BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Steroids Should Be Legal in Professional Sports

1a. As much as a player may try to avoid injury, there is always still a risk. Likewise, steroids are only a health risk. The difference is that injuries are meant to be avoided, like all health risks, and likewise so should steroids. Players don't accidentally inject themselves with steroids.1b. No one would take steroids just for the aesthetic side-effects. Also, steroids (and other banned substances) are sometimes prescribed during recovery from injury. Therefore, I see no reason why they cannot be allowed for other circumstances.I agree that no one takes steroids for the ugly aesthetic side-effects, it's an unnatural side-effect. By saying "It's someone's choice to look a certain way" is not addressing the fact that it's an unwanted consequence of steroid use.1c. NFL players who had severe concussions also are prone to the same tendencies. That does not mean that football should cease to exist over the risk.Players don't intentionally give themselves concussions. Players intentionally give themselves steroids. But they are both harmful to your health as your example of concussion and my example of roid rage (which you didn't address) points out.1d. Yes, the muscle growth is unnatural, but so is our ability to fly in airplanes. Some people will have better steroids than others is also irrelevant. Some people access to better education, technology, more money than others... I am not arguing that everything unnatural is bad. I'm arguing against steroid use, which is also unntural, is bad for the side-effects and the consequences it has on the spirit of the game.2a. Why is there a difference between achievements related to human bodies and those related to technology? Why not just have high-tech robot arms and legs to play sports for us? It's not the point of competing in sports. It's based on skill, physical investment, competition.. ect.3a. If there was no correlation between interest and steroid use, why are the MLB ratings[changing].Correlation is not causation.
Steroids Should Be Legal in Professional Sports

1a. When someone decides to play a contact sport, he or she is knowingly accepting the possibility of an injury that can have long-term ramifications, such as a concussion. As much as a player may try to avoid injury, there is always still a risk. Likewise, steroids are only a health risk. Not everyone on steroids has shown health issues, just like not every former NFL player is mentally damaged from a concussion.1b. No one would take steroids just for the aesthetic side-effects. Also, steroids (and other banned substances) are sometimes prescribed during recovery from injury. Therefore, I see no reason why they cannot be allowed for other circumstances.1c. NFL players who had severe concussions also are prone to the same tendencies. In fact the concussion symptoms are so severe that 50 former NFL players or their families are trying to sue the NFL over how it handled concussions [1]. However, that does not mean that football should cease to exist over the risk.1d. Yes, the muscle growth is unnatural, but so is our ability to fly in airplanes. Your argument that some people will have better steroids than others is also irrelevant when compared to other areas of society. Some people have a better education, better technology, or more money than others. That is just a fact of a Capitalist society. However, should a player demonstrate sufficient skill, he or she would be looked at by top universities with the top resources.2a. Why is there a difference between achievements related to human bodies and those related to technology? We constantly set new records for the fastest car, plane, or train. Why can the same standard not be applied to sports?3a. If there was no correlation between interest and steroid use, why are the MLB ratings going down while other sports are experiencing ratings growth [2]?SOURCES:1. http://www.cbssports.com...2. http://www.spottedratings.com...
Steroids Should Be Legal in Professional Sports

