BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Basketball is a better sport than hockey.

Well first of all, if you think penalties in basketball are less frequently called by referees then you clearly don't even watch the sport you're arguing for. Constantly players are slashing, committing delay of game penalties and other things like that. It also means you don't know basketball either. In basket ball before a layup you get two steps before the basket and you also have a pivot foot when stationary. Referees are not as ignorant as you perceive them to be.
Basketball is a better sport than hockey.

To counter your previous point. Every professional sport takes a specific skill of its own, yet the sport of Basketball is still inferior to Hockey. According to ESPN, who is the biggest contributor to Basketball's viewing audience, Ice Hockey is 2nd in degree of difficulty in professional sports, following boxing; Basketball is 4th following Football. http://sports.espn.go.com... If not for major broadcasting stations such as ESPN over-hyping Basketball, it would have a shockingly smaller fan base than it does currently. Hockey does not disregard key rules; in Basketball there is always a person "traveling" yet they never are called on it. Isn't this against NBA rules? Hockey experiences the same problem with "Icing" but it is a lot less frequent that traveling is in Basketball.
Basketball is a better sport than hockey.

This is not an argument about which sport is tougher or stronger. But even if we were basketball does still take more strength and stamina. You need to run up and down the court constantly. In hockey after learning, skating is ten times easier than running. This is why you have many players playing well into their forties. Basketball also takes more skill in general, making a shot is a science of its own. Not to mention dribbling and other skills such as this.
Basketball is a better sport than hockey.

We are not debating whether Hockey or Basketball are American or not. Even if a sport is not American that does not mean it is worse. Also, even if more AMERICANS prefer to watch Basketball, that does not account for nations with a significant percentage of population that prefers Hockey (Canada). Now which of these sports take more athletic ability? That answer would clearly be Hockey. In Hockey every athlete is required to have amazing flexibility, balance, strength, cardio, and hand-eye co-ordination. In Basketball athletes are only required to run up and down a court throwing a ball.
Basketball is a better sport than hockey.

Indeed hockey could be considered a tougher sport in a few aspects, but that does not even pertain to much as which sport is better. Basketball is an American sport, where just about every player is an American. In hockey every player is a cross eyed Czechoslovakian or a Canadian inbred. A hockey player is very rarely american, therefore it is not much of an "American" sport. Most Americans view it in a similar way. According to an article in the NY Times 90% of Americans would rather play or watch a game of basketball. They have an excellent point because if you think about it, how many more basketball hoops exist in the United States over hockey rinks/arenas. Most people don't even know how to ice skate, so playing a game of hockey is pretty much out of the picture for them. That is unless you consider floor hockey the same which is a gay sport hands down. This clearly shows that hockey is not an American sport. If you were to say for example its a sport for Canadians mostly, then lets keep in mind that Canadians are the ones who believe curling is a sport. Why don't we keep the Canadians out of the picture.
Police should be treated just like everyone else in the eyes of the law.

I can no longer find the link to the article I read where the officer was arrested for the eigth time for D.U.I. it was on yahoo.com under my local news section. http://youtube.com... that is a link where you can watch what I am talking about where the police officer made marijuana brownies and called 911. Nichon, I don't really understand why you decided to debate me on this because from what you wrote, it would seem that you agree officers should be treated the same as everyone else when it comes to the law. Instead of arguing against me, you seem to just point out my exaggeration on punishment (the punishment for marjuana crimes are rediculously harsh) which I am sure everyone who reads my opening statement will know was just a figure of speech. This isn't even a debate at this point.
Police should be treated just like everyone else in the eyes of the law.

My opponent states that officers of the law should be held to the same standard of judicial review that all citizens are subjected to. In part I would agree but my opponent uses slanted biased arguments to make a point that some officers have not been made culpable for their actions. Law enforcement is one of the key areas in public service were ethics and morality are constantly judged and weighed. In many private professions a persons non felony record is not the concern of public or private employers. Officers of the law should be scrutinized to assure the community that they are themselves upholding the law of the land. But they should be treated fairly, None of the offense incorrectly dictated and of dubious origin are offenses that warrant life imprisonment as the author leaves to innuendo in his last statement. Furthermore both cases sited by my opponent entail felony convictions for there actions. I challenge my opponent to site and reference these infractions and any disciplinary results thereof. If anything law enforcement is held to a higher standard than an average citizen.
Police should be treated just like everyone else in the eyes of the law.

