BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Basketball vs Football

I intend to convincingly show that Basketball is a better sport than Football. Basketball: “26 million Americans play basketball” (1) Football: “3.5 million people play football. ” (2) It is not even close. More people play basketball. Basketball: Teams can have anywhere from 12-15 players per team. This means in a league of 30 teams the max number of players is 450, while the min is 360 Football: Max for football teams is 53 and there are 32 teams. This means the NFL can have 1696 players. From the numbers it is a simple conclusion that it is a much harder achievement to go pro in basketball then football. Basketball: The following source rates basketball 10th most dangerous sport. (3) Football: Same source ranks football as the third most dangerous sport. (4) Football is more dangerous than basketball. Basketball is more convenient than football. You can play basketball one on one. Try that with football…. Basketball can be played in your front yard. Try that with football…. . Basketball can have completive matches of 3 on 3. Try that with football…. The most widely recognized greatest athlete in the world is LeBron James, a basketball player. (5) Number two on the list is also a basketball player. Conclusion: Basketball is more convenient to play. You can play with fewer people, and there is less space required to play. Basketball is safer than football. Due to the large number of basketball payers compared to football players, as well as fewer pro positions possible, it is much harder to become a pro basketball player vs pro football player. This makes being a pro basketball player more impressive. The current greatest athlete in the world is a basketball player. Basketball is a better sport than Football. (1) . https://www.sfia.org... (2) . http://www.answers.com... (3) . http://bleacherreport.com... (4) . http://bleacherreport.com... (5) . http://bleacherreport.com...
Basketball vs Football

I will state once again that one bad game does not disprove my argument. Con says that many games have been ruined by weather but only gives the one example. Con does say that his article stated the Football is rated more demanding the Basketball which proves my point. Just because you have not heard of Football one on one does not mean that it does not exist or would still be fun to play. I would simply state that is not the quantity of games that are played but the quality of the games. Playing more games during a season can make the players tired and worn out which leads to the game not being as fun. Only watching a game once week insures that the game will be excited because the players have had more time to rest. Conclusion: Football is better than Basketball simply said.
South Korea's army should take a more active role in the United Nations to maintain world peace

Well, you said that BECAUSE it is stronger, it becomes a bigger fight. In the war, if we let UN to help us, then they would have other countrites to fight for them too. Like Russia, or China, and possibly India too. Russia was very strong, and China and India are two biggest populatoin in the world. Even though United States can help us, it would still be a hard fight. China's population: 1,321,851,888 (July 2007 est.) India's population: 1,129,866,154 (July 2007 est.) Russia's population: 141,377,752 (July 2007 est.) How amazing is this?? the sum of this is 2,593,095,794 Because of these reasons I don't think South Korea's army shouldn't take more active role in the UN to maintain world peace.
South Korea's army should take a more active role in the United Nations to maintain world peace

I think we should keep the relationship with UN should be kept like this. And here are the reasons. First, it's our country. so I think it is fair to keep the peace and protect the country safe by ourselves. Well, think about it this way. If you fight with a girl in your class, you don't let people to come in and join the fight, then the fight would get bigger. I don't know if you understood because you're a girl. Second, as I mentioned a little bit on the second argument, if other countries come and join the fight, it will become as large as World War. We don't want that to happen right? So I think we should keep the war (if there is..) to ourselves, so it doesn't more bigger. And you mentioned about the secrets and I don't really get what you mean. I think you have to explain more about it. It was nice to debate with you.
Evolution is a Plausible Scientific Theory

My arguments extend to this point, despite previous forfeiture by my opponent.RebuttalR1: On the Definition of EvolutionMy opponent argues that the definition of evolution is unclear, however, I clearly stated the following definition in R1:"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Natural selection is theorized to be the primary mechanism of this process."My opponent argues that because of this lack of definition (which is non-existent), it is impossible to argue the plausibility of evolutionary theory. Even with this broad definition, the mechanism by which evolution occurs, natural selection, is consistently justified within all of my arguments. My opponent fails to give a reason why this definition presents a problem or disruption to the progression of this debate.I would also like to rebut my opponent's separation of the terms of macroevolution and microevolution, as if only one can be valid. To clarify, my opponent says that microevolution is the "gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within species", while macroevolution, defined as being separate, as "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species".I argue that these two 'types' of evolution are different, however they occur via the same mechanism of evolution, natural selection. Microevolution, being the change of allele frequencies within a population, is indisputably true, and is widely accepted by even the most staunch creationists, as there is overwhelming evidence to suggest its existence and plausibility. Macroevolution is often argued by creationists as to be to such a great extent that it is impossible to observe, however, many pieces of evidence point to the existence of speciation, or the formation of a distinct species. My previous arguments, including the evidence of the fossil record and genetic similarity, are included in support for speciation.In all, I claim that evolution has already been defined, and even if it was not, both microevolution and macroevolution are supported by the fields mentioned in my arguments, such as genomics and paleontology.---------------------------I await my opponent's rebuttal of all above-mentioned arguments. Sources(1) http://www.talkorigins.org...
Evolution is a Plausible Scientific Theory

