BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Baseball Sucks

I want to briefly explain why I think baseball is barely a sport, and when compared to other sports in the US, makes me embarrassed that it was created here. Baseball is the only major American sport where players can -Consistently be overweight -Use legal narcotics while playing (chew) -Excel with illegal steroids on a regular basis -Receive any sum of money without fear of fair play rules -Wear jewelry while playing without fear that it may inhibit them -Sit in a dugout for half the game and have fully participated -Not have completed one athletic task and yet have fully participated -Find themselves only breaking a sweat due to the heat -Play over 100 games in the regular season without paying a physical toll -Watch another sport on TV while playing their sport (dugouts) -Use steroids with little fear that it will hurt their professional career or legacy. Baseball is the only major American sport where -Wins are almost entirely based on the strength of a team's budget (Yankees) -There is so little complexity that errors are actually counted -The entire game can be watched in a highlight reel of less than 1 minute http://wiki.answers.com... -Offense and Defense strategy consists of hitting the ball hard and throwing to first base -Two players are doing 98% of the playing (the pitcher and catcher) -If a team plays a perfect game it means only one person is tired (the pitcher) -The official game break is described as a "stretch", as if the crowd must be woken up -There are no time outs because there is no time -Fans can miss over 100 games of the favorite team and not have missed anything important -Rain ends the game -Instant replay is not allowed. They affirm lies and call them truth. Such as what is being reported when a pitcher missed out on a perfect game because of a bad call. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com... Baseball is boring and I cannot believe its still aired on Television. Its a social pariah and I'm embarrassed that the "national pastime" of an overweight nation is the sport in which so little is required. The reason baseball is so beloved is because anybody can play it. No not everybody can throw a 90mph fastball, or hit one for that matter, but the average American athlete can run the bases faster than the pros, and is just as likely to catch a ball coming at them or throw a ball the distance of a field. But even if these things were unique, they are not the kind of things that when added together make a sport, they are the kind of things that make a game. Baseball is a game, and a fun one if your playing (I really like to play it) but it isn't a sport, hell its barely a watchable TV experience. Its got to be the only thing on television that gets worse with HD, feeling like I'm really there makes me even more depressed. I hate baseball.
Kobe is a better basketball player than Lebron

Thanks to Pro for initiating this good topic. I'm very passionate about this issue and look forward to debating it. Definitions:I accept my opponent's definition of Better.The word "is" indicates that this is about the present time, not 5 or 10 years ago. Though I feel LeBron has been better for the last 5 years, the resolution questions the present time only. C1: StatsThe best stats we can use come from last year's basketball season. Lebron averaged more points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks, and had a better field goal percentage and shot the three better (1,2). In the playoffs he had a better field goal percent, as well as more rebounds, assists, and blocks again.The John Hollinger efficiency ratings put LeBron as the most efficient player in the league, 4 spots ahead of Kobe (3). People also love to say how clutch Kobe is. Actually, this is more a product of how many last minute shots he takes rather than how often he makes them. You're bound to make a game-winner every now and then when you're taking them all the time. Kobe only averages 31% shooting in the clutch, over 10% less than his normal average. LeBron has a higher shot % in the same time period (4). C2: Other thingsKobe is 33 and LeBron is 26. Most fans can agree that a player's athleticism starts to fade in the thirties. This is evident as he takes more jumpshots now than at any point in his career, rather then driving to the basket which would require elusiveness he simply doesn't have anymore. This is also shown by his field goal % and points per game declining in recent years. C3: Kobe has a bad personalityThis doesn't actually relate to being a better basketball player, but I feel like bringing this up. Kobe had 16 technical fouls last year (5). A technical foul is attributed to poor conduct on the basketball court, such as excessive arguing with refs, verbally abusing other players, or starting fights. Lebron on the other hand only had 7, despite being the person everybody's looking for to do something bad.Kobe was also fined $100,000 last year for yelling a gay slur at a referree. After receiving another technical foul, Kobe argued with the ref briefly before sitting down on the bench. After slamming his towel on the ground, Kobe yelled "Hey Bennie!" (the ref), and when the ref looked his way, Kobe called him a "F*cking faggot". (6) ConclusionEven discounting the personal stuff, the numbers show that at the very least, LeBron is a better basketball player at the present time.I look forward to my opponent's reply.1. http://espn.go.com...2.http://espn.go.com...3. http://insider.espn.go.com...4. http://espn.go.com...5. http://espn.go.com...6. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
the U.S. should ban such talk as deneying the holocaust or supporting terrorism.

