BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mind has a material basis

The debate is about the notion that Mind is made up of matter. I don't agree to that because no physical science / material science has been able to describe the mechanical functioning of Mind. Efforts are being made to explain the mind and mental activity in terms of quantum physics. But taking into account the fact that the quantum theory itself has many unexplainable issues, I don't think it is right to try explaining something that is not understood in terms of something that is understood but not in totality? If that is allowed, why shouldn't we try to explain quantum physics in terms of the mind instead?
Hockey is a "better" spectator sport and requires more athleticism than baseball.

I am just trying to offset some of the more serious debates I have seen on this page. I know I am fighting a seemingly uphill battle here but I figured I would give it a shot for my first debate until I get settled here. I am for the idea that hockey is a "better" sport than baseball with respect to athleticism and available spectator enjoyment. For the first round I would just like to define what I mean by "better" and set the parameters of the debate. I know "better" is a subjective term and is based on opinions, so I would like to make the arguments as objective as possible. I plan to do this by talking about the following topics: average game length, average in game action, the percent of action per game, the amount of games per season, the importance of each game as it pertains to the season, the in-game skills required by all athletes, the difficulty scoring, and the type of team play (team vs. individual aspects). I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and in the spirit of good competition, good luck. If there are questions/concerns or any other parameters my opponent would like to discuss, please mention them in the first round before we proceed. Thank you.
Hockey is a "better" spectator sport and requires more athleticism than baseball.

On your question "What kind of return are they receiving on their investment per game?" I believe this is enforcing my point or at the very least, not enforcing any of our points because he or she (the spectator) has different opinions as to the value of the game compared to the price to pay. I do acknowledge your will to keep this objective. Back to my point on the Crowd interaction, the spectator will get much more foul balls and broken bats in baseball then they would in hockey (with pucks or sticks). Wouldn't you agree? and then ask anyone if they would enjoy getting a foul ball in a baseball and I personally have 3 MLB baseballs. that is the coolest feeling to be up on the JumboTron waving a foul ball around. I believe this is a large part of what makes baseball such a good spectator sport. You feel that baseball lacks seriousness because it has so many games that in the sense of the season the games mean almost nothing whether you win or lose. But this also means for a much more relaxed viewing intensity as no one likes to see there team lose and that feeling is intensified with more serious games as in hockey and which you proved.
Hockey is a "better" spectator sport and requires more athleticism than baseball.

If at all possible, I would like to keep this debate, or at least my side of it, focused on the "spectator" portion of the topic as I very much so agree that Hockey requires more athleticism. Thanks Let me first outline what makes a good spectator sport. A. Crowd Interaction B. Summertime, Outdoor activity C. Slow Pace to allow for conversation/discussion with friends D. Family oriented E. Value Would you agree? I would also like to point out a few flaws in my opponent's contentions 1) Regarding my opponent's contention, "the amount of games per season" I believe this is a contradiction to my opponent's side of the debate because a greater amount of games gives the spectator greater opportunity to attend these games and obviously baseball, with 162 games or more in a season, takes that category. If the spectator hasn't any spare time to attend the sparse and limited hockey games then he couldn't even begin to enjoy it. I also noticed that my opponent attempted to enforce this contention by implying that with less games there is greater importance in the outcome of the game as it pertains to the season, thus creating more dramatic game play. However, this can easily be countered by saying that, in baseball, teams play teams in series' of two to four and the results of those series' are equally significant to a win/loss in hockey. The Fans speak for themselves. According to ESPN, The 2010 MLB season (still in progress) has fielded about 30,338 attendees per game to the 2009 NHL's 17,460. And this concludes Round 1 Also I am new to this website so if there is any specific formalities that i may not be aware of or a specific format that should be used, just let me know http://espn.go.com... baseball attendance http://espn.go.com... hockey attendance
Jedes Thema in Deutsch

Vielen dank fuer die Moeglichkeit zur Debatte. Ich besitzte kein deutsche Tastatur, und werde deswegen Umlaeute und Esszets mit folgender Schreibweise benutzten: "ae", "oe", "ue" und "ss".Thema der Debatte ist einfach: "Meine Kentniss der Deutsche Sprache ist ihrer ueberwiegend".Viel spass und ich hoffe es wird es menschen geben die diese Debatte lesen werden koennen.
The Wage Gap is Fake

