BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Basketball is a bad sport

Basketball is defined as according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com...: bas·ket·ball (băs′kĭt-bôl′)noun1. A game played between two teams of five players each, the object being to throw a ball through an elevated basket on the opponent's side of a rectangular court. Players may move the ball by dribbling or passing with the hands.According to the book 'Basketball' written by Peter Murray and published in 2008:'Canadian born, Dr. James Naismith invented the sport of basketball in 1891. Under the instruction of the Head of Physical Education, Naismith was given the task of providing an "athletic distraction" for a bored and unruly class by inventing a game that would keep his students entertained and occupied as well as physically fir during the long, harsh Massachusettes winters.'Basketball is a very physical and mentally challenging game. Yes the court is only 28 meters long and 15 meters wide, but when you go defense or you get a fast break, you have to sprint your gut to get back. You have to sprint over and over as fast and as hard as you can. http://www.livestrong.com... proves even at a medium paced game you can lose over 300 calories.Ever since obesity is growing every year, shouldn't we be encouraging people to do sport? Pro stated that basketball is expensive. I believe it isn't so. Basketball is cheap unlike other sports. All you need is a ball and two rings. There are many free hoops out in the urban area too, so it isn't like they are hard to find. You only need to pay (sometimes) for indoor courts, and if so it is usually $2-$8. If you think basketball is expensive; what about equestrian, polo, Formula 1, sailing, pentathlon, wing suiting, bobsledding, ski jumping and heaps more. Basketball overall, is cheap.Basketball is also popular in society. It is 'cool' to be playing basketball and encourages younger and older people to play. Whilst being cool the sport is available for all ages. You can be competitive or play social basketball. It is a great source of fitness and it is social as there are usually 6+ players in a team.Pro said that college basketball was pathetic. If people want to be good at something, they have to work for it. College basketball selects the best ballers and provides specialised training to improve their game. Majority of ballers would love to go to college and train with the experts. In source (2) of your debate, you posted this website: http://www.mercurynews.com.... This was a tournament held in the US. Nothing to do with you point of 'basketball is bad'.In addition, basketball is certainly a great source of fitness, suitable for all ages, is trendy, is cheap, if fun and provides excellent training if you want to excel and be the greatest you can be. It is definetly a great sport enjoyed by all, played by all and loved by all.
Basketball is a bad sport

Iy was purely just for socce players but some cooches thought it was good, so they keppt it goig. (1)) shows how the popularity hates basketball. Basketball is a waist of peoples time and money, what are you goig to leaarn from it? Nothing. College basketball is just awful. Seriously, strip away the lathered announcers, exaggerated David and Goliath plot lines and the national gambling fetish, and all that's really left is mostly unwatchable basketball (2). Basketball is a waist, it is a waist, a waist a waist a wasist. What is the poigt of doing it? I cant belieeve pleople call it s sport. I mena, people get a life. IT is just embarrasing. For say a domesticqa game you have to pay $10 to play, imagine every Wedesday playig. You would lose $40 dollarts before you knoow it. Basketball eqipitment is expeensive too (3). Why waist money when you could be getting a job? Some people aslso think that basketball is goood for fitnes. It isnt. It trouly isnt. People say it is good for running, but the court is short and you can have more than 10 players on a benchs, so you don't get fitnse done even though you throught you would, which would be annnoying, even thogh you paid $10 follars each game or something. Overall, basketball is terrible. It just is! Sources:(1). http://www.dailynorseman.com... (2) . http://www.mercurynews.com... (3) . http://www.google.com.au...
Morality

He is just as much a person and has the same right to live. However, I am not debating his right to live or his worth, I am debating the morality of killing him to save many others. I am not puting his life below others I am weighing the decrease in happiness which would result in not killing him against the decrease in happiness that would result in killing him. Basically 100 dead people will result in a far greater decrease in happiness than 1 dead person will. Other solutions have no bearing since i can only wiegh the two solutions against eachother. There are millions of solutions to every one problem. Therefore i can only look at the morality of killing the prisoner wieghed against the morality of not killing him resulting in 100 other people and myself dying. Your response is not rooted in morality as it does not look at intent or consequences. Basically If . My intent was to save lives . The consequences of my actions prevented a massive decrease in happiness then my actions are moral Their are two moral philosophys which back up what i have stated Firstly Kants moral philosophy says that if i was following a positive maxim to save human lives then my actions would also be good. Secondly the Utalitarianist/ ceonsequentialist point of view which says If my actions reduce the harm that would have otherwise occured then my actions were moral. The world we live in is one of decisions. We cannot leave our decisions to emotion but rather do what we can for the greater good. My opponent is yet to challenge the morality of the decision to kill the prisoner.
Morality

