BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marching band is a sport

First off, you do run while marching. For example, the 2008 show "Spartacus" by phantom regiment, they are running on many occasions. And you are running before, during, and after practice. Plus drums do get to 40 pounds. marching snares are composed mainly of metal. And marching quads are comprise from between 5-6 drums. And although you are correct about marching to a beat, that beat constantly fluctuates, and you do have to keep time with other members who are marching. Not only do you have to march in time, but you have to listen to the drumline to keep your tempo and focus on the drum major. Marching band (drum corps in specific) does require a lot of physical strain. If you were to practice for 4 hours and only taking 10 minutes total to get water. There for I do believe that marching is just as straining as any traditional sport. I would also like to ask if my opponent has ever been in a corps before? because if not, then it would be unwise to argue without personal experience to back you up.
Marching band is a sport

I believe my opponents definition is not accurate enough, so I will provide a more proper definition to gain a more accurate, unbiased perspective: - an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) My opponent's stance is that marching band is a sport based on it's physical exertion. However, for most sports, there must be athletes. Marching band is not an exerting enough activity to define the partakers as athletes, defined thusly: a person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength (dictionary.com) My opponent's relations to time-of-year is irrelevant. If it is a sport, it doesn't matter what time of the year it is played. The length of time is not the object of the debate. And my opponent makes the analogy of a football player running with a 40lb. drum. While funny and comical, this is an exaggeration. Marching band members do not run, they march. Also, you keep on time with a singular, metronomic rhythm, not 200 people, just as those 200 follow the rhythm, not you. Furthermore, there are judges on every sport (however, judges alone do not define a sport). My opponent has failed to satisfy the definition of sport and athlete. Therefore, I urge a =CON VOTE=
Marching band is a sport

As defined by the Merriam-Webster international dictionary, Sport: physical activity engaged in for pleasure. When engaged in marching band, you are to do around 90% of the stretches and exercise that you do in football. And seeing as I played football for 3 years, this is knowledge I have experienced personally. As like football, there is a high school league, a college league, and a national major league association. And to add to it, the argument is made that more kids are out of shape in marching band, yet when you look at the linemen and the full defense of any football team, they are "out off shape." So to use the argument that marching band kids are out of shape is invalid. Finally, foot ball takes place primarily in part of fall and most of winter, where as in marching it takes place in a fall, spring and summer. Drumline's generally play all year-round. This is a behavior that you will not find in any other physical activity. Imagine this, you just made the football team. you are first string running back. But when you catch the ball, you find that it is 40+ pounds. So while running with this heavy ball, you have to run in an extremely precise way, while trying to keep in time with about 200 other people, and having to play a tune correctly. Oh, and you cant run into anyone or anything else. plus you have about 5 judges standing right next to you critiquing everything you do and another 3 judges about 60 feet away. and you have to do that for 10-15 minutes straight. Think about that one for a little.
This House Believes That Schools Should Give Their Students iPads

