BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Baseball is the hardest sport!

"Since failing is such a huge part of baseball it is very hard on you mentally. " This argument really could work for any sport including football. But in football, the injuries people get is really hard on them mentally. "However in football if you catch the ball everyone is helping you. " 1. Do you know how hard it is to catch the football with all the defense? 2. Not really. Some people help block but that person still gets tackled and he really has to do all the running. "If you make a bad catch in football you can just kind of stay on the sideline and have no one notice you and still not look bad. " No, if the ball is thrown to you and you do not catch it, everyone watching the game notices. Just like in baseball if you don't hit the ball people will notice. "Also while in the defensive position in baseball every player has multiple plays going through his mind depending on where he is playing. " Like what? They know where to throw it if the ball comes to them. I'm not saying this is easy but my point is they at least know what to do. In football, on defense and offense one has many plays in his head. The defense has to continuously run with the person trying to catch the ball and he has to know which way he will go. It is very unpredictable. "Hitting a fastball is just one pitch. Trying to hit that, a curveball, fork, slider, a kunckle, etc. while not knowing what pitch he is going to throw is the biggest things in sports to feat. Batters usually try to judge what kind of pitch is being thrown by location of the arm, however, some pitchers have a very small variation is arm location. " My point from before which you disregarded like the rest of my arguments, still stand, A baseball players isn't batting as often as football player has to throw, catch, run and have that same pressure. Your point about stealing and the irrelevant details: A player does not need to steal. That is like saying basketball is hard because it is hard to a 360 dunk. You do not need to steal to be good. Stealing is not a necessary part of the game. Conclusion: To summarize my argument in a short sentence football is the hardest sport and definitely harder than baseball because it requires more speed, strength, agility, focus, endurance, technique etc. My opponent has not addressed a single argument of mine and he had the BOP to prove baseball is the hardest and he hasn't really done so.
Was Hitler one of the greatest leaders

Definitions: great-of an extent, Amount, Or intensity considerably above the normal or average. leader-the person that commands the proof We should establish a criteria for evaluating Hitler's performance as a leader. If he was one of the greatest leaders, Than he must have surpassed many leaders' feats. I will provide a few leaders that makes Hitler pale in comparison to them, Napoleon Bonaparte Julius Ceaser Cyrus the Great Napoleon Bonaparte conquered all of Europe. He did this at a time when countries had large militaries at their disposal. None the less, He prevailed in conquering Europe, He implemented many reforms, Hitler attacked countries whose militaries were not built up, This fact makes Hitler's victories seem pathetic. Julius Caesar conquered Gaul, In those times, It was very difficult for the Roman Republic to conquer Gaul, Julius Caesar conquered Gaul, And than forged the Roman Empire, Julius Caesar was the main strategist. Hitler did not have any experience in military strategy, Hitler's generals did most of the work, Cyrus the Great created the first empire, Cyrus conquered many kingdoms, His most notable practices were forgiving his enemies. Hitler had his enemies killed. Cyrus proved that one can control a large empire through mercy, This brings us to one of Hitler's biggest blunders. Hitler decided to invade Russia. The Soviet Union was allied with Germany. This opened up two fronts in the war. His generals made so many attempts to persuade Hitler to make his armies retreat. He did not listen. This cost him so many divisions destroyed. Hitler acted on emotion.
The 11th of September was a C.I.A operation.

Actually we cannot prove that they were Arabic. Nevertheless, we cannot prove that they were not Alkaid, without credible sources. But as we all know theory of conspiracy had always been in U.S.A and always will be. There are other questions, on what reliable sources we can refer and assert that it was performed by mercenaries hider by C.I.A or they were Arabic?!
Republicans are overweight.

While I am a liberal, and inclined to believe thaqt conservatives are lacking in many departments, I nevertheless took the con position in this debate. Alas, it is up to my opponent to prove that Conservatives are all of the above. While some of them very well may be (and in fact some of them harbor at least a few of the described traits) I eagerly await my opponent's asrgument that proves that all conservatives are primarily obese, white, middle-aged, midwestern, racist, homophobic, sexist, bible-thumping, ignorant pigs. My opponent has yet to do so.
Animal Testing (Joke Debate)

