BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The DH rule for Major League Baseball is a good rule

I disagree with the opponents argument that the DH in baseball is a bad rule. First fact: DH's hit better than pitchers, as that is the player that is replaced in the batting order. My 1st contention based on fact: Baseball is a game and is a business. The goal of every business is to maximize profits for itself. Anecdotally, increased hitting leads to more people watching the game. Disagreement involving opponents contentions. 1st. All players on the field are not equally on the team. Each player has a position which requires different skill sets. In both the National and American leagues, you have different members on the pitching staff that play in different situations. These specialty players are hired for the specific tasks that they perform. Taking this argument further, should kickers and punters in the NFL be required to play offense and defense. They are all equally members of the team, of course not. 2nd: According to advanced baseball statistics, a player's defensive fielding ability is not as important as a players hitting ability. So unless you had a player who could not catch a single ball, there hitting ability would trump there negative fielding shortcomings. (Will provide cite, cannot find at moment.) Also, having a dh still requires just as much strategy, replace any weak hitter with the pitcher in the opponents hypothetical and this issue still arises. 3rd. A team that never scored a run and also never gave up a run, would not win a single game in baseball. Therefore, hitting is more important than fielding, no points are given for defense. Therefore, hitting is rightfully more important than defense. It is incorrect hitting in baseball is currently too strong.In 2000 not single team had an ERA below 4.0 (http://espn.go.com...). Since then the numbers have risen drastically. In 2001 5 teams did; In 2002 11 teams did; In 2003 7 teams did; In 2004 3 teams did ;In 2005 11 teams; In 2006 3 teams In 2007 2 teams did; In 2008 8 teams did, in 2009 6 teams did; in 2010 11 teams did; in 2011 16 teams did; in 2012 16 teams did and finally currently 18 teams have below a 4.0 era Based upon these numbers, pitching has gotten statistically much better. In the past 3 years 50 teams have had an era below 4.0. a number equal to 2000 to 2008. Pitchers don't need help, they are better now than they have been in the past 10 years, removing the dh is unnecessary.
The DH rule for Major League Baseball is a good rule

Hey all. This is my first challenge for a debate. I want to debate the designated hitter rule for major league baseball. It has been around about 40 years now, and it does not seem as though it will change. I am not going to argue about whether or not we should change the rule, but whether or not it enhances the game of baseball overall. It is my contention that the rule does not make baseball a better game. Baseball is still a great game, and the MLB is still great. But the DH rule is not one of the best elements of the game. I will argue this for three main reasons: 1st: All players who play the field are equally players on the team. None of them should be exempt from hitting. Similarly, all batters should have to play the field. they too are fully players on the team. 2nd: It hurts strategy because w/o the DH there is much more to the game. For instance, the balance of a player's fielding and hitting ability comes into play a lot more than it does with the DH rule. For example, David Ortiz. He is a prominent DH but is known for his poor fielding. If there was no DH rule would his hitting outweigh his poor fielding? (He doesn't only hit the ball well but also the phone in the dugout btw) Similarly, if the pitcher is pithing a shutout in the 7th and comes up to bat with a guy in scoring position and one out, should he hit or should the team PH for him? These kind of strategy questions are minimized with the DH rule. 3rd: It encourages hitting too much. Baseball involves hitting and pitching but ever since the steroid era hitting has become too strong. There should be a balance of good hitting and pitching. The one batter does not make much of a difference in terms of actual running stats. However, it does take the focus off of the defense and make it much more about offense. I will qualify these statements a lot more in round 2. I look forward to any participants!
should we engineering babies in the womb for cosmedtic reasons

On the if you can fix it why wouldn't you) I think that if the deformity is not going to create a major impact on the persons life why waste the money on fixing it. This argument comes back to the decision of the parents. If the parents decide that they want spend the money to fix the deformity, that is their decision. Fine, the fact that everyone's value is intrinsic is my view.
should we engineering babies in the womb for cosmedtic reasons

I never said that money gives you your value I only said that it gives you pleasure. your value is still intrinsic so the value of the poor is still the same as the rich the poor just may not get the same pleasures as the rich. (On the if you can fix it why wouldn't you) I think that if the deformity is not going to create a major impact on the persons life why waste the money on fixing it.
should we engineering babies in the womb for cosmedtic reasons

i don't agree that people who are better looking have a better live. The thing that can give you pleasure assuming having a good life is having pleasure is money. The way you make money is by getting a job and there has been research done that said looks don't give you high paid jobs.(http://psychcentral.com...) On the physical problems the baby may have as long as there not life changing you should be able to work around them with hard work
The President of the United States should be elected by the direct vote of the people.

