BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Under normal circumstances, at one spontaneous moment, hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do

My opponent claims that because it is difficult to hit a baseball, it is the hardest thing to do in sports. This is obviously not the case. To prove hitting a baseball to be the hardest thing to do, he has to demonstrate why every other thing one can do in sports is easier. Therefore, my opponent can't even affirm the resolution. Under normal circumstances, at one spontaneous moment, a harder thing to do is sports is kicking making a 100-yard field goal. People have hit baseballs. However, nobody has ever kicked a 100-yard field goal. The record is 70 yards [1]. Under normal circumstances, at one spontaneous moment, a harder thing to do is sports is running all around the bases. Case in point, it is impossible to run around four bases in one spontaneous moment. An impossible action is obviously much harder than a performed action. Under normal circumstances, at one spontaneous moment, a harder thing to do is sports is hitting a perfect serve. A perfect serve is a serve that cannot possibly be returned, even by a person with superhuman reflexes, because it is stuck in the ground. This has never been done. I have shown three things that are harder than hitting a baseball under normal circumstances, at one spontaneous moment. Therefore, the resolution is negated. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(football)#Longest_field_goals
Under normal circumstances, at one spontaneous moment, hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do

I affirm. Hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do A: When you actually hit the ball, it is only on the bat for 1/1000th of a second, and the best of the best, normally only succeed 3 out of 10 times, for a .300 batting average. B: Consider that a fastball thrown at 95-100 mph reaches home plate in about 0.4 seconds. Adair notes in his book that it takes 0.15 seconds for humans to voluntarily blink their eyes in response to visual signals. When a big-league fastball is on the way, you must do far more than just blink. You must swing the bat to precisely the right spot at precisely the right time. "If a person from another planet was told what's involved ... they would say it's impossible," says Porter Johnson, a physics professor at Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago C: Expert's view — Torii Hunter Torii Hunter is an All-Star center fielder and American League MVP candidate who helped the Minnesota Twins win the AL Central in 2002. He has hit 29 and 27 home runs the last two seasons. Q: What is the hardest thing about hitting a baseball? A: "It's a matter of precision, adjustment and accuracy, and there's not much room for error. Miss by a half-inch, and you can top the ball or hit it into the ground. You have to have hand-eye coordination to adjust to the ball's speed, and you have to see the rotation of the ball. Even if you miss by that little, you fail. D: Hitting a baseball becomes even harder, when the pitchers mix in off-speed pitches, that throw off the batters timing. This makes it more hard to hit. Ted Williams famously said, "hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports" E: Baseball is harder because with hitting a baseball you are reacting to something you have no control over. Such as the speed, location, and movement of the ball. Taking into account adverse conditions such as bad weather, poor visibility, and an umpire with a big strike +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 0 ch
Under normal circumstances, at one spontaneous moment, hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do

"My opponent states that hitting a 100 yard field goal is harder to do, than hitting a baseball. Well since there has never been a field goal attempted more than 70 yards away, this is clearly not a normal circumstance. " Many field goals have been attempted at more than 70 yards away. The only reason they are not recorded is because they all miss. Kicking a ball from 100 yards is just as normal as 70 yards. "Then my opponent says, it is harder to run around the bases, because you can not do it spontaneously. Well since my opponent say's it is impossible, it does not comply with the resolution, since it is not spontaneous, therefore you can disregard this point. " The action itself is spontaneous. However, its spontaneousness makes it impossible as well, so hitting a baseball is much easier than running around the bases in zero seconds. "Thirdly, my opponent goes on to say, that returning a perfect serve is harder to do. .. " No, I said that serving the perfect serve is harder to do, because even though there are hundreds of serves in one match, turning one into a perfect serve is near-impossible. The only way is to get the ball stuck in a clay court's service box. Many have attempted it. Nobody has succeeded. There was one hoax, though. "It has been , I have refuted all my opponent, 'counter plans'. .. " False. You've only said that they aren't normal, even though people attempt them EVERY DAY. ". .. I prove that hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports. " Wrong. Re-read what I said last round. "My opponent claims that because it is difficult to hit a baseball, it is the hardest thing to do in sports. This is obviously not the case. To prove hitting a baseball to be the hardest thing to do, he has to demonstrate why every other thing one can do in sports is easier. Therefore, my opponent can't even affirm the resolution. " This still extends here. The resolution cannot be affirmed.
Under normal circumstances, at one spontaneous moment, hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do

