BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Football is harder then ballet

i do agree with a lot of the points you made but here is where you're wrong there are hundreds of things an NFL player can do that a 6 year old cant the agility and coordination drills NFL players do i cant do and i am not 6 years old i am also the number 1 receiver in the league and i am nothing compared to someone like Julio Jones or Odell Beckham Jr. my mother asked my little sisters ballet teacher/instructor what my little sister had to do to get good and her teacher basically said "once she has the flexibility and coordination it should be pretty easy". also ballet and football aren't all that different in terms of what you need to learn in order to be good at the sport they both need high amounts of endurance, coordination, awareness and determination how ever in ballet there aren't people trying to keep you from doing those things also football has ballet beat in all of those categories yes ballet need a lot of endurance but football players are doing a lot of the same things as them plus running and pushing against other people. and in coordination football wins by a land slide in ballet you need coordination in you're legs and feet where as in football you need hand eye coordination coordination in you're legs feet you're torso etc. moving on to awareness in ballet you have to worry about where you are on the stage and where other people are, in football you need to know where you are on the field where you're team mates are on the field where the defenders are and where they are going where the ball is and where the ball is going etc... and in determination it's pretty obvious as well ballet dancers have to fight through pain both mentally and physically but in football its the same plus you have to be pushing through other people for extra yards to get past the line of scrimmage etc... in conclusion i strongly believe that the mental and physical effort it takes to play football out classes what it takes to do ballet in multiple ways, people underestimate football by a lot they see a bunch of guys running into each other grunting well some dude throws a ball down the field its much more then that if you take out the defense and just watch how the offense works its actually quite elegant and graceful just like ballet but the fact that you have to do that well someone is trying to mall you just makes football that much harder then ballet.
Football is harder then ballet

A couple days ago me and some friends got into an argument about which sport was harder(or art if you don't count dance as a sport), football or dance. i say football is harder not by a lot but still harder i have seen my little brother go to football practice and my little sister go dance and have my little brother come home barely able to stand and my little sister come home with blisters and the occasional rolled ankle and i my self play football and i am a starting wide receiver i put around 3 hours of practice into it a day (not including football practice which is 3 1/2 hours) and i come home completely drained. football players not only have more endurance but are faster and stronger id like to see a dancer straight jump with their feet together 12 and a half feet or run a 40 yard dash in 4.22 seconds or jump 11 feet into the air also football players have to be much more aware they have to know where every one is on the field, remember the plays and locate the football and watch for trick plays all at the same time well trying to physically make a play on the ball. my friend tried to say "well ballet dancers have to toss each other around what do football players do... toss a 1-2 pound football" my reply was basically "yeah well we have to push through 250+ pound muscular men that are trying to mall you do dancers do that? no..." anyway that is my thoughts on the matter what are yours?
Prisoners getting the vote

Your first paragraph. I assume you mean that, because everybody else in a particular state has to have certain credentials, why should prisoners, who are always bereft of one of them credentials, get the vote? Because voting is a free form of expression that has been long fought for, it is not about licences, taxes and rewarding those who comply with the cultures accepted social behaviours. Also, criminals cannot pay tax even if they wanted too. Second paragraph They might have been giving to society before they where put in prison. In extreme case; they may of been helping people obtain cannabis, extacy, and other controversial drugs. Likewise, the laws of a nation are not gospel. People may be fighting to free slaves in some societies and also fighting for rights, in your view, because these people are in jail, should they not have the right to vote? People in the lower-class are of a different nature than the other people in society. Many middle class people have had little experience of this culture and are quick to denounce it. Criminals are (about) 95% more likely to be from the lower classes and so it is these people who are the real inhabitants of jail. There is much behaviour (much more than in middle class societies) that is barbaric and wrong, but they are disconnected from society. They don't feel and love for the system and why should they? I accept that individually, people can be held accountable for their situation, but the system is not always helpful, and in many cases is downright bigoted and damaging. Criminals are often people who have stolen things and who live on the streets, they cannot get a job because of criminal convictions and they can make a lot of money sometimes from things that are illegal. They nearly all suffer from depression and have drug addictions, but what else are you going to do when your sat out in the cold with no money and nothing to do? I would argue: that almost ever prisoner could be 'healed' : that alot of them (in my opinion) do 'deserve' to be healed: and that some don't even need to be healed. It seems you are motivated by an anger, towards the fact that they can have a right that you (and others) have to 'earn'. Correct me if I'm wrong. I would say that perhaps your problem would be solved by allowing everybody to vote, over age 16, for example. I remind you rehabilitation is the best option for society, both financially and in the interest of public safety. Voting is something I assume most prisoners don't do anyway, even if they do, it is hardly making there punishment any easier.
Prisoners getting the vote

