BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why Ballet is Harder than Football

I think ballet is harder than football because ballerinas need to strong, flexible, and be in perfect shape, whereas in football the players need to strong and be very large. Ballet is harder than football because ballet is a sport and an art. As in football, it is just a sport. In ballet, they need to work hard, but they cannot show it on their face. Where in football it does not matter. While ballerinas dance, they need to look graceful. Whereas in football the players just run and look angry along with it. In football, they do not hold the position for a minute or more, whereas in ballet they do. In ballet, they must tell a story with their emotion, whereas in football, the players have emotion, but they do not tell a story. In football, players chase a ball around, whereas in ballet they run around but they must look light. For example, let us say the ballerinas need to do a dance where they need to look sad. Ballerinas must have those droopy puppy eyes and look very sad at the same time remembering to keep control of each muscle in their own body. In football, the players need just to get the ball and it does not what their facial emotion looks like. The point of ballet is to look graceful and enjoy doing it. The purpose of a football player is to steal the ball and run with the ball to get a touchdown and get a large portion of money. Ballerinas may get a decent amount of money as a company dancer, but that is not the point of dancing. Ballet looks like it requires a lot more strength and they need to be able to take the pain. A male dancer, the man would need to be able to lift about a hundred-pound girl. At least the man can catch the woman whereas in football they throw a two-pound ball, and rarely catch the ball. In ballet, ballerinas need upper and lower body strength whereas in football they need mostly upper. In ballet, they work hard, but at least they do not fight each other close to death. What they don't see are the hours of rehearsal that girl has put into her performance, the blisters on her feet from practice, they don't see the multiple injuries that she should put out of the way to make herself look graceful (debate.org). Football players have tons of practices too, and maybe some broken bones, but I don"t think they enjoy doing the sport. I personally think they just do the sport maybe just for the money, or just the pride of being a famous football player. I am not saying football is easy either. Football is a very difficult sport to play. They need to be a very strong athlete and need to be able to jump and land on the very hard grass and not get hurt. Dancers get bloody blisters, sore muscles, and broken ankles, but they work for those scars. Ballerinas and football players must have the right core muscles in their body, but at the same time enjoy doing it.
Why Ballet is Harder than Football

Do you even play either sports? Do you even know the pain? But what about all of the muscles you need to control whereas in Football you just run around?! Ya every now and then they catch the ball but what I see and ready, not that often. What about the guys who do ballet? And no, not all of the guys who do ballet is gay. They have to throw around girls who are 100- 150 pounds around. Where in football they just run around and catch a FREKIN 2 POUND BALL! See the boy part in ballet is harder than a boy's part in football.
Why Ballet is Harder than Football

You're telling me to do my research, but have provided me with no facts. The fact that there is nobody stopping you from spinning in a circle, makes it much easier. Saying that all football players are fat, and guys, shows your ignorance towards the sport. Have you interviewed football players, and saw they play for glory and money? Or are you just blindly throwing out statistics, pointlessly? Football players work extremely hard on their game, and conditioning. Many passes are caught, some are dropped. Just like ballerinas may land many jumps, they also fall on them. That does not mean they "rarely" land. The sport of football is much more complex than the sport of ballet. That does not mean ballet is simple, and that is it not difficult. Furthermore, just because there is obese football players, does not mean all football players are "big fat large guys".
Why Ballet is Harder than Football

But you work for those blisters, of course, a little blister isn't an injury. But when I see those blisters and after they scar up I notice how much those scars mean to me because I work hard and I get those scars, which I work for. Football player doesn't really "work" for their scars it kinda just happens. Ballet is harder because we have to have absolute control over the little muscle in our body. Football players do football for the PRIDE. To be KNOW as that really good football player. They do "rarely" catch the ball. Do your research. In ballet, there is no one else stopping you from doing what you're doing. When you landing a pirouette some big fat large guy isn't gonna come run you over. Also, when you dance you stay in shape too. ;)
We cannot allow Abortion to transform into Murder

