BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Olympic Spirit is Dead

My Opponent has put forward some convincing arguments on what the olympics displays. No one can argue that the Olympics is an event which displays vast International participation, and that its an event which shows fantastic athletic effort, however as my opponent says "Pro must now demonstrate that these and future arguments are not examples of Olympic spirit" I will do just that. Remember we are not talking about the Olympics being dead, but rather the essential spirit of it According to the Olympic Creed, the most important thing is not to win but to take part. But has all the money and the level of exposure killed the Olympic spirit? Are the modern games about sportsmanship and glory or about the pursuit of profit? And not just profit but political message? For example How can we pretend that all competitors have a fair chance of winning a medal when it is now all about which national team has the biggest sponsorship deals and the best facilities to train in? True the message is about taking part not winning, But the idea of athletics itself is put into question when the finance has such an impact on the outcome. The impact of money goes even deeper into the Olympics however, the olympic bid itself is put into question. A BBC documentary entitled Panorama: Buying the Games, investigated the taking of bribes in the bidding process for the 2012 Summer Olympics. The documentary claimed it was possible to bribe IOC members into voting for a particular candidate city. In any other athletics competition this would be pretty bad, but for the Olympics an event that shouts out freedom, fairness, equality its simply dreadful. Its hypocrisy proves that its spirit is dead. In fact history shows that the Olympic spirit died long ago, for me the Olympic spirit died on September 5, 1972 in Munich when the decision was taken by Avery Brundage, the then IOC president, to carry on with the Games after 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were murdered. The international temptation to use the Olympics as an event to demonstrate at, to boycott, to demonstrate terrorism in has tainted the entire image of the Olympics irreparably, and therefore its spirit died too.
Olympic Spirit is Dead

I am a huge fan of the Olympics and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it. ::The Basics:: The debate has been very broadly defined at this point, so I will take this opportunity to clarify. Olympic spirit is indeed a poorly defined term and exists more as a loose assembly of ideals than a firm construct. For the sake of this debate, I would like to define the Olympic spirit as the following: - Olympic Spirit: an expression of sportsmanship, international unity, and effort through competitive athleticism and spectator support. I draw the main facets of this definition from both my opponent's initial example and the Olympic creed [1], which emphasizes struggle and participation over success. That said, I will argue that the Olympic spirit is not dead. Pro has not offered any contentions yet, so I'll start with a few brief arguments against the resolution. 1. Vast International Participation The Olympics remain the largest regular meeting of international representatives in the world, housing more countries than even the UN. For example, the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing saw 204 countries participate, three of which for the first time [2]. The scope of this event allows athletes from warring or internationally unfriendly countries to meet, socialize, and compete alongside one another. Without a doubt, the Olympics are the most unifying experience our world has to offer. 2. Athletic Effort Over ten thousand athletes participated in the 2008 games [3], eventually earnings medals for 81 countries (6 for the first time) [4]. The sheer number of participants involved, as well as their determination to compete for a vast range of homelands, perfectly captures the vitality of the Olympic spirit. ::Closing:: Though brief, my arguments have already demonstrated that the international harmony and athletic vigor that is the Olympic spirit is alive and well. Thus, my opponent's burden is a large one; Pro must now demonstrate that these and future arguments are not examples of Olympic spirit or that future games will not display such qualities. I eagerly await my opponent's response. ::References:: 1. . http://www.mapsofworld.com... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.beijing2008.cn... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Olympic Spirit is Dead

I pose the argument that the olympic spirit is dead, I am for this. The definition of the olympic spirt can be broadly interpreted, so ill use this website as a baseline for what I interpret the olympic spirit to be. http://www.olympicspirit.org... eg. unifying the world through competetive athletecisim, in which the athletes observe the ideals of fairplay and sportsmanship. I think that modern day olympics has evolved to become an event which wears these ideals as a badge while having alterior motives behind, therefore the olympic spirit has died. Ill let my oponent start, best of luck. And appologies for the typos but the spellchecker is not working for me, and im too tired right now to go back and spellcheck myself.
KFC Abuses their chickens.

" Quite obviously, what I view as wrong, and what you think as wrong are two entirely different wrongs. "They are not human." What of it, sir? They have thoughts, and they feel pain the same way." They indeed have pain (which is on the sensational rather than rational level), thoughts however are a different matter. Thought, i.e. the use of reason, is precisely what defines a human (not a homo sapiens, but humans in the philosophical sense). " www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com Someone, anyone view this website and explain to me how this is not abuse." Already did. The rest of the round is irrelevant, you have yet to show how such treatment toward chickens constitutes "Abuse."
KFC Abuses their chickens.

