BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High School/Junior High Football Is Overrated

Now, as a female who participates in Cross-country, track, basketball, and dance I believe football (at high school-junior high level) is overrated. For instance, they get a full week to 'raise school spirits', hence homecoming, why sports such as Cross-Country go unnoticed. Middle School and High School Football teams get more attention on their first game, no matter the outcome, if the Cross-Country team was to go out an win Conference and advance to State. Not only that, they get a much better come out as the school typically hold tailgate parties before the games, plus having cheerleaders adds to the crowd. But besides the turnouts, they normally get the majority of the school's athletic funds. Our school buys new jerseys and equipment for the football team every year, while XC has been using the same jerseys for 10+ years now. But the thing that makes me most mad, is their attitude towards it. As I said before, I am on the Middle School Varsity XC Team, and have football players diss, not only our sport, but tennis and volleyball too many times. Saying anyone can run, it's not hard at all, yet they can't even run through our warm-up (which is a mile). Saying the other sports are unathletic and unskilled. Or that they could easy beat us at anything and everything. Saying their sport is the real sport and that its dangerous. Let me say this, not everyone can run distance, you can improve, but you can learn it. There are no plays to memorize, you have to have that mental mindset. You take an out shape person and see if they can run, I bet they can throw a football though. Running and swimming were the first two real sports, how is running not real? Heatstroke is more common than concussions, we have to deal with getting overheating, side stitches, and pain literally everywhere. And, I don't know what it's like at other school, but the football players at are school are one trick ponies, only being able to play football, not to mention they usually have pretty bad grades and actually get pulled out due to low grades. I'm open go discussion, but in my opinion XC is the hardest, toughest, best sport out there. And the under the breath insults don't go unnoticed ;)
The historicity of Jesus Christ

This is always a good topic when one has the time. For reference to those who do study history (and history of history more precisely) I am defining historicity as the actuality of the truth of an individual. Jesus Christ shall be defined as a person with the characteristics of being a jewish man named Jesus, the son of God, who committed many great miracles, such as the feeding of the five hundred and curing of the blind and bringing back of the dead. A miracle that defines Jesus Christ was the resurrection. He also committed sermons, such as the sermon of the mount, and used rhetorical devices, specifically analogy and allegory, to bring across messages of how to lead one's life. For reference, the debate is the historicity of Jesus. This means that we are debating whether Jesus Christ is a historical figure. As history tells us, we are to be told whether it is more likely or not it is true. Also, if anyone has any questions on terminology or diction, please state them in the comments. Also, I am sure my opponent and I both know the scholars that will be referred to, but there is always a good chance that my opponent refers to evidence I do not see, or I refer to a rebuttal that my opponent does not know of. As such, if the evidence comes from a book from days past (e. g. Testimonium Flavium), a quotation referred from the book combined with a source to the book and page reference would be very useful for both parties.
The historicity of Jesus Christ

Motion: Jesus Probably existed The debate about the historicity of Jesus is not new to DDO, and so I will attempt to make this debate the most challenging one seen, with the help of my opponent, whoever he or she may be. This debate will require pre-existing knowledge about the topic, but not the sort of knowledge that is absent from the general populace. If you want more information about what will be happening in this debate, I recommend this article: [1 http://en.wikipedia.org......]Definitions:Jesus: Famous person in question who allegedly lived ~2000 years ago.Probably: insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected[2]existed: to have real being whether material or spiritual[3] For the purposes of this debate, we shall use the material definition.Rules and structure:1) No semantics, trolling or swearing.2) Forfeit in 1 round results in conduct loss, more than 1 round results in full 7 point penalty.3) Definitions are not to be debated, If you have an issue, pm me.4) Material posted in comments is to be ignored, sources are allowed to be posted in comments.If you break a rule I will ask you to concede.4 rounds72 hours to post 8000 character limitStructure:Round 1: Acceptance only.Round 2: Argument from Pro, Rebuttal (and arguments if applicable) from ConRound 3: Arguments, Rebuttals and defense from bothRound 4: Rebuttal and defense from bothRound 5: Rebuttals and closing statementsGood luck. ______________________________________________________________________[1]http://en.wikipedia.org......[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com......[3]http://mw2.merriam-webster.com......
People should not be so addicted to their cell phones.