My opponent starts off by showing a fear of anarchy that would result from the homeless wearing the latest fashion trends. First I would like to say that anarchy would not be that bad, and second as I have said before, no one would see the homeless they would just be locked up in cages. Lol anarchy and saving animals all together, seems like a pretty good deal to me. Both things would happen to the homeless people while the animals go out and infect more people with disease. How is a monkey in a suit funnier? Imagine a hobo wearing make up that burned off part of his face while wearing a suit. My opponent goes on to argue about the murderers family, but I would say they have little say considering that he raped and tortured an 11 year old girl to death. His right to humane treatment is over. He then goes on to argue about "what if all the criminals die...?" As long as there are laws there are criminals. We start off by eliminating the worst criminals the murderers and rapists and like terrorists, then move on to less serious crime until all crime is gone. Since all crime will not be gone we will keep testing on criminals. Plus I would like to say we could test out human cloning then use clones for test subjects so in a way we would be "breeding" murderers. Ihave no clue why the bleach would be needed but they put bleach in rabbits eyes so I guess its somehow needed. Sure but there are unlucky people everywhere. They would not be able to commit suicide because they would be strapped down and patrolled at all non testing times. They will be placed in handcuffs and other precautions will be taken to keep them alive until results occur, then they are boiled alive. No they would not if you made them as such. You are saying we should test on them make them into hobo bunnies and thats an excuse to test on them. Does not work. That is part of the reason they would not be allowed unstrapped. However for the sake of this argument I will also say that AIDS does not kill people quickly so while they have it, they can still be tested on. New test subjects will continue to come. I don't see why shoes would be tested, but I would say forcing them to wear heels may in the short run reduce the productivity of that worker, but in the long term if he can handle working like that and the heels are replaced with something else the productivity would increase. He goes on to say "a sick prisoner...." is ideal for testing on that sickness. Plus I'm sure giving them cancer and trying to cure it will help with the results. I'm sure many would pay to see the cruelty applied to those that broke the law too, perhaps even more. Humans are stupid, that is my responce to my opponents question. Other bribes could happen too like promising they wont die painfully, which would be a lie, promising more food, may be true but who says what the food is, it could be a dead rat.
Animal Testing (Joke Debate)

This debate is for fun no arguments should be taken too seriously to show my actual stance. I just thought it would be fun. Animal testing is a necessary evil, or is it? We need medications to be tested, animals are not the same as humans, but how can we find any other way to test? Science hasn't gotten to a point where we can use computer software yet, and we need to find cures. Someone has to die choose monkeys or humans? But how about we save the monkeys, and help with the standard of living for humans. Is that possible? Sure is all we need to do is use homeless people, (if the young wish they can be sent to foster care) those that already have AIDS, cancer, heart disease, whatever needs tested, those that are starving to death, rapists, murders, terrorists, people that indoctrinate their or other children to religious or other beliefs. We spend thousands of dollars funding cruel animal testing because there is no better way. We spend thousands, even millions more trying to save these humans. Reduce spending, reduce the need for taxes to be as high. Get to the chance and fix all the problems at once.
Common Sense riddles...

I found some simplistic riddles in a video. They interested me, and maybe you guys can answer them.Rules:1. No forfeiting. Doing so will stop time (at least for this debate).2. In Round 2, I will give you the questions, and you will try to answer them.3. In Round 3, I will give you the correct answers, and I'll allow you to attempt to refute them if you wish.4. If I heavily disagree with one of your refutations or answers, I'll point them out in Round 4.According to the video, a lot of preschoolers completed these questions with success. Is your common sense better than these children?
Common Sense riddles...

Those are the same answers from the video, which I'll post R4.I would've accepted better answers, such as these:1) Giraffes can't fit in a fridge.2) Neither can Elephants.3) Some people say "Refridgerators weren't in Noah's time", or "He still brought some elephants".4) People would argue that the question is contradictory, as I said that there are alligators, then saying they're in the ark. (Or the Ark could be in the river, and the alligators escaped)Con's answers might've been different if I didn't tell them that it was a sequence. But I'll accept the actual answers as well.Now with that: Would you rather have Uxie, Mesprit, or Azelf?
Common Sense riddles...

Question #1: How do you put a giraffe in a refrigerator?A: Easy. All you have to do is get the giraffe into the refrigerator and close the door. No need to over think this, like my opponent said. Question #2: How do you put an elephant in a refrigerator?A: Assuming this is in sequence like my opponent says in the comments, all you have to do is get the giraffe out of the fridge, get the elephant in the fridge, and close the door. Question #3: Noah must build another ark, this time bringing every single animal. But one animal didn't come to the ark. Which one was it?A: He doesn't bring the elephant. Why? Well, the elephant is still in the fridge. Question #4: There's a river that's infested with alligators. How do you get across?A: Aren't all the alligators supposed to be on the ark at this point? If so, then all you have to do is swim across the river. It's not like you'll be harmed. After all, the alligators aren't there anymore.
Common Sense riddles...

