BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The New York Giants are the most physical football team in the NFL

He says he disagrees that the Steelers and Ravens are less physical but gives no warrants as to why that goes conceded, extend it he loses this round. And He says, "Fines have no impact on how a team should be considered physical or not... However, one of the players getting fined may be a physical player..." I have several responses first, he says fines have no impact on physicality. You should vote him down on that alone, it's obvious that the new no head shots NFL rule proves that statement to be ridiculous. People get fined for being physical. He concedes this he says, "one of the players getting fined may be a physical player." I offer the only examples of players who have been fined due to physical players. Vote on that. He also says, "he was fined does not increase his amount of physicality." People get fined for being physical, fines are key to reject physicality. He also says, "Giants have the most overall combined weight as a team which obviously is to their advantage." That makes them fat not physical. He also, says "the New York Giants are in second place for average amount of yards given up per game. " I agree which means it takes a physical team to stop people from getting yards. Now, The resolution asks, "The New York Giants are the most physical football team in the NFL." Which means theres is one team in the NFL more physical in the NFL. He loses on this alone.
The New York Giants are the most physical football team in the NFL

physical - characterized by especially rugged and forceful physical activity : rough Source:. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Notice how the definition says nothing about being "reckless". My opponent is basically stating that "the more fines a team has, the more physical of a team they are". I am sure that all of you can agree with me that Playing Smart + Physical Strength = A great defense. When you get fined for late hits, that shows impatience, bad self control, and overall poor sportsmanship. Fines have no impact on how a team should be considered physical or not. .. However, one of the players getting fined may be a physical player, but the fact that he was fined does not increase his amount of physicality. Now, to come back over to the Giants. They have a young secondary for the most part. They have 2 of the best defensive ends in the NFL: Osi Umenyiora and Justin Tuck. Giants have the most overall combined weight as a team which obviously is to their advantage. So far in the NFL (dating up to November 24, 2010 at 12:45 am) the New York Giants are in second place for average amount of yards given up per game. Steelers are only number 5. Ravens aren't even in the top 5. . http://www.nfl.com... And in reply for when my opponent was talking about what would happen if a Giant player got injured (his wording was very tricky, so voters please read over twice), my whole point about saying that if a team only has 1 defensive superstar and he gets injured than their season is over is because I am implying that the Giants are more well rounded. They do not just have 1 superstar. They have about 2 defensive superstars, and maybe 2 decent players, but the rest are all above average. .. . possibly 85-90 on a scale to 100. If a player like Kenny Philips (who I would personally rate about an 87) got hurt, sure the Giants defensive may struggle a bit more, but they will still have the bulk of their defense remaining. Some more facts about the Giants, is that they have injured the most amount of QB's in the NFL. ALL FROM CLEAN HITS. .. SOMETHING VERY RARE WITH THE TEAMS MY OPPONENT MENTIONED. Here are just a few articles where the Giants dominating defense have set the tone for a game. : . http://www.nj.com... . http://www.nydailynews.com... . http://www.nytimes.com... Overall, I believe I have presented enough facts in this round, and I have stated most of my sources, which my opponent has failed to do. Also, please keep in mind of his poor grammar when voting in that section.
The New York Giants are the most physical football team in the NFL

All my arguments are analytics. Even if you don't buy that the Steelers have the most finds we can all agree that they have had the most this season and if not the most more than the Giants. He says Reckless football doesn't make you physical are you kidding me?? That's ridiculous being reckless, and hurting others is the definition of physicality. And my opponent concedes that 1. Troy P. and Ray Lewis are solid players but offers no counter players from the Giants that are more physical this is crucial for the round. And he talks about what if they get injured, well what if the already not physical Giant players get injured does that make them even more less physical. And he says he disagrees that the Steelers and Ravens are less physical but gives no warrants as to why that goes conceded, extend it he loses this round.
The New York Giants are the most physical football team in the NFL