"It is not wrong or improper to kill a chicken inhumanely. They are not human." Quite obviously, what I view as wrong, and what you think as wrong are two entirely different wrongs. "They are not human." What of it, sir? They have thoughts, and they feel pain the same way. www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com Someone, anyone view this website and explain to me how this is not abuse. You should be aware that KFC abuses their chickens; they slit their throats, electrocute them and drop them in scalding water all while still alive. The employees do nothing to stop this, jumping on the chickens, breaking their necks and wings, urinating on them, (leading to food poisoning) and brutally throw them against walls and into crates. The chickens are raised in overcrowded factories, and slaughtered as young chicks. In order to get a sufficient amount of meat from such young, small animals, they drug them until they grow so large their legs cannot support their own weight, and must drag themselves along the ground. Their beaks are chopped off soon after hatching, sometimes causing so much pain to the animals; they lose the will to eat. Please change your eating habits until KFC promises to treat their animals with respect.
KFC Abuses their chickens.

"Abuse refers to the use or treatment of something (a person, item, substance, concept, or vocabulary) that is seen as harmful. aï¿½buse (ə-byūz') pronunciation tr.v., aï¿½bused, aï¿½busï¿½ing, aï¿½busï¿½es. 1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege. 2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use. 3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest. 4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile. 5. Obsolete. To deceive or trick. 1. It is not wrong or improper to kill a chicken inhumanely. They are not human, i.e. not rational animals. The term "Humane," is derived from the middle english "Humain," human, i.e. behavior that is "humane" is behavior that is proper toward a human. This does not mean it is proper toward a chicken. 2. It is not possible to perform "maltreatment" upon a chicken. Chickens, you see, as nonrational creatures, have no notions of good or bad. They are not evaluative creatures, they have no values. Since "maltreatment" means bad treatment, and the chickens are not capable of evaluating whether treatment toward them is good or bad (no one else is qualified to judge it as "bad" if the chicken does not), it is not bad treatment. It may be bad toward a human, but that is immaterial toward a chicken. 3. KFC does not rape their chickens as far as I know, and if you wish to claim it, the burden of proof for the claim (and the debate for that matter) is on you. 4. KFC does not assail chickens with words, they cannot understand words, and thus are immune to any such assailment. 5. Since KFC cannot communicate with chickens, it obviously has a hard time deceiving or tricking them.
Why wings are better than ribs.

Prime rib seems fancier, but ribs from the barbecue are rather messy and sticky. Wings don't necessarily have to be sloppily chewed on. Barbecue ribs on the other hand are hard to handle with the typical fork and knife. Not only can you eat wings with a fork and knife, people in wing eating competition actually take the wings apart to eat them faster, and to help avoid contact with lips in case they are spicy
Why wings are better than ribs.

Wings seem easier to enjoy. They practically have built in handles. They cause less of a mess and can be covered in a wider variety of sauces. Ribs seems to be exclusive to barbecue. You get a variety of barbecue sauces and cooking styles for ribs, but wings can be left plain, covered with buffalo sauces, barbecue sauces, and they can dipped in ranch or blue cheese dressing. Wings are also a tad less messy, and if you ask the average diner, the less mess, the better. The average barbecue eater may say messier is better, but they already have a bias for barbecue, so they are unreliable sources.
Abortion should be illegal

As a woman, I see know reason for abortion to be seen as a right.When an abortion takes place it is not just the woman's body affected, and the most major danger is to the unborn (Death).In rape, lack of money, and not being ready, adoption is the better option. Babies are known to get adopted very quickly.Abortions can cause:Heavy bleedingInfectionDeathScarringPTSDAnd more.http://americanpregnancy.org...https://ramahinternational.org...A persons right to do with their body as they wish is far more limited then that of a persons right to live.For instance involuntary hospitalization of severely suicidal patients. In that case, someones right to choose what to do with their body is over ridden by their right to live, and in that case they would have only hurt themselves unlike abortion.In the case of rape, if even the rapist doesn't get the death penalty, why should the innocent one die?In every case, both the mother and child should be protected the best possible. Pregnancy centers all over even already do.
Abortion should be illegal

Hi, I just love argumentation and would like to have a debate with someone. this debate doesn't have to be so structured, it's more of a conversation. I believe that abortion should NOT be illegal because it infringes upon women's rights. I myself would never get an abortion but that doesn't mean I get to decide what other women do. Women have the right to do with their body as they see fit. A majority of women choose to have abortions because they are not ready to have a baby, can't support another being financially, and then there are the other cases where a woman is raped or giving birth will endanger their life. There is also the fact that making abortions illegal will just lead to women going through dangerous measure to abort the fetuses.
Abortion should be illegal