Okay. Let's get into this. I'll post the video in reference in Round 4. The Contender must prove to the voters that they got 3 out of 4 questions correct.The video does state that adults tend to over complicate things a bit. Is this true?Question #1: How do you put a giraffe in a refrigerator?Question #2: How do you put an elephant in a refrigerator?Question #3: Noah must build another ark, this time bringing every single animal. But one animal didn't come to the ark. Which one was it?Question #4: There's a river that's infested with alligators. How do you get across?[All questions are taken from the video.]
Annabella

I am well aware of my job as pro. Thanks for trying to clear that up. I proved my contention to be true. I'll restate it: Beauty is an opinion. In this case MY opinion, not yours. You may be the one who is unclear of your job as con. To negate and fault my case. You cannot do that, seeing as how your opinion is irrelevant to the topic. It's not logic your attempting to use, its an opinion your using. This can't negate mine. My value stands strong. Its not that you are "infringing" my values, but that they make my case plausible. My proof is my opinion, and you can't negate beauty is not an opinion, thus this is an easy win for pro.
Annabella

Hmm... ok. ======== REBUTTALS ======== ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <"CON 1: I'm better looking then anyone else on Debate.org"> +Unproven, invalid contention backed up in no way whatsoever. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <"CON 2: This is my opinion, NO ONE can prove an opinion to be false. After all it is an opinion."> +Uhh, I don't have to prove an opinion to be false (although I did). You have to prove your opinion to be true as instigator and pro. Also it is my opinion that you are not the prettiest, so using your logic my opinion would stand. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Just some values: Value: Ones right to have an opinion Value criteria: Freedom of speech." +Straw man, Pro's values are irrelevant. I'm not infringing on your freedom of speech or your right to have an opinion anyway. This is DEBATE.org after all... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========= CONCLUSION ========= As instigator and Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof. In this case, Pro has an immense Burden of Proof - she has to prove that she is prettier than every girl on DDO. I have proved otherwise and met opponent has failed to put up an argument. Resolution negated.
Annabella

Thank you for taking this debate, I'm sure it will be a good one. REBUTTLE: I'd first like to point out that there is no definition of beauty, but ONLY opinions. Sure, you can dictionary. com the word, but they are mere thoughts of what that person thinks the word means. Pretty to you could be thin, blonde, green eyes. But to someone else it could be short, dark hair, and blue eyes. It's only a opinion. Negating my argument is next to impossible; you can't prove there is only one definition. Just a generalization of my contentions: CON 1: I'm better looking then anyone else on Debate. org CON 2: This is my opinion, NO ONE can prove an opinion to be false. After all it is an opinion. Just some values: Value: Ones right to have an opinion Value criteria: Freedom of speech.
Annabella

Hmm... interesting. I'm assuming the following is the resolution: "I'm the Prettyiest girl in this damn Debate place" My opponent has an immense burden of proof, as she will have to prove how and why she is prettier than every other. I assume by pretty, my opponent means she is more beautiful or more pleasantly pleasing than every other girl on DDO. First and foremost, my opponent is a skull with crossbones. I think most people would agree that skulls are not pretty. My opponent should have fun proving why skulls are pretty and how her skull is prettier than every other girl on DDO. Also, here are three girls on DDO who are much prettier than Pro: cjae92 [http://www.debate.org...], asiandebater [http://www.debate.org...], and JBlake [http://www.debate.org...] --- JBlake is the one on the left. In conclusion, I have effectively negated the resolution which my opponent still has an immense burden of proof for.
Annabella

My opponent's reasoning and lone contention is summarized as follows: My (Pro's) opinion is that the resolution is true, therefore the resolution is true. This is a prime example of circular reasoning, or begging the question - which is a logical fallacy [http://www.fallacyfiles.org...]. My opponent is somehow mistaken that just because it is her opinion, it is automatically true. However, if this was the case, Pro would win every case... ever. Yes, "pretty" is subjective, but it is more than possible to debate subjective topics - which I did and Pro refused to do. Resolution negated.
I am thin in proportion to my height, but do not know what protein is best for me. I am 188 cm tall

