BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Was not ranked number one for the most years

Federer has achieved what every player dreams of when he becomes a professional player. The way he has dominated tennis from 04-07, no one has been able to do it in the past. People often talk about Nadal being better than Federer but seriously, Nadal is not even half way where Federer stands right now. Nadal might be able to win more grand slams then Federer but the fact reamins that Nadal has never been more dominant like Federer used to be. Roger had an aura!! something like Nadal possesses on clay court(i mean he looks unbeatable). The match was won by Federer even before he stepped on to the court because of his sheer perfection,dominance and brilliance for which he was feared by all other players. People might say that Fedx won the Roland Garros 09 or the Aus Open 10 because Nadal wasn't there in the final.. but hey..thats not Federer's fault ..ok?? In the years 2005 and 2006, Federer had the win loss record of (81-4) and (92-5) respectively(i might be wrong about 2005, but he had only lost 4 matches).Now think about that... in 2 years he had lost less than 10 matches (9 to be precise) and won around 173 matches!! phew!! that is unbelievable..you look at Nadal's record for 2010(the year that was considered the best for him) he had lost around 11-12 matches already(i am not sure about the numbers,but it was in 2 digits).So there you see.. that says it all. Fedx always finished 2nd best on clay but rafa never reached the finals of hardcourt between 04-07 because he was not the second best..there were players who were better than him. One such instance, Nadal has never been able to dominate Nalbandian.. so does that mean Nalbandian is better than Nadal?? So how can people say that Nadal is greater than Federer just because he has 13-7 record against him (most of which have come on clay courts)?? All that is there to say is that Federer's recors speak for itself..and there will not be another Federer for a very long time to come in tennis. The other argument lists mostly people before the open era and that would be a whole different argument and Roger has been world no.1 for a record 237 consecutive weeks. Well if only it is important to be the greatest player of all time then you want to say that Pancho Gonzales is the greatest!!!!!! You are not interested to consider the other points of this game, then we are not interested to debate with you!!!!!!!
Facts speak for themselves

The fact of the matter is that Federer emerged just as a great generation of tennis players were retiring. If you look at the players Pete Sampras had to play against - it is truly amazing that he managed to win 14 grand slam titles. The field was much tougher than it is today and that is one major factor that counts against him. Although the Swiss is undoubtedly a great player - the lack of competition has helped in his spell of dominance. Pete Sampras was competing against the likes of Agassi - Rafter - Kafelnikov - Ivanisevic - Chang - Courier - Martin - Brugera - Kuerten - Phillapousis and even Becker and Edberg -in an era where it was not uncommon for there to be four different grand slam winners in a year - showing that the strength in depth was much greater than in this current generation. In fact Federer had to wait until he was 22 to win his first grand slam - which coincided with Sampras's ageing generation beginning to call time on their careers. I don't think even Roger Federer is naive enough to believe that he would have won the French open had Nadal been fully fit and who knows what would have happened at Wimbledon had that been the case. Federer knows that Nadal at his very best is the better player (the 2008 Wimbledon final proved that) - having come off second best in five grand slam finals and a 13 -7 head to head proves that Nadal has got his number. Federer is a great player - but there will always be niggling doubts about whether he is the greatest. I do not think that there can be any doubt that Federer is a phenomenal tennis player and certainly a candidate for greatest ever - but Rafael Nadal is without doubt a real spanner in the works in Federer's otherwise flawless career. Arguments and convenient excuses can be made about Federer's fitness when he loses - and conversely Nadal's injury problems overlooked - when it benefits Federer (French Open 2009) but the fact of the matter is that Rafa first clashed with Federer when the Spaniard was an injury free seventeen year old and dispatched Federer in straight sets. This was in 2004, the year of his inexorable rise and saw him at the peak of his powers, yet Nadal emerged as the victor. In twenty subsequent match ups as mentioned previously Nadal has a considerable 13 - 7 lead across all surfaces. 9 - 2 clay, 3 - 3 hard, 2 - 1 grass. But their 3 previous Grand Slam contests - crucially - across all surfaces, saw Nadal triumphant. 20 matches is more than adequate for comparison - (Borg - Mcenroe played 14. Lendl - Wilander played 22 and Agassi - Courier matched up 12 times). So the bottom line is that Nadal has tested Federer 20 times and won 13 - that means that Federer has scored only a 35% success rate, which in most tests would be a fail. This is a very significant dent - in Roger Federer's otherwise immaculete career and as such cannot easily be dismissed.
Was not ranked number one for the most years

Male tennis players World Number One or Co-Number One since 1877 Undisputed Number One for the year is shown in Bold font and Co-Number Ones are shown in normal font. Total World Number One Years 8 years Pancho Gonzales 1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 7 years William Renshaw 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1889 Bill Tilden 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1931 Rod Laver 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 6 years Reggie Doherty 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902 Jack Kramer 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1953 Ken Rosewall 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1970 Pete Sampras 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 5 years Joshua Pim 1890, 1891, 1893, 1894, 1895 William Larned 1901, 1902, 1908, 1909, 1910 Lawrence Doherty 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906 Fred Perry 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1941 Don Budge 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1942 Roger Federer 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
It removes incentive for religious people to grow up..

