BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
MLB is becoming a business where the players get too much money and they intentionally lose.

"Here are the definitions of some words. .. I don't know why I didn't do this earlier! !" Thanks, I do find these very helpful. "So I guess my point is that, BECAUSE we have the option of turning our devices off or leaving them home, the experience of the game is different for everybody as it distracts and puts your mind on other places and stuff. Technology was not as amazing and popular back then, so I propose that this gave an advantage to the amazingness and popularity of baseball! " Interesting. I suppose the only response to this is to say that it's more a matter of society itself changing than baseball changing. That is, technology is distracting people from everything these days, not just baseball. "Oooh, snap, I never thought of that! But still I'd rather spend money on the actual players and their improvements/health rather than the object that they play in, that, in my opinion, is just another attraction to make MORE money for MLB business. " So, like much of this issue, it comes down to a matter of personal preference. Personally, I don't really care about where the money is going unless taking one option over another produces tangible results. "I think baseball is more fun to watch when the players can play to the very BEST of their ability. In the 80s there were strategies for world series that preserved the. .. pitchers, for example, so that they could pitch at the right time their coach wanted them to, planning to avoid the injuries that don't allow them to play their game. That's the kind of thing I mean by "getting hurt is part of baseball. " I think teams should learn to play AROUND the risk, and plan accordingly so as to fit the environment of playing without dumb rules. " Again, if it's just a matter of preference, it really can't be debated any further. "I'm not saying entertainment and business are the same, and that's not all that MLB is either. I think that baseball is not only entertainment, but a SPORT in which real people play in for our enjoyment, thus there should be a different connotation with baseball--not just entertainment and business, but sport. Not just experience and money, but interaction. Let's pay at the gates and know that the money will go towards making the game better. Knowing that the business is being used for the better good of the entertainment so that the sport may succeed. " I do agree that MLB can in principle be a sport as well as entertainment and a business. I'm just not sure that it has been proven that the business element is currently overtaking the sport element. All in all, I think it is difficult to prove this pont one way or another.
MLB is becoming a business where the players get too much money and they intentionally lose.

ATMOSPHERE. The word is not finely defined (see what I did there) but right now I am associating it with the word 'ambience.' Technology, in my opinion, has control over the baseball in general and the fans are more excited about the game without the devices I have talked about. DRUGS. As you said, "some might consider any use at all to be over-use, while others may not care at all how much is being used." You are right it is far from the topic and so I will discontinue talking about the use of drugs in MLB as neither of us find it appropriate. I see your point of view and I guess I wrote the title for this debate a little too quickly! Sorry for the misunderstanding and weird statements I gave in Round 2...it was late. Besides correcting myself a bit, I will rebut some of the things you said (as we obviously have different views on the game of baseball). But let us not limit our talk to only 'intentionally losing and overly paid,' because this is more so a debate about "how baseball is changing." #4 is me trying to tell you how I believe that personalities for the players, in the game of baseball, adds a touch of interactive-ness with the fans so that when we go to a baseball stadium/game it's different than just watching them on a screen; the players can actually express their emotions and SHARE them with the spectators. STADIUMS. The word "old" is misused when put together with "stadium." When you replace a stadium for a major league team you not only have to spend a TON of money when it could be used on other things, but also regain special memories. For example, when Target Field was built I was sad because I had remembered a lot of good times at the Metrodome. Do we want new stadiums because the present ones aren't up to date in technology and trends? I don't think most stadiums, when rebuilt, are literally crumbling. Also I believe that MLB should invest more money into actual good players instead of stadiums because, if you know how bad a year the MN Twins are having, you'd know how I feel about wanting better players (not a new stadium)...! RULES. "I think rules to keep the payers safer a good thing because they prevent injuries." Well I, personally, think baseball is more exciting when the maximum effort is spent--the players NOT having to worry about safety rules. Besides, getting hurt is part of the game! Players get paid so much money for playing single games that injuries are taken care of. Baseball is a form of entertainment, we don't want it to be a business, so lets keep it that way! Sorry this took so long.
That reality is predetermined and that free will does not exist

