BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pro athletes are overpaid.

I will start this last round by naming everything my opponent hasn't talked about or has wrong. A. ) My economical argument has been left untouched, leaving Pro with no answer for it, making it valid. (STANDING POINT) B. ) My opponent strays from the actual topic here, which is "Pro athletes are overpaid" not "Pro athletes are overpaid compared to *insert profession*". That's a different debate, and all I am trying to say is that they are not overpaid, seeing as it is perfectly logical as to why they make that much money. C. ) My opponent completely misjudges the importance of athletic role models in America, especially an OBESE America, which needs this people to be here helping the youth become active. D. ) My opponent cannot give a valid reason refuting the charities that Pro athletes dump millions into, and the foundations that wouldn't be around without them. If these athletes didn't have larger paychecks, none of the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people who were helped by those charities would have been helped. E. ) Pro also doesn't counter my "fame" argument, which is simply that in order for someone to do something that will NEVER give them privacy again, they must be paid more. (STANDING POINT) Pro's claims for the doctor's paychecks are invalid because he states no source. Are we just supposed to take your word for it? In that case, I could go ahead and say that 98% of ALL pro athletes checks go into charities. You wouldn't believe me because I have no source. Same goes for Pro's lack of sources. This is completely irrelevant either way because, like I stated before about the actual topic, doctors don't matter in this debate. In Round 3, Pro is trying to make a very confusing point. Someone who works really had at McDonald's, making minimum wage, deserves millions of dollars? ! Well that seems a bit outrageous. And still, irrelevant. Speaking of millions of dollars, I would like to point out that Pro started this debate saying that $20M or greater was the usual pay for athletes, then states later that on average, a basketball player only makes $6 million a year. Seems he doesn't even have his facts straight. |Conclusion| Pro gives no valid or relevant points in accordance to the topic "Pro athletes are overpaid", and I have at least two contentions that he couldn't answer for. Any sensible person reading this would realize that not only do my points hold relevance and merit (as opposes to my opponents), but they weren't even countered.
Pro athletes are overpaid.

If you want 2011 stats for how much basketball players get paid in comparison to doctors then fine. The average NBA players salary remains at roughly 6 million dollars and doctors average went down to $175,000 so ,yes, it changed, but just more for the NBA players. You tell me to stop comparing pro athletes salaries to doctors, lawyers etc.? Fine, how about I compare the athletes pay to people who work so hard just so they can make minimum wage? Lebron James is just one example of an overpaid, arrogant, self-conceited athlete. Do you think that D-bag deserves all the money he has? Really? "I could most likely tell you the whole Ravens roster, not to mention every other important player in football, baseball, and even basketball, and I don't even watch the last two." Honestly, I don't care if you can name all those players or how much you like pro athletes that doesn't make them not overpaid. Also I would hope ,if a doctor patched someone up good, that they would want to become a doctor because this nation doesn't need more athletes/"role models". We need more doctors. All in all athletes are not necessary even if they are your role models.
Pro athletes are overpaid.

I'm saying that because they donate to charities, it balances out the amount of money they make. You would THINK that lawyers and such would donate to charities, but let's be a little more broad with who we consider to have a high paying job. It's mainly successful businessmen, and how DO they become successful?? Well, they hardly spend money. They are tightwads who would rather cut back employee salaries then dare send a nickel to an AIDS fund or, god forbid, start a foundation for, let's just say, the blind? Or deaf, or mentally challenged, or whatever. Also, you haven't even responded to the economic circulation arguement I made. I'm not saying those who save lives aren't or shouldn't be role models, but people just don't see as much of them, nor do they feel inclined to say "Wow, that doctor patched me up good. I wanna be a doctor!" More like...."Wow, that doctor patched me up good. Now I can go back out and try even harder to be like Ray Lewis." I'm glad you're pulling stats from 2008....in three years I would say a lot of things have changed with those numbers. Please stop referencing doctors and lawyers like those are the only people in this world that actually matter. That basketball player does a lot to support his community, not only being an entertainer. Doctors issue wrong reports often, and are sued for malpractice because of it. Same with lawyers. Why should that person be paid more than someone not only giving up his own life for the public, but also giving up his money for the public too. You just focus on them being overpaid because other professions could use the money more, but that's not what this debate is about. You should have worded it "Pro athletes are wrongly paid more than doctors" or whatever. SO, you really have no argument, seeing as I justified their high payments, and you haven't countered it. Back to you
Pro athletes are overpaid.