I am against using iPads because although they have their benefits, they hurt key skills such as writing, give people the "dry eye," distract kids, cost a lot of money, and are as breakable as a weakened teacup made of china. I must admit that iPads are very light, which relieves the back. However in order to relieve the back for the approximate 40 minutes spent each day going to school, kids hurt their eyes for however long they use their electronic in the day (probably a few hours). According to http://www.dailymail.co.uk..., millions are developing a "dry eye" because of use of new technology (iPads included). These victims blink their eyes about 50% to 60% less. This, in turn means that the eye's lubricating substance doesn't work properly, a problem in many old people's eyes. As you said, iPads help to avoid class distraction, noise, and misunderstanding. This isn't necessarily true. Yes, iPads may help with little things such as messaging a teacher during a test or recording a lesson, but iPads tend to be more of a distraction than a help. One of the most serious problems at my school is kids using their phones when they're not supposed too. Giving students iPads will only help elevate that problem. Although it may not seem like it, they are a lot of free games that are very addicting. Since most schools provide free wi-fi for learning, downloading one of these games is as easy as pressing a few buttons. Another large disadvantage about iPads is that they hurt a kid's learning. The whole goal of school is to educate kids in categories such as writing so they can get a job later on. The iPad may help slightly in topics such as reading and social studies, but they hurt a kid's writing. As kids tend to become more reliant on a Spell Check, they also make about 90% more errors according to a study by Dennis Galletta. Remember, the goal of a writing education is to make a generation that can write and edit their writing, not write and depend on Spell Check for editing. Also, iPads are easy to break and cost a lot of money. If you don't believe me that iPads break easily, search on the web, "Are iPads easy to break?" and a huge answer will flood your eyes. As of this writing, a new iPad will cost anywhere $399 to $829 (not including tax). If you multiply that by the 517 students an average school has (according to http://nces.ed.gov...), and you'd have a bill of $206,283 to $428,593 PER SCHOOL. That's enough money to buy a house. You'd also have to pay money for a replacement iPad every time a person accidentally breaks theirs. In conclusion, iPads shouldn't be used at schools because they turn young eyes old, are a huge distraction, destroys a kid's writing, are easy to break and cost a ton of money.
Creative Stories (3000 characters max)

It was almost like any other day of my depressing life. The same bullies, same homework, the same drama. I am at home. I stop in front of my wooden bedroom door and look down. My hari is skraggled, my shoulders are slouched, falling like they are tear drops. I look up and lift my right hand and place it on that brass doornob. I couldn't do it. I just couldn't go on. My body began to shake as tears began to fall. I noticed the 8 cuts on my left arm. It was about time that this cat took its nine life. I twisted the doornob and entered my room. The lights were off, but the light was seeping through the window. The light formed a ray that landed upon my jewery box. I go to my dresser. I look upon the mirror and brush my long black hair out of my face so that I may look upon myself with both of my eyes to establish a look that is true. On the side of the mirror is a photograph of me and my girlfriend. That was a great time together for the both of us. In 2007, her and I went on a vacation to Colorado Springs and visited the breath taking Pike's Peak. She would later die from a brain tummor. I return to looking at the mirror and barely recognize myself. My eyes were blackend and my skin was pale. I haven't been out much since she died. I opened up the jewery box and pull out my red pocket knife that she had given me before she died. I flip out the blade. My carelessness got my hand cut. I could barely feel its pain over that of my depression. I look back at our picture and sighed. I crossed out my face next to her blacked out body in the photograph. I sat on my bed. I still held the knife in my hand as I put my head in my hands and began to cry, "God, why? Why? Why? Why?" I reached into my jet black High Sierra book bag and pulled out a pen and a sheet of paper. I began to right my little note. "Dear Friends and Family, I'm sorry....." I continued to right. As I finished I threw the pen as hard as I could against my door. Nobody cared! God had forsaken me and I am to burn in hell for not being there to protect her. I cut my arm one last time, marking the ninth time.The blood flowed out of my arm and I licked it as I inhaled that rusty tasting blood. Would the blood of Christ renew me in heaven? I laid back on my bed and swallowed the whole bottle of pills. My eye lids grew heavy and I closed my eyes for the last time. Later my parents would come home. Dinner was ready and they sent my little brother into the room. He tried to wake me up, but to no availe. He ran back to go get my mother and she came upon my bedside and found the pills and the note. She reads through the note and the realization strikes her. She falls to her knees in tears. My father runs into my room and he instinatly knows what's going on. He shakes me, yelling at me to wake-up. He then embraces my mother and the cry together. Though my younger brother is to young to realize what is happening. He would be effected by this as my parents would always wounder where they went wrong.
Creative Stories (3000 characters max)

