BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The moon is home to ravenous hedgehogs

=== RESPONSES === "I believe that the moon is infested with ravenous hedgehogs for unbelievable reasons" >> As the character with the burden of proof, you are required to supply the necessary evidence to prove your case. Then I must negate it. "For one the moon is gay" >> The meaning of the word "gay" can differ. Either he is referring to happiness of homosexuality[1]. I ask my opponent to clarify. "Second the craters on the moon are their dwellings" >> What evidence do you have to support this claim? "Also elephants are bigger then the moon so the size of their dwellings are perfect. " >> Elephants are an Earth dwelling mammal [2]. The moon has a mass of 7.3477 ï¿½ 1022 kg. The largest elephant ever recorded was shot in Angola in 1956. This male weighed about 11,000 kg,with a shoulder height of 3.96 meters. Furthermore, if elephants were larger than the moon while residing on Earth there would be unworkable implications due to the gravitational effect caused by their mass[3, 4, 5]. Your assertion is negated. ===SOURCES=== 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. See video . http://www.youtube.com...
The moon is home to ravenous hedgehogs

-I read this on a fortune once and am now here to defend it in combat.- -I believe that the moon is infested with ravenous hedgehogs for unbelievable reasons..- 1,For one the moon is gay 2,Second the craters on the moon are their dwellings 3,Also elephants are bigger then the moon so the size of their dwellings are perfect. [1] [1] http://www.millionface.com... -I await my opponents relentless assault-
Novak Djokovic is a better singles tennis player than Andy Murray

1) The better player between Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray is indeed Murray. For instance, he is the only player to hold 2 Grand Slams and the Olympic Medal. 2) Also Murray has a better arsenal of shots ranging from slice forehands, backhands and drop shots and employs his tactics far better than Djokovic, though Djokovic is no slouch. 3) As for the rankings, they are based on performances in tournaments alone and although Djokovic has been consistent (more than Murray) in clay surfaces that does not change the fact that Murray has more variety to his game and like Federer can add touch much better than Djokovic and thus is more versatile. 4) For the GS finals count/ winning percentage Murray's mental game was nowhere near tough until 2012 Australian Open. Also between the two their GS final record is 2-2, however Djokovic's victories have both come in Melbourne (Australian Open) however Murray has beaten him in the US open as well as Wimbledon. This proves that Murray has more variety. 5) Murray is able to adjust to weather conditions better as evidenced in the US open final (wind) and the Wimbledon final (hot weather, sunny)
Novak Djokovic is a better singles tennis player than Andy Murray

Although Novak Djokovic recently lost the Wimbledon final against Andy Murray, I still believe he is a better player. My main arguments are as follows: 1) Novak Djokovic still remains at rank number one of the world. According to the ATP rankings (below) he has 12,310 points compared to Murray's 9,360 points which is a difference of 2,950 points hence his place at first. I have noticed however, that Djokovic has participated in one more tournament than Murray. http://www.atpworldtour.com... 2) Concerning the amount of head-to-head matches played, Djokovic leads this 11-8, therefore proving that he is a more consistent player. 3) Djokovic has been no.1 ranking since November 2012 compared to Murray whom only reclaimed the 2nd spot earlier this year in May, showing that he has been at a higher ranking for longer. 4) Andy Murray has been in 7 grand slam finals and won 2 (less than 50%) whereas Djokovic has been in 11 and won 6 (more than 50%).
HOMOSEXUALITY is a CHOICE

You say research shows Homosexuality is hereditary and that your sources prove this? I'm assuming you never bothered to read your sources before you posted them because not 1 of the 10 sources you site provides any evidence that Homosexuality is genetic. Why? Because they aren't scientific studies. They're theories made up by "born that way" activists. The only honest statement you made was when you quoted the American Psychological Association saying "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor."[1] That's scientific and it supports my side. In the words of homosexual Milo Yiannopoulos "certainly In my experience homosexuality is more nurture not nature" [5] Considering this is my ending statement here's what I'd like you to consider: It is a fact that Homosexuals have elevated health risks in everything from cancers to STDS[2] (some of which unpreventable and lethal) It is also a fact that Homosexuals are statistically more violent than heterosexuals[3] Heck they can't even naturally start a family! The point I'm making is that the Homosexual lifestyle is not a fun one. In fact it's a dangerous one that will cut your life short on average by 8-21 years![4] If your born this way you have no hope. Your chances of a better life ended on day 1. This is why it has been my goal in this debate to show that you can make a choice. A choice that will benefit you greatly. In the words of Milo Yiannopoulos (Gay) "I would choose not to be gay if I could, and everyone should!"[5] The good news is that you can choose. So It's up to you now so choose wisely. Thank you very much for debating me and good luck! [1] http://www.apa.org... [2] http://glma.org... [3] https://www.cdc.gov... [4] https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com... [5]
HOMOSEXUALITY is a CHOICE

