BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The ice hockey goaltendee is the most difficult position in all of sport

About the puck being one eighth the size of the hockey net, a 3x1 puck which is 3 inches in area. And a 4'x6' net which has an area of 24ft, which calculated is to be 288in in area. So what you said is that 1/8 is equivalent to 3/288, which is obviously wrong. The puck takes up 1.01% of the net. While in soccer the net has an area of 196ft, while the ball is 27" in circumference which is 1.1% of the net, giving the hockey goaltender the advantage in this catagorie. Plus you even admitted " A soccer goalie already covers almost the whole net!" Football, the quarterback is not on the field the whole time because when the other teams quarterback and offense goes onto the field, the quarterback takes a break in the bench while his defense tries to gain back the ball. Baseball, the pitcher has 10 seconds to throw his pitch, while a goalie may have milliseconds to react. If a goalie does not see the puck or it is tipped, he does not have all the time he wants to react. Even if its a normal shot the shooter can change directions with his stick or fake a pass. Or he can even deke the puck a lot. Dance, the tram may be able to score another goal, but it would help if you didn't get pulled from that mistake, in dance, as you may be out of competition, you still get to show everyone else who us watching your not willing to give up, as is what it looks like when the hockey goaltender is getting pulled. Wrestling, I'm sorry for the gruesome description but even with a cup on a puck to my groin made me start crying on the ice and my penis was bruised, but I guess getting punches and kicks to the stomach are really bad too. Oh and by the Way i finished that game and had a great outing the rest of the way. When i say that skating is not in another sports, i meant ice skating, which eliminates 80% of the sports you listed, and a for the other 20% none require as much mental toughness as the hockey goaltender which i will explain in a little bit. When the author says "easy practice=easy game, that is for any sport, if i work hard in practice the games will come easy to me, but if i slack around in practice, then the games will be very hard. What he didn't mention is the mental toughness of the goalie. "The goalie has one of the most mentally demanding positions in any sport. When you combine the speed and mental skills required of a goalie with the danger of the sport, ice hockey is tops"(http://www.podiumsportsjournal.com.... ) Oh yea, by the way, goaltenders do not take up all of the net and do move a lot. If you ever go to a practice, you will see goalies always working on their movement. Because if you don't work on your movement then you can never get over to save puck on a one timer. Plus goalie pads are getting smaller and smaller which is fine with me, but big pads don't really matter when sticks help you shoot precisely ever time. So, if i have presented enough evidence as i believe i have, then goaltender should be more respected everywhere for the mental toughness, skating, pain, doubters, and everything else that comes with goaltending that comes along with it. Thank you
The ice hockey goaltendee is the most difficult position in all of sport

Thank you for taking a part in this and for having much respect. I assume you play soccer because you seem to write more and be most passionate about it, but that is just an assumption. In soccer, the goalie may have to leave his small box to play the ball. But the hockey goaltender must do the same to play the puck. And as the goal may be 4x the size if an Nil size, the ball is 10x bigger than a puck. The puck can be tipped, there can be multiple passes before a shot, the goalie can be screened and the goalie can be hit by another player, which may be illegal but is rarely called by referees. In football, what I meant by they aren't on the field all the time is that if your a quarterback, your not going to be on the field when the defense is on the field. Baseball, the pitcher does need to choose the perfect pitch, but they have about a minute to do so. The hockey goalie must do the equivalent but in a split second Dance, dance is mostly a team sport where no body contributes the most. And if it is a single dancer, when they make a mistake, they cant be pulled and humiliated, they get to keep going on Wrestling, just so we are clear, we are talking about cage fighters and not that fake wwe stuff right, that being said, fists and kicks don't hurt as bad as a puck to the groin. Plus, id like to see a wrestler skate with that much pads on. On the armless ping pongers, I give them many applauds since I know I couldn't do it, but its still not that different id they're playing everyone like that. The goaltender may not be as important as you say, but it is the most difficult there is since all goalies must use the Same size net from mini mights to beer league, all goalies must skate which does not apply to any other sport. Finally all goalies must have some of the greatest hand eye coordination there is. Because unlike baseball players. If they miss the puck, its a goal. So I ask you this, if the hockey goaltender isn't the most difficult position in sport, then who is.
The ice hockey goaltendee is the most difficult position in all of sport

