BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marching Band Should Be Considered a Sport

Hello there! I would like to thank you for accepting my challenge, despite the rudeness and lack of decency. I will now commence with my counterargument, and I hope that we can have a nice, civil debate. I would like to point out the redundancy in your first argument. I, personally, do not get picked on a lot, and I would like to consider myself a pretty cool person. In my area, people respect the marching arts, and marching band has become a social norm that everybody is excited to see (especially after watching a half of game of a ball being thrown around a football field.) Either way, this has nothing to do with the topic of marching band being a sport, and I hope that our adjudicators notice this. Also, time and date has nothing to do with the merits of what goes on for marching band. In fact, it is a completely different activity compared to modern time and the 20th century. An example of this can be field style marching band. Drum Corps International was founded in 1972, which is a league consisting of drums and brass instruments that put together shows on a football field. Everybody thought this was crazy, until they actually brought themselves out to SEE the shows. Up until this day, the fan count is enough to fill half of Lucas Oil Stadium and is a great thing to put on a college or job application that has to do with the marching arts. This type of marching was soon to be a popular thing when it came to high school marching band, and hundreds of people still do it today. There are competitions and athletic buildup that come with this, which will be brought up later in this argument. I would like to point out the redundancy in your 3rd claim, that there is "This thing called a speaker [that] allows us to play music and it makes it really loud." The first speaker ever invented was invented in 1898 by Oliver Lodge. Usually the speaker is used to play any sort of genre of music that you would like, and it would be more interesting to actually watch a live person perform at an event than an electronic device play it. Also, it has nothing to do with the original issue, "Marching band should be considered a sport." I will ignore your 4th argument, as it is also redundant. It is your personal preference and I don't think that anybody who reads this debate will care what you think about marching band. Your 5th argument was that you don't think the parents would like to hear their kid "crappy boring music." I can provide counter evidence otherwise , but I think it should go without saying. Here are some pretty cool videos of those marching bands that you think play "boring crappy music-" https://youtu.be... And a gropro shot to show their athleticism https://youtu.be... or this one- https://youtu.be... I would like you to watch them and mention them in your next argument. I will provide more efficient evidence of the athleticism of the marchers when you are able to make a acceptable argument of why marching band isn't a sport- not bashing it and expressing your personal views.
Marching Band Should Be Considered a Sport

I can tell that your a nerd and probaly get picked on a lot. Congrats on that. Marching band is stupid and is that even a thing anymore. This is 2017 not 1980. Today we don't need marching bands. We have this amazing thing called a speaker. This thing called a speaker allows us to play music and it makes it really loud. Its quite amazing. Marching band is stupid. Its pretty much a thing for all the losers who either don't know anything about sports or arn't good enough to play sports. I don't think any parent wants to sit and hear their kid play crappy boring music. They want to see their kid on that court or on that field. I swear to god is Marching band is ever Considered a sport, I will leave this country and never come back. So no. Marching Band should never be Considered a sport.
Marching Band Should Be Considered a Sport

My argument is that marching band should, in fact, be considered a sport. Also I believe that it should receive the same funding and opportunities as any other athletic group. Field show marching band is usually a 3 month long process that requires intense training in order to learn a show. During this training, marchers have to be in the hot sun all day, holding up large brass tubes with moving their feet at a consistently fast tempo. Marchers also have to go through conditioning and yoga exercises that requires a lot of physical activity. Not only that, but marching band is also a competitive group that goes up against other groups alike, once a week, in order to learn their overall ranking compared to other schools. For these reasons, I believe that marching band should be considered a sport.
Buy Adderall Online in USA

Before people know how to buy Adderall to treat ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) and Narcolepsy (feeling sleepy when surrounded by a relaxing environment), They have a question in mind, How to buy Adderall, Accompanied by the question of whether it is illegal to buy the drug without prescription? The answer to the question is short and simple"when it comes to teens, Adults and college-going students are taking the drug, Especially before they give an exam that most of them cram a night before. This also causes them to experience a lot of stress and tension and that's why they decide to buy Adderall online, As it's the easiest way to get the drug and take it as much as possible. more info : https://bit. Ly/2XfSDqT
The Athene's Unholy Grail is inferior to the Morellonomicon in all circumstances.

I have no idea what my adversary argued. He just literally dropped everyone of my arguments. He has to show that the morell is better than athenes in every possible situation. = Why I win = I have shown that the base MR is a great way to sustain longer in lane, early one. That being able to have the magic resist, allows you take more hits along with being able to farm for longer periods of time I have shown that the mana regren it offers helps sustain in lane as well. Doing the same as the above. Athenes is a defensive item for passive play. When you are wanting to farm cs, sustain in lane, and get as many creeps as you can without backing. It is the best first item buy you can get on a AP carry. My adversary dropped every single point, while I refuted every one of his. = Just a note = Pro players that like athenes http://www.probuilds.net... - Xiaoweixiao http://www.probuilds.net... - Theoddone http://www.probuilds.net... - Maple street and thats just a few.
The Athene's Unholy Grail is inferior to the Morellonomicon in all circumstances.