One should take responsibility for ones own actions. being offended is ones own action. Therefore, one should take responsibility for being offended. Growing up means making your own decisions. Decisions require information. burning holy books is information. Therefore, growing up means allowing burning holy books. Burning a holy book demonstrates its harmlessness. Demonstrations of harmlessness prevents fear. Fear should be prevented. Therefore, demonstrations of harmlessness and thus burning a holy book should be allowed.
Burning of Books

Burning of Books reminds me of Hitler way of dealilng with problems. This is the same. This pastor, Terry Jones got his "calling for burning the Koran" from New York and Israel, not from "God". He sad, he will not burn the Koran if this "higher power" will tell him so. Therefore, The Jews should be asked to stop this "burning the books" attitude. It seems they are bringing back the good old days of nazism, the time when everything was allowed. It's reflected in Europe today, where they are "rounding up the Roma" and sending them to Auschwitz (kosovo, where they die from led poisening). Those countries that are rounding up the Roma people all have conservative governments, with Jewish Prime ministers, such as Sarkozy, Traian Basescu, Silvio Berlusdoni, Petra Edelmannova, Nick Griffin, Angela Merkel, not to mention the Hungarian Jobbik Party with Jewish members. How interesting..
Book-burning in and of itself is wrong.

It shows an anti-academic attitude. It does not matter if it is a Holy book or not books, are a symbol of intellectual growth, of progress, of civilisation. They are things that people treasure, things that are worth a lot both personally and financially, if the book is an antique. Burning a book shows that the correct response to something you disagree with is to burn it, to violently destroy it - a barbaric attitude. It also still has a strong association with Nazism - you are likely to be seen as a Nazi if you burn books. It is also bad for the environment. Not only does burning books contribute to pollution, those books could have been recycled.
It removes incentive for religious people to grow up..

Growing up means making your own decisions, deciding for yourself what to base your life on. A balanced life based on both reason and emotion, research, intuition and artistic inspiration, might be healthier for you. Burning a holy book is not necessarily harmless. While the actual act probably won't hurt you, unless you are clumsy and burn yourself or set your house on fire, you could seriously offend your neighbours, get into some fights, even ruin your reputation in the workplace. An important part of growing up is realising that your actions have consequences and you shouldn't just go around burning things.
There are other Mental games

The Olympics and Paralympics are known for sports not for mental games. Not that the mind is not important, in fact it is more important then sports, with that said it is not the only thing in life sports, and excersize are very important. Now im not saying that games, like chess are not important but those type things are not what the Olympics are for. There are a billion game shows out there which involve the mind and mental skills. such as the show who wants to be a millionaire. This show involves only the mind, maybe if people think that mind games need to be more famous then there should be a whole different event for them, because the Olympics are for traditional sports, and sports only there is no need to change the way this event is held. So games such as chess should not be held in the olympic games but perhaps in a different event such as the mindalympics?
Mind sports are some of the world's oldest and most contested competitive sports.

Mind sports play host to some of the oldest games in the world where people have played competitively. For example Chess traces its history extending back to the 6th century and it's modern competitive form began to evolve in the 15th century. Go or Weiqi has a much longer history and again has been played competitively. In addition both of these sports are contested by millions of people. Chess has a following of at around 600 million. While Go was reported to have a following of at least 27 million in 2003 [[http://osdir.com/ml/games.devel.go/2003-01/msg00040.html]], Given these sports history and number of players isn't it time that they took their place amongst other sports like Wrestling.
Essentially different

The idea that there can be mind sports in Olympics and Paralympic might be fascinating, interesting, and even very feasible to do, but that doesn't mean there won't be implications. Remember that the tradition of Olympics and Paralympic has always been contesting physical prowess instead of the mind, and trying to put Chess or Othello means going against that tradition, thus changing the whole principle of the competition. Olympics & Paralympic has always been a place to test your body, not your mind--this is important because this is what the competition is about. Try putting in a hand wrestling match in a local bar and it's bound to be a hit. Now try putting Chess in and what do we have? Although it is not a guarantee that there won't be any competitors at all, it's just not right because it's against the principle.
Olympic sports are suppose to be physical

I think that mind sport such as chess, quizzing, and debating shouldn’t be in the Summer Olympic and Paralympics games because the skills you need in mind games do not involve physical activity. Olympic sports are supposed to be for hard work and physical ability, but for chess, quizzing and debating you don’t need physical ability you just need to study. The Olympic sports are known for athletes all over the world that are the best, if chess, quizzing and debating came in I think that the Olympic would lose a lot of views. So in my opinion I don’t think mind games should be in the Summer Olympic and Paralympics competition.
Mind sports are some of the world's oldest and most contested competitive sports.

