BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should marching band be considered a sport

I am sorry I could not post on the second round, I was without internet for a while. That said, I shall respond to both of your rounds in this final round. You say that what we do is not physical exertion. The definition of physical exertion, according to thefreedictionary.com, is "physical exertion - the activity of exerting your muscles in various ways to keep fit;" As someone who obviously has never experienced the practices, not to mention band camp, you can not make such vastly incorrect claims. Tell me, is running 2 miles not physical exertion? Is the same true about holding an instrument weighing anything from a 3 pound flute to a 40 pound sousaphone at a 30 degree angle above horizon for upwards of 9-12 minutes at a time, all while not acquiring a proper amount of oxygen. From other other claim that playing frisbee with a dog is not a sport, it can be, although more so for the dog than the person. As I recognize that I am going off topic, I will refresh my argument. Golf is considered a sport, yet requires a very small amount of effort compared to marching band. The same is true for curling and ping pong. Aside from that, saying that during a practice or show all we do is walk and play simultaneously is quite absurd. Although it doesn't mean much to you, marching a 4/5 at 180 BPM ( in layman's terms, marching 5 yards in 4 steps at 180 bpm. To break it down further, you would be marching 3 steps, each of a length of 1.25 yards, in 1 second, or 3.75 yards a second, which would mean you are moving at 7.670455 miles per hour, all while still having to keep an up to 40 pound instrument from moving at all.). Going to your point about physical exertion is all about improving ones fitness. Throughout the marching season (which started in early june), not eating or exercising any differently, I have lost over 20 pounds. In 5 months. Aside from this, the average temperature during band camp was roughly 105 degrees, without heat index. With heat index, the average was 125 degrees, all with only getting water ever 2 hours. The temperature got to 140 degrees, at which nearly 5% of the band passed out. In conclusion, the absurd statement that you can say without a doubt something you have never done is easy and requires little physical effort completely invalidates your entire argument. You have absolutely no experience in the matter, which means any statement you make about how much effort it takes is completely opinionated, biased, and false. Thank you for a wonderful debate.
Should marching band be considered a sport

It is a shame that my component has forfeited this round. Then again, I shall post my other argument anyway. have heard many justifications for why marching band should be considered a sport. They have competitions and practice for hours on end. So do show choirs, drama clubs, and professional eaters. Marching band requires skill and coordination. So does walking up a flight of stairs without falling flat on your face. Marching is physical activity. Yes, but that doesn"t make it a sport. Is playing Frisbee with your dog considered a sport? That"s physical activity, too.
Should marching band be considered a sport

I believe that Marching Bands should not be considered a sport. The Oxford Dictionary defines a sport as: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Marching band, although it requires hours of tedious practice, cannot be legitimately labeled as "physical exertion. " Partaking in arduous training to improve one"s fitness for the sake of a sport is true physical exertion. Sure, marching band members practice, but does walking and playing an instrument simultaneously really count as training? Although band members do extra "conditioning," it is not strenuous or consistent enough to be considered "athletic training. " Running a 10 plus minute mile a couple times a week (if that) is not very athletically demanding. High school gym students do the same thing. Although running an occasional mile might be taxing for some, that does not validate it as training and therefore, is a weak argument.
Death Penalty

To be clear, this debate is about whether or not the death penalty is an acceptable form of punishment for any crime by the government. I will argue the "eye for an eye" mentality, which would justify the death penalty for murders, while I presume my opponent will argue against it. Arguments begin in the next round (I assume). Also I must point out that "eye for an eye" is not in reference to Hammurabi's code but is found in the bible. Exodus 21: 22-25: "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. " Note: This is not the only bible verse that uses this concept, but is one of them.
Increased restrictions should be put on firearms in the US

My condolences to my opponent for whatever has so preoccupied him for the past six days that he couldn't log on for two minutes and type "extend". I wish him luck in whatever that was his trouble that prevented him from doing such. However, as it stands, my arguments are untouched, and accordingly, you must vote con. To my opponent: if there ever comes a time where you know that you will be able to actually debate, feel free to challenge this topic to me, as I do share an interest in the topic.
Increased restrictions should be put on firearms in the US

