BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Professional wrestlers are better athletes than football players

My opponent claims that football players are competitive. While I'd be inclined to agree the same can be said for professional wrestling. It is called backstage politics in wrestling[1] My opponent also asserts that football is antagonistic. So is professional wrestling. Every so often you will get a wrestler who is known as a stiff worker. A stiff worker is a wrestler who actually punches or kicks or slams an opponent hard. Bill Goldberg (Goldberg) and Leon White (Vader) are known as the two stiffest workers in the business.[2] Also sometimes, wrestling matches become real fights[3]. On the subject of fighting, sometimes things get so heated that fights occur back stage between wrestlers. Take the example of Booker T. Hoffman(Booker T.) and Dave Bautista(Batista)[4][5]. Respect is a huge thing in professional wrestling. Batist said some disrespectful things that Booker T. did not like. and a scuffle broke out. Both parties say they can work together but will likely never be friends Not all wrestling matches last a few minutes. Take the Wrestlemania 12 60 minute Iron Man Match between Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart.[6] It lasted 60 minutes and ended in a draw that required sudden death. Keep in mind that there were no breaks in between. In football, players get breaks in between quarters and time outs. Olympic Gold Medal wrestler, Kurt Angle and Former NCAA Champion and UFC CHampion, Brock Lesnar also had a 60 minute Iron Man Match.[7] These take a ton of atheticism and endurance. The longest ever wrestling match was 12 hours[8] The longest football game was what? a fourth of that? Three hours maybe? As with football, pro wrestling carries it's fair share of injuries. Pitbull 1's broken neck[9], Shawn Michaels' broken back[10], Steve Austin's broken neck[11], Taz's broken neck[12], Mick Foley's second degree burns[13] and of course, Mick Foley losing his ear[14]. How many football players can say they have lost an ear or gotten 2nd degree burns while playing? That requires ALOT of will power to get through. If my opponent cannot answer the question of how many football players have lost an ear or gotten 2nd degree burns while playing, he will have to concede that wrestling is more antagonistic. He may have to concede as his answer to the question. 1. http://bleacherreport.com... 2. http://forums.wrestlezone.com... 3. http://guyspeed.com... 4. http://www.wrestlinginc.com... 5. http://www.wrestlinginc.com... 6. http://www.wwe.com... 7. 8. http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com... 9. 10. http://bleacherreport.com... 11. http://bleacherreport.com... 12. http://bleacherreport.com... 13. http://bleacherreport.com... 14. http://bleacherreport.com...
Professional wrestlers are better athletes than football players

I suppose my opponent and I share the burden of proof for this debate. As Con, I am arguing that football players are better athletes than professional wrestlers.1. Football players play competitively. Football players are actually playing against opponents who are playing to win. Professional wrestling is scripted and the ending has been created long before the match has started. That is not the case in football. There is no script for players to follow. Players play the sport knowing that the other guy is playing to win as well. Football players have to study tapes and study their opposing teams' plays. Football is competitive with both side attempting to win the game and they will utilize whatever means to win[1][2][3]. Professional wrestling is more like ballet and/or theater than a competitive sport. In professional wrestling, no one is really trying to resist the moves their opponent is doing. That is why a small wrestler can beat a giant, or a woman can beat a man,or even more interesting is when a man overcomes three men by some unforeseen miracle. Other impossible feats can only be conceptualized in professional wrestling because it is not competitive and scripted. This why professional wrestling will allow the most outlandish outcomes to happen. [1]Deacon Jones Headslap. http://youtu.be...[2]Dick Butkus. http://youtu.be...[3]Ray Lewis putting down Chad Johnson. http://youtu.be...2. Football is actually antagonistic. Unlike professional wrestling, there is no acting involved in football. Football players used to often attempt to take another player off the field or worse send them to the hospital. Players still attempt to take each other off the field but they can't openly try it otherwise they will face a fine and/or suspension. The most infamous example that I recall was when Albert Haynesworth of the Tennessee Titans took his cleat and stomped on another player's head while the player was on the ground. If the player had not been wearing a helmet, he could of been hurt severely. In professional wrestling, the entertainers are not deliberately trying to hurt each other. Nor are they attempting to send someone to the hospital intentionally. Professional wrestlers are actually working together to entertain. Football players are not trying to entertain intentionally when they hit someone hard. Football players are trying to take someone out. [4]Albert Haynesworth's head stomp. http://youtu.be...3. Football games demand far greater endurance and physical athleticism. A football game lasts about 3 hours[5]. A professional wrestling match lasts a few minutes. Professional wrestling does not demand endurance, strength, or speed. Why would they need to have all of these physical abilities when their opponent is not trying to hurt them? [5]. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com...
Is Pokemon Causing Animal Abuse

