BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
New York Yankees 2017 World Series Champs!!

Ok need to say this I'm not feeling to confidence on this topic. Mostly because their is so many what IF's. Sure you are right the Yankees have more Championships than any another team in sports in North American. The last Championship for the Yankees was 2009. Stats show they do win in every decade , expect the 1980's. But i will try to show you This year Yankeens not going to win this year, because of their personal. The Yankees, i think would be better fit to really contending next year. Sure this year Yankees can score, there are 3rd in scoring as of right now with 653 runs, batting avg. is 9th at .261, and tied at 4th in Home Runs at 184. Not bad numbers for offense. I just look up the Yankees Pitching numbers, have to say i'm a little surprise seeing the Yankees at 3.83 ERA, which is 5th in the MLB, and their are handing their opposition at .233 battling avg. which is second. But one of their weak stats is their fielding percentage is tied at 16th with .984. We also need to look at who the Yankees will be going against in the playoffs. Both the Indians and Boston have better ERA's, the Indians is 4th at fielding percentage. The Yankees also have the 4th best bullpen, but their are still behind the Indians and boston at 2nd and 3rd respectively. We also have the Astros, with the number one offense in the MLB, with homeruns, hitting, and battling avg. It just with the best offense, usually don't translate in playoff success. We also need to know the Astros are beat up right now, with their regulate starter on the DL. So IF they get healthy like most playoff teams could be very hard to beat. Head to head match-up is kind of interesting, let's 1st look at the Yankees are 8 and 8 against boston with two more series left in the season. Yankees are 2 and 2 against the Indians, with 3 more left. Astros is the only team with a winning record against the Yankees with a 5 and 2 record. So the head to head match-up doesn't really tell us much. The playoffs is not how good your are, it take a lot of luck to win and a team to be pretty much healthy to contend for a championship. I just think the Yankees not going to have it against the Indians or boston this year. The Indians are hungry after last year almost winning it all. I haven't even talk about the world series yet or the Dodgers. The Yankees will need a lot of luck just to get in the playoff not to mention even more luck to make it to the world series. That just what i'm thinking, you can disagree, we really won't know until after the playoffs. http://www.espn.com...
New York Yankees 2017 World Series Champs!!

This should be a great debate, I'm picking the New York Yankees to win the World Series this year. Now you can argue against me with 29 other pro teams having a better shot. So tell me why you don't think the Yankees will win the World Series. What team will win then. Nobody else!! Because the Yankees are winning it all in 2017, and I have facts to demonstrate why. Bring it!!
Cellphones for Kids(4-11 year olds)

My opponent talks a lot about smart phones, but since those are expensive, most companies make cheap "kiddy variety" phones with parental controls. My opponent basically agrees that if only one 11 year old needs a cell phone then I win. If you believe that I would have benefited from a cell phone, by not being left at school by my mom, and that I personally was responsible enough to have one, then vote for me. Also, my opponent doesn't really answer two key arguments: they are essential in emergencies, to call 911. So very sick children obviously need them. Also, they have been effective in stopping child molesters (such as snapping pictures). Remember, in a study, almost 40% of 11 year olds said they used their cell phone in a "crisis situation." Lastly, some children, depending on their circumstances, need some mode of contact with their parents. Obviously, if they can walk to school in 2 minutes, they don't need a cell phone, but if it's a student who is attending a charter school across town and has to take 3 public buses to get there, obviously that student may have need of calling his or her parents. My opponent obviously can't win if the resolution is categorical because there will always be extenuating circumstances where an 11 year old might need a cell phone.
Cellphones for Kids(4-11 year olds)

I also agree with your statement that if you prove a single 11 year old is allowed to use a cell phone you should win so lets commence round two. I attended preschool so I can see where you are going here but there are a few variants I would like to share. In a school usually every teacher would have a phone in there office if I am correct so in class emergency's could be handled by that situation but if it is after school at a practice or something another variant occurs, if the front office is open or not. In my school the front office is usually opened for practices but my school isn't every school in the nation but that is where friends come in. Their friends can help you get home or even if you have an older brother or sister who works out or practices on JV or Varsity to help them get home. Your statement about what I believe is day-care, is easily avoidable with the day-care workers. There is always help available there and adults with land-line phones and cell phones. Now if they let the child use the cell phone for that instance I wouldn't consider that to be having one but using so don't think of that as a loophole. When you talked about dancing there may or may not be chaperones and if not there may be a teacher there. At my school there was usually a dance that was for high school only and middle school which included 5th grade also. Since there are 7th and 8th graders they could help in the calling. Now if a 6th grader going into 7th grade is getting a cell phone they could talk to a sibling or a friend going into 8th grade or higher in how to properly use one. The main problem I have with kids using cell phones is texting. They will start using texts at a young age if they get it at a young age. They will start writing in text language. An example would be, "U r my frnd." I have no idea how to write in text talk since I have written everyday in my life(exaggeration). I can see your point on outside of school emergency's as well such as your example, but why are they alone anyways. I mean a 5th or 6th grader and maybe a 4th grader but for a preschooler to a 3rd grader should not be alone outside. They should be with an older sibling or an adult at all times so not to be kidnapped or injured on accident. Until the parents know they are not allowed to talk to strangers they should not be alone outside. I leave the floor to you.
Cellphones for Kids(4-11 year olds)

