BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
American Football is better than soccer/football

Once again my opponent just assumes that there is no strategy in soccer, as if repeating it will make it true. American football certainly has more strategy to it; every ten seconds the game stops and the coaches interact with their players. With soccer, the players themselves take a role in strategizing. The manager will lay out the overall formation and gameplan, but it's up to the players to control there fatigue, positioning, aggression and when to push forward to attack. The ability for a player to think strategically is vastly more important in soccer than football. I'm really hoping my opponent will respond to my points or at least come up with some new ones. So far Pro's argument has essentially been "I don't understand soccer/I like football better." Remember, Pro has to show why football is BETTER. And for the record, I've owned 8 Maddens, 5 NCAA Footballs, refereed football games for a season, and spent almost 20 years watching it on TV. I know what to look for.
American Football is better than soccer/football

If you know what to watch for when watching American football then you would see plenty. With soccer yes it is all lot more popular and has less equipment. plus, soccer is like you said an easier thing to watch because you only need to watch the ball itself. American football gives you 22 players to watch and if you don't know what to look for you are thoroughly confused. the confusion there would lead to an uneducated opinion on what is more fun to watch and play. Soccer gives very little to the watching of an opponents film. There is no game plan needed besides get, keep, the ball then score. where as with American football you never truly know what to expect because there is so much detail in strategy to watch for and be prepared for. If you miss the slightest detail or timing in say a hand off with a run then you may miss the fake hand offs. etc
American Football is better than soccer/football

I was really hoping to get a much better argument out of my opponent. Pro's argument is that association football has no discernible strategy. This is a typically myopic view of somebody with minimal knowledge of the game. It's like somebody ignorant of gridiron football saying "why doesn't the ball carrier just keep running"? I think my opponent owes it to the sport to defend it with more than a laughably uninformed opinion. I on the other hand grew up with American football and only discovered the European variety late in high school. Even though I still watch football, I prefer soccer. Gameplay Whether or not the happenings on the field are to one's liking is entirely subjective. Some people think baseball is excruciatingly boring; others consider it a "game of anticipation". It's neither better nor worse; it's just different. I think soccer is more watchable. In football, it bothers me that you never see the secondary. If the QB misses a wide open receiver down-field, you don't see it until a replay shows it. Once again, this is just my opinion. On the other hand, an element objectively in soccer's favor is the uninterrupted play. Soccer has 45 minute halves with no commercial breaks except during the 15 minute halftime. Football has numerous stoppages. Whether it's one of MANY commercial breaks or just a dead ball, the 3 to 4 hour game usually contains only 10-15 minutes of ACTUAL playing. Soccer matches last inside of 2 hours, and at least 90 minutes of that is live action. Accessibility Association Football is by far the most popular sport in the world. I would hypothesize this is largely due to the fact anyone can play it and become great. Soccer doesn't require much equipment. To play in an organized league, a player only needs shoes, shin guards, and some kind of jersey. There are no pricey helmets, should pads, thigh pads, or special pants needed. The field doesn't need nearly as much work as its American counterpart does. This makes soccer much cheaper to conduct, and therefore more appealing to poorer communities. But what I think separates soccer from the rest is that it favors acquired skill more than any other attribute. To be in the NFL, you need to win the genetic lottery in the size department. The average player is well over 6' tall. In soccer, the best players in the world are people of much more modest size who practice a lot. Lionel Messi, widely considered to be the best in the world, is 5'7" and was born with a heart defect. Pele and Maradona were both around 5'8".
American Football is better than soccer/football

"...this subject of what sport is better between American football and soccer is solely up to every person's personal opinion." The motion of this debate is that Football is better than Soccer. That means showing criteria beyond personal opinion. Pro has not shown anything beyond his own personal preference for Football. With the wording of the motion, Pro had to show that Football was better, meaning a neutral result would see the motion defeated. Given that Pro has presented so little on Football's behalf and I have presented objective, unrebutted arguments, a vote for Con is warranted under the debate guidelines. Thanks to all those who participated in this debate!
American Football is better than soccer/football

