BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Star-Spangled Banner Should Not Be Played at United States Sporting Events

I am looking forward to this discussion. To begin, I will counter what my opponent has said before I state my own arguments. He has stated that those who are in attendance of the games, whether playing or watching, already knows the national anthem, and already respects the United States. This is true. As citizens of this country, we are (or should be) very familiar with out national anthem. However, he then states that playing it at sporting events is taunting and encourages disrespect. How is this so? If attendees of the events already know and respect their country, they would also take the national anthem with great respect. It does not encourage any disrespect to the United States; its purpose is to help us remember how much sacrifice has been given to preserve this great nation. I would like my opponent to clarify how playing the national anthem suggests the event at which it's being played is actually larger than it really is. Why does this matter? Who cares about how large or small the event is? If a group of people want to take a few moments to honor their country, they should be allowed to do that. And, to citizens who know and respect their country, how would playing the national anthem be annoying and a waste of time? Is paying respects to the ones who have sacrificed their lives for this country a waste of time? No. Yes, it's not NECESSARY, but taking a few minutes out of these events to honor one's country does show a sense of unity and patriotism among citizens. Now, to my arguments. Some of these may have been stated above, but I feel it necessary to bring them together for the readers. Playing the national anthem at sporting events is a great thing. It shows that so many people are willing to contemplate the lives that have been lost to preserve our nation. It shows overall respect for our country and its history.
The Star-Spangled Banner Should Not Be Played at United States Sporting Events

The Star-Spangled Banner should not be played at sporting events involving the United States, with some exceptions. The exceptions include the Olympics, competitions between different countries, and competitions held outside of the United States. The inclusions include domestic sporting events such as NCAA college basketball games, NBA basketball games, NFL football games, and MLB baseball games. All people attending the events, whether to watch or to play, already know and respect the United States. To play The Star-Spangled Banner at such a minor event is similar to taunting and encourages disrespect for the United States. To play The Star-Spangled Banner at sporting events suggests the scope of the sporting game is much larger than it actually is. Playing The Star-Spangled Banner at these games is too annoying and a waste of everybody's time. It's too redundant. It's not necessary. It's not an accurate reflection of what the United States is entirely about and what the United States generally stands for.
The Star-Spangled Banner Should Not Be Played at United States Sporting Events

My opponent begins by making an argument that we as citizens would have more freedom if the national anthem would not be played at sporting events. However, due to our current freedoms, there are no obligations that come with playing The Star-Spangled Banner at these events. People are free to choose whether or not they participate. If one does not wish to stand for the anthem, they can remain sitting. While this would be extremely disrespectful, it does come with our first amendment rights. Therefore, there are no commitments that come with playing the national anthem at sporting events, and people are able to choose freely whether or not they wish to participate. I agree strongly with my opponent that the NFL protests are annoying, frustrating, and disrespectful. However, they are exercising their first amendment rights by doing so, again showing that there is no obligation that comes with playing the national anthem at sporting events. If we as a society were to discontinue playing The Star-Spangled Banner at sporting events, this would show some element of cowardice, something the United States is not, and does not, want to be known for. It would be giving in to these protesters who are being nothing more than disrespectful and unreasonable. We must not give in to this. We should hold fast to each other as a nation, and by playing the national anthem, we can do just that. Giving in should not be an option. In conclusion, The Star-Spangled Banner should continue to be played at sporting events. It does not encourage disrespect, nor get dull over time. It is a great way to remind everyone present at the events that they are all American citizens, and it pays respects to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our country.
The Star-Spangled Banner Should Not Be Played at United States Sporting Events

We as a country should try to maximize our freedom by having as few obligatory commitments as possible. Committing ourselves, even for just 2 minutes per sporting event, to The Star-Spangled Banner adds up over time. A lot of lost potential is there. We as a country value and take pride in our freedom. Our country is well known for the freedom of its inhabitants. The recent protests in which some NFL athletes kneel for the playing of The Star-Spangled Banner at football games are annoying and disrespectful. There are other ways the athletes can protest. Not everybody has the same political views as the protesting athletes, and their offensive actions make their games even more unattractive than they already were. If the national anthem was not played at football games, NFL athletes would not be given that opportunity to protest, and so their rude protests would not exist. Some of the things I mentioned for which the national anthem is not played are not always done for entertainment, but some of them are sometimes done for entertainment. For example, workdays, meetings, motor vehicle rides to work, and court hearings are not always done for entertainment, but movies, TV shows, hikes, and reading a work of literature are sometimes done for entertainment. The national anthem is rightly not played for any of those things I mentioned in the previous round. The Star-Spangled Banner is played too much. There is a better way to honor our country and ourselves. With the exceptions I've specified in my opening argument, The Star-Spangled Banner should not be played at United States sporting events.
The Star-Spangled Banner Should Not Be Played at United States Sporting Events