I will also crystallize my arguments.I strongly assert that abortion is almost never the best option, as adoption is a very real option and support exists for those up to raising their children.A fetus is human.That the life of a human, even one that cannot support itself, is worthy of equal protection under the law.The right of an individual to live is stronger than that of an individual to do as they wish with their body.Finally, that though other legislation and community efforts should not be discouraged (Even potentially free birth control), every life should be protected under the law regardless of situation of birth or conception.
Abortion should be illegal

For the last round, I would like to crystallize my argument. This is simply because my opponent and I have both done enough rebutting and I would like to refocus the debate to our core arguments. I ask that my opponent also crystallize their own argument since this is the last round. I do not think that abortion should be illegal for one huge reason: It is an impediment on a woman's right to do with her body as she pleases. Whether you agree with abortion or don't, making it illegal is the wrong solution. For one, it will just lead to women using more dangerous means to abort. And two, there are other ways to decrease abortion rates. Studies shave shown that bettering sex education and increasing the availability of proper contraception lowers abortion rates as less women are getting pregnant unexpectedly. Making abortion illegal is unjust and can not be permitted. If you want abortion rates to be lowered, there are other ways to do this.
Abortion should be illegal

I will admit that it seems likely that someone is more likely to die in childbirth than in abortion, however deaths from abortion are likely under reported because it tends to happen after the person has left the clinic.I'm going to make an argument that may be seen as tacky, but I'll try to keep it short.1.3 percent of all abortions happen after the 21st week of pregnancy, and the youngest born child to survive was James Elgin Gill at 21 weeks and five days.In other words in the us, unborn children capable of surviving out of the womb are killed in the US.In 2012, that was 9,090 fetuses potentially capable of living outside of the womb killed.1.3% may seem small, but remember the transgender population is only 0.6% of the US, but if they all died off there would be an uproar.Some states still have no cut off age for abortion at all.https://www.theatlantic.com...Okay now I will go onto the not so tacky argument.The woman's mental heath.A woman that has an abortion is six times more likely to commit suicide than a woman who gives birth, and unlike abortion which increases the risk of suicide by a lot, giving birth is known to reduce the risk of suicide by as much as 20%.http://www.lifenews.com...https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Woman who have abortions have a 81% increased risk of mental health problems.According to my source, "Women who had an abortion were 34 percent more likely to develop an anxiety disorder, 37 percent more likely to experience depression, 110 percent more likely to abuse alcohol, 155 percent more likely to commit suicide, and 220 percent more likely to use marijuana." - https://www.cbsnews.com...Sadly, do to other factors it is hard for any study of both physical and mental health to figure out the cause, so as far as I can tell anyone who does a study ends up deciding the cause is what they personally agree with.I mean this both ways of course and have found this clear bias quite annoying while trying to find sources.Many people do end up regretting their abortion, and many women as pressured into it."A 2000 study cited by Hush and prepaired by Dr. Brenda Major, a Professor of Psychology & Communications at the University of California, recorded that approximately 21% of American women who receive an abortion believed that their abortion did more harm than good. This percentage grew to 28% within two years of the abortion. This means of the one million women who have abortions each year in the US, more than 280,000 of them believe, within two years, that their abortion did more harm than good."https://www.care-net.org...Abortion can really hurt women.https://www.lifesitenews.com...I apologize for the lack of focus on physical health, but I was having difficulty finding any information on it that wasn't clearly tailored one way or the other. Not to mention information at all was scarce, so I hope you don't mind to much.I look forward to the next round.
Abortion should be illegal