Based on first impression's this line of thinking seems "moral", but upon examination it is not. 1) Killing the man who you were instructed to kill is not moral. To kill him would be to put his life below any other individual's life in the room. Why does this man deserve to die? He doesn't, therefore he shouldn't. A death is a death. His life has just as much value as everybody else's in the room. Killing one innocent person to save 1,000 is not right. This man is just as much as a person as the other 1,000 people. 2) Why not seek better solutions? Why couldn't you shoot the man who gave you the gun, he is the truly evil one. Or why not offer yourself up for execution instead of this poor innocent man?
Morality

Say I was in prison and a man gave me a gun and told me to kill another man. He then told me he would kill me and 100 others whom I was imprisoned with (which I new he had the ability to do) if I did not. I then killed the prisoner with the intent of saving 100 other prisoners and myself. In doing so I saved both myself and the 100 people whom would have died if I had not killed the prisoner. Does it not follow that I was morally right to have killed the prisoner since I was following a positive maxim to always save human life and I prevented the decrease in happiness that the death of so many would cause.
Morality

My opponent misses the point. What gives you, a human being, the leisure to take the life of another human being? Nothing, this man is just as much as a man as the other 101 people in the room. Death is just as scary for him as it is for the other 101 people. What did this man do? Does he deserve this? It is unmoral and unethical to kill an INNOCENT man in any circumstances, this man is innocent. He doesn't deserve to die, and therefore he shouldn't. My opponent, if given the opportunity to do so, would probably say that the other 101 people don't deserve to die either, and therefore they shouldn't. This is true. However, those 101 people have the right to defend their own life, as long as it doesn't take the life of any other human being. My opponent has constructed a scenario which fits his way of thinking. Examples of this are: You can only weigh two options against each other, the other prisoners are helpless, and killing the man who gave you the gun is not an option. Going on the premise that you can only compare two options, I will like to compare these two options... (a) Accepting one of the two options presented to you (which would both result in death) -OR- (b) Seeking better options In the above scenario, B is obviously the most "moral" choice, at least on my opponent's ground. My opponent's claim is that our moral responsibility as human beings is to seek the solution that minimizes the consequences. Well, B could possibly prevent any death from occurring at all. So, isn't B the most "moral" solution? As for the other two stipulations offered by my opponent (That the other prisoners are helpless and that you cannot kill the man who handed you the gun) are both fallacious. The only reason morality exists is because we live in a world of choices. If no one had any choices, morality would cease to exist because you'd only do something because there were no other options. In this debate, which is on morality, my opponent has offered up quite a Hobson's Choice. In other words, a problem with really no choosing involved. The choices presented to us would be to either kill 1 or kill 101. If I was truly in this situation I would probably choose to kill the one (as it would result in less suffering), but is truly a moral choice? No, because in a moral world we must have unlimited moral choices to really be moral. Since we live in a moral world with moral choices, we have a responsibility to choose the one that minimizes the consequences. However, my opponent has in essence removed morality form this scenario here and has instead presented us with a Hobson's Choice simply so he can win. However, in this same world morality would not exist because there would be no real moral choices (we do not have the choice to seek further options). So, since we have no moral choices in this world my opponent has proposed than morality cannot exist. And since morality doesn't truly exist in my opponent's world than neither choices can be moral. Meaning that the resolution that "Killing 1 is better that killing 101" is unmoral because morality doesn't exist. RESOLUTION NEGATED
Morality

