BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gaming is a sport

Sadly there is not much to respond to. My adversary left most of my main contentions untouched. His only claim is that it is strictly a mental sport which I already contested preemptively in the first round when I showed how muscle memory is a huge thing in games (especially shooters). But not only that, that mental strategy and planning is synonymous with most sports and that all we have to do is break down the fact that sports require physical contact to achieve that. (1) My adversary gave no clear outline or argument for what constitutes a sport as a sport (1A) The only thing he has stated is that being physical is what he *thinks* a sport is because in short "fat people can play video games" (1B) so if we do assume this is his outline, then he fails to refute sports like pool or shooting where almost anyone regardless of their weight can play it. It just requires a totalitarian ownership of one's mind and fast reflexes which almost anyone regardless of their weight can achieve. The only way for my adversary to win at this point is to show that his criteria for what constitutes a sport(which is not clearly defined at all) is objectively accurate and can be applied across the sport Since shooting and pool are sports and since they have the same characteristics as people who game, we can assume that gaming is a sport and dismiss his assertions that are founded without evidence.
Gaming is a sport

Gaming is not considered a sport because it's no different then watching TV, knitting or reading a book. There is limited finger, hand movement required and there is no physical requirements needed to do the activity. A 400lb person can be a gamer, there is no physical test required to sit and click a mouse while staring at a screen. Most sports require some type of conditioning to get in shape, people train for running marathons, hockey, baseball etc etc. The Olympics which is a competition of sports does not include gaming as a sporting event. Gaming does not require physical exertion required in all sports, it's more of a mental task, such as chess and other strategy games which aren't called sports. Gaming is a popular pastime not an event of competing on a field or court. Gaming is a competition not a sport. The people who game are not athletes, anyone can get into gaming, Drinking unlimited amounts of Redbull and staring at a screen for 12 hours a day does not constitute an athlete. Gaming is just an activity like playing monopoly or checkers. Maybe that is why when they refer to competitive gaming they say ESports and not just sport.
Gaming is a sport

Resolution - Gaming is a sportGaming - The action or practice of playing video games.Sport - An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.StructureFirst round is acceptance and no new arguments in the last roundRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.8. No "K's" on the topic.
There is no supernatural dimension

First, I would like to say that this is my first debate, and I do not know how this really works but I am going to give it my best shot. Also, I don't see myself as an expert on theology, philosophy (or an expert in anything for that matter), I am but an average guy who tries to understand the world around him. I would also like to apologize for any grammar mistakes as English is not my first language. I will draw a comparison between the supernatural dimension and a prime mover, or a creator. I think the two are interconnected. Religious beliefs has also influenced my understanding of the supernatural dimension so the ideas i will come up with are, in some way, the reflections of those influences. I will not even try to disprove the existence of such dimension as it is impossible. However, what I will try to do instead is to show you why there is no reason to believe in the existence of such a phenomena as the evidence points toward the opposite. The evolution theory, Einstein or Laplace showed us that our world and our universe perfectly works without the assumption of the supernatural. There is not a single evidence to show the existence of such a dimension, therefore I do not believe in it.
There is no supernatural dimension

I accept but my opponent has the burden to prove that there is no supernatural dimension. Assuming he has the BoP and not I, if he can't prove that there is no supernatural dimension, then there must be a supernatural dimension.Definitons (these are self-created, but are accurate to some degree)Is- to beNo- to deny or denialSupernatural Dimension- not 1st dimension, 2nd dimension, or 3rd dimension
Height vs. Weight

In my final statement I would like to carry out a social experiment. This is not one where you have to post the answer,rather it is one for you to help acknowledge the necessity of this defining legislature. Think back in your life as far back as you want until you come to that one point where maybe you didn't tell them that but you really thought they were disgustingly fat. This is not something to be ashamed of. 94% of the subjects to this test have tested positive. And I am among them, I know it is unfair so spare the hate,this debate is not about my beliefs . But seeing as a phenomenon is present the state has a duty to protect its citizens all of them and this is exactly what a state in principle will do. Now I quote the con " look at the world beneath you, of which there are far more of than your kind" I do not need to belong to either side of this apparent rift that the con has created to tell you that in essence this move will effectively cover that rift letting us to be equal in terms of physical appearance and mental perception of factors. I had much more lengthy arguments but seeing as the con couldn't tear down my previous down the policy of this house has not changed. Side prop has clearly shown you the stakeholders analysis and shown you why each stakeholder wants it. Proposition has also not only dealt with the explicit meanings of the very short arguments made by con and shown you how this bill would infact cushion such social disparities we have also given you an indepth analysis of all his arguments and clearly broken them down. Only insults were ignored. Thank you for your time con and thank you members of the debate.org society for making it a watched debate last but not least to the con although not putting out all the fight I expected for being there till the end. Voters please read all arguments before voting. Darshan
Height vs. Weight

