BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Soccer will overtake baseball in popularity in the USA in the next 25 years.

In the year 2037, soccer will be more popular baseball in the United States. The term "popular" refers to which sport draws more media attention and brings in more revenue.Soccer is on the rise in the USA, and it was recently pronounced the second most popular sport among 12-24 year-olds in the USA (1). ESPN and NBC Sports Network have inked deals with the MLS to broadcast more games, and European matches are becoming a fixture on ESPN and Fox. Events like the World Cup and UEFA Champions League draw more media coverage than ever, and star players are becoming more recognizable in the USA. EA Sports' FIFA video game franchise is rapidly becoming one of the most popular sports video games year in and year out, which is helping spread awareness for professional soccer in the US youth. Soccer is also one of the most popular and accessible youth sports in the US.Baseball, on the other hand, is in sharp decline. Attendance has been down for most MLB teams, and youth participation has declined by approximately 25% (2). Baseball is a dying sport that will soon be overtaken by soccer. All of my opponent's arguments are invalid until he can prove that he can predict the future, I anxiously await for him to prove he can predict the future.
Soccer will overtake baseball in popularity in the USA in the next 25 years.

In the year 2037, soccer will be more popular baseball in the United States. The term "popular" refers to which sport draws more media attention and brings in more revenue. Soccer is on the rise in the USA, and it was recently pronounced the second most popular sport among 12-24 year-olds in the USA (1). ESPN and NBC Sports Network have inked deals with the MLS to broadcast more games, and European matches are becoming a fixture on ESPN and Fox. Events like the World Cup and UEFA Champions League draw more media coverage than ever, and star players are becoming more recognizable in the USA. EA Sports' FIFA video game franchise is rapidly becoming one of the most popular sports video games year in and year out, which is helping spread awareness for professional soccer in the US youth. Soccer is also one of the most popular and accessible youth sports in the US. Baseball, on the other hand, is in sharp decline. Attendance has been down for most MLB teams, and youth participation has declined by approximately 25% (2). Baseball is a dying sport that will soon be overtaken by soccer. Sources (1) http://soccernet.espn.go.com... (2) http://online.wsj.com...
Parents should be licensed.

Since there is nothing to rebut, I will simply remind you of my points.I. Reduce Traumatic ChildhoodsII. Promote Parenting StandardsIII. Save MoneyLicensing parents would reduce traumatic childhoods, promote parenting standards, and be cheaper than allowing inadequate parents to be parents. I encourage CON, if you are still on DDO, to counter my points in the last speech. I know your chances of winning are slim to none after two forfeitures, but I am curious what the counter arguments would be.
Parents should be licensed.

Definitions assumed accepted.I. Reduce Traumatic Childhoods-UnopposedII. Promote Parenting Standards-Unopposed III. MoneyLicensing Parents and regulating those licenses poses a question of cost. "According to the Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy every $1 spent on home visiting yields a $5.70 return" [1]. In addition, child abuse and neglect directly costs the US $124 billion a year [1].As you can see, I have three strong points, and my opponent has yet to make any. Parents should be licensed. PRO win! 1. https://www.childwelfare.gov... Consequences
Parents should be licensed.

Parents should be licensed based on the principle of the greater good. 'Parent' is an adult seeking to become the legal guardian of a minor. Licensing would be controlled by the state. The adoption process is precedent that the resolution is feasible. Licensing parents would reduce traumatic childhoods. Four children die daily in the US due to child abuse [1]. 30% of abused and neglected children go on to abuse their own children [1]. We can end this cycle by licensing parents. Preparation for licensing would promote parenting standards. Now parents who would have been mediocre, will have learned the skills to guide their child through growing up. Reducing traumatic childhoods and promoting parenting standards would create better childhoods, would lead to better functioning adults, would lead to a better future. While questions may arise to rights and feasibility, the principle of the greater good trumps worries of stepping on a few toes. 1. http://www.childhelp.org...
The world of generation 1 Pokemon has recently gone through a massive war.

The world of gen 1 Pokemon has recently gone through a war. This war has caused brutal harm to the population of Kanto, which explains why your and your rival's fathers are missing, and that the generation of the player character is the first generation to live in peace-time.Some of the evidence is as follows: Lt. Surge's Quote: Before the player character faces Lt. Surge in a gym battle, he shouts "Hey kid! What do you think you're doing here? You won't live long in combat! That's for sure! I tell you what kid, electric Pok"mon saved me during the war!". This statement flatly acknowledges that there was a recent war, and that Lt. Surge is a veteran of the aforementioned war. The Missing Population: The majority of the people you encounter throughout gen 1 are all children, elderly, or in crime. This supports the idea that a massive war had taken place, as a large war would have forced the Kanto government to draft all able bodied citizens to assist in wartime, as children and the elderly are not able to fight in combat, and criminals would have resisted drafting efforts. This is why your and your rival's father is not present throughout the game. Building Arrangements: In almost every city in the game, there is a hospital, a training facility, and no entertainment related buildings. This is because when a nation faces a massive threat, they will try to focus all of their resources on the military required buildings (like a military training facility and hospitals), and strip away funding from unnecessary projects (like entertainment related buildings). The fact that only certain buildings are present throughout Kanto cities supports the idea of a massive war.
Gay Marriage Should Be Made Legal Worldwide

