BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame

I am not saying all average players should make it but what about above average players who werent as good as the ones that used steriods? They won't make it because these people used steriods and got a chance at getting ahead of them. How would the players know if steriods didn't effect the quality of their game, theres no evidence to support that claim. You think there going to tell you, yeah it helped my game out a lot, they wouldn't say that. They are lying you, they make a false claim with no evidence to support that claim. They have no evidence it didn't effect their game. Why do you think they call it performance enhancing drugs, key words performance enhancing. Do you understand what performance enhancing means? It means that it improves your game, so them saying it didn't is lies. If steriods didn't enhance each players game play why would they ban it? If it didn't effect their quality of play why would the MLB ban it?
Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame

The Hall of Fame is merely glorifying the biggest money makers/employees of the league. Sure, you can romanticize baseball, but when it comes down to it, it is simply a business. If you let in the all the average players from the 25 year span of steroid prevalence, you are downgrading the overall quality of the Hall. You call it cheating, but there wasn't rules of regulations put in place at the time. It was stupid not to use steroids during this time. Most players will admit that steroids didn't effect the quality of their game, but rather just helped to extend their career. This may create artificially inflated records, but it's not like Clemens, Pettite, Bonds, A-Rod, Conseco, and Martinez wouldn't have been great players without them. Cheating comes from breaking the rules. No rules = no cheating. Hindsight is 20/20 but you can't penalize people for doing what everyone else was doing. So, should we induct Darrell Strawberry into the hall for being average? No.
Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame

No, they cheated therefore they shouldn't make the hall of fame. It doesn't matter if a lot of players did it. They cheated therefore they should be penalized. The people who make the Hall of Fame should be in there because of their honor to the game, not for cheating and deceiving people so they can have a physical advantage. You said that there are many "incredible players" in the Mitchell Report. Don't you think maybe they were so incredible because they used steriods and performance enhancing drugs? If they didn't use them they wouldn't be as good as the stats show. I understand players are out there to get theirs and get as much money as they can, but what about the true players of the game who aren't using these performing enhancing drugs. They did the right thing and won't make the hall of fame because they might have decent numbers over their career but the ones who used performance enhancing drugs had better stats than them because they cheated.
Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame

Well, we meet again. If we were to prevent MLB players from entering the Hall of Fame because they used steroids; nearly every All-Star from 1980 to early 2000's would be ineligible. Take a look at the Mitchell Report, and you will find a list of incredible players which is far too long to list on here, who would all be banned from baseball's greatest honor. Steroids were just as part of the game during the 80's and 90's as Peanuts and Cracker Jacks. It was an era of steroids. If you weren't using them, then you were considered abnormal. You cannot fault an entire generation of players for just being a product of the times. I agree that records, such as the HR record broken by Bonds, should have an asterisk with them, but this should not be the case with the Hall of Fame. If we were to do what you propose, then from 1980 to 2000 there would be about 5 people in the Hall.
Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame

Any athlete who uses performance enhancing drugs and has a good career should not be able to make the hall of fame. This includes Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, and all the other players that used them. I believe that if you use these you are getting an advantage that everyone else isn't. They didn't hit all these home runs off of there pure talent and skills, they needed a booster to get where they are and they cheated. They should never be able to be among the Hall of Fame electors like Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron who did it with out performance enhancing drugs.
Islam is a religion of peace

There are some facts to what you said but most is speculation. However, you failed to address my other two points, and so the debate is won by default. 2. Religious minorities have flourished under Islam. Muslims are commanded to protect Jews and Christians (the People of the Book) and do them no harm. The Quran says in Sura 109, "To you, your religion. To me, mine." 3. Islam is intolerant of enslaving human beings. The religion eradicated the institution of slavery thanks to the principles set in motion by Muhammad, who was an abolitionist.
Islam is a religion of peace

1. Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same. Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, fighting only in self-defense, and only when it was necessary. True Muslims would never act aggressively. 2. Religious minorities have flourished under Islam. Muslims are commanded to protect Jews and Christians (the People of the Book) and do them no harm. The Quran says in Sura 109, "To you, your religion. To me, mine." 3. Islam is intolerant of enslaving human beings. The religion eradicated the institution of slavery thanks to the principles set in motion by Muhammad, who was an abolitionist.
The Universe Was Created By God

