BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Soccer is better than baseball

Thank-you for the Opening Arguments. As we are saving rebuttals for the next round, I will only present my reasons why Baseball is better than soccer. http://www.youtube.com... 1. The players use their arms as well as their legs and don't often use their heads. In soccer you don't use any body part in particular or for any special use: just to get the ball somewhere. You can't use your hands and elbows at all. In baseball you don't bumb a ball around using your head. [1] 2. There is much more scoring and no ties. With no time limits and nine innings, baseball has equal opportunities for each team to score so that you HAVE to play tight defense until you get 3 outs and then on offence you only have 3 outs to score (get to Home plate). [1] 3. The players don't bite eachother. This is a relief because otherwise the players would have injuries and not be able to use all their required athletic ability to keep playing. Besides, don't they teach against biting other people in Kindergarten? [1] 4. There are better movies about it. I can name 3 movies off the top of my head that are popularly known by most everybody: The Sandlot, Field of Dreams, and The Natural. They have not only made it big in movie cinema but have made baseball become even more dear to my, and other people's, lives. [1] 5. Baseball coaches/managers are better than FIFA coaches. MLB Managers are not afraid to be removed from a game when it comes to protecting their players, it's actually expected for a manager to stick up for his guys. FIFA coaches seem to stay out of the way no matter what happens. [2] 6. The other team doesn't score for you. Let's face it, the most embarrasing, dissapointing, and useless moments in soccer history is when the other team scores on the wrong goal. That does NOT happen in baseball. [2] 7. MLB players are professional athletes. FIFA players are amateur athletes. This is not a knock against the physical demands of Soccer. I'll be the first to admit that it's the most demanding physically with the exception of Aussie rules football. It's not physical ability that separates a professional from an amateur. My point is that Professional players, when they fall down, dust themselves off and get back in the game. A amateur will lay on the ground crying and wailing like a two-year-old at a Wal-mart toy section! [2] 8. While it may be true that soccer is more popular internationally, it is played less by adolescents than baseball is. All these reasons prove that baseball is indeed better than soccer. Sources [1] http://www.newrepublic.com... [2] http://bleacherreport.com...
Secular philosophies lead to nowhere

Pro is trying to dismiss all my arguments on the account of presuppositions for it to work. However in pros last sentence he says he is presupposing gods existence; so if pro is going to use that logic against my arguments he must also be dismissing his own at the same time! Pro says my last claim just proves a lack of study on religion when that is completely non-sector. CONCLUSIONPros arguments revolve around dodging questions, logical fallacies, contradictions, and the use of logic that invalidates his own arguments; because of this pro has no valid support for his arguments nor valid proof against my arguments. By dismissing my case because it requires assumptions, pro dismisses his own case which rests on much shakier assumptions.
Secular philosophies lead to nowhere

There is only two options, creationism or evolution. Evolution doesn't provide the preconditions for intelligibility. How do you get from random/chance to uniformity? If your brain is just random chemical reactions you have know way of knowing if anything is true for certain. How would you even know nature tries to reach a stable state? Because you see it and use your reasoning? How do you know your senses and reasoning are valid and accurate? You beg the question when you say empirical evidence doesn't require God's existence because you still presuppose uniformity which evolution cannot account for. You also beg the question when you say "because we've observed it under the same conditions multiple times" because that too presupposes uniformity. That's committing the gambler's fallacy because if evolution is only chance then even if you've seen it over and over again you still have no basis to know that it will remain that way. And logic makes no sense in evolution because if logic was just a convention and not an absolute standard then what was man's basis for logic when creating them? How would they even know what logical was? Did the universe exist and not exist at the same time before laws of logic were invented? All of your claims presuppose that your senses, memory, and reasoning are true. You can't prove autonomy or prove how reality is dependant on you. You aren't an objective standard. Everyone presupposes things but only presupposing the Christian God makes sense. Your last claim just shows lack of study on religions. Without God all of your claims are inductive and have no basis of being absolutely true. Every claim made by anyone would be relative/subjective without an objective standard of truth. Everyone knows the true God but suppresses the truth about Him because of their sin. No one can ever "figure" out truth because they would be imploring their reasoning. I am saying that truth can be revealed to us by using our reasoning so that we can know things for certain via God's common grace. I do presuppose God's existence and that is the only way i know anything for certain since my standard of truth isn't myself.
Secular philosophies lead to nowhere