Thank you, it is obvious you are taking quite an interest in this debate. I understand your response but you are missing the point. I have said that the man has the ability to kill us all if he wishes. I have left no room for the possibility of us being able to kill him. As a human being it is our duty to look at all the options however I have left only two possible options. They are the options up for debate no others. For the purpose of debate I have carefully constructed this scenario so as to only be debating these 2 options. The outlook of the other prisoners has no bearing since they have no power. We are not looking at their choices but the person with the gunman's choice. It seems this debate has worn down to an argument over what exactly a person's moral responsibility is. In my opinion our moral responsibility is to act with a good intent to achieve the best consequences, since this is all we can really do. This outlook is backed up by the majority of philosophers who have dealt with morality. However your outlook is quite different. You seem to believe in a list of moral rules. Such as do not kill if your life is not directly threatened. These rules would be impossible to uphold as every situation is different and every choice has different consequences, however, my observations of intent and consequences can be applied to every situation. There are some situations where there are only bad decisions with bad consequences. All we can do as human beings is act with the best intent to minimise the harm. In the end this debate will come to who believes in my opinion on philosophy shared by several philosophers or the opinion on morality invented by you. Both the intent and consequences of a decision must be taken into account when observing the morality of an action, not emotion. It is illogical and immoral to let 102 people die in the place of one as this would result in a much greater drop in happiness than if one was killed so that 101 could live. Thank you for participating in this debate
Morality

Thank you for your response. Since morality is a subjective thing, the definition of what "moral" is isn't set in stone and therefore your "philosophies" of morality are irrelevant. Opponent: "Other solutions have no bearing since i can only weigh the two solutions against each other. There are millions of solutions to every one problem. Therefore i can only look at the morality of killing the prisoner weighed against the morality of not killing him resulting in 100 other people and myself dying." Actually, it is your moral responsibility as a human being to seek the possibility that is the most "moral", or will cause the least damage. If you look at it in that light, than the option of killing the man who handed you the gun is obviously the "best" and "most moral" solution to the problem. Think about it, by killing the one who wishes harm you thereby prevent harm from happening. I think that it is quite unrealistic, and quite frankly unmoral, to only limit yourself to two possibilities when both of them involve the loss of human life. Opponent: "Basically 100 dead people will result in a far greater decrease in happiness than 1 dead person will." Even though this may be true, it isn't moral. Our moral responsibility as human beings is to defend OUR life when it is in danger. If we kill this one man, than we know that this death will occur. If we do not, than how do we know that this man (the one who handed you the gun) will follow through with his threats. He obviously wants only this one man dead, so killing the other 100 people to him would be useless. So, in the case that you weren't going to kill this one man, he would probably just kill the one man instead of the other 100 because the one is the one he truly wants dead. Even if he was to kill the other 100 people, you would have no part in taking the life of another, which would make you a more moral person than if you were to take the life of somebody. Okay, here is my own philosophy: (a) As a human being, you have no right to take the life of another human being. (b) However, as a human being you have the right to defend your own life as long as it doesn't contradict criterion A. (c) Therefore it would immoral to take the life of any other human being. Following this premise it is thereby immoral to take the life of the one prisoner over the next 100. Think about it, each of these 100 prisoners have the right to defend there own lives. So, since they have that ability, why should they not use it and instead kill this one innocent man?
Members of the EU should form a single state.

I am new at this also so lets have some practice. "The incompatibility of contrasting social mentalities" there is many different social mentalities everywhere. Look in your own home did you ever see eye to eye with your parents? or siblings? There is always incompatibility but given a goal or even a life threanting ordeal and people will join together to overcome this challenge. Take soldiers for example if the bullets are flying and the bombs are going off they join together to get eachother out alive. Another aspect is natural disasters, When a disaster happens people band together and help out those in need."The incompatibility of separate economies" Doesnt nearly all europe use the euro? "The incompatibility of general policies/laws of certain EU countries" Ah most countires are very similar to the UN govenment. All countires will have a different laws but most can be integrated together because they are similar. "The lack of an emotional 'glue' to hold such a state together" If given a goal and a challenge people will join together.
Members of the EU should form a single state.

First I would like to state that this is my first debate on this site and I'm trying to get a feel for this form of debating. Having said this, I am actually debating this live in a few weeks and thus I view this as a chance to experience the arguments for both sides. As I believe the Pro have to open the argument, I will challenge the Pro to identify the points which must be proven in order to prove that this action would be a good idea and thus giving me something to oppose. Not knowing the direction which the debate will go, I can only provide a hazy and general outline of how my contention will go. My points will be (assuming they are not disproved immediately) 1. The incompatibility of contrasting social mentalities 2. The incompatibility of separate economies 3. The incompatibility of general policies/laws of certain EU countries 4. The lack of an emotional 'glue' to hold such a state together. Oh, one more thing, being unaccustomed to speaking in a debate in which stats are required, I am more likely to speak in general theoretical terms than using data.
On balance, Feminism is not needed in the US anymore.