The pew article that con shared does state that "some part of the pay gap may also be due to gender discrimination. ” Both my sources and con’s conclude that the wage gap is real. I have demonstrated that, Higher income occupations pay men more than women on average for the same work and that that median income occupations pay men more than women on average for the same work. While the wage gap is often exaggerated we see that “there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. .. ” Con asserted in Round 1 that “The wage gap is a lie. ” We see that the wage gap is in fact real.
The Wage Gap is Fake

My first source from the previous argument does indeed state that: "As our video explains, the estimated 16-cent pay gap today has narrowed from 36 cents in 1980. Back then, the average woman would have had to work approximately 90 days, roughly into the beginning of May, in order to catch up with men"s earnings from the year before." (2) However, shortly after this point, the article launches into the various reasons as to why this exists, which includes my point from above, being that women take more hours off and choose to have greater flexibility schedule-wise than men in the same career. The article does not factor this, my primary argument, into the assessment of the wage gap, nor the career choices held by men and women; one must remember the statistic being debated is ON AVERAGE, not for a specific career. If the article had taken the statistics stated in my above argument than the gap would narrow significantly, ceasing to exist. Summary: Pew Article's "16 cent" statistic is WITHOUT taking into account the various work-related choices women make which in turn narrows the wage gap to the point of nonexistence. The wage gap is not due to any gender discrimination as some Feminists would believe.
The Wage Gap is Fake

The huff post article that con cites refers to the second link I cited and concludes as I have that though the wage gap is often exaggerated it is not fake. "The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace..." (1) Furthermore, cons first cited source concludes likewise. "As our video explains, the estimated 16-cent pay gap today has narrowed from 36 cents in 1980. Back then, the average woman would have had to work approximately 90 days, roughly into the beginning of May, in order to catch up with men"s earnings from the year before." (2) Again we see that though the pay gap is often exaggerated, it certainly exists. Summary: 4 sources in this debate, including two provided by con, demonstrate that the pay gap exists and is therefore not fake. Sources: (1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (2) http://www.pewresearch.org...
The Wage Gap is Fake

Pro has addressed my point regarding career choice, here; Median earnings for male engineering technicians in 2011 were just over $56,000 compared with median earnings of $43,000 for female engineering technicians. Among drafters, typical earnings for men were just over $51,000 while typical earnings for women were just over $45,000." (2) While this is correct, in this and his other given examples, Pro did not take into account my second point being that women generally choose to work fewer hours. In a survey done by Pew Research, it was found that 42% of working mothers have taken significant time off from work to care for a child or other family member. 27% said they had quit a job. The simple fact is, women choose flexibility in their hours which leads to corresponding lower pay. (1) One might choose to argue that working mothers are not a fair sample; however, 70% of mothers were in the workforce in 2013, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Other factors include men choosing to take jobs that are more dangerous and more willing to work weekends and extra hours, according to CBS News, which cites the infamous "77 cent to a dollar" White House Report and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2) Short Con: Conceding that without further research there appears to be a wage gap based on gender, when one looks deeper it is found that women choose to work less hours and are accordingly paid less. (On another note, here is an article from the Huffpo taking a completely opposite position to the one Pro has stated as a source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... ) 1 http://www.pewresearch.org... 2 http://www.cbsnews.com...
The Wage Gap is Fake

“In 2012, the median earnings of American women working full time year-round were $37,791. American men earned a median income of $49,398. The gender wage gap has hovered at about 77 cents on the dollar since 2007.” (1)This shows that generally men are paid more than women in the U.S. The typical response to this is to ask are women paid less because they choose lower-paying jobs? Con argues exactly this very thing stating... “ The statistic was made without taking into account profession of choice, time worked, benefits, or any other important piece of pay. “ Consider,“Earnings are high for both women and men who work as computer and information systems managers. But while median earnings for men in 2011 were just over $98,000, median earnings for women were around $86,000. Likewise, aerospace engineers tend to earn a good living. But while a typical male aerospace engineer took home just over $100,000 in 2011, his female counterpart was paid $83,000.”(2)This shows that Higher income occupations pay men more than women on average for the same work.“Median earnings for male engineering technicians in 2011 were just over $56,000 compared with median earnings of $43,000 for female engineering technicians. Among drafters, typical earnings for men were just over $51,000 while typical earnings for women were just over $45,000.” (2)This shows that median income occupations pay men more than women on average for the same work. Clearly the pay gap is empirically evident and as such, is indisputable. It may be exaggerated but the wage gap is evident. Con argues points out that, “discrimination in salary in a working environment has been illegal since 1963.” Just because something is illegal does not mean it is not being done… for example, speeding is against the law and virtually everyone has broken the speed limit. In short Con argues that “The wage gap is a lie, gender inequality in payment is illegal in the workplace and has been for 52 years.” The latter half is true, and the wage gap is often exaggerated. However, there is a wage gap that is empirically evident. Thus we see that the wage gap is not fake. Sources: (1) www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/gender-wage-gap_n_3941180.html(2) http://www.aauw.org...
The Wage Gap is Fake