I'll agree with you on that. Not every person in prison has committed a true crime. But, my main argument would be that they do not pay taxes. They also don't have an income, I understand that. But in the end of the day, every other voter pays taxes, has a legal ID, and, typically, meets other requirements needed in their state. Though they don't always get the chance to gain an income, by being in prison, they aren't exactly giving anything back to society (such as those who aren't in prison). I know that in the state of Florida, you must be a registered citizen, have a valid driver's license or state-issued ID, and also not be a convicted felon without the rights of voting to have been restored. Voting is just among one of the rights that the prisoner loses when they get convicted. While in prison, they can't legally drive, vote, smoke cigarettes (in most, if not, all prisons), nor can they drink alcohol. By giving them the right to vote, shouldn't we give them the right to do those other things, as long as they are of age?
Prisoners getting the vote

Firstly, breaking a law doesn't always mean you are unworthy of rights. For example smoking cannabis, being in a fight or selling drugs; does not make a person any less 'worthy of rights' than anyone else. For example look at the scientists and businessmen who do things such as animal testing for cosmetics, companies who advertise addictive and harmful foods to children purely for profit. One cannot be so self-righteous in denouncing another human until they have walked in their shoes. Much research demonstrates how social economic factors can be responsible for crime; often crime is a last resort or just a 'way of life' that has been handed down by parents. So what I'm trying to get across in this first paragraph is that one should not be too quick to determine what rights an unknown individual should have taken away as they do not know the true nature of that individual just because he is in prison. Secondly, the goal of humans is to live in peace, and the goal of the prison system therefore is to promote peace. It is therefore better for it to focus on 'reform' rather than 'punishment'. 'Punishment' is an ancient method that has so far not produced any crime-free societies. So, to reform somebody who has been disconnected with society at large (as disconnection is the underlying precursor to criminal behaviour) one must attempt to open the society up to the individual again, to show him that he really matters and that he really is listened too. If a person feels like the government doesn't care for his opinion and thus don't respect him, how can they expect respect from him? And I understand your point about punishment and that 'why should they get to vote when they don't obey the rules?' But I would argue that it is irrelevant. Firstly because they aren't exactly being 'rewarded' and treat well; most of them probably don't vote anyway and its hardly a holiday. And secondly, even if the entire prison population voted, it would have very little effect on the final results. I don't believe in rewarding prisoners nor do I have sympathy for ALL prisoners. I am stating that giving them the vote won't cost anything nor give them any pleasure and so it is no loss to give them it. And I will argue that it will do some good (if any) in helping them integrate back into society.
Doctor assisted suicide

This debate seems to have ended. I thank my opponent for this debate but I must urge all the voters to vote in the negation of artemis111's proposal. Requiring doctors to assist in the suicide of their patients is far to problematic in the realms of law, morality, and others. No person should be required to assist in the death of anyone for any reason. Doctors are to heal the sick, not kill them. I ask all those reading this debate to please vote in the negation of this resolution. Doctors SHOULD NOT be required to provide the services of euthanasia. Thank you.
Rap battle.

You must be five!Why?You got Freddy fazbear's eyesYou can't say the same word on each track and expect a rhyme!You say I will run back to my flock, You're right!At least I have to, at 1'o clock,I have one, they disowned you,Because of your bad puns Now you have a gunWith no better sons,And when this is done,I will have your M1Don't know what that is?Its a pistol,Get scared!
Rap battle.

I am the rapper on this track. Listen and hear this beat. When I'm done with you, you'll drown in defeat. Its like a another guy thinking he can learn to fly, You say you the greatest rapper but its funny to me. Its about to get real and its a jam for me. But Move out the way ho Move out the way ho Fat as just got dropped You better fill your cup with ice You just got popped I got a pistol i'll make you go pop, and you'll remember this glock So when im done, you will go running back to your flock.
Rap battle.