*No acceptance round; just start debating.*Definitions can be changed, BEFORE ACCEPTING the debate, in the comments section, as long as both Pro and Con agree, otherwise...*Definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate.ResolutionThe universe was created by god.ProHas the Burden of Proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to AFFIRM the resolution that the universe was created by god. This requires Pro to show:1) god's existence2) god's involvement in the creation of the universeConHas only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to NEGATE the resolution that the universe was created by god.Definitionsuniverse - all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...created - to bring into existence.http://www.merriam-webster.com...god - the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshiped especially by Christians.http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Abortion should be illegal

While you're right that it is morally wrong to kill a fetus, How do you or anyone for the matter have a say in this? You think making it illegal is going to solve ANYTHING? People are still going to have abortions whether it's legal or not and wouldn't it be better for it to be done the medical way? Besides, Abortions being legal doesn't necessarily mean that all the fetuses are going to die. It gives woman the option to chose and abortions are still very unlikely then. Abortion should be legal both for medical reasons and because it has nothing to do with you. Better safe than sorry.
guitar is better than rock band

Ok, so I'll just go in the order my opponent stated things. First of all, I do know something about both games. I have Guitar Hero 2 and 3, AND Rock Band. ok. 1. Yes, there are two sets of buttons, but they do basically the same thing. Are they in the same order? Yes. Are they anything THAT different? No. 2. I never said anything about difficulty, and difficulty doesn't always make a game better. But if we're talking about difficulty, the drums are definitely in question. The drums are DEFINITELY a source of difficulty in the game. Also Harmonix did that ON PURPOSE, so the game is more accessible to people on their first time playing. Because of this, more people can play, which links to my argument of MULTIPLAYER experience. More people play=fun to harmonix standards. 3. This argument of videos makes little sense. You argue that guitar hero has more videos than rock band on youtube, but how does that make guitar hero any BETTER? Just because something has more videos, is it better? No. This means nothing with your resolution.
guitar is better than rock band

First of all, I see this is you're first debate on debate.org, so I'll be the first to say welcome! Haha Ok, now to the debate! Guitar Hero is a great game. However, I don't think how fun it is compares to Rock Band. Guitar Hero can do whammys, online play, and co-op, but Rock Band can do it too. Rock Band can use guitar hero guitars, so anything that a guitar hero guitar can do, Rock Band can. Its awesome, but rock band can do it too What guitar hero DOESN't have is the multiplayer experience. Rock Band has guitar, bass, drums, and vocals, while Guitar hero only has guitar and bass. This means that co-op mode on Rock Band is WAY more fun. Also, Rock Band has a great song list, that anyone can like, because there is variety.
Gendered Language Should be Replaced with Gender Neutral Terms.

ThesisI'll argue that gendered language is harmful and promotes sexist attitudes. Con just has to disprove my arguments. .. .Some common gendered words you may be familiar with are terms like "chairman", "police man", "mankind", and "you guys". Please express interest in the comments Also, everyone should know that accepting this debate doesn't mean I, or the judges, will label you a sexist or anything. Definitions:gendered language: reflecting the experience, prejudices, or orientations of one sex more than the other; also : reflecting or involving gender differences or stereotypical gender roles. should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. Rules:-UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DEBATE YOU CONSENT TO PARTICIPATION IN THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED HIGHER VOTING STANDARDS, FOUND HERE:. https://docs.google.com......-Kritiks are allowed-Don't forfeit.
School Uniforms

When mentioning Long beach, California, I wasn't contrasting it from other states. I was simply explaining the impact that school uniforms potentially had on a neighborhood. Secondly, abuse and discipline are two different things. Although some people may argue that it is a form of discipline, abuse does not necessarily correspond with it. As you stated, "depression and PTSD are some of the long term effects when discipline becomes abuse", shows that abuse is the reason of the depression and not the discipline itself. Ask yourself, would you discipline your children? Or would you let them tell you what they want to wear because their friends are all wearing it. If you think about it they wear a uniform whether it's identical or not.
School Uniforms

To properly conclude, the speaker has brought many valuable points to the discussion. However, these methods are not always sound. To begin, the speaker compares to Long Beach, California, even though it has a higher per capita murder rate of 7.4% to 5.1% of NYC (baruch.cuny.edu). Clearly, this should not be possible with lbschools.net, boasting a 90% decrease. Frankly, it seems like inflated numbers, using a small sample space to predict the population, instead of using larger ones. Regarding disciple, "Depression and PTSD are some of the long-term effects when discipline becomes abuse" (CNN.com). To have much of it, regardless of corporal or not, is not useful. Nevertheless, this was a wonderful debate that yielded many valid solutions.
School Uniforms