You say that they aren't overpaid because they donate to charities. Well, that's great if they donate to charities and other organizations, but that doesn't mean they aren't overpaid and don't you think that if lawyers etc. were paid the same amount of money they would also donate to charities? I think so. You also said that athletes are role models, but don't you think people who are saving lives should be the real role models? The average pro basketball players salary in May 2008 was $6 million per year and the average doctors was $200,000. Does that seem fair that basketball players are making that much more than doctors who stay up all night saving lives?
Chess is a game of luck

Ah, now i understand where your arguments come from. To the inexperienced chess player, much of the game is considered luck, and it is based on the phenomenon known as hope chess. This is where the players hope for their opponents to mess up so they may win by sheer luck. Now on the the points made by the affirmation, " Often, masters will have a "feeling" about a position and follow this. " This is absolutely correct. and this is known as intuition, which is developed by skill, that is, when masters play for such a long time, they tend to find and use patterns, and when they go with a gut feeling, that is merely because they encountered a similar scenario previously and they therefore knew how to deal with it. If it helps think of a game of chess like a multiple choice math test with 20 questions. While you may be lucky with a guess, it is in no way a substitute for skill and understanding. I would like to thank the affirmation for providing such strong arguments, and I would also like to urge the Voters to vote in favor of whichever side they felt performed better. Thank you!
Chess is a game of luck

We are debating whether Chess is a game of skill or a game of luck. I'm not sure why you have made additional definitions when I have made perfectly good definitions, but to remind voters, a game of luck is a game which may have SOME SKILL ELEMENT to it, however, CHANCE plays a GREATER role in determining the OUTCOME than skill. If chess were a game of luck it would not necessarily be like a game of snakes and ladders or any similar game where an equal ratio of win to loss can occur. In Chess the probability of winning cannot be measured because the outcome is not determined by luck alone. A person's skill can affect the outcome, this is why I have said "skill is no doubt involved in chess". Every time I say chess is a game of luck people automatically assume I think it's a game of pure luck, when this is not the case. Luck just plays a greater role in determining the outcome! Since I have had nothing to debate so far, I will just try to cover any holes in my debate Chess is not simply an idle amusement, it does teach people to be cautious (not make moves too quickly), teaches foresight (consider consequences), and can help people to see how pieces can work together etc. The game can help develop mental ability. The extent to which you can use it to change an outcome in chess however is limited. In case Con mentions Martial Arts, or any similar interactive sport where more skill than luck is required, I will say that Chess is completely different to those because everyone who plays chess should read about the game to be somewhat equally familiar before playing. Nobody can expect to perfect their skill in karate by reading books about it, but reading books about chess can make you a good chess player, and will allow the forces of luck to play a greater role in determine the outcome. Chess Masters follow chess theory in the opening stage, and wild positions can result causing them to need to make positional considerations above other considerations. They are free from errors (on their own) only in the middle game where they will be in a position they have not freely chosen and may be in a situation where tactical (when a piece threatens one of yours) tactics take precedence over strategy. Players can't wisely ignore the tactical side and carry on with their strategy, they will choose to lose mobility to save pieces which can win or cost them the game. Often, masters will have a "feeling" about a position and follow this. When chances remain equal, the game often ends in a draw [1]. I've already said how chance enters Chess in ties and how this affects the outcome. Sources: [1] https://books.google.co.uk...
Chess is a game of luck

A solid opening from by the Affirmation First i would like to define a few terms in order to clarify a few things. skill - the ability to do something that comes from training, experience, or practice luck - the things that happen to a person because of chance : the accidental way things happen without being planned chance - the possibility that something will happen probability - a measure of how often a particular event will happen if something (such as tossing a coin) is done repeatedly Now, if we are to use these definitions we can understand that chess is in fact a game of skill. If chess were in fact a game of luck, there would be a defined ratio of win to loss of exactly one - half. Now, as we have people who we classify as 'masters', these are people who are statically impossible in a game that centered on nothing but luck. As I believe the the Pro would like to counter this point, i shall halt my refutation until the affirmation has a chance. i also would like to request the Affirmation to explain this statement from their argument, "Skill is no doubt involved in Chess". Thank you, and good luck pro! Sources http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Chess is a game of luck