Thanks for the debate squadsix. I agree that there is an age when kids are too young to have cell phones. Obviously a one-year-old has no need for a cellphone and may even break it or hurt him/herself with it. However, anytime children are separated from their parents, a cell phone proves useful. As a point of procedure, I'd like to point out that as long as I win that 11 year olds should have cell phones, I should win. My opponent sets himself up to have to defend 7th grade as the arbitrary cutoff point, before which cell phones are bad for kids. I would point out that kids may start school (pre-school) as early as when they are 4 years old. It is much better for these kids if they have a way of contacting their parents, whether it is an emergency or the student needs to be picked up from school. I know personally, even as young as 6, it was embarrassing when my parents were late to pick me up from after-school care and sometimes I was the last kid there. I would have liked to have a cell phone to have reminded my mom to pick me up on time. In addition, students as young as 5 may have after school activities, such as sports, music, dance, etc. Parents often allow other parents to carpool and take their kids to after school activities. However, again, kids need cell phones if something goes wrong, and they need their own parents to pick them up. In addition, it's better that a child have a cell phone in case of an emergency. If a stranger pulls up in a van and asks, "Can you help me look for my dog?" rather than having your child look around in confusion as to what to do, wouldn't you rather they pick up their cell phone and say, "okay, let me call my mommy and see if she can help too."
Cellphones for Kids(4-11 year olds)

I am very aware of this topic and I dislike that kids get to have cellphones, now I know there are some people who are all for kids having cellphones so I hope this topic will get some great feedback. I shall be pointing out why they shouldn't have them until their 7th grade year and why I feel they aren't responsible enough for it. I shall also be pointing out why a child has no reason to even have one.
Argentina soccer team is better than Brazil soccer team.

Well, I can get more in-depth later, but I want to get this down quickly. Well your point was that Argentina is better because they play as a team better. Give me something that shows Argentina playing better, and maybe your point can have some weight, but because you haven't given any (in-so-far credible) points, I'll give some. My Points on Why Brazil Is Better 1. Better Historically 2. Better Players 3. Head On Competition Between Argentina 1. Well, this point should be pretty brief. The stage where success is measure most is the FIFA World Cup. Out of all the nations that compete, Brazil has won the most championships (5). Argentina has just won 2. Obviously, Argentina isn't as good of a team, historically, as Brazil. This is important because the past tends to dictate the future. We can look to the past to see common patterns that may well emerge again. Because Argentina hasn't done as well, there is less to guarantee they will be better in the future. Now of course I can't give a definite claim on who will be better in the future, as there is a litany of factors well out of my control. However, I can give the best estimate, and that would be Brazil. 2. Well, you conceded this in your first post, and therefore I don't have to prove it, so I'll just talk about significance. What we need to know here, is that the team with the best players, wins the most. I'll give an example into a sport more popular in America (which is what debate. org is most comprised of). My example will be the New York Yankees of Major League Baseball. Now, it is widely known that the Yankees are big spenders, and widely acknowledged that they buy their players. Because of this, it is logical to say that they have the best individual players. This has happened ever since Babe Ruth's trade to New York, which launched them into a pre-eminent team. Since that, they have won 26 championships. Comparatively, the next best team has won something like 13. This sums it all up. The team with the better players usually wins. 3. Alright, this is going to be a big point here. I can talk about as many factors as possible, but the truth of the matter is that the only way we can determine who is better, is to look at matches between the two teams. Well, the teams have played two games recently. One on September 3rd, 2006 and another on July 15, 2007. In these two games, Brazil won both 3-0. However, I think it would be more prudent to talk about the more recent game. In that game, Roberto Ayala scored in his own goal (giving Brazil a lead which they would never relinquish). The only point my opponent made was that Argentina had good teamwork. Now I'm not saying that this means their teamwork stinks, but would a team with good teamwork: A). Score no points OR B). Score on themselves. I think not. Well, for these reasons, and the fact that I have negated my opponent's one point, I ask for a Con ballot.
The Existence of God