Since Evolution can mean different things to different people I don't know how to respond to your definition of "Evolution". These are three types of Evolution: 1.) Microevolution-Evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species. 2.) Macroevolution-Major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. Or Evolution can just mean change over time.
Evolution is a Plausible Scientific Theory

Hello all. This is a debate on the truth in evolution; whether or not evolution is a plausible scientific theory. I think evolution is clearly plausible, as it is supported by a wide range of evidence, however some deny this and claim that evolution is false. My opponent will argue against the plausibleness of evolutionary theory.--------------------FormatRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: All Main ArgumentsRound 3: Rebuttal (no new arguments)Round 4: Rebuttal (no new arguments)Round 5: Conclusion/Final StatementsPlease note that this debate will be conducted in a formal, respectable manner with extended and well-developed arguments. Each debater will be allowed 10,000 characters to formulate a statement for each round.--------------------Definitionsevolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Natural selection is theorized to be the primary mechanism of this process.natural selection: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.plausible: (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.--------------------I await my opponent's acceptance.
America is the biggest threat to world peace

The German hatred caused them to perform their murderous tasks. Also, hatred between religions is common throughout history, and America isn't the cause of religious violence. Christians and Muslims have had incidents that are independent from America, and if America didn't exist, there would still be violence between these religions. The same would apply to Jew and Muslim conflicts. It's illogical to say that America is the biggest threat to world peace because we do not have world peace right now, and hate causes the problems in almost every situation. Your argument takes a few specific incidents where hate isn't the cause of violence and disruption, but in most instances, hate is.
America is the biggest threat to world peace

Yes, hatred was a factor for many of the past conflicts in history. However, as I said "it is America that is currently fueling the hatred between Palestinians and Israelis," so what I actually mean from that is if it wasn't for America, the hatred wouldn't be there in the first place would it... The Muslims and Jews would have lived together without hate like back before 1946. It's like what first started the Second World War, the harsh treaty that the Germans were forced to sign right? So back then it was mainly the harsh treaty that was the threat to World Peace, which fuelled the anger and frustration for the Germans. But now however, the biggest threat to World peace is the U.S. Who are fuelling more anger and frustration towards a BIGGER group of people, this could potentially start World War 3, as, all the terrorist groups have to do is get their hands on a nuke and this would be disaster!
America is the biggest threat to world peace

I understand your point on how hatred doesn't necessarily motivate America's aggression, but you fail to understand that hatred has done more harm than America throughout history. Hatred will continue to motivate more destruction than America can ever do by itself. You also said this: "They continue to aid Israel with billions of dollars to just fuel the hatred between Muslims and Jews because they think they're the good guys, but, it turns out to be the other way round as Israel continue to bombard the Gazan Strip with sophisticated weaponry and then blaming it on HAMAS and their harmless, cheap, unsophisticated rockets." You even admitted that hatred is a major factor in the Middle East. Hatred fueled the Holocaust, and I think that is a worse crime than the ones America is committing in the Middle East. Hatred is a threat to the world because it causes a person to act irrationally. Even if hatred isn't the biggest threat in the world, it still is at least more dangerous than America itself. Hatred causes prejudice and elitism (1). That fuels war and destruction and violence, and I don't think it's possible to say that America as an entity is more deadly than hatred in general. (1) http://drlwilson.com...
America is the biggest threat to world peace

