BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
BBCOR Baseball Bats

Pro has yet to give an argument to affirm the resolution, so I am still winning this debate, as it stands. However, I will still make a negative case, in order to allow Pro at least a round to respond to it.Negative Case Premise: Home-runs make for an exciting game The site of a ball flying into the crowd excites the crowd. This is somewhat due to the crowd becoming involved in the action. This is also somewhat due to the spectacle of a ball being hit really far. I think this is self-evident, so unless my opponent objects, this is a premise of my case.Premise: Excitement generates revenueI think that it is also intuitive and factual that the more excitement that can be promised, the more people will attend a match and buy things there.A1: More home-runs are hit with aluminium batsAccording to statistics, taken from 1970 through to 2014 of the NCAA Division I of college baseball, a couple of data sets indicated that with the introduction of aluminium bats in 1974, there was an immediate effect of balls being hit over the fence [1].Further evidence of home-runs being related to bat type (i.e. aluminium vs. BBCOR) can be seen in the introduction of BBCOR bats in 2011. In this year, home-runs significantly dropped to the lowest amount since 1974 (which was the year aluminium bats were introduced. Coincidence?)So, there are more home-runs hit with aluminium bats that are not BBCOR, and via my premises, this would create the impacts of: more excitement and revenue in baseball games if they were not to use BBCOR bats.ConclusionI'll break my argument down into a syllogism so it can easily be seen:P1: More home-runs means more excitementP2: More excitement brings more revenueA1: Not using BBCOR bats brings more home-runsC1: Therefore, not using BBCOR bats would bring more excitement and therefore revenue. Thus, high school baseball players should not use BBCOR bats.I will expand my argument here, if my opponent responds in the final round. As it stands, the resolution is not affirmed by Pro and it is further negated by my argument here.Reference [1] http://www.acs.psu.edu...
The Death Penalty

To start, my initial position is that the death penalty is not justified ever. Justice is a form of rectification of a misdeed. Justice has its parameters however, such that in punishing a criminal, the people who enact said punishment do not become criminals themselves. Given that it is a universal and unilateral resolution of man that to kill is forbidden, I hold that even in the process of punishment, one must not kill another human being. If we think about the conditions under which the death penalty is considered, we find crimes such as: cruel and contemptuous unrestrained homicide, mass murder, terrorism, torture, rape, and other inhuman acts of evil. When ever man reaches the highest crimes, death seems to be the justice. However, we must remember that the motive of any punishment is to ensure that the crime committed will not be repeated. Hence, if a man kills many other people, to kill that man in return, would defeat the very purpose of the justice through repeating the crime. I hold that under any given situation, it shall always be a crime to kill. It is not within any person's right to rob the life of another human being, for that, beside torture, is the highest evil known to man. I ask that pro define justice as he/she sees it, and explain how the death penalty is an integral part of it. I'll leave it at that to allow pro to begin his argument.
United states ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an IC designed to prosecute CA

This is not a real debate can someone comment on m first contention and make rebuttla against it thanks! I negate; The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. To prosecute is to bring legal action for redress or punishment for a crime or violation for a law; a crime against humanity is an atrocity that is directed especially against an entire race, populations or part of a population on specious grounds and without regard to individual guilt or responsibility on even such grounds.; jurisdiction the power or right to exercise authority. (Merriam Webster) I have an important observation regarding the resolution: Since the resolution suggests an international court, it would be okay for the use of the International Criminal Court as an example because the ICC acts as the international court in the current world, and our debate must be grounded in the real world. This topic is one regarding international affairs and geopolitics, and as such, we need to take the status quo into account. Also, the resolution uses the term "an", so at the very least, it is okay for me to specify a court and defend it. My value premise is Justice because the purpose of any criminal system is it in the US or an international system such as the international criminal court, aim to achieve justice. My values criterion is constitutional protection. The value works with VC because if the U.S is to get justice then the people must not lose there constitutional rights. If the rights are to be lost the value justice will not be served. Contention 1 = United States participation in the ICC treaty regime would also be unconstitutional because it would allow the trial of American citizens for crimes committed on American soil, which are otherwise entirely within the judicial power of the United States. The Supreme Court has long held that only the courts of the United States, as established under the Constitution, can try such offenses. If the U.S would consider being part of the international court then an amendment must be created to over rule that law. This goes back to my value criterion with constitutional protection by creating a amendment to join a IC is bad because u have to create laws to over rule others laws and in the end there is going to be so many laws over ruling other laws that the country would fall in to a state of anarchy.
United states ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an IC designed to prosecute CA