I do not want to debate the morality of abortion writ large. I want to debate the validity of applying "choice" arguments to late-term abortions. ===Debate Intro === With the passing of NY State's 2019 abortion bill, It is necessary that pro-choice advocates disambiguate themselves from pro-abortion advocates. I would like to debate with an individual who endorses late-term abortion in general (or this NY bill in specific). I will then attempt to draw a clear philosophical line between abortion of a fetus and the murder of a child. The New York Times quotes the new NY law with the following: "The new law permits abortion after the 24th week of a pregnancy [if] there is 'an absence of fetal viability, Or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health. ' " According to US Legal's website, "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by various methods, Including medical surgery. " === Housekeeping === Round 1 expectations: beyond acceptance I request that you provide some bona fides in the form of a number of weeks. Please tell me your opinion/ conclusion/ feelings/ morality on the point when abortions should no longer be allowed (after how many weeks of gestation). If you are unwilling to provide this figure, Please post a comment explaining your declination instead of accepting the debate. Please also feel free to respond to the NY Times description and US Legal definition if you feel they are inadequate or inaccurate. I prefer many short rounds in lieu of few long-winded rounds, Because it allows the opponents to engage more intimately.
We cannot allow Abortion to transform into Murder

=== Quick Responses to R3 === 1) You like health exceptions for "cases [that] are not black and white. " I struggle with them because it's really an open door, Even for cases that ARE black or white. Under the guise of health anything goes. 2) In R1, You said "I believe 25 weeks is a reasonable cutoff point" for abortions. Now it sounds like you're suggesting no earlier than 27 weeks. My rule stands: Abortion should stop at the minimalist route to ending the pregnancy. 3) ok. 4) Clinics in NY now have to disclose to the Dept of Education. I am not suggesting a "cabal" of anything. But there are a lot of abortion lovers (you put yourself in that category). 5) There are more than two options: open door health "exceptions" or no-flexibility. The woman's right to an end her pregnancy must not include the killing of a viable "fetus. " 6) Now it sounds like you're suggesting no earlier than 32 weeks as a cutoff point for abortions. All laws are about caring about other people's business. This is true for traffic laws, Contract law, Tobacco/alcohol laws, Etc. Why should abortions laws be different? At times, Society finds some actions so heinous that they should be disallowed. 7) There is a point at which a fetus/baby could really survive outside the womb. For this debate, May I define this point as "practical viability"? Or if you prefer, We could use the standard "viability. " I based my R3 comments on your R1 standard of 25 weeks, But I am willing to amend that to whenever it is accurate. In some cases the fetus/baby is not viable even at full term. Practical viability would never occur in these cases. 8) uh huh. 9) I never said I was pro-life. === Refined Argument === Throughout this debate, I have been respectful of the "right to terminate pregnancy. " However, I am not aware of any "right to terminate a fetus. " I am not arguing that early abortions must stop. I am not arguing that all late abortions must stop. I am not arguing that any late abortions must stop. I am merely arguing that an abortion that unnecessarily kills the fetus/baby is really abortion + murder. This is true for all abortions after practical viability. It is not clear when you feel practical viability is reached. You have suggested that it is at 25, 27, And 32 weeks. Perhaps it's really at 35, 36, Or 37 weeks. Whenever and wherever practical viability is reached, An abortion must only include the termination of the woman's pregnancy. Termination of the fetus/baby is no longer the woman's business--it is murder.
We cannot allow Abortion to transform into Murder

=== Health === You seem to suggest that the health exception is hard for a woman to get. This seems false. First, Roe v. Wade (1973) included "distress. . . Associated with the unwanted child" as a health consideration. Second, Doe v. Bolton (1973) included physical, Emotional, Psychological, "familial" (not sure what that means), Age, And overall "well-being" as HEALTH considerations. Further, It instructs the physician to place the benefit of the doubt with the pregnant woman. Third, You say a "practitioner's judgment. . . Is reviewed by the medical board. " However, The new NY law gives NY's Department of Education the duty of issuing licenses--not a medical organization. Finally, Most late abortions are under the health exception. The Hill quotes a 2013 Guttmacher study that abortion cases based on fetal abnormalities were "a small minority"; cases based on the mother's life were "an even smaller number. " === What is abortion terminating? === At 25 weeks, 28 weeks, 30 weeks, Etc, A pregnancy can be terminated without terminating the child. Therefore, Killing the child should no longer be considered part of the abortion. You referred to questions about "carrying the pregnancy full term" and recommendations that the "best course of action is termination of the pregnancy. " In late abortions, Neither of these require the sacrificing of the life of the child. I guess my main point is that abortion should stop at the minimalist route to ending the pregnancy. It should not be allowed to include killing the baby when such practice is unnecessary for the ending of the interaction with "the woman's body. " Even in a pro-abortion society, Killing should be abhorred. If the baby's body does not need the woman's, It should not be considered part of the pregnancy during an abortion.
We cannot allow Abortion to transform into Murder