Pokemon is causing Animal Abuse and Animal Cruelty because at this website https://qz.com... PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are taking a stand for Pokemon causing Animal Abuse and Cruelty because in the games you start out as an 10 year old who starts out with an Pokemon, and you have to go out and catch them all and take an Pokemon's freedom away from humanity and you end up having a 10 year old kid with hundreds of Pokemon who lost their freedom to the player. And right when Pokemon GO came out, that's when PETA really started bashing Pokemon for how the game can show off Animal Abuse. And the Pokemon games have this 6 Pokemon rule where you can only carry 6 Pokemon at a time, which means if you need too catch them all, that isn't really nice to have over hundreds of Pokemon kept in a PC, and never used again. And also at this website https://www.forbes.com... the Animal Rights Group als starts bashing Pokemon for how the game has animal abuse and cruelty in it and they have the same stands as PETA. And this website https://newrepublic.com... is showing the debate with Pokemon and has a picture of how a Pokemon is treated, and the picture shows Pikachu, the unofficial mascot of Pokemon, with blood all over him, and a neckbrace and a chain hooked onto it, and Pikachu has a stick in it's hand. you can see the full picture at the website. And it can teach kids like for an example if they have an gerble or an Hampster they can throw it in it's ball and can represent a Pokemon to the kid, and it is INHUMAINE. I represent my case.
Is Pokemon Causing Animal Abuse

Pokemon aren't being abused. They are capable to run away from abusive trainer. According to https://the-artifice.com..., if a abusive trainer is spotted that trainer will get reported and will lose his "trainer permission" therefore being unable to catch Pokemon. Team Rocket leader Giovanni after being beaten actually realizes that Pokemon aren"t tools but living things. After looking at this article I have found that the Pokemon association makes laws to protect Pokemon. They even have made the most famous rule that all Pokemon trainers know:The 6-Pokemon Rule. You can only keep up to 6 Pokemon with you at a time. And Pokemon specifically says in its games that Wild ____ fainted! Or _____ fainted. Not Wild ____ died.(There are fan remakes who do this). Also on http://www.debate.org..., 75% of voters (Most of which either watched the anime or played the games) said that it isn"t causing animal abuse. Some of the people who voted said "The main character of the anime doesn't abuse his main Pokemon." Pikachu for 20 seasons and 21 years of the anime has never left Ash's side. I rest my case.
Atheism

RebuttalsI will begin by quoting my opponent: 'Ok good. Where is a universe that comes from nowhere? Tiny particles are tiny particles NOT universes.'My opponent obviously hasn't made a good refutation of this. As I said in my last round given the right amount of particles over a large amount of time can result in a large reaction such as the Big Bang. The very fact that this has the chance of happening proves that a creator alone is not the only way to explain the causation of the Universe. My opponent then says evolution is a fairy tale. Of course 99% of all scientists are evolutionists and they are the ones who observes the evidence up close. The fossil record proves it to be true [1], we share 96% of our DNA with the Chimp[2], and we ourselves as embryos and fetuses we have tails and gills[3]. These things that we have are not things we used, so it has been concluded that they are left-overs from our long evolutionary heretage. There fore this that is claimed by my opponent (like all of the others) is flase. Morality is a result of our intellect. I'm saying that since a lot of people believe in God means its likely he exists. If 99% of the population say 2+2=5 then its likely it does. If 2 is redefined and a mathamatical law is redefined and 99% of the people agree, then 2+2 can = 5.My opponent's claim here is absurd. 5 is a concept that while, can be renamed, the concept can not! You can rename god in anyname you wish, but the concept would remain. You can rename 5, and the concept will still remain. Just because the majority is Theist and Deist does not make it the truth, no more then the majority of humans a thousand yours ago thought the world was flat and were wrong. Defense of Contention 1My opponent's claims were easily refuted, and the burden of proof is on him because is the challenger and the Theist. He is trying to prove Atheism isn't true, and I am defending it. He being the challenger and the defender of a positive claim has the burden to present credible evidence.Defense of Contention 2But can he do them at the same time? No. Plus, one can not limit power if they are all-powerful.Defense of Contention 3 I contend that the methods such as carbon dating, melecular dating, and radioactive dating are all quite reliable for determining that the Earth, and the universe is billions of years old [4,5,6]. Furthermore, the length between the expanding planets tells us that they have been expanding for billions of years [7]. My opponent stated one speck of evidence, I am sure that if anyone proved that the Universe is 6,000 years old, then they would have gotten pier reviewed in at least one scietific magazine or the nobel prize. But no such thing has occured. Why you ask? Because it is not evidence for anything, and the evidence all points to not 6,000 years nor 20 billion. It points to 15 to 14 billion years.Sources[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[3]http://www.skepticreport.com...[4]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...... [5]http://www.botany.wisc.edu...... [6]http://www.lbl.gov...... [7]http://skyserver.sdss.org...
Atheism

