BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tennis is better than hockey

Hockey is also better then tennis becuase it is more physicaly demanding. when you consider every aspect of athleticism, hockey is the most demanding sport. They have to have very good hand eye cordination to be able to hand the puck. (slap shots, passes, etc..) All the strength requirements of high-speed contact team sports are required of hockey players. You can skate much faster then you can run, which is why hockey players switch lines every 30-45 seconds to keep fresh legs on the ice. there is a lot of contact to. being hit into the boards and on the open ice. Hockey is much more entertaining to watch then tennis. you have players moving all over the ice non stop and the puck moving around all over the ice as well. All of these physical demands are tacked on top of mastering the art of skating-maneuvering on a thin metal blade with a forward-backward rocker and side-to-side hollow.Skating is an incredibly challenging activity by itself.Need proof? Throw an athlete from any other sport on a pair of skates and watch them learn ( fall…hilariously). (i would show you a video of that but i could'nt find one.)
Tennis is better than hockey

Hockey is also better then tennis becuase hockey players are tougher then tennis players. you dont see tennis players taking out there teeth on the bench then countinue playing the game. Here is a video of Dupuis pulling out one of his teeth during a game. http://www.youtube.com... the game he was interviewed and said that he would try to put his tooth back in when he got home.... himself. The new rules that they make for hockey are for safty reasons. They dont change any rules for tennis becuase they only have to be worried about getting hit with the ball. Were in hockey your being slamed into the boards and the ice and have to worry about getting hit with a hard fast flying peice of rubber. Hockey is a tough contact sport. Some players just cant learn to control themselves (look at the nasty flyers for example). they hit players with an illegal check (when the player makes the hit and they can only see the number of the person there hitting against the boards) those are cheap shots by dirty players. its nearly impossible for a hockey team to go a whole season without an injury, its pretty much expected for players to get injured when theres as much contact as there is. in tennis there is no contact, the players cant hit eachother. There is more action in hockey then tennis. in tennis theres 2 people hitting a ball back and forth. in hockey there are a total of 12 players on the ice at a time ( 3 offense, 2 defense, 1 goaly for each team) and there always moving.
Tennis is better than hockey

Hockey is better then tennis becuase there is more action. in tennis there are only two players hitting the ball back and forth were in hockey there are 5 players on the ice for each team plus a goaly. In hockey you always have to be in very good shape. your cardio has to be at a very high level. The whole game you will be skating back and forth and changing directions at 100% speed. hockey player also have a lot of strenth. Most of the players, even the ones that look small weigh over 200 pounds of pure muscle. Hockey requires you to be fast, be able to accurately shoot the puck, be able to catch the puck, be able to read players, agility, endurance, toughness, the ability to jump, hitting power, and not to mention this is all done on Ice skates. watch this video and look at all the action. the different shots for a goal, the hits, the fights. all of this is shows why it is better and harder then tennis. http://www.youtube.com...
Tennis is better than hockey

First of all I want to apologize for taking so long to post my argument. I have had a ton of homework this weekend. Tennis is better because in hockey some 4th liners will only play like 5 minutes sometimes less. In fact I heard of one NHLer who had more PIM that TOI. Also, tennis is a lot more pure than hockey, it is a sport that has not been significantly altered since the 15th century. However at the start of every season the NHL releases a bunch of new rules now they are even controlling how players can wear their jersey. Also hockey is becoming more dirty every year, I feel like its almost every day I get a notification from my Game Center app telling me someone else has been suspended for an illegal hit while the other guy is out indefinitely with a concussion. Tennis doesn't have this problem. Tennis has a lot of action because you see something special a lot more than you see in any other sport. Go to you tube and search "Roger Federer Tweener" and you will know what I am referring to.
Tennis is better than hockey

i would like to start off by saying good luck. I also think it is very cool that you played hockey, i have been playing since i was 4 ( so about 11 years) and it takes a lot of energy which is good for my ADHD. i would also like to apologize in advance for my spelling i have dyslexia. to start hockey is better then tennese because theres more action. in hockey players are always moving from one end of the ice to the other and you have a puck moving all over the place at speeds of up to 90+ mph. there is also fighting involved. were in tennis players cant fight, hockey players can drop there gloves and start throwing punches. ( although not until college or profesionals) hockey players never stop moving, they skate faster then anyone can run. it takes up so much energhy that they have to change lines every 30 to 45 seconds so they always have fresh legs on the ice.
Hate Crime

