BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pro Life

I want to point out that I am a pro- choice, conservative Christian. I have thought on this issue a lot l, changed my opinion a lot, but ultimately it comes down to a few points. Here are the points. Contention 1: Being against abortion and acting on it by voting against abortion is forcing your beliefs upon others. Again, I am a conservative Christian, yet I am pro choice. Why? Because it is wrong for me to say, "Well I don't agree with the morality of the situation, therefore I will interfere with your right to privacy. " Abortion technically is a right of privacy because it a personal choice, so outlawing it is unconstitutional. Contention 2: There is little to no evidence to say that life begins at conception. You can say all day that you believe life begins at conception, and I will simply say that it's possible, but there is no scientific research to support that fetuses can sense things at conception. In fact, even when babies are born they have trouble making sense of their 5 senses. Why? Because their brains haven't developed to that point. By the way, that is after birth, not at conception. Contention 3: It is the mother's body, so it is her choice. Aside from the right to privacy, which is a key point, there are other choice issues. One is cost, if the mother can't get an abortion, she will probably end up keeping the baby? Why not give it up for adoption? Because most mothers feel immediate responsibility after birth, no matter if they want it or not. This of course can put people into debt, which is the last thing that the common people need.
Pro Life

I personally am pro-life, I believe it is wrong to kill innocent babies who don't have a choice or say. I believe that it is the job of a mother to protect and take care of her children not brutally murder them. A life is a life whether it is the size of a pea or 300 pounds it is still a life a deserves to live in this world. As soon as the baby is made it has a soul, therefore that souls deserves to live its life. I 100% believe that it is wrong to kill lives who haven't even had the chance to live yet.
Does an existance creator of design exist or not

STEPHEN HAWKINGS I do wonder what church his send off into the 5th dimension was in? Is it that an athiest that disbelieves in god or gods or is it somebody that lacks beleif in God or Gods? So is someone that lacks belief in an existance creator an undecided religous nut job or an undecided sientific athiest nut job? And do athiests only go to church when they pass away?
god loves killing. He invented Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Hong Xiuquan, Stephen Paddock etc

The first question that needs to be answered is "Do you believe in God?" If not, this whole argument is void. You would just be one of those people who try to bash on someone else's religion by stating that God is evil. Also if you do claim you believe, then you are misquoting the bible. You should read Genesis and read how evil (properly known as sin) was brought into the world.
Baseball is the hardest sport.

Note that percentage rate for successful passes. 66%. So in the thousandths place it rounds out to .667. Have you ever in your lifetime heard of a MLB player having a batting average of .667. No!! It's unheard of! For baseball a player is lucky to get half that do to the fact that it is the hardest sport. You mention some qualities needed to play football, such as: speed, be big good hand coordination. Well here's the thing. In baseball hand eye coordination is key. Anyone who is good at baseball will hands down, have better hand eye coordination then anyone else. Since failing is such a huge part of baseball it is very hard on you mentally. When you are up to bat no one can help you and everyone is watching you. However in football if you catch the ball everyone is helping you. If you make a bad catch in football you can just kind of stay on the sideline and have no one notice you and still not look bad. Also while in the defensive position in baseball every player has multiple plays going through his mind depending on where he is playing. Hitting a fastball is just one pitch. Trying to hit that, a curve ball, fork, slider, a knuckle, etc. while not knowing what pitch he is going to throw is the biggest things in sports to feat. Batters usually try to judge what kind of pitch is being thrown by location of the arm, however, some pitchers have a very small variation is arm location. Another difficulty is stealing, both for the runner and the defense. An average MLB baseball player with a twelve foot lead-off can get to second in 3.5 seconds. The catcher has to get rid of the ball in .9 seconds to beat the runner off a 90mph. pitch. If all goes right he will only beat the runner by .25 seconds. The "jump" for the runner is also hard. If the runner starts .05 seconds to early he could get picked off, .05 seconds to late and he could lose up to 2 feet. And for the catcher it comes down to accuracy. For every foot the 2nd baseman has to move his glove to apply the tag the runner gains 2 feet! From the catchers 128' away from second base means his margin of error is only 1 degree. That is in no way shape or form easy. In football you see all the time a bad throw, a bad catch, QB getting sacked, Gaining a couple feet or even losing a couple feet, not because its hard because they are not as skilled. Also I would like you to watch my videos. http://m.youtube.com... http://m.youtube.com... http://m.youtube.com... I hope this gives you an idea of why I keep repeating that this is the hardest sport to play.
Baseball is the hardest sport.