My opponent states that hitting a 100 yard field goal is harder to do, than hitting a baseball. Well since there has never been a field goal attempted more than 70 yards away, this is clearly not a normal circumstance. Then my opponent says, it is harder to run around the bases, because you can not do it spontaneously. Well since my opponent say's it is impossible, it does not comply with the resolution, since it is not spontaneous, therefore you can disregard this point. Thirdly, my opponent goes on to say, that returning a perfect serve is harder to do. But my opponent states, " This has never been done." Therefore it is obvious that this is not a normal circumstance. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It has been , I have refuted all my opponent, "counter plans", and I prove that hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports. Also, you can extend what I say in my case, because my opponent did not attack it, and I will copy and paste it for you convince. Consider that a fastball thrown at 95-100 mph reaches home plate in about 0.4 seconds. Adair notes in his book that it takes 0.15 seconds for humans to voluntarily blink their eyes in response to visual signals. When a big-league fastball is on the way, you must do far more than just blink. You must swing the bat to precisely the right spot at precisely the right time. "If a person from another planet was told what's involved ... they would say it's impossible," says Porter Johnson, a physics professor at Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. My opponent can not make any new arguments in his last rebuttal, since I can not refute what will be said. If he does say anything new, I ask the voters will disregard that information. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CONCLUSION: 1) It has been seen that I have taken out all the con counter plans. 2) He does not attack my points, I must win. 0 charact
Should teens have the ability to leave home at there own will? (14-17)

Once again, I totally get where your coming from. The problem however is that staying at a friends is only temporary as the investigation is conducted and once the investigation is completed they will either be shipped out to a foster home or returned to their parents or parent. This is going by the assumption that the state actually has good child protection laws, which I'm most states, that doesn't exist. And of the parent didn't take care of their kid and then suddenly starts being reaposible and telling them they can't leave just to keep control. Why should parents like that have that kind of control? And if your a kid lucky enough to have a family, why in the world would you want to leave? So, I believe that the proper action would be to have a parole board available to kids to where they can go and their case would be individually investigated and decided if they have proper reason to leave. The main goal in this idea is just to give some control of a kids life back to the kid. The thing you aren't realizing is just because your a kid doesn't mean you shouldn't have say in your life. Current laws require you to have a foster license to take in a kid, this prevents a ordinary person such as a friend to take you in. So, would you rather be torn from the little you have if you were abused or be placed in a friends home permanently.
Should teens have the ability to leave home at there own will? (14-17)

It will still be in the hands of parent where their child goes or doesn't. I've may of mistakenly interpreted this, are you talking about the CPS? Because if not there's only one logical choice and that choice lies in the hands of the parents. The CPS is already able to send them to close friends if given permission by those friends. They can be taken by family members.You're arguing that parents shouldn't have authority over their child, they already do and it's a good thing. You're only seeing this from one perspective, look at it from the eyes of the parents absolutely powerless. They couldn't tell their own child no even if it meant certain danger. That's why I support the only logical side.
Should teens have the ability to leave home at there own will? (14-17)

I perfectly understand that, as my later years I was taken in by other family members, but just cause some people have good lives doesn't mean we should deny all kids to a better one. If you had good parents like that why would you want to leave home? Further more the opportunity would problem be denied without extremely good reason. What I suggesting would act as a parole board. Your case would be reviewed by authority figures and would be decided of you should be allowed the opportunity to leave home. Just because a lot of kids have these perfect lives doesn't mean all do, if this would be a thing think about how many lives it could improve. We would be giving these kids a future rather than tearing them away from what little they have. If you were abused and forgotten but the one thing that kept you going was your puppy, would you rather move in with a willing friend that would allow you to take the puppy or be dragged away from your friends, your family, and your future just to go into a even more abusive group home? The fact is that the system we have places these abused kids with total strangers when we could be placing them with close friends.
Should teens have the ability to leave home at there own will? (14-17)