P1) Even if there are many people who are untrustworthy and lack good intentions that are not in jail, the amount of untrustworthy criminals having a factor in the voting of our next leader could be disastrous for the nation. P2) Just because a president had scandals while in office, does not make them bad presidents. JFK and Bill Clinton were considered one of the best US Presidents of all time and both had scandals while in their time of office. http://www.wonderslist.com... http://www.deseretnews.com... P3) By allowing the president to be directly voted by the citizens, small states will be affected because national campaigns will focus on large states, state autonomy will be threatened, and it could lead to widespread voter fraud and nationwide recounts http://www.thepelicanpost.org...
The President of the United States should be elected by the direct vote of the people.

P1) There are many people who are untrustworthy and lack good intentions that are not in jail, you do not need to be convicted to posses those traits. http://www.legalaffairs.org... P2) Grant and Harding are often regarded as some of the worst presidents overall. Grant, while well intentioned, did not pay attention to what was going on in his office and that let scandals happen. Harding was irresponsible and also did not pay attention to what the people in his office were doing, thus also letting scandals occur. http://topics.nytimes.com... http://www.usnews.com... P3) Your source seems to be describing "tyranny of the majority" in regards to enhancing minority interests. This is when the majority seems to take over the minority point of view, and it is perceived that the direct vote would make this worse. This is incorrect because: "State winner-take-all statutes enable a mere plurality of voters in each state to control 100% of a state"s electoral vote, thereby extinguishing the voice of all the other voters in a state." and "Suppressing the voice of a state"s minority is, by definition, an example of "tyranny of the majority." The state-by-state winner-take-all rule does not prevent a "tyranny of the majority" but instead is an example of it." http://www.nationalpopularvote.com... A direct vote will still maintain a two party system. "Today, 100% of the states conduct a direct popular vote for Governor. Yet, after over 5,000 direct popular elections for Governor since 1789, the two-party system has yet to collapse." and this is because "The two-party system is, in fact, sustained by the plurality-vote rule"not the state-by-state winner-take-all rule." http://www.nationalpopularvote.com... Regarding the federal system of government your source says that the Electoral College was made to "represent each State's choice for the presidency". However: "A state"s political "identity" is based on how all its citizens voted"not just how a plurality voted." A direct vote would "give voice to every voter in every state, as opposed to treating the minority within each state as if it did not exist." http://www.nationalpopularvote.com...
The President of the United States should be elected by the direct vote of the people.

P1) Even if the right for criminals to vote is democratic, allowing people who are untrustworthy and lack good judgement to play a factor in choosing our next president can lead to giving power to the wrong person for that position P2) Although Harding and Grant were chosen through the electoral college system and had corrupt administrations, they had many positive accomplishments in their terms. Warren G. Harding cut the unemployment rate by half through higher tariffs, lower taxes, and expansion of the tax base while Ulysses S. Grant enforced civil rights law and fought Ku Klux Klan violence http://us-presidents.findthebest.com... http://us-presidents.findthebest.com... P3) The electoral college enhances the minority interests, maintains a federal system of government, and contributes to political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system. http://uselectionatlas.org...
The President of the United States should be elected by the direct vote of the people.

P1) Everyone will still have to be legally able to vote to have their voice heard. The issue is with the direct voting not with lowering the voting age below 18 or having non citizens place a vote. Besides the right for criminals to vote is democratic because the right to vote is one of the main "building blocks of our democratic republic". http://www.truth-out.org... P2) Even without the direct vote people have chosen the wrong president. Harding and Grant had corrupt administrations and they were chosen through the electoral college system. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com... P3) The proliferation of candidates would not occur because groups that have simple platforms come together with the bigger two parties, according to Duverger's law, and if this happens then the winner of the popular vote will not win with such a low percentage. "Duverger"s law (which is based on worldwide studies of elections) asserts that plurality-vote elections do not result in a proliferation of candidates or candidates being elected with tiny percentages of the vote". http://www.nationalpopularvote.com...
The President of the United States should be elected by the direct vote of the people.