I accept your premise that if we were to find a formula (or a set of formulae) that allow us to determine the future course of particles with a 100% accuracy, then our world is predetermined.The Bohr theory of quantum mechanics was only truly valid for single electronic species. ie. Atoms with only one electron. (http://en.wikipedia.org... As a theory, it can be derived as a first-order approximation of the hydrogen atom...) Applying it to multi electron atoms yield, at best, only crude approximations.Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says that uncertainty is a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology. Thus, it will never be possible to exactly determine the position and velocity of a particle simultaneously. It has been around since 1927 which isn't exactly recent.Your statement "...since the current state of the universe can be guessed if not measured" just supports my argument. Guessing the state of the universe is not the same as predicting it. A guess is inherently undetermined."A random event like the roll of a die" can today be predicted with very high accuracy based upon the velocity and spin of the dice that is being rolled, the wind speed, etc.Again, the accuracy of the roll of the die is not a 100%. With high levels of data inputs, we have managed to calculate the outcome of the event with a higher degree of probabilistic certainty. In the example, you say that the wind speed affects the outcome of the die. But we cannot predict the wind speed. Furthermore, this isn't a very good example as the die is a macroscopic system. The degree of error due to randomness is so small that it may not affect 99.9999% of outcomes, thus leading to the feeling of "pseudo determinism" regarding the rolling of a die.Even if you were to know the positions of each and every particle in the universe, you would not be able to determine the outcome of the dice 100% of the time as the interaction between the particles would be governed by quantum mechanics which then leads to uncertainty.Einstein was amongst the few scientist who claimed the probabilistic nature of the universe to be unnatural. But the Uncertainty principle is very well verified by modern experiments. Uncertainty Principle is one of the reasons why we have such difficulty developing a Quantum Computer. To summarise, a "Great Equation" into which we feed in data about each particle of the universe and which return the exact state of the universe will never be found. At best, our approximations of the universe may increase in accuracy until we are 'almost certain' about the predictions we make. But we will never be completely certain.
That reality is predetermined and that free will does not exist

It has often been conjectured that we live in a predetermined world. That is, events that will occur in the future are already determined. To say that out world is predetermined is to deny the power of human though. The very fact that we are able to ponder over the nature of our world points to the fact that the world is undetermined. Theological determinists believe the world is determined by a deity or a god. To accept this, the existence of such a deity must be proved. Even if we were to accept the existence of such a deity, how exactly does the deity determine the outcomes of events? Is it through some random event like the roll of a die? If so, then the world is undetermined. If the deity's decision is based on some logical reasoning then it should have been possible for us to deduce that reasoning and therefore predict the outcome of events. The fact that we cannot do so means that reality is undetermined. Another way is to approach the argument scientifically. Those familiar with quantum mechanics would know that heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that there will always be uncertainty in our measurement, due to the wavelike nature of subatomic particles. Thus, any event always has a non zero probability of occurring even if that probability is small. Again, this points to the fact that reality is undetermined.
Homosexuals should not be allowed to display their affection in public!!! think of the kids....

Then Kels1123 is right in saying that anyone taking it too far is wrong. Singling out gays is still wrong. Them "getting busy" in public is no worse than straight people shoving their tongues down each others' throats in full view of everyone else. But according to the title of this debate, you said "their affection", meaning any kind of affection. To a normal person, affection can mean anything from holding hands to "making out". If full-on spit swapping is what you meant, you should have said that in the title. Even then, however, you would be totally wrong is saying that straight people can do whatever they want in public while gays have to hide their love for each other. That's discriminatory and bigoted. In no way do I contradict myself. I accept it, in part, because it is natural and harmless. Because it is natural and harmless, the experimenting can be negated as being nothing but natural child development. It is illogical to say that I contradicted myself because I accept it and negate it at the same time. In fact, the one makes the other easier. Of course that's your opinion. Its all you have backing up your stance. And no, you don't have a right to hold and promote that opinion once you start trying to deny other citizens their rights because of it. If you felt imposed upon or like I was degrading your opinion, then you should have never started the debate in the first place. This is actually one of the more civil debates I've had on this site. So if your skin is so thin that your feelings were hurt by this debate, you won't last long on this site.
Homosexuals should not be allowed to display their affection in public!!! think of the kids....

tyo start off, inever said holdign hands was disgusting, I spefically stated that them kissing and touching each other was disgusting Also, your contradicting yourself completly iin both ur arguments by negaitng the experimenting and accpeting it as well i may be a littl ehomophobic but that is my opinion and i am entitled to that so leave me to be on that Gay experimenting at a young age is bad for these childern as i stated obviously I am not gonna write more because you will win becaasue of popular opinion but if it were up to debate, i think i would have won
Homosexuals should not be allowed to display their affection in public!!! think of the kids....