My opponent has the burden of proof to show that he is thin in proportion to his height, and to show that he does not know what protein is best for him, and to show that he is 188 centimeters tall. Until he does this, I have nothing to refute. "Proteins makes you bigger" does nothing to uphold the resolution. My opponent is probably going to need to start taking irrefutable pictures now. Good luck.
abortion

Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by the removal or forcing out from the womb of a fetus or embryo before it is able to survive on its own. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is often called a miscarriage. It can also be purposely caused in which case it is known as an induced abortion. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy. The similar procedure after the fetus may be able to survive on its own is medically known as a late termination of pregnancy. There are two kinds of abortion in the U.S. " in-clinic abortion and the abortion pill. Abortions are very common. In fact, 3 out of 10 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old. If you are pregnant, you have options. If you are trying to decide if abortion is the right choice for you, you probably have many things to think about. Learning the facts about abortion may help you in making your decision. You may also want to learn more about parenting and adoption. If you are under 18, your state may require one or both of your parents to give permission for your abortion or be told of your decision prior to the abortion. However, in most states you can ask a judge to excuse you from these requirements. Learn more about parental consent for abortion. Only you can decide what is best for you. But we are here to help. A staff member at your local Planned Parenthood health center can discuss abortion and all of your options with you and help you find the services you need. The debate over whether or not abortion should be a legal option continues to divide Americans. The abortion debate is the ongoing controversy surrounding the moral and legal status of abortion. The two main groups involved in the abortion debate are the self-described "pro-choice" movement (emphasizing the right of women to choose whether to abort a pregnancy or to grow it to term) and the self-described "pro-life" movement (emphasizing the right of the embryo or fetus to gestate and be born). Both of these ascriptions are considered loaded terms in mainstream media where terms such as "abortion rights" or "anti-abortion" are generally preferred. Each movement has, with varying results, sought to influence public opinion and to attain legal support for its position, with small numbers of anti-abortion advocates sometimes using violence. I believe a women should be able to decide, without consequences, whether to end the life of their unborn child or proceed with motherhood.
abortion

Well we can discuss the issues of abortions and whether women have the right to do so without consequences for days. I still feel that we should have the right to decide with out consequences. We believe there are many reasons to abort such as fear of having or raising a child, rape, or not having enough money. But whatever the situation, there is never an acceptable reason to get an abortion according to some. Some important reasons why women should not abort have to do with human values, religious values, and values of conscience. Manu feel as though women should not have an abortion is related to basic human values. Women need to think about their unborn babies who are not responsible for this situation. These unborn babies should have the privilege to live and grow into a normal person. Others may feel as though women should not abort has to do with religious values. In almost all religions, a woman is not permitted to have an abortion, but under whose authority to tell her not to. I not religious, but he will forgive those who ask for his repentance. I mean its enough to have to go through the procedure in itself, but the emotional and psychological effects is just has hard. The emotional side effects of an abortion will vary from one woman to another. Some women report a sense of relief after having an abortion. The reasons for relief also vary from woman to woman. Emotional and psychological effects are more common than physical side effects and can range from mild regret to more serious complications like depression. It is important to discuss these risks with a trained professional who can address your questions and concerns. Abortion and emotional side effect are just as real as physical side effects.
Jesus could not be the messiah as per his 2 genealogies

".... not of this world." The messiah is supposed to be king over all the earth as Psalm 2 say. The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. Jeremiah 23:5 Psalm 110 talks about David, not the messiah. This has nothing to do with this debate about the genealogy of Jesus. "Your, "No, you can use the New Testament to show a point, .." Oh it's OK for you to use it to say repeatedly without any prompting from me, that Luke & Matthew's accounting of the genealogy is useless. That my friend is a double standard." You should not have accepted the debate if you did not agree with the terms. I used Jesus genealogy, I am not saying that the new testament is inspired or can be used to prove Jesus is the messiah. "So far, I have refuted all your 'proof' as flimsy, not related to this debate, or just not true." let the judges decide. "Jehoiachin or Jechonias, or Jeconiah, or Coniah, or Jechoniah, or Jekonjah" Zerubbabel was not a king, he was a governor. And Zecheriah 4:7 does not allude to the messiah. Thus all my arguments stand! Jesus could not be the messiah. Both Matthew and Luke's genealogies show that Jesus was not the messiah.