Thank you for your point and I agree that hate is a big threat to world peace, we can easily point that out from historical events like the Holocaust. However, the USA doesn't intervene with issues in the Middle East based because they hate the people living there, but, because they think that they are like a world superhero that comes to the rescue whenever they 'think' someone's in trouble... But in reality, they are making the situation more worse! They thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but when they actually went into Iraq they found nothing... They continue to aid Israel with billions of dollars to just fuel the hatred between Muslims and Jews because they think they're the good guys, but, it turns out to be the other way round as Israel continue to bombard the Gazan Strip with sophisticated weaponry and then blaming it on HAMAS and their harmless, cheap, unsophisticated rockets. It is the USA that goes through all the trouble to wipe out communism and ending up to create yet another problem: Radical Islam. So here's the question, will they dare go through all the troubles to eradicate these Radical Islamists or will they just end up creating yet an even bigger problem...
America is the biggest threat to world peace

I do not deny that America shouldn't have meddled so much in the middle east, but I only have to prove that America isn't the biggest threat to world peace. You do not specify that this has to be a country or a person. It can be anything. If I can find one thing that hurts world peace more than America, I win this debate. I also can be as general as I want. I would say hate is the biggest threat to world peace. There is a Proverb that states: "Hatred stirs up conflict, but love covers over all wrongs" (1). The fact that people do not love each other is exactly what causes all the lack of peace in the world. American hatred of the 9/11 terrorists caused an overreaction to the event that made things even worse. In the same way, terrorists who hate America kill innocent people. All this is rooted from the simple emotion of hate. Hate limits your ability to think clearly, as it reduces judgement and clarity (2). Hatred has been the cause of every genocide and mass murder. Hate is the enemy to peace. I hope we have a fun debate, and I wish you good luck in trying to prove how America hurts world peace more than hate itself! (1) http://biblehub.com... (2) http://www.vegsource.com...
America is the biggest threat to world peace

America is the current biggest threat to world peace due to their habit of always intervening with the issues of other countries. They claimed that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction but found absolutely nothing. Therefore, destroying Iraq's economy and infrastructure, creating extremist groups such as ISIS to thrive in. Since 2001, America has bombed and killed nearly 2 million innocent civilians, that is why the people who have lost their families, tend to join Al Qaeda, ISIS and e.t.c. Thinking that they will seek revenge on the Americans.
America is the biggest threat to world peace

Many of the motives of terrorists include some sort of hatred against America because of what America has done. America uses hate as well, as racism, a form of hate, created slavery. Hate is used in almost every form of violence, and violence is a threat to world peace. I don't even have to prove that hate is more deadly than America. I just have to prove that America isn't the worst. I think that if war didn't exist, world peace would incur. After all, you'd rather remove war from the world than America, right? If America didn't exist, evil would still exist. War would still exist. Hate would still exist. If war, hate, and evil all did not exist, and America did, peace would be very likely. Your argument is illogical and full of grammar mistakes.
America is the biggest threat to world peace

Yes, hatred between religions is common throughout history, however, as we get into modern times, less and less people believe in fighting over holy land and I doubt that a full-scale crusades between the Christians and Muslims will ever happen again. The conflicts involving hate was supposed to end long ago. It is the American Government who are stirring up past conflicts by trying to 'mould the Middle East into their own shape.' They even tried to mould other parts of the world like Vietnam, Korea and e.t.c. This is the reason why they nearly plunged into a nuclear war with The Soviet Union and China... Now, they are back at it again. It is logical to say that America is the biggest threat to World Peace because they are involved with 90% of the World's current conflicts, I know that we do not have World Peace right know, but, if the USA didn't interfere with everyone's affairs then we might have World Peace. If the USA does not stop interfering with other people, then I'm afraid that our world might again be plunged into a World War...
Same-sex "unions"

Thanks for the challenge... First, I'd like to point out that the resolution is unclear. Same-sex unions can and do exist. Period. On gay marriage: the government doesn't determine laws based on what the Bible says. Thank God. Neither the ability nor the promise to reproduce are prerequisites for marriage. Heterosexuals engage in all kinds of perversions. And gay people can reproduce. More than 6 million Americans have a gay parent [1]. [1] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...
Best Rap Songs

As this debate is just for fun (and for me to find some more mad beats) this will REMAIN A TIE unless one debater trols the crap out of this debate.No definitions needed, no real arguing. Just post the LINK (or if you know how the video) into the round for a rap song that you think is good. NO SONGS WILL BE POSTED IN R1, merely acceptance.PLEASE TRY TO POST THE CLEAN VERSION OF THE SONG!! I don't want to offend anyone on this website, and they can have some heavy language. If you can't find one or you didn't post a clean version, it is not a breach of the rules but I would prefer if you tried.I look forward to my opponent!
Best Rap Songs