John was walking into a chamber, brightly lit on the back wall with two lights without a transparent lampshade. He immediately lifts his hand up to block the light, trying to see whatever is in the room with him. He sees two men, one with lots of muscle mass, the other short, but holding a weapon. He instantly realizes he should leave, and he runs back to the door, when someone from the outside, looks and slams the door shut. There is a chair, resembling a lawn chair, except it was metallic, and glowing hot from the bright lights. "Okay, you got me locked in this room. What do you want?" John says. "We don't know how to cook!" Says the person with the knife. "Want some cooking lessons?" John asks. "Yes, please." Says the person with lots of muscles. He was coming home from the butcher, so he had some hamburger for his family. "Okay, first you make a patty with your hands." John says as he starts making a flat slab of meat. "I'll give you a piece of hamburger." He passes around 1/4 pound pieces of beef, and again makes a patty of his piece of beef. They struggle with it, John having to try not to throw the beef all over the place in frustration. They succeed, the frozen beef now almost thawed, when John fashions a pan out of the box, that was unwisely made of metal, and getting hot after spending lots of time in glow of the lights. "Now, you toss it in the pan." He says. "Pan?" The ripped guy says, "That's a metal box." "Well, if you called ahead and asked for cooking lessons, I could have arranged something better." John replies, while being snarky. The man with the knife suddenly bursts into laughter, so loud it startles John into dropping the patties in sideways, but he quickly bats it onto one side with a spatula he fashioned from the cardboard box holding the beef, as it also contained buns, and other burger fixings. The chair was a great surface to cook on, making the burger a nice Pittsburgh Rare. "Hope you like your burger Pittsburgh Rare, this is quite a hot surface to cook on." John then waits until the outside is pleasantly seared, then says, "So, wait until the burger becomes as done you want, then flip it over, and cook it for an equal period of time. Afterwards, take it out and dress it up." John then lets the two of them top their burger, then they start eating the burgers. After the other two finish eating their burgers, they see them off, and say, "Thanks for the lessons!" "You're welcome!" This entire story, including this entire sentence was 2521 characters.
If you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain.

Hello, Good post, I was just talking to someone about this actually. Here I go : People that vote definitely have the right to complain. If they voted for "X" person and "Y" person won, they should have a chance to complain about what happened because they didn't like the outcome anyways. Someone that doesn't vote, shouldn't be able to say anything. If they have a problem with what is going on after the vote, then they should have voted to try and stop what happened. It is as simple as that. Vote, so you can complain when something goes wrong. I must say though, if you voted for "X" person and they won, then you DO NOT have a right to complain about what's going on. Thanks and good luck!
If you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain.

You often hear people say things like "If you don't vote, then you don't have a right to complain!" Most people take this sentiment to be true. Not true in a legal sense, of course. They aren't saying people who don't vote ought to be fined or arrested if they are caught complaining afterwards. But they are saying that somehow it isn't fair to complain about the results if you don't participate in the vote. I reject this notion and, in fact, assert the opposite: It is fair for non-voters to complain about the results of a vote, and it is often the VOTERS that have no legitimate right to complain.
Uranium mines are a much safer source of energy than than that of foreign oil.

"smarter Americans are investing in Uranium that is being drilled right here at home. " --> Firstly, America accounts for only a small proportion of the Worlds Uranium. There are few places where Uranium is found. America's addiction to oil has shown the scale of fuels required. To that end, America will eventuallly: A) Run out of Uranium and urn to foreign countries (E. g . Iran) B) Uranium mining will become cheaper abroad Either way, Uranium will be imported eventually. Let's compare the two: - When countries have oil, that's all they have, oil. - When countries are extracting Uranium, and subsequently producing Uranium, they suddenly have the ability to make nuclear weapons. It is clear Oil countries are less dangerous than Uranium ones. "While American lives are at risk on while trying to obtain this oil" --> The motives for Uranium are the same as oil. Uranium will be fought over.
Who is the best Doctor from Doctor Who? Justify your opinion and try to refute others opinions.