I understand that things have been difficult for you and your friend. You must realize that this is not most parents or adults, mostly it's teens who want to go out and put their life in jeopardy. Your mother poisoned you that means she doesn't care if you lived or died, the same mindset can apply to parents who don't want the responsibility of caring for safety of the children. I could say "I'm going to go out to Wal-Mart today dad." He could say "I don't think you should go you've been puking all day and it's raining hard out there." You shouldn't deny parents their role of being parents, your bad experiences doesn't apply to everyone. Some parents care for their child or teenager and wants to be assured they won't make bad choices or do bad things that put their safety at risk. Upon earning their parents trust they'll be able to go out when they want but they should notify their parents. I think it should be up to the parents, if the child is proper then they'll have no reason to forbid them from going out. A lot of children get molested, raped, or even worse when they don't listen to their parents. After all mother knows best.
Should teens have the ability to leave home at there own will? (14-17)

My argument is not just for abused kids, I was just using them as a example, but like I stated before, we should give the kids a opportunity, not a for sure leave whenever you like. I'll restate this, we should give these kids a chance to step up in front of a authority figure and let them state their plan and how the plan to accomplish it. Now, since we are going to bring up childhoods let me do the same. I was poisoned when I was 2 years old by my own mother so she could get attention for a dieing son and I was put into a group home were I was abused daily by the staff. I eventually just shut them out and basically lived in my room away from contact of all humans. But as for today I run a origination that helps kids with emotional issues. From my experience I believe there should be a way for kids to be given the chance to live with friends or away from there parents while keeping the dissuasion of where they go in the teens hands, with exceptions of course.
Should teens have the ability to leave home at there own will? (14-17)

However the majority are not abused like you say. Those ones can get away from their parents, it's not really their choice of if they go out, they should be held accountable to their parents. Your post was about ALL teens and you argue that they should be able to leave without their parents permission. You argue by only talking about abused kids. Since you only want to talk about some children I'll do the same. How about all those kids who sneak out of their family's house to go meet boys, do drugs, get involved in illegal things, and other acts of degeneracy. When I was young my parents were apathetic and open to my sister's and I. They would always sneak out the window and return home at 3:00 am at night. Since then they both dropped out of high school, one got pregnant at 15 and now as two babies she struggles to raise as she's verbally abused by her psychotic boyfriend on a daily basis and the other got in a fatal car crash when they're were out drinking and smoking weed.
Should teens have the ability to leave home at there own will? (14-17)

I do see your your point. Yes, there is no reason for the teens that have good parents to leave home but what about those teens who don't have that luck and are forced to be in a household where they are exposed to cruelty each day of there life but don't want to report it because then they would be dragged away from the little things they have such as friends and mentors. I believe that we should give them a chance, they could get a job and rent a apartment and get a check from the government such as those that foster parents get but it goes to the child instead or they could be given the option to move in with a close friend or possibly a romantic partner. This is all going by the assumption that this is a reaposible and monitored kid
Should teens have the ability to leave home at there own will? (14-17)

Parents are often concerned of the safety of their child, after all they raised it. Teens should tell their parents where they're going in case they get lost or something bad happens to them. If you were a patent I'm sure you wouldn't want your son or daughter running the streets getting involved in illegal things. I'm not arguing that teens shouldn't be allowed to go anywhere, I'm starting that parents have concern for the safety of their offspring and should be able to have the ability to prevent potential bad things. Many parents are over strict of their child denying them the fun of childhood. Many parents have been to loose and apathetic with their child allowing them to run the streets on the road to degeneracy. This is my first post.
Should teens have the ability to leave home at there own will? (14-17)

I come here to ask one simple question, and that Is, should teens ages 14-17 have the opertunity to leave home? Now when I say "opertunity", I mean they would have the chance to go in front of a authority figure and be given the chance to show he/she is capible of being independent and should be allowed to have the dissition to move out. Now the reason I bring this argument is because a close friend of mine is disowned by his parents and breaks down in tears regularly. What I think should be allowed is for him to move in with a friend. As of now that is agaisnt the law, the only way to get out of that situation now is for CPS to get involve and then the teen has no say of where he/she goes. I'm looking for a opponent that disagrees about my idea of giving teens a chance to be independent and for that said person to present a reasonable example situations
Should teens have the ability to leave home at there own will? (14-17)