I see the same bull**** all the time. A police officer committed a crime but was not charged or fired. Why are police, the people who are supposed to be the "good guys" always let off the hook instead of held accountable. If anything, police should be held to higher standards because they are the ones who are supposed to enforce the law. I recently read about a police who stole marijuana from the evidence room at his station and he used it to make weed brownies. He got so mesed up he thought he was dying and called 911 because he thought he and his wife had overdosed (hahaha, I know). No charges were filled and the man was allowed to just resign instead of being fired. I also just recently read about a police officer from NY who was stopped for like the eight time for driving under the influence. He was let off the hook again for the eighth time and is still employed. I lost my liscense for 30 days for simply having alcohol in my car. It wasn't open and no one was drinking. We need to start making sure that police officers are held accounable for thier actions . If any normal citizens did any of the things that the latter officers I mention did, they would be locked away and the key would be swallowed.
The God of the Bible exists

..... You completely ignore my refutations to restate your arguments. Who made God? Irrelevant. We are discussing existence. If I don't provide you with a cause or argue eternity with you, it doesn't matter. I thought I made that clear enough. No being can be omnipotent. I already clarified this too. When theists, or at least I, say "God is omnipotent" we mean he possesses all possible power. I do not claim God has impossible power. God is logical by nature and he cannot act contrary to his nature. The reason God cannot be more powerful is the same reason he cannot make square circles. It would be against his nature. God and Morality Again, God does not prevent evil. This does not mean he is necessarily immoral, nor amoral. If you concede that it is possible for God to have a reason for allowing evil then it follows that God and evil can coexist. This does not require God to be immoral. We are arguing existence anyways. The morality of God is off topic....again. I already provided extraordinary evidence. It was called the Trashmen Argument for the Existence of God.
The God of the Bible exists

Rebuttals:You have still failed to provide valid evidence that the Bible is true. Until you do this, your only argument is invalid.Argument #1: Who made God?The answer is that I don't know, but we are not here to discuss how the origins of the universe. We are here to discuss whether the God of the Bible exists or not. You seem to have no objection to the argument I put forward which is that nothing can be eternal. Therefore, God cannot be eternal and must have a cause. Argument #2: No being can be omnipotent My point is that if a being were omnipotent, then surely it would have the ability to make itself stronger. You're correct, that is a paradox. My whole point stands. A being can not be omnipotent.Argument #3: God can't be all-knowing, able to prevent evil and willing to prevent evil.So, God is not willing to prevent evil? So God surely can't be a moral-being, can he? He's able to prevent it evil, but he doesn't but he punishes you for it with eternal torture. How is that a loving or moral God?The thing is that even if you're right and all three arguments are faulty, you still have to provide evidence as you're the one making the positive claim and therefore you have the burden of proof. Also, to claim that the God from the Bible exists is an extraordinary claim, is it not? Therefore, you'd have to back your statement up with an extraordinary amount of evidence, not just one argument. Those are the two possible outcomes of this debate. Provide an extraordinary amount of evidence, or lose.Arguments:Argument #4: God can't be all-knowing AND all-powerful. This is a claim about the God of the Bible, that he is all-knowing and all-powerful. If he is both these things, is it possible for him to alter the future to one that he doesn't know about? No, exactly. It's a paradox. It is impossible.Argument #5: The God of the Bible is not a Morally Good God. This is because he gives an infinite amount of torture to someone who has commited a finite amount of sin and an infinite amount of paradise to someone who has committed a finite amount of good deeds.
The God of the Bible exists

If the Bible is false, then I would be uncomfortable. Therefore, the Bible must be true. Therefore, John is accurate. Saying something IS x is not the same as saying it has property x. The "word" is not an adjective. A = X B = X A = B Also, all of your arguments were flawed. Argument 1: Who made God? Ok. Who made the laws of physics the way they are? You don't need to account for causes. I can ask you: "What causes gravity to be as strong as it is?" *Reply* "What causes that?" *Reply* etc. You will eventually not have an answer but that doesn't make any of the previous answers invalid. Argument 2: God is logical by nature. God cannot act opposite to his nature. Making an omnipotent being stronger is a paradox, therefore contradictory to God's nature. When you hear "God is omnipotent", that generally means he has all possible power. He does not possess impossible power. He is not absurd. Argument 3: God is not willing to rid the world of evil nor is it part of his definition. If it is even possible that God has a reason for permitting evil, then it follows that evil and God are logically consistent. I doubt you would claim it is impossible. My argument stands.
The God of the Bible exists