I think that this isa) not entirely true andb) not necessary.a) When the First Doctor decides to abduct the teachers in the very first episode, "An unearthly child", Susan physically attacks the Doctor to stop him from closing the doors and start the TARDIS, although in vain.See for yourself, after the 20-minute-mark: http://www.dailymotion.com...b) And even though Susan was generally fiercely loyal to her grandfather, the aspect you describe was very well present in the First Doctor's series, in the form of Ian Chesterton, who frequently was at odds with the Doctor, but ultimately realized that the Doctor was a good man, a brave man. So, the aspects only shifted from one companion to another, but were always present and were always handed down from the first companions to the others.
Who is the best Doctor from Doctor Who? Justify your opinion and try to refute others opinions.

I agree with you on many points. It is true that Doctor Who started off as an educational kid's show and that the eleventh and seventh Doctors have there fair share of cheesy moments. . But one thing a disagree on is that later incarnations of the Doctor have lost that special connection that you associate with Susan. The eleventh doctor's connection to Amy Pond is a very deep one as he met her when Amy was a child. This gives Amy a child-like awe at the Doctor because he is her "imaginary friend". Amy sees the Doctor as a dashing hero. The show takes advantage of this and describes Amy's final realization that the Doctor is not a hero in the God Complex. This makes Amy Pond such an interesting character. Amy had a constant conflict between two perspectives of viewing the Doctor: dashing, heroic imaginary friend vs the real Doctor, a dark and manipulative person. This sort of interesting relationship was non-existent in the Doctor-Susan connection.
Who is the best Doctor from Doctor Who? Justify your opinion and try to refute others opinions.

It is true that the first doctor is the one that started it all but his stories for the most part where cheesy. For example The Gunfighters was such an akward episode with the cheesy scene when they sing. Altough I agree that the first doctor was a great one he pales in comparison to Matt Smith's soulful acting and Sylvesters genius storylines.
Who is the best Doctor from Doctor Who? Justify your opinion and try to refute others opinions.

The best Doctor was and will always be the First Doctor.The reason is obvious: Without his enormous success, the other, subsequent Doctors would never even have existed. So, the one, great, UNIQUE feat the First Doctor achieved was: being ORIGINAL.All subsequent Doctors were/are derived works of art.The first Doctor was just as manipulative as the Seventh, like in e first Dalek series, when he pretended that an important part of the TARDIS was damaged just so that his companions would agree to explore the planet.He was playfully eccentric, just like when he addressed his successors in the first Three-Doctor-Crossover: "So you are my replacements, a dandy and a clown."He also had a special connection to the world, as he was a grandparent at the time. This aspect of his personality was lost with the subsequent Doctors, who are thus less refined personalities.Because of all this, all subsequent Doctors MUST by way of pure logic pale in comparison.
Who is the best Doctor from Doctor Who? Justify your opinion and try to refute others opinions.

I think that the eleventh doctor and seventh doctor are the best. The eleventh doctor's boundless enthusiasm gave the viewers a sense of wonder on to what there is to come. His playful eccentricity gave you the impression that the Doctor was an unpredictable alien. But most importantly during his era the writers played with the idea that the Doctor may not be a good man but most certaintly he is a madman with a box. The seventh doctor was a dark incarnation it showed how much of a "villain" the Doctor can be. The seventh doctor ended up been a cold, calculating, manipulative liar. He used Adric for his own purposes and betrayed his trust. This incarnation shows that the Doctor can be a monster. It shows the depth of the character known as the Doctor.
Eight reasons why christianity is dishonest and deceitful

