BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban

I am totally for lifting the doping regulations and doping ban. Firstly, today we already acknowledge and accept the use of various utilities, equipment, medication etc. not only to improve our lives but to accomplish amazing feats. A long time, the Royal Geographic Society in UK refused to allow mountain climbers to use oxygen tanks because this was a non-human device and as such, any achievement through using it is not a 'completely human' achievement. We have gone a long way from these times. Climbers use oxygen tanks to put their name on world peaks, swimmers use special suits (often engineered by big companies) to break records and body builders use creatine and protein shakes to improve performance during workouts and recovery times. When we can already agree that these things are allowed, where do you draw the line between something which is 'natural' and something which is 'unnatural'. Some of the food you eat already contain the exact chemicals in drugs. Does eating more of these foods and absorbing its nutrients therefore be considered as illegal drug intake? Secondly, the regulation and detection of athletes who are guilty is extremely inefficient. It is just too hard to monitor every single player in a tournament. This is evident when Russia was found guilty of mass doping of their athletes. Mamadou Sakho, the football player was banned ONLY AFTER his team Liverpool managed to enter the finals of the Europa League. His performance had already affected the match and arguably, his team would probably not have won. Also, accidents happen. Examples include Maria Sharapova and Lee Chong Wei who were given long bans just for accidental intake of drugs. It is hard to imagine this was intentional because they are already big names in their respective sports. Hence, for these reasons we should lift the regulations and ban concerning drugs for athletes. By allowing everyone to take anything, we are actually levelling the playing field with a lot less hassle.
As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban

Short debate with 2000 characters max. The nominated judges are: Romanii, tejretics, Mikal and airmax1227 Please only accept this debate if you intend on seeing it through. Do not forfeit rounds. Doping ban: Currently, athletes in professional sports are tested periodically and randomly to check if they have taken banned substances which can boost their performance hence allowing them to have an unfair advantage. Guilty athletes may be banned from future events and/or stripped off previous achievements. We would dissolve this ruling, hence all athletes will be allowed to use whatever substances they want to prior to competing. FIRST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE. Looking forward to a good debate. Thank you!
As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban

Just because you cant't catch every athlete that is doping doesn't mean you should just give up and lift the ban and let every athlete dope openly. If you did every athlete would be doping and you wouldn't be able to compete unless you used dope. This would promote the use of dope among children who dream of becoming a professional athlete. Almost all of the banned substances have negative side effects on your health from heart attacks and strokes to the shrinking of your testicles. We do not want our children taking unhealthy substances especially while their bodies are still growing. Lifting the ban would be telling them that it is okay to use these drugs. That is the most important point. Are we going to force people to use unnatural drugs in order to compete? I think that is immoral and damages the integrity of the sport. As far as the swim suit and the oxygen tank for climbing I would agree with the Royal Geographic Society it's not completely human but that's another debate.
As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban

Let me get this straight. I'm not pushing for this because we are giving up on trying to ban drugs. I believe in this because i don't see why we should continue to put so much effort in something which can be get rid off. That's where you've got this wrong. You think we are "giving up" on law enforcement. Where exactly do you draw the line between something natural and something unnatural? The comment you made about breaking records. Hello. Wake up. Today even sports attire which is engineered with aerodynamics etc gives athletes seconds of time ahead from athletes of previous generation. We should look into that since you clearly think that's "unnatural". I apologise that I have to conclude early because I am actually away from home and am typing this on mobile. I invite my opponent to use only 1000 chars because that's what I'm doing here. It is up to him whether he wants to or not.
As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban

This way of thinking is too defeatist. Just because all of our policies don't represent the moral values we would hope to bestow on our children doesn't mean we should give up on trying to provide a good moral example. If we allow doping in sports every athlete would have to dope in order to compete. With so much money involved as motivation to gain every edge available all athletes would be doing it making it nearly impossible to not do it in order to have a chance to compete. This would send a very real and clear message to our children. That if they want to pursue their dreams to one day play for the Yankees or the Lakers or the Patriots they better start sticking needles in their butt because otherwise they don't stand a chance. I am saying there is something wrong with that and I would hope the majority of parents would agree. Again your defeatist way of thinking leads you to assert that just because we come in contact with harmful substances on a daily basis that there is nothing wrong with adding one more. I would argue that we should limit our contact with harmful substances as much as possible. As for any safer alternatives that are banned let us also talk about the integrity of the sport. Should a person using unnatural chemicals have an unfair advantage over someone who is all natural? How can you say someone broke the record when they used a substance not available to the person who set the record decades before? And what arguments of yours are you still waiting for a rebuttal?
As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban

My opponent started with "What kind of message would we be sending our children if we allowed doping". To me, this is entirely subjective. What kind of message would we be sending if we allowed guns on the streets? If we banned marijuana but allow smoking? If we spied on people to prevent terrorism? "A young boy with dreams of becoming a professional athlete would feel he has to use drugs in order to compete and pursue his dreams." It really depends on the level of competition. If it was an amateur competition and most people join for the satisfaction and fun of it then there is nothing wrong with allowing contestants to take drugs or not since the main motivation for these people is not to win, but to challenge themselves. At the highest levels, where athletes already receive a lot of funding from governments and sponsors, there is nothing wrong with allowing them to take drugs AS LONG AS everyone is allowed to, openly and without secrets. "And you can't compare a special swimming suit or an oxygen tank to a chemical that has negative side effects on an athletes body." If you have an issue against chemicals, I suggest you wake up. We are surrounded by carcinogens on a daily basis which we use to improve ourselves. Deodorants, anti-pesticides for vegetables, injections on poultry to become fatter produce more eggs to feed an every increasing population. "We should encourage our athletes to be as healthy as possible." It is up to them whether or not they choose to take in extremely harmful substances. As long as it is an act of free choice, surely they have a right to consume what they want. Here, I would also like to highlight that these drugs are seldom extremely dangerous substances. With correct application and suitable doses, they can be used in a healthy manner to stimulate the muscles and organs. If athletes fail to follow the prescription, it's just like an obese person who chooses to consume too much foods. My opponent also never rebutted my arguments.
Is Freddy Fazbear not included in FNAF3

I will be arguing that the mini-game is in fact part of the game, as it is in the program code, and therefore, Freddy Fazbear is in fact included within the game. Furthermore, should this medium of appearance seem unsuitable, then in the "night" portions, a Freddy Fazbear can be seen walking outside the office, and appears in a "jump scare", albeit it doesn't actually end the player's night. This Freddy (the Freddy appearing in the night portions) can be considered a "shadow" Freddy, but is a Freddy all the same, so thus he is, in fact, included in Five Nights at Freddy's Three. Another argument further supporting my stance is of the fact that name of the establishment is now Fazbear's Fright: The Horror Attraction, so if neither of the above arguments are enough to prove he is within the game, then it can be agreed upon that he is in the game at least in name alone.
Guns ownership should be illegal

DefinitionsA firearm is defined by the Oxford dictionary as - a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noiseArguments1. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."The second amendment explicitly gives citizens the right to bear arms in order to create a well regulated state militia for the sake of a free state. The reasons for such an amendment is to protect the United States from totalitarianism. History proves that the first step in fascist take in creating a docile population is to disarm said population. By providing states a militia, Americans are protected from such tyranny. Private firearm ownership allows Americans, and would allow the global population, to defend themselves from totalitarianism.2. Private firearm ownership allows people to defend themselves better.This should be fairly obvious. An armed person is able to better defend themselves than a person without a firearm.3. Gun control does not decrease gun violence.On the contrary, lack of gun ownership show a correlation to increased gun murders. In 2010, the district of Columbia was rated the highest for gun violence. And it had a gun ownership rate of just three percent. In the same year, Wyoming ranked the lowest in gun violence, and it had a gun ownership rate of 59 percent. But these may just be isolated cases. All other states did not show a strong correlation between gun violence and gun ownership, rather gun violence seems to be a result of a multitude of factors such as property and poor education.4. It would be impossible to ban gun ownership.The materials for making a gun and ammunition could be brought at your local home depot for only twenty bucks. Every person has the materials to do so. There are also an estimated 200 million guns in the United States. Confiscating them all would be impossible.I await my opponents arguements.
Tony Stark (Iron Man) Is the best Avenger's team member

Okay, first off, what the heck does a crappy childhood have to do with a fight in which the heroes are in their current fighting ability? Sure, Captain America got the crap beat out of him as a kid, and Hulk had a bad dad, but Tony Stark also had his OWN problems. His mother was gone and his dad neglected him as a child. Second off, you are making NO proof at all about your statements. You say Captain America would beat him in a fist fight, but if this was a fight to the death, Stark would just shoot lasers from a distance and fly to where no other Avenger but Thor could go. And even Tony Stark can take a blow in his suit from Thor's hammer! In your closing statement, please use statements that would actually contribute to a one on one fight, thank you.
Tony Stark (Iron Man) Is the best Avenger's team member