This isn't about bad abusive degenerate parents, if it is then fix the title next time. This is about whether or not parents should lose their authority and role as parents. This is much more bad kids out there as they're ignorant, they have no respect for others or themselves. Parents should ultimately be in control of their child, after all they raised it, fed it, took care of it. No parent should have to watch their own child die, no parent should be left to be worried of whether the child would return or not. Parents they care if their children, they really do. With all the sickos out there such as pedophiles and homosexuals, they have reason to be worried for their child's safety. There's so much gang violence and crime out there now days. It's not as safe as it use to be. That's why parents should and will be parents in matters relating to their child, after all its ultimately their decision. Thanks.
RESOLVED: Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

I'm assuming the religion that's being referred to is the Abrahamic onesScience says there's constants. The world remains the same. When we drop a ball, we assume next week that the ball will drop again. When we test Gravity we don't think they will change tomorrow, or the next week. The same goes for almost everything in the world. When we test biology, we know dead people don't rise from the grave. When we test Physics, we don't see people walking on water. When we test medicine, we don't see camel urine healing anyone. However religion says a God exists, who can change these things. Religion and science can't be compatible because religion makes a statement that contradicts something fundamental in science! Con ad hominems my view in claiming it's arrogant. How is it? Even if it's false, why is it arrogant? Con claims whenever a scientific discovery comes along (big bang, evolution, ect), one can still insert God. However if a religion's book already makes a claim about science, then it can be tested and falsified.There's various problems with the first book of Abrahamic theology and science. In Genesis light was created before light producing objects were made like the Sun and stars (1:14 -19) we also have evening and morning before the Sun! This contradicts science.In Joshua 10:13 it saysSo the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.How does the sun stand still, unless the Bible assumes the abandoned Geocentric model. Another Abrahamic book (The Qur'an) makes the same mistake.31:29Do you not see that Allah makes the night to enter into the day, and He makes the day to enter into the night, and He has made the sun and the moon subservient (to you); each pursues its course till an appointed time; and that Allah is Aware of what you do? 21:33 And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.The resolution is negated. Religion makes claims about the world that have been shown wrong.
RESOLVED: Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

For purposes of debate, science shall be defined as the most widely-accepted theories among the scientific community. It is arrogant to assume that either science or theology is mutually exclusive. Why is it so impossible for both of them to be right? Take universal creation for example: In Abrahamic theology, God created the universe and the world. From a scientific stance, the universe was created by the big bang. The conclusion can be drawn that God created the universe through the big bang if both were to be correct. To quote Gertie Hatfield: "The pew on sunday goes with the desk on monday... science is the slow revealing of God's ways."
America is a Communist Country

My previous points still stand since my opponent hasn't really challenged them in any way. Again, they're arguing against a scientific study in the matter of who controls this nation. To do that, they need scientific studies of their own at least. Why should we trust the word of a random person on the internet over the work of a scientific study?I'll add for the property problem: taxation isn't exactly rent. The people get to vote on how much property tax they pay, or else they get to vote for the people who decide how much property tax is to be paid. When it comes to rent, you don't get to vote for your landlord or the rent they charge. And finally, my opponent claims the family is abolished without even providing reasoning or evidence of such. To summarize a quote, "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
America is a Communist Country

I'll respond to each of my opponent's arguments, with the same format:Proletarian Dictatorship: As I pointed out with a study on the matter, in the United States, the average citizen has little to no influence over the government, while interest groups and economic elites have the highest influence. How is this a democracy? If anything, it is a plutocracy. Private Property: regardless if the government can do this, all private property has to be used for public use now. Eminent domain allows the government to take private property and make it used for public property. However, it is still nonetheless private property until the government does this. There is still a significant amount of private property out there that the government is leaving untouched.The Family: Parents are still the primary caregivers for their children. Sure, maybe for 6 hours out of the day a school is taking care of your children, but for 18 hours of the day, they are with their parents and family. Additionally, not everyone uses public education, some have their children go to private schools.