A huge following and a long line of tradition does not necessarily equal to being entered as an official sport to the Olympics and the Paralympic. A sport contested in O&P has to fulfill certain criteria before it can be counted as an official competition field, and there will be a lot of things that needs to be considered before adding a new field of competition. Frankly, since there are already many competitions and contests on Chess or Go, and apparently both fields are quite content with the way they're running right now, it is not urgent to add mind sports to the O&P.
Difficult to define

As far as the complications of defining a sport, a game or Olympic sport are concerned, these problems exist with physical sports as well. As not all physical sports are Olympic sports. It is up-to the Olympic board to decide which sports to include and which to disregard. Problem is, the Olympics have to date, pressured young people to concentrate on their physical prowess, significantly more than their mental abilities. This a point of concern because the world does not reward genius enough.
Condoms are one of the most effective means of protecting against STDs, HIV and pregnancy. For thei...

The effectiveness of condoms is grossly exaggerated. If not used properly, condoms can be highly ineffective. Young people are more likely to use condoms incorrectly, due to lack of experience with them or because they are drunk. Moreover, the temptation to have sex without a condom may be significant where the supply of condoms is not plentiful.
Providing access to birth control empowers women with more control over their bodies. Historically ...

Providing access to birth control empowers women with more control over their bodies. Historically women have often suffered more because of restrictive policies related to reproduction (abortion laws, restrictions on birth control purchases, parental consent policies). Men often don’t have to face the consequences of their actions. Condom distribution encourages the responsibility of men and increases choices for women. It can also establish condom use as the norm, not something that women continually have to negotiate, often from a position of weakness.
Thoughts for which you have no words

Once language is learned, it becomes a filter through which our ability to think and express ourselves must pass. And yes, we then struggle to find words for ideas which do not conveniently fit in our languages. Sometimes the words we need are nouns that grow and morph with time and use, like the transition of "horseless carriage" to "automobile" and "car." This moved from a description of an unfamiliar object to something that has become commonplace. Other times it is a new action that needs a description. Think of "Blogging" having changed from "web log" from "HTML authoring and posting." Watch your children struggle with vocabulary lessons and observe personally the development of new ways of thinking as new language is developed.
The inclusion of comedy deviates from traditions of Tragedy

Humour does not adhere to the classical structure but provides greater tragic tension. Although Shakespeare focuses on the theatrical excitment of comedic elements, with Mercutio's death in Act three, no amount of word play or double entendre can change its tragic tone. As Mehl suggests that it is 'the beginning of Act Three that marks the decision turning-point; the deaths of Mercutio and Tybalt are irreversible acts of violence' [[Mehl 1986: 24]]. Mercutio's line 'ask for me to-morrow, you shall find me a grave man' is one of Shakespeareans most celebrated puns where the chatacter provides humour in his tragic denial. The tragedy of the scene is epitomised in the syntax of this line, as Mercutio, brave and courageous to the end, laughs, denying himself tears, making his death more tragic. It is a poignant moment in the play as the scene highlights that comedy is tragic in that it ultimately 'demands death as its fulfilment' [[Brooke 1968: 99]].
The inclusion of comedy deviates from traditions of Tragedy

Ultimately the play is centred on the Tragedy of love and the violence that ensues however Shakespeare includes comedic moments which allows a departure from the classical traditions. For example in Act one, Scene one, although serious in the resulting brawl, comedy emerges from the sexual and physical bravado amongst Samson and Gregory. Shakespeare uses the opening scene to animate the characters, ensuring as much comedy as possible filters into the play before the drama develops. Such punning with 'Draw thy tool' is free to be humoured by audiences, as sexual innuendo instead of in a tone of conflict.
Classical Tragedy sets the protagonist fall as a result of their individual will and not fate