Victory! Cell phones are good for the enviorment because they kill people. Less people means less global climate change. "A 2009 study of the relationship between population growth and global warming determined that the “carbon legacy” of just one child can produce 20 times more greenhouse gas than a person will save by driving a high-mileage car, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, etc. Each child born in the United States will add about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent. The study concludes, “Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle.”" biologicaldiversity.orgAs seen by Al Gore's Inconvient Tooth Global climate change is a real threat. "A documentary on Al Gore's campaign to make the issue of global warming a recognized problem worldwide." imdb.comhttp://www.imdb.com...
People should not be so addicted to their cell phones.

Thank you for your response. I am not proposing that people should buy cell phones, but I am proposing that people should use them responsibly. Yes, it is true the cell phone is such a great and convenient device, but the overuse of them is not ideal. People should still be buying cell phones, so there would be nothing wrong with the marketing. Also, people can take their phones with them on cars, but it should certainly not be used, as it is illegal and a very dangerous movement. Thank you.
People should not be so addicted to their cell phones.

Think of the profit margins of cell phone corporations. The more addicted we are to cell phones the more money these corporations make. You wouldn't want to let down a CEO making half a million dollars annually, would you? "How much does a Chief Executive Officer make? The median annual salary for a Chief Executive Officer is $687,505" salary.com "Lastly, the cell phone has become a major distraction. Of course, we all know the famous rule about not texting while driving. 24% of people still text while driving. There have been many car accidents." Pro Less people on the road is means less green house gases. http://www1.salary.com...
Reality is a simulation

Might some day ur thinking come true. Theoretically it is, Still not possible to generate artificial consciousness. As scientifically the consciousness is it self a amount of sub consciousness and unconsciousness ( eg: dreaming ) But today we r still in search the reason for why we dream What is a purpose of unconscious mind. Then we r far away to generate a conscious artifact without clearing the initial equation. And as a matter of time it remains impossible today. But one day it's going to chang Some one gives a satisfactory explanation on the selection of random thoughts process. Because possible only happens from starting of impossible stuff. My points may change in future. I m eager to see ur theory's may come true in near future.
Reality is a simulation

Assumption 1. It's possible to simulate consciousnessWhile it is not possible today, This assumption merely means that it is technologically possible. Modern AI can compose classical piano, Recognize faces, Diagnose medical disorders, Beat human professionals at complex games like poker, Go, And Starcraft. As we argue, Special teams of scientists are mapping the billions of neurons in the human brain to a computer. This brings me to my next point:Assumption 2. Technology will continue to progress to the point where we can simulate consciousness. If technology continues advancing simulated consciousness may not be far off. If simulation becomes possible then surely the number of simulated minds throughout time will far outweigh the number of real minds. Since we have no way of knowing if we are in a simulation or not, Then chances are we are simulated.
Reality is a simulation

Hello Debate0ts, Welcome to the debate! Firstly, I am having difficulty understanding what you're saying. We can't have a proper argument if we can't understand each other! I'm guessing there's a language barrier. Please use the spelling/grammar checker, And try to format your sentences to make them easier to read. ---Let me clarify my position. I believe that if those 5 assumptions are true, Then we are probably living in a simulation. The reasoning is straight forward: If advanced civilizations figure out how to simulate consciousness, Then they will probably do it. If they're capable of running simulations, Then they will probably run A LOT of simulations. Since we have no way of telling if we're in a simulation or if we're real, Then we have to assume that the chances that we're simulated are much higher than the chances we are real. This is actually a well known hypothesis with a big following (e. G. Elon Musk), And its own wiki page. https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis---Rebuttles: "Such u say stimulated universeI believe in natural occuranceRandomness of possibilities to theory of evolution its clearly fly all. " Could you explain what you mean here? I'm not arguing against evolution. Evolution could just as well be in the simulation. "Matter (material:atoms, Electrons etc. . I don't know)R present from the beginningNo one creates them. "So again, Not sure what you mean here. I never said we were creating atoms or electrons, I said was that we are SIMULATING consciousness; perhaps with advanced alien computers, For example. "Plz coney [convince? ] me that ur points of argues r right. "I don't want to make this post too long, So I will just ask you which of the 5 assumptions do you disagree with and why?
Reality is a simulation