Please... The time of this day Its time for you to hit the hay You lost this battle, but its ok, you'll never be in my damn seat, the champions seat I got a chair, wanna have a seat? It says your name but but you'll never compete Your mug is filled with tears of defeat This glock going up yo flock Then your flock gonna go back to their block Its just another n* who thinks he can pull a trigger You drinking to much liquor, you drunk Please get out yo trunk, you aint a real punk All I have to say is Your rap just stunk
Ron Paul for President 2012

Ron Paul si the most consistent conservative who understands our nations problems and he is the only candidate who has follow thro0ugh and he takes he oath of office very seriously. He is unique and is different from the other candidates in a positive way. He wants to end the Federal Reserve end the aggressive wars and the current imperial presidency. He follows the constitution and has been saying the same thing for the past 30 years. He has never changed his viewpoints to get votes and he understands monetary policy. He understands free markets. A person cannot drink themselves sober and no person can borrow their way out of debt and neither can our government. He is America's last hope for real change. I say that with the utter passion.
Media Violence is having a Negative Effect on today's Youth.

Yes it may be poor parenting but the parent need to understand that if the child plays violent video games or watches a movie then the child will start to get worse and want to hurt people not always but it is believed that kids who play or watch violence will act violent with or without a parent to guide them it really is all on the kid to stop the violence they can play the game but to much of it and they will want to play the play or walk the walk.
Media Violence is having a Negative Effect on today's Youth.

I think that Media Violence is having a bad example on today's youth because have you seen the little kids sitting in their moms car screaming and showing violence by hitting out and thinking about zombies and killing they start to wine and complain and beg to play a game they will always be playing a killing game and talks to you about the violence game or even the movies some violence movies get your heart pumping and you jump and that has a bad effect on some of the little people and teens.
Jesus claimed to be a Jewish Messiah and was later misrepresented to create Christianity

I accept your challenge.Just one thing, I find it ironic how Maccoby, whom you cited claims that "irreconcilable contradictions exist in the New Testament" when people could make the same claim about the Tanakh, yet he would find a way to reconcile them. But he wouldn't allow that for the New Testament. This already tells me that he is inconsistent and dishonest with himself.But anyways, good luck to you.
Mormons are not Christians but lost cultists

Ok...How do I respond? First we need a definition of cult. So therefore, the burden of proof falls to you. I will give one until the other side gives one. Cult as defined by Merriam-Webster is "a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous." Now, I don't know about you, but 14.4 million members is not small. In regards to the United States and the world, where there are hundreds of religions, having 15 million followers is a big deal. "You can tell the lies of the Mormons by how many times they've changed their church doctrine over the years to fit "the world" and not "the Christ" both in their attempt to hide their polygamy, which is NOT biblical, and their open support of Sodomy and Sodomite marriage." Well let's see this for a moment. In the Bible, there have been several people of importance who have practiced polygamy. Abraham, Solomon, Moses, David, and others. Please explain that, and don't use the whole, ancient cultures argument; that is overused. Also, can you please list examples of Mormons supporting Sodomite marriage? I know they accept gay members, but I don't know if they accept gay marriage. Besides, it doesn't say anywhere in the bible one has to hate on the gays. It just says it is a sin to lay down with another dude. You can be gay and still go to heaven. It's called chastity. Look it up. And with the whole judgement thing. Dude, you have no right to judge them if they are going to heaven or hell. As the good book said," So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." Romans 14:12-13. In the end, it is not up to you to judge them and make conclusions on if they are going to end up in hell. Therefore, about half of your argument is invalid. Sources http://www.openbible.info... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.mormonnewsroom.org...
Mormons are not Christians but lost cultists

I argue that the Mormon Church is a cult and in no way is of Christ. They carry around the Bible as a cloaking excuse to push their blasphemy. They deny Christ, They deny God's authority. In fact they are a part of the wider expanding apostasy of false Christ that are leading many away from the truth of Jesus Christ and the triune God towards the wide road to hell. People believe they can take the word Christianity and attach it to any church to claim they know who Christ is and yet by their "spirit" and "fruits" they are vile liars. http://www.biblebelievers.com... You can tell the lies of the Mormons by how many times they've changed their church doctrine over the years to fit "the world" and not "the Christ" both in their attempt to hide their polygamy, which is NOT biblical, and their open support of Sodomy and Sodomite marriage. They are a part of the blasphemy and apostasy that will be evident close to the last days when many shall depart the faith and heed doctrines of demons and devils; especially those who claim their book came from a angel dressed in native American Indian skins with a "new" gospel when the Bible in Jude clearly states that the scriptures were given once and for all to the Saints from the ancient Torah through the apostles of Christ. The Book of Mormon is a blasphemy.
Should debaters travel across countries to debate