Where exactly did Pro get the idea that trying to disprove him suggests I cannot account for logic or meaning without him?Can pro please explain why uniformity doesn't make sense in a secular worldview. Also I wouldn't quite call it an assumption because If you look anywhere in the Universe you can see the same physical laws in effect. "You would have no reason to rely on uniformity if not for God."Actually there is a reason. Things in nature are going to try and reach a stable state. Uniformity would be the most stable state for the universe so there is a reason."Yes empirical evidence does lead to some truth but only by presupposing God's existence"Why exactly would empirical evidence require presupposing Gods existence. Empirical evidence is based on observation,which doesn't require presupposing God exists. This statement is "if you were to ask them how they know what they know for sure they would not be able to answer." They would say they know for sure "because we have observed it and reproduced the effects under the same conditions multiple times."Pro needs to explain why Christianity is the only religion makes sense. Also what about all those people who'd say that their religion is the only one that makes sense. "Christianity is not based on consensus. The moral values in Christianity are God's character and are not dependant on culture or consensus. It wouldn't matter who disagreed with God since His word is law. To try and judge His values you would either be using your own values or some from another religion/philosophy but on what grounds would you call those values true? God's values are not true because I say they are. They don't require my approval. They require complete submission to."Wow; exactly what any Viking, Roman, Greek, or any other religion would say about there god's values.All of pros arguments are based on the assumption that a god exists. For pros arguments to be valid pro must provide undeniable evidence of a god's existence.
Secular philosophies lead to nowhere

I am not saying that we don't know if God exists i'm saying that He does and to even come to this argument and try to disprove him you are actually proving Him because you cannot account for logic or meaning without Him. Uniformity When you look around and see these physical laws taking place it presupposes uniformity. Without uniformity in nature science would be impossible since we would have no basis to make predictions. Uniformity doesn't make sense in a secular/evolution worldview. The most you can say is that since nature was like this is the past it will be this way in the future. This is merely an assumption for the secularist. You would have no reason to rely on uniformity if not for God. It makes sense to the Christian that there is uniformity since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Heb. 1:3). Secularists accept biblical principles such as uniformity while simultaneously denying the Bible from where those principles come from. Empirical evidence Yes empirical evidence does lead to some truth but only by presupposing God's existence. God alone leads to full blown truth and we are created with ways to reason and observe the world and come to conclusions. Without God empiricism would just be assuming uniformity. Secularists can know things because of God's common grace since He has given them reason but if you were to ask them how they know what they know for sure they would not be able to answer. Consensus Yes there have been many religions with different value systems but this claim sounds like a lack of study in this field. A careful study of religion would show that none of them make sense and Christianity is the only one that can account for truth. Christianity is not based on consensus. The moral values in Christianity are God's character and are not dependant on culture or consensus. It wouldn't matter who disagreed with God since His word is law. To try and judge His values you would either be using your own values or some from another religion/philosophy but on what grounds would you call those values true? God's values are not true because i say they are. They don't require my approval. They require complete submission to.
Secular philosophies lead to nowhere

"I'm saying that if God were to exist he would be able to reveal things to us so that we can know them absolutely for sure since He would be the absolute standard"Here it appears con is saying that we don't know if God exists. If God doesn't exist then those religious philosophies absolute truths can't be absolute truths; invalidating religious philosophies claims of absolute truth. "To even attempt to study the world rationally you would have to presuppose uniformity."Everywhere we look we find the same physical laws in place so it's not just an unwarranted supposition; in fact it's much more probable to be true than most of what religious philosophies presuppose."I would also like to point out that empirical evidence alone does not lead to truth."If observing an actual event does not lead to the "truth" than what does? I contend this claim is unwarranted as empirical evidence is the ultimate standard in science."Empiricism says that all knowledge is based on observation but it is self defeating since this has not been observed."I'll give pro this point on the grounds that some things humans have an innate knowledge of even without observation."You would have no reason to believe in empirical evidence"I'd contend that since with observation you can predict other observations ad reproduce it you do have reason to believe empirical evidence."And going back to humanism I want to say that it puts man at the center of all things and states that through man come true norms and values but they have no basis for saying these are true values since there are many different values. Values become preferences rather than principles. There would be no way of knowing which values are true and which ones are not. I know that humanism focuses on compassion and service to mankind but these values would only be true by consensus. Consensus doesn't lead to truth."There have been many different religious philosophies with many different values, so values even religious ones are based on consensus within a culture.
Secular philosophies lead to nowhere