Rather than stating all of my facts in this round, I will discuss my opponent's 4 points: \\\\\ MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS///// 1. The Steelers get fined for more big hits than any football team. (Harrirson #92) And 2. Troy P. is known for big hits. 3. Ray Lewis is known to lay any one who comes across the middle out. 4. The Baltimore Ravens, and the Steelers are more phyiscal than the NYG. \\\\\MY COUNTER ARGUMENT///// 1. In round two, please paste the link in where you found the information that clearly states "The Steelers get fined for more big hits than any football team". Also, getting fined for reckless football does not make you a physical team, it makes you a careless one. Any fool can run after another player, hit them as hard as you can, and lose 20,000 dollars. 2. and 3. These are all opinions. Sure, Troy P. and Ray Lewis are two solid players, but a defense cannot evolve around one player for various reasons. One reason - if they get injured, your season is practically over. 4. Obviously, I disagree. In conclusion of this round, I ask my opponent to please clarify what I have stated above.
The New York Giants are the most physical football team in the NFL

I accept. First, The New York Giants are not the most physical football team in the NFL. In negating this I ask the judges to understand that I only have to negate, the given resolution meaning I can use many different teams. 1. The Steelers get fined for more big hits than any football team. (Harrirson #92) And 2. Troy P. is known for big hits. 3. Ray Lewis is known to lay any one who comes across the middle out. 4. The Baltimore Ravens, and the Steelers are more phyiscal than the NYG.
Bring it, I'm bored. Challenge me on anything

I haven't been on here in a while and I'm looking for some intellectual stimulation. Challenge me on any subject you like, but keep in mind that I'm an international politics major and my main non-academic interest is sports. So if you challenge me on the merits of Inuyasha vs. Dragonball Z or some crap I wouldn't expect a very good debate. Good luck to my opponent.
a specific section for moders on black ops live

Note: I only have a 500 character limit. You can find the definition of doming here as well as information about it: http://en.wikipedia.org...(video_gaming)my reason for this claim is that if there was a section for moders. moders would not need to get in normal matches allowing a fair game also they would not be reported and this would cause less caos and complaints. There is no way to be able to differentiate between actually moders and players who are cheating.
yea tiny rick

yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick
Gay Marriage

This was a sad debate, the opponent never rebutted any of my cases. I will take it that the opponent was uncap-able of rebutting the cases I presented. Still I will rebut his case.---- Rebuttal ----1. The opponent states that by legalizing Gay marriage will encourage Gays to join the Military? What does the legalizing of Gay marriage have to do with the Military? I mean will a Gay tell himself that as soon as they legalize marriage he will join the military as a cause of that legalization? The opponent states and I quote "If you think about it, allowing the marriage of gays will just improve the ineluctable rights of gays and the more people will want to be gays." I have stated before people do not choose to become Gay it is something inside of them that makes them like others of their own gender. Also what would be the problem of having more Gays in our society? Also I will start by stating that we do not have an even amount of gender in the world but yet we know that according to human nature there will always be more woman then men. I take it that the opponent states that more men are becoming Gay then women therefore making it that this will harm our reproduction. Obviously the opponent is not aware that not all humans will become Gay, just because they legalize Gay marriage. Also the opponent believes a society where Gays are accepted will be terrible thing, I ask him why? The opponent goes of stating all these idea without sources, just plain opinions. I thank the opponent for responding but I believe he penalized himself by not showing evidence of his cases, nor properly debating his opponent. ---- Conclusion ----I will conclude with this the opponent talked about his beliefs but never showed any evidence for his cases. Which leads me to conclude that he had no actual knowledge on the topic of Gay marriage. His relevance with Gay marriage was way off, the opponent believed that by legalizing Gay marriage more Gays would join the Military I don't see the connection, but he never showed any evidence as well. Thanks to the audience for you're time.---- Sources ----http://www.childwelfare.gov...http://www.glow.cc...
Gay Marriage

Well, from what I said as to "making" I meant to say of that allowing gay marriage can withdraw more gays to encounter the military. If you think about it, allowing the marriage of gays will just improve the ineluctable rights of gays and the more people will want to be gays. With the amount of gays improving In our society, we are losing the even amount of even genders in our world. Lately, men have becoming more of gays than men, which can really harm the society of th enew generations of the futer. Who would like it if the world of tommorw was coverd may same gender binding
Gay Marriage