I see what this debate is about now & I love sports so I look forward to this argument. It took me a while to think about what the hardest sport there is & my answer is football. American football is the hardest sport for many reasons. To play football you have to be FAST & big & have great hand coordination (for a quarterback & wide receiver & corner back) & great footwork. As Pro said baseball takes "good eyesight, good concentration, years of practice, excellent reaction, etc. a batter needs it all." As for football, football has all this & much more. I think Pro can only argue about the batter because in baseball when on defense you only have to run & catch the ball. Football has this to but you also have someone chasing you as you are trying to make a play & you also take the chance of a serious injury, like a concussion, or broken leg, or broken arm, etc. Baseball only has the chance to injure their shoulder for pitchers. Football requires a much greater physical demand just to keep up athletically. Please take this time to view this video that will wrap up my statement on quarterbacks http://www.youtube.com... I look forward to this argument due to how different these two sports are.
Baseball is the hardest sport.

First of all just trying to tell a person that you have to hit a round ball with a round bat squarely already sounds hard. Due to the difficulty of this, failing 7 out of 10 times is still good enough to land you in the pros. I don't think if you fail catching a football 7 out of 10 times will get you in the NFL. Or making an accurate throw only 3 out of 10 times will either. You need good eyesight, good concentration, years of practice, excellent reaction, etc. a batter needs it all. Going up to bat with a wooden stick a batter has less than a 1/4 of a second to: see the pitch, judge its speed and location, decide what to do, and then swing. Once a 90 mph. fastball is released there is only 400 milliseconds until impact. The first 100 milliseconds are needed for the batters eyes to see the ball and send an image to the brain. Another 75 milliseconds are needed for the brain to determine speed and location of the pitch and another 50 more to decide where to swing the bat. With only 165 milliseconds remaining, the brain signals the swing to begin. If it's as little as 7 milliseconds to early or to late, the ball will sail foul after contact. A two pound bat swinging at 80 mph. can strike the ball with up to nine hp. Also the batter is trying to get the ball to hit the "sweet spot" which just adds to the difficulty.
Baseball is the hardest sport.

I see. The thing is baseball players are trained for things they know are going to happen. For example, lets say someone is on 1st base ok? The batter hits a ground ball down the right field, outfielder gets the ball & KNOWS to look at 2nd base because 1st base runner is running to 2nd base. Now, based on the outfielders judgment he has the choice to throw it towards 2nd base or 3rd depending where the runner is at the moment. So this is fairly easy because it falls on judgment on where to throw the ball and view of the field. Now with football the scenario is similar but not the same. The quarterback on average must throw the ball in 3 seconds minimum. Keep in mind the quarterback is also being pressured as his defenders are breaking down by a trio of giant men with great speed and strength. The quarterback also faces the chance of getting hit by a 300 pound man coming at 15 MPH (average statistics). The chances of a pitcher getting hit by a batted ball is 1-2%. The odds of a quarterback of getting sacked is about 50-50. This is why football is the hardest sport because it relies on teamwork from each position. Baseball does not. What does the catcher do? He just catches the ball & stays at home plate. For Pro, the argument of "timings" or "reactions" in baseball is very abroad. The reason is because they know what to expect, especially on defense. In football when on defense, the defender has no idea to expect if the defender will juke left or right. The Quarterback has a blind spot so he does not know if a defender will sack him from behind. My statement is clearly supported by the previous videos I've posted before. The physical requirements for football are much greater than baseball which makes this very difficult. All football players must be in great physical condition just to keep up with his teammates. This would be very difficult for a defender like a cornerback or wide receiver if his 40 yard dash time was 7.8 which is slow in the NFL. After all this debate is about what sport is most difficult yes? I will stop here to save arguments for closure.
Baseball is the hardest sport.