Pro stated these particles that come from nowhereOk good. Where is a universe that comes from nowhere? Tiny particles are tiny particles NOT universes.Who created God?No one did. He cannot be God if someone created him. He always existed, always was just therePro says that humans decide morality through evolution(which is a fairy tale).But why is murder wrong? He doesnt answer why. If your moral standard is evolving and can contradict itself, can that system of moral determination be true since it can produce self-contradiction?I'm saying that since a lot of people believe in God means its likely he exists. If 99% of the population say 2+2=5 then its likely it does. If 2 is redefined and a mathamatical law is redefined and 99% of the people agree, then 2+2 can = 5.Lack of evidenceI have presented evidence. It is extraordinary proof and evidence. However you have not presented any extraordinary evidence for atheism.OmnipotenceGod can make a rock so big he cannot lift it. Then he would lift it. He can limit his power then become more powerful. Imperfect DesignThe universe is only 6000 years old.The outer planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields, but they should be long "dead" if they are as old as claimed according to evolutionary long-age beliefs. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptuneimg.[1]The number of type I supernova remnantsimg (SNRs) observable in our galaxy is consistent with an age of thousands of years, not millions or billions. So NO the universe is NOT 20 billion years old, even if it was God is timeless so it dosn't matter.Pro hasn't presented any extraordinary proof and evidence.vote con [1]http://creation.com...;
Atheism

Ok I accept the rules "Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause. This leads to a regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God." So athiest where did the universe come from? Where did the matter and energy comeform to make the big bang Matter cannot organise itself. An uneaten tomato will not progress on its own accord to form a perfect pineapple. It will transform into mould, into disorganisation. The laws of evolution fall flat. Where do your morals come from? How do you know whats right and wrong without god Where do our moral values held within our conscience come from? If the atheist is right, why then would we care about what we did?! If there is no God, then we've no-one to be accountable to. According to TV Guide, a number of years ago, 96% of Americans actually believe in God's existence. Which means there's 4% that don't, which equates to something like 10 million atheists in the United States. Whats more likely that 4 percent are wrong or 96%. uhhhh 4% duh! Atheism is a faith which has not been proved. The disbelievers have not witnessed anything to not believe in, whereas the believers believe because they have witnessed. There is no 'good news' to preach in atheism. SO prove atheism is correct. Give us your best Proof and Evidence that atheism is accurate and correct. of course men like Albert Einstein said; "A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind". Are you as smart as him? Lets but god through occams razor It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing. God has proved himself to us in numerous ways, all around us. The atheist needs to put his glasses on. What more can God possibly do if man has shut his eyes to him? You see atheists don't disbelieve for intellectual reasons, but for moral reasons. They just want to sin, and so do you. You dont want a God telling you what to do. So you disbelieve. sad
Atheism

OK, I accept, but before you present your argument I will state the some rules and clearifications.The Resolution shall be as follows: Atheism is most likely a fact. ~~Rules~~1. No Semantics2. 8,000 characters for arguments, however sources can be posted in the comments section if one has no room.3. No Plagarism4. No new arguments in last rounds.Atheism will be defined as follows: The lack of an all-powerful being that created the universe. Now with these presented, I leave my opponent to present his opening arguments.Thank You.
Your opinion, while amusing, is irrelevant.

Opponent: "I support Shariah law." First, lets start by defining support: "To give assistance to, especially financially." As I have said earlier, opinions and actions are two distinctly different things. Supporting Shariah law is an action. It's something you are doing physically through your everyday living. If it was your opinion, you would say, "I think Shariah law is a good way to govern society," which, as we all know at this point, is fundamentally useless.
muslims will fight the demons they raise themselves..

(I do not understand most of my opponents statement, the only part of his argument that I can discern is "ban islam", so I shall rebut that) Banning Islam is a vile idea that should not be even taken into consideration by modern day governments due to numerous moral/political reasons. Firstly, the 1800's and early 1900's considered times of injustice for black persons living around the world. In South Africa partied was active, and In the U.S Racial segregation was in place. And when we look back on it as a society we all say in unison it is wrong. Yet we are trying to re-create a form of extreme religious segregation with Islam which fundamentally has the same structure as racial filing. This will cause havoc among nations that implement this religious segregention. Islam is one of the largest religions with over 1.6 billion religious followers nations will experience a major uprise. This may even cause a collapse of a nation which leads to my second argument. Secondly, banning Islam in such a time is a terrible decision since it can lead to a civil uprising and major opposition from Middle Eastern nations which are well known for being Islam based. This may spark a war between both the Western Nations and the Middle Eastern nations. Finally, modern day Islamic terrorism was created predominantly by the U.S and the UK. For example, both the U.S and the U.K funded the training for an organization to help fight a Russian-supported government from Afganistan, that organization turned against the U.S after conceiving victory and turned into the notoriously known Taliban, the group that most people fear, and have turned into Islamaphobics due to it. Nations can't blame a religious group for organizations that they created and funded. It's un-ethical and immoral. This concludes my argument, of Islam, should not be banned. This religious feeling.
Rap battle

