BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Baseball is a harder sport than tennis.

To begin this debate, I will say that the statistics I have are from 105 mph pitch and a 163 mph serve. Yes these are extreme numbers but they are the best of the best. So we are comparing the best at each sport so there is a constant. The constant is the best player. The first statement I will make is the fastest baseball ever pitched was 105 mph. The fastest tennis ball hit was 163 mph. Just by looking at these facts you would think that it would be much harder to hit the ball going 163 mph, but you have to take into account what you are using. MLB Rule 1.10(a) says "The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 2 3/4 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood." The diameter of a baseball is 2.9 inches. That means for you to be able to get a solid hit the baseball has to hit the bat almost exact. Now on the other hand, a tennis ball's diameter is two and a half inches, a little bit smaller. But you have a racquet that can be up to 12" inches wide. That means that you have almost a 5-inch margin from the middle, 2 and a half inches on each side of the middle, to be able to get a solid hit. Now on to the distance. A baseball mound to the back of the plate is 60 feet and 6 inches. Most batters stand about a foot in-front of the back of the plate. That would make the distance somewhere around 59 feet 6 inches. That is being measured by you back foot. In most batters stances there is about 2 to 3 feet between their feet. That means at the place where the ball would be best hit would be the middle of their stance so add another 1 to 1 and a half feet closer. Pitches will also stride towards the play when they pitch. Most pitchers strides are 100% of their body length. The average pitchers" height is 6"3". So take away another 6 feet. That means that the ball is traveling around 52 and half feet. Now that would make the ball traveling 146.666667 Feet Per Second. Distance divided by feet per second give you time. 58.5 ft / 146.66667 ft/s = 0.3579 seconds = time pitched ball to reach batter. That gives you less than a half a second to react to hitting the ball. Tennis players would stand around 78 feet apart. I got this from adding the two base lines. Now when the tennis player hits the ball and it the ball hits the ground it is going to slow down significantly. It"s called friction. After a hit the tennis ball would slow down about 26 mph(http://tt.tenniswarehouse.com...). That would make the 163 mph serve now is 137. Again distance divided by feet per second 78 feet/ 198.000 feet per second = 0.4105. The baseball player will have much less time to react to the pitch and he will still have to hit with a considerable less surface area, which is to remind you 2 " inches. For all of these reasons I uphold the affirmative.
Baseball is a harder sport than tennis.

True baseball has different forms of hitting, but tennis does to. In tennis you have to hit it in a certain way to make it curve or do some other spin. They have to also choose how much power you have to hit the ball which is the same for baseball, but you also can't hit it to far. In baseball you can hit it as hard as you want and you do better the harder you hit, but in tennis there is a square so you can not over power where you hit the ball.
Baseball is a harder sport than tennis.

Yes it is true that you do not need to run as much in baseball, but you are wrong about the fact that it doesn"t matter where you hit the baseball. Yes it does involve timing but during different situations you have to be able to hit the ball in different directions. For instance if there is a runner on first base you want to hit it somewhere between first and second base therefore making it harder to turn a double play, if the baseball doesn"t make it out of the infield. In baseball you also have to be able to judge if the ball is a strike or not. In tennis you don"t have to judge anything. The line judges tell you if the ball goes out. There are plenty of different ways of hitting. You can bunt, you can squeeze but (a bunt while you are starting to run to first base as you are bunting), you can pull bunt, you can hit and run, you can fake bunt (this tricks the infield and when you pull the bat in the infield is pushed in, making it easier to get a hit over in infield). You are also wrong about the fact there is only one way to throw a baseball for fielders. Here"s one way. If a ball is hit and it keeps you body close to the ground, and you are playing an infield position, you stay low to the ground and throw the ball where you put a certain spin. The spin make the ball go up then level out so that you can throw a level throw to first base without having to stand up, creating a faster throw. Also, in baseball you have to be able to read a fly ball telling if it will drop short or if it will go over. You also have to be able to read the pitcher while you are running on base. These are just a few reasons that baseball is a much harder sport. Thank you for debating me. I uphold the affirmative.
Baseball is a harder sport than tennis.

