BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Houston Astros benefit their fans by not allowing outside food/drink in their ballpark.

With many thanks to my opponent for his considered response, I should like to address his contentions as follows: Contention 1- Avoids Price Gouging Say you and your partner go to a cabaret show such as the Moulin Rouge in Paris and you are seated at a table near the stage. Whilst you are savouring your foie gras with candied figs and sipping your Dom Pï¿½rignon champagne you notice the couple on the adjacent table have brought with them a bargain bucket of chicken and a bottle of Pepsi from KFC which they proceed to devour without the inconvenience of cutlery, crockery or glassware. What would you expect the management to do? Chuck them out, obviously! They may have paid for their tickets to see the show but that doesn't entitle them to scoff their own grub while the other guests have paid handsomely to dine on the haute cuisine provided by the establishment. The same principle applies to many sporting events, the organisers supplement their income from the money received from food outlets and that helps them keep the ticket prices down. Contention 2- Allow Bottled Water MLB games don't usually last longer than 3 hours and a human can survive 3 days without water. No problem there as far as I can see. Contention 3- Everyone Else is Doing It may be the case that other ballparks allow fans to bring their own food in but, in many cases, their ticket prices are higher. That's to make up for the lost income from food concessions. If you don't mind not eating or drinking for a couple of hours or so, two adults and two kids can watch the game from the outfield deck for a total of only $16.00. (1) So, ballparks that charge more for their tickets effectively dictate that fans that can manage to go a few hours without burying their snouts in the trough are subsidising those fans that feel they cannot enjoy themselves unless they are continually shovelling food down their necks. Contention 4- The Economy $7 for a beer does seem a bit steep and, I agree, many people will find it difficult to justify this expenditure given the current economic climate. The trick, though, is to swing by Macky D's first, pig out on Big Mac's and fries, then go to the pub and down half a dozen pints of the old lunatic broth. Then you won't feel hungry and will be satisfied with only three or four beers from the bar in the ballpark, thus making a huge saving In conclusion, the Houston Astro's are benefiting their fans by keeping ticket prices low, which is only made possible by not allowing people to bring food into the ballpark from outside. Thank you. (1) http://houston.astros.mlb.com...
Resolved: Pens are Better than Pencils

Hello, This is my Government (Pro/For) Constructive in which I will present my main arguments. Definitions: Pen: "Aninstrumentforwritingordrawingwithinkorsimilarfluid" -http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [1]Pencil: "aslendertubeofwood,metal,plastic,etc.,containingacoreorstripofgraphite,asolidcoloringmaterial" -http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]Better:"Greaterinexcellenceorhigherinquality" -http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3]Resolutional Analysis:In a resolutional analysis, a debater explains the resolution in a way that makes it easier for the judges/voters to understand. I would like the judges/voters to understand that this debate in not necessarily about what is, but what should be. That does not mean we cannot bring up applications and evidence from "now", but I want you to keep that in mind, judges/voters. Value:In a debate round, a value is used to measure the resolution so we can understand it better. In other words, it makes it so a debater can show the judges why their side of the resolution is better.My value for this round is utility. Utility is defined as "thecapacityofacommodityora servicetosatisfysomehumanwant." -http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] Utility is the highest value in this round for three reasons, the more you can utilize something, the more efficient you are; the more you can utilize something, the more you can use it in different ways; and the more utility something has the more satisfaction or completion can be provide. I will be expanding in my contentions one and two Note: A contention is congruent to and argument, or why, in this case, pens are better than pencils. Contention I: Pens Have More Applications Than PencilsPens have more applications than pens because they are used in many different situations. Pencils are only good for writing notes, pens, however, can be used in economics, because you need permanent confirmation of transactions and in home situations, the ink will not rub off or wash out easily. Pens can also serve as styluses for electronic devices. There are pens that serve as self-defense weapons, reading lights, and bookmarks that will not fall out. As we can see, pens have many more uses than pencils, just one reason why pens are have more utility than pencils. Contention II: Pens Provide More Comfort Than PencilsPens can be shaped in ways more ergonomically conformative to the hand. Pencils, since made of wood, cannot be, unless you expend great time, effort, and funds. This makes pens less likely to cramp ones hand, making usage more efficient. Pens also make less sound when writing, making less noise and making people able to focus more, utilizing time better. As a bonus, you can chew on pens a lot more without ruining them, with pencils, however, one bite and your shaft might break. Conclusion:As we can see, pens are much better than pencils. Pens provide more comfort and have more applications than pencils. Pens should clearly win this debate round.
Resolved: Pens are Better than Pencils