I would have to agree that the ice hockey goaltender is the most difficult position in the the sports world. No one else is the biggest reason for succes or failure on any other team. I have taken the time to take a look at multiple sports and positions to see if there is one harder than the hockey goaltender. Football- all positions are are only on the field half the time. Baseball- the bal is only put into play about 30%of the time baseball pitchers- they cant pitch a whole game. Soccer goaltender- theres very little movement. Dancer- you only perfor mm for 7 minutes and your done. Basketball- all you do is run up and down the court a lot. Wrestling- you dont run at all. Those are just some of the basics and they all have multiple other reasons why they are not the most difficult position in all of sport. Now lets look at why the hockey goaltender is the hardest. The hockey goaltender must skate, which in itself is unique to the sport. Also, everytime you make a mistake. It goes up on a big scoreboard( this aplys to all goaltenders) , plus the goaltender must put on over thirty pounds of equipment. To protect themselves from 100mph slapshots. Again. Many other reasons that i will continue to say during this debate. If there is a harder sport out there. Then i will accept that my position is not the hardest. But if it is, then i would like the same in return
Jacobgunter started what I thought would be a great debate topic... Lets go from where he left off-

Once again thanks for a good debate, Im tired of winning by default. On to the debate Im going to attack your arguments first, then move to my case. I still cant emphasis this point enough. If a worker is doing a good job even though he is outside of the standard procedure, you should not fire or punish him. TO do the same to states like Utah who have a better program is unjust, and illogical. The government should be looking at what helps the people the best. The best way to do this within the realms of education is to let the states, who exert control over education via the tenth amendment, enact their own local policies. What works in Alaska for the kids may not work in California. By leaving the individual policies to the states, they are able to create policy that works best in that region. I would also like to point out that a national program like NCLB limits the outward thinking of students. Take for example in my state, CO, I had an Algera class with some fellow upper-level students. While in the class we discovered more effective means to solving various problems then what the curriculum taught. THe teacher took off points for developing our own, more effective procedure. THis shows how such a federal program is unsuccessful. On to my case. I would still like to hear your answer to my argument of NCLB has a pass-fail system. I stand firm that Utah is the case study of the effectiveness of the state level education system. You admitted that Utah has been successful, and they are being punished for it. I also MUST bring up the importance of the unconstitutionality of NCLB. It violates the states rights, and the ttenth amendment. The constant breaking of the constitution by our federal government will be the downfall of this country. I have more, but I have to go to school now.
Jacobgunter started what I thought would be a great debate topic... Lets go from where he left off-

Thank you for debating once again. Im really sorry that I am posting at the last second, but I was at a tournament all weekend. I wont hold it against you if you are aggravated by this. I also would like to thank you for stepping outside of what your personal beliefs are, its always good to see that in people (it shows open-mindedness) On to the debate. I will start by attacking what my opponent has said, and then move on to my case. While I will grant you the fact that NCLB has been successful in various cases, the federal program has not worked everywhere. If it is successful in certain areas or certain states, then it is the job of the county, region, or state government to issue the standards for the education of the students. If NCLB works in that region, then let it exist there, but the federal government shouldnt be allowed to have such an idea as NCLB because it doesnt work everywhere. Take for example the state of Utah. They abolished NCLB and suffered the consequence of losing federal funding. They have recently seen a surge in the proficiancy and success of their students when they passed their new standards. You discussed that you wouldnt fire a worker who shows potential but not any immediate effect. However, if you see the potential in the part/job that he is in, then you should wait. This argument is easily turned to my case because it shows how the potential of an individual entity can somethimes be worth the long-term investment. You would never have a policy as a business worker where you keep every employee until they prove their worth, but instead base it on an individual level of the worker. Now cross-apply that logic to the federal (boss) and state (worker) level education standards. (I dont know how clear this is, so you just need to ask for clarification if you dont get it.) Flow through all of my arguments about the unfunded mandate, unconstitutionality, and inconsistency from state to state that NCLB posseses If you have any questions that you would like to ask, Say them at the start of your next argument and I will answer them afterwards. Also feel free to use the comments to ask questions so you dont waste a speech doing it. Thanks again.
Jacobgunter started what I thought would be a great debate topic... Lets go from where he left off-