Ask yourself this "when did you choose to be straight"? A person's sexual orientation is not a black or white matter, sexual orientation exists along a continuum, with exclusive attraction to the opposite sex on one end of the continuum and exclusive attraction to the same sex on the other. There is a great deal of research suggesting that sexual orientation is congenital. Common sense tells us that no one sits down one day and goes, "Hmmmm" should I be gay or straight?" but rather some people find themselves attracted to people of the same gender. But there are people who consciously decide to experiment with their sexuality, to try gay sex and see if they like it. Some radical feminists embrace lesbianism for political rather than sexual reasons. As some men in prison with strong sexual desire use other men for sex. This can cause some people to believe that homosexual behavior is the same thing as homosexual attraction. What if behavior doesn't match well with attraction? What if people usually enjoy sex with one gender but only fall in love with the other? What if a person's past doesn't reflect his or her present feelings? Sexuality is much more complex than we know, but we are gaining understanding through science. So the real question should be what causes homosexuality? Research suggest that homosexuality is hereditary. https://www.eurekalert.org... http://www.journals.uchicago.edu... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.pnas.org... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... However in spite of all of the above scientific studies, according to the American Psychological Association's own website, "there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; however most people whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." From all of this I can draw only one conclusion. Homosexuality is not a choice.
HOMOSEXUALITY is a CHOICE

Absolutely not. There have been many studies using Identical Monozygotic twins (Monozygotic twins share 100% of their DNA) Where they see how often both Identical twins are homosexuals. The idea is that if there is a "gay gene" Both have it and both should be Gay. In one study by Peter S. Bearman of Columbia University and Hannah Bruckner of Yale University they investigated the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. What they found is that this happens less than 7% of the time[1] In the remaining 93% of the sample 1 identical twin was gay but the other was not . In another study conducted by Cornell University found that more than 70% percent of teens who said they had ever had a same-sex "romantic attraction" later told researchers that they were now exclusively heterosexual[2]. In another study Christopher Hensley an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga questioned 142 prisoners at a maximum-security facility in the South about their sexual orientation. They found that of the sample, 24 men changed sexual orientation while incarcerated. Inmates were also more than 52 times more likely to change their sexual orientation if they engaged in homosexual activity while incarcerated, supporting the social constructionist approach[3] This is just 3 examples showing that homosexuals are not born that way. I could right a statement but I figured it would work better if I just let the homosexuals tell you in they're own words. Lindsay Miller (openly lesbian) wrote an article in the Atlantic[4] where she expressed that she made the choice to be gay "I get frustrated with the veiled condescension of straight people who believe that gays can't help it, and thus should be treated with tolerance and pity. In direct opposition to both the mainstream gay movement and Lady Gaga, I would like to state for the record that I was not born this way. " In another article published in the BBC[5] titled "I'm gay but I wasn't born this way" a Homosexual man named Brandon Ambrosino said "People who challenge the Born This Way narrative are often cast as homophobic, and their thinking is considered backward even if they are themselves gay. I'm gay but make no mistake I wasn't born this way" From all of this I can draw only one conclusion. Homosexual behavior is a choice. Sources: [1] . https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org... [2] . https://www.lifesitenews.com... [3] . http://journals.sagepub.com... [4] . https://www.theatlantic.com... [5] . http://www.bbc.com...
HOMOSEXUALITY is a CHOICE

A common position held by many LGBT activists in order to justify the radical behavior of Homosexuals is the argument that "they can't help it...They're BORN this way." I find this statement dangerous not only because it's a lie but also because it removes all hope of a better life from a person struggling with homosexual behavior. Considering the average life expectancy of Homosexuals has consistently been significantly lower than heterosexuals[1] And has significantly elevated health risks[2] Why would this be a lifestyle choice we'd want to ever encourage? [1] https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com... [2] http://glma.org... Rules: Both Pro and Con must stay on the points they are advocating for: [PRO] I am advocating that Homosexuality is a choice and not something you are born with [CON] Will argue Homosexuality is something you are born with and is not a choice Both Pro and Con must put citations to all claims they make. Thank you and happy debating!
HOMOSEXUALITY is a CHOICE