1) The "omission" was not on purpose because the "health" (as is most legal speak) is left intentionality vague to allow wiggle room for extreme cases where carrying the pregnancy full term will cause permanent bodily harm to the woman. You also ignore that it's under the practitioners judgment which is reviewed by the medical board which is also investigated and any foul play may result in suspension of license. 2) as for the mental health portion, If the female shows signs of homicidal and/or suicidal tendencies and if the best course of action is termination of the pregnancy, Then I am sure that will be considered an option. These are extreme cases and not the majority. The statistics show this. 3) The exact numbers are not important, But it gives you an idea of what actually matters. Nobody gets an abortion at 40 weeks, So your imaginary problem doesn't phase me or change my mind
We cannot allow Abortion to transform into Murder

I find your acceptance speech to be full and fun. I would love to take a dozen rounds and walk through each item with you. Perhaps we have a bright future ahead of us as debate partners. However, I hope you will allow us to start with late-term abortion. I am surprised with the glaring omission in your acceptance. There is one word that is most important in the updated NY law. I would call it the 'operative' word of the entire change, The only word that makes the change worth the NY legislature's time. The word is HEALTH. So, There are really 4 scenarios when an abortion is allowed under the new NY law: -- 1 -- less than 24 weeks -- 2 -- fetal unviability -- 3 -- mother's life -- 4 -- mother's HEALTH Under the guise of HEALTH anything goes. By definition a woman's health suffers during pregnancy. My sister-in-law (who abhors abortion) once compared a fetus to a parasite. For intelligent biological reasons, The fetus takes the best portion of all the nutrients out of the mother's body beginning with conception. Besides biological HEALTH, This exception also includes so-called mental HEALTH. Mental HEALTH includes "I changed my mind" and "parenting is hard. " You quoted the CDC that over 8000 late-term abortions happened in 2015. You then claimed that these all fell into scenarios 2 and 3 (life issues). I reviewed the CDC report, And it does not break the late-term abortion number down in any way. For the purposes of this debate, However, The exact number of late-term abortions is not important. So what is? The NY law now grants a woman legal approval to receive an abortion at 40 weeks' gestation if she wants it (ie she says it "is necessary to protect [her] HEALTH"). Such permission is unbearable. Are you still pro-abortion under these conditions?
There are more than 10 different states of matter

Note: I forgot to read "solid" as an example of a state of matter. I thought that Pro only had 10 examples. What Pro is obviously thinking about is sub classifications of matter. Amorphous solids are part of the classification of solids. The same goes for crystalline solids. Plastic Crystals are Gases (Methane is a gas). All of Pro's examples are either solids, liquids, gases, or plasma(s)... don't really know if that's plural.
There are more than 10 different states of matter

My opponent has stated that I have a lack of examples. I will begin my debate by proving an example for each of the states of matter that were previously listed.Solid: ChairAmorphous Solid: Candy flossCrystalline Solid: GoldPlastic Crystal: Methane I and Ethane I [modification]Quasicrystal:Penrose TilingLiquid: WaterLiquid Crystal: cell membranesDisordered Hyperuniformity: MudGas: OxygenPlasma: Lightning Colloids: Shaving foam (this is neither a liquid or a solid it is a colloid, which is technically both) My opponent has asked me to prove that a certain element can have more than 10 states of matter. I may be misinterpreting this but based on my understanding of that my opponent thinks that to prove my claim I have to give an example of an element with all of the states of matter. That is impossible. I never claimed that this could happen.Sourceshttps://www.google.co.uk...http://uk.businessinsider.com...http://chemistry.about.com...
There are more than 10 different states of matter

I would like to apologize for accidentally breaking the rules. With that out of the way, here are my arguments. Pro's examples of what he/she calls "Colloids" are flawed. Colloids: Butter is a usually a solid. Shaving cream is viscous, but would probably be classified as a liquid. Pro provided no examples for nine out of ten of his/her ten states of matter. Also, as implied in my previous sentence, Pro only provided 10 states of matter on his list, not more. Unless he/she can prove that a certain element can have more than 10 different states of matter,his/her argument is unsubstantiated. Your move, Pro.
There are more than 10 different states of matter