Well to start I would like to state that i'm a Democrat... So i'm not really that big of a fan of the NCLB program that President George W. Bush has re-initiated... or really of the current program in general. I am debating my opponent on this issue for two reasons... 1. Because educated debate is never a bad thing... 2. Because he has had trouble getting anyone educated to respond to him on this subject... So I thought I would step in. While I agree with you an many issues about this program, I must state this. You do not wish this subject to continue at all. And I see this as an oversight of a potentially amazing program... if it were given the message and funding that it rightfully deserves. If a program thats sole objective is to help children in less fortunate schools is to be eliminated from the budget and from the national agenda, then we as Americans should truly see ourselves as failures. This is a program that has proved to be over 300% effective if conducted in the right climates. The right climates being in schools where the teachers are 100% hands on, and are micro managed by higher up elected school officials who have the students best interests at heart, 300% effectiveness is a highly shocking number. If one student was getting an f in history class, and the NCLB program helped that student, and others to get up to a B grade... which is what this program has done... Then (300)students would be helped. Of course there are 105 million children in our public school system, imagine what that could be... I got my initial figures from the national website, and those numbers are accurate. They are on there after being submitted by a congressional panel after hours of studies were committed. These numbers were not made up for the government by some long haired lackey, but from actual parents who saw improvement in their children after this program took effect; and congress who went back and evaluated it before giving it funding.. Your website on the other hand is independently ran and operated and is far more succeptable to false numbers. The basis of my argument is this, if the system is failing, but is good in virtue, why abolish it? I'll put it to you this way... If you were managing a company and one of your employees was faltering, but you saw great potential in him given the right tools... would you fire him, or would you help him succeed with advice and nurturing? That is the No Child Left Behind Program. I think we should work out the kinks and nurture it until it works so well that students in the worst inner city schools are going to Ivy League schools on their own Merritt's, not abolish it and leave these kids to live and grow up with out any support. That is what I believe America is actually about. Helping each other.
Islam is a religion of peace

This debate will be about whether Islam itself is a violent religion or a religion that promotes peace. If you challenge me you will be on the Con side and therefore you will argue that Islam is a religion of hatred and violence. We will go no further than the Sunnah and the Qur'an and we won't look at what other Muslims are doing. Websites like thereligionofpeace.com / wikiislam and answering-muslims.com should be avoided. Thereligionofpeace.com continuously lies and spread false information, WikiIslam is a wiki that anyone can edit and answering-muslims is a very dodgy website run by Christian apologists. Contrary to popular belief in most western cultures, Islam is a religion that preaches peace and tolerance. Islam has a dual meaning, the first is submission and the second is peace. The idea is that when you submit, you attain peace. Round 1: Opinion Round 2: Arguments Round 3: Refutation to round 2 and final arguments.
Against Gendercide.

So you're basically saying that women shouldn't even be born.In these regions-which we've been concentrated on the whole debate- I do believe the women shouldn't be born as I have shown rape, murder, sexual assault statistics in these countries. I say that women should not be born because if they are born, they are going to feel prejudice, sexism, and in the worst case, they my get raped and/or murdered. Ethically, I would rather end the life of a female before they enter the world and develop these feelings and get physically hurt with nothing I can do to stop it.So, if you are to tell a population of 2.51 billion people to stop reproducing, to prevent the birth of females, how would you do so? This whole debate is about gendercide, which is exactly what they are doing to prevent females from being born and raised- they kill them early in life or get an abortion.As for genocide leading genocide, I didn't say that those two were the same things. I said they could both be part of the reasons, why womens are murdered. Women*, please. Also, you haven't proved that gendercide leads to genocide, you've only established that both kill women. So we will qualify that statement and argument to be false.In order to prevent females to come into the world , adults needs to stop reproducing. That would lead to extinction for that race. And remember gendercide happens ALL around the world.And once again, you did not answer my question nor did you even attempt to mention morals.Thanks for the debate.
Against Gendercide.

Thank you for clarifying the problems.Therefore stating my opinion that gendercide is the better way out rather than knowing the females will soon fall victim of rape and murder.This is the exact reason why I argued for gendercide, to avoid being responsible for bringing a female into the world when you know this is something that WILL happen to them.You mentioned that gendercide is better if the females are just going to get raped or murdered. So, you're basically saying that womens shouldn't even be born. These women didn't get a choice of where or when they were going to get born, so killing them would be like killing innocent people. As for their parents, some didn't have choice. In both India and China and several more countries, the economy is bad. Over 60% of the worlds population is in Asia, 2.51 billion is from India and China alone. So, if you are to tell a population of 2.51 billion people to stop reproducing, to prevent the birth of females, how would you do so?As for genocide leading genocide, I didn't say that those two were the same things. I said they could both be part of the reasons, why womens are murdered. Proof that gendercide and genocide are linked.http://www.gendercide.org...The answer to your question: In order to prevent females to come into the world , adults needs to stop reproducing. That would lead to extinction for that race. And remember gendercide happens ALL around the world.http://geography.about.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Against Gendercide.