You can again extend everything I said. I ask that if my opponent does decided to post in the last round. He do it before Friday, as I will be leaving for a vacation on Friday to a place with no electricity. If my opponent does decide to respond after I leave, I ask the voters to not include in their decisions things that are new that I have no chance to respond to. With that, I thank you.
the U.S. should ban such talk as deneying the holocaust or supporting terrorism.

"I do no agree with what you say but I will defend till death your right to say it"- voltaire. one of the wisest and most poinent quotes I have ever read. I am a jew and god knows that I believe whole heartedly that the holocaust indeed took place and was in fact as horrible as what is shown in pictures. but thsi does not and will never mean that anyone who disagrees with me should ever be punished for doing so. part of America is to allow people to say what they belive no matter how politically incorrect it is. That is one of the reasons I love America so much. Becasue it allows this. If some one wants to vocally say that the terrorists were right and that we all deserve to die, unless he makes plans to carry out terroristn activities he/she can say what ever they want to who ever they want.
It is only descent to consume an animal once it reaches adulthood

I am disappointed that my opponent forfeited the previous round. In conclusion, needless to say that the potential party involved in witnessing this type of consumption has overlooked the actual issue regarding the fact of the matter that the older an animal becomes through captivity the more torturous it's life has been which by default is much worse that consuming a younger animal. Many companies sell the meats from younger animals as there are less fats in the body making it healthier and less salty to the pallet of the buyer. The vendor must overprice the market for these items because of the loss of money selling an undersized entity. The issue lies within the vendor not the consumer. People shouldn't care about the age of an animal when consuming but should rather discourage the abuse that the animals must go through previously before being placed in markets. Why must one suffer before having their lives ended? The market is not going down so why torture the inevitable? I hope that the readers pose a proper and fair vote along with a short description as of why they have chosen who to pick as the victor. The opponent did not meet the standard expectations I have provided in round one. I was hoping for a more lively conversation, however am still satisfied with my argument. Thank you to the reader for reading through this debate.
It is only descent to consume an animal once it reaches adulthood

The point of the question states that people think it is indecent to eat a baby animal and that it must have a certain age for it not to be as cruel. The topic isn't relevant towards how much meat is on the table, if that was the topic then yes I would agree with you Pro, but that is not the chosen topic. You did not pose a proper argument you merely asked a question regarding the topic and then argued off topic. =Off topic= For example, when a murder happens to an adult, people overlook it shortly after it is done, but if a toddler was murdered it would be a massive outbreak of reactions infesting the area. Now getting back to the argument. =On Topic= There are many companies selling younger animals to be consumed, many are disgusted by this act and throw the idea away, I personally do not consume younger animals for the reason of overpriced for an undersized animal, but I am not disgusted. I am disgusted at animal cruelty and yes I am not helping the cause of animal cruelty by eating meat products but when people have a baby animal placed in-front of them then they immediately begin to take emotion as if it is only bad if a baby animal is consumed rather than an adult animal.
It is only descent to consume an animal once it reaches adulthood

Well I don't really understand the topic but, you think you can eat an animal at any age right? Well I think differently. You see when an animal is just little it's still a baby plus if you were to consume it would be small and not much use to your body. Of course that depends on which animal. I think you should only consume it when it's an adult because it's lived a full life.
It is only descent to consume an animal once it reaches adulthood