Round 2:All my opponent has done is vaguely state that high elo players would disagree with me. He has not used any sources other than my own sources to substantiate his dodgy claims, thus he has not proved anything. He has not quoted any high elo players saying that they disagree with me. My opponent is unable to win this debate using simple, vague statements, with no proof that they're correct.
The Athene's Unholy Grail is inferior to the Morellonomicon in all circumstances.

Note : The resolution The athenes unholy grail is inferior to the morellonomicon in all circumstances. This is not a debate about which is better on average, this is not a debate about which is more plausible. This is a debate revolving around the fact that my adversary has made an Affirmative claim that the Morell is always superior to Athenes in every plausible scenario.Let's first take a look at both itemshttp://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...1) Fundamental misunderstandingWhat my adversary fails to realize is the utility Athenes offers as a first item buy. Speaking from the perspective of an ex mid laner, I can almost assure that anyone in high elo would disagree with his statement for a majority of reasons. 1) Offensive and defensive side of the coinMorellonomicon itself is actually the counter part to athenes in a way. Athenes has way more utility and defense while the morell offers grievous wounds and a slight bit more hp. Sometimes having the extra MR is a major utility in lane, along with the mana regen. Athenes is often used for mana hungry champions where you can spam out spells and get mana back quickly, along with having extra MR to take hits more often. DFG use to be a huge item or ahri and LB but athenes is so OP in the competitive scene that people opted out of DFG to get the utility of the grail.2) First itemsMorell also gives you gold first items, as the build path while athenes gives you defense and mana regen. This allows you to stay in lane longer without backing, along with having extra spells to farm with and optimize your lane presence. =conclussion=It does not take much to refute this point, but there are scenarios in mid lane where athenes is a way better item choice than morell, espc as a first item. It allows you to take more damage from magic based champion due to the High magic resist, along with have more magic regen so you can spit out more spells. It is a defense vs offensive item, and my adversary cannot make the claim that an offensive item is always the best way to go because it's not. Almost anyone in a high elo would attest to the fact, that having the extra MR and magic regen is way more impactfull in lane phase because you can stay in lane longer without having to back, along with spamming out more spells that give you extra damage on adversaries and picking up easy farm with the spells from the regen as well. Over all the defensive side is generally preferable.What my adversary will not prove , is that morell is better in every scenario. It is an impossible stance.
The Athene's Unholy Grail is inferior to the Morellonomicon in all circumstances.

Round 1:Gold efficiency:The Morellonomicon costs a total of 2100 gold and offers these stats:+80 Ability Power+100% base mana regeneration+20% cooldown reductionThis gives it a gold efficiency of 147.2%[1]Whereas the Athene's Unholy Grail costs 2700 gold and offers these stats:+60 ability power+50% mana regeneration+20% cooldown reduction+20 magic resistThis makes it 103.6% gold efficient.[2]Thus, it is objectively more efficient to buy Morellonomicons, which are, in fact, so efficient that it is possible to stack them whilst still being efficient. Thus giving 160 Ability Power, 200% base mana regeneration and 40% cooldown reduction in an incredibly gold efficient way. Whereas the Athene's Unholy Grail gives less AP and less mana regeneration and the same amount of cooldown reduction for a much higher cost. The fact that it gives +20 magic resist is irrelevant as 20 magic resist is, on its own, fairly inneffectual and there are much better items to be buying if you really feel the need to get magic resist. An example would be the Abyssal Scepter, which gives 50 magic resist and 70 Ability Power, whilst being 300 gold cheaper than the Athene's Unholy Grail.Contextual usefulnessThere are two roles which would generally buy the Morellonomicon or the Athene's Unholy Grail. These are:APC (Ability Power Carry)&Support (Such as Zilean or another mana hungry supporting champion)If you were an APC, you would generally wish to maximise your AP and your magic regeneration. Whilst Magic resistance is a good stat if you are against another APC in lane, the +20 ability power added to the +50% mana regeneration, as well as the lower cost, compared to the Athene's Unholy Grail, would make the Morellonomicon objectively more useful and efficient to buy early in the game. Later in the game, the Morellonomicon would simply outscale the Athene's Unholy Grail as the +20 magic resist offered by the Athene's becomes more and more irrelevant.As an Ability Power support, you generally want incredibly efficient items. As we saw earlier, the Morellonomicon is a lot more efficient than the Athene's Unholy Grail and gives more AP and early mana regeneration. This makes the Morellonomicon a much better pick for an AP support than the Athene's.Sources:[1]http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...[2]http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...
Multicultarism is a burden on a nation