According to a 1995 study entitled "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun" by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year. That means that firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. Of these defensive shootings, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. About half a million times a year, a citizen carrying a gun away from home uses it in self-defense. By this we must realize that the original reasoning for the right to bear arms still holds precedence in today's debate: the negatives are far outweighed (60 times to be exact) by the benefits of security and self-protection. In New York City, long known for strict regulation of all types of weapons, only 19 percent of the 390 homicides in 1960 involved pistols. By 1972, this proportion had jumped to 49 percent of 1,691. In 1973, according to the New York Times, there were only 28,000 lawfully possessed handguns in the nation's largest city, but police estimated that there were as many as 1.3 million illegal handguns there. Vermont has the least restrictive gun-control law. It recognizes the right of any Vermonter who has not otherwise been prohibited from owning a firearm to carry concealed weapons without a permit or license. Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America, ranking 49 out of 50 in all crimes and 47th in murders. (Via Benedict DeMarte) By this we can see that criminals obviously don't have that high of a concern for the law in the first place. Anti-firearm restrictions have no consistent or direct relationship to crime rates. Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3% (John R. Lott, Jr, University of Chicago) It's pretty obvious that criminals are going to commit crimes when they feel that they have a considerable chance with getting away with it. When criminals fear that they might be on the losing end of the 2.5 million defensive uses of handguns annually in the US, they think twice before committing crimes, and it shows in the statistics. I now leave you in the hands of my opponent.
Increased restrictions should be put on firearms in the US

I support gun control. Why? It keeps me safe. (I know I am using part of my argument from another debate) In 2007, 16,929 people (http://www.fbi.gov... ) were murdered. Now you may say that this is a normal number for international crime rates, But it is not. Looking at the homicide rate of our own country (5.6 murders for every 100,000 people) compared to other developed countries, we see we have a particularly high rate. (United Kingdom 2.1, Japan .5, Germany 1, Italy 1.2) (http://www.photius.com...) So what makes us different from these countries. They are just as developed, and many of the outside influences are the same. So what is the difference? All the countries I listed have some type of gun control. (http://news.bbc.co.uk..., http://www.guncite.com..., http://archives.cnn.com...)So this proves that gun control is effective. Japan has the strictest gun control and the lowest homicide rate. Now I think we can agree that the purpose of a government is to ensure the welfare and saftey of its citizens, so we should keep our citizens safe by restricting guns.
Gift cards are a waste of money.

Probably will be the hardest topic I'll ever argue *cracks knuckles in anticipation*. Shout out to your organization skills by the way, lets me tackle each argument in order, which is how I like to do it. Gift cards only limit your purchasing power if you let them. Let's say you buy a $20 gift card for your friend. It's for a restaurant that you KNOW for a fact that he goes to at least twice a week. The card will probably be used up within the month. The point of gift cards isn't to give back to the user. It's a gift. You buy it for someone else, and you show them that you at least thought about what they might like to buy instead of shoving a $20 in an an envelope and writing their name on it. Also, if you want them to buy freely, buy them a gift card for a store that has many choices to choose from, such as Target or Amazon. I know for a fact that you can find literally anything on Amazon. Anything. Check my search history :3 Yes, money doesn't expire. Gift cards do, but in the site you referred me to (I did look) the CARD Act states that the cards can't expire within 5 years of the activation date, unless you haven't made a transaction in 12 months, etc. Who seriously will keep a gift card for 5 years and not use it? You could also re-gift it (it's kinda being a douche, but what else will you do with it?) You say gift cards become obsolete when the stores associated with it close. If you know a store is about to go into bankruptcy or is closing soon, why buy a card from there? Businesses usually put out a warning a good length of time ahead before shutting down. Under the rules of the new laws in place, inactivity fees can not be placed on the customer unless there has been zero use on the card in 12 months. Seriously, it's the person who received the card's responsibility to know this and to use the card accordingly. As for inactivity fees on money, inflation anyone? (unless you have it in the bank, which most people do, but this point is for the financially uneducated)
Gift cards are a waste of money.