Rebuttals:'1. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."'First you need to prove that this is true. You have failed to do this.'3. Bird = God.'This is also faulty. Even if you could somehow prove that the Bible is true, you still face the problem that just because they share one property (which is debatable), that does not mean that they are the same thing. My arguments:Argument #1: Who made God?If I were to ask you the question 'Who made God?', a likely response would be 'God is uncaused'. This would mean he is eternal, yet this is impossible. I'd ask you the question 'How many hours has god existed for?'. You cannot answer 'infinity', because infinity isn't a number. What is Infinity minus Infinity? Exactly. Can you count to infinity? Exactly. So Infinity isn't a number, it's just an idea in our mind. Therefore, God cannot be eternal and must have a cause, making the whole idea of a God pointless.Argument #2: No being can be omnipotent.God is apparently omnipotent. That would mean he'd posses the ability to make himself stronger. But how can God make himself stronger if he is already omnipotent? Exactly. No being can be omnipotent.Argument #3: God can't be all-knowing, able to prevent evil and willing to prevent evil.If he is all of these things, he'd be able to know what's going to happen in the future since he's all-knowing. Everyone can agree there's evil in the world, but if he is all three of these things, then why is there still evil? So, which of these three properties does he posses?Now, to win this argument, my opponent will have to disprove every single one of these arguments and put his own valid arguments in place.
The God of the Bible exists

It isn't much of a burden. Atheists normally struggle to form coherent arguments anyway. I would strongly recommend Dr. Kent Hovind. He has a PhD in Christian Education from the prestigious PBU. Anyways, I doubt it will take more than one argument to confuse an atheist brain. I'll just get right into it. 1. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." 2. The Trashmen "The bird is the word". 3. Bird = God. 4. Birds exist. C: Therefore, God exists. Checkmate.
If Atheism Is Correct, Morality is Entirely Subjective

My opponent asks if murdering a person to survive is moral. I would say that while that is not the point of this debate, I would say it is as it follows from my syllogysm which I provided in R1. My opponent has not show why this is not true. "So the real queston is why going againt nature and evolution is objectively, morally wrong." I have already shown that it is wrong in action because it goes against an objective goal. "The question is weather[sic] or not a goal is moral." If my opponent had read my syllogysm carefully, he would know that an action is moal specifically because it helps one to reach a goal. My opponent has yet to bring any point against this and so I urge a Con vote.
If Atheism Is Correct, Morality is Entirely Subjective

I regret only putting three rounds in this debate now that I fully understand how these work. Alas."First, I never argued that continuation of the human species specifically is moral."I understand now, I apologize for misreprespenting you. "Second, the continuation is the vey point of evolution."It seems asthough you are chosing a goal or telos and then whatever process happens to reach that goal is "moral." So with the goal of reprodcing and expanding our species anything that helps us do so is moral. But with the goal of murdering somebody else shooting them would be a moral acton because it is helping you reach that spacific goal. The question is weather or not a goal is moral. "By not surviving, it is going against evolution and nature and is thus wrong in action."You are presupposing that whatever goes against nature is morally wrong in jusdgement, action or opinion. Of course if your goal was to following the path of nature and evolution then of course it's stupid to do anything other. So the real queston is why going againt nature and evolution is objectively, morally wrong. It seems to me Con has not given any reasons that, real, objective moral values and duties could exist without the existance of God.
If Atheism Is Correct, Morality is Entirely Subjective

My oponent has accepted all of my points and premises except for #5. (5)To do what is advantageous in survival is 'correct' in that it aids in the continuation of a species. My opponent argues that it is my own personal opinion that the continuation of the species is correct. //"Why is continuing the human species correct in judgment, action or opinion? Isn't this your own subjective opinion?"// First, I never argued that continuation of the human species specifically is moral. I argued that the continuation of 'a' species was correct in judgement, action, or opinion. Second, the continuation is the vey point of evolution. An organism whose environment keeps changing while it's features stay the same will most likely not reproduce or continue the species. By not surviving, it is going against evolution and nature and is thus wrong in action.
If Atheism Is Correct, Morality is Entirely Subjective

(1)Morality is what is right (Definition) I accept this definition. (2)What is right is what is correct in judgment, action, or opinion (Definition) I accept this as well. (3)Subjectivity is a statement where truth is contingent on opinion. (Definition) Again, accepted. (4)Objectivity is a statement where truth is not contingent on opinion. (Definition) This, I also accept. (5)To do what is advantageous in survival is 'correct' in that it aids in the continuation of a species. Here is where I believe the error lies. You are presupposing that doing what is advantageous in survival is “correct,” with the goal of the continuation of the human species. Why is continuing the human species correct in judgment, action or opinion? Isn’t this your own subjective opinion? How would one come to the conclusion that it is objectively true that the continuation of our species is moral? (6)This fact does not rest on one's personal opinion. I refer to my earlier paragraph. (7)Morality is objective. I agree, but why do you?
If Atheism Is Correct, Morality is Entirely Subjective

