BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
cricket no more a gentleman's game

Hello sharqa and thank you for starting this debate and for choosing such an interesting topic. Most debaters on this site are American and I usually find myself arguing with this in mind, and although that is fun, it is nice to debate something that is quintessentially English for a change! I must say, your opening argument was somewhat unconventional in so much as you declined the opportunity to make any statement to support your case, preferring instead to practice using the CTRL+C and CTRL+V functions, which has, as a consequence, left you at a disadvantage! Anyway, here's my argument… As we know, cricket, like football (soccer), originated in England and has since become popular around the world. However, unlike football, cricket is primarily played by gentlemen, for the enjoyment of lady and gentleman spectators. Let us see how cricket shapes up against football, shall we? Gentlemanly Conduct. Cricket – a player never questions the umpire's decision. If he is given out, he walks from the crease immediately and without any display of emotion. Football – every decision the referee gives, the players from the penalised team all gather round and start intimidating and verbally abusing him. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... A Gentleman's Word is his Bond Cricket – this sport is run on the basis of trust and honesty and is never associated with any major financial scandals. Football – the game is targeted by the gambling community who bribe referees and clubs to fix matches. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Gentlemanly Behaviour Cricket – a game of cricket, is largely patronised by gentlefolk and has no history of serious crowd trouble. Football – hooliganism, violence and racial abuse perpetrated by football supporters both in and outside the ground is a perennial problem. http://www.footballsupporters.info... Gentlemen and Players Cricket – players are renowned for their sporting behaviour on the field and for their sense of decorum off the field. Football – top football players are constantly in the news having committed various criminal offences. http://www.timesonline.co.uk... I could go on, but I think the above examples prove that cricket is the sport of gentlemen.
cricket no more a gentleman's game

u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?u first..............has anyone got dat guts.....to challenege me?
The Benefits of Space Exploration outweigh its disadvantages

The Resolution is: "The benefits of space exploration outweigh its disadvantages. "I will be taking the Pro stance. In order for Pro to win, he will have to show that space exploration's benefits outweigh the disadvantages of space exploration. Furthermore, Pro will also have to provide evidence to why space exploration should continue to be pursued. In order for Con to win, they will have to show that space exploration's disadvantages outweigh the benefits of space exploration. Furthermore, Con will have to provide evidence to why space exploration should not be pursued.
should pre teens be able to have a girlfriend

My opponent has stated their position incorrectly. I'm Con, they are Pro. Given that Pro has not provided a definition of 'pre teen', here is one: 1.] relating to or produced for children especially in the 9 to 12 year-old age group On the basis that a 'pre-teen' is indeed defined as a child between the ages of 9-12, we can conclude that a pre-teen is either pre-pubescent, or in the very early stages of puberty. Because pre-teens are children, they should not be allowed to have any relationship that is romantic in nature. For example, a girlfriend is defined as: 2.] a person's regular female companion with whom they have a romantic or sexual relationship Thus, a child between the ages of 9-12 should not have a girlfriend -- because if they have a girlfriend, the likelihood of them having romantic or sexual relations at early age is considerably increased. Pro should answer: - Can a pre-teen give informed consent? - Why is it a benefit for pre-teens to date?
Public Nudity should be allowed

I happen to think that my Argument in this debate is loud and clear and that it's not neither pointless nor is it weak at all u seem to not want to understand or comprehend what i am saying about public nudity and how it should be legal. It's ur arguments that don't make sense to me out of all people u should think and feel why it should be allowed!!!!! are u insecure with yourself that badly that u think that this debate is pointless and weak? I think u need to think for awhile on what i was saying about public nudity and why it should be legal.
Public Nudity should be allowed