P1) Allowing everyone's vote to be counted will enable people who should not vote such as non-citizens, criminals, and minors under 18 the right to vote and play a factor in the presidency race. P2) Allowing people to whomever they wish to lead this country will possibly lead to people choosing the wrong person to lead the country as they may choose a potential candidate for the wrong reasons such as their popularity, fame, etc. P3) Direct elections may potentially allow a candidate to become president with only 30% of the vote. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... C: The President of the United States should not be elected by the direct vote of the people.
The President of the United States should be elected by the direct vote of the people.

P1) Voting directly allows everyones vote to be counted. Currently the electoral college system is used as a "compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens" (archives). The winner of the popular vote in a state gets all of the electoral votes for that state (thisnation). It is not fair that the voters who voted for another candidate do not actually get their vote counted. http://www.archives.gov... http://www.thisnation.com... P2) The people should be able to directly vote for whomever they wish to lead the country without having the government monitoring them. The electoral college was originally created because the Founders did not trust that the public could make a good decision on their own and needed Congress to also take part. http://www.thisnation.com... C:The President of the United States should be elected by the direct vote of the people.
Roomates Can't Use This Debate on the Same Computer, Unfair

To start a new debate:1. Move mouse over the orange arrow next to "Debates".2. Click the orange arrow.3. Find "Start a New Debate".To see your debate statuses, there are two ways. 1. Go to your profile and click it.2. If someone posted a new argument, there should be a tab called "You Have Debate Arguments Due".3. Click it and brings up the list of your debates.1. Move mouse over the orange arrow next to "Debates".2. Click the orange arrow.3. Find "My Debates" and it will bring a list of your debates.
Roomates Can't Use This Debate on the Same Computer, Unfair

Two things, first off they can. They are technically not restrained to do the action, but more so can only be influenced not to. Secondly, it can't be "unfair" because if you use the same computer for debates, you just gotta remember to to "Sign Out". As long as you do this, things can and will be fair. Its not unfair using the same computer, as long as you Sign Out.
If the Battle of Moscow was won by Hitler, the Second World War would've been won by Germany

1st there is no reason to expect that the defeat at Moscow would have meant the surrender of Stalin. How ever, it would have meant almost certainly Defeat for Russia as what was left of the Soviet forces would have been pushed east and unable to do anything more than mount stubborn resistance. Though Hitler may have had a remaining 1 million Troops, there is the pesky issue of HOLDING the territory he has gained. This event would not have made a difference in the United states entering the War. The attack on pearl harbor was already set into motion and with it Hitler's Germany as destined to goto War with the United states.Another major mistake you are making is selling the British Short. The war with England was Far...FAR...FAR from a one sided fight. Luftwaffe was taking absolutely obscene losses over England and Britain was Throwing everything including the Pots and pans (http://www.youtube.com...) at them :p Winston Churchill called it the Wizards war and the British utilization of Radar gave England a decided defensive advantage. The united states was an industrial juggernaut. An unreachable fortress nation with seemingly unlimited resources in its war machine. Germany did not even have Long range bombers in production that where capable of striking the U.S.
If the Battle of Moscow was won by Hitler, the Second World War would've been won by Germany

On December 5th 1941, 2 days before Pearl Harbor, The Wehrmacht attempts to take Moscow and end Communism in the Far East. But the attack fails: Stalin's Katyusha rockets, rallied soldiers and Georgi Zhukov's pincer movement of the Wehrmacht saves Moscow. My point in summoning a challenger is to question him/her if the Germans had taken Moscow, which in advance means Stalin's surrender, would they have won WW2? With still 1 million battle hardened soldiers, Hitler would've almost certainly turned his troops all on Britain, and finished Churchill off. With America still 2 days from entering the war, Roosevelt would not have thought of saving a drowning man, and therefore allowed a weak Britain to be devoured by the German war machine.
If the Battle of Moscow was won by Hitler, the Second World War would've been won by Germany