Hello,Today we will be debating the timeless arguments that I am sure many a teacher have argued before. As the Government (Pro/For) I am for the resolution; I must uphold what it says. Whoever accepts this debate must negate the resolution, in other words they must state the Pencils are Better than Pens. Before I go into the structure of the round I will propose some rules. I expect respect (Yes, I just rhymed in a debate round), no Ad Hominem attacks (If an opponent does commit Ad Hominem you can call them out on it ) and no Kritiks as usual. These rules ask little and if you, the debater, obey them, I will too. Round 1: Opening Statements, Acceptance Letters, Thanks, etc...Round 2: Opening Arguments, Present Cases, Opposition (Con/Against) can respond to Government's (Pro/For) arguments Round 3: Primary RebuttalsRound 4: Secondary Rebuttals (Tertiary for the Opposition if they choose to respond in Round 2), Closing Statements, etc...To the Voter: Any unsupported evidence (Meaning you do not include links or citations) can be disregarded and please vote for the debater who best upheld the argument not the person you immediately agree with.
gun control

they did massive control in australia in 1996. since then they have had no mass shootings, whereas before they had almost one per year. homicides are down like fifty percent. etc etc. studies without question prove that if you have a gun in your home, you and others are more likely to be hurt because of it. it's so incontrovertible that offiials always recommend getting rid of your gun if you want to be safer. if this is true, it makes sense that limiting who has a gun, or the easiness of getting a gun, will reduce violence and mishaps. japan has massive controls and relatively has almost no gun murders, very small. 40% of sales do not have background checks. if we can have mere checks, lives will be saved. it's common sense that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they dont have a gun when theyd do their crime, a crime will be prevented. if there's any question that some control will result in some lives saved why not err on the side of caution? there's no question control would be helpful, and at least given a shot
Agnosticism, a better choice than atheism

Agnosticism is neither a religion nor a race. Atheists simply put their trust in science? Here is an example: the downgrading of Pluto as a mere member of the Kuiper belt faced opposition and a new term dwarf planet was invented. Those who couldn’t embrace a simple change of planet downgrading are those to be trusted – for you to put your trust on science. It is those scientists who drive the science! Agnostics, in such contexts, can look beyond inventing new terms. An Atheist trusting science is just analogous to a theist trusting in God. Only, the sources that are trusted, change!
Agnosticism, a better choice than atheism

Because Agnosticism has that one basic belief and never mentions anything related to its beliefs on anything else, not all Atheists are like you described however, Agnosticism is flexible yes, because they engineered their beliefs so that they cannot be wrong on anything so they can prove that they are the superior religion and therefore race or group on the planet, Atheists simply place their trust in Science and evidence unlike Theists and stories and claims.
Agnosticism, a better choice than atheism

You are kind of coming close to the core of the issue. In your own words: "Atheism is based on a common belief..." but Theism is also based on some kinds of "beliefs". Atheism is no more, but to criticize some "some beliefs" based on "some other beliefs". Taking stances is only bigoted. Theists, long long ago, took a stance against all the issues you've mentioned and still stick to it, which is where the problem originates. Atheists' beliefs, as of today are contemporary, but, no signs of flexibility is seen in their attitudes. Flexibility is showing to show no actual beliefs and evolve the beliefs with time. As your argument said, "Agnosticism has no actual belief...", and hence that ideology is what offers the most flexible mindset. From your last sentence "Agnosticism is no better than Atheism", I sense that you are a theist, is it so?
Agnosticism, a better choice than atheism

Agnosticism has no actual belief besides the fact that there are things beyond human comprehension but they are not necessarily a deity. That is the whole point of Agnosticism and besides this has no core beliefs or stances on issues in the global world. Atheism is based on a common belief that God does not exist and has taken stances on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, since they apply their beliefs and have a more organized view on things unlike Agnosticism which has one belief and does not apply it to any current happenings. Because of this fact Agnosticism is no better than Atheism.
Agnosticism, a better choice than atheism

Having beat me in one round, do take a time and read that I've actually posted!I've never said may or may not be God; instead "things beyond human perception exist; but they need not necessarily be attributed to some supreme being or some supernatural power".Neither theists have credible evidence to prove that a God exists nor can atheists answer everything.“Either God is Man’s greatest mistake, or Man is God’s greatest mistake”
Agnosticism, a better choice than atheism

I only need one round to beat you. Your beliefs on Atheism are a stereostype many of my personal friends are ateist and are very respectful of theists. You have no proof to your arguement what so ever. Just because Agnostics say there may or may not be a God does not make them better than Atheists more likely they want to be correct if God is my ver proven to exist or nt to exist.
Agnosticism, a better choice than atheism

