BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Four Square is the best playground pastime

Ah, yes, the school playground. An ongoing display of asphalt and gravel that seems to stretch for miles and miles. Blissful schoolchildren running every which way, making the best of their break from the torture chamber that is the classroom. The pucker-faced recess monitors in orange vests that blow whistles and chastise troublemakers. These are just a few of the sights one can see when at the school playground. Let's take a look at some of the activities one can participate in at the playground: There's jump rope. Mainly dominated by girls in pigtails, rhyming childish rhymes as they skip over the rope, this playground pastime doesn't offer a pleasure for the male companions. What do boys play then? An extreme playground pastime dominated by males is King of the hill, in which boys gather at the top of a hill, and attempt to brutally push each other off in order to achieve superiority. However, while this may cater to males, it doesnt strike interest in many girls. Unisex playground pastimes? Try the swings. An indvidual or two person activity, they are somewhat dull. Try the jungle gym. After a few flips and pullups on the twisted, mangled bars, one loses interest in this mainly individual activity. The slides? Once you've gone down one slide, you've gone down them all. So just what is that magical, unisex, group playground game that everyone can love and enjoy? Four square. Four square is a game that keeps you on your toes, your head in the game, and in a great mood. The game requires hand to eye coordination, agility, and strategy, raising the intellectual bar above many other playground pastimes. Even if you're not in one of the squares, standing in line, you're still in the game; whether it be cheering on your friends, helping debate a call to determine if someone is out or not, or even unexpectedly getting hit by the inflated, rubber ball. Played in rain or shine, on hard asphalt or on slick ice, in slush or in dry heat, four square is the ultimate playground pastime.
Should we have nuclear weapons

Thanks for replying again.The point I'm making is that if we wouldn't have nuclear weapons at all and I mean not U.S. only, I mean globally, there wouldn't be a threat of getting bombed.Let's try to take a look from the other perspective : U.S. has unfriendly policies against countries like North Korea, while having the bigest army in the world and one of the biggest reserves of nuclear weapons. If you were the leader of a country like North Korea, wouldn't you be afraid that the U.S. could decide one day to make it one country less in the world ? With so many nuclear weapons it wouldn't be hard for the U.S. That's why if we wouldn't have nukes at all, there would no longer be this circle of being afraid of an attack and getting more and more weapons, which in the end would lead to M.A.D. (Mutual assured destruction)
Should we have nuclear weapons

Here are my arguments why we should not have nuclear weapons at all :Nuclear winterStudies show that a global nuclear war, which would follow if you would start firing nukes as a counter-active measure, would cause a global catastrophic climate change. Not only the countries that are firing the missiles would suffer, but the whole planet would enter a period of low temperature and with almost no chance of actually seeing the sun.Reference : "The Atmosphere After a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon"An eye for an eye - the whole world is blindKilling other countries civilians will not bring our own back to life. Hasn't the past two WW thought us anything, if we continue to use this policy soon the whole planet will be just one big nuclear crater. We only have nuclear weapons for around 5 decades and already look at what immense damage they caused. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, how many innocent people died and these locations are still inhabitable, because of radioactivity. Mere civilians are not at fault for aggression, leaders of those countries are.No nuclear weapons - no threatYou have mentioned that we need nuclear weapons to be 'safe', but if we didn't have them at all then we wouldn't need them to use as counter-active measure. Also in past there were instances, when the system recorded fake nuclear alert and Russians where ready to 'fire-back', only by chance one man noticed the alert wasn't real and halted the upcoming nuclear war.Reference: "The Nuclear War that Almost Happened in 1983" (article)
Radioactive Levels should be reported as part of the weather forecast.

For clarification purposes. My statement of Radioactivity levels being reported as part of the Weather forecast have nothing to do with Radioactivity being a Weather patterns of the 4 seasons. What I'm Proposing is that as part of the weather forecast segment of the daily news and additional segment be implemented in which Radioactivity levels be reported for their respective geographical regions. We are exposed to Radioactivity year round. Get informed on this fact and take precautionary measures in this matter. Cancer is the second cause of death in the United States. Vote for me in this issue and I promise if I'm elected winner to be an avid advocate of Radioactivity awareness.
Radioactive Levels should be reported as part of the weather forecast.