Is is not just about ball speed. In baseball you don't have to run as much. In baseball you only have to run when someone hits a baseball. In tennis though once the rally starts you have to run until it ends. After that once you finish a rally you have to start a new one. There is also very complicated hits for the racket. In baseball it doesn't matter where you hit it but only in timing. For pitching there is a couple of different throw stiles but they are for pitching. Once the ball is in play fore baseball you do not need to care about how you throw it. Another detail in tennis is we're you want to hit it. You do not want to hit it where the person is if you can. You want to hit it on the opposite side with a certain type of spin. In baseball you have to time it but there is not spin you have to hit the ball with.
Science Implies God's Existance

Carloandreaguilar has expressed interest in debating this topic. Definitions: Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Implies: Strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated). God: The sentient, necessary, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that was the efficient cause of the contingent universe. Existence: To have objective reality or being. Rules and Other Debate Information: Debate format: R1: Acceptance R2: My opening arguments followed by Pro's opening arguments (No rebuttals by Pro) R3: Rebuttals to opening arguments R4: Defense of your original arguments. BOP is shared. No forfeits. No insults. No semantics. Follow the format. 72 Hours to Post Argument. 10,000 Characters Max. 10 day voting period. 7 point voting system. Open Voting Posting sources in the comments is allowed.
Legalized Gay Marriage

1. Rebuttal:A. "Don't the 'gays' count?" I do believe God loves homosexuals. But God loves criminals in every form. Just because God loves someone doesn't mean we should legalize all of their decisions (i.e., murder, rape, double-dipping)B. "Kids are dying because they can't be who they are." Kids also can't get married, so this is irrelevant.C. "Everyone has the right to love whoever they want." Some people think their cousins are pretty hot. They still can't get married.D. "Isn't hating ... a gay the same as being racist?" Perhaps, but there's nothing illegal about being racist, and either way this does nothing to prove that homosexuals should be allowed to get married.2. Economic ImpactsAccording to [http://www.allaboutlove.org...], Along with the increase of income taxes and social security taxes, medical insurance premiums will rise to make up for the high health care costs associated with homosexual-related diseases (i.e., AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis, etc.). This will become costly for everyone, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.3. Health ImpactsHomosexuality is not something that should be encouraged, as along with my previous mention of AIDS, colon cancer, and hepatitis, numerous studies have also shown the homosexual behavior has lead to lower life expectancies, psychological disorders, etc. By legalizing gay marriage, we are only encouraging an unhealthy decision. And as our government has done its best to discourage decisions like smoking, our government should also be doing its best to discourage homosexual marriage.4. What is "Marriage", Anyway?Marriage is a ceremony of commitment that was developed differently by different cultures. Assuming we are talking about the Christian form of marriage, allowing the government to decide who the church must marry is a violation of separation of the separation Church and State.Furthermore, what's next on the government's checklist of marriages to legalize? There's nothing unconstitutional about incest, polygamy, or bestiality. If nothing is stopping the government from legalizing gay marriage, what's stopping them from legalizing a father and daughter in love?Bottom line: The government has no right to decide who the church is allowed to marry. Conclusion:There's nothing wrong with being in love and living together, but in the end, allowing marriage would be unconstitutional for violating church and state. Marriage would also bring about economic inequality. Even the government allowing homosexuality to be encouraged could lead to health issues in the future, therefore, gay marriage should not be legalized.
Legalized Gay Marriage

(Thats funny becaus ethis actaully my first debate on here! ) In the Bible it says God loves all of his children. Don't the "gays" count? Even if loving the same sex is a sin, don't they get forgiven? It doesn't matter what the sin is. It's the 2013 the world is changing, society is changing too. Kids are dying because they can't be who they are. Everyone has that freedom. Or should have that freedom. Everyone has the right to love who ever theya want, even if it's not in the Bill of Rights. Isn't jhating or loathing a gay the same as being racist? It's the same for me. You still treat that perosn like dirt. Nobody should be treated like that. Being able to declare who you love is basicilly what marriage is all about 9and uniting two people) should they have a chance to paricpate in that amzing moment?
Legalized Gay Marriage

My opponent's conduct is much appreciated.1. RebuttalMy opponent has let go of all of her initial arguments, therefore agreeing to the following:- Just because God loves someone does not mean all of their decisions should be legal- Kids dying is not relevant to a case about marriage.- Not everyone has the right to love who they want.- Her statement comparing homophobia to racism is irrelevant.2. Economic ImpactsMy opponent states that diseases often associated with homosexuality can also happen to heterosexuals. This statement does have some validity. However, According to [http://aids.gov...], 61% of people who have acquired AIDS are men who have had sex with other men to acquire the disease.Legalizing homosexual marriage, obviously, would encourage men having sex with other men, consequently causing AIDS rates to rise, and therefore increasing the cost of health insurance.My contention on the economic consequence of gay marriage still stands.3. Health ImpactsAlong with my statements in contention 2, encouraging homosexuality by legalizing gay marriage will also increase the rate of psychological disorders, and lower the life expectancy. My opponent does not disagree with this.4. What is "Marriage", Anyway?I made the point that legalizing a new form of marriage in the church is an intrusion on separation of church and state. I also stated that this will be a slippery slope into incest, polygamy, men marrying inflatable dolls, etc. My opponent does not disagree with this, either.5. "Married Couples Are More Likely To Adopt"I do not see the significance of this argument. If married couples are more likely to adopt, with my opponent's logic, heterosexual married couples are just as likely to adopt.Conclusion:All points of the resolution have been negated along with additional disadvantages. Gay marriage should not be legalized because it will lead to intrusive government, lower life expectancies, and more expensive health insurance.
Legalized Gay Marriage