History is laden with examples of reformers, whose missions originally intend to shed all the religious (or any other differences) and promote unity & harmony. However, the countdown begins when the supporters of the erstwhile reformer classify themselves as a unique cult and start claiming to be a superior race; also to resort to coax more and more people into their herds. To Look at the doctrine of atheism in the aforesaid context: atheists out rightly denounce all the beliefs & reject theists’ opinions. Often, some even resort to villainize theists in historical contexts. Just in an analogy to the right wing extremists who denounce non believers. Agnosticism is an acceptance that things beyond human perception exist; but they need not necessarily be attributed to some supreme being or some supernatural power. It is only that in the status quo we are yet to have a theory of everything. Delving into thoughts of the theist doctrines may not do good, an open mind certainly does no bad! Blind beliefs often originate from reasonable practices, distorted over time; a retrospective might even help to avoid reinventing the wheel! Galileo, Darwin were once abused for their maverick ideas that challenged the mainstream ideology. Today, the prime agenda of atheists is theist bashing. Setting aside, the kind (or means) of abuse, I feel, if atheistic doctrine, when taken too seriously, might set the history to repeat, of course, the role of a theist is now to be subjected to harassment! Often, those hardships of theists in communist nations keep surfacing. If imposing belief is a form of extremism, imposing disbelief too is extremism! Hence I feel, agnosticism, where one doesn’t find it so important to decry others’ belief or disbelief is a more relevant doctrine. It is a choice where history isn’t interpreted in a contemporary sense to abuse the erstwhile practices and more importantly to realize the importance in looking forward over backward in the consequence of the progress of the mankind. To conclude "agnosticism is more meaningful" PS: A small example of atheist abuse to exemplify Atheist extremism in imposing disbelief: “Isn't an agnostic just an atheist without balls?” R13;Stephen Colbert
People who are obese by their own neglegence should not say how much they despise thin people.

I see someone who has been ridiculed their entire life. It is completely natural for them to have anger. Whether it helps them lose weight or not. Whether it hurts someone else or not. Letting their anger out is something they should do. Otherwise, it's just bottled up, and it only hurts them more. When you know it's a stupid opinion and thatit's foolish, then why bother getting offended or hurt by this? Why not just let this individual let his anger out?
People who are obese by their own neglegence should not say how much they despise thin people.

I'm not saying he didn't have a right to express his opinion. It is his natural right as it is everyone else's. But it still hurts people. He expressed it in a negative way that tears people down. In all technicality he had the right but in matters of self respect and morality he had no right to say it. When people say things like that it tears people down. It hurts them. If you want to talk morals then if a person has any sense of respect then they wouldn't have said that. He was stupid. Downright stupid. He sat there blubbering like a baby. He brought it upon himself. After saying that he cried. He knew he was wrong. His opinion was stupid. Sure he had a right to express it but it sure didn't help him lose any weight. It only served him in looking like a fool. A foolish opinion for a foolish man. Opinions are great, but if a person can't say them without making fun, or degrading another human being then they should just shut up. Because you only make yourself look stupid and you others not like you. Opinions can be expressed anytime but it doesn't make them right.
People who are obese by their own neglegence should not say how much they despise thin people.

I realize you didn't bring up eating disorders. I realize you didn't' bring up body image throughout the ages and what was considered beautiful. I was simply suggesting those to illustrate the plurality of possibilities that an obese individual could have in their resentment. You can't just point the finger to envy and count it off that way. Ad the thing is you agreed with me. You said that a person has a right to express their opinion. In that line of thinking, I see nothing wrong with the gentleman you spoke of who talked about wanting skinny people to go to hell. It's his opinion. It doesn't matter whether or not I agree. it doesn't matter what emotions it actually evokes in me, whether it be anger, pity, or indifferences. It's his opinion. He has the right to express it. Therefore, you must negate this resolution.
People who are obese by their own neglegence should not say how much they despise thin people.

Obese inviduals who are obese by their own laziness and negligence really have no business complaining about thin people who are fit and in shape. Please do not misunderstand. I understand that some heavy people can maintain a healthy weight and some cannot even help it. But is it really fair to beat down on normal sized people? You should not blame the person you envy because they are healthy and fit. It is not their fault. It is simply a feeble mind trying to express the fact that you let your mouth control most of the things you do rather than using sufficent sense and reasoning. If someone is overweight, and has done it by themselves, hates that it happened, and beats down on other people saying they hate them and wish they'd die? What is that? If you really want to do something about it stop whining and blaming other people and take responsibilty. It is a simple as picking up a twinkie
Foreign aid