I'm saying that if God were to exist he would be able to reveal things to us so that we can know them absolutely for sure since He would be the absolute standard. To even attempt to study the world rationally you would have to presuppose uniformity. I would also like to point out that empirical evidence alone does not lead to truth. Empiricism says that all knowledge is based on observation but it is self defeating since this has not been observed. You would have no reason to believe in empirical evidence. And going back to humanism i want to say that it puts man at the center of all things and states that through man come true norms and values but they have no basis for saying these are true values since there are many different values. Values become preferences rather than principles. There would be no way of knowing which values are true and which ones are not. I know that humanism focuses on compassion and service to mankind but these values would only be true by consensus. Consensus doesn't lead to truth.
Secular philosophies lead to nowhere

Pro has given three examples Existentialism, Nihilism, and humanism. I concede that both Existentialism and Nihilism do deny absolute truth and that there view is subjective so I will focus on humanism.HUMANISMDefinition: Humanism is a movement of philosophy and ethics that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence over established doctrine or faith.According to this definition the view is not subjective as it has basis in empirical evidence as it's way of knowing. While they don't have absolute "truths", with continual experiments it adjusts its view on the way the world works accordingly. Some of these "truths" such as the four fundamental forces can be considered absolute "truths." Other things may not be absolute truths as science; there main way of knowing; continually changes. However somethings aren't quite absolute truths such as all quantum mechanical systems not being observed since until something is observed it doesn't have a definite quantum state. However the general rules governing quantum mechanical systems are; as this is proved; wave function collapse; it can still be considered an absolute "truth" because we know that until it is observed there isn't a definite quantum state.I'd also like to point out that religious philosophies absolute truths can't be proved since the are doctrine so they may not even be the "truth."
Ireland should join the United Kingdom

I am not anti-England, I am anti-Imperialist. You, my friend, are an Imperialist. Ireland doesn't want to be want to be controlled, or ruled, or owned. Ireland wants to be Ireland. Every act the Irish took against the English was in response to English aggression. You still do nothing to combat the point that Ireland is a sovereign nation that doesn't want to be another piece of the British Empire. Maybe the Irish are Anglo-phobic, but not without good reason. The English, in fact, are also prejudiced against the Irish, stereotyping them as a bunch of good for nothing alcoholics. As I said before, I have no problem with the English and Irish making amends. The United States and the UK and great allies, and the United States was once controlled by England but that doesn't mean that the US should join the UK. Also, for the record, I don't hate the English, or any other nationality, but they have their own nations, and I have mine. Anyone who has paid attention to Irish history can see that the English were the ones to cause the problems. Again, a point which you still haven't responded to, the Irish don't want to join the UK and be another piece of the British Empire, with their leader as a English Prime Minister and a English Queen. Ireland is Ireland, England is England. There is no reason for one to own the other, or be united into one nation. France has no more reason to join the UK than Ireland has. Another point you haven't responded to, is that the head of state of the United Kingdom is the Queen of England. You yourself refer to "Her Majesty". If the UK really isn't ruled by the English, why is their head of state the QUEEN OF ENGLAND. Freedom will not be denied. If England again invades Ireland and takes it by force, the people will rebel. And probably loose. But they will keep fighting until they have their freedom, just as they did before. Voters, as has been clearly laid out in this debate, to vote for Pro would be a vote toward Imperialism and tyranny. However, to vote for me is to vote to preserve the culture, society, and independence of a proud and wonderful nation. YES TO INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM, NO TO IMPERIALISM.
Ireland should join the United Kingdom

Genes do not matter at all. The English do not have to be different genes to be the enemies of Ireland. Someone's genes do not determine what actions they will make. That is everyone's choice. Throughout history, England has oppressed Ireland. Freedom is good, and even if many of the causes of modern Britain are just, Ireland doesn't want to be a part of the UK. Period. Also, your point about the soldiers fighting for England, it's not because they are English loving. This is a excerpt from your own article: "Why did a southern Irish Catholic voluntarily enlist in the British army? John Redmond MP, leader of the Irish party, pledged to support Asquith's Liberal party in return for the introduction of Home Rule." The reason the Irish fought for the English because they wanted to be free of them. Or simply for adventure: "Others enlisted for adventure, "for no other reason than to see what war was like, to get a gun, to see new countries and to feel like a grown man," in the fiery words of the future IRA leader, Tom Barry." A leader of the IRA was among the supposedly "Patriotic British Soldiers" or whatever you think they are. You don't know what being Irish is about, because you just think Ireland should be owned by another nation. Not just any nation, but the same nation that has been oppressing and abusing the Irish people for centuries. Do you know why the Irish have had such a sad history (if you know anything about Irish history) it is all because of the English. If Ireland keeps being controlled by England, it will end up just like Wales, with almost nothing left of its once proud culture. Throughout history, England has invaded and mistreated Ireland. Always, Ireland fights back. So many times has Ireland fought for its freedom that Wikipedia has a list of all of the uprisings. http://en.wikipedia.org... I have no problem with Ireland being allied with the UK, however, Ireland is simply a separate country, and so it should remain independent. Again, I end with the same point. Ireland is not British, and it doesn't want to be.
Ireland should join the United Kingdom

