BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Referees Affected Outcome of Superbowl 40

While there were many complaints about the officiating in Superbowl 40, few people realize just how bad it was. Some try to defend the calls, saying they were legitimate, but this does not address the problem. Holding penalties and interference penalties are classified as "judgment" calls, because there is some holding on every play, and some interference on most pass plays. If they were to call every possible incidence of holding, we would never get through a football game because we would call holding on almost every play. This is why we have "judgment" in calling penalties. Limited grabbing while engaged with a defender is permissible, but when the defender gets by the blocker, then continued grabbing should be penalized. The first play on this video shows a very nit-picky penalty that turned out to be critical in the game. Even John Madden said it was a terrible call. http://www.wordonly.net... This series of four plays should go down as the biggest officiating fiasco in NFL history. I will discuss the rest of this video further in a later round. Now, we will see three more blatant holding penalties by Pittsburgh that were ignored. http://www.wordonly.net... http://www.wordonly.net... http://www.wordonly.net... I will explain the effects of these calls in later rounds. Another problem was interference calls. Here is a touchdown for Seattle that was negated by an offensive pass interference penalty: http://www.wordonly.net... And here is a blatant violation by Pittsburgh that was ignored by the refs: http://www.wordonly.net... This should have been a personal foul, 15 yard penalty. Here is a comparison of the two plays: http://www.wordonly.net... These are some of the more obvious problems with the officiating of that Superbowl. While we can expect an occasional bad call, we cannot expect repeated mistakes going against one tea and nothing going against the other team. Thanks
Referees Affected Outcome of Superbowl 40

Well I'm not on either side really. I just wanted to state to you that OF COURSE the referees are going to make a call that might seem unfair to people of the opposite team the referees are making the good call for. Know what I mean? Some calls are just down right outrageous, and dumb. But it's their call not the other teams or ours so anyways,there will always be some biased calls, some more outlandish than others. And anyways I'm not really going to debate you on this because for one I don't watch football and partly agree with you.. But I would like to see how you think that it was a unfair call because it was 21 to 10 I believe and I do know Willie Parker made 75-yard touchdown run. But other than that I don't know any information about Super Bowl XL
Referees Affected Outcome of Superbowl 40

Resolved: The Seattle Seahawks would most likely have won Superbowl 40 with fair officiating. Burden of proof is shared. While we cannot know for certain how each team's strategy would have changed with unbiased calls, each side must make their case that their team would have won the game. Pro: It is more likely that Seattle would have won with fair officiating. Con: It is more likely that Pittsburgh would have won with fair officiating. Five Rounds
It's time for Britain to send a military task force to the South Atlantic

Unfortunately, we must dismiss his second proposal to incinerate the civilian population of the Falklands out of hand because Falkland Islanders are British Citizens and whilst I concede that there may be some British people that deserve to be torched, neither Elton John nor George Michael live in the Falklands so no advantage would be gained in that respect. More importantly, Britain needs a functioning community on the Falklands to service the oil industry, which although is presently in its infancy, is set to grow enormously as the estimated 60 billion barrels of oil (1) are extracted from the South Atlantic seabed. At today's prices that's worth $4.8 trillion (2) – which is a lot of money in anybody's book and is why those treacherous Argie twisters want to get their thieving mitts on it so badly. My opponent's first proposal, however, had more merit. However, starting a conflict and blaming someone else would amount to cheating and that's not the British way – that's the Argie way. Indeed, they are famous for cheating. Argentina's most famous son Diego Maradona is No.1 in the list of Greatest Sports Cheats of All Time (3) on account of the ‘goal' he scored against England using his hand in the quarter final of the 1986 World Cup that meant that Argentina progressed in the competition at England's expense. If an England player had done that, he would have been ostracised from society but Maradona is a hero in Argentina. That's the sort of people we are dealing with here. So, in conclusion, the best course of action to take is to send a military taskforce down to the South Atlantic to protect British interests. After all, the fabulous wealth generated by the huge oil reserves there will more than cover the cost of the expedition. Thank you. (1) . http://en.mercopress.com... (2) . http://www.oil-price.net... (3) . http://soccerlens.com...
It's time for Britain to send a military task force to the South Atlantic