Your sexual behaviour is a choice, but not our sexuality. Your sexual behaviour can cause harm , but not your sexuality. All a person needs to do is look to themselves and ask yourself; was your own sexuality a choice, no, no one's is. After 1973 Every major mental health organization in the United States has affirmed strongly that homosexuality is neither an illness nor a choice and cannot be changed, and is caused by a complex mix of biological factors whether because of genetics or events happening in the womb (nature) and cultural, social and other environmental factors which are the total sum of the experiences of a child or adolescent and their effect on him or her (nurture). This is the stance of: The American Medical Association The American Psychiatric Association The American Psychological Association The American Psychoanalytic Association The American Academy of Pediatrics The National Association of Social Workers The American Counseling Association The American Association of School Administrators The American Federation of Teachers The National Association of School Psychologists The National Education Association And me
Hockey is a better sport than football.

Just because hockey is played in the olympic games doesnt mean that football isnt popular. It isnt played the Olympic games because its an American sport and once again we have been arguing AMERICAN popularity. Also the Stanley Cup is televised just as much as the Superbowl but people just dont watch it as much. Have you considered this, that most of the people who play in the NHL are mostly from outside our country? Because of this, it shows that in the US not many people play hockey over football which is why the popularity is down in the US. Internationally hockey is way more popular than football but once again we are talking about the US. I myself am a hockey fan and enjoy the game because of its toughness and athletism it takes to play the game but to say that it is more popular than football isnt a fair judgement. As for the rule changes that the NFL has been coming too, the league is just trying to limit the amount of head injuries that are causing men to suffer alot of brain damage because of how physical the game of football is. Your right that it is a privelige to play in the NFL but why risk causing life threathing injuries over vicious hits that are completely illegal. To say that it is becoming a "touch football league" it is completely un-jusitfied because these head injuries shouldnt be nessessary and jeopardizing the lives of people. There are plenty of hard LEGAL hits in the NFL that show how physical of a game it is and always will be. Also, most of the rule changes in the NFL are just to protect the quarterback which i might say is something a little childish to the quarterbacks and favoring them a little bit but still doesnt take away from still being the most physical sport.
Hockey is a better sport than football.

Granted that we are in the United States and we are talking about American sports, you did not specify whether or not we were talking about national popularity or international popularity. If you were to have specified, which clearly you did not, then i would have not made that argument further. Wouldn't you have to argue on an international level to begin with? Clearly football is an international sport, so you referencing just one country is irrelevant to me because that does not sum up the larger picture of football's popularity worldwide. Popularity is accumulative, therefore you need to argue in the international sense. If football was isolated merely to the United States, then our discussion as far as our borders are concerned would make more sense. Just to add, Hockey is overall a more highly respected sport than football. Hockey is featured in our world's olympic games. I do not see football being mentioned at all in the olympic games conversation. Too me, that shows that football is not only less popular as hockey, but also not as respected. Lastly, talking about NFL football considering it is clear you want to argue about American sports only, with all these new NFL rules and regulations, it seems to me that the game of football is not even fun to watch anymore. With all of those "illegal hit" rules, fines are addressed to players left and right. The game of football was meant to be a physical game, and it seems to me that the NFL wants to take away that aspect. As long as the fines keep coming and these new rules are instituted, NFL football will be reduced to a backyard "two-hand-touch" football game. No one is forced to play NFL football, it is a privilege given to a player from the organization that grants them that time to play. Also, just to argue more point, the Superbowl may be a more televised and watched event then the Stanley Cup, but are you even considering what the viewers of that event are watching the game for? It has been said that people tend to watch the Superbowl more for the half time show and the commercial ads from the many big name producers of our corporate world today. Clearly there are not many true fans to the sport of football if this is the case. http://detroit.cbslocal.com... http://articles.chicagotribune.com...
Hockey is a better sport than football.

i agree with your point that you need to wear just as much pads as football players and that you need to change directions in a blink of an eye. My argument is that with all of the padding that a football has, you must have the endurance and stamina to keep and also with the change of direction football is a tough sport to deal with. Im not refuting that hockey doesnt have alot of padding as well as football does because they do. But in your previous argument you were refuting that endurance and stamina is tougher in hockey than football and thats not the case. Now to popularity, i understand that hockey is very popular internationally but we are talking about AMERICA. We are in the United States and talking about AMERICAN sports. If we were in Canada or Russia were hockey is there national pastime then sure hockey is way more popular than football but we arent. This past Super Bowl there was an average of 111.3 million people who watched the superbowl and the past Stanley Cup had an average of 2.88 million viewers. You do the math
Hockey is a better sport than football.