Con, I am not proposing ways to make gay marriage legal or saying that anyone has the authority to make such a decision. Countries must make up their own minds about gay marriage and this will take some time. I am just saying, in a fair and just world, gay marriage would be legal worldwide. Don't get caught up on the worldwide bit of the title. I just included it to show that I believe my ideas and reasoning transcend any one country. Since you did not yet refute my arguments on the morality and justice behind gay marriage and focused only on the worldwide part, which I explained, I will give you the last round to do so.
Gay Marriage Should Be Made Legal Worldwide

I think you missed some of my points. I am not debating that gay marriage is moral. That is not what this debate is about. This debate is about whether or not it is moral to make gay marriage legal. A marriage is not required to bring forth offspring. A couple can be married their whole lives without producing a single child. Sex is also not required to bring forth offspring. It is not a law that all married couples must produce children. I do admit that sex is almost always present in a marriage. However, as long as contraception and the ability to predict women's sexual cycles is available, marriage and sex will not have to lead to children. Also, gay marriages can't necessarily produce children, but they can provide a stable home and family to orphans. While you could argue that living with gay parents is not the ideal life, I think it would be hard to argue that it is worse than living on the streets as a child or in an orphanage. To refute your second argument about how we would be offending other countries, I would say the following. Many countries worldwide are turning toward legalizing gay marriage and that list is only growing. Mexico (some parts), United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Spain, United States (in some states), and many more countries allow same-sex marriages. Many others recognize some sort of civil union for same-sex couples. Worldwide trends are changing and gay marriage legalization is strongly growing in popularity. In conclusion, gay and strait marriages aren't legally obligated to bring forth offspring, gay marriages can provide benefits to society, and the world is trending towards gay marriage. Thank you for your arguments, Con (your name is quite hard to remember). (1) http://www.ranker.com...
Gay Marriage Should Be Made Legal Worldwide

Thank you for your argument Sdgydnhgn. I actually agree with almost everything my opponent brought up. How most major religions worldwide speak out against gay marriage. How it is only right to follow God's law. By this reasoning however, every sin would be made illegal. You couldn't curse or you would be fined, you couldn't sneer at your neighbor without getting a ticket. But think, if we were forced by law to follow one religion would that religion really mean anything? I certainly don't think so. Each and every person must choose to be moral, choose to follow God, choose to live a righteous life. As I previously stated, God gave us a choice for a reason. Gay marriage is oppression and it is only moral and just for it to be made legal worldwide.
Gay Marriage Should Be Made Legal Worldwide

That's fine Con, you can use whatever reasoning you wish. Just make sure you are debating against the legalization of it, no the very idea of it. Also I would like to say that I already posted this debate once, but my opponent quit on me. I will be using an argument identical to an argument I previously posted, but that argument was never refuted so I think that is fine. Just don't think I'm plagiarizing or something. Before I get into the meat of my argument, I would like to address the fact that I say "Worldwide" in the title. I just mean that I believe this matter, and the points I make for my cause, transcend any one country and really apply universally. If my opponent disagrees, we can of course debate that as well. Gay marriage should be made legal worldwide because it would be moral and absolutely just to do so. I'm going to start off by saying that I am NOT debating the morality of gay marriage. I won't bother to address that because it is outside of the argument. This is solely whether or not it should be legal. I am a Libertarian and believe that my personal opinions should not constrict everyone else from enjoying a right. This can apply to lots of things. I personally despise alcohol and marijuana, but I fully believe and know that people have the right to indulge in them. I can see no strong reason that gay marriage isn't legalized other than religion and supposed morality. Many people are under the belief that it is their moral duty to try to stamp out all that their religion or belief system labels a sin (in this case, gay marriage) with laws and legal constrictions. This is false! It is everyone's moral duty to assure that everyone enjoys the rights (in this case, marriage) that they do, despite the differences. In the Christian faith (which the majority of the world is, so it is the one I will use as an example), humans are given choices for a reason. They can choose to follow God and obey his commands or turn away from God and not follow his commands. Even if they don't believe that gay marriage is right, forcing their beliefs upon others takes away the gift (or curse) of choice that God gave everyone. That is most certainly not a moral thing to do. And if someone does not choose to follow a set of morals, then why would that person possibly want to and where would they think they have just cause to impede the progress of this movement? In closing, legalizing gay marriage would be moral and just in allowing gay couples freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
I don't really know quite yet.

