BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports.

"Your "Part one arguments," to the extent they raise true symptoms (which is not clear, because data on the symptoms of the usage of steroids at recommended dosages in healthy people is in a shortage and rather conflicting, which is perhaps why you have cited no scientific data), apply to the resolution "Should you use steroids? " Or "Is hiring a steroid-using baseball player a good investment? "" . http://en.wikipedia.org... They do apply to the resolution, "Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports". They show that using these drugs is unsafe. "Your part two arguments apply to "Should children be encouraged to look into athletes as role models? " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children. "Your part three argument applies to "Should sports leagues concerned with an image of 'hard work' or 'fairness' allow steroid users to play? " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through. "The resolution at hand, however, is whether it should be ILLEGAL for professional athletes to use these drugs. " Uh, no, it's whether "Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports. " "Allowed" and "legal" are very different. "Allowed" means allowed within the sport's rules; "legal" means allowed within the law.
Spider-Man is the greatest Marvel character of all time

Alright, give it your best shot. As a glorified nerd, I often get into these debates with my friends on who is the better hero in Marvel. My vote goes to Spider-Man. He may not be the strongest or thes fastest, but by God, he is the greatest of them all. Can anyone deny that without cringing? So please, if you have someone else to bring to the table, please do. Im all ears. Excelsior.
Spider-Man is the greatest Marvel character of all time

Ok, I'll stick with Cap then. And what I meant by more realistic, is that if we were ever in our day to have a real super hero, It would probably be something like Captain America. To your comment about North Korea, Yes they probably won't have Captain America comics, but they probably wouldn't have any spiderman either considering they rank last in freedom of the press. So I doubt they have any Marvel or D.C comics to begin with, considering all their media is owned by the government(1). And yes, Captain America is a serious person. Because he has to be. In the comics, he's an internationally known man and the leader of an organisation who's job it is to pretty much protect the world from anything America can't handle on it's own (The Avengers). Captain America can't be sarcastic and funny, because then no one would take him seriously. He doesn't have the benefit of having an alter ego no one knows about like spiderman does. On that same note, spiderman CAN be sarcastic and funny all the time because he really has no public expectations to live up to. Very few people outside New York know who spiderman was (until he joined the avengers that is) so Peter Parker had the advantage of being a sarcastic guy because he knows the public won't take him any less seriously. 1.http://www.freedomhouse.org...
Spider-Man is the greatest Marvel character of all time

Well, I should have elaborated the argument further. You are supposed to dismantle my theory, but if not Spider-Man, then Who? You said Captain America, which I kind of expected. He is truly a hero in the Marvel universe. Cap does come from a similar background to Peter, and he turns out to be a huge hero to Shield and the Avengers as a whole. Now, onto your argument that Spider-Man is not realistic. I agree completely, but its a comic book. It's not exactly the most realistic of books. But then again, neither is Cap. Super soldier, seventy years old and not even slowing down, a star spangly outfit! Yeah, that's realistic. Yes, Cap gets brownie points because he is a loyal soldier and great team player. His patriotism brings a tear to my eye...But even though he is heroic, that doesn't necessarily make him "The greatest Marvel Character." A lot of characters in the Marvel Universe have saved the day. Wolverine, Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Ghost Rider, even Deadpool at one point. It may be immoral, but the glory goes to Spider-Man because everyone knows who he is. Some in some remote parts of the world won't recognize Captain America, like probably North Korea, but I'm willing to bet an arm and a leg that they know exactly who Spider-Man is. That's not to say Spider-Man hasn't had his heroic moments. If he was never created, people probably wouldn't read as much comics as they do. Plus, Cap as a Person is always so serious. It's hard to connect with him when he's this brown-nose spangly man when there is a sarcastic nerd swinging around. And that's really one of the major advantages of the Web head. He a people person, and he's so connectable that you could almost see yourself in his shoes, and that's what makes him my hero. I can't really imagine myself in a Captain America outfit. I love my country but...just no.
Spider-Man is the greatest Marvel character of all time

I take it from the title, it's not my job to prove one character greater than Spider man, but to simply disprove your thesis. So I may reference another superhero or 2 in the other aspects of a superhero like powers or combat capabilities. But when it comes to personality and personal relation, I think Captain America has it in the bag. Captain America started out in a situation very much like Peter Parker, a scrawny teenager who was frequently bullied and rejected in school. When the 3rd Reich rolls around, Steve Rogers attempted to enlist, but was rejected due to his physique. But he doesn't stop there, he continues to attempt to enlist multiple times which draws the attention of General Chester Phillips. Phillips offers Rogers a chance to be a part of the Army's super-soldier project, and is then used a guinea pig per se, to test out a new serum that enhances physical performance. The serum works is a success, and from this point on, he is christened Captain America and works in junction with the U.S Military, and later, S.H.I.E.L.D. What I find amazing is that even though Roger's came from a similar background as Parker, he turned out radically different. Parker is comical and lighthearted, but his comics don't seem to have a realistic aura about them. Roger's on the other hand, is by no means a comic like spiderman, but his patriotism towards his country as well as his bond with his brothers on the battlefield and humility as a fellow soldier, gives Captain America points over Spider man in my book.
Spider-Man is the greatest Marvel character of all time