I apologize. I had made the assumption that you lived in America as that seems to be a big issue because of our president. Alright. England. Got it. I now better understand where you are coming from. If you could give me sources to prove your point that would be great (I'm not doubting you but it would simply be nice to confirm it). Many people immigrate to a place because their country has push factors and the country they're going to has pull factors (which are usually things that their home country lacks). They are escaping a horrible life to get a better one. I'm not very educated about England and it's laws. I don't study culture, but I do study history. Does England have anything similar to the First Amendment which protects speech, petition, assembly, religion, and the press (sorry for my parallelism here; I don't know how to better word it)? I can easily understand your view and can somewhat agree with it. What I would think is more important is people's safety and their lives, rather than changing a country's culture. I'm not really one to speak, though, because I had already said it; there's no solid American culture because it's one big collection. England and its culture will still remain, but others will inevitably join unless the country has a no-immigrant policy (but people will still come because they're desperate). My only suggestion would be to have stricter immigration laws if you want the culture to be a minority. But, those are just ideas coming from a child's mouth and presented to someone who (I can assume) doesn't have a lot of power over what is happening. Would you rather protect others despite your culture being a minority, or leave others to suffer while you live the way you are used to?
Multicultarism is a burden on a nation

I do need to comment, I am not an American. I am talking in the context of European countries. I am a fan of diversity. However, when another culture is becoming the majority of another country, that is where I draw the line. Now, you can put this in context of tourism and travel. If I want to have an experience of Chinese culture, I would move to China, and if I wanted to experience the Saudi Arabian culture, I would go to Saudi Arabia. Now, to make this easier, I am going to put this in context of the United Kingdom. Based on the recent population census, foreigners, primarily Muslims, now are a majority in Britain compared with the English, which is now a minority. I have a problem with that. People want to go to a country to experience British culture, the Monarchy, strong accents, and other common stereotypes. But, when tourists arrive they encounter other cultures being greater than that of the founders of that country. Britain has their culture. America is different in the sense of population and colonization, that is why I do not regard them in this debate. I, again, am a fan of diversity. But when another culture is greater than the heritage which formed that country with blood, sweat and tears, you need to reconsider the future of that country.
Multicultarism is a burden on a nation

There's the American stereotype, of course, but there's no solid American culture. It's a multi-cultural country where the Salad Bowl theory is the more popular ideology (as it should be). Because America has a plethora of a variety of different races and cultures, the Melting Pot theory is not as popular. What culture is taking over? Though a culture may spread more and seem inviting to people, there will be no practices that will eradicate all others that are not the same. Diversity is something to be enjoyed, not something to be regarded with contempt.
I think therefore I exist

I had a dream one night that showed, in detail, a creature who had wings and a beak and a beautiful swoop, and in my dream I was able to understand what it was thinking when the reality was I was controlling what 'it' was thinking. The dream developed into a story where the creature contemplated the beauty of life and what he should do next before an event when he went to a church and flew into the sanctuary, swooping above the congregation and declaring some things that he had been thinking about before the event. Some of my dreams are detailed enough to make me wonder how on earth I thought up all those characters, while others aren't as complex yet there are characters involved that I created during my sleep. It's a mind-boggling subject, dreams are. All this to say, it is possible that you or me or all of us are just characters involved in Someone's dream. Was the creature (in my dream) real--was he in existence? No, but I made it so he was able to think and act and be. The same applies to that of a video game. The characters in a game "think" they "exist" but they obviously do not. We could be characters in a video game and we think yet do not exist. Pro says "The people that I imagine don't actually think, I merely think of what they would think, they never actually have an output, I merely think of what that output would be, so any thoughts they have are really my, and the thing that actual thinks exist." This is based on matter of opinion but this is what I have been explaining all along: someone else is thinking, and we are merely their thoughts therefore we do not actually exist. Here's the thing: you would agree with me that we don't know everything? So is the idea of us being part of virtual reality and non-existing is possible? I cannot prove to you that you are non-existing but you cannot prove to me that you ARE existing, thus we are debating whether the statement "I think, therefore I am," is possible, correct? Because we don't know the possibilities of virtual reality, we must admit that it is possible that there could very well be such a thing as a universe of must more intelligent people/characters looking down at us. Characters can do things such as think for themselves and do things yet are only on a screen...characters in virtual reality do not exist! We cannot be certain we have a body that exists because we could be simulations only "thinking" we are experiencing the things we do. http://www.crystalinks.com... We are not definitely sure about anything about existence.
I think therefore I exist