First of all let me say that my only belief in God is that it is eternal. And that it caused everything that is not it. And I like to think it is an artist but im not going to argue that. And I thought you were going to give me a good first argument. "He must show that there is no possible alternative for the creation of the universe." Why would I argue that. That statement is idiotic. Of course there is a possible alternative. I will argue why mine is the best theory, but not that there are no possible alternatives. Im just going to pick through a bit of your story because im not arguing that what you have listed are not possible alternatives. "Jainism believes in a cyclical nature of the universe. Jains believe in a universe without beginning, end or creator, hence Jains will refer to the present cycle of the cosmos." Yeah fair play to them. I believe in the big bang. Let them believe what they want to believe. "Cosmologists say that a quantum fluctuation gave rise to the Big Bang." Quantum fluctuations are dependant on space and time to occur. I do not believe that space and time have always existed. "or that gravity distorts space." Gravity does not distort space. Extremely large objects distort space causing gravity. Science does not contradict with my definition of God. "Whatever the problems with explaining the origins of the universe, the problems are greater explaining the origins of God." Yet again you make a stupid statement. First of all you can not explain the origins of God because God is eternal. "If God arose spontaneously, then it is simpler to suppose that the universe arose spontaneously." The big bang theory shows that the universe did arise spontaneously if you ask me. I have two main beliefs. 1. That nothing is infinite. 2. That everything has a cause. Now unfortunately these two beliefs contradict with each other seeing as if everything has a cause then we could go back infinitely through the causes, and if nothing is infinite then everything cannot have had a cause. The only way I can piece them together is by believing that there is one thing outside of these beliefs. One thing that has always existed and is the first cause. Hurricanes are caused. The depend on conditions to occur. We are trying to explain the very beginning. When there was no conditions for anything to occur. How could there have been a first cause unless it always existed. "We have to explain how the God came into being" God would not be God if he had an explanation.
The Existence of God

Pro seems to have run out of steam. It is just as well, as Pro was mainly reasserting his own beliefs rather than addressing by counter arguments or providing reasons for his beliefs. The summary I presented in the previous round stands unrefuted. Pro had the burden of proof in establishing the existence of God. He admitted that he failed under the subject of the resolution, and other arguments he presented were no more than unsupported beliefs. Pro exhibited bad conduct through his insults (calling me "stupid") and ultimately by forfeiting. He didn't pay too much attention to spelling and grammar "Ok what causes gravity. So im wrong to say ..." These are not only technical violations, they are distractions from the clear exposition of arguments. In this debate I never claimed that the existence of God according to some concept of God could be disproved. In my opinion, some God concepts can be disproved, others cannot. The debate was about whether Pro could prove his particular concept of God as necessary for creating the universe. He did not. The resolution is negated.
The Existence of God

"Hate to tell you, but spelling and grammar count as well. Cruel universe here." Not looking for votes with this argument bud. "A debate is about whether a resolution is true. Pro proposes the resolution and tries to convince the voters in the debate that they should act to approve the resolution." I would have thought it would have been clear that I wished to debated the existence of God, as that is the name of the debate and all. "The belief that nothing is infinite is not commonsense, because we know that hundreds of millions of people, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jains, do not subscribe to it." These people are so lucky to think that ignorance is bliss. Not me. I wish to know all I can, and im sure you are the same. And I cant see how you would think that the universe always existing would be easier to grasp than God. I mean with God all there is to it is that we all came from one thing. So that leaves one unexplainable thing. If you believe the universe is infinite then you are leaving yourself with complete confusion. Why is it so hard to believe that we all came from one thing? Like life probably evolved from one thing. And quantum events need conditions to occur. Even if they dont need a direct cause the conditions are more or less the cause. "if the universe were an exception it would be a better theory, because the universe is much simpler than God." No it isnt. If you want to say that the universe is infinite then you have lost us in nothing. If you believe that God created the universe then at least we do not have to believe that we are living in the unexplainable. "It is not necessary to worship anything. If Pro wishes to worship something, that is his choice." I agree completely. If God had wanted me to worship him he would have told me. I suppose I wouldnt call it worship. I suppose you could say I am in awe of him. "Perhaps there are creatures in a different universe pondering why their universe was so well suited to them." Perhaps there are, but are you happy with that as an explanation to why everything works so beautifully? When you look at something like Fibonaccis sequence you must see it as evidence for design. Evidence does not mean that it must be the answer of course, but its still evidence. I apologise for violating whatever......but im not debating to win.
The Existence of God