1a. Injuries occurred in sports are risks to your health. Steroids are also risks to your health. Therefore steroid use is acceptable. Players avoid injuries. Steroid use is intentional. Therefore you should avoid injuries and steroids for the health risks. 1b. Banning steroids for aesthetic reasons should not be a problem since we all choose to look a certain way. It is just a side effect of a harmful substance - no one chooses to use steroids just for shrunken testicles and acne unless they're insane. Also, it is illegally altering your body composition. 1c. No evidence shows that steroid use has mental side-effects. Ever heard of "roid rage"? " "Anabolic steroid use is linked not only to roid rage and sudden mood changes, but also to a higher incidence of suicide than in the general populace." [1] 1d. Steroids only complement existing skill and will put everyone on a level playing field. Steroids allow unnatural muscular development. It can complement existing skill and it can also allow somebody with lesser skill a greater physical advantage due to his increased muscular development. There are different kinds of steroids, not everyone will have the same ones, and those with the "cutting edge" ones will have the greatest advantage. 2a. My point is that the best, most cutting-edge technology is a part of human achievement. Breaking records by having an altered body composition is not human achievement, it's an achievement made by a human with superhuman alterations. This is not the point of competing in sports. 3.a “Baseball was always the sport most impacted by performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, it saw the biggest excitement around new records.” And your response to my claim that it was a false correlation: “It is not a false correlation at all. There may not be much interest in the WWE, but that can be for other reasons.”I used the WWE as an example of how you falsely correlated interest with steroid use.char limit SOURCE: http://www.wisegeek.org...;[1]
Steroids Should Be Legal in Professional Sports

1. Sports already have health risks that one needs to accept to be willing to play. One only needs to look at the recent focus on concussions in football. The physical side-effects that you mentioned are just that- physical. It is someone's choice to look a certain way. Thus, I do not see why a sports league should ban a substance for aesthetic reasons. If the mental side-effects that you mentioned were true, why would we not see a disproportionate number of athletes on steroids arrested for violent crimes. Also, this is not teaching kids to "abandon the values of fair play", as steroids only complement natural skill. If an average man decided to take steroids, he could not hit 762 home runs in the MLB (as Barry Bonds did). Thus, the legalization of steroids would actually help to put everyone on an equal playing field.2. Your argument seems to be that broken records are less impressive when one knows that steroids played a part. However, you do think that it is impressive that someone lived to 122 with modern technology. Let me ask you this: If we develop anti-aging technology and someone lives to 500, is that impressive or the equivalent of steroids? My point is that the best, most cutting-edge technology is a part of human achievement. If we did not accept that, then we would still be living in the way that the early cave men did thousands of years ago.3. It is not a false correlation at all. There may not be much interest in the WWE, but that can be for other reasons. For example, the idea of a scripted sport appals many. Just look at the Nielsen ratings. Per Spotted Ratings, the 2004 World Series had 216% the demo audience of the average TV show in the 2004-05 season. Most recently, the 2012 World Series only had 170% of the average show in the 2012-13 season. This came while the other sports have been rising relative to the average TV show. The NBA Finals and the Super Bowl have grown from 127% and 817%, respectively, in 2004-05 to 329% and 1884% this year.
jesus was a liar, a fraud, was clearly insane, not the messiah, told you to get rid of your family

Hello, :) I can completely understand where you're coming from; I've had a few of these questions in the back of my mind as well, so maybe we can come to a conclusion in this argument. I am by no means an expert on the Bible so all I can give is things I've learned and some guesswork. I would first like to start off by saying that the Bible would be over 10 times longer than it already is (geez, that'd probably be taller than me) if it included every detail that happened during the time the bible was written. For instance, in John 8 it simply said that "Jesus wrote in the sand" and never clearly states what he exactly wrote. I'm saying this because even if God DID give permission to Jesus to say he was the Messiah, it likely wouldn't have been included as it's an unnecessary detail; Jesus is the son of God...he doesn't need to God to say that he has permission to call himself the savior as the permission has already been granted as soon as Jesus was created. You've said "suppose christ existed, he was clearly insane". There are a few problems with this, the first being that the Bible was either written by people who were inspired by God or written by people who were lunatics. The second one is that if the Bible is written by people who were told what to write, God wouldn't have told them to write about some crazy insane man. The third problem is that Jesus either existed or didn't. Again, God wouldn't have had people write about some insane man even if he did or didn't exist. Jesus said to give up your families and follow him to show the dedication that you had and leave your old life that was full of sin behind. That's what I believe he's trying to say at least. And some people WOULD give up their families whether they believed him or not. I know if I had the option to, I would leave my family whether the guy was insane or not lol. Your calculation of "0%" is incorrect. There also doesn't need to be abuse. There could also be neglect or just overall a terrible environment for someone to live in. Christ also said to give up possessions for the same reason: to show dedication and belief. You wouldn't give your possessions up for something you didn't think was real, right? The fishermen who became his disciples didn't have many belongings as they were poor, meaning they didn't have much to give up. Overall, it comes down to Jesus was real and truly was the Messiah or didn't exist at all and is a fairy tale. There's no reason to have a story of a crazy lunatic that many different people of different times wrote about that was said to be "God-inspired". Not all of the Bible makes sense which is why Christians call it "faith"; you need to believe it happened whether it seems ridiculous or not. I hope you're asking these questions to find answers rather than just asking questions and not listening to responses. Hopefully we can both find logical answers to our questions, whether it be through this debate or other sources. :) Hope this helped! :)
THW Make Gym Class Mandatory Throughout High School.