My opponent objects that I have not made a positive case, however the way that the debate is set up all I need do is negate my opponents resolution. If he wishes a rematch with a shared burden of proof then that could be arranaged. Now my opponent has largely ignored my counter-arguments, generally repeating what has already been said so this final round will be brief. "About the first contention, what I meant was if a person commits a crime against a gay and says something about gays while he is doing it. All the victim has to do is say the person did the crime because he was gay because the person said something about gays. The attacker may have not known the victim was gay and attacked for other reasons but because while doing the crime he said something about gays, he could get arrested and charged not just for the crime but for saying something against gays and the gay would get a bunch of benefits. ""It will still be required that the nature of the intent is shown and proven to a court of law. The 2nd contention, while my opponent says that this contention is irrelevant, this is not true. "My opponents argument is that hate crime laws violate some spirit of fairness and equality as enshrined in the consitution, I have shown thata) This has nothing to do with my opponents resolution. b) This is not actually the case. My opponent has done nothing to address this counterargument. My opponents third contention that hate crime could lead to draconian hate speech laws has not been expanded upon to sufficient degree. My opponent has not shown that this is inevitable or even likely. He weakly cites that there is such a thing as verbal assault, however the freedom of speech does not give you the right to make comments that are harmful through malice or recklessness, so this too is negated. . http://en.wikipedia.org...In
Hate Crime

My opponent fails to say what he thinks about hate crime but keeps on attacking me. I don't know what he thinks about it. I feel like I don't know his affirmative position for his case because he doesn't have case though I know very clearly his negative position on my case. About the first contention, what I meant was if a person commits a crime against a gay and says something about gays while he is doing it. All the victim has to do is say the person did the crime because he was gay because the person said something about gays. The attacker may have not known the victim was gay and attacked for other reasons but because while doing the crime he said something about gays, he could get arrested and charged not just for the crime but for saying something against gays and the gay would get a bunch of benefits. That is what I meant by "if he can prove that the person doing the crime thought he was gay and attacked him for this reason." So the hate crime law not only violates my thought freedom because they think the attacker did the crime for one reason but the attacker may have done it for some other reasons but also it is like reading someone's mind. "I know why you are doing you said simething about your victim's lifestyle. Therefore, my conclusion is that hate crime not only infringes my thought freedom but my freedom of speech. The 2nd contention, while my opponent says that this contention is irrelevant, this is not true. My opponent failed to sabatoge my contention because hate crime laws do hurt other people. Gays are elevated to another level while everyone else is on a lower class. Does the part of the 14th Amendment make any sense, " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Today, each state has its own hate crime law which elevates gays to another level and puts everybody on a lower class. This is how it hurts people, being on a lower class than a gay because he gets lots of benefits for being a victim of "hate crime", I am treated lower than him even though we are equal. It hurts my freedom of speech because if I insult a gay because of this law and I tell him that the 14th Amendment says another thing, the gay could run to the police and tell them that I said something insulting and verbally abusive and I commited a hate crime. Let's look at the definition of hate crime once again. "Hate crime- physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters, hate mail", verbal abuse or insults are considered hate crime. My opponent also agrees, "verbal abuse or insults". The 3rd contention is that hate crime could easily lead to hate speech which is true. As you see above, hate crime already includes "verbal abuse or insults". Hate speech could easily happen with hate crime violating my freedom of speech. If an insult quaifies as hate crime, hate speech could easily become a law while laws which prevent hate speech could easily be repealed. Today, my conclusion is hate crime is a violation of speech and is unconstitutional.
Hate Crime

My opponent says," My opponents argument that Hate Crime laws infringe his legitimate freedom of speech is therefore invalid" even though it does hurt my freedom of speech. My opponent fails to understand the hate crime I am taking about is especially towards gays. If someone is attacking a gay because he is rich not because of him being gay and yells something about gays, he could get charged for hurting the gay because the guy being was gay and could get all sorts of benefits. Hate crime restrains and limits my freedom speech and opinion towards the people because I can't say anything that could hurt them. Hate Crime- crime motivated by hate for group: a crime that is motivated by hate, prejudice, or intolerance of somebody's religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation My value is thought freedom. 1st Contention-Hate crime destroys our thought freedom. If a person does a crime not because of their hate for gays, but for other reasons such as being rich though he is against homosexuality, if the individual gay finds out he opposes same sex marriage he can get extreme benefits and more protection if he can prove that the person doing the crime thought he was gay and attacked hm for this reason. 2nd Contention-Hate crime is against the law. The 14th Amendment guarentees equal protection to everyone under the law. This law creates a special protection status not available to others. By elevating gays and lesbians to a higher level of government protection, everyone else is treated as second class citizens. 3rd Contention-Hate crime can easily lead to the prosecution of hate speech. Physical violece can easily lead to verbal violence in the minds of some law enforcement officials. It always comes up bit by bit and then it becomes hate speech.
Hate Crime