First off, "You sir have a lot of explaining to do. What's Environmental and what's not Natural. Please clarify. " I didn't say that Radioactivity wasn't or isn't environmental, I only said that Cancer and Radioactivity has nothing to do with weather in general. Smoking a cigarette, Won't cause a thunderstorm to occur, Even when a nuclear bomb has dropped in the past, It would've only meant that it has affected the environment, Not affecting the way we report the weather. The way we report the weather is nothing political, Just sometimes unpredictable, Because there are ever-so-variable weather patterns.
why that guy to my left and right sucks

Yes, but what about the people behind you and the people in front of you. The people on the left of the person on the left also suck. So that makes a chain of events which means that everyone in every aisle kind of sucks. But you can work with someone else's suckishness. At the same time since everyone sucks.. nobody sucks. Also meaning you may also suck but not suck at the same time.
standardized testing should be eliminated

Positive Aspects of Standardized Testing 1) Standardized testing gives teachers direction to help them conclude what to teach students and when to teach it. The outcome is more efficient instructional time and a simplified way of timeline management. 2) Standardized testing tells parents and the school how well students are faring across the country and locally. This can also indicate how your local area is doing compared against the national landscape. You need standardized testing to see where the problems are. Without the level knowledge that it gives, certain problems won't be recognized and dealt with. 3) Since all students in a school are doing identical tests, standardized tests provide an accurate comparison across groups. Over the years great improvements have been made with regards to test bias, which has led to more accurate assessments and comparisons. 4) Standardized testing permits students' progress to be tracked over the years. When students take the same type of test yearly, which is adjusted for grade level, it is easy to see if a student is improving, degrading, or not changing. This assesses the teacher and the child. 5) It improves the accountability of students and schools and motivates students to learn the material. Knowledge is cumulative, so a student doing poor early can end up behind indefinitely. 6) It costs 50 cents to $5 to score an essay, compared with pennies for each multiple-choice question. According to the new York times. Standardized testing simply makes education more stable, level, cheap, adaptable, and allows for better assessment.
Resolved: The Woman's National Basketball Association should rescend their dress code.

The dress code should be abolished so that the WNBA can be able to more successfully market their 'product' by allowing their women to wear more comfortable and attractive clothing during their contests. Revenues, including TV contracts, marketing, and ticket sales would drastically increase with the new outlook of the WNBA. The league would become much like what Women's Beach Volleyball is in the Olympics: The Conerstone of Entertainment. In this tough economic climate, the WNBA needs a boost.
Resolved: The Woman's National Basketball Association should rescend their dress code.

Right there, the PRO declares that women are inferior; perhaps he can't judge them on merit, but you should. He doesn't address that women shouldn't be exploited for the sake of ratings and profit. He says "a ConVote will collapse the WNBA, and noone wants to see that. " He's asking you to rob women of their dignity for entertainment; I say better to end the WNBA than to exploit and demean the players.
Resolved: The Woman's National Basketball Association should rescend their dress code.

You are not looking at the facts. If the WNBA does not do something to improve its TV ratings + marketing appeal: It will fold. Changings its dress code is a viable solution because its has been imperically proven to work in other womens sports worldwide. The sad truth is we can't judge these women for their 'talent' alone; the female compotion in basketball just can't stack up to the mens and the actual NBA. You have to VotePro, a ConVote will collapse the WNBA, and noone wants to see that.
Resolved: The Woman's National Basketball Association should rescend their dress code.

Just because "Everybody's doing it!" doesn't mean the WNBA should; women should be judged in sports based on merit. I don't object to a beautiful woman, but women in sports shouldn't have to be forced to objectify themselves for the sake of ratings; because that is what we call exploitation. What you're suggesting is that the WNBA either make its players sexier, or hit the road. Bottom line: Giving into the pressure of a hypersexual culture is not success; it is degrading and shameful.
Resolved: The Woman's National Basketball Association should rescend their dress code.

Why shouldn't the players in the WNBA be on same 'level [as] other women in sports'? If women across sports are doing this to succeed, than what will happen to the WNBA if it does not conform? It will desolve, which is obviously bad. That mean over a thousand people will be without jobs, and there are no other sublemental womens leagues anywhere in the world. Furthermore, just to keep this debate interesting, can you name me one succesful women in sports how has not objectived herself?Just one.
Resolved: The Woman's National Basketball Association should rescend their dress code.

The WNBA is not a mainstream sport. Franchises keep folding and moving, attendance has dropped 20 percent since since its inception. The mere concept of the WNBA is inherently flawed, like someone opening an inferior sports bar right next to the best sports bar in town. Exception: Hooters. Look at any other women in sports that are famous: Anna Kournikova, Danica Patrick, Jennie Finch, Allison Stokke, or Brandi Chastain. In the words of Nickelback, "She didn't make it this far by just shakin han
Resolved: The Woman's National Basketball Association should rescend their dress code.