As Pro I will be arguing that there are more than 10 states of matter. My opponent will be arguing that there are less than 10 states of matter.Debate structureRound 1: Acceptance - please state how many states of matter you believe there areRound 2: Main points and justifications (no rebuttals)Round 3: RebuttalsRules No trolling No forfeiture Failure to abide by the rules will result in all points going to the opposing side.Good luck!
You should follow Stoic principles

The key to life is living a healthy and happy one. Emotions are a key component of living that life that we desire. Pain is part of life, no matter what. We find many things in life that gives us desire and no matter what, we will feel some form of emotions towards it. Epictetus doesn't understand what a huge part emotions play a key part of living life. When we do find love, it is an emotion and we can enjoy that emotion. If we do lose love, we feel pain and that is a key emotion. So no matter what if we find love, find something that is desirable and pleasurable in life, we feel those emotions and no matter what we have emotions.
You should follow Stoic principles

I disagree.. When Epictetus was talking about life as a dinner party, he meant that we must not have excessive desires because then we will never be satisfied. The key the Stoic principle is to not live life without emotions, so that we will be indifferent towards everything that occurs. Epictetus also demonstrated that we are affected not by things, but the thoughts and ideas that we form surrounding these things. For example, we perceive death as terrible because we have established this perception. If we do not have any emotions towards death, then we will not fear it or worry about it. This idea can be applied towards other things, such as marriage or love. If we seek love, we will unsatisfied if we don't find it. Live without emotions and you will live a healthier, longer life. Emotions detract from life...
National Health Care

It is completely alright to round a little bit, but what you did was add an extra zero which caused the projected cost to skyrocket. You claimed originally there were 3 billion U.S. citizens, there are 300 million. Now that this is settled I will move on to why I brought Iraq into the equation. My point is that we are wasting our money to kill people, when we can easily use it to help them instead. Responding to your comments I would like to add that there were never any WMDs in Iraq, nor was Saddam ever a threat to the U.S. The cost does not outweigh the benefits at all. This will allow everyone in the U.S. to have health insurance, saving 18,000 lives per year http://www.iom.edu... (here's your proof you were looking for). There is more to it than that. Universal health care would drive down the cost of the actual care by eliminating the middleman. It would also allow people to move freely from job to job without fear of losing their heath insurance. Another important aspect is that small businesses could proper because they wouldn't have to cover the cost of health care for themselves or their employees. Oh and the 47 million people without health insurance statistic is right here; http://www.pbs.org... I can assure you that all of these people want heath care, and none of them are rich. As for the doctor I know, you don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but you cannot sit there and tell me that that kind of stuff doesn't happen in a nation with no universal heath care. Ha, I would be extremely surprised if I found an individual that grew up wanting to work for a health insurance company. Jobs are created and destroyed all the time. I guess if someone was really evil and wanted to listen to people cry and plead to them while they deny them health coverage, but I don't mind taking their job away. -Thank you
National Health Care

Hello Thank you for this debate, and voters please vote on who did better, rather than who you agree with. "THE FACT THAT THERE ARE 301,139,947 U.S. CITIZENS," I knew that the number was higher than 300,000,000 but it was easier numbers to do the math with. I can not see how you are trying to bring Iraq into the equation. Iraq has nothing to do with national health care. THe money we spent in Iraq was to protect us from WMD's and end the cruelty that Saddam Hussein was performing to the citizens of that country. Also, there will be higher taxes, it is common sense, if it's the government's plan, who's going to pay for it. The government will pay for it, and we will pay the government. What I'm proving is the cost exceeds the benefit's. You have yet to prove this statement wrong, but you have just said we pay higher taxes than any other country. "18,000 people die every year in the U.S. simply because they have no health insurance" Okay, where is your proof. Even with the proof, is there any real statistics, like who had untreatable cancer or stuff like that. Or is this just the number of people who died without health insurance. Now to your story about your "doctor friend". How do I know that this is true? You could be making that whole argument up, just because it would make your argument sounds better. "This doesn't include the 47 million of us who do not even have heath care." Once again, I don't know if this argument is true, because there are no facts or proof. How many of these people have jobs, but don't have insurance? I bet you that a majority of these people could find a job with a health care plan included. Also, how many of these are rich people who don't need health insurance? "if universal heath care is "Communist" I never called universal health care communist, nor could I see how you got that inference. I said that if the government puts in a national health care, it would be a communist-like to just take away their jobs like that. Another thing is what if the insurance workers lived in a area where no doctors or nurses were needed. Now do they move? Leave a town they have lived and loved since they were a kid. I can't see it happening.