( Sorry Those where my opinions as a Christian. Good points though.) "2. Economic Impacts According to [http://www.allaboutlove.org......], Along with the increase of income taxes and social security taxes, medical insurance premiums will rise to make up for the high health care costs associated with homosexual-related diseases (i.e., AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis, etc.). This will become costly for everyone, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. " -AIDS, colon cancer, and other diseases can also 'caught' by heterosexuals. 1. Married couples are more likey to adopt. http://www.balancedpolitics.org...
Soft Drugs and Prostitution should be legalized.

This is a very popular topic but I haven't found a debate about it on this website, so I decided to start one. Definitions: Soft Drugs such as marijuana and the like, cocaine, and heroine. Also add any other drugs that don't do permanant brain damage like Shrooms, LSD, Meth, ect. Prostitution: consensual sexual acts in exchange for money or other goods. Value: Fairness Value Criterion 1) That all laws are fair and just, by protecting society and not limiting the freedoms and rights of society at the same time. 2) All crimes should have a victim or potential victim, otherwise it is not a crime 3) Maximize efficency of our law enforcement. 4) To use tax payer dollars wisely and effeciently, especially in law enforcement scenarios. In short, the "crimes" mentioned above should not be considered such because they have no victim and they are consensual. Cigarretes can give you cancer, alcholol can give you liver disease, you can even OD on advil for crying out loud. In this debate my burden of proof consists of the following: 1) Society's safety would not be threatened, and in fact is by the laws in place 2) To uphold society's right to choose their actions so long as it doesn't hurt another person (the person taking the drugs or paying the prostitute doesn't count.) Please forgive the any and many grammatical erros spell check won't work, weird.
Soft Drugs and Prostitution should be legalized.

To begin, I am just going to eliminate this definition of soft drugs. "Definitions: Soft Drugs such as marijuana and the like, cocaine, and heroine. Also add any other drugs that don't do permanant brain damage like Shrooms, LSD, Meth, ect." I find your definition of soft drugs limiting. Long term brain damage is not viable as the sole method of classifying a "hard" drug. I do not accept your definition, but that doesn't mean I can't work with it. Let's instead use a looser definition of permanent brain damage. Let's decide that death is a form of damage. So permanent brain death can be considered permanent brain damage. Heroin kills, here is my source: http://www.druglibrary.org... Ergo, permanent brain death, ergo, permanent brain damage. So heroin does not fit your definition of soft drugs. So, the drug argument is invalid. You said the person paying the prostitute or taking the drugs does not count. I don't see how that is valid, because suicide is a crime. But since you didn't say prostitutes don't count. Let's take into consideration the fact that prostitutes are at a higher risk of violence that any other group of women. Period. Here's my reference: http://www.justicewomen.com... In addition, the prostitutes are at risk of infectous diseases from clients. In addition, some sexual practices which the prostitute may be paid to engage in could result in injury or death. So prostitution can not be considered victimless. I have lots more but I think I will save some for later rounds.
Circumcision is Male Genital Mutilation and should be Banned

Alas, Thot, We battle. Such is inevitable between fellow rivals. I'm gonna think the S**t out of this. My arguments:1) It makes the penis look good. Women like it. 2) Uncircumcised penis smells. I remember my uncircumcised days. I shudder when I opened the skin. And don't tell me to "peel it and wash it" it was freaking impossible. My skin was not that flexible. 3) "The American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded that circumcision's benefits outweigh its risks" Rebuttal:1. "MGM is to be condoned on religious grounds. "Yeah, Leave religion out of this. 2. "MGM is permissible because we don't have to teach people to clean it if it is removed. "Yeah, Let's not have priests suck out blood from penises. "Teeth pose much more troublesome of a problem for hygiene. Why do we not remove peoples teeth and install artificial teeth upon birth? "It's harder to clean the uncircumcised penis. It's painful (i tried) and mostly unsuccessful, Leaving a foul foul stench behind. I would not let any woman near my penis if it had that foul foul foul foul smell. "You are doing so even though they could choose to have this procedure done in the future willingly if so they wished. "This is not the resolution. Of course we shouldn't circumcise babies. But once you're old enough, I'd say please do it. "The damage done to the penis reduces sensitivity. "no well-done studies find a reduction of sensitivity" - Livescience - "And a January study of about 10, 000 German men found no difference in erectile function based on circumcision status. ""On a personal note I have been genitally mutilated. "Welcome to the club man.
Circumcision is Male Genital Mutilation and should be Banned