I don't think the WNBA is intended to objectify women; as far as I am aware, it is intended to be the Women's National Basketball Association. If you want to watch women in bikinis jumping around, then feel free to watch Women's Beach Volleyball; until then, I think that a lot of women are proud to be able to play in the WNBA, and I feel that they would more than object. If we abolish the dress code for more 'attractive' clothing, the WNBA will become more of a fashion show than a women's sport.
Patriotism is a virtue

It appears that, long or short, my opponent is unwilling or unable to address my argument. He merely dismisses it as not meeting the burden of proof. He has not addressed any of the points I made, instead focusing only on my rebuttals of his initial argument.I see no point in continuing the back-and-forth involving those rebuttals, since his failure to address my primary argument is tantamount to a concession.As a conclusion, I will restate and summarize my argument:1. Human beings naturally form groups and will naturally prefer the groups of which they are members to groups they are not.2. Group formation and preference is conveys a survival advantage. Human beings need the support of other humans beings. If we do not defend, maintance, and sacrifice for our groups, the groups will cease to exist. Without those groups, we will cease to exist.3. Patriotism is merely one expression of this behavior.4. Moral behaviors are those behaviors we should have.5. Since group formation such as patriotism is a behavior necessary for our survival, it is a behavior we should have, ergo it is morally praiseworthy.
Patriotism is a virtue

As Con, I will argue against the proposition that patriotism is a virtue. Pro must agree with the following definitions that will frame the debate:Patriotism (noun): "Love of and devotion to one's country." [1]Virtue (noun): "An example or kind of moral excellence." (emphasis added) [2]I want to emphasize that I intend for this to be a philosophical debate over the normative merits of patriotism. In other words, it will not be enough for Pro to defend patriotism as a necessary evil or a useful tool for promoting other goals; Pro must argue that patriotism itself is morally praiseworthy. As the vast majority of Americans simply take this for granted, I don't think the terms of this debate are too demanding for Pro to accept.Round 1 is for acceptance only. I look forward to debating an intelligent, patriotic opponent![1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Is life one big game of vanity

So because vain people happen to get far proves that life as a whole is a big game of vanity? Well. OBVIOUSLY those who succeed are in some way vain because that is what drove them to GET THERE and eventually have "excessive pride in or admiration of one’s own appearance or achievements. " although even then tie pride might be minimal, not excessive. Your subjective view of people's vanity is not relevant to this debate. In no way whatsoever had my opponent objectively (in even the slightest sense of the word) touched on how life is one big game of vanity he is basing it on pure subject opinion that, according to him, everyone is vain. Well it's firstly impossible for everyone to be vain since 'excessive pride' must relative to a NORM meaning that the vain can never be the majority let alone the total, this is self-contradictive. He failed to explain how the love of food, water, shelter, self-preservation, sadness, anger, calmness, religion/atheism, passion/logic apply to life being one big game of vanity. Life is a far more complex entity and certainly is not one big game of anything. It is a series of 'games' if it is a 'game' at all. Thanks.
Is life one big game of vanity

I think my opponent reasoning is valid yet without doubt the times are such the life is one big game of vanity. Its rat race to steal ideas. People copy bend to make their own mense. I certain feel cheated and kicked in the teeth by society as mal-educted idiots came to speak for me. Perhaps their pronouncing all the letter are have clever syntax structures either way they are fake not knowing what the hell their are talking about and lack respect of the people they give their assumed dribble too. Either by changing my syntax or ironies they claim to have created their are frauds and ideologies are inbred and homosexual in thinking. Sorry to batter this keyboard but this is a fact and waste of time debate the world is one big of vanity whereby we all lose and consent too accepting the most vainest lying personality a top dog.
Is life one big game of vanity

The only coherent argument was that of the MEinem. Eminem is skilled but to be friends with him does not match the definition of vanity being "excessive pride in or admiration of one’s own appearance or achievements." Also you failed to refute any other points. You did not at all prove that happiness, such as that felt after a near-death experience of having survived, that feelng as if a gift has been given to you that little smile of no vanity whatsoever that feling of just... existing just BEING just PROLONGING one's existence is what life is about. It is prevalent in even the most basic of creatures.
Is life one big game of vanity

IF you said Eminem was you friend i would think you being vain and saying to have a smile on your. In saying such a thing you saying I have a friend in someone who you are not, this make me more of a person, important and its attempt to make the friendship shared with people around them feel small. If this argument that someone saying Eminem is friend is diss proving the fact the life is one big game of vanity you are clearly mistaken. You mention food and drink is that no big game of vanity diets and fast-food. People in such a rush that their have to looking at themselves insulting the worker as their go about it? You have no shown that life is one big game of vanity theses happiest are happy with themselves, theses achieving are in fact and form alliances through vanities and vain living.
Is life one big game of vanity