Clearly not for you then.I ask voters to vote for me, as I am trying to keep this website a serious place for intellectuals.This website isn't for intellectuals then, clearly from the "games" and "entertainment" and "funny" forum topics. There should only be one forum topic, "debate" according to my opponent. Is it not OK to have fun on this website??If you look at my debate history, you will see that this is one of the only debates I have done for fun. Secondly, this website is not only for intellectuals. People come here to use the forums and discuss ideas over debates. If you aren't a diehard debater raging at the moniter at someone because they aren't using Debate.org for debating, or a stick in the mud. Trolling is generally not a great way to start off on this website. Want to have a serious and real debate with each other? If the topic is fair I'll noob-snipe your face off.Violation of rules (no trolling) is a 7 point forfeit. It is a clear VOTE PRO.P.S. Losing your first debate is a crappy way to start off on this website.
Best Rap Songs

Frankly, I don't care about your opinion. I just hope that you won't troll this debate (though it would be an easy win for me). Furthermore, I am quite distrubed by your racist assumption that rappers are just black people and "da hood". That is racist and I would prefer if you kept that to yourself. My song is MadChild's "Judgement Day" featuring Sophia Danai. . http://www.youtube.com...
The United States' response to terrorism should be less forceful

In the wake of 9/11 there was only one response to take and that was he heavy handed approach you have mentioned. Had we not retaliated with the force we did use, the country itself would have fallen apart as the people of this proud nation would have revolted. Our country would have failed if we had not attacked because that aggression would have turned inward and our attention would have been further diverted from the problems that you say the war has caused and the. The would have gotten worse then they are right now.
The United States' response to terrorism should be less forceful

The U.S.'s war on terror has been a failure. Although Osama Bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been killed or captured both organizations are still committing acts of terror. It is time for the U.S. to adopt an approach to terrorism that isn't reliant on military force. Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his article "Terrorized by 'War On Terror'" "The events of 9/11 could have resulted in a truly global solidarity against extremism and terrorism. A global alliance of moderates, including Muslim ones, engaged in a deliberate campaign both to extirpate the specific terrorist networks and to terminate the political conflicts that spawn terrorism would have been more productive than a demagogically proclaimed and largely solitary U.S. "war on terror" against "Islamo-fascism.". By adopting the heavy handed approach that it did the U.S. alienated other countries in the middle east which have been ravaged by the war on terror and could have been potential allies. Resulting in the U.S. fighting an ineffective and un-winable war. Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "Terrorized by "War On Terror"" Editorial. Washingtonpost.com. N.p., 25 Mar. 2007. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com...;
The United States' response to terrorism should be less forceful

People do not naturally hate the U.S. it is by invading their countries and waging war in them that we turn the people of the middle east against us. Zbigniew Brzezinski security adviser to president Jimmy Carter said in his article "Terrorized by 'War On Terror'". "In the meantime, the 'war on terror' has gravely damaged the United States internationally. For Muslims, the similarity between the rough treatment of Iraqi civilians by the U.S. military and of the Palestinians by the Israelis has prompted a widespread sense of hostility toward the United States in general.". There is no evidence that there are entities rising up to join with Al Qaeda or the Taliban the perceived threat is created by fear mongering politicians and lobbyists for companies that cash in on huge defense contracts. Zbigniew Brzezinski also said."Such fear-mongering, reinforced by security entrepreneurs, the mass media and the entertainment industry, generates its own momentum. The terror entrepreneurs, usually described as experts on terrorism, are necessarily engaged in competition to justify their existence. Hence their task is to convince the public that it faces new threats. That puts a premium on the presentation of credible scenarios of ever-more-horrifying acts of violence, sometimes even with blueprints for their implementation.". It does not make sense to keep fighting a war that creates more resentment and ill feelings towards the U.S. against an enemy that poses little threat. Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "Terrorized by "War On Terror"" Editorial. Washingtonpost.com. N.p., 25 Mar. 2007. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com...;.
The United States' response to terrorism should be less forceful

In your quote Mr. Spagnoli references the fact that there is "...no well-defined enemy. Anyone can at any time become an enemy." This is precisely why we need to keep our effort against the war on terror. If anyone can become an enemy than why would we stop fighting? If anyone can become an enemy then doesn't it posit that we need to increase our efforts to squash any threat that pops up before it can form into a larger entity resembling or adding to Al Qaeda and the Taliban? i believe it does.