BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Dance is not always competitive"

I would not consider stretching to be a sport, because there are other criteria other than just competition for something to be a sport. How can you really help other players in any other sport though? To a point you could say you can like volley ball you can try to dive and get the ball if someone misses or on a football team and the receiver doesn't catch the ball, you can't go catch it for him it's not your job. You have to rely on the other players to do their job.
"Dance is not always competitive"

I see what you are trying to say. But generally speaking, every activity is competitive. For example, if you are stretching, you always want to be able to stretch a little bit more. You are trying to "beat" yourself to see if you can stretch a little bit more than the last time. Using the same theory as you said, would you count stretching a sport? Also, another reason dance is not a sport is that in dance, you try to look good, or perform. It's an art. Trust me, I dance competitively too. But do you think in soccer or volleyball we care about how we look? Not really. We care about winning and doing anything to win. Secondly, in dance, there is no real way to stop the other team from winning. All you can do is just do your best and LOOK better than the opponent. Thirdly, if you dance on a team, you can't really help each other out. For example, if one person is off beat, you can't help them because there isn't anything you can do unless you go and tell them in the middle of the dance, but that would cause you to lose points.
"Dance is not always competitive"

I just read one of your responses to a debate of whether or not dance is a sport and you voted "no" under the criteria that dance is not always competitive. While I realize you said it can be, you ultimate answer appeared to read that generally speaking it was not competitive, therefore you do not consider dance to be a sport. I see how you would think that, however, I believe you are wrong. While most people think of "competition"to be against another person or team, competition can, and is often against yourself. We are our own worst critics and most people tend to beat their "high scores" so to speak. It is human nature to want to beat not only other people by ourselves as well. Therefore, speaking solely on on your issue of competitiveness in dance, dance is indeed a sport do to the constant competition with oneself as well as the possibility of competition against others.
"Dance is not always competitive"

Okay like volleyball... if someone hits it out, you can try to get it and hit it back in. That's helping them. In baseball, if a player tries to catch a ball and the miss, you can catch it for them. There is a lot more but it would take forever to explain. Also, in sports, you already know what you are going to do because you have a routine. In all sports, you don't even know if you are going to get a point! Yes, in dance you don't really know the outcome of the competition, but you at least know what moves you are going to do. But for example, in soccer, if a you have the ball and someone is coming at you, you have no idea of what trick you plan to do or how they are going to challenge you. In conclusion. in a sport, you play based on how others play. In dance, you already know what you are going to do.
The world would be a better place if people could live and work in any country they wanted.

Thank you for responding to the debate. However, I do think you should write your own arguments instead of pasting them from another debate site.http://debatewise.org...You did have a sources section in your post, so you should probably have put this link in there too.The debatewise topic is a different one to the one I posted. It is "Should governments in rich countries relax the laws controlling immigration?" so it is looking at the issue from the perspective of rich countries, the UK in particular. These arguments are a bit silly from a global perspective. If they were your own arguments, I would be happy to debate them.But they aren't.RationalMadman, you can do better than this! Please use your own arguments in the next round, or at the very least reference copied arguments properly and make sure they're relevant.
The world would be a better place if people could live and work in any country they wanted.

Amended resolution: Total relaxation of immigration laws would lead to a better world.Relevant DefinitionsImmigration[1]: the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign countryWorld[2]: the earth, together with all of its countries and peoplesBetter[3]: more desirable, satisfactory, or effective.The first issue is exploitation of poor people in a rich country. Far more people will be exploited if we allow total immigration. The desperately poor often invest all their money in a one way ticket and are therefore trapped with no means of bargaining. Their willingness to accept below minimum wage will undercut the whole system and impoverish Western workers. Foreign workers are often unaware of their rights and the regulations about their work whether they are legal or illegal immigrants. These are the grounds on which the Trades Unions movement explicitly opposes this case.The second issue is that rich countries may be dealing with a burden of supporting more old people but raising the population is not the answer. more developed countries are already under huge environmental pressure because of their large populations and we cannot suddenly have a huge increase in the already pressured housing pool and road system without huge damage. Further, the welfare system that supports the elderly is one of the great attractions for immigrants who will certainly not all be young and may well not choose to be workers. How can you prove that ‘welfare scrounging’ won’t make the situation worse.Thirdy, importing labour is an ineffective way to stop the problems. There is still unemployment in all rich countries and retraining and education are the way to improve the supply of skilled labour. Why should companies sponsor students if they can import their labour cheaper? As well as brain draining poor countries the proposal will allow governments to ignore the marginalised in their own country. Labour shortage is temporary and a bust may well cause all those immigrants to return to their own countries of origin which have not grown economically because of the absence of workers and are now structurally dependent on remittances.The overpopulation would mean that resources can't be spread out, people would die of starvation.Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
the catholic church has never contradicted itself