For this round we will be focusing on the health aspects of abortion as well as birthing. For me, it is pretty straightforward--abortion is safer than actually giving birth. I am not saying that every pregnant woman should just abort because it is safer, I am saying that people often bring up the negative effects of abortion without realizing that pregnancy causes more death every year. Here are the facts I brought up in the second round: "In countries where childbirth is safe, 1 in every 15.000 women dies during childbirth. Less than 1 in every 200,000 women who use a medical abortion die, making medical abortions safer than childbirth and about as safe as naturally occurring miscarriages. This means that a safe abortion with Mifepristone and Misoprostol is always lifesaving." (The link is in round 2) Here is an excerpt (edited for relevance and the link is below should you like to read the full article) with new information: Abortion has a scary reputation, but that view isn"t founded on facts. HUFFINGTON POST: 5 Things That Are More Lethal Than Legal Abortion "According to a study from the National Institute of Health legal abortion has a .0006% mortality rate or 0.6 deaths per 100,000 procedures. This is a nice, neutral source to get a baseline. Based on the .0006% rate from the National Institute of health, here are 5 things more likely to kill you than legal abortion in the US: Being hit by lightning. According to NOAA, you have a 1 in 12,000 (or .0008%) chance of being hit by lightning in the US over your lifetime... Pegging out from using your cellphone while driving. ...According to the US Department of Transportation, it kills 6,000 people in the US per year. This makes it 3 times more likely you"ll die using your cellphone in the car than you would having a legal abortion - the odds are at .0019% per year... Dying in a work-related accident. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics you are just over 5 times more likely to die at work (3.3 deaths per 100,000 people or .0033%) than you are to die from a legal abortion... Death by colonoscopy. ... the odds of dying after a complication from a colonoscopy are at 1 in 16,318 according to an article from Annals.org. Even though a colonoscopy is 10 times more deadly than legal abortion, it"s still just mouse nuts - there"s only a .0061% chance of death by colonoscopy... Having a baby. Actually carrying a baby to term in the US is 90 times more likely to kill you than having a legal abortion. Seeing as how childbirth is the advocated alternative to abortion, doesn"t that underscore that the Texas case has nothing to do with women"s safety? According to a publication from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, there is a 1 in 1,800 chance of maternal death (.056%) for US women... https://www.huffingtonpost.com... While some parts of this article might have seemed a little absurd, they were all true and founded on statistics and facts. The stigma surrounding abortion being high-risk is unfounded. And if abortion is considered high-risk then childbirth, going to work, getting a colonoscopy, and going outside must be a death wish right?
Abortion should be illegal

For my sake I'm going to break my arguments into segments.AdoptionBabies rarely end up in foster care. Babies are adopted through private adoption agencies. Many adoptive parents want young children or babies so birth parents rarely struggle to find homes for newborns. They also are allowed to have control over who adopts their child, and open adoptions have been rising in popularity.A good portion of the time, either the adopting family covers all hospital costs or the agency does so.http://buildingyourfamily.com......https://adoptionnetwork.com......I will get to your ethics question in next section.Is an unborn human sapient?It is hard to say truly for certian if an unborn child can think, or how much. The reason being we cannot go up and ask, and our understanding of how humans work is still limited. Are they alive? For sure with very little doubt, that isn't the real question here. It's if they are far enough along to be seen as worthy of having rights.Drawing that line at anypoint after an individual has formed has ethical implactions that need to be adressed first thing.Brain development takes a long time, it could be easily argued that it begins at conception because at that point the embryo is taking many steps to get there already. At very most, it starts at week six, when the neural tube closes.https://www.mayoclinic.org......Because brain development continues into early adulthood, taking any spicific point of development as the bigaing of life calls into question the full humanity of young children, teenagers, and children with spicific disabilitys that have to do with that stage of development. For instance anencephaly, holoprosencephaly and spina bifida.I believe therefore that it is the very fact of humanity that makes a human worthy of protection, rather then a developmental stage. Some final pointsAdoption may often be rocky but it doesn't ruin people's lives. I believe that the idea of something being life ruining is far over used. Even abused people can recover and in the end lead healthy lives. Abortion as a soultion to a problem such as abuse is in my opinion, victom blaming. It isn't the child's fault for existing, it is the abusers fault for abusing.I would like to save heath effects for later to increase our focus for now. How about round four?-Tell me if the links don't work, posting this didn't work the first time so this is a copy/paste.
Homework

Second time writing this since my computer decided to exit me out of the Internet. Yes, there have been different conclusions, but the different conclusions show that homework is not a very secure thing to hold on to for academic success. The different conclusions show that homework is lacking and pretty much useless. Even if it did work some of the time, that time that it didn't work would be wasted time for teacher and student.Homework does create unneeded stress. For those kids who take a long time because of misunderstanding, it is unfair to them. They do not understand it so they go home, attempt it, come back to school, get a bad grade, and then with too many bad grades, their report card grade will surely be low. Homework drags a kid's grade down. Teachers shouldn't give out things to take home without them before they are sure everyone understands the subject. That way the teachers are setting their students up for success instead of failure.Those kids who don't have responsible parents can't help it. They weren't able to choose their parents before time. They shouldn't have to suffer because of their parent's mistakes and irresponsibility. Then, we'll just have more and more generations of poorer and poorer people. Their grade will suffer because of the parents and lack of supplies which isn't fair.Teachers came into the teaching profession knowing about their pay and all the work it would take. If they don't like it, get another profession. They walked into the profession knowing about the time and work they would have to put into it, so they should not have a problem with it. It's the job they chose so they have no reason to complain about it. http://stophomework.com...As for the South Korea point, here's a website that shows the comparison between different countries. Look at the SECOND point and you'll see. I would just like to point out though that U.S. families are generally more relaxed about their kids' grades and so on. In Asia, there is a huge push and they are taught that they MUST get As and they are taught competition because only THE BEST will get into college. That's not the case in America.