My opponent has taken the position that in order to prevent the Falkland Islands from falling into the hands of the vile Argentine people, the UK should drastically increase its garrison on the island. I believe this to be unnecessary and wasteful as it would consume resources over time to continuously defend the Falkland Islands. I have a few solutions that are more permanent and though they are more immediately expensive, they would provide a greater long term benefit. 1. Claim Argentina attempted to attack the Falkland Islands. This would not be difficult to stage or just lie about. Then, the government could claim a need to retaliate against Argentina instead of simply playing defense. A massive propaganda campaign could easily get the public behind this. Then the UK simply destroys most of Argentina's military, government facilities, and infrastructure with it's massively superior air power. There would be no need to worry about international consequences because the US would quickly jump to the side of the British (perhaps even offering them military aid) and the US has been able to successfully block diplomatic sanctions against aggressive nations many times in the past. 2. Alternately, claim the existence of a pro-Argentine revolution in the Falklands using a similar strategy. Send in troops to suppress the rebellion and make sure there is so much collateral damage that there are no more Falklands. Using flamethrowers would be an excellent idea. Once all traces of life are removed from the Falklands, Britain can withdraw its forces. Argentina will no longer have any need to control these smouldering islands and they will remain under the control of the British. Even if Argentina did invade the Falklands again, they would win nothing and the British military command could smirk smugly over a cup of tea. Any whining about these atrocities (as liberals are prone to do) could be silenced by blaming the damage on the rebels. Both of these solutions are much more economic than the one my opponent provide. His way of handling the situation would waste of a lot of money by keeping troops deployed over a long period of time, perhaps indefinitely. The solutions I have offered would deal with the situation much more quickly. I will include a number of sources backing my position in the next round, but for now I am too lazy. Peace out.
It's time for Britain to send a military task force to the South Atlantic

Those dirty, thieving greasers the Argentineans have turned their vile, swarthy faces towards the Falklands once again. This time they are greedily eying the islands with a view to getting their grasping hands on the oil that is being drilled offshore there. As many of you will know, the murderous and cowardly Argentineans have coveted this British Territory for years. Back in 1982 a Royal Navy aircraft carrier and an amphibious task force supported by nuclear submarines and Royal Air Force aircraft travelled 7,800 miles from Britain and landed soldiers and commandos from the Royal Marines in a major joint operation to liberate the remote Falklands from the filthy Argie scum that were occupying the islands. http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk... However, because this Argentinean invasion took Britain by surprise and because the islands are so far from their mother country, the brutal and merciless Argie troops were able to terrorise the local population for many weeks before the British arrived to release them from their captors' evil clutches. Of course, all this appalling suffering would never have happened if Britain had had a permanent military presence on the islands large enough to deter or repel an Argentinean invasion. Today, almost thrity years after the last Argentinian invasion, the writing is once again on the wall. The Argies are threatening "unspecified actions" against Britain and is due to make a pathetic appeal to the UN to back their position. In addition, they have mustered support from corrupt leaders from banana republics right around South America. For example, Venezuela's President Chï¿½vez said: "Look, England, how long are you going to be in Las Malvinas {The Falkland Islands}? Queen of England, I'm talking to you…return Las Malvinas to the Argentine people." http://www.nytimes.com... Britain should learn the mistakes of the past and ensure that the Falklands are adequately defended from Argentina's military designs on the islands by ensuring that the small garrison of British troops is massively strengthened and are assisted by a task force from the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. http://www.army.mod.uk... Britain must act now before it's too late. Vote Pro. Thank you.
Abortion Should Be ILLEGAL

Abortion should be legal.. Because the baby is a) growing inside the mother b) will be born from the mother and c) is the responsibility of the mother, she should have the legal choice to terminate if she thinks the child will not have a healthy life in the womb and after birth because until the baby is born, she is the sole provider and protector of that child because it is a part of her. The earth cannot sustain the already expanding population and making abortion illegal would have severe consequences further on down the line. This does not mean I support abortion as the only contraceptive, if people are stupid enough to not use protection (excluding rape, incest, etc.) that is their fault, but it is also their responsibility to decide what to do with the child now because they are responsible for that life. It is murder, but murder of a developing mass of cells, if terminated early enough, that may or may not have a healthy full-filling life that is the sole choice of the parent because they are the only one who can advocate for THEIR child. If vasectomies are legal, why shouldn't abortion be? It is a reproductive health service that should be made legal everywhere, even despite religious/cultural conflicts. Making it illegal is violating basic human rights to reproduction, not to mention the slew of problems that would drag the world to its knees because of overpopulation because some people think 'abortion is murder'.
Abortion Should Be ILLEGAL