Currently the option of mandating gym classes is left up to the discretion of school districts, and i believe what my opponent is suggesting is that it be made a national law. So, As the CON side, I will outline in this debate to the public why having gym classes in school, is in fact detrimental and undesirable to schools and school kids, and how if anything, this should NOT be made national law, and left up to the states/provinces. Thank you for initiating this debate.
THW Make Gym Class Mandatory Throughout High School.

If you have any questions please ask them now. For those who do not know, THW stands for This House Would, meaning that this resolution would be passed. As side Pro, I want to pass this resolution as a law, and as side Con, you don't want this resolution to be made into a law. I apologize if I mess up during this debate, as I am new to this site and do not fully understand how this debating thing works yet. Also, please excuse my name. I don't know what I was thinking when I created this account. Most debates that I have seen on this site are 4 rounds, so I have made mine 4 as well. All other settings I have set to the default. Alright so lets set up the model. This House is Canada. By mandatory, I mean that the gym course must be taken each year in high school, and will count towards your credits, much like how English must be taken all 4 years. Gym Class is equivalent to Physical Education, meaning that Sexual Education and Health Education would be included as well. Burden of Proof: It is my duty to explain to you why taking gym class during all 4 years of high school would be beneficial to the student.
Naruto - Konoha's next hokage debate

If the 5th hokage of the hidden leaf village resigns, who would you vote to be the new hokage?I propose that I and Con present our character candidates who must be members or ninja of Konohagakure in this round and refute against the other in the following rounds. We will be debating on who should be the next hokage.You can pick anyone in the Naruto Universe who is a Konoha member including villains like Orochimaru and including dead characters like Itachi Uchiha and explain why they would make the best Hokage.However to make it fair, we cannot pick the current and previous Hokages because of their superior experience. So all 5 hokages are off limits.Rules:1) First round is for acceptance and stating who your candidate is. 2) Second round is to introduce your candidate and give a brief but detailed biography. No rebutals yet until the next rounds.3) You cannot choose a previous Hokage but you can choose a character that is deceased such as Jiraiya.4) We can choose our character from any timeline up to the present moment (where *spoiler* Naruto gets his kyuubi stolen by Madara)My Vote : Nara ShikamaruI look forward to seeing who you choose. Who will be next?
Noahs Ark Debate

I accept.Some information about myself: I am a Christian (one of the smart ones). I am technically considered a Methodist, and also very young (14). I have a few goals in this debate: I hope to give the best reasons why Noah's Ark is factual. I hope to have fun. I hope to expand my horizons. I hope to show that not all Christians are morons. Anyone in the comments should tell me if I seem moronic. I wish to warn you that this is really my first religious debate, and I may seem a little inexperienced in this field.May God bless us all. I guess you can pray to the Giant Flying Speghetti Monster (I deny his existence, though). :)Now that that is out of the way, I will wait for your argument to be made so that I can indeed "Come at you, bro".Good luck.
Noahs Ark Debate