Defintion of Hate Crime A hate crime is a legal category used to described bias-motivated violence: "assault, injury, and murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, different nationality, different language, different religion." "Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail). A hate crime law is a law intended to prevent bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize speech. http://en.wikipedia.org... --- Therefore 1: 'Hate crime' is simply a qualifier placed on an existing crime, which obviously by defintion is already illegal. 2: Hate crime is a distinct conept from hate speech. My opponents argument that Hate Crime laws infringe his legitimate freedom of speech is therefore invalid. Resolution negated.
My opponent logged in to DDOChat as JickityJackityJoe

Throughout the night he said things many would find uncharacteristic of Logical-Master. First he said "wassup B-Rock". Many frequent users of this site would find his use of the word 'wassup' strange. The next thing he said was "you ready to PARTY!" This just seems odd to me. He also claims to be a number of people. First it was Batman, second was Logical-Master, then he accused me of being DATCMOTO before saying "just kidding, i'm theLwerd". Soon later he told me to challenge him to a debate to prove that he is indeed Logical-Master. He also said that he wouldn't log in to this site because he was tired, yet able to chat with me. He said earlier that the real Logical-Master could coincidentally log in as we were talking, so he couldn't prove that he was in fact Logical-Master. Just because you see the name JickityJackityJoe in blue does not mean that you are him. Situation 1: You live with the person who is currently logged in as JickityJackityJoe. You asked him or her to take a screenshot so you could prove that you are the same person. Situation 2: You are stalking the person logged in as JickityJackityJoe and as they get up to get some food, you screenshot the page and post it on imageshack. Situation 3: You are a voyeur who is masturbating outside JickityJackityJoe's house. He or she goes to sleep, but leaves their internet browser with the chat room open. You sneak inside to take some memorabilia of theirs such as a hairbrush with hair and some undergarments, but you notice that they decided to pretended to be you and suggested a debate about it. You screenshotted the chat and posted it on imageshack so you could use it in this debate. Thank you.
My opponent logged in to DDOChat as JickityJackityJoe

RE:"For all I know, you could've been in jail for three days, that's why it took you so long to post your argument. " As you can see for yourself, I was online before posting this debate. Take a gander at my profile and notice how my opponent took the time to comment. Then read his profile and find my response. For all intensive purposes, I was not in jail. RE:"Unless you can prove that your real name is Logical-Master i. e. birth certificate, passport, or social security card, (preferably social security card), your name is not Logical-Master" To win this round, all I have to do is post my social security card as you'll note that this is what my opponent prefers me to do. Here it is: . http://img32.imageshack.us... Irrefutable proof that Logical-Master exist.
My opponent logged in to DDOChat as JickityJackityJoe

For all I know, you could've been in jail for three days, that's why it took you so long to post your argument. Your real name is not Logical-Master, no one in the United States of America is. http://tinypic.com... The results never say 0 people but instead says 1 or fewer. Unless you can prove that your real name is Logical-Master i.e. birth certificate, passport, or social security card, (preferably social security card), your name is not Logical-Master. I really don't know why I am arguing your name. I think it's just filler so it looks like I actually have an argument even though I don't.
Chicago Is Better Than Los Angeles

First I'll let you know I am referring to the Chicago land area which includes the suburbs. Although most people hate crowded cities, other people like crowded cities just as much. Don't get me wrong the traffic is god awful, the highways suck, but that adds to the fun. Now let me talk about Chicago museums, you have the Natural History Museum, Museum Of Science And Industry, the Adler Planetarium, also the Shed Aquarium. In all of these museums you have something special, the museum of science and industry has the German U-505, the museum has Sue, the Adler planetarium is just fun to go to for all ages, and the shed really doesn't have anything going for aside from it being super fun to go to.
Chicago Is Better Than Los Angeles

Not including population and size Chicago is far superior to Los Angeles, because of the history, it has been around for a lot longer. The culture is far more diverse, you have the Polish, the Germans, the gays, and so many more. Ever seen the Chicago skyline, way prettier than the Los Angeles, Los Angeles has what? One maybe two tall buildings. In Chicago we have a more intricate weather system, we even have all four seasons, unlike the two seasons in Los Angeles, we have snow one day then 80 degrees the next day. Then there is foods, Chicago pizza rather known as deep dish, is the best out of the pizzas does Los Angeles even have their own pizza type? And Chicago style hot dogs delicious, the one time I went to Los Angeles all the food sucked(Not to mention I almost got shot twice). All in all in my opinion Chicago is a far better city then Los Angeles.
Men shouldn't forbid working their wives.