1. As I have previously stated yes people do find the necked body offensive. Also yes public nudity is a crime and is currently against the law in the United States. 2. Many consider the female breast to be a sexual organ that dose not emit the same reaction as a male breast, they are very different. 3. Please at least attempt to spell correctly ur dose not mean your. Now onto your poorly stated argument, many people do in fact find public nudity offensive the Muslim people think that revealing your face is offensive and would be very offended of full public nudity. I am very disappointed at your lack of a concrete argument supporting your claim at why this should be legal, I respect the passion you clearly have at seeing women or men for that matter necked in your everyday life but in all practicality it is not a good idea.
Public Nudity should be allowed

1. Walking naked is not an offence it's a good thing it is also not a big crime nor should it be. 2. Females should have the right to walk either topless or naked sense breast is not a sex organ they should have the same rights as guys to walk topless. 3. We where all born naked there for should have all the rights to walk on this earth naked. I don't see where or how walking naked would offend anyone on a woman they are only breast, it's only a vagina, and it's only her but. On a guy it's just a penis and it's just his but. It's not like we haven't seen these parts on male and females before so whats the big deal? there are ur three reasons for this debate.
Public Nudity should be allowed

Personally I am disappointed by your lack of debating skills, you have failed to find a hole in any one of my five arguments and are simply thinking of what would be "cool" instead of what would be practical. Secondly, yes lets face it there are people in this world that have difficulties controlling their personal desires and that leads to them commenting both adultery and rape. Both of witch are morally and ethically wrong. These said desires would be intensified if the said individual had to look at the necked human form all day. For your next argument could you please state 3 reasons why this would be beneficial and leave out your opinions on how they were given to us by god and should therefore be shown off.
Public Nudity should be allowed

Primarily I would like to state that if we want this to be an interesting debate you will have to state some points and reason why passing a law that makes public nudity is a good idea. Although you have already posted your most compelling argument I feel I should state some reason why passing this law would be a horrid idea. 1. Many cultures and people would be offend by said persons revealing to much of their bodies. 2. It would spoil the innocence of many children. 3. It would be unpractical most of the year. 4. It would increase rate of raping. 5. It would shine poorly on our county and could create stress between the us and other countries. These are some of many possible reasons why public nudity is a bad idea. I will be interesting in hearing your retaliation and why you believe this is a good idea. Also think about it is a horrid argument.
Public Nudity should be allowed

Currently my opponent has not been able to successfully argue agents one of my many valid points, he is debating off of a purely blinded emotional bias that dose not allow him to see any reason behind his claim. All of the points he has stated I had found holes in and his one argument has been if we have them we should go around showing them. People you all see why this is a flawed ideal and I hope you realize that I have posted better arguments.
Simulation over fake combat.

Why I believe that arcade/fake games are better than a simulation is simply because it offers escape. While I do personally enjoy a handful of simulation games (iRacing, Forza Motorsports, Arma, X-Plane) the purpose of video games were to provide escape. Take for example Grand Theft Auto. Of course most people would be disgusted in stealing expensive cars, planes, and tanks, and mass murdering hundreds of millions of people in the real world. It probably wouldn't be even possible to walk into a military base and steal a tank. Grand Theft Auto was made to let people escape from the real world and steal cars, planes, and tanks and kill millions of people, because in the end, its just a video game, and it doesn't matter. There are some other good examples as well. Take for example the Need For Speed franchise. No one in the right mind would want to illegally street race their expensive modified cars, but Need For Speed gives you expensive, fast cars to completely do whatever is possible in the game. Video games are meant for escape, not for simulation.
Simulation over fake combat.

I state that simulation is better than fake combat. Take these two apps for the iPhone. ( I have both). Metalstorm Online and F18 Carrier Landing. MetalStorm is all about dog fighting against your friends or doing the campaign. It is okay in my opinion but you get jets that have some similar and bogus paint jobs. The combat also has some pretty strange ways. You can upgrade your jets or weapons but you need to pay money or earn it through the game. Carrier Landing on the other hand has no combat. It is mostly about trying to land on ( you guessed it) Aircraft carriers. The cool part is that the game gives you all the real life problems you would face. There are also other jets you could buy. All the jets are prototypical. Some have vertical takeoff and landing. I say that it is better to have a simulation over fakeness. F18: https://itunes.apple.com... MetalStorm: https://itunes.apple.com...
Simulation over fake combat.