Here we are again. It is this time.I ask that the voters do not hold my opponent's forfeit against him, seeing as we got marryied. Congradulations!How I Think Voting Should GoConduct: TIE!Spelling/Grammar: I don't know... TIE?Arguments: OK. Look back to what this debate was about: Noah's Ark. Did I out debate my opponent? I'm going to say "No, I didn't."Source: Give me won pownt pweez... In all seriousness, my opponent referenced experts, which I think counts.Winner: CON!Thank you. Everyone. Especially my opponent. I enjoyed myself.
Noahs Ark Debate

Not holding back, eh? Good. Let's debate!Response to Richard Darkwins1. The problem here is that there is an assumption here that God went further into inative deitism after the flood.a. God would have caused/assisted the distribution. I am certain that if God could summon these animals, he could also multiply their offsprings and distribute them as he wants.b. God could have put them there. Perhaps, as people expanded, they helped in destributing animals.c. What if they were teleported?d. Perhaps God wanted them elsewhere.e. Because God decided to place them in South.Noah's age1. I assume this is true.a. I assume this is true.c. You and I both agree that this is not how biology works. However, the Bible claims that people live well into there 900s. This is clearly unnatural, and was presumably caused by God wanting it this way. God gave Samuel emense strngth that also isn't biologically possible. If God can let people live that long and let people be that strong, then why can't a guy be of or beyond his prime for several years?d. You and I have very different understandings of free will.Free will to me is the ability to decide what you are going to do instead of that being decided for you.God's killing of people does not show that the victims are unable to choose there own actions; it shows that the victim is unable of choose what others do to them/what things do to them.The Great Flood1. That does not show that the flood didn't happen. It shows that this was a common fear of ancient cultures.2. Did you now?a. Some say this.b. You're right. It doesn't.c. Some claim this. Some say the Earth is just flat. Some people say Obama is a Lizard-Man. It doesn't matter. This is not stated in the Bible.Animal Care1. What if God broke the laws of everything to allow this to be possible.a. Look at 1.b. God can make people live to 800. He can make wood boats seaworthy.2. OK.a. Could God not just change their diets, or better yet, allow them to live without food?b. See a.First Rain Theory1. OK.a. Agreed.b. Unless God said otherwise.c. Where does the Bible claim it never rained before? I haven't read it! 2. You can't analyze God with SCIENCE!Answers to Your Questions1. Perhaps they were already extinct.2. Possibly, if God let him. What if God fed them? What if parasites didn't need food for that time?3. If God created everything, he could rebuild everything!4. What if they weren't onboard? God could just respawn them.A Wizard Did It!My defense is based on you using logic as your offense. Logic does not apply to an omnipotent being. This stands up because you would have to presuppose that the Biblical God exists in order to believe the Flood Story, and if you try to disprove God, you couldn't due to the unreliability of logic in relations to an illogical being.
transgenders are misguided- there's no denying biology

1. What does, "thank you sir!" mean? Does it mean that you do consider the intersex lady a man based on her chromosomes alone? If sex is determined solely by something invisible to the naked eye, why do you think it matters in society? Is that lady's relationship with her husband a gay relationship, then? 2. "He has a guy's brain." This is not a real answer. I asked you how, as in what ways, does Caitlyn think like a man? Can you give a specific answer that isn't based on gender stereotypes? 3. "gender shouldn't counter sex." What does it mean for gender to counter sex? If you're going to use unusual wording, you have to define it first. 4. "The APA is infested with political correctness." Evidence, please?
transgenders are misguided- there's no denying biology

" 1. Caitlyn Jenner's body IS NOT full of testosterone" You're right- my bad ;) "I'm not sure if she still has her old genitalia." Yep, he sure does. "If chromosomes are the sole identifier of your sex, this lady is a man." thank you sir! "2. How does Caitlyn Jenner think like a man?" He has a guy's brain. "3. I already told you that gender is social and sex is biological." I agree with you. However, gender shouldn't counter sex. That's why transgenders are delusional. "4. The American Psychological Association...do(es) not consider being transgender to be a mental disorder." The APA is infested with political correctness. As a result, they're denying sick people treatment in hopes of not offending transgenders.
transgenders are misguided- there's no denying biology