There is no way to show that conformity at a young age, elementary school and some high schools, would make children machines. Discipline is important at an early age in a child's life. Without Discipline, children will grow up not knowing how to face certain obstacles. Then there is also the the respect factor, without discipline it can be said that there will not be respect for others. According to lbschools.net, Schools where uniforms are required have seen a 95 percent decrease in crime, 90 percent decrease in suspensions, and vandalism on school property decreased by 69 percent. Also in Long Beach, California, where school uniforms are required almost everywhere since 1995, the average cost of uniforms per year is roughly $60 to $70.
School Uniforms

As the speaker may have valuable points such as discipline, it still causes horrendous conformity. Simply put, conformity and discipline is like the military; such an act on small children in early education makes them machines. With Syria, that worn torn country has emboldened students with their blue uniforms (washingtontimes.com). Clearly, this is contradictory to “land of free.” To add, it apparently “[interferes] students' right to choose their dress…[Violating] First Amendment rights (Mitchell and Knechtle, 2003).” Thus, apparently this is militarization and constitutional infringement. With finance, parents should know how to spend wisely; if they afford new “kicks” every season, they certainly can afford at least 7 pairs of clothes.
School Uniforms

School uniforms help schools portray discipline. It keeps schools somewhat in check. Usually public schooling doesn't require uniforms, some do, while catholic schools try to keep a uniform a requirement. According to Statisticbrain.com, Parents spend roughly 1.3 billion dollars annually on school uniforms, which breaks down to about 249 dollars per parent per year. That would be much cheaper than trying to get the newest clothing per year and spending money so that the child can have a new outfit of the "coolest styles" each day. School uniforms also try to keep the school itself united. The uniforms help diminish economic and social barriers between students. (greatschools.org)
School Uniforms

School uniforms, in general, seem to stretch the notion of assertion over students. There may be advantages with respect to fashion conservation, but it still destroys the concept of independence and art. In reality, wearing such uniforms brings a relatively stable nation like America, more like that of Syria, where uniforms are required by students, as well as longer class days (everyculture.com). If there is not a decrease in student morality, then certainly there can be one in their artistic flare. As the sun-sentinel.com suggests, wearing “uniforms stifle creativity” implying that to be creative proposes to not wear them in the first place (material conditional then modus tollens). While they may have their benefits, they harm far more.
evil does not exist

Yes everyone can agree that animals are not evil because they do not have a higher intelligence to think about that, and we can agree that natural disasters can be considered not evil since they are not a alive thing with any form of intelligence. I would think that evil would lie with humans. And yes what is evil may be subjective in the form of small things like animals I am talking big league when it comes to evil. For example, Hitler is evil his motives may seem good at first however in the end his motives was because he was a selfish dick who wanted more than he had and he died from it, of course before his death he killed 11 MILLION people you can not justify that as good. That was plain and simple evil
evil does not exist

the Google definition of evil is " profoundly immoral and malevolent" and exist as "have objective reality or being" Evil is an idea that can not exist in the real world The idea of evil by its nature is subjective. You may think an action is evil but another person may claim it is good. For example one may believe that killing any living thing is evil, where others may say that killing animals is just part of life. Here are some questions than may arise. Who's beliefs are correct? and what if killing one things saves five others? Is an evil action always evil or can exceptions be made? and finally how gets the right to answer these questions? so evil is clearly not objective I also want to talk about volition. Most people would agree that killing is immoral. An earthquake may kill people but an earthquake is not malevolent, it has no will to kill people. Most would agree that an earthquake is not evil it has no freewill. Say some is killed by an animal for food is that animal evil? It is just following its instincts it did not relay have an active choice in the madder. People also follow there instincts and there brain reacts to outside stimulus. so if the brain controls peoples actions, and has no power over the outside world can they relay be evil or act evilly? I would say no. I also want to say morals change with time, and what one group thinks is immoral another might have no issue with, so I ask can something be evil today and not be evil in say 100 years? There is no way to measure or quantify evil, and there are a lot of grey areas about what is and is not considered evil. this lack of agreement shows the frail nature of the idea of evil, and its inability to exist in the world.
evil does not exist

You say that evil does not exist from the points you made so this is what I will do. Lets see what you said There is no objective evil? Not true the best example I have ever heard for evil is, evil for evils sake, which means no ending purpose, just for the hell of it Like I said with the one above there is a direct point of view of evil IT does not change what people think of it does, again you have to look at it objectively which most people can not do You can infact measure evil, here is a article I found with what most would consider a accurate scale about evil http://www.npr.org... So for my final thing I just want to say, everyone can agree that good exist in the world yes? then you believe in evil and the reason why is because for good to exist there needs to be a opposite so we can know the difference. Like for light to exist then dark has to, it is the same principle. That is why evil does exist
evil does not exist