Thank you very much for this great topic. I will do my best, and I hope to provide you with a good debate. I wish you luck and will begin my argumentation. Seeing as the resolution says should, I believe we should be debating whether or not it is morally right or wrong. Should implies whether or not something is good or bad, it implies an ought. So we are not debating whether or not it is legal. We are debating whether or not it should be legal. I firmly believe that flag burning when used as a demonstration should not be legal because of what the flag stands for. Historically, flags have been seen as a representation of their country. Not just by it being their flag, but also on the battle field. In medieval times, if a country's flag was still being carried, then they were not doing poorly on the battlfield. But if a country's flag had fallen, they were probably losing. In the case of America, this is this is also true. Francis Scott Key, author of the star-spangled banner, tells a story of the flag still waving during a bombardment. When we look at the history, we see that the British told the Americans that all they had to do to stop the bombarding was lower their flag. The Americans chose not to. So the British kept bombarding the colony. There were many direct hits, but the flag never fell. This enraged the British, so the ships were ordered to focus all their fire on the flag. At the end of the bombardment, the flag was still standing. The reason for this...was because every time the flag fell, someone would pick it up and hold it in place. Many people died that die just to hold the flag up. By burning the flag, people are dishonoring those who died to defend it. Not only that, but we have a moral responsibility to protect the environment on all levels. Burning of the flag releases toxic chemicals from the dye into the atmosphere. So by stopping flag burning, we can stop a little bit of environmental damage. Thank you for this wonderful debate topic, and I wish you luck. Have a great day.
I don't really know quite yet.

Resolved: Burning the US flag in protest should be illegal for US citizens. I phrased it negatively to avoid confusion for those voting, as your name falls under the Pro side at the top of the page, but otherwise that is how it is phrased as a profile question. My opponent may go first, that way we both have an equal number of rounds. As you know your stance it should be clear, but to make it clear for anyone else PRO supports the resolution, and thus is arguing that burning the flag in protest should be illegal. Con, myself, am arguing that burning the flag in protest should be legal.
I don't really know quite yet.

I am currently in the mood for a good debate. But my dilemma is that I don't know what to debate about. So if you disagree with me on an issue in my profile, then please argue with me about it. I would like this debate to be on one of those issues, so please limit yourself to that issue. I will make the first argument, so if my opponent would just tell me the resolution, I will be happy to make my opening arguments. Thank you, and good luck.
Single sex schools are good for education.

Single-sex schools are not good for education for a variety of reasons. First, single-sex schools can force male and female students into stereotypical learning environments. Some male students may express slightly sensitive tendencies, while female students may express masculine tendencies. In single-sex schools, the learning environment will be different for both boys and girls. If a boy or girl must learn in a classroom where the teacher presents material geared to the common likes and interests of the same sex, he or she will feel left out and unenthusiastic if his or her interests are unique to other members of the same sex. For example, if a young "tomgirl" must learn in a classroom full of colors and girly materials, she will feel uncomfortable. Those who support single-sex schools argue that making students learn with people of the same sex helps eliminate "distractions" by disposing of the opportunity of sexual attraction of the opposite sex in the learning environment. This argument ignores the population of students with homosexual orientation. If a homosexual male student finds himself learning in an environment full of people of the same sex, his distractions are increased and not limited. You mentioned how many children fail to succeed in school because of romantic relationships with the opposite sex. I'm going to argue that a same-sex learning environment will not fix this problem. Although a same-sex classroom may prevent a child from engaging in a distracting romantic relationship during school hours, it does not prevent a child from having a romantic relationship outside of school. A distracting out-of-school relationship can still deter a child from academic focus. Also, it is the child's, as well as the teacher's, responsibility for the child to listen in class and assimilate information. If a child is not focusing because he or she is preoccupied with a conversation with a friend regarding someone of the opposite sex, it is, fundamentally, the student's job to politely pause the chit chat, listen, and pay attention. Also, even if students are learning in a same-sex environment, they will most likely find other subjects to talk about during class. So, fundamentally, talking when a student should not be talking is the primary issue. In a single-sex classroom, students fail to learn an important attribute to their future: professional interaction with members of the opposite sex. In the classroom, learning with same-sex students may boost test scores, however, it does not address future social, professional, and workforce situations. In most career paths, adults must work alongside opposite-sex coworkers. If a student spends most of his or her educational career with limited professional interaction involving opposite-sex students, he or she will be, to some extent, a disadvantaged employee when he or she receives a job. Co-ed classrooms allow social and professional interactions between opposite-sex students, thus transcending test scores and preparing children for the real world. Sources: http://www.greatschools.org...
Single sex schools are good for education.