Thanks to the opponent for It's response. ---- Rebuttal ----1. Even though I had much troubles understanding what the opponent was trying to get across since he didn't state it properly, I will do my best to understand. To sum it up, he believes that Gays in the Military is something bad and that the making of more Gay is bad as well. First I'd like to as my opponent something, how do you make Gays? It's something that people do not choose, but what there attracted to. Many people have researched wether people are born Gay and the answer is to the full extent that we may never actually know, but I will show a link below where two twins we're born and one ended up Gay and the other straight. How can Gays in the Military be a bad thing? Gay men show just as much strength and will to fight for their country. Also why should a citizen of a country be neglected of protecting it and serving it? Should woman not be allowed to serve in the army because some people may believe there not "fit" to serve well in the Military? Should we not let Gays serve in the Military because, there sexual orientation is different then the majority of others in society? We should all have the same rights, and since the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law that Barrack Obama passed Gays can safely serve in the Military, although now it is being repealed waiting upon Barrack Obama answer. This shows that still in this country not all It's citizens have freedom.The opponent refused to rebut my cases yet I rebutted his. Therefore my cases still stand, thank you.Vote Pro.---- Sources ----http://www.cs.cmu.edu...'t_ask,_don't_tell
Gay Marriage

thank you for the reply. I say that the benefits of gay marriage is actually making more gays. The making of more gays is hurting the ;US military. /since many just men in the army. The combination of them are causing gays which would be like women being with men more in war. Thus can cause the effect of man to man help. They would forget their mission, and would not give up a sacrifice of a man to get the job done. Gays in the military can cause people to team up and keep each other safe. This can be even worse to the military. To make this even worse, they are now getting married. Don't we also have enough problems on this topicP.S. Please make the text bigger of what you take from websites
Legalize Prostitution- 2 ROUNDS ONLY:)

In 1986 Victoria Australia legalized prostitution and brothels and installed a plan to have the prostitutes registered and check by medical professionals. Shortly after starting this program the STD rates increased. As a non-profit group that conducted a study on the Victoria case gave this statement, "Sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and AIDS increased. This was due to the fact that medical authorities examined only one of the partners in the sex act, which was self-defeating. Also, favourable medical results provided a false sense of security to clients, prostitutes and controllers. " You say that you wish to have all prostitutes examined by a medical professional. The average consult for STD's with a medical professionals is $150 per visit with test costing extra. If every prostitute in the United States was tested monthly, which would do nothing to stop the spread of STD's, the government would have to pay roughly $1,800,000,000 in medical examinations alone. So the government would spend just as much as it is now to pay for the testing and examination of the prostitutes. Not to mention legalizing prostitution encourages women to enter a career where they cannot make a living. In Australia the average prostitute made less than 500 Australian dollars a week. That's a yearly salary of roughly $26,000, before taxes and FICA withholding. Instead of encouraging women to enter a career where they while smuggle to make a living why don't we encourage women to go back to school or finish school, by using the money that would be spent on administering medical examinations and using it to fund educational scholarships. Legalizing prostitution does not mean an end to illegal prostitution or street prostitution. There will always be people attempting to illegally exploit women for sex. Australia had an estimated $30 million sex trade industry, and of all the states in Australia Victoria the had the highest number of reported child prostitution during the time that prostitution was legal in Victoria. Even with it legal it still led to crime in Victoria, on average 2 rapes and one assault where reported by prostitutes per night, with multiple prostitutes murdered each year. So legalizing prostitution will not will not stop prostitutes from being harmed or murder. In conclusion prostitution should remain illegal. It should remain this way because it does nothing good for a society. It increases STD's and does nothing to reduce illegal prostitution. It leads to an increase in sex trafficking and child molestation. http://www.fbi.gov...... http://action.web.ca...... http://www.prostitutionprocon.org...... http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca...... http://books.google.com...... http://books.google.com......
The universe in the Bible

"But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!1 Kings 8:27God is immensely huge and big. He's in fact cannot be measured for he is "spirit" ( John 4:24).No one and nothing can hide from God. He's omnipresent. Psalm 139 O LORD, You have searched me and known me. 2You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thought from afar. 3You scrutinize my path and my lying down, And are intimately acquainted with all my ways. 4Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all. 5You have enclosed me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me. 6Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it. 7Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? 8If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.
The universe in the Bible

The Christian Scriptures do speak of the "universe." Universe - is all of spacetime and everything that exists therein, including all planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy.Similar terms include the cosmos, the world, reality, and nature. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... cosmos ( world, universe) - John 17:5 the Son has glory with God before the world was. Source: http://biblehub.com... aionos ( ages,world, universe) - Hebrews 1:2 by God's Son the universe was made. Source: http://biblehub.com...
Libertarian Market Policy Would Not Allocate Resources Effectively