First of all I would like to apologize to my opponent for forgetting to put in the sources I used. This was a simple forgetful mistake. He may continue reading here: http://www.espn.com... I have similar perspectives to sports as my opponent does. They are not very interesting to me, and I rarely watch them on TV, let alone attend them. Hopefully this should clear any possible bias my opponent may have suspected. Unless there are specific studies that show the purposes of people going to sporting events that my opponent can cite, it will be assumed that most of, if not all, spectators there are there because they want to be. The burden of proof otherwise is on my opponent. Let's assume for the moment that there ARE lots of people there who do not want to be there. How does this relate to the national anthem receiving a negative connotation? Those who do not want to be there are probably less likely to want to engage in alcohol and other boisterous activities that would bring disrespect. So those who do not want to be there are not necessarily going to bring the anthem negative connotations or disrespect just because they may not want to hear it. I also agree with my opponent that they are played routinely more than passionately. He also brings a good argument that sporting events are not significant enough for the anthem. However, my opponent has not stated why these are reasons to stop playing the anthem altogether at these events. Playing the anthem at large public gatherings is a peaceful way to unite all of the people in that stadium for a few minutes, as things can become very confrontational between fans during the game. It serves as a reminder that no matter who we are rooting for, we are all still American citizens. Regardless of whether it is played passionately or routinely, it is a good way to remind those in attendance that we are all still members of a great country. Playing it routinely will not necessarily dull its meaning over time. I like to connect this to saying the Pledge of Allegiance at school or other events. Just because it is done routinely rather then with passion, does this mean that it should be stopped from being done completely? Just because it is not a formal event, does this mean that we should stop from honoring our country? I personally see a bit of faulty connection when my opponent mentioned that the anthem is not played for movies, flights, bus rides, meetings, etc. These occurrences do not involve any sort of competition. Furthermore, things such as these are not done for entertainment, they are done for means of productivity. Sporting events, however, are not done for productivity, but for entertainment. Therefore, I do not think that these kinds of events can relate to playing the national anthem at sporting events. I look forward to the final round of this debate!
The Star-Spangled Banner Should Not Be Played at United States Sporting Events

In my own opinion, as of recently, sporting events are tedious and boring. For at least the past few years or so, I do not attend, watch, or track sporting events much. It's very possible many others have a similar opinion on sporting events as I do. My mother, her boyfriend, and my sister don't seem to have much interest in sporting events. Sporting events are not everything to everybody. As for the people that do attend sporting events, not everybody in attendance wants to be there. They may be there for their jobs, due to social pressure, or because they're too young to make their own decisions on where to be. Furthermore, just because a person attends a sporting event and wants to be there, doesn't mean he or she wants the national anthem to be played at the event. There's a difference between routinely playing the national anthem and passionately playing it. At sporting events, the national anthem is played as a matter of routine, regardless of current events and regardless of whether it is played passionately. Sporting events are neither important nor serious enough for the national anthem. No lives are at stake in sporting events. No serious national gain is achieved in a sporting event. The athletes are not participating in a military battle. They play for fun. Often, they play commercially, for money. It seems the national anthem is for after military or government victories, not for before sporting events. Playing the national anthem at sporting events makes the events appear too formal, too official, and too rigid. Sporting events should be a time to relax and let go, away from the pressures of work and government. They should be a time to be more informal and unofficial. The national anthem is not played for workdays, for movies, for TV shows, for bus rides, for airplane flights, for hikes, for many meetings, for meals, for motor vehicle rides to work, for court hearings, and for reading a work of literature. It seems it is not played at those times for the same reasons it shouldn't be played for sporting events. The Star-Spangled Banner is not everything, and sporting events are not everything. Let's not make them look like everything.
The Star-Spangled Banner Should Not Be Played at United States Sporting Events