Thank you. I will start this debate. Often in elementary schools and high schools, dating and crushes are a common theme. It is often a popular and trending topic for tweens & teens. From my personal experience, I've had friends that obsess of either a guy or a girl. And a couple of them actually began dating. My friends would talk endlessly about the guy or girl and then get distracted from their studies. They would text them in class and at home, FaceTime them, and all that other stuff. Their grades actually began to fall. There were other scenarios where the girl and the guy break up. And then from there, they spiral into some sort of depression (not heavy depression, just some kind). I had a friend experienced a break up before and it took me months to talk her out of it. She kept drawing depressing pictures and often texting me after school about her problems. That distracted her from her studies and well as mine. Sometimes, my friends would talk about a cute guy they liked. They would call me or text me just to talk about that guy. It would be quite rude to hang up, so I'm forced to sit there and just listen to what they have to say for hours. Personally, I've had times when I would be obsessed with whether or not I should tell this guy I liked him. I would worry about what he would say and all that stuff. When he talked to me, I would pay attention to him instead of the teacher. After, I would have to ask the teacher to repeat everything they said because I was distracted the entire time. This is partly why same-sex schools can be beneficial. P.S. I understand that you are a guy and these problems may not actually occur in your case (girls are too complicated). Plus, you're a little too old to still be experiencing these kind of scenarios. I'm still in elementary school.
Post the most haunting music debate

Every round, each debater posts a piece of music that he or she finds extremely haunting. The voters decide which debater wins by comparing the relative hauntingness of the music posted each round. (Note: My opponent will only have to post music that is more haunting than the music I posted that round. Therefore, he or she may save really haunting music for later.) Rules: 1) Instrumental music only. This includes arrangements of vocal works, such as those by Liszt. (I want to remove the effect of lyrics and focus on the music) 2) No limits on instrumentation. Solo, chamber, concertante, orchestral, etc., all fine. However, there should not be any deliberate allusions to 'haunting' stuff (e.g. no ghosts screaming in the background, please). 3) No limits on style, era, etc. 4) You must post a link (YouTube or otherwise) to the music. My first piece: Liszt: Apres une lecture de Dante: Fantasia Quasi Sonata, No. 7 from Annees de Pelerinage, Deuxieme annee : Italie http://www.youtube.com...
Post the most haunting music debate

Twelve-tone so early in the debate? ! I should have started on Scriabin in the first round. .. Looks like there will be no room for Saint-Saens Danse macabre, Liszt Totentanz and HR 3, crazy old Berlioz's head-rolling, any of the requiems, Chopin Nocturne 48/1 and Sonata No. 2, etc. . Anyway, I pick, for this round: Scriabin: Prometheus: The Poem of Fire
Able-bodied people should not receive welfare if they don't work

The whole point of working is to provide a service or produce something that benefits some group of people in some way. When people don't contribute to that system, they should not get to reap its benefits. I am referring to the welfare 'leeches' especially prominent in European countries like Sweden, aka "Welfare Paradise" If welfare were to be a thing, the recipients should be required to work for it in some way, like public services. Provided they are able-bodied, of course. If I spend my time working to improve society such as working in sanitation, real estate, or any other job, a part of my paycheck should not go to some lazy person who sits at home and is basically a leech to society. The system should be a "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" system, not "it doesn't matter whether you work or not, you still get money" If you accept, please provide a few reasons why my proposed system is wrong/bad.
Ban islam

Islam took the New Testament and reversed it.Christianity: Jesus is Son of God.Islam:Jesus is not Son of God.Jesus: Love your enemy.Islam: Kill your enemy. An eye for an eye.New Testament: Jesus is King of KingsIslam: King of Kings is the Dajaal(The Islamic end times enemy)New Testament: False prophet marks forheads as a mark to Satan.Islam: He is not false, and he marks forheads for Allah.Jesus: redemption from sins. Muhammed: The Kaaba stone gives redemption for sins.New Testament: Followers of Beast from the Sea (AKA the Antichrist) commands a 200 million man army to march on Jerusalem.Islam Hadith: 200 million man Islamic army will march on Jerusalem led by the Mahdi (Islamic messiah)The point?Muslims literally believe they are the followers of the Biblical Antichrist, but call him the messiah. That's a recipe for some nukes to reign. This won't end well.The end.
Ban islam

i think people just have to understand that islam isnt a religion, because its a belief thats masking our responsibility, nobody wants to be killed by terrorists or have their families be unsafe, so im trying to unmask it and have people realize we have responsibility to ban islam, cuz muslims are trapped, and its all cuz of us, only non islam can end islam.. the end of the world not that i think it will actually get to that point, but thats what it is