Shakespeare implies that Romeo and Juliet have fate working against them in their Tragedy. The coincidences presented are not necessarily flaws in the lovers but in others around them, such as misunderstandings, wrong timings and opposition, which question how relevant the protagonist's individual free will is in defining the plays outcome. The prologue announces this theme, and prepares the audience as the lovers 'fearful passage of their death-mark'd love' induces the 'pair of star-cross'd lovers to take their life'. Shakespeare implies therefore that his play, in its very nature, is death marked and so prompts an awareness of the 'atmosphere of fate, of ongoing doom which overhangs the play' [[Mason 1970: 3]]. Romeo and Juliet is a play not based on classical Tragedy as their love is not lost through their actions but by some force from outside.
It does not focus on moral condemnation of the couple but of passion of love

Greek tragedy was designed as a method of exposing vice and emploring virtue. Even when the lovers are at odds with society, Shakespeare spends no time in their moral condemnation or evaluation but reminds audiences of the passion and purity of their love. Mehl confirms this suggesting that there 'is not even an attempt to impose a neat moral on the tragic conclusion' [[Mehl 1986: 25]]
The Individuals fall from grace is a Greek tradition in tragedy

The lovers lack status as protagonists and so the characters can not be deemed tragic heroes. Greek tradition shows the fall of a character of high repute, fall such as Julius Caeser or Othello. Unlike Othello where the tragic protagonist is characterised as a respected general in the military of Venice, Romeo and Juliet is a lesser tragedy because the characters are of lower virtue. Those who are not familiar with the Greek principles of Tragedy will be swept away with the emotional richness and the cathartic feeling of the innocence of the lovers but as a traditional tragedy it is unsuccessful.
The Individuals fall from grace is a Greek tradition in tragedy

Shakespeare characterises the lovers as young and innocent, resulting in the naive and immature qualities found in their actions. The two characters make minor faults in the play that quickly escalate; where responsibility is based on the action of the lovers. Whilst Shakespeare hints as an awareness of the forces outside human action, in events such as in Act Five, where the Friar's message fails to reach Romeo, no suggestion of supernatural forces are explained as the fault. This is a crucial scene that results in the tragedy of the overall plot and so it is important in the classical sense of tragedy, as man is responsible for the fall. Brento suggests that 'because they are immature, they lack the understanding of to be responsible for their own destruction' [[Brento 1966: 197]].
Yes, rewards are effective motivators for students.

This being done from a young age is precisely what would socially condition children to work based upon the consideration of future reward. Whilst it is very much true that much of society and later work life follows a similar pattern, people ought to be encouraged to appreciate intrinsic value in what they are working on. If students need to be motivated with external rewards then the ways in which the work is being taught ought to be reassessed (if it is essential that they learn the specific material) and the content itself questioned in terms of the extent to which it is needed.
Rewards are appropriate in a student-centered classroom.

FALSE. The children need to be kept on their toes, rewarding them for silly trivial actions will result in a weak backbone for our countries and empires stabilization. FOR NARNIA!!! There needs to be more punishments for children whom are disrespectful. In fact, I will gladly volunteer my basement as an area for punishing the lazy, the dim witted, the forgetful. Without proper regulations and the installation of fear, the only reward they will be getting is a pink slip and a cardboard house. You know what is motivation? Telling a child that they have two options for the day, memorize all of the material or have their lunch taken, and their pinky smashed between the door frame. It is much more effective than rewards, and cheaper as well. Also, free lunch! That should quell some teacher complaints and any cause of a strike, now they get paid minimum wage AND lunch is included. You're welcome.
Feminism has no more battles left to fight. Victories such as gaining the vote, the right to an abo...

Feminism has plenty more to achieve. In the UK, on average women earn 82% of men’s hourly wage; female graduates earn 19% less than their male counterparts; female pensioners live on 53% of the income of male pensioners. Also in the UK, one in four women suffers domestic violence, and an increase in the reporting of rape in the last thirty years has gone alongside a threefold drop in conviction rates. Worldwide, women do two-thirds of all work, earn one-tenth of all income and own one-hundredth of all property. Two-thirds of the world’s illiterate people are women. 300 million women have no access to contraception. More than 80% of the world’s 50 million refugees and displaced people are women and children. Every year, 2 million girls under 16 are coerced, abducted or trafficked into the sex industry. These are all real problems, on which feminists continue to campaign - as they should.
Feminism promotes an unnatural equality between the sexes. There is nothing wrong with sex-role dif...

Women have shown that they are just as capable as men of playing a central role in public life; men have shown that they are just as capable as women of looking after the house and bringing up children. Given this, the suggestion that the male/female public/private divide is biological, natural and right looks somewhat suspect. Feminists point out that the roles traditionally accorded to men are those which - by virtue of being public - involve the widest exercise of political power and influence, and argue that claiming that this is natural and inevitable is an effective way of naturalising male power over women. Claims that motherhood is more fulfilling for women than career success operate as criticisms of women who choose not to have children, and are therefore self-fulfilling prophecies; they tell us nothing about what women are really best at.