I'm not entirely sure where I will go with this since I just thought up these arguments in like 2 minutes. :DGift cards have no benefit on one's purchasing power. They only detract from it. Argument 1They limit where you can spend your money. Gift cards can only be used at stores they were bought at or in the same chain of that store, usually. They also don't get anything in compensation for this, thus it is better to just keep your money. I will outline my logic here:P1: Gift cards limit where your money can be spent. P2: Gift cards to not give anything in return for P1. P3: Money can be spent anywhere. C1: It is better to just keep money due to gift cards lowering your purchasing power. Argument 2Some gift cards expire, whilst money doesn't. . http://www.ncsl.org... While there are laws protecting consumers from this, they have not abolished the expiration date entirely. You must also hope that the chain at which the gift card was bought doesn't close down. If it does, your gift card is practically useless. Let me outline my logic again:P1: Money doesn't expire. P2: Some gift cards expire. P3: Gift cards become obsolete if the stores associated with it all close. C1: It is better to just keep money due to gift cards lowering your purchasing power. Argument 3Some gift cards have inactivity fees, whilst money doesn't. . http://www.creditcards.com... Again, there are laws protecting consumers from this now, but they have not abolished this practice completely. P1: Some gift cards have inactivity fees. P2: Money does not have inactivity fees. C1: It is better to just keep money due to gift cards lowering your purchasing power. Good luck to Linus_1 and I look forward to seeing your arguments.
Nazi Prison Guards

I'm a retired attorney, a former prosecutor, public defender, and private defense counsel. http://www2.mnbar.org... In a criminal case, after the defendant has been found to be guilty of having committed the crime charged (by judge or jury), it is the duty of the court to impose a SENTENCE (punishment) on the defendant. In deciding upon the appropriate sentence to impose upon each defendant, the court assesses the defendant's CULPABILITY and also considers MITIGATING and AGGRAVATING circumstances. Finally, an aspect of justice is PROPORTIONALITY, which means that "the punishment should fit the crime", which means that we don't hang the petty thief in the town square. Hanna was sentenced to life in prison. The other prison guards -her co-defendants- received sentences of four years in prison. All the defendants were charged and convicted of having kept the inmates under their charge locked in a burning church until virtually all were dead. Hanna's SENTENCE WAS UNJUST BECAUSE: 1. Hanna was not a Nazi; it is doubtful that she even sympathized with the Nazi ideology. She just worked as a guard to earn a living, to survive. She was functionally illiterate. When her existing employer wanted to promote her (which would disclose her illiteracy, to her humiliation), she quit the job and applied for the menial job as a prison guard. She was working as a street car conductor just before her disappearance. She was also informed that she was going to be promoted just before her disappearance. 2. She was kind to some of the younger inmates and they would read to her (a mitigating circumstance). 3. When she was questioned about not unlocking the doors of the burning church to let the inmates out, she testified that they would just run about and "how could they be controlled." Then she addressed the judge: "What would you have done?" Again citing her illiteracy, I argue that this shows a limited intellectual ability, an inability to conceive of other options or ways of doing her job and saving the inmates' lives. 4. The court produced a handwritten report of the incident and asked Hanna if it was her report. Her co-defendants lied when they said that it was hers. When she was about to have her handwriting tested in court, she said it was hers (to avoid the humiliation of disclosing that she could not write). 5. Hanna's defense attorney should have known that she was illiterate. Michael, as a law student, should have have disclosed her illiteracy to her attorney and to the court. Their failures deprived the court of crucial evidence relevant to her culpability for the crime and on a proportional sentence. Based upon all of my arguments above, I submit that I have convincingly shown that Hanna's sentence was unjust. Her story is a tragedy. I urge all to watch the film. It is one of the best movies that I have ever seen. Oh, and also vote CON! http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Nazi Prison Guards

The Reader, starring Kate Winslet (who won an Oscar for her role), is a great film. "It tells the story of Michael Berg, a German lawyer who as a teenager in the late 1950s had an affair with an older woman, Hanna Schmitz, who then disappeared only to resurface years later as one of the defendants in a war crimes trial stemming from her actions as a guard at a Nazi concentration camp in the later years of World War II. Michael realizes that Hanna is keeping a personal secret she believes is worse than her Nazi past - a secret which, if revealed, could help her at the trial." Hanna is convicted and is sentenced to life in prison. http://en.wikipedia.org...(2008_film) I invite you to rent the film and then, either join me to debate the following question, or post your ideas and opinions as comments to the debate. Is Hanna's sentence to life in prison a just sentence? NO, I argue: Hanna is both illiterate and functionally illiterate (her secret). 1 Both states of ignorance are disabling in a modern urban society. Both states caused her to be ashamed of both states, which caused her to erroneously think that she had to keep them a secret. Both states and her need to keep them secret directly deprived the court and her lawyer of crucial evidence, namely, her states of illiteracy. Consequently, Hanna did not receive a fair trial. Since the court did not receive crucial evidence, she did not receive a just sentence. ___________________ 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The USA is an Imperialist Power