I would point out that Pro has ignored all my arguments and essentially said they were too long for them to read. There were official statements in the references. The BOP is on Pro to prove that none of these are contradictions. They have failed to do so completely.Additionally, they have failed to state why "Jesus Christ is not the son of god" doesn't count as official doctrine. Why "It's Ok to burn witches isn't official doctrine, and so on.A decree is official doctrine. How else would you contradict a doctrine?Pro has failed to say how a doctrine can be changed, if not by official decree, then how?Pro's entire argument is completely unfalsifiable, since they have made it so they can't be wrong by changing the goalposts to disinclude every single instance of doctrinal decree and any possible contradiction. It's easy to claim non-conradictionw hen you silence every possible way contradiction could happen (in some instances by burning the dissetner alive)ConclusionHere's a more specific link of Doctrinal Condemnation of Physics (http://plato.stanford.edu...)Pro's argument failed in the following ways--Failure to say why the long list of topics they refused to talk about don't count as contradictions.-Failure to say why the long list of contradictions I pointed out didn't count, including at least two instances of official doctrinal teachings (jesus christ wasn't the son of god, and Philosophy/Physics is no longer allowed by doctrine}-Failure to produce a single non-contradictory church doctrine-Failure to produce a single source of their own-Failure to say why all my sources were bad instead of just calling them "vague."-Failure to strongly address a single one of the initial clarificationsAnd their response to all this is that the following contradictions don't count--The entirety of the bible-All of Science (physics, evolution, cosmology, etc.)-Contradictory Church Doctrines (sale of indulgences, limbo, etc ad nauseum, the divinity of Jesus)-All Papal Decrees Pro claims that doctrine isn't-from the bible-from papal decree-from widespread catholic beliefTherefore where does it exist? The answer is church doctrine is only officially doctrine when it turns out to be right later. All the ones that are patently absurd, or contradict eachother don't count. The Catholic never contradicts itself because it never admits it when it does. A vote for con is a vote for common sense.**Thanks for the debate!
the catholic church has never contradicted itself

you need to find some statements of popes contradicting other statements. all you're showing is things like a pope thinking someone is a witch. ths doesn't fulfill the riteria that the pope is teaching the church on faith and morals that she is a witch etc. most of your other arguments are obscure and need citations. or something like creating an order then absolishing it... not doctrine. condemning someone like JOan or Areian etc isn't doctrine. and even if a pope beleived something wrongly, it wasn't an official teaching. i'd challenge you to show three solid ones that you think cannot but be shown to eb contradictory. if they are they best you can muster, and i can show how they are not contradictory, then i will have prevailed. be sure to provide quotes or citatiions, more than just citations to vague references, official citations.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself

I have a feeling by the end that we'll see how not useless my stipulations are. OK, you said that if popes were saying something official, then it counts. I.e., it's not a matter of their personal behaviour, but what they say in an official capacity. OK. That is the definition I'm going to use. Official statements. If a pope or council makes an official statement it counts. If you find a way to say that it doesn't count if the statement is official by an official pope, then you are moving the goalposts. Trust me this will matter. I will concede that it was useless only after we see you not calling an official pope acting officially as "bad."***Very well-Here are some examples of some things Popes have OKed in the past that are not condemned any longer-Burning Witches (http://law2.umkc.edu...)-Worshiping Other Gods (Marcillenus (http://www.allvoices.com...)-Duellinghttp://www.allaboutreligion.org...Things that Popes have previously banned--Reading the Bible (Gregory I)-Physics (Pope John XXI http://en.wikipedia.org...)-Jesuits (Pope Clement )General contradictions--JJoan of Arc was a witch! Pope Eugene (http://www.apologeticspress.org...)No wait she was a saint (Pope Pius X http://en.wikipedia.org...)-The sacking of Constantinople was wrong (Pope John Paul II)***These are all official statements of popes,and none of them have anything to do with the pope being "bad," they were official Catholic doctrine at the time.Here are a few more I can find refs for if you want-Fish on Fridays-Literal Transubstantiation (instead of purely magical)-God intervenes in gravity/fire/movement of planets, etc.-Present day miracles-flat disc shaped world-ghosts are real***See this is why I wanted to clarify. If you're saying none of these are official church doctrine, then I am confused. They were doctrine at the time that contradicts doctrine now. The refs I gave were all official statements of non-bad popes.What exactly is non-contradictory? Are you simply saying that nothing the pope says now contradicts with what the pope also says now? Or a few tiny points of doctrine? How about Jesus was the son of god (nope! Pope St. Leo the Great--http://www.agapebiblestudy.com...) I would challenge pro to come up with any single doctrine of the church that hasn't been contradicted by a pope at least once in an official capacity. I have a feeling I can find one who did. **Apologies if I accidentally violated one of your rules. You are free to ignore any one I missed.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself

there are some argument of grace that are at least threshhold compelling about the two debates i didn't want to take. in any case i choose not to debate them, that shgould be sufficient. bad popes don't count insofaras it's a personal sin you are demonstrating. as i said impeccable doesn't mean infallble. if they were legit popes and taught soemthying yet were bad.... i can't complain. you seem to be missing the point. all im saying as exammple is if a pope was a murderous raper, that isn't him being not infalllible. his teachings still matter. same for corrupt official in general. if all they did was at worst say somethign to spur the inquisistion for example, that's not fulfilling the criteria, teaching the church as a whole. "the pope intention teaches the church on a matter of faith and morals". i'l try my best to not have moving goal posts. but if it's a council, or an encyclical, it probably counts. anyting that fulfills the criteria, the pope intentionally teaches the church on faith and morals. now with all that (what i see as useless) stipulation aside, i'd like to see your contradiction examples. the whoel point of this thread.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use bad popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation.
God is Good

Well, I see this has come to a close and since my opponent wont make another comment he says, I wish to thank him or her for this discussion. I enjoyed it. As for the topic, for anyone here who is a theist and supports Pro all the way, I wish to ask you a favor to follow. Read the bible, read it from front to back, both new and old. Then compare the Torah to the OT. Look at it with an open, not Christian mind and tell me if you think the actions were justified. Because I find what the whole betting on Jobs life's not holy. All to prove something he already knew. So, I want you to think hard, is a god who can do anything and knows everything do what he does and still be good? As you may see, I was told I basically cherry pick, but I don't. I am pulling out of the bible, what most ignore or dismiss, that they cherry pick. I am throwing in your face what you ignore. Many atheist have become atheist after reading the bible. So please, read your bible and do it with no help and read all of it. Make the choice yourself, ask yourself and question and challenge your own beliefs. I will end my closing statement here and let Pro do what she needs. Thank you.
God is Good

Look, I get that all of these things look like God is a cruel person. I am probably going to get torn to shreds and lose the whole debate for saying this, but YOU ARE WRONG! I can"t say anything right now, but someday you will see how wrong you were, and you shall pay eternally for that. Read the Bible, that is the only real proof. What you are doing is you are taking small parts and not seeing the rest. The rest of the Bible has all of the reasons! The ENTIRE Bible SHOWS YOU how good an holy God is. That is all, thank you. I will no longer be posting.
turkey is a healthy part of this balanced breakfast