Iron man might be an efficient robot but is not the best avenger.Of all the characters, Tony Stark has barely anything to avenge. Hulk was abused as a kid, saw his father stab his mother and was tormented by scientists for simply being what he is. Thor had the throne stolen from him by his brother Loki. Hawkeye is an orphan who was falsely accused of crimes and has lived on the run for years. Captain America grew up a scrawny orphan in a world where no one cared about him. Black Widow (Natasha Romanoff) was an orphan in USSR who had her parents burn before her eyes at the age of six. She grew up raised by a cruel merciless secret agent trainer. Hulk and Thor are both literally invincible (can't be injured at all).Hulk was a world class doctor and probably has a higher IQ than Tony Stark (to cancel out your brains argument.Hawkeye, unlike Tony Stark, actually has perfect aim and doesn't shoot heat seeking missiles.C.A., B.W. and HE., Hulk and Thor all are better mêlée fighters than him.
Tony Stark (Iron Man) Is the best Avenger's team member

I thank you for acknowledging my points in this debate, for Tony Stark is TRULY the brains of the Avengers. You call Tony Stark a geek, and you say anyone can build a suit like his, but his skills in Mechanics have saved his life, for he is truly a genius. Have you ever met anyone else that has found a way to recreate a heart to save their own life out of scrap metal? I didn't think so. Tony Stark possesses a very large array of weapons which he could use to defeat any of the Avengers. Homing missiles, which have as good as a locking aim as the Hawkeye himself. The Uni-beam, which could cut through Captain America's shield. Oh yes, there are also the rocket boots that allow him to fly, and the fact that his suit is strong enough to move very heavy materials. So yes, he is a geek, but one that could kick any other Avenger's butt.
Tony Stark (Iron Man) Is the best Avenger's team member

Hulk can't die.Hulk is strong enough to lift and/or break anything and anyone (even a god like Loki).Thor can control thunder and has a hammer that can smash lightning into you that only he can lift.Hawkeye has the most flawless aim and secret agent ability of anyone in the history of comics.Captain America has super strength and virtual invincibility while using his shield, he has high training in hand to hand combat and is the king of mêlée fighting out of all of the avengers.Black Widow is the definition of sexy, genius and bada** all in one female character.Then there's Tony Stark... The pathetic geek who was lucky enough to hit it big financially and then use this money on a machine. Sure he's the technical brains of the team and the richest member financially but in terms of his capacity as an avenger, he's pretty pathetic. Tony Stark has a limited power and additionally it is a suit that is able to be used by pretty much anyone if they had the money he had to make it.
Tony Stark (Iron Man) Is the best Avenger's team member

I feel that Tony Stark (Best known as the Iron Man) is the most powerful Avenger. I say this for a couple of reasons: Tony Stark has access to 100's of weapons and multiple suits. If one of his weapons or suits is in need of repair, he simple uses another. But not only is Tony Stark a powerful super hero, he is also a very intelligent man. (I mean, he took over Stark Industries from his father and built all of the Iron Man suits and weapons)
Belief in God (Abrahamic) is Logical

Ok, no harm no foul. Now I have a personal version of Pascal's Wager objections that I can use. If you're interested in general God arguments here is a link to a decent counter apologetics Wiki: http://wiki.ironchariots.org...At the bottom of the page is a list to the common arguments for a god. These are linked to an argument summary and common objections.Thanks for the debate!
Belief in God (Abrahamic) is Logical

Hey 2D I'm really swamped right now, and can't finish the debate. I can't really win regardless. I structured my initial resolution from a place that's nearly indefensible, and although I could score points by picking holes in my opponent's criticisms, the whole debate is somewhat depressing considering I don't technically agree with my own position. 2D was a great, both in terms of logic and civility, and should get the votes. I'd like to continue this type of debate some other time, but now is simply not the time.
Belief in God (Abrahamic) is Logical

- I am not religious, although I have studied Middle-Eastern history and Islam as a minor in college. - To not believe in God is illogical and shortsighted for the following reason(s). - Belief in God does not require a significant decrease in quality of life or change in lifestyle, as compared to the life of a "non-believer." Therefore, we establish that both parties reap an equal benefit during their traditional lives, regardless of whether or not "God" exists. - If God "isn't real", nobody "wins", as we all are fated to spend an eternity as unaware dirt, regardless of whether we "believed" or not. We establish that both parties reap equal "benefit" during an eternity of death, if God doesn't exist. -However, IF God exists, true believers are promised a heaven that surpasses the greatest good we could imagine on Earth. Conversely, non-believers are promised a torturous hell, the evil of which they also can't imagine on Earth. We establish that believers reap an infinitely greater advantage over nonbelievers for all eternity (in death), if God exists. - The choice seems clear. Why would you risk an eternity of damnation, the likes of which we allegedly can't comprehend, for what basically amounts to a, "I told you so"? Keep it civil, and good luck.
Right to carry arms