Just to make this clear, I am against gendercide. My opponent posted information on gendercide and why gendercide is horrible. I am sorry if there was any confusion at all.I also apologize as you seem a little confused. My entire debate was based on the heinous, horrible fates that women face in these countries, therefore stating my opinion that gendercide is the better way out rather than knowing the females will soon fall victim of rape and murder. I know that you are arguing against gendercide and I am arguing for gendercide. I never once in my argument mentioned that gendercide was in any way horrible.Though you have used no cites to prove anything in your argument, I will selectively argue what I believe to be true. You stated, there had been approximately 16000 cases of rape in India in 2001. This is the exact reason why I argued for gendercide, to avoid being responsible for bringing a female into the world when you know this is something that WILL happen to them. Basically, with your rape statistics, you are reenforcing my arguments and not building your own arguments.You said that gendercide will lead to genocide. Unless you have proof of this, it is illogical to state. Just because two things are similar does not mean that one will happen because of the other. Buying oranges is equivalent yet different to buying anything else. Stating that gendercide leads to genocide will suggest that buying oranges will soon lead to buying apples because you are purchasing both and they are both fruit. Until you have proof, this statement is highly illogical.Also, you did not answer my question. HOW CAN WE MORALLY ALLOW FEMALES TO BE BORN IN INDIA IN CHINA IF WE KNOW THAT ONE DAY THEY WILL BE RAPED AND MURDERED?
Against Gendercide.

Just to made this clear, I am against gendercide. My opponent posted information on gendercide and why gendercide is horrible. I am sorry if there was any confusion at all.In both India and China, that population of males are getting higher while females are getting lower. Many people question why human would do things such as killing people of a certain sex. Sometimes I question myself the same thing. Religion is a factor when it comes to gendercide. In some religion, men are more superior than womens, that causes women to appear "weaker". Rape is one of the major crimes against women. For example, there had been approximately 16 000 case of rape in just India in 2001. This number has been raised to 26 000 by 2012. So it is clear that this specific problem isn't getting solved. There are organizations all around the world, trying to stop this inhumanity, many went without success. Gendercide also links to genocide. Genocide is the killing of people with certain racial, ethnic, religious or national group. Many women are, in a way, killed both because of their race and gender. The reason why India and China are the countries that face these problem more than others, are particularly because of their traditions. In China, women traditionally serve men, the women cleans, cooks, and reproduce. In their tradition, there isn't anything else to be done by a women. Over time women are beginning to be viewed differently, but in some cases not.As the answer to your question:Like I said before, this problem will not be solved completely, but the hope is that it will decrease. I think that with this particular issue, we'll need more media attention. And if caught doing gendercide, the punishment should heavier.
Against Gendercide.

In India, many women are treated as lesser than men, raped and killed without any type of justice. With more than 24,000 reported cases in 2011, rape registered a 9.2% rise over the previous year. More than half (54.7%) of the victims were aged between 18 and 30 [1]. With rape on the rise, India is becoming a more and more dangerous area for women to roam around. Is there an escape? According to cbcnews, a UK woman jumped from a hotel room in order to prevent a sexual attack. This hotel was located in India, and although the woman was on a visit from the UK, she still fell victim to sexual assault [2]. This shows the intensity of the objectification and heinous thoughts toward women in this region.In addition to my previous quote, Police records from 2011 show kidnappings and abductions of women were up 19.4%, women being killed in disputes over dowry payments by 2.7%, torture by 5.4%, molestation by 5.8% and trafficking by an alarming 122% over the previous year [1]. This shows an increase in disgusting, immoral crimes againt women, specifically trafficking (deal or trade in something illegal; selling of women's sexual services). Knowing that this is the fate for majority of the "lucky," born women, how can we morally ban gendercide and bring the new born females to fall victim of the inevitable? If we think of this, as sickening as it is, as a market, if there are more products (in this case women), there are more distributions. We have to think less about the gender ratios and more about the condition of life that these females will have. In China, women are treatly as poorly, if not worse than, women in India. According to OneNewsNow, China is ranked among other nations where abuses in trafficking of women and children are prevalent [3]. I stress again that it is immoral to subject females to this atrocity. svri.org [4] states that patriarchal authority at home and in society [are] societal factors that increase risk of sexual violence. It is clear that China is a patriarchal society, thus increasing the risk of sexual violence against women. Shame is a particularly strong factor that deters Chinese from seeking outside professional help. With high rape statistics and a lack of seeking of help due to shame, there can be a countless number of cases that no one knows about which can thus increase the intensity and statistics and make it all the more likely for any girl to fall victim for this. Questions for you to answer: 1. Previously asked, Knowing that this is the fate for majority of the "lucky," born women, how can we morally ban gendercide and bring the new born females to fall victim of the inevitable?Sources:[1] http://www.bbc.com...[2] http://www.cbc.ca...;[3] http://www.onenewsnow.com... [4] http://www.svri.org...;