My neighbor/opponent has put forth the commonly heard lament from liberal Americans and Europeans alike that the USA is a global empire. I have contrasted the US with prior true empires, and my opponent has countered with far narrower definitions, like "corporate empire." I contested this is overly narrow, and does not line up with historically empire-like behavior in that no one is normally forced into an economic agreement with the US, and the US government does not use private corporations to exert economic control over other countries. Furthermore, a Canadian resident is required to at least be a figurehead agent for a foreigner to run a business branch in Canada, giving Canadian citizens more control over companies operating within their borders than the US. His example of the first Iraq invasion contains misrepresentations of the actions and intentions of our friends and enemies in the region, and also misrepresents the outcome. We did not get cheap Iraqi oil from the deal, we just maintained the flow of Saudi and Kuwaiti oil. Also, my opponent's perception of the world political scene seems to be distorted, either by lack of pertinent information through the media filters or a set world view. The US is indeed undergoing political upheaval, but of a different nature that he knows. Current powers in US government are attempting a hard left in every area, Canada continues socially left, while making rights in a number of areas. The EU is split, China and Russia go right economically, while staying tight on social control. My opponent also uses vague terms, like "corporatist" that don't really seem to match how he's using them, and how I find them in the dictionary. He also attempts to draw some kind of link between Rome and the US because of cultural influence and an incomplete comparison to Rome and the US having upper and lower classes. Though I'm sure there would have been more explanation if he had been able to make it to the final round. I had fun, and this is a question I wouldn't mind arguing further sometime, though the 4000 character limit really was a challenge. Oh, Pro, if you ever want to get together to trade your PM for our President, I'd be cool with that.
The USA is an Imperialist Power

Taxation of a company by the governmet does not mean the government controls the company, let alone uses it to exert power over other nations. There are plenty of Canadian companies you could buy from for all your needs if you wanted to boycott. As I said before, Canadian provinces have more protectionist policies than the US for a foriegner starting a business. i.e. Agents of Service [1]As far as government bailouts/takeovers (GM, Chrysler) Pro only uses examples from the last 4 years. Surely the US would have been "corporately imperialist" for longer than that. And just because the last 4 years have had heavy government meddling does not mean the clothes, computer products, and TV shows Canadians have used for the last 50 years are used to somehow control Canadians."Obamacare" was a system that was made with deals with insurance companies (mandatory coverage), but the goal is single payer, i.e. the government is the only insurance provider. [2]Saying that the differences between Canada the US are as wide as China and Japan is not accurate. For the most part we watch the same TV, wear the same clothes, and speak the same language, and even eat the same foods. I do realize I was wrong about England starting Canada, I remember now that it was in fact France. But Canadian law has its foundation in English common law.[3] Therefore it makes sense that with 2 very similar populations in this close proximity, the larger one would be culturally dominant by sheer numbers.As far as the First Gulf War (Iraq '91), we were asked to intervene by the Saudis and the Kuwaitis, we left once Iraq agreed to non-aggression towards it's neighbors, and Kuwait was quickly returned to Kuwaiti Royal control.In contrast, Britain's actions in the Suez in '56 were more than about Nasser nationalizing it. The Soviet and PRC empires were expanding rapidly post-war, and Nasser had begun aligning himself with hostile, expansionist empires. As far as aristocracies are concered, there are always successful families. Naming one in the US does not mean there is an established aristocrat class. Rags-to-Riches startups like Apple and Microsoft upset the status quo all the time.As far as Rome vs. US. I still don't see what you're saying. Are you refferring to the "occupy" movement? Trust me, those protests weren't as powerful a force as you might think. The Tea Party is just as big.1. http://sbinfocanada.about.com...2. http://hotair.com...3. http://www.justice.gc.ca...