I guess since this isn't a real debate, I'll just go to rebuttal. I'll go through his case: He makes 3 observations: 1. Use of the ICC --> There are 2 reasons why this false: A. He makes the assertion that since its the real world we must use the ICC. The wording of the resolution, ought implies future action. Just because the ICC is the criminal court now, does not mean it will be the court in the future. B. The resolution states "an international court," meaning it is hypothetical, not actual. 2. Use of the Status Quo --> This is wrong for two reasons: A. That is completely negative abuse, because if we strictly look to the status quo then the negative can win in practically a million ways. It is abusive. B. Is/Ought Fallacy. The resolution states ought, therefore, we are not looking at the status quo, instead we are looking to a future standard. V: Justice --> The resolution does not state justice. My opponent makes the argument that a court system's obligation is to achieve justice, however the resolution doesn't debate the functionality of a justice system. It is arguing what the US should do. The US is the resolution actor, thus the highest value should be Proper US Policy. VC: Constitutional Protection --> I have 3 responses: First, he never actually explains the inherent link between justice and constitutional rights. He merely says that there would be no justice. Second, the ICC or any international court would hold such basic protections. For instance under the Rome Statue, there is protection agaisnt double jeopardy, right to habeas corpus, right to legal counsel, etc. Third, there is no way to weigh justice by constitutional protection because the constitution is a man made document and thus fallible. For instance it allowed slavery until the SC fixed that. C1 - Participation in the ICC is unconstitutional He makes this one point: ICC can try American citizens --> This is wrong for 3 reasons: First, the ICC has already set up protections agaisnt this in the fact that the ICC will only intervene if a domestic court gives up the case and hands it to the ICC. Second, the only way to protect ourselves is to join, thus giving us leverage over policy decisions within the court. Third, in modern times no crimes agaisnt humanity have been done in the US. Therefore, we have no need to worry. *If you have any questions send me a message, and I would be glad to help.
Feminists are being intellectually dishonest when arguing about the existence of a "gender pay gap".

"The following report prepared by CONSAD Research Corporation"" TCR is full of strawman arguments. "There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap"A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work."; "A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home."; "Women, especially working mothers, tend to value "family friendly" workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation." Etc. Pro states: "Even after reading their report, they still did not break wages down by earnings of men and women in the same industry." p. 30 Pro: "In the end, they simply used men and women's full-time wages. Which is disingenuous and obviously is not painting the whole picture." p. 26 Pro: "Now because women earn fewer engineering degrees and earn more of the education degrees. The women's wage median is going to be deflated because most of the earnings within the data are going to be inherently lower because of the fields women chose to go in to." In engineering, women compose 26% of the workforce and earn 82% of men. In education, women compose 74% of the workforce and earn 79% of men [5]. Pro: "A 3rd of the wage gap is "unexplained", but is explained by fact that women do not negotiate their salaries [4]." " "the authors' findings appear to be consistent with past research suggesting that women are at least as likely to negotiate as men when face-to-face communication with other parties is limited." " disproven by Pro"s own link [1]. Pro contests STEM has no wage discrimination by analyzing college professors. When we analyze actual employees of STEM, we find a roughly 18% wage gap between men and women [5]. The US DOL has a myth and fact page. "Myth: the wage gap is much smaller than 77%. Fact: wage gap based on annual earnings is 77%" [2]. "The wage gap varies considerably across occupations" occupational segregation, just like wage discrimination, is an issue of inequality" [3]. "When women are not paid fairly, not only do they suffer, but so do their families" [4]. Feminism positions are in line with the US Department of Labor. The US Department of Labor data is not dishonest, therefore feminism positions are not dishonest. Sources [1] http://www.nber.org... [2] http://blog.dol.gov... [3] https://blog.dol.gov... [4] http://www.dol.gov... [5] http://www.dol.gov...
Feminists are being intellectually dishonest when arguing about the existence of a "gender pay gap".