this is rap, who cares about spelling all that matters is what keeps selling and i never said i wanted legalization drugs are bad, its a common fact i dont know how much dope youve had but smoken dopes pretty sad but enough of that now when we are done, your the one who will kneel and bow ill come down like a bomb, cuz your raps pittifull destroying your song, desemating your sole cuz the aff just sucks looks like hes out of luck your own words you will suck falling in failure landing in the muck you just got served on a platinum plate youve just lost this debate
Rap battle

haha, ok(i will write an example of your average rap song) nick nack patty wack bich, get me my crack if you dont, hell will break loose, ill hang you by a f-cking noose, youl scream and kick but wont get loose, people will stop and stare as i pour gassoleen on your hair light a fire, i dont care then ill get the f-ck out of there ------------------------------------------- now a rap to my oponent- the aff is in deep sh-t he better beable to take a hit ill blow your f- cking mind set off a nuke and let it shine blow you the f-ck up, then ill resign your body they will not find now lets here your rhyme
Marijuana Is a Medicine

"Contrary to the opinion of my opponent, I pointed out that the active ingredient in Marinol is in fact FOUND in Marijuana, therefore making it a medicine" No, that does not make Marijuana a medicine. For example, let's say that a substance is made up of irrelevant materials and glucose. Glucose is a sugar, but that does not make the substance a sugar. Also, I would like to point out that my opponent dropped my arguments about Marijuana and diseases. My opponent's arguments are poorly planned and lack good reasoning. My arguments, however, have gotten across a strong point and have created strong and contradictory arguments.
Marijuana Is a Medicine

----"So the government and regulatory bodies admit, through allowing Marinol, that Dronabinol is beneficial in the treatment of nausea. Dronabinol is naturally found in Marijuana, and no other place." "My opponent just, in these statements, conceded that in fact Marijuana is not a medicine, but Marinol." Contrary to the opinion of my opponent, I pointed out that the active ingredient in Marinol is in fact FOUND in Marijuana, therefore making it a medicine; backed by the fact that the FDA has endorsed the use of Marinol. (Marinols active ingredient is a cannabanoid, discovered within the cannabis/marijuana plant) Resolved: Because Marijuana has the cannabanoid present in Marinol, and Marinol is an accepted medicine, it stands to reason that marijuana is, and should legally be worldwide, (regardless of what some wish to believe in superstition) a medicine.
Marijuana Is a Medicine

The key word is OR, both apply separately. So a disease is- in other words: An impairment of the normal state of the living animals body OR the performance of the vital functions You misunderstand. an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions. it is saying that a disease must be an impairment of the normal state of the living animal, plant body, or one of its parts THAT interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions. ***************************************************** The point of the 1 and 2 in the dictionary is that they are distinct meanings. .. My opponent did not read my argument, where I clearly stated that "Right off the bat, we can see that marijuana is not a science and/or art etc. So let's focus on definition one. " The key is where I stated "let's focus on definition one. " I never said that it had to meet both definition one AND two. "So Marijuana is, via circular reasoning, a beneficial treatment when it comes to nausea. So Marijuana is a medicine. " I would like to point out that my opponent did not take into account the definition of medicine and disease. Nausea does not interrupt or modify the performance of vital functions. I define "nausea" as the following: a stomach distress with distaste for food and an urge to vomit. Source: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... A distaste for food and an urge to vomit does not interrupt or modify the vital functions. "Marinol is derived from a substance in Marijuana. Marinol is a pill; a pharmecutical version of Marijuana allowed by the FDA. Marijuana has the substance Dronabinol (a cannabanoid, derived from the word Cannabis, a synonym for Marijuana) naturally present in it, which is the SCIENTIFIC cause behinds Canibinols effects. So the government and regulatory bodies admit, through allowing Marinol, that Dronabinol is beneficial in the treatment of nausea. Dronabinol is naturally found in Marijuana, and no other place. " My opponent just, in these statements, conceded that in fact Marijuana is not a medicine, but Marinol. "I would consider nausea an impairment of the normal state of living. Alzheimer's too. I would consider epilepsy an EXTREME physical impairment, this is an example of a grassroots women who uses Cannabis exclusively after trying modern medicine. " I will concede my opponent's arguments that they are impairments; however, according to the definition, they must be that AND interrupt or modify the vital functions. I would like to point out that none of what he listed interrupts or modifies the VITAL FUNCTIONS. Therefore, they are not diseases, and marijuana cannot qualify as a medicine. Lastly, I would like to point out that my opponent has made numerous errors in grammar and/or spelling. I look forward to the next round.