Before we begin I will debate what exactly 'morality' is. Morality: Conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.[1] But what does the word right mean? Dictionary.com defines it as "correct in judgment, opinion, or action." (1)Morality is what is right (Definition) (2)What is right is what is correct in judgement, action, or opinion (Definition) (3)Subjectivitiy is a statement where truth is contingent on opinion. (Definiton) (4)Objectivity is a statement where truth is not contingent on opinion. (Definition) (5)To do what is advantageous in survival is 'correct' in that it aids in the continuation of a species. (6)This fact does not rest on one's personal opinion. (7)Morality is objective. Vote Con [1http://dictionary.reference.com...
If Atheism Is Correct, Morality is Entirely Subjective

Description of the Debate: This is my first debate, so I will be geatful to have anyone debate me in search for truth. In this debate, I will be arguing for one contention, If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. This debate is not about the existence of God but rather if God does not exist, there is no sufficient way to ontologically ground moral values and duties. Furthermore, I am not arguing the belief in God is required to act objectively moral, but rather the existence of God is the only way to sufficiently ground real, objective moral values and duties. Argument: On atheism, humans are merely highly evolved creatures who are self-conscious. With this view moral values are just the by-product of biological evolution and social conditioning. These behavioral traits or, "herd morality" proves to be advantageous though natural selection and in turn, functions well in the perpetuation of our species. Morality is just a tool to aid our species in survival. But this set of moral values and duties on is advantageous for our species only in our current environment; if we were placed in a different environment our morality might be vastly different. As Darwin himself wrote in The Decent of Man, "If ... men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering" (1). Certain actions such as incest and rape may not be biologically and socially advantageous and so in the course of human development have become taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to show that rape and incest is really morally wrong. Such behavior goes on all the time in the animal kingdom but is not viewed as immoral because since they are just animals and there is no moral dimension to them. If one believes that human morality is objective, he is merely succumbing to an unjustified bias toward one’s own species. If there is no moral lawgiver, then there is no objective moral law that we must obey. (1) Charles Darwin, The Decent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd edition (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1909, 100.
Resolved: In a democracy, Civil Disobedience is morally justified.

I, Sam, will be affirming for the last time the resolution that in a democracy, civil disobedience is morally justified. I will begin by refuting the negative and then I will rebuild the affirmative one last time. The negative states that we are talking about two types of civil disobedience. He states we are talking about both private and public. However, for an event to change something such as a law is taking place, it is required to be public, in order for a change to happen. That is one of the parts and fundamentals of Civil Disobedience, which is the main concept. The negative also states that those people will not want to accept their punishment of being arrested and taken to jail for breaking a law… "However, this is not intended to be a carte blanche or a "get out of jail free" card. It is not a "right" handed down to accept law breaking in any form." As I stated in my affirmative speech #1, I stated that those who take part in civil disobedience know they are going to be arrested and are willing to accept the responsibility and the consequences of their actions. That is part #2 of civil disobedience, which all persons whom conduct it shall expect to be arrested. He also stated that refusal to accept then leads to violence. This is no longer is civil disobedience, as it is taken a step above which can lead to revolution. If it gets violent, it isn't civil disobedience. The whole thought of civil disobedience going violent is simply a paradox. Now to rebuild for the affirmative… My first contention is that civil disobedience is justified due to the fact that it is a non-violent event. My second contention is that Civil disobedience has been an important catalyst for change and is part of America's heritage and history. My second contention is that Civil disobedience has been an important catalyst for change and is part of America's heritage and history. I ask the public to vote affirmative, as civil disobedience is morally justified. Thank you.
It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

The rest of the rounds are used for arguments and rebuttals For this debate God will be defined as a maximally great being as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. That is to say, I am not referring to any specific deity. Hence doctrines such as the incarnation and Trinity are irrelvant to this debate. "Probable" will be defined as being more likely than not. The burden of proof is shared. It is incumbent on me to show that God's existence is probable, and it is incumbent on my opponent to show that God's existence is not probable. No semantics Good luck
Newt Gingrich vs. Rick Santorum

your polls are off: The RCP average (a lot of polls averaged together) shows: santorum 17.3% vs gingrich 16.0% http://www.realclearpolitics.com... also santorum wins SC too: 20.7% vs 19.7% newt. Gingirch does lead in Florida. By a lot. 20 vs 8, but newt = falling, santorum = rising. well let's start this!