1. Caitlyn Jenner's body IS NOT full of testosterone. It is now full of estrogen and progesterone. I'm not sure if she still has her old genitalia. If chromosomes are the sole identifier of your sex, this lady is a man. 2. How does Caitlyn Jenner "think like a man?" 3. I already told you that gender is social and sex is biological. You have decided to ignore this information, and that is cheating. 4. The American Psychological Association is the major authority on psychology in North America. They are the experts on what is and isn't a mental illness and how mental illnesses should be treated. They do not consider being transgender to be a mental disorder. Proof: http://www.apa.org...
transgenders are misguided- there's no denying biology

"sex is bendable." Not really. Think of Caitlyn Jenner. Every cell in his body, accept his sperm cells have Y chromosomes. His body's full of testosterone, he's got male genitals, and most importantly, he thinks like a man because he's go a man's brain. No scientist can alter all of this. I'm sorry, but it's delusional of him to think he's a woman. Facts don't care about his feelings. There's no challenging biology and reality. (And I promise you, biology and reality will always win.) "Humiliating and insulting people is the opposite of kindness." Acknowledging a mental disorder should never be humiliating. It's the first step in fixing a problem. The real crime would be denying a person treatment to make them feel better about themselv
transgenders are misguided- there's no denying biology

1. Gender is social whereas sex is biological. In the case of transgender people, they have genders that are not traditionally associated with their sexes. 2. Yes, and this is probably a cause of gender dysphoria. There is significant evidence that transgender people have a form of brain-intersexedness. Example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3. This doesn't matter since gender is social and sex is biological. 4. Both gender and sex are alterable. Gender is social, and sex is bendable. Hormones can alter your body significantly to the point that it's like an artificially intersex body. 5. Being transgender is not a belief. 6. Humiliating and insulting people is the opposite of treating them kindness.
transgenders are misguided- there's no denying biology

I'm new to this, so go EZ on me! ;) Well, I'll get right down to it then. 1. We're born either female or male. 2. Both genders differ significantly. (Think chromosomes, genitalia, brain structure) 3. There's no changing you're genetic makeup. 4. So gender is unalterable. A transgender with false beliefs about his/herself suffers from a delusion, and may have an underlying mental illness. (Think of an anorexic who thinks they're fat when they're really not.) The right thing to do is not indulge transgenders' delusions, just as we shouldn't tell anorexics they're fat. Lastly, everyone is equal, so transgenders should also be treated with love, compassion, and affection.
transgenders are misguided- there's no denying biology

I accidentally tricked you because I just realized that two of my three bottom links didn't work. You didn't point this out, so you must not have tried my links. I will post the links again, this time with spaces. https:// www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/2014/05/ 140528163753. htm http:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/ 20562024 http:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/ 21195418 1. The rareness of something doesn't de-legitimize it for making a point. 2. If someone has XXY chromosomes, which some people do, what sex are they? 3. Good luck in your endeavors, but your choice of wording suggests that you were merely trying to get under my skin this entire time. I'd like to make one more point- "transgender" is an adjective.
transgenders are misguided- there's no denying biology

You and I know very that very few people are intersex. Also, everyone has one sex. So in they're case, if they have a Y chromosome, they're male. If they don't, they're female. And anyways, this is a transgender debate. "here is growing evidence that transgender people have an intersex condition of the brain. Proof:" I wouldn't throw around the word proof. There's may be proof for growing evidence, but no proof that transgenders have an intersex condition of the brain. I'm sure you know that as far as science goes, its almost impossible to prove anything. I thought I'd end by saying I'm going to be a great psychologist one day. Don't worry, I probably won't get many transgenders at my door since they're not looking to be cured allthebest