okay so first off as the proposition for today's debate i feel i must first reiterate somewhat of a stale tune that has been sung by the comments there is not enough information for this debate to be pondered seeing as it is and that the proposer of this debate has conveniently chosen con i shall be setting the standards for this debate. first off the first round will only be used for description and details so that the opp can come up with an argument in the given time. the next few rounds will be standard debate.org structure while the last round will be left for reply speeches and for final reiterations as the description of todays debate the term "height vs. weight" as the proposition sees it is the current norm of some nations to set a standerds via studies and experiments which then come up with the ideal parameters for the average male/human of the region while taking into account surrounding conditions unique to each region and other contributing factors such as lifestyle and diet. to correct a few of the mistakes the con made in the span of 36 words: 1.politicians have to accept scientific studies for the benefit of the nation (i will explain this in my own arguments) 2. scienticians are scarce for a reason at the last count there are only around 200 in the world most employed in national institutions among other "scientist" therefore it would be unfair to just pin the problem on them for doing a role. 3.the con has narrowed down the topic unconciously or willingly labeling the help provided as unfair profiteers. to this i say "innocent until proven guilty"which the con should do so and then address them as profiteers. 4.there is no plain old truth that is why we are debating today. the above four points are just for reference and cannot be considered as part of the debate. only to be taken as a reference issues found by the side prop i hope the con will take this into heart in future when proposing topics and adding labeling without an actual necessity in the topic. good luck.
Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

It is no problem, I enjoy our debate so far, and I am glad to have someone that is open-minded and willing to accept other ideas; a notion that is not common in our time. 1.I think I understand what you mean, but to be clear you mean that, It is hard to believe that a bunch of chemicals got together and "just happened" to make a cell. In response to this, I give you this video from TEDtalks. http://www.ted.com... There you go, straight from the people who research this kind of stuff. 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Crystals are made naturally, they are complex, but they obey laws. What we consider to be life is made naturally, but they obey certain laws to be considered life. Take the virus, simple easy for us to manipulate, and easy for us to understand. http://www.scientificamerican.com... You wanted proof, here"s LOADS of it.
Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

Hello htet.htut3, thank you for accepting this debate. I hope it will be a positive first experience for both of us :) 1. In this instance by code I mean a sequence of physical characters that chemically and/or physically interact with a system to cause it to perform a function. The specific order of the characters is significant, with different sequences producing different results. Also there is a level of abstractness or potential for interchangeability involved. What I mean by this is that, with the case of DNA, it is not physically necessary that the codon CAA signify glutamine. It would be possible for CAA to denote any other of the amino acids if its respective tRNAs were modified. This indicates that the association between the codon and the amino acid is an abstract one, not one that follows from physical necessity. DNA and computer programming both are of this type of code. Human and other animal languages, including the amazing bee dance, are of another type. They convey messages that flow from one intelligent source to another. The code is read, heard, seen, felt, etc., and then the message is consciously interpreted. Such is not the case with DNA or computer programming, as neither cells nor computers are conscious entities. Instead the code, via chemical and/or physical interactions, forces the system to respond in a certain way. Therefore to offer a hypothesis on how the bee dance language emerged is not sufficient to explain how functional DNA could arise by natural means, as not only are they not the same but they aren't even of the same type. 2. Please offer published scientific findings that support your third statement. 3. My point is not that we do not have enough information. I am simply illustrating the fact that we have never known a natural process that creates functional codes of the type that DNA belongs to. Therefore it is illogical to assert that a natural process formed DNA.
Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