The issue you have been avoiding all argument is the Industrial superiority of the United states. Your original contention is that victory against the soviets would have lead to an ultimate victory over the allies, but I contend that at best it would have only dragged the war out as it would have given Hitler more sources to misuse in the final days of the war. The air war over German was a war of Industrial attrition. .. Once the United states committed to total war Germany never- even at its peak~ Had the Industrial capacity that the United states had when it was just starting to hit its stride. It at the time was a fortress of a nation and it had absolute command of the seas between it and both of its enemies after the battle of Midway and coral sea. Germany Literally had no chance of Defeating the United states, And the battle of Britain was the critical turning point against the British. .. Germany simply could not replace its air power fast enough nor could it easily replace the pilots it was losing. the advancements in technology out paced Germany. The defeat of the Soviets would not have changed the fact that the Wolf pack was broken. .. the Uboats lost their effectiveness and with it the German's ability to impede a supply line form the Industrial fortress that is the United states to England. They could not stop the constant influx of Materials. .. planes. . ammo and rations from the U. S. and a few extra tanks in the Baltic area wasn't going to change that. For Nazi Germany to have won the war, the United states needed to stay out of the war for another year. .. maybe two while German jet propulsion was worked on and put into mass production. The extra 2 years may also have been enough for Germany to make significant advancements in its Nuclear bomb project ( but in truth they where incredibly far behind). Germany would have needed to successfully secure its oil supplies from Allied bombing and capture, while at the same time having found a way to regain effective ability to strangle supply lines to Britain. Alot of things would have had to go very differently for the Axis powers and the defeat of the Soviets alone simply would not have made those changes. How ever. The soviets where instrumental in the war effort as it actually happened and by tieing up the resources of the third Reich in the East made the allied pressure in the west far more manageable. And far less bloody for the Untied states and Britain. The defeat of the soviets may have changed the way the war ended, perhaps in treaty rather than in total defeat for Germany. But no matter how many extra men and extra tanks Germany had to draw out the war. It would not have made a difference, not the way everything else really happened.
If the Battle of Moscow was won by Hitler, the Second World War would've been won by Germany

It is true that the Libyan oil fields were lost, but I'd like to point out 2 things: 1. The Libyan oil fields were Italian territory: Rommel was sent to rescue them. Common mistake. 2. The Germans did not start struggling to win battles until the Battle of Moscow, DURING OPERATION BARBAROSSA. As well, you forget that the BF-109 was rated as the plane to have killed most opponents, proving it's stability and control was much better than that of the Spitfire. As this is last round, that will be the rebuttal I shall make. This means Con may make 2 rebuttals and then must summarise his entire beliefs of why the Battle of Moscow would not have meant the Allies' loss.
If the Battle of Moscow was won by Hitler, the Second World War would've been won by Germany

The true beginning of the end for Germany was not their defeat in Russia alone, but additionally their defeat in North Africa and Loss of the CRITICAL Libyan oil fields. Germany for the rest of the war would experience fuel shortages. The loss for Germany came from all sides. In Russia, Hitler must delegate critical resources to defending territory, With the Axis loss in North Africa and the subsequent defeat of Italy and over throw of Mussolini... the would be ceaser. The Third Reich's fate was sealed. You are grossly over praising the Stuka, it was a great plane for its time but by the early 1940s it was well past its prime. By comparison to any of the Fighters that would be flying defence, the Stuka was slow and cumbersome.Compare for your self.http://en.wikipedia.org... And.http://en.wikipedia.org... The Stuka's short operational range was just one problem. It was designed to be used as a Ground Attack aircraft which supported the German Blitzkrieg on the ground. Think of it as the earliest incarnation of the A.10 Wrath hog. It was great so long as it had a clear air picture to operate it and the Germans rapidly lost air superiority, in large part due to Hitler's insistence on fighting a losing air war over Britain. Further the Spitfires where designed to be Modular where as German planes struggled with continuous production, the British literally salvaged every aircraft they could often reusing wings and refurbishing Engines which was both reliable and incredibly efficient use of resources. Luftwaffe was quickly out matched industrially and technically. At the same time as this was going on, Germany was losing the Uboat war... The British and Americans both had developed sophisticated methods of hunting and destroying U boats which in not long at all... ended the Kreigsmarine and choke hold on supply lines from the United States. The lack of food in the British empire was quickly sured up, but above all the British and Americans had free reign in the Atlantic once the wolf pack lost its ability to operate effectively. Despite the skill and technical prowess of British and Americans, I will concede that a very large part of their ability to defeat the German Uboats was the capture of the German Enigma Machine.The long story short is simply that the Third Reich was out matched, lacking the ability to even touch the American Industrial machine. As Germany suffered greater and greater losses to its industry its war machine became impossible to continuously supply and that trend started with the Loss of the Libyan oil fields.