You've made a point on the apparent lack of sportsmanship in American football. while yes there are plenty of times and people who have bad sportsmanship there are people who have pretty good sportsmanship. so, I would say that there people like that in all sports no matter how big or small the bad or good sportsmanship is it is there. the refs of any sport have the rules they have to make people follow but they all still have their own personal limits, this is seen when a ref does say remove a player from the game in American football or red cards someone in soccer. the amount of patience is all up to the ref him/herself, ultimately they decide whether or not someone can be a mouthy punk or if everyone has to keep themselves respectful. I also never said that soccer players don't exert themselves to their fullest, I know they do I was just pointing out that in American football you have no other option to be anything but your best otherwise you lose. In the end whether or not we have knowledge we throw into this debate this subject of what sport is better between American football and soccer is solely up to every person's personal opinion. that is why I believe very strongly that why soccer is a good and possibly fun sport, American football is by far the better sport.
Conservatism and Libertarianism

Resolved: Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies. I am Affirming. The burden of proof is shared, my opponent needs to show that on balance, the goals of Libertarianism and Conservatism are too far apart to be treated as actual allies. What exactly defines a Libertarian and Conservative will be a point of contention between my opponent and myself, but my opponent acknowledges upon accepting that the definitions need to be within reason. For clarification I will be defending Hoppes thesis that statist conservatism is essentially self defeating. Citing one's sources outside of the debate is permissible. This is now a part of man-is-good's tournament.
In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote.

This is an infringement on equality because felons are in fact not equal with the rest of the citizens. And in a democracy, everyone has to be equal, or it is no longer a democracy. Punishment is for people to learn from mistakes. If felons are punished by taking their right to vote away FOREVER, then they will never learn becasuse they wont have that chance to learn. In a democracy everyone must have equal rights and the same individual rights.
In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote.

Not allowing felons to vote is not an infringement on equality. Anyone can commit a crime and become a felon. Everyone is born with the assumption that when they turn 18 they will be allowed to vote. The standards and the expectations are the same for all citizens. Voting is not the only important way to function as a part of a democracy. The revoking of voting serves as an occasional reminder of mistakes.
In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote.

My opponent stated, "Modern democracy is, of course, founded on equality." He agrees with my value. A right is not the same as a privilege. A right is something that cannot be taking away. My opponent is saying why a right, something that is garanteed, should be stripped away for the felon's entire life. Modern Democracy is based on voting. The only thing that is important in a democracy is voting, it does not matter whether or not they did something bad or not. By excluding citizens from voting, you are going against a democracy. A felon may go against the law, and may endanger society, but why should he be punished twice? Jail is supposed to help the prisoner go back into society as smoothly as possible. But if the right to vote were to be taken away, he could not interact with the rest of the democratic society, and would not be able to vote on things that he wants. It would make him more likely to lash out again against society. This is not at all like a democratic society. A democratic society has equal rights for all, because in a democracy, no one is excluded.
In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote.

I will, likewise, begin by defining the terms that I am introducing. Social contract (as applied here): A society submits itself to the jurisdiction of a government in exchange for protection Modern democracy: a government system ruled, in some way, by all willing citizens Modern democracy is, of course, founded on equality. This does not, however, override the duty of government in the social contract. Felons have, according to the rule of the law, not complied with the expectations of the society in which they live (as written in law). They are not fit to function with the normal rights of a citizen. Often they are placed in prison, where their freedoms are diminished severely. While the measure is not necessarily permanent, among these loss of freedoms it is fitting to place the right to vote. We assume that a felony indicates danger to a society, requiring punishment. If the judgment of the felon is erroneous as defined by law, then their judgment is not appropriate for selecting the leaders of their government.
In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote.