As an avid surfer of the webs, I inevitably come across feminist blogs and other such sites claiming that there is an unfair wage gap between men and women in the United States. It is my belief, after some research, that this claim is untrue. To start off with, discrimination in salary in a working environment has been illegal since 1963. If you believe that your gender is causing your employer to pay you more or less, you can sue them in court and you will win. Period. Besides that, the simple fact remains that the famous "Women make 77 cents to a man's dollar" statistic is misquoted. The statistic was made without taking into account profession of choice, time worked, benefits, or any other important piece of pay. Simply put, men choose higher-paying professions; women choose lower-paying professions. This is of no choice but their own. In addition, women usually choose jobs with more flexibility, which thus pay lower; understandably, they wish to be with their children. Women also take maternity leave, and men do not. This is proven in a study by Goldin and Lawrence Katz. TL;DR The wage gap is a lie, gender inequality in payment is illegal in the workplace and has been for 52 years.
Gay Marriage

You have nothing to be sorry about, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I am glad you started this debate because the more experience you have, the better of a debater you will be. I will give you one tip, on your next debate make sure that you are confident with your answers. Confidence shows and ultimately that will win over the votes. Do not be discouraged and continue to debate. After you get a few debates under your belt, the words will flow with ease.
Gay Marriage

This is a touchy topic and in no way do I disagree with the fact that gay marriage should be allowed. I believe it is a constitutional right to be allowed to partake in gay marriage if one chooses to do so. On the other hand, I do not believe it should be legalized in all fifty states. There are other issues that are only legal or allowed in certain states (marijuana, gun control, doctor assisted suicide, etc. ). This should be a matter for the states to decide. There are certain states that would find it morally unacceptable due to the religious background of the state or the location of the state and with that being said, there are some states that would find it acceptable and declare it legal. My point is there are instances where this has occurred in the past and the solution was to go to the states so therefore I find it hard to believe that the solution to this issue would be found on the federal level, especially without bringing the other issues mentioned earlier to a federal as well. **No outside sources used**
Kalam argument is sound

Good job to Pro! I am a sheep in wolf's clothing - I actually support the Kalam Argument. I have debated quite a bit in favor of it. I was using this debate as practice, throwing what I think are the most clever protests against the Kalam I've heard to see how Pro would respond. I tried to be as tough as possible, maybe even a little belligerent :) Since this is the last round and Pro will not have an opportunity to respond, there is no point in me whipping up further rebuttals.
Kalam argument is sound

Resolution: Kalam Cosmological argument is sound. Rules : -no trolling -no forfeits -no semantics (tweaking definitions in the dictionary) Rounds : Round one - acceptance R2) arguments R3) Rebuttals R4) Rebuttals R5) Rebuttals Definitions: God : The necessary immaterial, spaceless, timeless and personal cause of the universe. Universe : The contingent natural world BOP : Pro Notes: 1- This argument is completly compatible with both A and B theory of time since the differences between the two theories of time is purely in semantics and not in ontology. The differences between the two theories is how the describe a sequence of events. Under A theory, the events are described as in "the past" or "the present" or "future" relative to a particular observer or concious mind. While under B theory of time, the events are described as chronologically prior or posterior to other events. This does not affect the Kalam argument since all the argument must succeed in doing to be valid is established the finitude of the past (A theory) or that there is a finite sequence of events prior to today and that the events prior to this current event did not extend back chronologically forever and did have a beginning. Even Mctaggart, the godfather of the B theory of time, acknowledged that the difference is purely semantical and is in the description of the same concept. [1] Take for example, it rained in the past or yesterday (A theory) and It rained on October 28 (B theory). Both of these allude and describe the exact same event and the same concept and they have the exact same implications but they differ in how the event is described. 2- Cantor and set theory will not save you. Since Cantor dealt with Potential infinity, something which is not infinite now but in the process of becoming infinite, like counting numbers from one upwards, it is not actually infinite but is it is in the process of becoming infinite which is exactly what set theory is about. However, the history of the universe would be an actual infinite since it would be complete and infinite in the past now. It is not becoming infinite anymore. It is actually infinite and has a history of infinite events prior to the current moment. [1] - (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
Rap Battle : Hitler vs Jesus (Explicit Not for Kids)