I, being the pro,am going to affirm the resolution and prove why people should be allowed to carry arms. I will ask that voters cast their vote in this round based on who debates the resolution better and not based on your own personal decisions. Keep in mind that I have no strong views on either side, but want to practise my debating skills. Thanks! In this debate, I am going to prove to you why adult individuals should have the right to carry a concealed handgun. On to my case - I wish to offer 2 points in this round to show that the decision to make carrying arms in the US a legal right was a good one. Firstly, Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed. The deterrent effect of concealed carry benefits the individual carrying a handgun as well as the general public because criminals never know who is armed. With the right to carry arms in place, the general public can move around the country without having to worry about criminals, and areas that generally contain a lot of people who commit crimes. This is further proved by the fact that, according to a study by Dr. John Lott, "shall-issue" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1570 murders, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992. These figures may seem insignificant at first, but when you're part of one the 1,570 families who lost someone they loved, it suddenly matters a WHOLE lot more. Secondly, One of the arguments against giving the right to carry arms to adults is that the public isn't ready to handle the responsibility of a gun, and that they might take to shooting and use the tool made for self-defence to harm other innocent civilians, but, most of the adults who own concealed handguns are law abiding. This is proved by the fact that according to a report by engineering statistician William Sturdevant published on the Texas Concealed Handgun Association website, the general public is now 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses, and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses, in comparison to before. This, therefore, refutes any argument about the public not being able to handle the responsibilities of a gun. I now give the (online)stage to my opponent, and wish him/her good luck.
The Role of Emmeline Pankhurst in gaining women the vote (in Britain) has been hugely exaggerated

Emmeline Pankhurst founded the Women's Franchise League, which fought to allow married women to vote in local elections. In October 1903, she helped found the more militant Women's Social and Political Union. This was an organisation that gained much notoriety for its activities and whose members were the first to be christened 'suffragettes'. [1] Like many suffragettes, Emmeline was arrested on numerous occasions over the next few years and went on hunger strike herself, resulting in violent force-feeding. In 1918, the Representation of the People Act gave voting rights to women over 30. Emmeline died shortly after women were granted the right to vote. Conclusion: I have shown that the role of Emmeline Pankhurst has not been exaggerated. Sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk...
The Role of Emmeline Pankhurst in gaining women the vote (in Britain) has been hugely exaggerated

Considering today is "International Women's Day" I thought this would be a fitting debate. I have seen numerous magazines and websites praising the work of Emmeline Pankhurst, the leader of the Suffragette movement in Britain, some even claiming she is the sole cause of this political change. I however think this is far from the truth. Arguments and opinions?
The Role of Emmeline Pankhurst in gaining women the vote (in Britain) has been hugely exaggerated

For a start I thank you Stalin for seeing my point of view that she did very little (if anything) towards gaining women's suffrage. As for exaggerations of her role I would be more than happy to supply you with a few. For a start, the Time magazine, a popular American published read, placed Pankhurst as one of their 100 most Important people of the 20th Century! Describing her as "a crucial element in achieving women's suffrage in Britain". After having read my previous argument, I'm sure you would agree that this is not quite the case, you yourself even agreeing that I have shown that "Pankhurst didn't play a very large role in winning voting rights for women". Another example I came across just a few months ago that shocked me was a documentary by the BBC on great speeches. Now before I explain what it said, I would like to point out that I cannot quote a source for this as the documentary has long since been removed from the BBC iPlayer, nonetheless I ask your respect in trusting me in this source. The host was going through influential speeches and speakers and soon came to Emmeline Pankhurst. I had to rewind and check my headphones to see if they were working when the host stated that her speaking skills were one of the reasons she was the key factor to getting women the vote. Once again this is far from the truth in my opinion, and whilst the whole documentary seemed bias (which is another matter altogether) this particular statement appalled me with its lack of evidence to accompany it. I hope this is enough to show you that Pankhurst has been exaggerated in both the USA and in Europe in her role, and these are only just a couple of examples as to the media bringing her out of proportion. The effect this had on the public in general is significant, with the majority of people I have met "knowing" her as a hero for all women from what they have heard from TV and news. To conclude, Emmeline Pankhurst WAS an activist and DID fight for women's suffrage, the amount achieved by her however is nothing to admire and I believe she lessened women's chances of getting it, World War 1 being the real cause of change. Yet the media today decides to put a spin on it that she was in fact a "hero" and a "role model", a view which I personally think is unjustified and wrong. I eagerly await your reply!