I do not fully understand why my opponent continues to make the argument that sporting events are tedious and boring. He has connected this to the national anthem receiving a connotation of being boring. However, I did state that the people in attendance of these events are there because they want to be there. In this case, the national anthem has nothing to do with the game being boring. Also, The Star-Spangled Banner would not be viewed as difficult to access just because it may be hard to get to a particular sporing event. The national anthem can be played whenever one wants it to be played. If they want to hear it in their own home, a simple YouTube search brings up many videos of this song. So it is clearly not difficult to access. I agree with my opponent in that The Star-Spangled Banner should be played in a respectful manner, and that playing it otherwise would result in a disrespectful atmosphere. However, this does not mean that the national anthem should be removed from sporting events altogether. I would like to conclude this round with some history of the singing of the national anthem at sporting events. If we look back at September 11, 2001, we will find that our country was in mourning and despair after the attack on the WTC (of course, my opponent will know more about this day than I will, as I was a mere one year of age). During the reclaiming of everyday life, sports were one way that was done. As stated in an ESPN article, "Across MLB, teams surrounded the song with tributes to the victims and the country's public servants. In Los Angeles, police officer Rosalind Iams sang the song while members of the Dodgers and Padres helped firefighters and police officers unfurl a colossal stars and stripes that stretched almost entirely across the playing field. That same night in Pittsburgh, two members of the Air Force Reserve were called on to sing the anthem as spectators donned 'I Love New York' buttons. And in every ballpark for weeks afterward, tears were shed over what it took Francis Scott Key's lyrics to remind them of: 'Our flag was still there'" (6). The singing of the national anthem at sporting events may be disrespectful in some fashions, but his does not mean that they should be removed altogether. As shown from this article, the national anthem has help unite Americans in times of tragedy. America should continue to respect the anthem for what it stands for. I look forward to hearing what my opponent has to say.
SIMS 4 is Better than Minecraft

Well, duh. You can't have children on minecraft! In SIMS 4 you can! And you can play with virtual people while on minecraft if you want to play with other virtual people you have to go onto multiplayer. And by virtual I mean nobody is playing them they just move by themselves! And there are awesome graphics on SIMS, while on minecraft everything is all blocks and blocks oh, uhh, I forgot one more thing, oh yeah, BLOCKS!!!!!!!! Anyway U need 2 vote 4 SIMS! Or u r all dogs and by dogs I mean cops and female dogs! B**CHES!
SIMS 4 is Better than Minecraft

Good Evening Agatha06. I am debating to you that SIMS 4 is better than minecraft. It is much better that minecraft because that you can have more than 1 character moving at the same time and you can make a huge house and there is much more to do. You can also speed up the time so you don't have to wait for everything to finish like work and school. Then you have free time. Your children can play and you can be a spy for your job. How Cool! So Agatha06 now have I convinced you that SIMS 4 is better than minecraft.
The Morality of Socialism

Firstly, thanks for accepting. I'd like to start with the standard definition of socialism, to clear up any confusion and establish the base of my attacks and points. Socialism is by definition a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (Copy/pasted) Now there's two important assumptions I'm going to make, in terms of modern and applied socialism vs. socialist theory: In the United States, and the vast majority of socialist countries throughout the world, "the community as a whole" generally refers to the government or a governmentally regulated initiative. Secondly, most socialist societies in the tangible world put the focus on the economic side of things, so social organization shouldn't be a major factor in this debate. The second half of this debate rests on the definition of morality: the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. (Copy/pasted) I dare say that while there are many philosophical takes on morality and even more religious interpretations, most agree that Locke was spot on when he named the big three: Life, Liberty, and Property. Any infringement of these rights takes away a person's freedom and autonomy, violates the moral code, and should therefore be considered immoral. Socialism is immoral, because, simply put, it violates two of the three natural rights of man. Socialism destroys one's claim to liberty as it dictates that geographic location puts one's fruits in the hands of the government; Socialism bashes the claim to property as it mandates the forced redistribution of wealth, from the poor to the poorer. These two violations to human rights should be considered immoral, regardless of "intent" or "purpose." Stealing is stealing, whether you're pouring the money into some cracked-up affirmative action program or not doesn't change that fact. When one is not entitled to their labor and property, this is in most cases called slavery. When this slavery is mandated by a government, this is called tyranny. Socialists lay claim to the property of others simply because of proximity-- this is wrong, immoral, and quite fascinating in my opinion-- under no other circumstances would it be considered sane for a person to claim entitlement to another's property. Socialism in itself is not immoral, but modern day applied socialism, mandated without consent, is nothing but legal theft. No one is entitled to someone else's property, ever. Socialism is cancer.
absolutes=existence