The resolution is: "Libertarian Market Policy Would Not Allocate Resources Effectively".Assumptions:(1). "[Libertarianism is a] political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens. Its adherents believe that private morality is not the state’s affair, and that therefore activities such as drug use and prostitution that arguably harm no one but the participants should not be illegal."--http://oxforddictionaries.com...(2). "Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty."--http://www.lp.org...Rules:1. The first round is for acceptance.2. No semantics or lawyering. Trolling and insults are O.K.3. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure can not be negotiated or changed in the middle of the debate.4. This debate is designed to further discussion on ideological economics and should be debated in that same spirit.5. Audience members are invited to "Boo" in the comment section. (such is the tradition of the finer arts: <http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...;)Debate Structure:Round 1: Acceptance. (No new arguments)Round 2: Presenting opening arguments (no rebuttals).Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments. (no new arguments).Round 4: Unrelated trolling/insulting period. (No rebuttals or new arguments). "'Who had better conduct?'" point should be awarded to the side that:"provides unrelated arguments and content to the debate that, in broad-stokes, pokes fun at the opponent's theories, ideology and sources."Round 5: Defending your original arguments.Thank you and may Oannes save us with his spacecraft.
Gay Marriage

I would also like to preface this argument by saying that I am also enjoying this debate, and am happy you are finding it as enjoyable as I am. With all due respect, I do not agree with your argument that if something, i.e. Gay Marriage, is illegal in one place within a larger entity, then it should be considered illegal everywhere when referring to the entity as a hole. For instance, in California it is "Illegal to possess, import, or purchase assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles, unless such weapons were acquired by the owner prior to June 1, 1989" (http://www.ca.gov...). That would meet your suggestion of illegal, I believe. 7 states have similar bans, all on the sale of assault weapons. The other 43 states do not have these laws. Would you say it is illegal for people to have assault weapons here in the U.S? For your second point, Gay Marriage is a legal right in most states, which I believe makes it a basic right. We can debate morals all day long, but in the end moral ideals are in the eyes of the beholder. The the landmark case of Maynard v. Hill in 1888, the presiding judge stated "Marriage is "the most important relation in life" and "the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress." In the case of Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, the judge stated in conclusion "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." For your third point regarding my contradiction of myself, I would ask you to allow me to explain myself. When I refer to "society," I am referring to the culture and environment of the place we live in. I apologize if I used a confusing word, that was not my intent. It is absolutely easier for a married couple to deal with things like management of shared money, and shared possession of property. Not allowing homosexuals to marry would make it very difficult to do these things, as they would not receive the same benefit as their heterosexual counterparts. Lastly, you state, "religions are losing their place in society," and "the tradition of marriage is losing it's place in society." Marriage is not losing it's place in society. If it was, why did more than two million couples marry in 2014? You also stated that religions are losing their place in society. According to the Pew Research Institute, %16 of Americans did not follow a religion. That is actually a small decrease in the number of non-religious people. That does not seem to be losing it's place in society, at least what place it actually has. Religion should be a personal thing, not something used to dictate laws. Separation of church and state.
Gay Marriage

Before I start this round i would like to say that i appreciate this debate notably as it is my first and i hope you are enjoying it as much as myself. I would now like to clarify my earlier statement of "it is still illegal in the United States of America". As there are places in the United States where homosexuals are not allowed to marry "it is still illegal in the United States of America". Now the definition for the word "right" as used above is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way"(1). As we are currently debating the moral and legal entitlement you are currently stating you are right and i am wrong, in other words a fallacy namely circular reasoning(2). Simplified you are stating It is a basic right therefore it is morally and legally correct and vice-versa. It also appears to me that you are contradicting yourself when you say "It does not matter how important marriage" as you earlier mentioned it"simply makes it easier for them to navigate in today's society"(3). If we look at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of society "people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with shared laws, traditions, and values" it can be noted that the tradition of marriage is losing it's place in society and therefore could be said to actually make gap between Married homosexuals and society larger than before. Other than homosexuals only religions are pushing for people to get married, and religions are also losing there place in society. 1.https://www.google.com... 2.http://en.wikipedia.org... 3.http://www.merriam-webster.com...