Here's one thing I've noticed different in football then in baseball. In football you can take a time out and discuss your play, actually, you can discuss your play after every play. In baseball there is no such thing. Every nine players has many plays going trough his head at once. Such as, the third baseman may have to make a tough decision on whether to go for a bunt that's down the baseline or decide whether to hold up and let the pitcher get it(or some other player) with a runner on second. If he decides to go for it he now has to look at the runner on second and decide to throw to third to get him out there, throw it to first and get the batter out, or even get the runner in second in a run down if he's able to. If he throws it to first the first baseman now has to make the decision to throw it to third or not. While all this is happening the second baseman covers second; the shortstop covers third; the catcher, pitcher and third baseman are going towards the ball; left fielder backs up first; right fielder backs up third, along with the pitcher; and center backs up second all on a simple bunt. With football you look for the person you plan to throw it to and throw it to him, if he's not open throw it to someone else. Yes, he may have short time to do this but 3 seconds is the same amount of time it took Mickey Mantle to get to first. Because of these short times. third baseman's have to barehand a hard grounder and throw it accurately to first, while on the run. Easy right, no! If it was, well, we know what we would call it...
Baseball is the hardest sport.

I see what you are saying, but I believe that the only reason the timings in baseball is faster because the players are already positioned, they have a much smaller ball than a football. In foot ball you must run 10 yards in about 1 second to 1.8 seconds. Since a baseball is much lighter they do not have to wind back as much as a quarterback. I understand the arguments about timings in baseball & this is a very strong argument but it's the only argument you can rely on. I am finding a hard time finding an argument about football reaction times and arguments but I will keep trying. but maybe this 1 video will help http://www.youtube.com... Keep in mind that football players have a competitive edge from an opponent right next to them as opposed to baseball players they do not have anyone trying to hit them or giving them a battle on the field. Also remember football players are bigger and heavier as still have similar reaction time to baseball players. This next video sums up my argument about big, fast men. Please watch my videos as I did watch all 3 of yours & these videos are entertaining. http://www.youtube.com...
Famer's Story-writing debate tournament Round#1 Muted VS Zaradi

The crunch of boots rumbled into the cell holding Omega as the guard without paced away his boring duty. Stripped of all his equipment, Omega was thrown into this dank, and lightless place. He could hear the grating of scales as a serpent shuffled its way into a hiding hole. The squeaking of pestilent rodents kept him awake. Every so often, one of these squeaks would turn into loud shrill cries, followed by dead silence. The crunch of bones as they broke in the jaws of the snake resounded through the cell. Omega"s glowing red eyes enabled him to see in the dark, to some extent. He hunkered down onto the rotting straw mattress that he found near the far end of the cell. He ripped off his upper garment, and proceeded to mask his face with it. Gently, he lowered his head onto the straw. He could not sleep, but at least this was a more comfortable position than standing through the night. The crunch of boot halted, shouts were heard, and the sound of a retreating footstep came clearly through the steel plated gate. Omega guessed at a change in the guards. He smiled, and closed his eyes. (Due to a very tight schedule, I will have to let Zaradi continue from here.)
Befriending

Being nice does not mean you have befriended somebody. Imagine, going on vacation, and say this is not the modern digital age where you can exchange cell phone numbers, but imagine going on vacation with your family, and you're depressed. You go to the hotel pool, and you meet someone there. You play games in the pool, and you see each other in the lobby. Don't worry about their gender/sexual orientation. You are acting friendly. That other person, whom lives in a different state, is not your friend when you leave, however, you were made happier, and at least temporarily, you are saved without having a friend. By the way, I disagree with my opponent's words to describe certain people who have difficulty making friends. "nerdy, sad, depressed, ugly, fat, or really shy" are pretty harsh words, and they do not all fit friendless people's description. Yeah, having friends is important, but making an agenda to be friends with people who look like they need one seems more like a chore. You should always want to be a friend, and never feel like it's a chore.
Befriending

Have you ever befriended someone simply because he or she looked like he needed a friend? I do think that most people should befriend people that look like they are in need of a friend. A lot of people like that can save someone"s life, by befriending them. People that are really nerdy, sad, depressed, ugly, fat, or really shy could have a hard time getting friends. This could lead to them commit suicide or hurt the people who hurt them. Who knows maybe the person that you befriend might turn out to be your best friend in the future. I know it was hard for me to gain friends, due to my shyness and me moving all the time. Once I found some friends I never was mean to anyone and became their friends.
Resolved: President-Elect Trump's Economic Policies Will Benefit the Majority of Americans

IntroductionThis debate is fairly straightforward; as Pro, my opponent will argue that President-Elect Donald Trump's economic policy proposals will benefit the majority of Americans while I will attempt to refute this statement. FormatRound One: Acceptance Round Two: Constructive ArgumentsRound Three: Refutations Round Four: Responses to Refutations Round Five: Conclusion Please remain respectful and keep in mind that all arguments should be introduced in round two. No new argumetns should be presented in the subsquent rounds.
Aliens does not exist!