"The resolution to which Pro agreed is "There must be a god that created the universe." That God "must be" implies there is no alternative." I apologise but from your comment. I thought you were only trying to find out whether I was christian or not. This is my first debate after all. Clever little trick by you there. "Upon what authority do you base your belief?" On these beliefs 1. That nothing is infinite. 2. That everything has a cause. And Quantum fluctuations depend on conditions to occur. How would the conditions occur before time and space. "My point was that many things are true that defy everyday experience. General relativity is one of them." I do believe General Relativity. And did you not read the last part of it. Ok what causes gravity. So im wrong to say that the planets and suns cause gravity? How could I not believe in General relativity. Such a beautiful truth. Im amazed how people dont see art when they look at the universe. Yeah you could probably say that the universe has always existed. But then Id probably have to go back to worshipping suns gods and all whatever in the universe has existed forever. And I dont think God would live in his master piece. Do you see how beautifully everything works in the universe. A lot of planning went into this. And how do you know that the big bang isnt Gods beautiful way of painting?. "but quantum fluctuation has no cause. " If something requires conditions to occur then it has a cause. "Pro states beliefs without giving any reason why the beliefs are true. He asserts that "1. That nothing is infinite. 2. That everything has a cause." At the very start of this argument you listed out many alternative beliefs. How come these people can have their beliefs and I cant. Nothing exists forever. Do you not agree that the universe is not infinite or that time can have no meaning in something that has always existed. Im sure you share my beliefs,but if you dont can you prove me wrong? "an unexplained universe if preferable to an unexplained God." Yeah but I dont believe in things popping into existence from nothing. Preferable to the man how cowers before the question "how did all this come to be" Have you ever seen any quantum fluctuations creating a universe. I mean how can you deny God when it allows you to see its method.Simple as this if you walked up to a book that contains all the laws that govern our universe without knowing what it was you would think it was designed. http://en.wikipedia.org... I dont know If thats going to be a link or not but you can copy and paste anyway. I mean the Fibonacci spiral is an amazing thing showing us how so many shapes in the world around us fit into curves mapped with using so simple a sequence of numbers. If that doesnt look like design I just dont know what does. How could this law possibly exist by coincidence and have such simple numbers in its sequence at the same time. Proof of design If you ask me but of course that is just my opinion. "Pro violated conduct and the conditions of site use." Dont be a baby.
It is better to have lived as a Christian (or theist), than have lived as an Atheist (or non-theist)

To insure a fair debate, I will wait until next round to make an argument and postpone rebuttals until round 4. If my opponent is short on time, then I welcome him to just use as many premises as he has time for. I will match the number of premises he uses, if he uses 3 or less.
Circle's "winner" deserved to survive {Spoilers}

I will be now bringing my counter-rebuttals for round 3 and my conclusion. Counter-rebuttal 1: LG1: What Pro states here is pure conjecture. And I personally fail to see how being too young would make you more deserving to die than an adult in his forties. You can't kill a LG on the basis that she may not be a good person in the future.2: What apocalypse? The ending was weird, but it set straight certain things:-A major number of humans survived. -After the Circle, the aliens just seem to be hovering above cities, not destroying or anything else. Hence not at all comparable to an "apocalypse", where the world has been destroyed as we know it. At best, this is a re-processing of civilisation.3: The movie leads us to believe that EVERY SINGLE HUMAN has passed the Circle challenge, or at least a great portion of humanity, and hence the LG CAN'T be the only case to still have nightmares of the Circle after it happens. Implying they have a future at all after the Circle. Counter-rebuttal 2: PG1: CR 1.1 repeated.2: CR 1.2 repeated.3: Your logic is flawed here. If the foetus is replaceable, then so is Eric. There are a lot of adults around after all.4: Teachers aren't necessarily needed. Adults can improvise themselves teachers, and if you intend on humanity to survive, foetuses will have to come anyway.5: You don't know that. The only confirmed thing about the mother is that she isn't married to the father. That's it. As far as we know, PG has as much family/friends that would care about her than Eric has. Counter-rebuttal 3: AM1: Horizontal arguments work both ways, except for the male one.2: Conceded.3: Pro conceded one point, I'll concede another for the "ultimate duty". I'll add this however: this fact only strengthens his worthiness to survive, since he is ready to die for others to live.4: For reasons I already explained, Eric didn't have the same way of thinking. Counter-rebuttal 4: AG1: I fail to see how this would make him more worthy to die than another.2: Conceded. Counter-rebuttal 5: NVPro's statement here is false. We know all there is to be known about his character: he doesn't like killing, and will not kill even if it kills him. It's a respectable moral standard to abide to, and would make him deserving of survival. Counter-rebuttal 6: VolunteersSame argument than for AM: their sense of sacrifice honours them, and makes them more worthy than Eric just for that. ConclusionWell, this debate has suffered from character shortage on both sides. Pro has been going on the practical side, while I have been going on the ethical/moral side. Interestingly enough, we have reproduced the movie: me as DT and Pro as KT. Therefore, I believe we didn't manage to put into place a middle ground for the voters to decide on. If the voters manage to find a middle ground however, Pro and I will be grateful. I am Con, and I uphold my arguments Eric is far from the more deserving of survival. Good luck to Pro, and vote Con! ^^