This argument will be held through 3 rounds,Rounds 1/2 for your Statement/Proof and Reasoning. The final round should have no newly presented discussions but merely a rebuttal for fortification corresponding your previous statements. I look forward to this discussion and wish good luck to the challenger debating the opposing argument! ======================================================================== Through experience I have witnessed occasions of speculation that it is fine to consume an animal who has lived past it's childhood. However, It is indecent to consume an animal who has not reached a certain age. These occasions represent the idea that it is only alright to consume an animal once it has suffered through it's childhood. An animal isn't as intelligent as a human. A human can plan out their life through routine and adapt using different methods. Animals also go off of instinct and routine but do not adapt in the way that humans do, if the routine is differed from their natural grounds meaning the wilderness, and said routine is composed of negative aspects, an animal would not easily adapt and just suffer through their time in imprisonment. =Animal perspective= If you where an animal raised in a tight cage stuffed with other animals of your gender having no freedom, going off of routine knowing one day you would be slaughtered, would you rather live a horrific life of misery before your slaughter? Or would you just want your time on earth to end saving you from suffering before your slaughter? =Human perspective= If every time you consumed another living entity while these images ran through your head, which one would you agree with? Does this mean that an animal must suffer before it's death to make it more descent to consume?
The United States ought to extend to noncitizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due pr

My opponent states that terrorists do not get due process rights. I note that the resolution states that the non-citizens accused of terrorism should not get the same rights. Key word: Accused. This means that the non-citizen could be innocent. Therefore when my opponent states that, "Rights can only be guaranteed by consenting to the state which terrorists do not, meaning no due process rights." He is mentioning the terrorists themselves, not the people accused of terrorism. Thus, any arguments my opponent makes is invalid. Now I shall defend my case. My opponent says that I have not proven that the U.S. is morally obligated to give the non-citizens the same right, but I have. I have proved that the U.S. is morally obligated because of the constitution itself. When the Unites States first wrote the constitution it included all the people of the U.S., not just citizens. Also, the U.S. is obligated to take care of all people in the country, non-citizens included. The reason why the U.S. is morally obligated to give the people due process rights, is mainly because the U.S. has promised safety to all the people living in the U.S. I do not want to attack my opponents case detail by detail, because his contention itself does not follow the resolution. As mentioned earlier, my opponent states that terrorists do not get due process rights, not the people accused of terrorism. Please vote for affirmative, as I have uphold my side of the argument, and followed the resolution.
Revolved: BigBass3000 should be temporally banned for stealing all the debates for other debaters

"Wow relax man. Its called a joke, lighten up.", So he does not think, so he is contradicting the resolution. Vote Neg "Support tourment style debate on debate.org!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", I support a tournament debate as well.
Revolved: BigBass3000 should be temporally banned for stealing all the debates for other debaters

First off, how have I been stealing debate on this site. If I could do that I woulb be able to improve my win ratio, which right now is bad. Second the reason I have that quote is because It is a common quote in football, I play at my school in football. The reason why is because many people cheat all the time, but you just have to keep playing the game. However I can't cheat online in anyway. I have not done anything on this site, to prove I have cheated or should be banned. You have no evidence to prove that statement either. All you are trying to do is to get more exposure on your debate, so people can vote for you, but people need to read the debate, because you my friend are a jerk and you should be banned.
Do Science and Religion Clash? Prop will argue No, Opp will argue Yes.

Sry abt the forfeits, I had exams. Will try to be as concise as possible. Science exists for us to learn more about the physical and natural worlds. Religion exists to follow an ethical code of conduct. Religion explains social issues from a moralistic perspective while Science explains natural phenomena from a logical perspective. Social issues and natural phenomena are too different things. An aspect of a religion's ethical code can be service to mankind. The scientific endeavour can yield more ways to serve humanity. I believe I have refuted your points and supported my own. Again, I apologise for my inactivity and also for the rushed argument.
Do Science and Religion Clash? Prop will argue No, Opp will argue Yes.