Well Josh, on the argument about all the pads and equipment that football players wear, hockey players wear just about the same amount of padding as football players. And wouldn't you say that hockey players need to be very endured and have to change directions at the blink of an eye as well? For example, the puck consistently is either batted or knocked around on the ice multiple times in the matter of a few seconds. So, wouldn't you say, that as a hockey player you need to be ready to change directions as fast as the puck does? In the argument that football is more popular than hockey, you are right in the sense that hockey stands beneath football in popularity, *in the United States. Football is an American made sport, where as hockey is a Canadian made sport. It is clear that football would be generally more entertaining and popular to the American public then hockey would be. However, internationally, hockey is much more popular then football. So overall, Hockey would win the popularity contest.
Hockey is a better sport than football.

Fundamentally, hockey and football are also completely different. However, you need just as much if not more fundamentals than hockey. You need to have the quickness and agility to change directions in the blink of an eye. Also, you have all that equipment on, helmet, shoulder pads, thigh pads, hip pads, knee pads and be able to move at such a fast rate is very difficult to so. Given that you have all that equipment on, you need to be very fit which leads back to the point of having alot of endurance and stamina to be able to compete at a high level. As far as popularity goes, football is a way more of a popular sport than hockey. The NHL had a lockout a number of years ago and it took a few years for it to regain its popularity again. The NFL was in a lockout last offseason and once the collective bargaining agreement was settled it was like the NFL didnt lose a beat. The popularity continued to grow and it the highest that its ever been.
Hockey is a better sport than football.

Again, given they are different, Hockey is still at a more constant rate where that if your constantly sprinting on the ice for minutes at a time, you are clearly more tired as if you were consistently stopping and going on a 5-7 long drive down the the field. There is more stoppage time in a football drive, which usually is just a "3 and done" drive most of the time as opposed to hockey where your sprinting non stop until a goal is scored. As far as fundamentals are concerned, Hockey is more based on fundamentals then football is. For example, hockey involves skating. Skating is something not everyone can do, especially backwards. Being able to skate, skate well, and backwards are a huge part of hockey which separates a player from being good, and great. Stick and handling skills are also a lot more fundamentally harder then holding a football. Stick skills involve handling the puck well, passing the puck with accuracy, and being able to skate and shift the puck up the ice at the exact same time. Not to mention that while that puck is traveling on the ice, it does not come at you in a fluid, smooth motion. The ice is choppy due to the indentations of the skates from the players over a periods worth of time. The puck begins to bounce, jitter, and jump at you while it is either passed or deflected toward you. Being able to judge and catch that puck on your stick is much harder then catching a football which is thrown at you in a fluid, straight line pass.
Hockey is a better sport than football.

Football and hockey both need a high amount of stamia in order to be successful on the field and on the ice. Football and hockey use a high amount of stamia at different times of a game. For example, a football play of high contact lasts about 4-5 seconds. During that amount of time, because you have to react so quickly on every given play, you lose breath and arent breathing regularly than you might be doing in a different sport. You may get a ten to 20 second break between plays but after that you have to go back to action. To continue that for a long 5-7 drive is very tasking on your body and you need to be mentally tough to do it because the other team is feeling the same way as you are but its who wants it more. With hockey, you have to continue playing about 2 minutes then a new line comes in and you have a long period of breath. So your endurance and stamia are clearly a big part in football as well as hockey and just as important as hockey but are used completely differently.
Hockey is a better sport than football.

Given the fact that hockey and football are two different sports, there are still core factors involved in being an "athletic" sports player in order to before at the highest level of any given sport. So, to stay that these are two have nothing to do with each other is correct in one sense, but also incorrect in the other. Such skills such as stamina, endurance, and strength are all key factors to athleticism that all sports players need, regardless of which sports they play. In both hockey and football, endurance and stamina are two very important skills, however, I believe that there is more endurance and stamina needed in hockey then there is in football. For example, in football there is a stoppage of play almost every few seconds after the ball is hiked. During this stoppage of play, players have more time to rest and regain their strength. In hockey, play is constant (unless stopped by the whistle, which indubitably never happens unless a penalty is called). Being that play is constant in hockey, I therefore believe that you need to have better endurance in hockey then you do in football. Also, with the more endurance needed for hockey, stamina is also needed. Stamina is the energy that you have over the entire course of the game which allows you to keep playing. You need a lot of stamina in order to keep playing at a constant rate. You do not need as much stamina for football because play is stopped almost constantly.