Out of no disrespect to my opponent I think we must definitely define vanity and life for this topic (I'm not saying he doesn't know!)Vanity: excessive pride in or admiration of one’s own appearance or achievements. http://oxforddictionaries.com... Life: the period between the birth and death of a living thing, especially a human being. http://oxforddictionaries.com... There is FAR MORE to Life than Vanity. There is emotional seeking. While some seek confidence and ego boosting fro vanity, some people actually HATE it (hence people who love being dominated and abused in sex) where's the vanity in this? IF this is true why isn't everyone a nerd? Why are there people content with being a lazy slacker in many schools around the world? The answer is simple, there is a far richer experience in 'life' than 'vanity'. Vanity and pride are almost directly linked, vanity is a form of pride specific to one's OWN appearance of achievements. However pride itself can also apply to your friend's achievement and to say hey "I'm friends with them!" I mean... What if 'them' referred to Eminem? Wouldn't you be proud? This is pride of a different nature to vanity. Additionally pride is only one, minute aspect to life. There is love, of food and water to begin with, love of people, the arts, some love maths and science too. The best part? We all love it slightly differently! Some people love fat women, some skinny b*tches some medium curvy babes. There is sex, food, drink, happiness, love, hate, sadness, anger, calmness, religion/atheism, passion/logic, so much in life that is irrelevant to vanity so how can you term the whole thing one big game of it?What you are doing is like saying Board games are like one big game of Monopoly... Well that is somewhat true but there are thousands of other aspects to them you missed. Would you say that Chess and Yahtzee are the same or that they directly relate to a game of monopoly? I think not.
Is life one big game of vanity

Yes are things i desire to be are general vain and if its not what i consider vain someone else more that likely will or be more vain to be it better. To achieve anything you must have the right smile, teeth and designer look be the time you leave the house. Nobody can care to listen to learn enough to be talkative their think its righteous to be so. Its easy to have talk trashy dribble that something opinionated and in context.
A creator exists

I too believe a creators existence can not be proven. I believe the creator specifically designed it that way for a reason. As to the reason, it calls for speculation on my part and therefore I will not mention it. So true there is no priori proof of a creators existence yet something created the universe. I need to correct Con on a minor gramatical error which has mojor implications. "humans operated on the assumption that there was a cause for EVERYTHING. " is incorrect. Humans operate under the assumption that there IS a cause for everything, is more accurate. And rightly so. Water evaporates into the atmosphere where it condenses, forming raindrops, which fall to earth. , resulting in creeks/streams/rivers. Each of the occurrences mentioned does in fact have a cause. I'm not going to explain or copy and paste how each of these events occur as its just time wasting. The point is that EVERYTHING does have a cause. And true, humanity has attributed these occurances to supernatural beings and still do. Nobody can prove that a supernatural being is not behind evaporation. Why does water turn to a gas when heated? Nature? Who or what is nature but a specific set of rules that everything obeys. Well who created those rules? Everything has a cause remember. Did water just decide it will turn to a gas at 100 degrees celcius? Did all the rules governing everything in existance just decide for itself? Or is there justification in assuming that a scentient being is behind it? The universe exists where there was nothing before. There must be a cause. Why not a Creator? To be honest, I see no alternative.
A creator exists

I will begin with a brief opening, with background: Humans are creatures of curiosity and, throughout their written history, have searched for answers to events, phenomena, and physical observations that incite the curiosity of the species. To our knowledge (that we are able to establish, with relative certainty), humans are the only species capable of passing the sum total of the accumulated knowledge from one generation to the next. This allows each successive generation to increase the available knowledge or, perhaps more accurately, decrease the vast chasm of ignorance that once existed. In the early stages of development, humans operated on the assumption that there was a cause for EVERYTHING, though this was not explicitly stated. As mysteries such as lightning, volcanoes, tornadoes, running water (rivers/streams/creeks), fog, ect. were encountered, explanations were sought by the curious and adventurous. While it is pure speculation as to the motivation of early "witch doctors" and tribal "wise men," supernatural entities seem to have arisen to explain things for which no discernible cause was readily discernible. Over time, more of our physical universe became explainable, as physical and natural phenomena. As the mysteries began to fade, so did the number or supernatural entities. Unfortunately, we are left with a handful that are so historically rooted in human superstition that the very existence seems to be the one presumption of which far too many humans cannot let go. My contentions are as follow: 1) The fact that something has not yet been explained naturally does not automatically point to anything supernatural. 2) Absence of evidence is, indeed, evidence of absence. 3) Interpretation of data MUST fit all logical possibilities, without fail, or it is the interpretation that fails. 4) All "holy" or "sacred" texts that have ever been written "explaining" or ASSERTING any deity have been factually discredited to the point that they cannot be taken seriously, even as "allegory." I am not an atheist, and I do not contend that a deity absolutely does not and cannot exist. However, until such time as such a deity is presented that is at least (at the VERY least) feasible, provable/disprovable, borne of EVIDENCE (rather than faith), and NOT detrimental to its own creation, the only rational position is one of disbelief. Any deity that has not been presented before MUST be uniquely separate from ALL previous attempts (though properties may remain), or must be equally rejected, due to a complete lack of any REAL evidence. My opponent is now free to Introduce the meat of his presentation...