You said, "I did support my reasons for my statement that I have made. I don't think you read correctly." I did, in fact, respond to the reasons you put forth.Given that you haven't advanced any new arguments, or attempted to rebut my replies, I don't have much of anything to add at this point.I still contend that you have offered no claim or evidence for the proposition that aliens do not exist.Meanwhile I have demonstrated that not only can we not justifiably claim that aliens do not exist, but there is a probability that they do exist given the size and nature of the universe as we understand it.The most rational and justifiable position to hold at this time is that we do not know whether or not aliens do exist.
Aliens does not exist!

Well, it seems as if we may not need all the rounds of this debate after all. You began this debate with the claim that 'aliens do not exist.' You then began your argument with the statement, "No one has evidence that proves aliens exist or not." In light of that I would propose that I have made my case and that you have conceded your position completely. You went on to say, "But I feel aliens does not exist." With all due respect, while it is interesting to know what you might think or feel, it is not entirely relevant here. In order to support the statement that 'aliens do not exist' I am interesting in what you can prove, demonstrate and support. In regards to the remainder of your argument I would say that the existence of hoaxes does nothing but prove that hoaxes exist. But that is all you can logically and reasonably draw from the evidence. People throughout history have also faked their deaths, staged accidental fires, and forged great works of art - but that does not mean that death, accidents and original artwork do not exist. You go on to say "they should of been here by now?. Where are they? Oh yeah, they don't exist." Yet you offered not support, evidence or justification for your belief that alien life is impossible. As the famous saying goes, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' But regardless, your point about visitation is irrelevant in our context. This debate was never about whether or not aliens have visited Earth, but whether or not alien life exists in our universe. I proposed at the onset that it is not possible to support the claim that aliens do not exist, and therefore it is not a reasonable position to hold. I feel I've made that case very strongly. I will close by repeating your own statement, since it made my case so clearly, "no one has evidence that proves aliens exist or not."
Aliens does not exist!

No one has evidence that proves aliens exist or not. But I feel aliens does not exist. Yes, there are photos of Mars that looks like aliens are there. But the photos could be photoshopped. Especially, with the technology we have today. You can create any photo, or website. Yes, the universe is ginormous, and we haven't explored all of it. But seeing all these shows and movies that it seems that they have a UFO. Aliens rumors had been around for so long, and people saying that their coming. So, they should of been here by now?. Where are they? Oh yeah, they don't exist. The ONLY reason why aliens are so popular is because aliens fanatics hype it up. And when people claim they seen a UFO they are usually intoxicated with drugs. People waste their precious time researching about something that doesn't even exist.
Aliens does not exist!

Thank you Cheeto, for setting up this debate. Arguing the contrary, I will show that it is unreasonable and irrational to make the positive claim that aliens do not exist. To be clear, it is not my responsibility to prove that alien life DOES exist, only that one cannot reasonable support the assertion that it does not exist. Seeing as Cheeto has not offered any definitions, I will assume that 'aliens' refers quite simply to 'living organisms originating and residing on planets other than Earth.' Recent studies have concluded, via data collected by NASA's Kepler spacecraft, that as many as 1 in 5 stars observed have an earth-size planet in what is referred to as the 'habitable-zone.' (1) When the above discovery is taken into consideration with the fact that the observable universe is somewhere in the ballpark of 92 billion light years across (2), it becomes evident that any positive claim that alien life does not exist is an unreasonable one. The little bit we know about the universe tells us that the odds are in favor of the potential for alien life. When you add to that the fact that the vast majority of the universe has not yet been explored, it becomes clear that it is irrational to make any claims about what cannot exist. We are not justified in making positive knowledge claims about things we have not yet explored or even observed. The most we can say is that we do not know. To make any claim of knowledge past that point is irrational, unreasonable and unjustified. I look forward to hearing Cheeto's argument and evidence for the claim that alien life does not exist anywhere in our universe. (1) http://www.space.com... (2) http://www.space.com...