Another reason why foreign aid is a waste of time. Foreign aid has a long track record. The biggest upside appears to be the injection of large sums of money into developing countries otherwise gripped by poverty, war and conflict. For better or worse, that money should, in theory, improve lives and raise people out of poverty, leading to sustainable growth and development. The unfortunate truth, however, is that foreign aid has often presented more challenges than opportunities to aid recipients. In the sixty-plus years aid has been mandated by government " versus relying solely on private donations " we"ve seen small improvements across the globe, from reducing poverty to slowing population growth to curing and preventing diseases. Progress that otherwise would have been absent without an outpouring of foreign support. So we can see we are putting toward those that need help, but when we need help they don't have the structure or support to help us back.
Vdeo gaming a day is good for you

I have provided adequate resource to counter that eye strain is not a major concern in those who play video games, watch tv and etc in a responsible way. Con's argument has not established solid links that video games represent a cause and effect relationship with violence behavior or that damage to the eyes is a direct result of gaming. But rather that poor conditions while playing video games may result in damage, this is not sufficient to establish the basic premise that the act of playing video games is unhealthy. In contrast I have provided resources establishing benefits of gaming both mentally in all ages and physically in the elderly and disabled who benefit amazingly from playing games on platforms such as the Wii. It is there for Pro's conclusion that there is a benefit to be gained from the daily consumption of video games. Though I have not touched on it during this debate, additional resources are available regarding educational games and their benefits.
Vdeo gaming a day is good for you

REBUTTALThe original contention of Con was that Playing video games " Every day" was bad for you. In an earlier round I established that this is not the case, peer reviewed studies show it serves to increase stimulation in the brain. Con made a point about bad posture and drew an abstraction, Because many gamers have poor posture Con summarized that games cause bad posture. This is a logical fallacy, Correlation does not equal causation. Bad posture is bad for you regardless of what your doing-while you do it with bad posture. I did not make an assumption between video gaming and bad posture. The link is here: http://www.healthcentral.com.... And, if playing video games itself is bad enough, playing it EVERY DAY is certainly worse.Next he countered again about video games causing violent tendencies but the article he posted only glossed over it and than stated matter of factually. It is true, Certain types of violence in games can promote violence in the real world but this does not extent to all games or all types of violence in video games, not all or even most video games are considered violent.In short, Cons argument at best proves that video games can be abused and over done but so can hamburgers... There are proven benefits that video games can benefit a person who plays games daily.Even if violent video gaming does not correlate to real violence COMPLETELY, there is still a risk, and that risk increases exponentially as days go by. So, video gaming every day is certainly NOT good for you.CONCLUSION In conclusion video gaming every day is not good because of the eye strain it provides. Since video games hook people in, the effects are multiplied. Video games also sometimes causes real violence and muscle stiffness which is very interfering with life. Overall, video gaming is certainly NOT good for you.I would like to thank my opponent for her time and arguments.Thank you.
Vdeo gaming a day is good for you

I will be making this brief as I am really not feeling well. The original contention of Con was that Playing video games " Every day" was bad for you. In an earlier round I established that this is not the case, peer reviewed studies show it serves to increase stimulation in the brain. Con made a point about bad posture and drew an abstraction, Because many gamers have poor posture Con summarized that games cause bad posture. This is a logical fallacy, Correlation does not equal causation. Bad posture is bad for you regardless of what your doing-while you do it with bad posture. Next he countered again about video games causing violent tendencies but the article he posted only glossed over it and than stated matter of factually. It is true, Certain types of violence in games can promote violence in the real world but this does not extent to all games or all types of violence in video games, not all or even most video games are considered violent.In short, Cons argument at best proves that video games can be abused and over done but so can hamburgers... There is proven benefits that video games can benefit a person who plays games daily.
Vdeo gaming a day is good for you

REBUTTAL(1) Do you have any sources, resources that you would like to use to support this claim?Here is an article on the topic:http://gamerant.com......Here is an article on eyestrain. http://www.pasadenaeye.com...-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The example you used of a chess gamer being killed over a chess move falls under the fallacy of appealing to extremes.http://www.logicallyfallacious.com.......Yes, that is an extreme but many, many more smaller case incidents happen. Many people gain temporary anger and sadness over a lost game. That is quite normal, and is people's natural response. Using an extreme and isolated incident to reflect a larger issue. I don't know about you but I don't see 7 o'clock editions of the news appealing to stop the chess violence. Same thing goes for video games as a whole, despite years of study there remains only a weak case to prove causation relationship between even violent video games and violence as a whole.http://katiecouric.com...There is some link between video game violence and real violence. Thus violent video gaming causes real violence.ARGUMENTExcessive playing of video games causes muscle stiffness especially in the shoulders. "Both muscle spasms and stiffness can be painful, though they are not always. You might feel the dull ache of stiff muscles, or a sharper pain if they spasm. Muscle problems can also interfere with good posture, causing back pain, for example." Muscle pain also causes many other interferences in life, such as inability to even stand or sit. http://www.mssociety.org.uk...http://www.healthcentral.com...