"My opponent has admitted that he did not read my argument. That is VERY POOR CONDUCT. " Hmm wow. My opponent does not understand what he says. Perhaps he should. "I will be debating backwardseden not the comments. " So in his words he completely RD1 completely and avoided the "Eight reasons why christianity is dishonest and deceitful" and spattered off on his little lonesome own and decided to completely avoid them and be a contradictory hypocrite and decided to take on an entirely new bank of idiocies on his own as the rules of this debate does state "Prove christianity to be true. " OK great. It doesn't matter. If my opponent cannot prove his god exists, On which was 100% proved unto him that in no possible way that he can in RD2, And no one else has in the history of the human race also has not thus proven his god exists, He's s--t out of luck. "" Do you want to dig into it and further be humiliated in further RD'S? " I am not the one being humiliated here. My opponent is the one using useless arguments. He is also insulting me which is POOR CONDUCT. " Wrongo badbreatistu of cut up cabbage batbrain with el closed minded jesus jujitsu ooga booga campfire girl scout moldy diaper runny excuse superhero He-Man excuse you are not the power boy? Since you obviously point blank do not have the ability to rationalize, Think, Reason, Use common sense, Use logic, And neither does your superior ego god complex in which your bible is entirely about and nothing else, And you'd know that if you were to have read the damn thing in which you obviously haven't, Then go right ahead and test, Demonstrate, And the assert and the declare your god right now. Oh but wait, Golly gosh gee gosh darned it all you can't. Why? Because you haven't done your pretend yoga properly form that granny fart that you so proudly hold within your beauty mark kissy kissy poo poo She Ra can't wait to see season 2 to see what powers of her magical sword and horsey will save her troubles of the day. When you show NO INTELLIGENCE then you deserve to be humiliated. Darn. You want an "intelligent" debate. You got one. If only you were intelligent. Now you prove your god exists, Because no one else has. No one in the history of the human race. Let's give you some more tests. You prove faith as being true because in order for you to believe in your god, You must have faith. "Faith is the reason people give when they don't have evidence". Matt Dillahunty Also prove that your storybook bible is 100% true. Oh and oh yeah, Duh. No god would ---ever--- be stupid enough to use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. There's at least 50 reasons why this is true. Surely if you are reasonably "intelligent" you can think of a few. Oh btw, The next RD will contain youtube videos to humiliate you further. Darn. They are created by professionals who know what they are talking about. You don't. Ta ta. Let's see if you can survive.
Eight reasons why christianity is dishonest and deceitful

My opponent has admitted that he did not read my argument. That is VERY POOR CONDUCT. If my opponent read my argument. He would see that I am doing exactly what he wanted me to do. Giving evidence. My opponent has stated that there is clear proof. I would like to see that proof. You can't make statements without proof. " Do you want to dig into it and further be humiliated in further RD'S? " I am not the one being humiliated here. My opponent is the one using useless arguments. He is also insulting me which is POOR CONDUCT. " I'm---not---here---to---please---you. " Neither am I, I am here to have an intelligent debate with intelligent people. Apparently, I chose the wrong person to debate with. I have looked at backwardseden's previous debates and all he does is insult other people. He has no viable arguments with any evidence. Posting Youtube videos is not how debating is supposed to work. Nobody will go out of their way to watch seventeen youtube vids created by biased people. I will not continue this debate and recommend others to do the same. Backwardseden is not a debater, He is a bully.
Eight reasons why christianity is dishonest and deceitful

OK its simple. I haven't even read your arguments and I'm not going to. I made the simple rule for you to prove christianity to be true and there's no possibility that you can because in order for you to do that you would have to test, Demonstrate and once that done you would have to assert your god. And once that's done you would have to declare your god. And once that done you would have to pack all that together and submit what idiocies you've got to scientific communities of merit from around the world so that they would agree with what you have to say. This has never happened with ---any--- creationist or any human that has ever lived. Why? Do you want to dig into it and further be humiliated in further RD'S? Its not a problem. Oh and oh yeah I will use the "Eight reasons why christianity is dishonest and deceitful" + a whole lot more and youtube videos because I don't feel like typing out a whole ton of things to a degenerate like you that I've done to thousands of others. K? If you don't like it, Tough. You do not make the rules on MY debate. Got it you punk kid? I do. If you don't like it, Leave. I'm---not---here---to---please---you. I don't care.