grammar from which to bind and subsequently refine itself. The universe binds and refines itself through Telesis without which, reality could not self-select from a realm of pure infocognitive potential. The interception of information and cognition is required by the generative grammar of SCSPL, [5; grammar, they mean nothing existing apart from each other. So observer-participation is dependent upon the proto-computational SCSPL (and its context-free grammar) as well as the material objects which express themselves as information to be acquired by an observer (information transducer). As understood by Wheeler's "IT from Bit", infocognition is implied by quatum-theoretic observer-participation.
Jimi Hendrix is the best guitar player ever

http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, I wish he had listened to what I said in round one and I am willing to overlook it, and I ask he not give an argument in the last round. Now, I would like to say that I am not arguing from my opinion, but a fact, personally I favor David Gilmour. I present my main body of evidence: http://www.rollingstone.com...; Now as we all know Rolling Stone magazine is possibly the most trustworthy music, and pop culture source in the US today. Innovations: Despite what my opponent has said about these “not be related” I find skill and ability to be a very similar thing, the ability to innovate comes with skill and natural talent, nobody can just wake up and say “hey today I’m going to change the world of rock.” Innovations can not only help change music, but can also describe the musician’s skill with said instrument. Versatility: Nobody can argue that Hendrix was an extremely universal guitar player, his ability’s ranged from smooth jazz the some of the heaviest rock. Whereas guitarists like Angelo and Malmsteen seemed to be stuck in their own genre of music and unable to escape from it. Rebuttals: “As a guitarist myself some of the first songs I learned were from Jimi Hendrix. They aren’t hard to play and neither are the solos” Okay, NOT HARD TO PLAY? When you post a video of you playing your guitar with your ‘teeth, then I’ll believe that. “By that fact alone the title of "greatest guitarist" should not belong to Jimi.” You can’t simply hold back the title of greatest guitar player because you are unable to play Angelo and Malmsteen’s music, you inability’s are irrelevant to your case. “Watch these videos and ask yourself this. Can these guys play Jimi Hendrix stuff? Of course! But can Jimi do what they do? Has he ever demonstrated that ability?” He has actually demonstrated that ability, and I refer you to the video, Jimi Hendrix Guitar God above. http://www.youtube.com...
Jimi Hendrix is the best guitar player ever

I normally don"t like arguments that are formed solely on one"s opinion. Opinions are based on emotions and feelings so it really doesn"t matter what I say to dissuade my opponent because his mind is already made up. Having said that, I took this debate simply because I"m tired of hearing that, Jimi Hendrix is the "greatest guitar player ever". I would like to know what my opponent defines as the "greatest guitar player". What are your parameters or criteria? I will say that I love his music but I would define him as the greatest guitarist of all time. I would define the "greatest guitarist" as someone who has a complete grasp and understanding of their instrument. This includes the ability to play any scale and technique with a great deal of finesse and creativeness. As for Jimi, all we have to argue on is what skills/techniques did he demonstrate in his music? Forget that he was an "innovator" a "revolutionary" because that is not this debate. The question at hand is, is he the most skilled player of the guitar in history? To that I say no based on what is observable in his songs. Now either A) he couldn't"t do incredible sweeps and seamlessly move from scale to scale or play incredible fast like Malmsteen or Michael Angelo Batio or B) he simply chose not to because he liked his particular style and chose not to. Which is fine but his speed and technical ability are unproven. As a guitarist myself some of the first songs I learned were from Jimi Hendrix. They aren"t hard to play and neither are the solos to most of his stuff which is fine because it still sounds great and I love his tunes but that does not make him the greatest guitarist. I can play Jimi"s stuff but no way in heck am I at the level of Malmsteen or Batio. By that fact alone the title of "greatest guitarist" should not belong to Jimi. Without trying to be too controversial, I do believe a lot of the stigma has to do with him dying so young and him being black. For some reason we all feel better in America when blacks rise above whites in anything. That"s just my opinion based on my observations. Watch these videos and ask yourself this. Can these guys play Jimi Hendrix stuff? Of course! But can Jimi do what they do? Has he ever demonstrated that ability? No. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
God is against gay marriage. God hates homosexuals. According to god, they should be put to death.