You have yet to convince me that evil exist and I think I have made some compiling arguments against the idea of evil.I want to quickly comment on some of your last points You say Hitler did not think it was for the best, he do it because he thought aryans where better than everyone else, but those are not exclusive he could think and did think both. He wanted to have the people he thought where best to run things because if they where the best, giving them power would be for the best. Hitler also was not aryan, so he clearly was just not thinking about himself. Also on that point just because it was not best for Germany does not mean he did not think it was best for Germany.You said "you have to look at it objective to really see if something is bad" I agree with the sentiment, but since there is no objective bad, nothing can be called really bad. This idea also works for evil, since there is no objective evil there is nothing that is truly bad.The final thing I will say on your points, you said "saying he was not evil is the same as saying a serial killer is not evil for murdering someone" with this you are not wrong I would say a serial is not evil same as I would not call Hitler evil. more so in the case of serial killers, many of whom have mental disorders. I would say in cases of serial killers with a disorder it is not to different from the animal killing people, and we agreed that the animal is not evil.To bring it all together, evil is not real because1 There is no objective evil 2 Ideas of evil change and vary -This is why people who kill like Hitler are not evil, but we can agree it is tragic that the people where killed. 3 It can not be measured or Quantified
evil does not exist

But that's thing thing Hitler did not do it because he thought it was best, he did it because he thought that he and all who looked similar to him was better than everyone else. Yes the mass populace may say that this is bad and that is bad but you have to look at it objective to really see if something is bad .For example in the holocaust Hitler killed more than Jews he killed EVERYONE that was not a perfect arion which is why it was evil he did not do it for the best of Germany he did it because he wanted to and he thought he was better and that arions were better, so saying he was not evil is the same as saying a serial killer is not evil for murdering someone
evil does not exist

First I would agree that what happened to the Jews in W.W.2 was tragic, and that Hitler played a huge role in that tragedy and is an undesirable human. However that does not mean that he is evil. He did what he thought was best for himself and Germany, so I argue this does not prove evil exists. I want to make a more abstract example, say there is an election, I think candidate A's views are immoral and and bad for the country, but that does not make him evil. I have my right to think candidate A is immoral but it does not make him immoral. The lack of evil does not mean that people still can't think this or that about anything. One could even think that someone is evil, but it does not make it so, same as one thinking the world is flat makes the world flat. I want to comment that just because something is not good that does not mean it is evil. Good is also very subjective and what is good for the majority may not be good for the minority and vice versa.
The US Constitution Should Be a Living Document

Other than that, everything (excluding blatantly anti-debate practices like Google Doc links to avoid the character limit) is fair game. Definitions"Should" implies moral desirability. A "living constitution" is one that " . . . changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended" (1). Generally, this interpretation is opposed to originalism, which states that "those who make, interpret, and enforce the law ought to be guided by the meaning of the United States Constitution—the supreme law of the land—as it was originally written" (2). Sources 1. . http://www.law.uchicago.edu...2. . http://www.heritage.org...
Should Students Be Rewarded To Go To School

We need to establish that I am against real-world, real-life payment, a free-day and the option of attending school. I am NOT against extra credit, or 'teacher dollars' in most cases. What we need to distinguish is what we're talking about when we say 'reward'. Is it money? Or is it something a teacher comes up with like 'teacher dollars'? Figure this out before we get to real debating. If a reward is anything in general then I don't think any rational person has an extreme 'Yes' or 'No' answer.
Should Students Be Rewarded To Go To School

I have learned as a student that when students are rewarded they work towards getting the reward over and over. My teacher is using a method where she would give out teacher dollars to the students at the top of the class and for doing an assignment and getting full marks and even perfect attendance. right now there is a battle for who has the most teacher dollars in the class which means that in all our marks that are being recorded no one in my entire class of 25 kids has any marks below half.
Should Students Be Rewarded To Go To School

Just by saying that we don't have a choice doesn't mean we should get a tangible reward. Education in itself is a reward. Look at the long-term benefits. You go to school, you go to college, you graduate either get a job or go on for further education. That gives you a reward. Rewarding students physically is just not a good idea because there is no single flat physical gift. Letting people do whatever they want is not an option due to legal liabilities. Money, how much? Where's it coming from?