Happy to think with you today. R1: Acceptance and Basic Arguments. Con can rebut if they wish. R2: Counterargument and Expansion R3: Counterargument and Conclusion. Clarification: The justification that we, As a society, Use for circumcision (Henceforth MGM or Male Genital Mutilation) is one of the two following problematic statements: 1. MGM is to be condoned on religious grounds. Should we as a society permit our citizenry mutilating their children, Doing permanent damage to them, Before those persons have a voice or opinion on the matter? I submit that we do not allow Female Genital Mutilation (Henceforth FGM) on religious grounds. Why do we accept Male Genital Mutilation for religious purposes? I submit that children are not born religious. Many leave the religions their parents attempt to indoctrinate them into. They see themselves as mutilated. With good reason. More on this later. 2. MGM is permissible because we don't have to teach people to clean it if it is removed. The arguments for this are weak. There is some science behind MGM at birth causing infections, And there are many cases where MGM is botched which results in the destruction of the penis. Particularly when done by uneducated priests. Particularly when done by priests/rabbi who orally suck the blood out during their ritual. Teeth pose much more troublesome of a problem for hygiene. Why do we not remove peoples teeth and install artificial teeth upon birth? Without painkillers as often as not no less. This argument is problematic because you're mutilating a baby without its consent for hygiene purposes. You are doing so even though they could choose to have this procedure done in the future willingly if so they wished. The damage done to the penis reduces sensitivity. This is by definition true. You can bring up articles that say otherwise, But I will be able to point out their flaws. Justifying permanent genital mutilation on religious or hygiene grounds without consent from the person is a disgusting practice. To conclude, I submit that the hygiene excuse is nothing more than religious people trying to mark all of us without our consent. I submit that people should be allowed to genitally mutilate themselves if they wish when they are old enough to make this decision willingly, And that religious parents should not be allowed to deem their babies religious without their consent. On a personal note I have been genitally mutilated. I do not hold it against my parents as they are conforming to a norm. My position is not that they are beings who are without flaw. My position is that parents need to know that this is not acceptable as a practice. That they do not own their children, Nor does the state, But that their children own themselves. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
suicide is a weakness

With only 500 characters and 5 minutes to post, I'll stay brief. su·i·cide  [soo-uh-sahyd] –noun 1. the intentional taking of one's own life. 2. destruction of one's own interests or prospects 3. a person who intentionally takes his or her own life. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Clearly, suicide is not a weakness, but a noun. Although weakness does not preclude nounness, my opponent has not sufficiently affirmed this. I urge a Con vote.
Christ Committed Suicide

I forgot to include the forum link in the introduction. The forum for discussion of this debate is here: http://www.debate.org...I thank Garbanza for accepting this debate. I asked her in private if we could add in a stipulation assuming that Christ was of sound mind, but she has refused. I was probably a bit hasty in creating this debate (it took less than 5 minutes to create) so hopefully it does not degrade the quality of arguments. Opening ArgumentsFor the purposes of this debate, as stipulated in round #1, someone dying from a hunger strike is committing suicide. This is going to be central to my case.Let's compare two situations - on the one hand we have Bobby Sands (http://www.history.com...), someone who went on a hunger strike and starved himself to death while in prison. On the other hand, we have prisoners in Zimbabwe who routinely die from starvation due to food shortages (http://www.irinnews.org...). The former is suicide by definition, whereas the latter is not. What differentiates the two?In Bobby Sand's case, he had the power to feed himself...all he had to do was to eat the food that was provided to him. That he willingly chose not to knowing that it would end his life is what makes it suicide. In the case of prisoners in Zimbabwe, these prisoners would eat food had food been made available for them to consume...they had no power to feed themselves. This lack of power is what differentiates starving to death from intentionally killing oneself through hunger.In Jesus Christ's case, we have someone who, due to His omniscience (http://www.answering-islam.org...), knew of His impending arrest and subsequent crucifixion, and who also, due to His omnipotence (Jesus is God (http://bibleprobe.com...), God is omnipotent (http://www.openbible.info...)), had the power to stop it. This puts Christ in the situation of Bobby Sands, and not prisoners in Zimbabwe.ConclusionIf Christ was powerless to stop his impending fate, then it's reasonable to think that He was killed by Roman authorities. However, going by the biblical account, Christ was capable of just about anything, to include turning water to wine (https://www.biblegateway.com...), feeding 5000 with just 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread (https://www.biblegateway.com...), and even raising the dead (https://www.biblegateway.com...). Given that Christ had the power to continue living by stopping the Romans with a miracle of some sort, that He chose not to (https://www.biblegateway.com...) constitutes suicidal intent.