Actually, in your last entry you said to start my rap in the "next round". Since you said that in the 1st round, that would mean that I would start my rap in the second round, which is now. Think before you ad hominem. Also, just so you are informed, there isn't actually a panel of judges or anything, it's just a public vote, so their votes aren't up to you. Now with that ungracefulness aside, my "rap" is as thus: Adolf: the old and artless haggard, through multiple orations you managed to stagger. You try but you can't match my holy swagger. You're a boorish dolt and I'm the world's manager. You're ideologies embody your aspect of a ninnyhammer, I can easily smash them with a metaphorical hammer. If you did what you do today you'd be put in the slammer, I mean didn't you try to kill your wife just after you cock-rammed her? Mass genocide on your part against the Jews? If you're lookin for success, let me give you a clue: Not enough imbeciles are conceited enough to follow you. Hell even Himmler made you ask "et tu?" But don't blame me, I'm just not a fan of the Nazi party, I guess being the son of god I'm just too much of a smarty. I figured out how it would end before it began, I'm on the cross while you kill like the son of Sam.
Rap Battle : Hitler vs Jesus (Explicit Not for Kids)

This is a Rape battle debate I shall take the roll of Hitler and my adversary shall take the roll of Jesus. He shall start his rap in the next round. In the last round of the debate he shall type "no round as agreed upon" failure to type this results in a full 7 point drop due to him/her having an extra round ffs will result in the loss of a conduct point and possibly the debate at the discretion of the judges.
Rap Battle : Hitler vs Jesus (Explicit Not for Kids)

There was a giant misunderstanding on my adversaries part. Partially due to an error by me when I stated round instead of turn. I have completed almost 150 debates almost all with the same outline, this was partially expecting the opponent to know what i meant when I stated he shall start. If he posted in the next round that would only leave him with one round to post due to him having no round at the end. As for now we are going to make this a one rounder. I would ask no one doc him conduct for this. He still will type no round in the last round per the rules and we will make this a one rounderI refrained from posting an argument earlier to keep this fair O Sht I brought this btch back from the deadI'm going to split his flesh open and metaphorically serve it as breadThen I am going to slice his arteries open in a brief moment of timeGoing watch his blood drip out, and then i'm going to serve it as wine. This guy claims he is the son of God but does he even exist?No one will ever know, but by the end of this Rap I am going to make him my btchI'm mother fukin Hitler man, I am a living legend, a bossWhen I am finished with you , I am going to put your azz back up on that crossYour not on your knees praying, just tell the truth you like to give head. but now that your in the ring with a king your praying that you would have just stayed deadIts funny you said genocide and lack of success and directed it at to meYour a jew btch and I cut the limbs off your family tree. You wrote the bible and it is a effin jokeI guess you like talking animals and incest , but hey whatever floats your boatI wrote mein kampf, consider it is a personal biographyIf you read it enough, maybe you will learn that you never can fuk with meI am through with this jew, this was kind of funJust like you hinted in your last words "it is done"I am going to pull you down from heaven and give you my personal mushroom stampThen I am going to stick you ten feet under in one of my concentration camps
The New Testament Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

As per the rules of this debate, this debate is now over. Voters, I leave this in your hands. Before you vote, I ask that you ask yourself two questions:1) Have I brought forth any contradictions of consequence? If no, then vote CON. If so, as yourself (2) Did my opponent sucesfully harmonize the scriptures? If yes, vote con. If not, vote pro.I thank my opponent for this debate, please DO NOT VOTE BASED UPON YOUR BIAS OPINION. Thank you for showing superb conduct.