That's my point, though. They already are, regardless of what images they see. They experiment heterosexually, homosexually, and with themselves. They don't think anything of it either. So when they see gay guys being reasonably affectionate, they don't think anything of it either. One, it doesn't mean anything to them at such a young age; and two, they are already doing it anyway. By the time it would make any kind of impression on them, their latent sexual preferences have already begun to emerge. It's your opinion, and the opinion of the majority, that holding your girlfriend's hand is not disgusting. However, the idea that gay guys holding each other's hand is disgusting is solely your opinion. I am not offended in anyway with two gay guys holding hands. But if it is officially unacceptable in society for them to do it, does that mean I'm some kind of deviant? My point was to try to get you to think empathetically and put yourself in homosexuals' shoes. You obviously seem incapable of doing that, however. You would consider it incredibly arrogant if a gay guy came up to you and told you that you holding your girlfriend's hand was disgusting and they didn't think kids should see it, because his opinion would be based on nothing other his gut reaction. The same is true with your stance. It obviously isn't so bad for them since children have experimented with their budding sexuality for ages. Child psychologist and child development groups consider it a part of normal child development. This debate is about sexual development, not drugs. When I talk about experimentation, I'm referring to instinctual, sexual experimentation. Not drugs. No one ever said anything about drugs, so I'm wondering where that came from. Are you influenced by society and the people around you when your brain reacts to male or female pheromones? If society and the people around you affect who you fall in love with or are sexually attracted to, why is there any homosexuality at all considering how persecuted it has been since Christianity took hold in Europe? Where does homosexuality in the animal kingdom come from? Do monkeys really learn it from their society as well? Think about it, dude; saying homosexuality is learned is increasingly being shown to be an opinion not substantiated by anything besides personal bias and homophobia.
Homosexuals should not be allowed to display their affection in public!!! think of the kids....

yea but kids experimenting with homoseuxuality at such a young age is bad. A homosexual would not let tell me to not hold my girlfriend's hand because that is socially accepted and in no way disgusting. "If you haven't noticed, kids are curious and experiment all the time anyway" do you realize how bad that is for the kids... if they are always experimnenting, they will get into trouble what your basically doing is supporting the fact that kids should try drugs and experiment they should axccpet what is taught you are not born with gay or straight characteristics, you are influenced by your society and the poeple aroond you
Homosexuals should not be allowed to display their affection in public!!! think of the kids....

I'm sorry gay affection offends you, but it's pretty arrogant to tell a whole group of people they can't be affectionate with the ones they love because it turns your stomach. How would you feel if a gay guy told you you couldn't hold your girlfriend or wife's hand because it made him feel uneasy and thought you were making kid's want to experiment earlier then they should? If you haven't noticed, kids are curious and experiment all the time anyway. They have no idea what they are doing, but they have fun with it and do whatever they want with no regard to the idea that they might be doing something wrong, at least according to you. They experiment with both genders because they don't understand the labels and biases we place on their behavior. They do this without ever seeing any examples to follow because they are following their own natural impulses and subconscious drives. Sexuality is not a learned behavior; it is instinctual. You do not learn to be straight or gay; you are born with it. Therefore, a kid seeing a gay couple kissing or holding hands is not going to make him or her do anything they weren't already going to do anyway. Odds are, they've already done what you fear so much. So, my best advice for you is to simply get over it and grow up.
if the Abrahamic god exists, that being is evil.

The Universal Game-Maker IN his argument, Con posts the position that because God is the legislature/ rule maker that simply following his rules are the designation of evil or not. Simply, following gods rules means that we are good, not doing so means we are not good. The argument I would like to bring to light is, since god did create the rules, and if those rules are immoral by judgement of the people, doesn't that imply an immoral god? Before the argument of "we are not to know gods will/ we cannot pass judgement on the ultimate judge" come up. I would like to nip that in the bud by first saying that is simply a conveniences in the rules that the god laid out isn't it? Why disable the peoples ability to judge righteously, unless of course you are an unrighteous being? In regard to conscience, why can't ours be as sufficient as the lords? why would he make us so inferior in capabilities to not be able to achieve the same level of moral supremacy, and thus be in our rights to find morality without his intervention. Seems a bit sinister to hold someone to the rules of law, without expressing the rational to its follower. And then use the excuse that you are simply incapable of understanding... which of course was his intent to begin with. Allowing god to break his own rules and still claim that good flows from love and evil runs against it is another happy incident for the god!! It completely relinquishes his responsibility for the actions he has brought on humanity. How can we judge a god if his rules (as the game maker) makes it so he cannot be put to blame for any of his actions. That is a sinister basis forcing the masses to obey commands. If god tells us to kill, we are immoral for saying no? the morality and judgement of that incident escapes me. When Abraham attempted to kill his son simply for it was gods will, I feel is immoral on behalf of Abraham, and on god for even asking such a sacrifice. I ask con, please explain the morality of murdering in the name of god? I feel the redefinition of good and evil is not needed. God should not be based on the ideas of one being but on the collective free thoughts, as goes with evil. Binding the definition of good to the will of a god that we are incapable of judging is not good at all, simply a set of edicts one should follow if one hopes to receive reward (heaven).
if the Abrahamic god exists, that being is evil.