Thank you for accepting, let us begin. Well, where do we begin? At the beginning I suppose. August, 1964, Co-creators Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created the greatest superhero in Marvel History. As I am sure you are quite well aware of, this new character became quite popular. Why? Because Peter Parker is the everyman. He is just a normal guy...with spider powers and a genius intelligence. These two co creators created a character who was constantly harrased and bullied through most of his childhood, something a lot of kids can relate too. That simple fact made me instantly love Spider-Man, because he was a guy just like me. Also, he was a groundbreaking superhero. Most teenage heroes at that time were mere sidekicks, like Robin or Bucky. Here, Spider-Man was a normal high schooler, and rose to become one of the greatest heroes Marvel has ever known. Besides the fact that he is one of Marvel's well known and a flagship character, basically the face of Marvel comics, kind of like how Iron man, as Robert Downey Jr., is the face of the Avengers franchise. Everyone knows who he is, what he can do, and his importance. he's not all in your face as superman, not as dark and gritty as wolverine, but funny and light hearted, which in comics, is kind of hard to come by given the universe they take place in. I look forward to seeing your chosen character sir. Good luck.
Should the US get involved in foreign affairs.

The united states have their own problems so we need to focus on ourselves. In some cases, the United States does need to get involved because threats and events can affect our allies. However, if nothing is happening, we do not have a right to "barge" into a country and tell them that what they are doing is wrong. For example, we attacked Iraq because we didn't agree with what they were doing. Now we are spending lots of money fighting in the middle east and we have veterans who have served our country living on the streets. The cannot provide for their families while they have protected all of ours. I believe that the United States needs to focus its efforts on their own problems and not on everybody else's. We need to mind our own business and stop playing "police" for the rest of the world.
Does God exist

hello there my opponent !, I'm a Muslim,here we're going to talk about god and if he exists, now you see before I go into religion I want to talk about the basics stuff of why god exists. 1_who created the bigbang ? _this is a really simple Q that i ask you,now your going to start talking about the multi universe, ok why not ? i support the idea of the multiverse thing, but who created the first big bang ? who created the first universe ? 2_the universe is too good to be a random _the universe is beautiful,organized and with no mistakes,and it is impossible to make such a thing with an explosion with no mistakes, did you see ever bill gates throwing a grenade and creating a very well done pc ? i don't think so. as a muslim i believe in the bigbang cause it is mentioned in our book before 1400 thousand years ago, with other scientific verses,theres over 6000 verse but only 1000 that talks about science,but the quran isn't a book of science but it's a book of signs
President Ma is dumb for trying to unite Taiwan with China through his "business" interests.

The Forfeiture poem by Henry King My Dearest, To let you or the world know What Debt of service I do truly ow To your unpattern'd self, were to require A language onely form'd in the desire Of him that writes. It is the common fate, Of greatest duties to evaporate In silent meaning, as we often see Fires by their too much fuel smother'd be: Small Obligations may find vent and speak, When greater the unable debtor break. And such are mine to you, whose favours store, Hath made me poorer then I was before; For I want words and language to declare How strict my Bond or large your bounties are. Since nothing in my desp'rate fortune found, Can payment make, nor yet the summe compound You must lose all, or else of force accept The body of a Bankrupt for your debt. Then Love, your Bond to Execution sue, And take my self, as forfeited to you.
President Ma is dumb for trying to unite Taiwan with China through his "business" interests.