Pricing may be a big deal but it is worth it. Lets say that some dude that has a dream to be a fighter jet pilot but he has a physical problem to where he couldn't become one. With the right system you could be really close to actually seem like you are flying in the jets. Like you said before, it is pretty much an escape to what you want. So let you have it. Let it be really good and realistic. Wouldn't you like it to be the bets experience you could get since you can't actually do it. The prices may be a problem though. Over pricing can be an annoyance to pro gamers. The reason that they cost a lot is mostly because they are really good or if there is a big demand for them. Sometimes you could even get the same simulation program that a company uses. The Air Force uses sims to train their pilots. It is possible to get the sims they use and the same gear they use with money. Same with the railroads BNSF railways and Union Pacific Railroads. They all train on sims. So why not try it out your self and be challenged with what the actual pilots and engineers are faced with? BNSF sim training: http://www.cm-labs.com... Union Pacific sim training :https://www.uprr.com... Air Force sim training: http://www.federaltimes.com...
Simulation over fake combat.

You mentioned purchasing equipment like a train dashboard or a flight stick. While this is great fun (I do enjoy sims) and massively enhances the gaming experience, there is one major fault: price. lets take for example a train dashboard. A raildriver for playing train sims on Ebay usually cost around $290. A massive price for pretty much everyone, just to control the game and have a better experience. Same thing with racing sims, the cheapest force feedback wheel that is decent is around $250, and if someone purchases maybe a better set of pedals, a shifter, a button box, and a good rig, the price could be would be at least $500+. Flight sims as well, a Saitek X-55 Rhino HOTAS costs $200, and some very high quality ones like the Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog cost $590, an extreme price to pay for a flight sim. The price comes to the software as well. iRacing, the most widely used racing simulator, isn't cheap. If one was to buy the two year plan, they would be paying about $7.50 a month, not including any new cars or tracks. If someone buys maybe 1 car and 5 tracks, they would pay upwards of $50+ (depends on what you get) and still paying $7.50 monthly. If someone was to buy every single track and car in iRacing, the total price comes to about $840. That is a ridiculous amount of money to purchase on a sim, meaning only a select few will have deep enough pockets and dedication to purchase this. X-Plane would cost $60 but someone would also have to pay for a flight stick. You also mentioned Oculus Rift, which I think everyone has heard of. but it costs $400 for the DK2 model, and it isn't even finished, its a developer product, so basically a prototype. I personally think $400 for an unfinished product is just too much. You brought up violence influenced from GTA and Saints Row, however there have been numerous studies proving that video games have not influenced violence AT ALL, so that claim is false. As you can see, simulators cost a massive amount of money and my opponents claim on how violent video games influence violence is false, I'd vote for my side. Thrustmaster (wheel and flight stick): http://www.thrustmaster.com... X-Plane 10: http://www.x-plane.com... iRacing: http://www.iracing.com... Video Games Don't Influence Violence: http://www.independent.co.uk...
Simulation over fake combat.

I see what you mean. Simulation though could provide a more realistic escape from reality. Simulation players often like to play Sims because you feel professional when playing them. While there are blurred lines between games and simulations, there are fundamental differences. Simulations often use photos from Google or something like that for software. Real flight simulator needs Google maps in order to give a realistic view. The other thing about simulators is because of its opposition to other games like what you stated such as Grand Theft Auto and Saints Row. Those games have an objective of pretty much any game like that would have. Simulators, if you program the right codes in, could played as things are like in the real world. You could have real life consequences involved to. Before you stated that playing games like GTA5 that are just games don't matter in the end, they still do. They alter the way you commonly think. I've known some people that played GTA and other similar games and all they think about is" Dude, look at that Dodge over there. It looks pretty easy to get. I've done it plenty of times before." Thing like that worry me because if people make games to escape from reality that way, our world would be a lot less safe. Simulators can also be set up to become even more professional. Take the Oculus Rift. There are some simulators where if you plug the Oculus in you could have view to where you actually turn your head to look around in the sim. Another addition to Sims is the RailDriver for Train Simulators. It comes setup as a center console complete with all the controls to operate a train. With all this you are pretty close to being a professional. This is why I think that Simulators are better than games. Vote Pro. Oculus Rift: https://www.oculus.com... RailDriver: http://raildriver.com...
God exists