I am at lost of what to say to my opponent. He hasn't really refuted my arguments beside says that movies and book count as being in the head of another person and thus making it true. "me being inside the head of another person, watching stories inside his head." Let's examine that statement. By your own philosophy, metaphors and similes shouldn't make sense since we can't physically observe it. I have never seen a tiny person "watching" stories and so it's wrong. This whole argment supports Con. "i cant know imagination, so imagination is false" "kNow=now=Physical experience" "Know" is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "to have (information of some kind) in your mind" This contradicts your logic and it shows you can know imagination. Since "imagination" is defined as "the ability to imagine things that are not real : the ability to form a picture in your mind of something that you have not seen or experienced." "if you stand in africa looking at the zebras, and imagine a zebra, does that make the zebra you imagine true?" It means the zebra I had imagined before seeing it in person was accurate and true. "if i imagine that im going on a walk in a few minutes, and i go on a walk, does my imagination become true? for me as i read this i have to place my body in my imaginaiton to even understand it(not physically ofc..). the word gonna is an interesting word" I have no idea what this means. That is planning. You imagine the scenario but your actions make it true. And you agreed with me that my logical connections were right. As you can see, my opponent agrees with me on most things.
absolutes=existence

opposite, seeing is knowing with cameras shooting for me, watching tv is the death of death. watching a movie is like me being inside the head of another person, watching stories inside his head. i cant know imagination, so imagination is false if you stand in africa looking at the zebras, and imagine a zebra, does that make the zebra you imagine true? kNow=now=Physical experience if i imagine that im going on a walk in a few minutes, and i go on a walk, does my imagination become true? for me as i read this i have to place my body in my imaginaiton to even understand it(not physically ofc..). the word gonna is an interesting word only physical experience is true, real ow so i also wrote false=truth=true=door probably, just throw some in there..
absolutes=existence

Pro makes several rather strange claims that I will try to clear up. The debate centers around that facts/absolutes are what make up existence. Pro is claiming that any physical experience is true and belief and imagination is false. He falls into the "seeing is believing" camp. The problem is that only everything you personally have been through is the truth neglects things like books and movies. If I have never seen a zebra, but I read about an article and imagine it. Then if I do go to Africa and everything the articles says is true, wouldn't whatever I imagined from the book true, and not the premise that imagination is false? No, it was true but I personally didn't know about zebras before. This view my opponent argues is limited to you and nothing else and promotes a very egotistical look to the world. I can say "I HAVE NEVER SEEN GEORGE WASHINGTON EXCEPT FOR PAINTINGS SO HE CANNOT EXIST OUTSIDE THE MASS HALLUCINATIONS OF THESE ARTIST AND HISTORIANS!" Also, this debate begs the question, what is physical experience? Everything you see is technically a lie. Your brain stitches together a series of images to create motion like a movie. What you smell when you have a cold and when you normal are going to be vastly different. Our senses interpret the world but the ways they do it and how they are affected can change reality. Since it is so variable, we cannot accept Pro's argument. " dont have to imagine what happend yesterday when i can remember what happend yesterday" Memories is the brain imagining what happened at the time yesterday. This supports my case on why imagination isn't always false. This disproves that line of his logic about how truth=physical experience and truth=memory. By the transitive property (which I will use several times), memory=physical experience which is false if one is the imagination of the other. Now this phrase supports this rebuttal. "unles the memory is blurry." but isn't memory=physical experience=absolutes? How is it absolute if it can change and is biased. Thus his whole argument about how memory=physical experience=existence is false.
absolutes=existence

true is not false, false is not truth, and truth is not true false=imagination(belief) true=physical experience(know) truth=memory(knowledge) i dont have knowledge of the future, and i dont have to imagine what happend yesterday when i can remember what happend yesterday, unles the memory is blurry then i might have to imagine the rest, and then its not truth nor true, know is true, know is now, now is matter i know you are light on my screen and a story in my mind
THE NWE ENGLAND PATRIOTS ARE BATTER THAN THE SAN DIEGO CHARGERS!

what do you mean when you say chargers 12-6, patriots 14-8? there arent that many playoff games!!! HELLO!!! plus, the patriots only lost 1 game! HOW MANY DID THE CHARGERS LOSE!!!!!!!????? MORE THAN 2!! BOTH TIMES THEY PLAYED THE PATRIOTS THEY LOST!!!
THE NWE ENGLAND PATRIOTS ARE BATTER THAN THE SAN DIEGO CHARGERS!

Okay, lets us look at their role in the playoffs overall. chargers 12-6, patriots 14-8. This means, that the chargers have a better record overall than the patriots. "Okay, i admit that i was wrong about the 3 superbowl wins,(im still in shock that they didnt win the giants)but they did go 16-0 in the season. and who cares that there closer to six flags!! plus, the patriots are BETTER than the chargers because they also beat them in the game season and during the playoffs!!", It doesn't matter about that, yopu said batter, theyu are batter, not better.
THE NWE ENGLAND PATRIOTS ARE BATTER THAN THE SAN DIEGO CHARGERS!

Okay, i admit that i was wrong about the 3 superbowl wins,(im still in shock that they didnt win the giants)but they did go 16-0 in the season. and who cares that there closer to six flags!! plus, the patriots are BETTER than the chargers because they also beat them in the game season and during the playoffs!!