At the end of our debates, I want to say that if you love a person, you should respect and embrace his point of view. I strongly believe that husbands really want their wives not to be overloaded. Sometimes work can be rather nervous, moreover dangerous. Thus, there are can be difficulties with health. So it can cause a lot of problem. It seems to me that work forbidding is such kind of protection. In conclusion, I want to add that women's destination is "protecting the fireplace at home".
Men shouldn't forbid working their wives.

I agree that people in Kazakhstan are conservative with their strong traditions and surely they should follow them to keep their unique culture. However, here is a relationship between man and woman namely mutual understanding and trust between them. What is more, we all know that extra money does not come in, and by having a job a woman make contribution to a family budget. There is nothing that might offend a man, a woman just wants to support their family. It does not matter how much she can earn, the matter is that by doing it woman feel her significance, she does not fell herself as a freeloader. it is not a must for woman to work, it is her desire. And I think that husbands also should respect opinion of their wives and vice versa. There should be a harmony between marrieds.
Men shouldn't forbid working their wives.

I have already pointed on one of the most important aspects in the round 1. And now, I want you to think about traditions. It is undeniable that we live in the modern world, there men"s and women"s rights are the same. But people cannot neglect traditions. We live in Kazakhstan, there this complexion is really magnificent and has great impact on us. According to this point, man is a "family"s head" and woman should be disciplinable. Of course, it does not mean that it is possible to suffer from rude unfairness, such as beating, abjection and so on. But work forbidding is not a big impingement of rights.
Men shouldn't forbid working their wives.

Thank you for your arguments. However, it is such a stereotype that woman's destination is "protecting the fireplace at home" . It could work half a century ago or even 2-3 decades ago, but not today. You see, here is another time when marriage is not so strong than before. In most cases marriages fail before it started. It is not statement that woman should work and not bring-up her children. No. Woman always can find a balance between family and work. So nowadays woman should be more independent to be ready for everything because we don't know what tomorrow will bring. Another reason why husbands should not forbid working their wives is that by being housewife woman don"t feel necessity to dress up and look better, because there is no need to go out much and if she need to go out she do it to buy food, pick up the kids from school and other house holding cases. Consequently, as a general rule, she dressed more practically and comfortable. The good example is my mother, who has started to work recently and I noticed how she changed. I and my father are happy to see her like this, because she became to dress more attractive than it was before. She changed hairstyle and begin to look after herself more. She became more self-reliant. So I actually think whether every man want to see his wife this way.
Men shouldn't forbid working their wives.

Well, thank you, Dariya, for your opinion. Actually, this issue is rather relevant. Nowadays women try to be independent, that is why sometimes they try to show it by working. But I strongly believe, that it is better to be at home with your house work. First of all, I want to point on a family. If you have children, it is very magnificent to spend a lot of time with them. Many scientists agree with this suggestion. You should be very careful parent, because usually we do not see our mistakes in bringing up the children. But, if there is a job, you should also pay attention on it, by doing different projects and so on. It means that your children will have lack of time, which they spend with you. It can cause the gaps in generations. Secondly, house work is very important and nobody will do it. Moving onto the third point, I want to say about self-study. There are a lot of spheres, there you can improve or even develop your skills, by reading books, searching information in the Internet or taking courses. In conclusion, I want to add, that work is also good and I agree with you words. But women's destination is "protecting the fireplace at home".
Men shouldn't forbid working their wives.

Sooner or later every man faces the problem whether his wife should work. Most of them think that women should stay at home only, take care of the children and household; however, unemployed wife is not so good as you may think. There are plenty of reasons in favor of working women. For example, a woman who stays at home think about nothing except cooking, clearing, washing and so on. Her knowledge is narrowed to these things and become bounded. In the same time a woman who has a job commutes with a lot of people, gets information, learns more about different things , thereby she develops her knowledge about today"s world. There is a state that a working woman with her increased knowledge and better understanding can also make a better mother. A woman who has to stay away from her home for considerable periods of time and who has only limited time for her children will ordinarily try to do her best for them and to make the best of her time with them.