There are many proofs that the universe was not created with design. Pluto, for example, was not positioned right for life at all, and it's elements are lacking. Anyone who has the design powers to move planets around can't be stupid enough to create something as useless as Pluto. There are huge numbers of planets and other objects in space, only a few of them are any use. If the universe were designed by some omnipotent being with a purpose, they'd all be of use. The low numbers of useful ones are consistent with random chance.
God exists

"i want to respond to the only argument you have postulated. "If God can't be comprehended, any argument about him is meaningless. By starting a debate you inherently assume the concept of God is subject to human intelligence, the resolution cannot be confirmed any other way." my argument is that God's hand in the universe is comprehensible not that we can comprehend God" If you can't comprehend God, you can't assert that the hand in question is "God's." It is impossible to assert x is the sort of thing that would result from y if you do not know the relevant things about the nature of y. "the question of "if God designed the universe why put in worthless junk?" is only a question if its all really worthless. for all we know all that "junk" could have uses " And for all we know the universe is a result of random chance. Remember, you have the burden of proof. And you've already admitted your model relies on human centrality to God's plan, in which event we DO know that stuff doesn't have any uses-- to us. :)
God exists

i want to respond to the only argument you have postulated. "If God can't be comprehended, any argument about him is meaningless. By starting a debate you inherently assume the concept of God is subject to human intelligence, the resolution cannot be confirmed any other way." my argument is that God's hand in the universe is comprehensible not that we can comprehend God. we see God's design as previously stated. the question of "if God designed the universe why put in worthless junk?" is only a question if its all really worthless. for all we know all that "junk" could have uses
God exists

"firstly, my point was that the universe contains a design for life on earth not Pluto." So God is willy nilly ad hoc randomly tossing life about amidst useless crap? Why? "religion believes that man was created to serve God and the universe was special for us." Pluto exists. Pluto is useless for us. Fail. ""why God created seemingly useless things" is not a reasonable question since if you grant that God designed us with intelligence that we are only beginning to comprehend maybe he has other uses for the so called useless stuff." If God can't be comprehended, any argument about him is meaningless. By starting a debate you inherently assume the concept of God is subject to human intelligence, the resolution cannot be confirmed any other way.
Golf is better than soccer.

AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS Golf takes patience. This statement might be true but that's about the only skill you need. In soccer you have to have GREAT coordination, dribbling skills, shooting skills, blocking skills, guarding skills Makes way more money If you take the average of all the money that golfers make and take the average of all the money that soccer players make.. soccer players will have alot higher average free cool things you get free things from soccer also it is a sport and sports have sponsors which means free things... and plus cool is entirely an opinion so there's no way she can prove this argument. You get to play on beautiful courses on a big field soccer just so happens to also be on a big field. and beautiful yet again is an opinion. Golf Carts what makes golf carts so great. there is no reasoning for her argument.(another opinion) NEW ARGUMENTS Soccer is the biggest sport in the world without a doubt and is the number one sport in just about every country including asia and africa. i have a quot from articlebase.com stating "there was a global television audience of 49 billion people for the 2002 World Cup alone." Soccer is just as hard as golf if not harder. also from articlebase.com stating "This game can be as frustrating as golf, as physical as football and hockey, as erratic as baseball, and as exciting as basketball." and I also had a question for the pro.. do you believe that soccer players or golfers are more respected in the world (note how i said world and not america)