This is the Nov/Dec LD resolved. I have a tounament coming up and I would like to practice. Good Luck. _____________________________________________________________________ First of I would like to define a few key terms I will be using in my debate. Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections Felon: someone who commits a grave crime declared to be a felony by the common law or by statute regardless of the punishment actually imposed My value is equality of rights My value criteria is individual rights Equality of rights can be defined as: a person and/or community having equal status of rights and privileges. Individual rights can be defined as: every person deserves his/her own right in a community or society. C1: Upholding the equality of rights results in the best course of action for this resolution. Equality of rights is something all men/women must share in order to achieve the best outcome for this resolution. When you place felons below people such as you and I, you devalue equality of rights. Felons have equal rights as stated by the constitution of the united states of america. To take away ones rights is to strip down the very morals this country was founded on. If my opponenet truly values democracy then he must believe that to uphold democracy you must follow the constitutional rights it specifies. This being said he must also value equality of rights being that this is the principle upon which the constitution was founded on. You cannot have democracy without equality of rights, so therefore my value supercedes my opponents. C2: Upholding individual rights is the better criteria for upholding values. I will now tell you a clear mechanism that intertwines my value and my value criteria. Individual rights is the only way equality of rights can be upheld. In order in to uphold equality of rights, or giving each person an equal desicion in the society, you must give each person individual rights. Individual rights is being denied to felons by my oppopnent, which means he is not letting each person have an equal say in the society, which devalues our very constitution. My opponent believes in democracy, and yet does not believe in the prime principle behind democracy - EQUALITY. Democracy was founded on the belief that each INDIVIDUAL will have an EQUAL say in the decisions made in society. Denying the right to vote to felons denies them of the very thing democracy is founded on, you cannot single out a group of people because of things done in the past and deny them a right in the present. My opponent also contradicts himself by making his value democracy and then saying he is denying democracy to a specific group of people.
Islam is a violent religion.

Islam is currently the most violent religion in the world. There are dozens of Islamic terrorist organizations, Such as ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, The Taliban, Hamas, And others. No other religion has so many terrorist organizations with lots of power, Not a single one. This isn't because some Muslims are bad people, This is because Islam itself is violent. Even the beggining of Islam was violent. Muhammad, The founder of Islam, Was an Arabian warlord who invaded Mecca because it didn't want to become Muslim. Muhammad led armies of thousands to conquer infidels. None of this happened in any other religions.
Islam is a violent religion.

We don't need to talk about religious wars that took place in the past. We are discussing Islam today, Right now. Arguments such as "Christianity was violent in the past" doesn't justify what Islam does now. This argument isn't about if Christianity is violent, It's about if Islam is violent. I'm not trying to prove how Christianity isn't violent or how Islam is more violent than Christianity. The point of this debate is to determine if Islam is a violent religion, That's it. The USA is not the most outwardly violent nation in the world. Countries like Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, And others are much more violent. Western civilization isn't the most violent either. In countries like Iran, Leaders chant "Death to America". In countries like North Korea, Their leader threatens his neigbours with destruction on a daily basis. But like I said, This isn't the point of the argument. The point of the argument is to decide if Islam is a violent religion. Like I said before, Neo-Nazis and the Crusades can't be compared to ISIS. Even if it were possible to compare the three, That doesn't prove how Islam isn't violent. The violence of other religions in the past doesn't justify what Islam does today. You have not countered my statistics, You have not countered my facts, You have not presented any statistics or facts of your own. All you have done so far is cherrypick my choice of words and unimportant arguments.
Islam is a violent religion.

When you are talking about the most violent countries are you talking about outwardly violent towards other nations or generally in turmoil? If we are talking about the most outwardly violent nations on earth there is a big case to be made that the USA is the most outwardly violent or generally western countries as a whole. If we are talking about general turmoil within the country there isn't really a blueprint for predicting or measuring turmoil within a country, Certainly not one you can base on religion. When we talk about Islamic terrorists killing tens of thousands of people within the context of a religious war we also need to talk about some of the wars that other religions partook in over the last millennia (not including the crusades). When I used the example of the Neo-Nazis it was for the purpose of pointing out extremes within a group not to dissect the religious tenants of their followers. You misinterpreted my meaning behind that analogy. Also, The my Crusades point was also taken out of context. I am well aware of the reasons why the Crusades happened but to say they were not in any way religious does not do justice to the true history of the conflicts. Also, I am not going to engage in cherry picking excerpts from the Quran. Main reason is because this debate will turn into you cherry picking the Quran and me cherry picking the Bible which will get us no where. We should speak on the fundamental nature of Islam and whether or not it is violent by the very nature of the religion itself. There is all to often out of context debates that occur with regards to the tenants of the Quran the devolve into two individuals franticly searching for passages that suit their narrative and I just won't do that.
Islam is a violent religion.