Hello, this is also my first debate on this website! (sorry for the long response, I thought it through for a long time.) 1.DNA is a code, there a lots of things that could be interpreted as codes, codes is a very VAGUE word. A better word would be instructions, but many animals are known to give instructions. 2.A code is a very general term. Bees have a special dance to communicate with other hive member"s. Only they can understand it so bees use codes. Bees individually do not have a high intelligence, the only way this code could have evolved would be via connections between the motion and past experiences, so over time bees, may have been able to connect pathways to flowers, with dances. How would something like this evolve? Well to answer that, I hypothesize that since bees have the bare minimum necessary brain power to become Eusocial animals. If they have enough brain power to realize that it is more profitable and more likely for its DNA to expand by living in a group. So since it can do this, then it MUST be able to comprehend that the bee dancing, the directions to the flower field is actually just "flying in place" and turning to show that it is going forward all the time and that it used this exact path. Over millennia this code could have been improved on, so that bees could give more general directions, rather than hovering in place and turning to show the entire pathway. An analogy to understand this better would be like a treasure map. Paces being time in this case. When you read a Treasure map to find X you have to take so and so steps from a certain point, or you could hover in place in one direction and then turn after a minute has passed. Showing that you flew in this direction for a minute then turned left and went straight for 2 more minutes and then stopped at a flower patch. 3.DNA is VERY LIKELY to have been a mutated form of RNA. When life first existed on Earth, it was unicellular for millions and millions of years, giving copious time for simple RNA based bacteria move into a place where it is impossible to synthesize the nucleotide Uracil, but easy to synthesize Thiamine. (Uracil is in RNA, Thiamine is in DNA) 4.Therefore it is logical to see that life COULD arise without a hand. 5.Also in response to your statement "We do not have a significant understanding" what you"re doing to your argument is ruining it. You"re basing it on a "we do not have enough data situation", so it could swing BOTH ways. Ex: x+5=y, we don"t know what y could be so it could be 9. Well it could also be many other things!
Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

1. DNA is a type of code. 2. Codes have only ever been known to form either directly or indirectly from a source of intelligence, ie. people. 3. We do not have a significant scientific understanding of how functional DNA can arise by natural means. 4. Therefore it is logical to conclude that an ID explanation for the origin of life is the hypothesis most likely to be true. Rule: My opponent must attempt to show only how this argument is false. To discuss other arguments concerning Intelligent Design is prohibited. To enter this debate means to accept this rule. I welcome anyone who will assume the role of opposition. p.s. this is my first time using this website so if I mess up some of the particulars I apologize in advance.
Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

I was hoping that my TEDtalks video sway your view, as it shows how the beginnings of complex things can arise by chance. I have another article that explains how two of the nucleotides for RNA could have been formed in this link. http://www.nytimes.com... Also as I said before Crystals are moderately complex correct? You can tell they have a design because of their edges and no intelligence is involved there correct? Anyways, your argument is basically this, a tasty fruit grows from a tree so other strange objects growing on trees must also be tasty! Which is wrong because a good majority of fruits are not suited to the human palate. If we take that to your argument, we"re intelligent and only we make complex codes, so only other intelligent things can make complex codes. This is completely based on what we know, which is EXTREMELY limited right now. I think it would be foolish to come up with such theories on knowledge that is not adequately research upon, in which we fall into a stalemate as you said we would, I believe this is the end of the argument. In conclusion, my belief has changed into a definite choice into of a belief which is more on the fence. It is impossible to make a 100% proven argument until further research turns up answers. I hope that I also have changed your belief to a less conclusive one, as there is not enough evidence for either theory, however most of the research money is going into how life could have formed naturally.
Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