I, NIGHTANDKNIGHT, accept the challenge. Let’s hope, whether you or I win or lose, we both would learn something useful.These are my points:• Science is based on logic. Religion is based on belief.• While religion explain many things with an illogical concept, science always explain topics with a logical concept.• On many topics both science and religion has a say. Both the concept of science and religion differ (many times) and thus they clash. • If religion and science support one another then a person of scientific mind and of religious mind would interpret the same thing and they would not have become ‘agents of clashing’.• Science and religion exist for different reason but both cover a large field. In many place they come in contact with one another. In these cases mostly due to conceptual difference they clash.With this I end my argument for round 1. Good luck Orose Khan
The President should be commander-in-chief of the military

Alright I'll start on my opponents case and then move onto my own. (SOP-separation of powers, XO- executive order) 1. >>>>he could single-handedly end military operations in the Middle East, he could, but he isn't. -For political reasons and trying to appease the right. That's why he has not pulled out -Also, to do so would disrupt the checks and balances, because this is a war and this would cause major political backlash from congress 2. Obviously harvey has not gotten to that part, or you would know that Commander-in-cheif is ruled for by the constitution. >>>>a government of the people, for the people, by the people. -*facepalm* do you really think that this is a true democracy? If it was, then why wasn't al gore the 44th president of the United states? >>>>Article 2, Section 2 - The actual article--e shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.-- >>>>it's all fine and dandy as long as the President has the qualifications necessary to run this position. But what if he or she doesn't? -It's all hypothetical, give me one historical example where this has happened. >>>>By instating the Secretary of Defense as the Commander-in-Chief of the military -Not only is this unconstitutional, but you're doing th EXACT SAME THING. to attack this argument, I'll extend your contentions- What if he isn't qualified, isn't this also disrupting SOP. Your idea has as many if not more flaws than you propose This argument is inherently flawed, because POTUS doesn't have as much power as your saying. But if you bothered to read your government book, you'd know that. Also, gates doesn't like an afghan pull-out you double-bind yourself http://rawstory.com... Now onto my case If you claim to support the framers so much, then why don't you agree with article 2?, it clearly gives all power to POTUS. Contention 1- Executive orders Executive orders control policy and set agendas and are key to presidential power. They avoid political backlash, because you don't have to go through and opposition congress. This also speeds up the time-frame. It increases American leadership. Plus the president is the most informed on foreign affairs. XOs are quick and avoid bureaucracy. This is best for America. Contention 2- Joint chiefs of staff Because POTUS has the JCS to back him, we can't loose. if a terrorist sneezes, they know about it. I'll bring it up in my next speech Back to you con
The President should be commander-in-chief of the military

This section can be used for anything other than debate. Best of luck. Defintions: Commander-in-Chief- A commander-in-chief is the commander of a nation's military forces or significant element of those forces. Military- A military is an organisation authorized by its greater society to use lethal force, usually including use of weapons, in defending its country by combating actual or perceived threats President-a president is one who presides, who sits in leadership President of the United States (POTUS)-The President of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces. (President in the topic refers to the President of the United States) . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Feminism: Positive or Negative

I find the maxim "All people, regardless of gender, race, age, sexuality, should be held equal under law" to be worth ignoring. Under the law men and women are generally equal, so this maxim is irrelevant. I was trying to think of examples most feminists bring up as an argument towards this. One example is gender pay gap. The ever-changing wage gap has many fallisices (see this source: http://dft.ba...). The point here is that there is barely any wage inequality. But by focusing their outrage into a tidy, misleading statistic, feminists have become jaded. In the source, she brings up that after mixing in different variables, a women makes 91 cents to a man, even then there are other undiscussed variables like maternity leave among others. Plus I am not sure 9 cents is something to throw a hissy fit over. Now I will move on to "a feminist is not feminism". I am not mixing them, but rather doing the opposite. I clearly said I was talking about radical feminism. Because by going with regular feminists who just want equality for all sexes, it's hard to think who disagrees with that. The basis of feminism is almost unarguable from my point of view, because I want equality for both sexes. That is why I am going by the radical feminist point of view, because that is something I strongly disagree with. Here is an excerpt from the wikipedia page of radical feminism: "A common criticism against feminism on the internet argues that radical feminism promotes a victim mentality amongst young women, inciting protests against events that have little to do with feminism. Susannah Breslin, a Forbes contributor wrote "Feminism claims to be about empowerment. In fact, over the years, it has increasingly devoted itself to promoting the image of women as victims. Victims of men. Victims of pop culture. Victims of sexism. Victims of discrimination. Victims of other women."