First at I start with existence (proof) Its totally not proved that we r in a artificial living world Such u say stimulated universe I believe in natural occurance Randomness of possibilities to theory of evolution its clearly fly all. And put dumb on ur assumption. That u make. Ur thinking r just imagination Some what like fairy tale stuff That some one is there who can control our living world The creater of universe. Some kind of manufacturing company or power who built things. Just like i say like always Matter (material:atoms, Electrons etc. . I don't know) R present from the beginning No one creates them. Just like a cultivation to grow. I ( my) suggestion for u. Plz coney me that ur points of argues r right. My counters r wrong one. Thanks for welcoming me in.
Reality is a simulation

The "Simulation Hypothesis" argues that our reality, As we experience it, Could be a simulation. The argument rests on five assumptions: 1. It's possible to simulate consciousness - (or at least possible to trick the sims into thinking they're conscious, Depending on your definition of the word). 2. Technology will continue to progress to the point where we can simulate consciousness. 3. Advanced civilizations don't all destroy themselves. 4. Advanced civilizations want to run simulations. 5. If there are a lot of civilizations then we are probably living in one, Because the number of simulated minds would far outweigh the number of real minds. If these 5 assumptions are true, Then chances are we are living in a simulation. Feel free to state your points in round 1. Good luck!
homosexual behavior

You made an interesting point in saying we have sex to have babies. Yes, we do, but the majority of the time is for pleasure. I do disagree with your statement that it is no less impressive for a bird to build a nest than man to build a bridge. A nest is impressive, yes, but after hundreds of years of learning and adapting, we have improved bridges to withstand hurricanes and earthquakes. This shows the ingenuity of man. I hate to use the "m" word in referring to homosexuals, but it is a valid argument. Just like cleft lips, or extra toes, homosexuality is a "mutation" that people are born with. Although it occurs more often than the examples it similar in naturality. Plain and simple. If you're born with it or do not choose it, its natural. Get over it.
homosexual behavior

You refer to man's intelligence and accomplishments. Do they really exceed those found in nature? Yesterday I found a birds nest while I was cutting grass. I marveled at how an "inferior" species accomplishes such a feat. Is it really any less impressive than a man building a bridge? While looking at the nest I noticed pieces of fishing line among the outer pieces of sticks and grasses in the nest. It made me feel bad. Then I noticed some duck feathers inside the nest. How does this bird know it is better to line the nest with the down of ducks? There are thousands of examples like this in nature. Is the bird making conscious decisions or choices? Of course not, it is evolutionary in nature. It is behavior designed to insure the species survives. Every act by any species in nature is beneficial in some way to survival. Sex to procreate is a natural part of this survival mechanism. Every homosexual person on this earth has a mother and father. Science can create a person in a test tube but would you call that natural? Would they be able to guarantee the test tube person would be homosexual? My point is simple. No one in biological science has proved that a person is born that way, while there are a few suggestions of genetic causes, most of the scientific community would call that a mutation simply because of the evolutionary implications. As for the animal world you will always find the term "homosexual behavior". No one in science will say that any bonobo ape IS homosexual. It would be like saying, if my male dog humps on my leg he is homosexual if he chooses my wife he is straight. Unless of course my wife happens to be a man, but that's a whole other issue. This is how ridiculous the argument has become. Even if you discount the evolutionary argument there is no way you can consider less than 2% of worlds human population normal or natural. At least not by the current definitions of the words. I don't care what two consenting people do, even if they are not adults. Just don't insult my intelligence or the animals by calling it natural.
homosexual behavior

To say that it does not occur in other species makes homosexuality an unnatural act. Whether it is "wrong" or not is another issue entirely. Slavery, race and gender issues are not modern issues and have been around forever. Women's rights since the caveman drug his mate by her hair into a cave for sex and slavery since he became dominant in his tribe. Homosexuality is a sexual perversion desired by some small segment of most every society since written history began and most of those societies have shunned the practice. Nature is not subject to change because of popular social acceptance, at least not yet. No matter how intelligent man becomes he can never separate himself from nature, can never make something man-made natural and should never think he is above the natural universe. He is so deeply bonded to the natural world that he even attempts to justify his "invention" by trying to find his sexual perversion in the animal world to which he belongs. The acceptance of homosexuality as natural is a result of man's arrogance of mind. Is it so surprising then that he pollutes his atmosphere, pillages the land and the oceans and yet justifies his violations? I think not.
homosexual behavior