I don't care about Poland, Germany, Austria, and the other country you mentioned. I care about Britain. Irish republicans will say anything to get their people to side with them. No, Ireland was a union, not a colony. If Ireland was a colony, it would say it in history. But no, it said joined the UK. You said that I wanted to take away the Irish's freedom. Well think again. How many Irish are serving the British in WW1? 5,000. In WW2? 60,000. I'm saying the Irish and British need to be reunited to reconcile and to do what the past Irish and past British couldn't do. Did you forget that from 1891 to 1922, there were Southern Irish unionists who remained loyal to the Queen? Since 1922, we have heard no Southern Irish in the Irish parliament with the exception of Fine Gael, this party(http://irishunionist.wikifoundry.com...), and some others with petitions. For those Irish who supported Britain, you called them traitors, threatened to murder them, and abducted them. These Irish served the British in WW1 and WW2, and you want to forget them, totally disrespect. That's not what being Irish is about. It's about admiring your countrymen. Limited Irish recruitment in the Irish armed forces caused some Irish to serve the British. That's disrespectful to threaten them because of them. This site(http://www.nytimes.com...) shows the English and the Irish are one people through genes. You can break genes. Blood is thicker than water. The British and Irish are closely related by genes. Trust me. http://www.nytimes.com... Blood is thicker than water again. You can bring the conflicts that Britain and Ireland had in the past, but it will never break the relations that these two islands have together. These nations are on the same island. You can never break the bonds these two nations have.
Ireland should join the United Kingdom

No country should be ruled by another, especially one with a monarchy. Ireland doesn't recognize the Queen of England. Ireland is a proud and independent country. Though they are a large nation, their spirit, as well as their patriotism, is large. Every time the English conquer and oppress the Irish, they fight for their Independence. Finally, they have it, and you want to take it away. Now obviously, you don't care what the Irish think about being ruled over by a foreign power; "Ireland is British whether the Irish like it or not."You say that hey were previously united. Now united is saying it quite nicely. That is like saying that Austria, Poland, France, Serbia, ect. should "rejoin" Germany because they were united in World War II, by invasion, just like how Ireland was "United" into England. Still, you say nothing about the atrocities the British committed. Do you simply choose to ignore those? Britain and Ireland are fundamentally different cultures. British are Anglo-Saxon, and the Irish are Celtic. They have different folklore, histories, artwork, and music. Fact is, Ireland is not British, and it doesn't want to be.
Ireland should join the United Kingdom

First, let's begin with this. The UK is unitary state. The United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed in 1707. Why? Because England and Scotland shared the same monarch which is King James VI of Scotland who inherited the English throne from his double first cousin, Queen Elizabeth I. Queen Elizabeth II is half-English, half-Scottish. Union of Crowns act in 1603 was that the Scottish king was also the king of England. Scotland said no to independence on Sept. 18, so let's skip that topic at the end. Ireland can rejoin the UK as federal union. Eh? A united Ireland for a federal United Kingdom. It was mother nature that decided that the unitary state of the United Kingdom capital be put in London, England. One-sixth of Britons are Irish. Never forget that. Why do I care about Britain and Ireland? They were previously united from 1801 to 1922. A rare number of Southern Irish unionists can be found. I am American by birth but British by the grace of God because America was colonized by the British. Hey, I have no problem if America rejoined the UK. One day, Ireland and Britain will be reunited due to geographical ties, cultural ties, and economic ties. Irish and British are brothers. Media, music, and sports are the same. Ireland is still British, always have, and always will. Ireland is British whether the Irish like it or not. Britain and Ireland will never ever be divided.