President Ma is dumb for trying to unite Taiwan with China through his "business" dealings. Really? Does President Ma even deserve to be the president of Taiwan? What type of president encourages its country to be united with its arch nemesis? Imaging this: a new president of South Korea propagates a new law that encourages the immigration of North Koreans. In addition, when the North Koreans have stayed for 3-5 years, they can apply to vote. Now, imagine South Korea as a small country (since Taiwan is small, while China is gigantic), and that an overwhelming population of North Koreans have settled there. Wouldn't the fate of South Korea be resting in North Korea's hands? For example, a political party in South Korea that encourages unification with N.K. may choose a presidential candidate. The overwhelming majority of the North Koreans would vote for this candidate, thus handing the control of South Korea to North Korea. Then, South and North Korea would become one, due to the idiotic actions of the latter South Korean president. This whole concept applies to the idiotic President Ma and Taiwan idea.
Marching band is a sport

Actually, marching band does have opponents. As I said before, Drum Corps International. This is a competition where professionals march against eachother while judges pay attention to feild control, posture, horn carriage, and many other details. At the end of the competition, each band is judged and one comes on top. Now, my opponent stated that while a bands wrong movement is a problem caused by the band itself a football team can execute a play perfectly but still face problems from an opposing team. This is a good point but understand that each marcher is like a football team. They may march perfectly but when the one marcher in front of them is wrong, then it would be as if he/she were trying to get a "touchdown" by not letting someone elses mistakes affect the game. Like bowling, when the bowler is up to go, he is against himself. His roll is completely on him, his opponent is not blocking the pins. As for the "game object". In band this would be considered a "que". Otherwise known as "when to play". As the marcher is marching, he/she must listen to all other instruments and count measures of rest. As the drum major conducts he is "passing the ball". Obviously I mean he is queuing the music. Once the drum major gestures then it is time for a certain instrument to come into play. Besides, there is no "game object" in racing track. Just running, yet it is considered a sport. Finally, professionality. Professional doesn't mean being paid to do something but it means skill level. So if my opponent wishes to know that there is no pay for marching then he is correct. To my knowledge, no one is paid for marching in band. I will state that people are paid to play in concert band and scholarships are awarded for playing at a "professional" level. Just as football and other sports.
Marching band is a sport

My opponent also brings up some good points, none of which account for the interference of an opposing team. My opponent shows that there are some similarities to football and basketball. But in those sports, as with all team sports, there is another team on the field doing their routine at the same time, which is a huge difference. The issue of "an opposing team" is the biggest one I see so far with my opponent's position. He is correlating "the receiver must adjust to the circumstances brought when the play doesn't go through correctly" with "If a marcher sees that there is a larger gap than what there should be then he/she must adjust to it". The marching band's problem here is a result of the band's own mistake, and not the result of outside circumstances. The band plays together, and if a routine has gone well, it is expected that the routine should go well every time. In a competitive sport, a team can go through a play perfectly every time both in practice AND in the game, and there will still be problems because of an opposing team. In marching band, the problems are caused by the band itself. In competitive sports, a perfect team will still be unable to do a given routine exactly as practiced, because of interference from outside forces. Another huge difference between marching band and every competitive sport, is that there is no "game object" passed between members of a team, from a team member to a place in the field, or between a team and their opposition. In every competitive sport, this "game object" makes a transfer between players or between a player and the field. In marching band, the only "game objects" remain in the players' hands for the entirety of the demonstration. This "game object" theory is applicable to every competitive sport and not to marching band. In sports such as football, soccer, tennis, and basketball, a singular game object is passed between players on the same side and opposing sides. In sports such as golf, ultimate frisbee, croquet and even bowling, game objects are passed from players to a point in the field - this doesn't exist in marching band. Marching band doesn't advertise in mass media, another way in which it differs greatly from competitive sports. Possibly the largest difference apart from the "opposing team" theory, is that there is no professional career ladder for marching band, and no professional marching band period. "Professional" meaning you get paid for doing it. The only comparable thing is the Marine Drum and Bugle Corps, but these members are not paid to be in marching band, they are paid to be marines and also elect to participate in the Corps activities. In summation: there is no professional marching band, no opposing team influencing the outcome, and no interaction of game objects between players or between players and the competition field.
Marching band is a sport

My opponent brought up some good points but all of which were not fully thought out. He stated that while the marchers know a predetermined movement he went on to state that they do have to adjust to the marchers around them. Just like a football play, the receiver must adjust to the circumstances brought when the play doesn't go through correctly. If a marcher sees that there is a larger gap than what there should be then he/she must adjust to it so that it won't appear to the audience. Another example would be this; If the band is brought to a left slide and the person in front of one of the marchers is not moving at the correct tempo, then everyone behind him/her will have to adjust. "Every play made in a competitive sport must change according to what is happening during the game". A football teams play relates to a marching bands drill chart. When the play doesn't go through, the player must adjust. "In many competitive sports, it is not necessary to remember stepping patterns, to play music, or to do anything while playing music". This is correct. While my opponent is at it, in many competitive sports it is not necessary to throw a basketball threw a hoop, but is in basketball. In many competitive sports it is not necessary to run a football into the end field, but it is in football. In marching band, to win you must use correct stepping patterns, remember your music, adjust to those around you, and all while playing the correct notes. You might as well call it competitive since there are marching competitions, most well know as "DCI" or "Drum Corps International".
Marching band is a sport