The CONSAD report was commissioned by the US Department of Labor. Whose Mission statement implies that this government agency is working for the benefit of everyone in our society, men and women alike. [1] You say that the CONSAD report is inherently biased, without giving any proof for that argument. The first paragraph below the mission statement of The Institute for Women"s Policy Research, the source you cited, explicitly says their goal is to "address the needs of women" and "use women-oriented policy research" [2]. As a result, their report is inherently biased because they have a vested interest in its results. That is intellectual dishonesty. Even after reading their report, they still did not break wages down by earnings of men and women in the same industry. But it did break down the amount of women in the industry, versus men. Which could imply that they had the data that broke gender wages down, by industry. They simply could have chosen not to publish that information because it would have blown Meteor Crater-sized holes in their research. Though that is pure conjecture, based on the facts at hand. In the end, they simply used men and women's full-time wages. Which is disingenuous and obviously is not painting the whole picture. To address your first paragraph, the choices women make cause them to earn less. Let's examine two industries, engineering and education. Women earned 18% of the engineering degrees and 81% of the education degrees, in 2008 [3]. Average earnings of those in engineering is $48493 and the average earnings of education is $33180 [3]. Now because women earn fewer engineering degrees and earn more of the education degrees. The women's wage median is going to be deflated because most of the earnings within the data are going to be inherently lower because of the fields women chose to go in to. This same study also goes in to other factors such as number of hours worked & jobs worked within an industry. A 3rd of the wage gap is "unexplained", but is explained by fact that women do not negotiate their salaries [4]. No discrimination in STEM hiring either, which has in inherently higher wages than most other industries. Women are hired 2 to 1 against identically qualified men. [5] Vote Pro, because Con seems more interested in using conjecture, than proving my points wrong using facts. I will admit that citing Sarah Jane Glynn's paragraph was a mischaracterization of the method in which the Department of Labor disseminated its data. Saying they used mean, instead of median. Regardless, my points are valid. The wage gap is a result of women's choices in degrees and ensuing careers, not institutional sexism driving women's wages down. Sources: [1] www.dol.gov/opa/aboutdol/mission.htm [2] www.iwpr.org/about [3] www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/graduating-to-a-pay-gap-the-earnings-of-women-and-men-one-year-after-college-graduation.pdf [4] www.nber.org/digest/apr13/w18511.html [5] www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract
Feminists are being intellectually dishonest when arguing about the existence of a "gender pay gap".

Since this debate is about facts and not opinions, let"s get some facts straight. The "77 cents" formulation is not based on mean (average) or mode (most common number). The "77 cents" formulation is based on the median (middle) earner of Americans who filed data during the 2010 United States Census. The middle earner of women made 23% less money when compared to the middle earner of men (nationwide) [1]. Figure 2.4 on page 21 illustrates pay gap by education levels of the median (middle) earners. Table 2.4 on page 30 and table 2.5 on page 32 illustrate pay gap by industry and occupation (respectively) by showing the median (middle) earner. This data is slightly extrapolated on Table B2.7 on page 45. The median (median) earner is more important than the mean (average) of all workers, because almost all executives in almost all businesses are males. These males would skew the results of a mean (average) of all workers based on gender. The Consad Report is extremely bias (right of center). I contest that Pro is being intellectually dishonest in his/her assertions of the wage gap specifically by using an extremely bias source. (It would be like me calling a report from Salon.com moderate and fair). Sources: [1]: http://statusofwomendata.org...
Feminists are being intellectually dishonest when arguing about the existence of a "gender pay gap".

When you type "define feminism" in to google the response is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." It is my belief that this definition no longer applies to what is now known as "3rd wave" feminism who use the "gender pay gap" argument, among others, as reason for how they are "oppressed". "The "77 cents" formulation is a colloquialism"shorthand for expressing a complex economic truth. Simply put, what it conveys is the fact that, if you average out what all women, working full time, year round, earn and compare that number to what all men working full time, year round, earn, you find that women take home 77 percent of what men do." - Sarah Jane Glynn Center for American Progress The statistics used to "prove" the gender pay gap is incredibly misleading. The Department of Labor's study does not break down which professions these racial/gender groups belong too, their positions, or longevity of their respective careers. Because a senior engineer who has worked for Lockheed Martin for 15 years, logically is going to make more than a clinical social worker working for a DCF for 2 years. Both are white collar positions, while the pay is going to be significantly different. The Consad report worked in those controls, among others, and found that the pay gap narrows to 93%-95%. Giving credence to the fact that the 77% wage is a result of the different choices women make in their careers and raising families. Engineers simply make more money than social workers and the grand majority of those majoring in gender studies. Any difference in wages of similar men and women of equality qualifications is explained by women's avoidance in salary negotiations, as told by the National Bureau of Economic Research. There is not a supreme patriarchy conspiring to artificially hold women's wages down and oppressing them. You are likely going to surmise that because of your mother's experience, that a gender pay gap exists. That is going to be pure conjecture, and very hard to authenticate. That individual experience is not indicative or prove a systemic problem.
God allowed the death penalty in the Old Testament.