It seems that one of cons arguments is that I am a part of my someones imagination. If that was the case, then this being that I am the imagination of would have to be think as if it was me, for me to think. Now if this being is thinking as if it was me, then my thought is in reality its thought. And if my thought is really its thought, then the claim "I think, therefore I exist" is still correct. Except I am not the one who is thinking, the one thinking is the being that I am the imagination of. So in the end "I think, therefore I exist" is correct and I exist. Except "I", is not the person I think I am, I am a being that is imagining itself as person in my situation and is imagining all of the known universe, while this imagination of me doesn't exist, the being that is doing the actual thinking does exist. Just as a side argument of me being something's imagination. The people that I imagine don't actually think, I merely think of what they would think, they never actually have an output, I merely think of what that output would be, so any thoughts they have are really my, and the thing that actual thinks exist. Now with your comment of me being a robot or a computer simulation. He is the reason I am not. Robots don't think, they merely give an output when given an input. Thinking or conscience isn't an output, it is process that occurs in the self and can only be witness in the self. If I was a simulation then all I will do is give an output, I personally wouldn't feel thought or have a conscience, I merely would give answers as if I did. Me having the feeling of thinking is only something I would notice, thus I can't be a simulation or a robot because they have no point to notice they are thinking, they merely need to give the output equivalent to it. Because of this difference between simulations and a being can be only noticed by the being, it is by that nature impossible to prove to someone your not a simulation or a robot. Of course this is not an issue for me in this debate, is because it is not my job to prove I exist to someone, but that I can prove to myself that I exist. Now it seems that there is a discrepancy. You and me are both agreeing that I cannot be sure of anything I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. So as everything I learned and understand could very well be false. This is something I don't disagree with you on. But I am for the purpose of this debate, not trying to prove that I am in reality, I am trying to prove that at least myself exist. Which even if I am not a human and do not have a brain, I can be certain I have a mind and I exist.
I think therefore I exist

I accept. Thank you, Pro, for adapting the gist of the debate for me! Sorry for the hassle. After laying out my contentions I will explain each one slowly so to present my case. 1st Contention: If Pro types to me "I think therefore I am" he cannot prove that this is true. 2nd Contention: "I think, therefore I am" is only applied to the individual and does not prove anything about your existence to anyone eles. 3rd Contention: When someone says they are thinking they do not know for sure what reality is and they do not know for sure that they are not being programmed to say "I think, therefore I am" by a computer. 4th Contention: Due to scientific experiments we have come up with the fact that the mind exists separate from the body. For this reason, thinking does not automatically imply that our bodies exist. 1.) Your typing that you're thinking up what you're writing does not prove anything, since you could simply be a machine or a simulation. Do our so-called 'thoughts' alter the physical world around us? Well, this video is a bit controversial, but take a look and tell me what you evaluate of it. This may shake up your belief system as it is very odd. 2.) If "you," Pro, say "I think, therefore I am," and you do not prove that you are thinking to me, than I have no reason to believe that you think and no reason to believe that "you" even exist. 3.) Do you know for a fact that you are not a robot and that your life isn't already planned out and being controlled by a higher deity? If you cannot prove that, then you cannot pin down what exactly "thinking" is and what thoughts mean to our "reality." 4.) Since science and technology is quite advanced we have decided that it is fact that our thoughts can be influenced by brain damage from accidents, drugs, and disease. Therefore, and since what we our thinking is not actually proven to be 'us' thinking, this can quite change the meaning of Rene Descartes' statement "I think, so I exist." We do not know for sure that we are not brain simulations and our whole "life" (it's not a life, it's just programs/simulations) is basically "virtual reality." Pro's job is to prove exactly what reality is. Thank you for R1!
Vaccines do not cause autism.

Although it is always tempting to dismiss arguments one cannot refute as irrelevant, my examples in this case are completely relevant, because they reveal where the burden of proof lies. These examples explain exactly how ridiculous it is to place the burden of proof on me to disprove the link between autism since as yet none has been observed, and so the link takes its due place among the invisible unicorns, teapots, and Flying Sphagetti Monsters of the universe. However, since Con is extremely insistent upon my providing more evidence than he does, here are several studies that found no observable correlation between vaccines and autism. . http://nejm.highwire.org... . http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... . http://books.google.com... There are three controlled, scientific studies that found no link. Since there is no evidence to support a link, and the only studies that ever did show a link were found to be flawed, it must be concluded that unless some proof positive of this connection can be established, it should be assumed that this link does not exist.