First, you cite Leviticus: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Lev 20:13 However, you fail to recognize that this was simply a law enacted by man to discourage homosexuality and encourage growth of society through reproduction. While some might argue that the bible is the infallible word of god, this is simply not the case. God did not dictate the entire bible to its authors, nor did he give his stamp of approval to each verse within. So rather, according to some authors of the bible, homosexuality should have been at the time punishable by death. Also, you are merely speculating, or rather stealing the speculations of others, with regards to what happened between Noah and Ham. Seriously, get your mind out of the gutter, man! ;) Also, if rape was in fact what Noah was speaking of that Ham had done to him, why would we assume that homosexuality was the reason it was wrong? Are there not two other things, both widely regarded as immoral even today, that would be possible reasons? In case you need help on what I mean, rape and incest. You didn't make any points about the "God is against gay marriage" claim, so I'll wait until you do to address it. Also, he clearly never states that he hates homosexuals. God loves everyone. He doesn't hate sinners, no matter how bad a sin they've committed. So even if he did approve that message in Leviticus, he still loves homosexuals. He just has unorthodox ways of showing his love. ;) I look forward to the rest of the debate.
God is against gay marriage. God hates homosexuals. According to god, they should be put to death.

According to the believers of god and the "holy" bible, homosexuality is not only consider something bad but it's also considered a deadly sin. According to the bible, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13. Would you kill a gay person for being gay? According to god, you should. Leviticus is not the only book in the bible that deal with homosexuality. Here's another, "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him." What did Ham do? Did he just look at his naked father or was there something more to it than that? Some commentators have suggested that Ham committed homosexual rape on his drunken father, and that this was why Ham's descendants were eternally punished with slavery. Genesis 9:24 Wow according to this story Noah was raped by his gay son, and all his descendants were punished with slavery (Yes slavery, this is also another thing god supports, he is also against women's right, but this is another argument). It seems that god want us to either just kill homosexuals or just make them slaves, all according to the bible.
Christian teens should not be dating

Thank you con. Rebuttals: While love is the basis for relationships, a marriage is a specific kind of relationship between a man and woman. No where does the bible mention girlfriends, it always speaks in terms of husband and wife. Ephesians 5:22-23 "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word" According to this passage, authority is firmly established in a mature relationship. Something that doesn't really happen in dating. In the Scriptures, there is no "trying out." You immediately commit to a relationship for life given several principles. "Experience is a very underrated thing when it comes to relationships. People have not been engaged in a clean, respectful relationships to be able to have one that is able to evolve into marriage. Dating is just a practice run to understand how to feel about people, and also how to base your actions off these feelings. Unfortunately too many people these days are ignorant and have ill intentions." Love is not about feeling, it's about commitment. If people have not been in a clean and respectful relationship then they should not be in a relationship at all until they can develop the proper mindset and heart for a life-long one. There are many life skills, responsibilities, and emotional maturity that teens must have before they engage in a relationship. Teens still need time to develop their values as believers and know who they are in Christ.
There is no such thing as a self

Here is my response, given in an attempt to clean up and strengthen the case a bit. Response to your rejection of P1 With the complex ideas you suggest you still need someone to do the thinking. It is not inconceivable that an evil demon has done this thinking for us- since this "hours of careful thought" is really just a collection of thoughts being built upon one another. Is it then unrealistic to suggest an evil demon could have had these thoughts and just replayed them to us? Response to your rejection of P2 At the end of the day, when we are concerned how we impress upon others we only have these concerns as perceptions and therefore it is not inconceivable that these perceptions have been thought up by an evil demon and the same perceptions float randomly through space connected with each other until they come into contact with us (not a self but a stick in the ground as such, a receptor of thoughts, incapable of thinking for itself or having its own set of thoughts. The definition of self was a subject having "one"s own" experience but I do not think this is the case. I would argue you are not the same self when you change, you are merely extremely similar to what you were, and for simplicity"s sake we do not change what we name you. Many mistake that not changing the name of something with meaning it has not actually changed. You cannot have prove you have memories when perceiving the present as to know this you would have to be perceiving that memory, and therefore could not perceive the present. It may appear you are perceiving the present as your eyes are open but when you are imagining a memory your eyes want to shut and if you keep them open they feel kind of switched off, trying to block the visual stimulus to the brain so you can fully have a perception of the memory. Just because we have our eyes open does not mean we are perceiving, perception is the thought, which may or may not be brought about by a visual stimulus. To get at what I mean better I shall change from calling it a bundle of thoughts as I believe the following interpretation is stronger for my argument. As explained above I believe we are merely akin to a stick in the ground with thoughts floating past us. When we believe we are thinking complex thoughts it is just because these thoughts are connected to each other. This could be a result of an evil demon (who I believe could create the thoughts), excreting, if you like, the thoughts into the wind. Each bit of excrement is a collection of ideas hitting us, (the stick) and this makes us believe we are thinking for ourselves. Since this illusion is only created through perceptions that"s all the evil demon needs to give us to trick us.