No terms were given, so I shall define "Feminism". Feminism- Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women. [. http://www.bing.com...] Goodluck! J
Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst presidents

You are 100% correct in saying that " ... civil war happens in all major countries. And since it happens in all major countries, it must happen in ours in order for us to be a major source of prosperity and freedom. And that civil wars end up insuring freedom, justice, and liberties (a.k.a. freedoms) for the future." No, there is no other way of procuring these without a civil war. When men and women fight for something, they hold it more dear to their hearts. Their honor and image live on forever in the minds of people such as ourselves. Moreover, blood runs thicker than water, this applies in more than one sense. The water of diplomacy works internationally, but can never suffice domestically. I believe that civil wars are necessary to ensure LESS blood shed in the future. It may seem somewhat backwards, but there are no other situations in history where there has not been a civil uprising. If you present Ghandi, there was blood spilled, and there was a confrontation between persons and government. It was the only way to allow for freedoms. Onto your second point, there is a fallacy in your logic. It was never stated that anyone on the federal level knew what was best for the individual states. Only that they knew what was best for the nation as a whole. That is why compromise was made after the war. WE SHOULD NEVER TRUST THE GOVERNMENT ENTIRELY - I will never argue that we should. It is good to question actions. But to state that Abe Lincoln was a bad president because of his actions, is unjust. He did what he thought to be right. It were his actions that led to the world we see today. His actions procured freedom for black people along with the help of others. America suffered immediately after the civil war. I do not look to the shallow short term situations but rather to the important long term circumstances. I believe that we should see Abe Lincoln as one of the greater presidents of all time. You state, "The thing that you seem to forget is that the states agreed to stay together if it was in their best interests. When it wasn't, they had the right to secede and they tried to start a new nation." So you have valued individual state interests over human rights and the interests of enslaved persons. The south was occupied with a large amount of slaves, and then there were the people against slavery in the south. The majority of the southern population was against the confederacy and the interest of the majority was to be free. Therefore states interests were taken into consideration. I will continue to advocate justice. Justice is supreme and it is only just to allow all peoples to be free and equal. Equality does not mean "1984" or "Brave New World". Equality means equal opportunity and allowing for people to pursue their own lives.
Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst presidents

First off, the Iraq war was not necessary. Second, there is no such thing as a "true" republican, there is also no such thing as a "true" democrat either. Which is why I choose to be moderate. But furthermore, the Civil War was inevitable. Colored people made a call for freedom and justice, this was answered by Abraham Lincoln, even if for his own personal motives. The country was not left in shambles after his presidency. Furthermore, it was the Confederate Union that fired first upon American soil after 11 states HAD seceded from the union. And, in 2006, Vermont made a case to secede from the union. This failed because of constitutional terms. Therefore, Abe Lincoln was not violating the constitution when he did not allow for secession. Arguably, his greatest success was the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery and calling for both blacks and whites to share the same freedoms. This was one of the greatest stands for justice in the history of the United States. The most important thing that must be looked to is what President Lincoln stood for, and that is justice. No president has ever been able to show signs of a strong economy after a war. And, few wars have ever been so important as the civil war. Clearly, Abe won the war and won the vote for the African-American populace. There isn't a whole lot to say about Lincoln, but he protected us from foreign invasion, ensured justice for all, and showed the world that Cicero was right. "Freedom oppressed and again regained bites with keener fangs than freedom never endangered." Thanks!
Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst presidents

First off, Andrew Jackson wouldn't let South Carolina secede from the union either, and he was heralded as a hero. Lincoln should as well. Next, Lincoln was the one who made the Republican party strong. Whether you are Republican or not (I'm not) you cannot reject the fact that the Republican party is essential in our modern day political climate. Also, with your argument about how he did acts that were unconstitutional, ALL PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE THAT SO YOU CANNOT BASE YOUR ARGUMENT ON THAT! But, he at least tries to uphold the constitution by keeping the union together and it is a good thing he did or else we wouldn't be a nation. But onto your killing argument. I will assume you are referring to the Civil War. It is obvious that all of the super powers today have had a civil war. The French have had many. The Russians have had countless. And America has had 2, one that was a tangible war and one that was a peaceful war. War is essential for positive change because it is the only way to defend what is truly good. No matter what you or anyone thinks. Abraham Lincoln stood for good morals, a strong nation, and a great leader of men. My final question is what do you consider to be "one of the worst". I would like clarification on that. Thanks!