So with the references you provided, the first and last ones are interesting but do not directly support your argument. One of the three NCBI links you gave doesn't offer the full text but only a summary. Of the two that do show the full text, neither gives a concise explanation of how functional DNA can arise by natural means which is what you are attempting to demonstrate. They are largely concerned with the reasons scientists believe that RNA preceded DNA in the early stages of evolution. I find their reasoning on this point to be solid and I agree with them. However while these articles offer some partial guesses, neither gives a full story of how working DNA can arise from abiotic matter. I highly doubt that further searching on your part will yield studies that do so, for if such findings existed they would be among the greatest scientific discoveries ever, and thus we surely would have already heard of them. Now your response will probably be that while scientists don't understand how functional DNA can come about naturally yet, they are getting closer and will probably succeed at obtaining a full explanation at some point in the future. I would disagree, but neither of our opinions would really matter because they would amount to mere speculation. However my argument follows from our current situation- that scientists do not have a significant understanding of how functional DNA can be formed by anything other than already existent life. This is information that is known to be true and thus my argument stands. When I say intelligent design I point to a source which has the type of intelligence capable of creating code of DNA's sophistication and complexity. The only entities known to have such intelligence are humans, but even this is a bit of a stretch as humans have yet to design and construct a functional DNA genome de novo. Anyways I can't suggest that people were responsible for the first appearance of DNA for obvious reasons, so I assert that any intelligence at least equal to that of humans is the hypothesis most likely to be true.
Net Neutrality

Bro. Net neutrality is not needed. I'm telling you guys. Just because you have to spend like a billion dollars just for one Google search doesn't mean the end of the world. Seriously, we are probably better off without the internet, anyway. This is the start of something---I can feel it. Having net neutrality can damage the world economy in terrible ways. When the world realizes that they actually don't need the internet we will all be happy. I hope you know that.
Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is freedom of speech. With Net neutrality in place it creates an equal playing field for everyone one. This means that if an ISP doesn't like something they can't do anything to block it. So how does this help us consumers? If you are researching a topic you wont only see one side to it just because your ISP supports it, you will be able to look at both sides and determine what you think is right. Removing Net Neutrality is taking away your freedom of speech which can cause some issues. Propaganda will become a thing on the internet if Net neutrality is take away.
Design a Game

This game will utilize the new oculus rift 2 Virtual Reality Headset for 3D Gaming. You play as Grant an evil scientist in the year 2144 that is the first to invent a machine that transports your consciousness into an invisible sprit with the capabilities of taking over other minds. The game is fairly simple. It’s an open world sandbox game in which the most people you kill the more points you gather up you are able to win the game if you can kill everyone on earth. You start off in New York City the first body you are granted control over is that of a bus driver. You can for example drive the bus off a cliff killing everyone inside but also leaving you without a body. You cannot survive without a body for more than 5 minutes. At first you will only be allowed to control a person for a brief amount of time. You feed off your score which is how many people you kill. The more amount of people you are able to kill the more amount of time you will be allowed to stay within a body. There is also a cool down between each control of 30 sec. However you have enemies as well. The government is well aware of you and what you have done. When you are controlling someone there is a slide side effect. The person’s eyes become black. Therefore the police has been warned to be on the lookout for anyone with pitch black eyes. The police will take you and kick you which kicks you out of the person you are controlling. Leaving you without a body. As the game progresses you will be granted opportunities to take over a fighter pilot for example and kill many people. This game will use the oculus rift 2 and will also contain extremely realistic graphics and gore.This was really fun thanks Pro :)
Design a Game

The basic idea idea: A Video game where the protagonist is a spirit possessing and controlling people. Basically, it's as follows: You can possess other people, and you immediately can use any of their abilities/powers (that is, possess a soldier and you'll use their weapons, possess an old lady and you'll have to walk slowly). The objective of the game is to cause as much suffering and kill as many people as possible you can only win the game once you kill everyone on earth.However you can only spend so much time controlling the same person until they start to struggle and fight back. They eventually kill themselves, leaving you without a body, and you can only survive a short amount of time without being inside someone. As the game progress you will have a chance to posses important people such as the president of the unitedstates for example.Your enemies will know about you and your powers, so you will have to act as the person you are controlling so the rest of the people don't know that he's possessed thus you will attempt to play his or her role in life for a short while.
Design a Game

In this debate, we are going to design a game and compare it against the other ones. Round 1 of the debate will start with Con's name of the game and the initial idea of the story. Round 2 for me I shall do the same as Con. Give my name of the game , and the initial idea of the story, Round 2 for Con is introducing characters in the game and how they fit into the story. Descriptions of them, abilities , etc Round 3 for me shall be the same as 2 for Con Round 3 for Con is typing "no round as agreed upon" Failure to type this will result in a full loss of 7 point, due to him having an extra round. FFs shall result in loss of conduct, where multiple ffs could result in a full 7 point concession. This is at the discretion of the voters. 10k character limit, 3 day respond time is the restrictions.