Dear people who enjoys Netflix, and loves to Debate. As I see, it's my turn to oppose the contentions of my opponent: Contention 1: More experience - Why? Why to go to another country, and gain more experience if you can get more experience in their own country? Contention 2: Friendship - How? How will I be that close to a friendship with someone from Switzerland if I'm from America? Texting? It doesn't work. Contention 3: Better opponents - More pressure This will bring people to have more pressure, and maybe even start a bias, for example, if someone from Mexico debates in the U.S. and fails, people might start saying Mexicans can't debate. And trust me, they SURE can. As my opponent said about the pricing, I would prefer to have good vacations rather than debates. Thanks for your attention.
Should debaters travel across countries to debate

Honorable judges, fellow debaters, and most esteem guests and timer. I am the second speaker of the proposition side. In this speech, I would like to refute all of my opponent's case. The proposition side would like to point out that in the next two speeches, there would be no new arguments, due to unfair rebuttal timing. Now I would move on to refuting the con case line by line. Con contention 1: Time- Refutation - As time is one of the most important things in life, as you cannot buy time, it is essential for a person to use it wisely. A wise debater is to travel around the world to debate on different topics and meet new friends. As a debater, I would like to travel oversea to debate on topics. This would increase efficiency in debate for my career. Con contention 2: Stress- Refutation - Preparing a debate is some sort of requirement for debaters to join a tournament. Preparing for an oversea tournament would only improve efficiency on prepping and also there are debates where you don't prep before hand (Parliamentary debates) This does not increase stress. Con contention 3: Pricing- Refutation - An oversea trip is expensive, but using it for educational purposes only better than a relaxing speech. I would like to point out that debating is so much of a benefit that a price like that is worth it. Thank you for looking. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge. That is my speech.
Should debaters travel across countries to debate

Dear judges, and people who love debates. Today, we are debating on the topic that debaters should go across countries to debate and in my opinion, Debaters shouldn't be debating around countries. Contention 1: Time - Time is one of the things we don't get back in life, why to lose it on something non-professional? Even though the flaw of my opponent is not specifying if debaters are minors or not, in the case, if they were minors they will LOSE time to study in school. Contention 2: Stress - If preparing Debates is already hard, making them IN OTHER COUNTRIES seems hard, and not only because of the evidence or stuff but that includes the LANGUAGE in that country. For example, do you think someone would debate in English, in France? I don't think so. Preparing on other language is hard enough to do that. Contention 3: Pricing - Something my opponent didn't specify in, was about the pricing. How are debaters travelling to another country? By paying themselves the money? I think that is not good, and it's unintelligent. People should not waste money on a Debate, when they can waste it on vacations. Hope people in here will understand how travelling seems more difficult than other things.
Should debaters travel across countries to debate

Honorable judges, fellow debaters, and most esteem guests and timers. Today, we are debating on the topic that debaters should go across countries to debate. The proposition side will argue for debaters to go to other countries to debate. The opposition side will argue for debaters not to go to other countries for debate. Definitions: 1. debaters- students or teachers that debate 2. across country- to travel over a border of a country Contention 1: More experience Debaters going across countries will gain more experience in debating and learn strategies that no one used in that country. Contention 2: Friendship Debaters can make friends with other debaters across the globe Contention 3: Better opponents Debaters will meet challenging opponents and will learn from these opponents. Thank you for looking through this. Good luck to my opponent.
Deontological morality is nonexistent

Pro, Pro, I am guessing you have abandoned your position/ non-position in favor of asking seemingly arbitrary and imprecise questions that are at best tangentially relevant. Relevance aside, The question is utterly incoherent and has no logical connection or reference to anything that has come before it. That being said, I am not required to respond to this off-topic question that has avoided the entirety of the manifold inconsistencies with your position, Including your possible180-degree shift in positions (whether it was an accident or not, I do not mind, But I would still like to know where you stand). Even still, I will offer this in hopes that your next post will address the issues with your position, Whatever that may be. Deontological ethics and moral nihilism are mutually exclusive paradigms, And so far in this debate, My position for Deontological ethics is the only position with any valid or sound argumentation supporting it, And none to the counter, So thus far I have avoided it quite well. I do not want to assume this is a purposeful avoidance of the issue or a purposeful violation of intellectual honesty, But to continue without addressing my first post would be to confirm that this is sadly the case. Please prove me wrong. Respectfully, dbox