By what metric would I measure violence? Well of course, There isn't a single measurement, But here are some things to prove that Islam is violent: 1. Virtually all religious terrorist groups are Muslim 2. Some of the most violent countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Etc) are Muslim. 3. 8 percent (or 130 million) Muslims approve of ISIS. 4. Islamic terrorists have killed tens of thousands of people. 5. Countries with Islam as a state religion are all some form of dictatorship. Then of course there is the argument that Muslims don't support terrorist groups. But they do. Here are Pew Research Center stats: 8% of Muslims approve of ISIS. 23% of Muslims think that 9/11 was somewhat justified. 36% of Muslims do not condemn the 9/11 attacks. Only 25% of Muslims oppose Hamas and Hezbollah. These are all very frightening statistics, As we are talking about hundreds of millions of Muslims. But please don't change my argument: I'm not saying that all Muslims are violent terrorists, I'm saying that Islam itself promotes violence. Neo-Nazis and the Crusades cannot be compared to ISIS and Islamic terrorism. Neo-Nazis don't care about Christianity, Not all of their members are Christian, And promoting Christianity isn't one of their goals. ISIS is directly promoting Islam, Even their name has the word "Islamic". ISIS wants to spread Islam worldwide, Neo-Nazis don't care about Christianity. Same thing with the Crusades. The Crusades were actually a response to Muslim agression against the Byzantine Empire and Spain! They weren't trying to eradicate Islam, They weren't trying to kill all Muslims, And their actions weren't supported by the Bible. The Quran promotes violence. Below are excerpts from the Quran which promote violence agaist lots of groups: "And slay them [non-believers] wherever ye find them, And drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, For persecution is worse than slaughter. . . And fight them until fitnah is no more, And religion is for Allah. " 2:191. "But when the forbidden months are past, Then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, And seize them, Beleaguer them, And lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, And establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, Then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. " 9:5. "Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your disposal so that you can strike terror into the enemies of Allah and of the believers and others besides them who may be unknown to you, Though Allah knows them. And remember whatever you spend for the cause of Allah shall be repaid to you. You shall not be wronged. " 8:60. "Those who believe, Fight in the cause of Allah, And those who disbelieve, Fight in the cause of Satan. So fight you against the friends of Satan. Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Satan. " 4:76.
Islam is a violent religion.

My first question would be; by what metric do you use to measure violence as it pertains to religion? My second point of contention would be to point out that the terrorist groups are often disavowed by Muslims for their violent behaviors. Calling ISIS a good representation of Islam is like calling the Neo-Nazis a good representation of Christianity. Pointing to extremes as representative of the whole has never been the standard by which moral goodness is applied. You also make it clear that you believe Islam is a violent religion, Not that some Muslims are violent. You point to the founder of Islam being violent. I have several problems with this argument but one main problem. Using a founder as the projection of the tendencies of a religion to talk about the nature of that religion just does not work. Jesus and Buddha were plenty peaceful but the Crusades were a thing and Buddhists attack Muslims in Myanmar to this day. I yield the floor.
It is unfair that I am unallowed to vote on debates because I don't own a phone.

Contention 1: Use of Parents PhoneMy opponent drops this argument only to talk about the wealth gap. He never brings up the point weather or not his parents have a phone. With that I extend my argument here across the board. I am very curious on how my opponent does not have a cell phone, but yet a computer to get onto this site. Contention 2: IP AddressPeople have easy access to things that they can use to hide their IP addresses. (see video) . http://www.youtube.com... People can use what is known as a proxy server to hide their IP address and mask them from those who want to track them making them hard to track. This will easily pose a hardship to Juggle and this is why they have them using the cell phone verification. (. http://compnetworking.about.com...)Contention 3: Airmax1227The reason Airmax does the way to get around the cell phone verification is that it helps the DDO community to vote and that helps debaters on this site. If we relied on him 100% it will pose a hefty burden on him and he wouldn't be able to do his job as mod. In conclusion, we can see that my opponent has many different possibilities to be able to vote. He can contact Airmax1227 or even use his parent's phone. I have raise the issue that the cell phone verification is important, but the site has given people the opportunity to get around it in order for people who do not have a cell phone to be able to vote.