A fetus does not know what it wants, or needs, or how to defend itself. But who is the most entitled to represent the unborn child? The mother of course, who provides for literally everything the baby needs to grow. Nobody except the mother can provide what the mother does. Though you clearly think so, anybody who is not carrying the baby does not have a say in the development or termination of it simple because they are not the ones carrying, providing nutrients and safety and security for the fetus. There are also instances where abortion would benefit the well being of the fetus. Birth defects like cerebral palsy detected through ultrasound can benefit the child by termination so he would not have to suffer with these disabilities throughout his whole life. If the mother has a malfunctioning thyroid, the the development of the baby's brain is directly affected. An abortion might be necessary. If the mother has cancer and gets pregnant, planned or not, termination would be the best choice obviously because cancer requires immediate treatment and it would not be safe at all for the baby and if a woman waits for the baby to be born before receiving treatment it would be fatal to her. Not to mention that just having cancer present in the body directly affects the fetus' development. Some women's bodies weren't prepared for childbirth. If abortion is murder, letting a fetus suffer in the womb and increase the chance of it being born with birth defects that would majorly impact the quality of life for the child is a better option?
Abortion Should Be ILLEGAL

The tumor is a part of you, not another living being. The fetus doesn't know what it wants, but neither does a dog or a cat. So that makes it like animal abuse. Not exactly but like. If you don't want a child, then adoption is the best option for the baby. It may have to do with the risk of death , but only 1 out of every 500,000 people die from pregnancy in the us. The discomfort has been dealt with by billions of billions of humans(most women since society began). Rape, I understand, but incest is your choice.
Abortion Should Be ILLEGAL

Abortion should not be illegal. It is a service that pertains to the health of a person. Yes, a fetus is a living being, but the fetus is also inside of a person, therefore making the mother the responsibility of that being. There are many factors that lay in the decision to abort. Rape and incest being popularly discussed while there are many outlaying problems such as lack of proper health care, insufficient financial stability, maybe the mother simply does not want the baby. People develop tumors inside them, do they stop and ask what the tumor wants before deciding to remove it? No because it is a tumor and it does not know what it wants. If a mother wants to abort her child, she should have the right to do so in a safe, clean, and professional environment.
The Cosmological Argument (in any form) is risible

The Cosmological Argument relies on:1. Everything in the Natural World that exists has a cause of its existence.2. Therefore we must resort to Supernatural causation.3. It is not necessary to inquire too far into what causes Supernatural things.How do people still make this argument with a straight face?The Kalam argument, championed by William Lane Craig, goes one worse and investigates Supernatural causal chains explicitly, before finally requesting that nobody inquire any further as to ultimate Supernatural causation.
The Cosmological Argument (in any form) is risible

Preface: - Fortunately for me I still have 2 additional rounds left, hopefully with enough space to allow for a solid counter-argument against Pro’s affirmative stance. Case: - Now, since Pro attempted to argue that William Craig’s formulation of the KCA is laughable, a failed attempt to say the least which I will get to in later rounds, he has yet to prove that other formulations of the CA are also risible. For instance, Ibn Sina’s (Avicenna’s) formulation [*]: 1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed or could cease to) exists. 2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence. 3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself. 4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being. 5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being. 6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being. 7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists. - I would also like to see Pro’s response to al-Ghazali’s formulation which is a mixed of all the elements found in the other CA: temporal causation, causality, sufficient causation, necessity & contingency. Or even other formulations such as the Gale-Pruss Argument. Sources: [*] . http://plato.stanford.edu...
the kindle is better than books

My opponent sites wikipedia, this in itself was a bad idea, not a credible source. Next, PLEASE CHECK THE COMMENTS SECTION, My opponent has allowed me to put my sources there. 1. Extend, no source showing kindle doesn't break and books do. 2. One of the slowest readers on earth? I apologize if logically i cannot read a book for A) 10 hour straight and B) if it is over 1000 pages, what kind of books are we talking about here? (Undefined by Pro) 3. Conceded- Extend IMMEDIATELY! Impact- Sharing, A) Saves Money B)Library Argument (Borrow and Lend) 4. Books wear out, but the kindle becomes utterly obsolete. Books exist from the early 1900's look at F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" Then look at your kindle.
the kindle is better than books

thank you 1. Have you ever dropped a kindle from waist or shoulder height. It is fine. However, with a book you will bend pages, tear pages, tear cover, whatever. Not so fine. 2. Unless you are one of the slowest readers on earth, you should easily be able to finish two or three books on a vacation, if not more. Have you ever drove to Florida from Minnesota? TWO AND A HALF DAYS THERE AND TWO AND A HALF DAYS BACK! you will need way more than one book on that vacation. Plus, you can buy books while you are driving. Can you do that with a book? NO! 3. thank you for clarification and I will concede on that point. 4. Books wear out. Kindle doesn't unless you throw it around. If you did that with a book, it would probably die in the first day.
the kindle is better than books