"In marching band, the marcher must remember movements and know exactly when to move."- However, every time the band is doing a certain routine, that routine does not change. Every play made in a competitive sport must change according to what is happening during the game. When marching band players are operating from a pre-determined series of actions, those actions are supposed to be replicated exactly every time they do that song. In sports, if players operate from a pre-determined series of actions, those actions must change according to the current dynamics of the playing field."He/She must also be able to adjust to the marchers around themselves, meaning being able to form lines and curves during a show."- In competitive sports, players must be able to adjust themselves around people whose movement patterns aren't revealed in advance. They must adjust to both the members of their own team and the members of the other team, without knowledge of what the other team will do. Even if one team has planned out a movement pattern, the spontaneous actions of the other team will affect the spatial dynamics of the playing field, forcing them to adjust their pre-determined pattern."The marcher must also remember stepping pattern, and a number of other motions all while playing the correct music."- In many competitive sports, it is not necessary to remember stepping patterns, to play music, or to do anything while playing music.
Best music from the 1960s-1970s

I thank thee and will post three more super-duper songs 1. ) Hey Jude-- The Beatles 1968 . http://www.youtube.com... 2. ) Unchained Melody-- The Righteous Brothers 1965 . http://www.youtube.com... 3. ) California Dreamin'-- Mamas and the Papas 1965 . http://www.youtube.com...
Best music from the 1960s-1970s

This debate will be about me vs Con in choosing the best music from 1960s to 1970s. Each round post 3 songs. Do it the format-- I done it song-- author year 1.) Do You Think I'm Sexy-- Rod Stewart 1978 http://www.youtube.com... 2.) You Make Loving Fun-- Fleetwood Mac 1977 http://www.youtube.com... 3.) I'm Henry the Eighth, I am-- Hermans Hermits 1965 http://www.youtube.com...
Series 1 Episode 1: Another Abortion debate

This is going to be a hard one, not mentioning rape. But I guess i'll give it a go! Well I would firstly like to start, as I always start out in abortion debates that it is a woman's body and that she has a choice on what she wants to do with it as far as reproductive rights. Now, just imagine you're a woman who feels she is not financially stable to have a child, you're pregnant, and as soon as you give birth to this child, that child has to live the life of poverty and you as the mother as well. A proven study shows that women who are denied to have an abortion is a lot more likely to become unemployed, on public welfare, and is more likely to experience domestic violence. Let's not forget to mention that abortion does reduce crime. How? Because women who give birth who are denied an abortion is more likely to birth a child who will commit a crime. It just makes sense: A mother who is denied an abortion has a child, the mother is poor, the child is poor, child grows up in a poor and un-stable environment, child commits crimes such as robbery, murder, and possibly rape. Now I'm not saying all children will commit crimes, but it is more likely so just keep that in mind. And lets also keep in mind that this will keep out population down. Let's not forget that currently there are about 7 billion people on this planet, and studies show by 2050 our worlds popular can sky-rocket up to about 9 million. That's basically like adding another china to the world. At the end of the day, a woman has the right to do what she wants, and if she feels she cannot take care of a child, and that this child will suffer, then well she should have the right to save her and that child.
Series 1 Episode 1: Another Abortion debate

My opponent has made another stupid argument . as a counter argument to 'If you don't like abortions than don't get one. Stop worrying about what other people do' my opponent is making the claim that it is not okay to make a law to stop immoral behaviour . should we make robbery legal because 'If you don't like robbery don't rob people' should we legalize murder because 'if you don't like murder don't murder . Stop worrying about people dieing' .
Series 1 Episode 1: Another Abortion debate

'ONCE AGAIN. It is not murder, the fertilized egg doesn't even know it exists and it does not have a fully grown brain or a beating heart.' I Already explained in the previous round that it doesn't matter if it is unconscious or not just like if any other human being suddenly lost conciousness it is not moral to kill him . It doesw not matter if it hasn't got a brain or a beating heart it has been scientifically proven that a fetus or a zygote is a human just in the early process of development and doesn't need a grown brain or a beating heart , a one month old baby doesn't have a grown brain either is it moral to kill him? a zygote has all the basic requirements basic requirements for life which are --growth, metabolism, reproduction, and reaction to stimuli. 'If my heart were to stop right now and my brain were to stop functioning then what would happen? Oh yeah thats right, I wouldn't be alive.' lol that doesn't mean a zygote without a heartbeat is dead. Humans require different organs to be alive at different stages of development . The claim that my opponent is making is ridiciolous . A zygote is alive . http://dictionary.reference.com...;