This the most ridiculous, beligerent, anonymous, picolo-tendent, hypoglycemic analysis of the turkey I have seen in my entire bathroom! My opponent makes many claims that are NOT historical nonlies. I will tell you what REALLY happened. It all started in the summer of the great cold when the great giant 'Alfred the Meed' inherited his father preference for dandelions. Soon Alfred was picking nothing but dandelion, when the Mammoth God flew from the sky to deliver the mail. Appauled by Alfred's obvious lack of hygeine, Mammoth God threw the pot directly as Waldo's face. Waldo, ironically enough, Waldo couldn't find the Mammoth God and quickly commited a violent suicide by driving his cane through the Bomb. After being told specifically NOT to soot at the thermal nuclear weapons, Alladin was mad by Waldo's attempt at mutiny. He wished that idiot people would die during childbirth, and John McCain was suddenly president. During this period, Hitler the Great murdered a bird because of it's hillarious rainbow feather's and ability to fly through rings. Fonsy instantly obliterated half of new york with his mind blast when he realized 'Madam Im Adam' is a panagram. THe end of the world is emminent, and I'm not a good speller. The moral of this story, is to not count your toes before they are in a basket. Vote for me for liberty and the happiness persuit of love and weed. Thank you. Thank you very much
turkey is a healthy part of this balanced breakfast

You see, it all started back in 1789 when bob renagard had taken time out of his busy day to go to the farthest reaches of the t.v remote to change the channel from "retard hip hop" to some fancy home cooking. what he found was strange and grueling... later in the generations we see that Aexander Tepincolour of tyibet had to do an extreme essay assignment that would eventuallty take up 7 hours and 11 minutes of his time.. all of this occuerd during the 1860s. Alex had to pass in this essay to the extreist gnomes that were of the tribe of trolls that haunt our interwebz today. Alex had to think of a way to solve this problem so with his trusty steed frosty he went on an adventure to the forgotten bridge of failblog where the troll of the name lolsinhower had taken over. Alex knew what had to be done.. he had to serve tea to the turtles of the gelopogus islands before they grew too hungry to control. For we all knew that if this were to happen they would go on a rabid and completely out of place rampage that would eventually create the soulless parakeets of modern day society. These parakeets can be trained to be extreme wariors that ca take out a target in a single strike. This history will return us to the 1870s where the first parakeet to touch the moon brought home 11 and a half moon rocks to sell to the muppets after 5:00. Ronwaldo Alserado of the gorilla pest control for fleas, lice, and moles took advantage of the fact that owls could see in an 360 degree manor and used this to create the worlds first toothbrush.
ODBT: Suicide Is Objectively Wrong

I would like to use this round to now summarise my position and my opponents position. My opponent could not successfully attack the proposition that "Suicide is objectively wrong". His Idealism argument rested on the assumptions that a persons life is his own, and I shown my opponent that this wasn't the case through several sources. An account of how the world actually is, an account that shown the contention that a persons most unassailable title is their own life and person is a false contention. There exists a social contract that we engage in and the breaking of this contract is what can be defined as immoral. His Liberalism argument was close to that of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty and so I assumed (through the principle of charity) this is what he was using to critique any objective morality. My account of morality being a social contract can show the contention put forward by you, and Mill, is false. I then used the notion of harm, one of the foundations of Mill's On Liberty, to run a reductio upon the notion that Suicide must be objectively immoral and that Individual over himself, over his body and mind, is in truth not sovereign. I also used the ambiguities in Mill's on liberty to prove that Liberalism is not a sufficient ground to attack "Suicide is objectively wrong". I also pointed out, that his, and the concept of Subjectivism itself, is inconsistent with what is proposed by subjectivism. From what he was saying, he was deriving objective rules to be applied to all, through subjectivism. Thus refuting himself and his use of subjectivism. I put him in a position where he either had to admit that subjectivism was not a sufficient ground to attack "Suicide is objectively wrong" or he had to state that all moral actions were equally valid and thus infallible. Throughout this I was was showing my opponent to be inconsistent with the propositions he put forward and the propositions to be false. In addition to this I put up a case for Social Contracts to be a sufficient foundation for the statement "Suicide is objectively wrong". I was able to prove that this position is strong in the face of adversary also. I shown that suicide does more harm than good, and put forward several sources, first hand accounts of those who have known someone who has commited this action, and this shows that Suicide, is in fact, objectively immoral. I would like to apologise for any typo's or grammatical errors that I have made throughout, because I have not had the time to reread what I have wrote. If you are intellectually honest, have pushed personal prejudices aside, and are to judge only based on what is in the debates, you will vote Pro. Thank you. :)