I will argue in the affirmative; if there is a god that being is evil. We will stick to the Abrahamic god in this debate, and will proceed as if the being exists. Second Arguments in favor of your stance and evidence toward your BoP Third Rebuttal Fourth closing statements Rules: God=Abrahamic God God does exist This is not a debate about the existence of god, as that is another debate. For the sake of this argument, we will assume that being does exist. I am not limiting to the god of the Jews or Islamic god vs god of the Christians. These gods will all be deemed an example of the Abrahamic god and treated as one entity. This leaves open more options and sources to cite. My opponent will need to prove that the being is a good and decent being just as I will need to prove that the being is an evil one. Definition of evil: Profoundly immoral and malevolent. Displays viciousness, malign intent and sinister. Definition of good: Morally righteous, just and fair, benevolent and kind.
Should Drug Testing be Required for Extracurricular Activities at School

Ok so now this debate has become "Why we should use sport drug testing to look into the lives of children to monitor what they do in their FREE time," I think it is a little silly how you wanted to debate about one thing, and now obviously debating over something entirely different. But if you want to debate over this then thats fine because this is actually more irritating to me then what was initially supposed to be the debate. Give me a scientific (or equivalent study) of the fact that "Marijuana causes sight problems long-term." I did not mean blood test, truly i did not i am just incredibly tired right now! I do have my facts straight. Id like to see the research that you found and compare it to the research that shows of positive results of marijuana usage. Id be willing to bet on the fact that the latter would be significantly higher than the former. Intruding our kids lives like that is utterly disgusting. First of all, if you want to monitor your kids, you go for it, BUT DO IT ON YOUR OWN TIME! Using the school system to look into your kids lives shows a lot about one as a parent. Be a good parent, kids would need to be looking for role models like they do today, if they just had a strong and positive parent figure in their life! If you raise your kids well enough, they wont grow to be drug addicts and things of the sort. Pushing off your responsibility as a parent onto the shoulders of our school system is quite frankly absurd. My role model was Lil' Wayne as a kid, my Dad knew about it and even said "yea he has his heart in the right place." So instead of freaking out and thinking, "O my god my kid looks up to a druggie gangster!" He actually condoned it. Am i a failure druggie today? Absolutely not, i go to a pretty damn good college and am a straight A student.
Should Drug Testing be Required for Extracurricular Activities at School

One of my parents did marajuanna and now has sight and hearing problems because of it. This is about all drugs and I think if it is about all drugs it is ok to do specific ones. I have done multiple researches on this debate and it is not a blood test so please if you are telling me to get my facts right, you should also look over yours! I also think if these students are representing your school and end up doing any kind of illegal drug, how would that look for your school! Would you like a role model of your children or sister looking up to a football star or ambassador at your school who is doing drugs? I think not!
Should Drug Testing be Required for Extracurricular Activities at School

Well you really didnt respond to any of what i said. Also, the last statement was a little irrelevant because this isnt a debate about marijuana usage, its a debate on drug testing. But really if you are going to make accusations about the negative long-term effects of marijuana usage, you really need to know your facts. Marijuana truly is used medicinally and it has shown to be extremely helpful. Turning kids away from the track team because they have trace amounts of THC in there system is ridiculous! You live your life, i will live mine. More and more control is being implemented in everyday life, and the fact that anyone wants our school system/government to monitor our usage of recreational substances through the mask of a sport blood testing is out of control. The essence of your last comment was really "Students shouldnt be abusing marijuana, and that needs to be stopped[through the mask of a sport blood testing]" so that makes me assume that you truly are of the idea that we should use the mask of a sport blood testing to monitor what our kids are doing. This really isnt even what this debate is about...