A good move by Con. Intro First let me explain what made me begin thinking that Chess is a game of luck. When I used to play Tron Evolution (xbox 360 game) I found that once I became familiar with the game having made ~10,000 virtual kills (the point where the game began to get boring) I could easily beat newbies. However what really surprised me was that I was just as good as Dark Angel - a player who had ~2 million virtual kills. He had way more losses than me too. Basically he was 200 times more experienced, yet I was able to beat him half of the time! This of course can be explained by "an ability curve" where it takes a short amount of time to improve at first but later on it gets harder and harder to get just a bit better. It's why if I were to play against a professional chess player right now I'd more than likely lose 99.99% of the time. Skill is no doubt involved in Chess. However it is possible to read about Chess i.e. become familiar with the game before playing, this can allow your level of skill to be similar to the best human players making it very difficult to distinguish who the better player is. Anyone serious about a game will do their homework. Human factor In darts (a game of skill), two players can seem identical for the most part, the match is played over a fixed number of games known as legs so the winner of the "whole game" can be determined through skill. Although Chess and darts are both turn based games, Chess is more like Tron because every decision made is based entirely upon someone else's. Humans are well known to be unpredictable. Con may argue that in this case players require more skill when if anything players require more luck. If you are competing in a championship and win more games than other players you may conclude you are more skilled, but if you add new players to the arena who have studied moves you haven't but which the others have you may no longer be the champion, even if you have more overall knowledge and deserve to win. Who you play is important. Fairness Many end game scenarios (involving 7 pieces or less left) have been believed by expert chess players to be unwinnable and players normally agree the match is tied, but a computer might prove that checkmate can be forced in perhaps as many as 500 moves. Should a computer tell you when you have won before you know? Or should players continue playing until the other person is exhausted? I'm not sure exactly what rule applies with ties. There doesn't seem to be a fair rule though for this situation, if both players must agree to tie it means a person who wants to win by exhausting the other can. Is that fair? They would still win by having a greater concentration and focus i.e. mental ability, or do you think a wider range of metal ability should be tested? A game of pure skill requires fair rules. Final argument Chess gives players an illusion of control despite there being complex rules; a player who takes many pieces may inadvertently give their opponent an unforeseeable advantage. Thanks for reading, I look forward to your arguement
Should gender roles (and identities) exist? (See argument for more detail)

First of all the gender roles that we have in place do not show the dominance of the male gender it just tells you what society thinks that the male gender should be. This is not saying that the female gender can;'t do the same thing it is only saying what society thinks that should be the way that the male gender should be. In some aspects men are biologically stronger, which makes then feel like protectors. Women are the child-bearers, so they will forever have the care-giving maternal instinct. In other species, the men must prove themselves to be worthy of the women, which is why male peacocks are given brighter feathers: to impress the ladies. If you want to argue that our heightened intelligence separates us from other species, we can still look at the situations of today. Most women still want to be cared for by men and most men still want to care for women. There are exceptions, of course, as there is to everything. Society doesn't have to recommend a boy becomes a nurse; if he wants to become one, however, no one is stopping him. However, A man needs to realize what his role is in making his spouse "bloom", same with the woman. Roles as in cooking, cleaning, and staying at home, have been directed towards women but not exactly in all cases is this true. Men are capable of cooking and cleaning, as are women for doing car maintenance and working, but when it comes to emotional roles things are pushed into place. The woman is a flower that should be tended by her spouse and taken care of, and the woman should tend to her spouse also. When roles like this are confused and abused, bad things can take place such as domestic abuse, and the relationship may fail. In order to keep a society flourishing, these roles need to be realized and practiced by men and women. So there fore i think that we should have gender roles for those reasons. I think that the gender roles that were put into place from when we were first made should still be in the world today. We need to have some guidelines to go off of because with out this we wouldn't know our roles in relationships that are made today. There would be more fights and a lot more divorces and breakups if we didn't have gender roles.
Should gender roles (and identities) exist? (See argument for more detail)