1. Drop a kindle on the floor, it breaks. Drop a book on the floor, it's fine. 2. 1500 books, cross apply arguments 2 and 3 please. I doubt a vacation LOGICALLY requires 1500 books. I doubt it requires even 1 full book (judges think logically please) 3. Extend, my opponent doesn't understand, DRM does not allow software to be transferred or copied in any way, (check the source in comments) Thus, you cannot share an ebook on a kindle WITHOUT the other person buying it. You can however lend a book to a friend and borrow as many books as you want from a local library. 4. Once again, extend my paperbacks argument,kindle cost argument, and my "NO SOURCE" argument clearly showing my opponent doesn't prove the cost. My sources are in comments.
the kindle is better than books

I will provide my rebuttals in order of my opponents arguments. 1. For strong, a book can bend and pages may fall out. I have read a library book like this and it was infuriating. I am sorry for my obfuscating on light but compare a Harry potter book to a kindle. I will tell you the kindle is a lot lighter. 2.For portability, you can keep 1500 books on one device[1], compared to one traditional book. If you want to cart around 1500 books at a time, Have fun. please clarify on 3 and 4 Supposing you are on a long car trip and you brought a book and you finish it. You now have to suffer for the rest of the car trip. With a kindle you can read multiple books and only bring one device/book [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
the kindle is better than books

Small wordcount, so i will proceed to refute my opponents arguments. 1. Strong and light- My opponent didn't elaborate on what "strong" meant, don't weigh this in a round, as for the lightness of it, no source is given to prove it is lighter than all books. 2. Portability- Bad argument for 2 reasons A) Books are portable, my opponent never stresses portability through only the kindle and B) (Cross apply with argument three of keeping hundreds of books on device) If it's lost, it's goodbye to quote "hundred of books". 3. Hundreds of books on small device- Sharing- Ebooks cannot be shared due to DRM (Digital Rights Management) and B) 4. "Cheaper than Hard Copies"- No source, what about paperbacks + add in the cost of the kindle. Checkcomment
America needs to crack down on illegal immigration.

Quote from your argument- About the legal status of the immigrants. There are lottery systems or high costs to legally enter the U.S. What motivations would they have to enter the country illegally if there are easy legal methods to enter the country. It eliminates the fear and instability of being an illegal immigrant with the potential of a "crack down". There is an obvious gap between the supply of visas and demand for visas. This results in the motivation for illegal immigration. That is why the "feel the need to sneak into the country." Well obviously they see America as the land of opportunity, but that is not our fault. Just because they see us as better shouldn't tell them, "OKAY, abandon ship and move out to America!" No matter what you say, they still commit a crime.
America needs to crack down on illegal immigration.

Firstly, I believe the topic is "America needs to crack down on illegal immigration." not "illegal immigration is positive/negative" so I don't think I have to answer your question concerning the positives of illegal immigration but I will to strengthen my position. I don't think listing is the best method for debate but I'll list the points I made in the previous response. -There is an economic benefit of/need for Illegal immigration(for both the U.S. and the immigrants). I feel that is a large enough reason since it seems that your only reason in your "list of negatives" is also the economic impact through the health care costs and "taking jobs from Americans" (By the way aren't Mexicans from "America" thus being Americans) Now to answer your questions.... You ask why they "feel the need to sneak into this country?" I believe I explained that they are in poor conditions and are in a desperate situation economically and see the U.S. as the land of opportunities, as we always bragged to be. They are in desperate circumstances where there is a high level of unemployment so they sneak into the U.S. where the labor demand is. About the legal status of the immigrants. There are lottery systems or high costs to legally enter the U.S. What motivations would they have to enter the country illegally if there are easy legal methods to enter the country. It eliminates the fear and instability of being an illegal immigrant with the potential of a "crack down". There is an obvious gap between the supply of visas and demand for visas. This results in the motivation for illegal immigration. That is why the "feel the need to sneak into the country." What is the huge crime of illegal immigration? I do not understand. In the above answers to your questions I have not mentioned the people (often criminals) with ill intent. I think those types of people are a very small minority and the "crack down" would probably have a minor impact on the criminals crossing the border. I will say those who commit crimes (other then entering the country illegally) should be punished accordingly in a fair manner. You say "Sneaking into the country. Such a strong term for a strong crime." Could you please explain this? How is it a strong crime? What is the ill intent and damage of illegal immigration? I'll try not to go into the personal attacks category with this statement. I can't tell that you read my previous response at all and I wish you would respond to it. I believe I have argued your list of negatives so could you please add some more or retort to my arguments or else this is not much of a debate?
America needs to crack down on illegal immigration.

Here are the negatives of illegal immigration. I would like my opponent to say the positives. -Costs taxpayers millions in healthcare each year. When an injured illegal immigrant comes in and receives medical care, it is on the taxpayer dollars. -Costs California an increased tax to have translators for hospitals because of the large amount of spanish-only speaking people who called. -Takes jobs away from hardworking americans. I'll name more in my next arguement.