God says multiple times not to commit murder, but also he says multiple times which crimes should result in death. God would not contradict himself if He is all-knowing, so He must not consider the death penalty to be murder. Tinkerbell uses the quote from Leviticus 24:15, "Say to the Israelites:"If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible." Tinkerbell's conclusion was: "So God is saying to punish man who blasphemes his name." In the very next verse, God tells the people of Israel how to punish people who do blaspheme his name: " 'Anyone who blasphemes the Lord's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the Lord's name will surely die.' "
God allowed the death penalty in the Old Testament.

An example that I have is: You shall not commit murder. -Deuteronomy 5:17 NIV In Leviticus 24:15 it says " Say to the Israelites:"If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible." You stated that they blasphemed God's names, they did not commit a crime the basically just disrespected God. So God is saying to punish man who blasphemes his name.
God allowed the death penalty in the Old Testament.

The death penalty is death as punishment for certain crimes. This is not a debate over the justification of the death penalty or whether it shoud be done; it is over the Old Testament and what it says. One example for the Pro (which is all I need) is: "Men and women among you who act as mediums or psychics must be put to death by stoning. They are guilty of a capital offense" -Leviticus 20:27 (NLT) Another would be: "One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Isralite men. During the fight, the son of an Israelite woman blaspehmed the Lord's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgement. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Debri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the Lord's will in the matter should become clear. Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the Lord's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the Lord's name will surely die.' " -Leviticus 24:10-16 (NLT) In the last example, the Lord directly told his people to use the death penalty. Leviticus was the third book of the Bible and is in the Old Testament. In another book of the Old Testament, the death penalty is also mentioned: "If someone has committed a crime worthy of death and is executed and then hanged on a tree, the body must never remain on the tree overnight..." -Deuteronomy 21:22 (NLT) Therefore, God says that some crimes can be worthy of death. Again, later in the same book, another example of capital crime is announced. This passage is refferring to adultry: "But suppose the man's accusations are true, and her virginity could not be proved. In such cases the judges must take the girl to the door of her father's home, and the men of the town will stone her to death. She has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by becoming promiscuos while living in her parent's home. Such evil must be cleansed from among you. If a man is discovered committing adultry, both he and the other man's wife must be killed. In this way, the evil will be cleansed from Israel." -Deuteronomy 22:20-22 I appreciate the prospect of this debate.
It is unlikely that we lack free will in some form.

I will be arguing that, given the evidence, it is likely that humans have some form of free will. I will not be arguing for a mechanism of free will. I have no idea what the mechanism would be, but that is not crucial to my argument. As an analogy, doctors do not know why it is that Beta Blockers treat heart failure, but the evidence shows that they do work. There are proposed mechanisms, but no generally accepted model exists. It even seems highly counter intuitive since beta adrenergics act by stimulating the heart and can lower blood pressure, but still they are first line therapy for heart failure. In any event, in this debate Con is not required to demonstrate anything other than finding holes in my argument. The rounds are as follows: Round 1: Pro and Con accept Round 2: Pro presents his argument, Con posts a rebuttal or accepts the argument. Round 3: Pro defends his argument, Con posts a refutation of the defense or accepts the argument. Round 4: Final defense by Pro, Final rebuttal by Con. Rules: 1) Con must accept evolution by natural selection as true. 2) Con's rebuttal cannot include a complaint that I do not include a mechanism for free will, but if Con can prove that free will is physically impossible, that is allowed. 3) Con accepts all definitions given by Pro in round 1. Free will=Agents' choices are not predetermined. Given the same circumstances, it is possible for free agents to make different choices. Apply to the debate in the comments. If you manage to get through my filter to accept, then I guess you are my opponent. I know some people say that if you get through the filter, you forfeit, but that just seems like a punk way to try to get a "win" to me. I am highly opposed to people trying to win on technicalities, if you get through the filter, I will face you.