Firstly, let's define the gender roles that we are talking about. Generally, it's common consensus that men are to take the dominant role and females are to take the more docile role. Men are supposed to be assertive, confident, physically and emotionally strong, and large. Women are supposed to be submissive, docile, graceful, physically and emotionally "weak", and as short and skinny as possible. Considering that generally, in almost every civilization since the dawn of the human race, patriarchies were established, one would have to consider why this happened. The answer probably comes down to physical strength- while men tend to accumulate mass in muscle from excess energy, women tend to accumulate fat, leading to women generally from 40-60% as strong as men. In a primitive world, physical strength translated into men doing physically demanding labor such as hunting and farming while women did less physically demanding house chores- raising children, cooking, and sweeping. In a world where primal instincts scream "bigger and stronger means more likeliness of survival", men became generally seen as dominant over women. However, in today's world, these things do not occur. Most jobs nowadays are no longer require extreme physical ability. The conditions that led to gender roles no longer exist, and have no reason to be maintained. I would argue that aside from societal teachings that we are taught since the day we were born, there are few differences between men and women. There is a wide variance of personality, intellect, and physical ability within each sex. There are extremely submissive men and very dominant women in the world, and, without considering gender roles, is that necessarily wrong? Besides teachings by society about the how the world should be, there is little psychological difference between men and women. The gender roles that have been established do nothing but create irrelevant guidelines following nature's rules that were present before the establishment of society but have no relevance nowadays. Not only that, they oppress those who do not fit the guidelines, physical and mental.
Should gender roles (and identities) exist? (See argument for more detail)

I think that gender roles should exist because of the fact that if we didn't have them nobody would know who would do what in a relationship. This just means that there is certain roles that a man and woman should do. It is just tradition that we have as humans to set certain roles for the genders. For example our society has the men as the protectors and the woman as the nurtures. This is a big key in society that we need to keep. I think that we should have gender roles because of those reasons. The gender roles have been around since we were created and we should keep them as that. We should not try to change what society wants in life.
Should gender roles (and identities) exist? (See argument for more detail)

We live at a time riddled with controversy over gender, especially that of gender identity. Gender identity is a huge problem nowadays, with tons of people against the very idea. However, I propose that the root of the problem is gender roles- societal establishments about what men should do and women should do. However, many people do not always conform with these standards, as if they were round holes being forced through square pegs. Perhaps to cope with this stress, some turn to gender identities and gender transformation to create their own sense of belonging. But if you think about it, what if you widen the holes that these individuals are being forced through? If we were to (hypothetically) get rid of every single stereotype and expectation for males and females, would there not be no need for gender identities? This is why I propose the abolishment of gender roles. Would it be easy to implement? Of course not. However, gender roles are clearly outdated in today's day and age.
Should gender roles (and identities) exist? (See argument for more detail)

First of all, it is undeniable that gender roles are based around the dominance of man. There are two main types of gender roles: within relations, and outside of them. However, both follow the same general principal: men are to be the strong leaders and protectors and women are to be followers and damsels. This very thought breeds the feeling of dominance in men- how could it not, with men being positioned so much higher up in their own minds? They are the heroes and the kings, the protectors of the weak, etc. etc. etc. This dominance can lead to misinterpretations by some men who buy completely into gender roles- they begin feel in charge of everything and become emperors of their own world, believing they can do whatever they want and women will have to succumb to them. This, rather than lack of gender roles, is what leads to domestic abuse, rape, and sexism. While it is true that females can commit these against men, given dominance that men are taught they must exhibit to be attractive, they are much more likely to commit these acts. I did not intend to bring the issue of sexism into my argument, but my argument encompasses the fact that gender roles are the root of sexism. As I said and you have shown, outside of relationships, gender roles are becoming less significant. Men are now taking jobs in fields that used to be considered "women's work", and vice versa. However, gender roles outside of relationships are still getting in the way of each being able to take positions that they may be more qualified in. Female leadership roles in large companies are almost nonexistent- less than 18% of board members of Fortune 500 companies are female, and less than 5% are CEOs. Why? Because gender roles dictate otherwise. I understand that you believe that men should care for women, and this is true. Yes, men want to care for women, and yes, women want to be cared for, but the opposite is also true- women want to care for men too, and men want to be cared for. Each needs to take care of the other, and that is not based on gender roles, it's just based on mutual love and partnership. We don't need gender roles to love and care for one another, it's within our blood and bones. We all want to care for someone and be cared for, and we don't need gender roles to tell us how to do it. A man should be able to love however he wants, as a woman should be able to as well. There should be no reason to look down upon a woman who is assertive in a relationship or a man who is meek, which occurs often in our society today. Given the insignificant real differences between men and women in that today's society, gender roles hold no place in today's world. Perhaps in days before civilization where the distribution of work by gender for mechanical (muscle) purposes, gender roles were relevant, but in today's society, gender roles have become irrelevant. There is no reason why each should be forced to perform a certain role in society and relationships, and these expectations create more problems than they solve.