I think that to say it does not occur in other animals makes it wrong is an ignorant statement. Humans are a species different from all others, exemplified through out intelligence and accomplishments. There are many things that could be referred to as a "modern social invention" including the abolition of slavery in almost every country, equal rights for women, and equal rights for different races and ethnicities. "Modern social inventions" are what pushes us forward as a species and we need to keep progressing and adapting to the world around us and our own people. I think to restrict the actions or rights of others in the case of homosexuality is no different.
homosexual behavior

There is no firm scientific evidence that homosexuality is a common condition found in nature, especially not in mammals. Cave drawings in France and Spain included images of sexual acts between men and women. There were, however, no such drawings of homosexual acts. This strongly suggests, if not proves, that the normalization of homosexuality is a modern social invention. Today, in an effort to maintain political correctness in America, biologists and researchers suggest that it is found in nature by stating that a few animals exhibit homosexual "behavior". This is hardly a confirmation of homosexuality in nature!
THIS HOUSE WOULD ALLOW HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES

But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be: 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, 3) bad for society. 1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage recognize this contradiction by proposing "gay unions" instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of gay marriage. 2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often. Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. 3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society. In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous. In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.
THIS HOUSE WOULD ALLOW HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES

yes, it's not the end-all-be-all way to show they're committed, but that's what they want. that's the way they want to show their committed. it's a choice. THEIR choice. not allowing them to do what they want hinders them to achieve their freedom, and thus bring about discrimination and inequality. there can be alternatives for marriage, like what you said, but still they don't achieve the rights that married couples get. yet again, this brings about discrimination among them. citing what u said: 1) they would not be discriminated if they won't get marry mainly becasue they are already aware that they are GAYS and LESBIANS 2) with their decisions, they already accepted that they would be discriminated in the long run. --dont you thing these are two contrasting ideas, saying that they would not be discriminated but then saying that they already accepted that they would be discriminated? i say that it is a big assumption to tell that gays already accepted that they would be discriminated. if there is a something you want and a right you don't achieve, would you just sit and accept the things as they are? and even if gays accept this discrimination, it doesn't mean it's right to discriminate them. if these people really want to marry, they are ready for the price to pay. also, legalizing it (on paper) means having to achieve the rights married people have (i.e. if one becomes ill, the partner has the right to be with him/her in the hospital. if one dies, his/her distant nieces and nephews have more of a claim to hm/her belongings than the partner does. they file "single" on their tax returns and are not allowed to be on each other's health plans). people marry because they choose to live and be commmitted with each other forever. it is unacceptable to say that we shouldn't allow homosexual marriges just because they just might break up in the end', and it would be easier for them if they do.
THIS HOUSE WOULD ALLOW HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES

being married is not only the end-all-be-all way to actually show to your loved one that you are committed. they could just be live-in partners. they would not be discriminated if they won't get marry mainly becasue they are already aware that they are GAYS and LESBIANS, thus i tell you that, with their decisions, they already accepted that they would be discriminated in the long run. i tell you also that even civil marriages are costly and could just legalize your marriage on paper. if you are already married either in civil or church, you are already tied up on a pure commitment that you'll be staying until death do u part. i believe that if they wont marry, it wont be costly and they would have the freedom to choose whom they wanted to love even if the former relationship would be over. they would have more options to change their partners right away if they're unmarried. since your point was about being discriminated, i believe that my rebuttal would be enough.
THIS HOUSE WOULD ALLOW HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES

one of the main reasons why we should allow homosexual marriages is to get rid of discrimination among gay people, and to let them profess their love to each other in the eyes of the law and of the people. you have pointed that marriage is a sacred sacrament and therefore should be reapected. for that reason we should allow homosexuals to marry through CIVIL marriages. this wouldn't include any religious ceremonies so it would be agreeable to people who are against homosexual marriages because of their religious principles.